Public
August 26, 2024
5H
SCU Program Update
PHPEHUVZKRDUHLQWHUHVWHGLQOHDUQLQJPRUHDERXWWKH6&8DQGLWVSURJUHVV7KH Steering Committee has provided significant feedback and direction to this process, and PDQ\PHPEHUVZLOOFRQWLQXHWRGRVRWKURXJKWKHLUUHSUHVHQWDWLRQZLWKLQWKHVHSXEOLF spaces.
$WWDFKPHQW
1. Specialized Care Unit Brochure
FF
7DVKD7HUYDORQ, Acting 'HSXW\&LW\0DQDJHU
$QQH&DUGZHOO'HSXW\&LW\0DQDJHU
Scott Gilman, 'LUHFWRUHHCS
7DQ\D%XVWDPDQWH,QWHULP'HSXW\'LUHFWRUHHCS
-HII%XHOO'LYLVLRQ0DQDJHU%HUNHOH\0Hntal Health, HHCS Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager
0DWWKDL&KDNNR&RPPXQLFDWLRQV'LUHFWRU$VVLVWDQWWRWKH&LW\0DQDJHU Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Jenny Wong, City Auditor
)DULPDK%URZQ&LW\$WWRUQH\
HOURS OF OPERATION:
Phone : (510) 948-0075
Berkeley Launches
SPECIALIZED
CARE UNIT
(SCU)The SCU Operates Daily
Sunday, Monday & Tuesday:
24 hours a day
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday &
Saturday:
12:00am-4:00pm and 8:00pm-11:59pm
CALL THE SCU IN THE
EVENT OF A CRISIS:
Scan the QR Code for more
information about this
service or visit this link:
bit.ly/BerkSCU
Questions about the SCU?
Send an email to
[email protected]
QUICK FACTS
What is the SCU?
The Specialized Care Unit is a 3-
person team including: a clinician,
peer specialist, and EMT.
The SCU responds to non-violent
crisis calls without involving law
enforcement.
Available to anyone in Berkeley!
When should I call the SCU?
If someone is experiencing a mental
health or substance use related
crises, such as:
Unable to calm down (anxiety)
Thoughts of self harm
Substance use concerns
The SCU operates everyday
Sunday - Tuesday 24 hrs
Wednesday - Saturday: 12am - 4pm
& 8pm-11:59pm
Call (510) 948-0075 if you, or someone
you know, is experiencing a crisis.
The SCU can respond to adults and
minors in any part of Berkeley.
Crises can happen anywhere,
anytime. The SCU is able to
respond within the comfort of your
home, out in the community, or even
on the streets.
Health, Housing and
Community Services
HOW DID THE SCU
START?
SCU SERVICES
Are you or someone you know
experiencing a crisis or in distress?
Symptoms may include:
Unable to calm down
Anger
Depression or feelings of
helplessness
Confusion
Thoughts of self-harm
Delusions or illogical thinking
Mood changes
Social withdrawal
Substance use related concerns
Services provided may include:
De-escalation
Water, or other wellness
supplies
Referrals to community services
Providing this information will help the
SCU call back if the caller gets
disconnected, and get a clear
understanding of the crisis before
meeting the client.
Community members who are
experiencing or witnessing a crisis can
call (510) 948-0075 to request SCU
services. Community members will be
asked general questions about
themselves and the crisis such as:
Caller name and/or name of client
(if known)
Callback number or phone number
Location and general description of
the person experiencing the crisis
Information about the crisis
HOW DO BERKELEY
COMMUNITY MEMBERS ACCESS
SCU SERVICES?
In response to the killing of George Floyd
by Minneapolis police in May 2020 and the
ensuing protests across the nation, a
conversation emerged about how public
safety can be done differently. As part of
the City of Berkeley's broader initiative of
Re-Imagining Public Safety, the City
developed a vision for a 24/7 crisis
response without police involvement to
support people experiencing a non-violent
crisis.
To create a program to meet Berkeley's
needs, the City of Berkeley conducted
extensive community outreach, analyzed
over 30 crisis response programs, and
established the SCU Steering Committee,
which includes community members and
city staff.
Examples/behaviors of above signs and symptoms of a
mental health or substance use related crisis can (and
sometimes do) mimic a medical emergency. The SCU call
taker will ask questions regarding medical history and
behavioral health history to better understand the call.
A FIRST FOR BERKELEY!
The SCU is Berkeley's first independent
crisis response team that does not
include police! This care-based team will
use trained expertise to help community
members experiencing a crisis.
If there is an immediate danger or
notification of someone being hurt or
severely injured, the SCU will notify 911.
INFORMACIÓN BÁSICA
EN CASO DE CRISIS,
LLAME A LA SCU:
HORARIO DE ATENCIÓN
La SCU atiende todos los días
Teléfono: (510) 948-0075
Berkeley
presenta la
UNIDAD DE
ATENCIÓN
ESPECIALIZADA
(SCU)
Domingo, lunes y martes: 24 horas
Miércoles, jueves, viernes y sábado:
de 12:00 a.m. a 4:00 p.m. y de 8:00
p.m. a 11:59 p.m.
Escanee el código QR para
obtener más información
sobre este servicio o visite este
enlace:
bit.ly/BerkSCU
¿Tiene preguntas sobre la
SCU?
Envíe un correo electrónico a
[email protected]
¿Qué es la SCU?
La Unidad de Atención Especializada (SCU
por sus siglas en inglés) es un equipo de 3
personas que incluye: un médico clínico, un
médico especialista y un paramédico.
La SCU responde a las llamadas de
emergencia no violentas sin recurrir a la
policía.
Cualquier persona de Berkeley puede
utilizar este servicio.
¿Cuándo debo llamar a la SCU?
Cuando alguien esté experimentando una
crisis relacionada con salud mental o el uso
de sustancias, como por ejemplo:
Imposibilidad de calmarse (ansiedad)
Pensamientos autodestructivos
Problemas relacionados con el consumo
de sustancias
La SCU presta servicio todos los días
Domingo a martes 24 horas
Miércoles a sábado 12:00 a.m. a 4:00 p.m.
y 8:00 p.m. a 11:59 p.m.
Llame al (510) 948-0075 si usted, o
alguien que conoce, sufre una crisis. La
SCU puede atender a niños y adultos
en cualquier parte de Berkeley.
Una crisis puede ocurrir en cualquier
momento y lugar. La SCU puede
atenderlo en la comodidad de su
hogar, en su comunidad o incluso en
la calle.
Salud, Vivienda y
Servicios Comunitarios
¿CÓMO SURGIÓ LA SCU?
SERVICIOS DE LA SCU
¿Usted o alguien que conoce atraviesa una
crisis o se encuentra en peligro? Los
síntomas pueden incluir:
Incapacidad para calmarse
Rabia
Depresión o sentimientos de impotencia
Confusión
Pensamientos autodestructivos
Delirios o pensamientos ilógicos
Cambios de humor
Aislamiento social
Problemas relacionados con el consumo
de sustancias
Medidas de disuasión
Agua u otros suministros necesarios
para su bienestar
Remisión a servicios comunitarios
Los servicios prestados pueden incluir:
Los miembros de la comunidad que estén
experimentando o presenciando una crisis
pueden llamar al (510) 948-0075 para
solicitar los servicios de la SCU. A la
persona que llame se le harán preguntas
generales sobre sí misma y sobre la crisis,
como por ejemplo:
Facilitar esta información ayudará a la
SCU a devolver la llamada en caso de
desconexión y a comprender mejor la crisis
antes de reunirse con el usuario.
La SCU es el primer equipo independiente
de respuesta a crisis de Berkeley que no
incluirá a la policía. Este equipo de asistencia
utilizará conocimientos especializados para
ayudar a los miembros de la comunidad que
experimenten algún tipo de crisis. En caso de
peligro inminente o sospecha de que alguien
ha resultado herido o gravemente lesionado,
la SCU se comunicará con el 911.
Nombre de la persona que llama o
nombre del usuario (si se conoce)
Número de teléfono de la persona
que llama
Ubicación y descripción general de la
persona que sufre la crisis.
Información sobre la crisis
¿CÓMO PUEDEN LOS
MIEMBROS DE LA COMUNIDAD
DE BERKELEY ACCEDER A LOS
SERVICIOS DE LA SCU?
Los ejemplos de los signos y síntomas mencionados anteriormente de una crisis relacionada con la salud mental o el consumo de sustancias pueden (y a menudo lo hacen) parecerse a una emergencia médica. La persona que atienda la llamada en la SCU hará preguntas sobre el historial médico y el historial de salud mental para comprender mejor el caso.
POR PRIMERA VEZ EN
BERKELEY
En respuesta a la muerte de George Floyd a
manos de la policía de Minneapolis en mayo
de 2020 y a las protestas que se desataron en
todo el país, surgió un debate sobre cómo se
puede mejorar la seguridad pública. Como
parte de una iniciativa más amplia de la
ciudad de Berkeley para reimaginar la
seguridad pública, la ciudad desarrolló una
propuesta para ofrecer una atención en
situaciones de crisis las 24 horas del día, los 7
días de la semana sin la participación de la
policía, para atender a las personas que
sufran una crisis no violenta.
Con el fin de crear un programa que
respondiera a las necesidades de Berkeley, la
ciudad llevó a cabo una amplia labor de
divulgación entre la comunidad, analizó más
de 30 programas de respuesta a crisis y creó
el Comité directivo de la SCU, formado por
miembros de la comunidad y personal del
ayuntamiento.
⠭⯘ⵄ䲀ⴀ
⚁꡶䫡椚猰
(SCU)
㥵剣⽭劼霼ㄎ〭SCU
歏霢〿瀦: (510) 948-0075
䊨⡲傞ꢂ
僤劍♲ծ僤劍㔋ծ僤劍❀ㄤ僤劍Ⱉ
ⲳ兑12:00 - ♴⼯4:00 ㄤ儻 ♳8:00 - 11:59
Ⱒ✵霪剪⸉涸刿㢴⥌䜂霼䪊䲽
✳絶瀦䧴霄姼Ꝇ䱹
bit.ly/BerkSCU
剣Ⱒ✵SCU涸毟
霼〄鷐齱⟝荛
[email protected]
皍➝
SCU僽➊⛎?
“⚁꡶䫡椚猰”(SCU)僽♧⚡3➃㔙ꢭ
Ⱖ⚥⺫䭍♧ぜ⚰䎯⼕欰ծ♧ぜず⠶⚁
㹻ㄤ♧ぜ䚉佹⼕毫䪮助プ(EMT)կ
SCU餏餓㖈♶嶍⿺䪄岁鿈꡶涸䞔ⲃ♴
ㆇ䎾ꬋ凐⸂⽭劼ㄎ〭կ
㸐ぢ⠭⯘ⵄ涸䨾剣➃䒓佞
⡦傞䎾ㄎ〭SCU
㥵剣ㄤ䗱椚⨴䐀䧴暟餘⢪欽湱Ⱒ涸 ⽭
劼⢾㥵
偽岁ꞏ㹁搋贊
䟝銳荈婎
蚋暟忝欽곿
SCU嫦ワկ
Sunday - Tuesday 24 hrs
Wednesday - Saturday: 12am - 4pm
& 8pm-11:59pm
㥵卓䝠䧴䝠雩霋涸➃麁ⵌ⽭劼霼䭉
䩧 (510) 948-0075կ
SCU⠔ㆇ䎾勻荈⠭⯘ⵄ⟣⡦㖑倰涸䧭䎃➃
ㄤ劢䧭䎃➃涸宠կ
⟣⡦㖑倰ծ⟣⡦傞ꢂ鿪〳腊〄欰⽭
劼կ偽雿䝠㖈㹻⚥ծ爢⼓鵮僽遳㣢
SCU鿪⠔ㆇ䎾䝠涸宠կ
Health, Housing and
Community Services
SCU涸歋勻
SCU涸剪⸉
䝠䧴䝠雩霋涸➃僽や姻㖈㼆⽭劼䧴汥蕱
氿朐〳腊⺫䭍
偽岁ꞏ
䠵䙬
䫈龏䧴䠭ⵌ偽⸔
䠑霋垷祍
䟝銳荈婎
㥻䟝䧴䙼絶♶ざ鹤鳓
䞔絬」⻊
爢❜鷍綫
蚋暟忝欽湱Ⱒ涸곿
䧮⟌䲿⣘涸剪⸉〳腊⺫䭍
綕ㄤⱾ瑲
宐䧴Ⱖ➭⨴䐀⣘䎾ㅷ
鲮➝荛爢⼓剪⸉
䲿⣘鵯❈⥌䜂㼜剣⸔✵SCU㖈勻歏罏倗
絁傞鵳遤㔐䭉䎇㖈錛ⵌ㹐䨪刿㥩㖑
✫鍒⽭劼䞔ⲃկ
黨麁䧴湡ⴁ⽭劼涸爢⼓䧭プ〳䭉䩧(510)
948-0075霼宠SCU剪⸉կ䱹絁プ㼜霧
♸Ⱖ荈魧䞔ⲃㄤ⽭劼剣Ⱒ涸㛇劥곿
⢾㥵
勻歏罏㨹ぜㄤ/䧴㹐䨪㨹ぜ㥵䊺濼
㔐䭉〿瀦䧴歏霢〿瀦
黨麁⽭劼罏涸⡙縨ㄤ㛇劥䲽鶣
Ⱒ✵⽭劼涸⥌䜂
⠭⯘ⵄ爢⼓䧭プ㥵⡦⢪欽SCU剪⸉
2020䎃5剢僈㽲岚ⵄ倛险倰勄娥✫⛠屛·䒼
峫⟻䗞ꥥ⛓〄欰✫Ⰼ㕂薴㔵涸䫒雳崞⸓
㣐㹻䒓㨤雭雿㥵⡦⟄♶ず涸倰䒭⥂ꥻⰖⰟ㸝
Ⰼկ⠭⯘ⵄ䋑〄饰✫“ꅾ倝匬䟝ⰖⰟ㸝Ⰼ”⦸
雳罜⡲⚹⚿䲃⛓♧䋑佟䏎Ɀ㹁䒊用♧⚡
偽险倰♸涸Ⰼ㣔⦫⽭劼ㆇ䎾劼ⵖ⚹黨麁
ꬋ凐⸂⽭劼涸➃⟌䲿⣘佅䭯կ
⚹✫䒊♧⚡忘駈⠭⯘ⵄ宠涸倰呩⠭⯘
ⵄ䋑鵳遤✫䎛岌涸爢⼓㹒⠛ⴔ區✫30㢴⚡
⽭劼䎾㼆雦ⴢ䎇䧭用✫“SCU䭷㼋㨼プ⠔”
㨼プ⠔䧭プ⺫䭍爢⼓䧭プㄤ䋑佟䏎䊨⡲➃
プկ
♳鶣䗱椚⨴䐀䧴蚋暟忝欽湱Ⱒ⽭劼涸鶺韌ㄤ氿朐涸⢾㶩/遤⚹〳
腊⠔碫⡃✵⼕毫稒䚉䞔ⲃկSCU䱹絁プ㼜霧Ⱒ✵⼕毫〷ㄤ遤⚹
⨴䐀〷涸곿⟄⤑刿㥩㖑✫鍒勻歏䞔ⲃկ
⠭⯘ⵄ껷⚡ず碫㔙ꢭ
SCU僽⠭⯘ⵄ껷⚡♶嶍⿺险倰涸杝用⽭劼
ㆇ䎾㔙ꢭ霪㔙ꢭ⟄➃⚹劥絑鵂⚁꡶㛆
雲㼜ⵄ欽⚁⚌濼霋⚹黨麁⽭劼涸爢⼓䧭
プ䲿⣘䌐⸔կ
㥵剣稒鶖⽭ꤗ䧴罏鄄デ濼剣➃「⠟䧴ꅾ
⠟SCU㼜鸑濼911կ
Internal
Who Should You Call?
1. 911. This is only for life threatening emergencies and in progress crimes. Examples include assaults, robberies, injury collisions and medical emergencies.
2. Berkeley Police Emergency. 510-981-5911. This is a good number to program into your cell phone to report emergencies happening in Berkeley. As some 911 calls on cell phones could go to CHP causing a slight delay, 510-981-5911 is a direct line to BPD for 911 type calls.
3. Berkeley Police non-emergency. 510-981-5900. This is a good number to program into your cell phone to report emergencies happening in Berkeley. This number is to report anything that is not a life- threatening emergency. Examples could include non-injury collisions, crimes where the suspect is not present or seeking advice on neighborhood disputes.
4. Mobile Crisis Team. Corresponded model with BPD where a mental health professionals and police officers can work together in mental health crisis response and resolutions. Calling the BPD nonemergency phone number at 510-981–5900 can determine if MCT is on duty. MCT services include crisis evaluation, information, and referral. Hours are also generally listed in their non-emergency voicemail; which community members can also contact to leave a message that does not require an emergent response: 510-981-5254.
5. Specialized Care Unit (SCU) is a resource team that is approaching 24/7 availability. Their direct number for contact is 510-948-0075. SCU is a resource completely separate of the Police Department that can aid with wellness checks, mental health crisis services, and substance abuse services/resources. The SCU is designed to operate as a team consisting of a mental health clinician, a peer, and an EMT. These services are offered separately from emergency services, though these teams can and will coordinate when there are immediate danger or injury concerns.
For more info, visit
berkeleyca.gov and
search “crisis services”
or scan the QR code:
[email protected]
Questions? Email
CITY OF BERKELEY
Specialized Care Unit
(510) 948-0075
SCU HOURS
OF OPERATION:
Sun-Tues:
24hrs/day
Wed-Sat:
12am-4pm &
8pm-11:59pm
The Specialized Care Unit (SCU)
is Berkeley's non-police mental
health and substance use crisis
response team, implemented in
partnership with Bonita House.
Questions? Email
[email protected]
Are you or someone you know
experiencing a substance use or
mental health crisis?
Common symptoms include:
Anxiety
Anger
Depression
Confusion
Suicidal thoughts
Services offered:
De-escalation
Assessment
Referrals to community
resources
Health, Housing, and
Community Services
Are you or someone you know
experiencing a substance use
or mental health crisis?
Common symptoms include:
Anxiety
Anger
Depression
Confusion
Suicidal thoughts
Services offered:
De-escalation
Assessment
Referrals to community resources
CITY OF BERKELEY
Specialized Care Unit
(510) 948-0075
For more info, visit berkeleyca.gov
and search “crisis services” or scan
the QR code:
SCU HOURS
OF OPERATION:
Sun-Tues: 24hrs/day
Wed-Sat: 12am-4pm & 8pm-11:59pm
Questions? Email
[email protected]
The Specialized Care
Unit (SCU) is Berkeley's
non-police mental
health and substance
use crisis response
team, implemented in
partnership with Bonita
House.
Health, Housing, and
Community Services
APPENDIX E
ĞƌŬĞůĞLJWŽůŝĐĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚ
ĂƌůLJ/ŶƚĞƌǀĞŶƚŝŽŶ^LJƐƚĞŵZ&W
Finance Department
General Services Division
2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7320 TDD: 510.981.6903 E-mail: [email protected] Website: cityofberkeley.info/finance/
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
Specification No. 25-11673-C
FOR
EARLY INTERVENTION SYSTEM PLATFORM
PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE OPENED AND READ PUBLICLY
Dear Proposer:
The City of Berkeley is soliciting written proposals from qualified firms or individuals for cloud-based Early Intervention System (EIS) platform subscription service. As a Request for Proposal (RFP) this is not an invitation to bid and although price is very important, other factors will be taken into consideration.
The project scope, content of proposal, and vendor selection process are summarized in the RFP (attached).
Proposals must be received no later than 2:00 pm, on Thursday, October 10, 2024. Proposals are to be sent via email with the “Specification No. 25-11673-C” and “Early Intervention System Platform” clearly indicated in the subject line of the email. Please submit one (1) PDF of the technical Proposal with the filename saved as, “Proposal Vendor Name - 25-11673-C” and “Early Intervention System Platform”. Corresponding pricing proposal shall be submitted as a separate document with the filename saved as, “Pricing Vendor Name - 25-11673- C” and “Early Intervention System Platform”.
Email Proposals to:
City of Berkeley
Finance Department/General Services Division
[email protected]
Proposals will not be accepted after the date and time stated above. Incomplete proposal or proposals that do not conform to the requirements specified herein will not be considered. Issuance of the RFP does not obligate the City to award a contract, nor is the City liable for any costs incurred by the proposer in the preparation and submittal of proposals for the subject work. The City retains the right to award all or parts of this contract to several bidders, to not select any bidders, and/or to re-solicit proposals. The act of submitting a proposal is a declaration that the proposer has read the RFP and understands all the requirements and conditions.
For questions concerning the anticipated work, or scope of the project, please contact Arlo Malmberg, Project Manager, via email at [email protected] no later than Friday, September 27, 2024. Answers to questions will not be provided by telephone or email. Answers to all questions or any addenda will be posted on the City of Berkeley’s site at Bid & Proposal Opportunities | City of Berkeley (berkeleyca.gov). It is the vendor’s responsibility to check this site. For general questions concerning the submittal process, contact purchasing at 510- 981-7320.
We look forward to receiving and reviewing your proposal.
Sincerely,
Dennis Dang
Interim General Services Manager
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 2 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
I. BACKGROUND /SUMMARY
The Berkeley Police Department (BPD) is committed to enhancing its operational effectiveness and fostering a culture of continuous improvement. In 2021, BPD revised Policy 1041 governing the Early Warning System (EWS), incorporating individual officer stop data. Despite these advancements, the current system lacks automated mechanisms for department management to systematically monitor and analyze this data.
To address these limitations and further improve transparency and accountability, BPD seeks to implement a comprehensive Early Intervention System (EIS) platform. This cloud-based solution will build upon our existing data infrastructure and integrate with our current data collection tools, including Esri’s Survey123, IA Pro, Tyler Technologies CAD and RMS systems. The EIS platform will provide automated data analysis, risk assessment, and intervention management capabilities, enabling proactive identification of potential issues and support for officer well-being and professional development.
II.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The selected vendor will provide a cloud-based Early Intervention System (EIS) platform subscription service, including regular updates and training, for a period of 2-5 years. The comprehensive EIS platform should include, but is not limited to, the following features and services:
x Data Integration and Analysis:
o Seamless integration with existing BPD systems, including Survey123 and Tyler Technologies o Capability to integrate with potential future Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) systems o Automated data collection and analysis from multiple sources, including calls for service, stop data, use of force incidents, complaints, commendations, and body camera footage x Risk Assessment and Alert System:
o Advanced algorithms to identify patterns and trends in officer behavior o Customizable thresholds and alert mechanisms for early intervention o Peer group comparisons and benchmarking capabilities
x Intervention Management:
o Tools for creating and managing personalized intervention plans o Tracking and documentation of interventions and outcomes o Integration with training and wellness initiatives
o Advanced tools for creating, managing, and tracking personalized intervention plans, including multi-step protocols aligned with department policies and industry best practices x Reporting and Analytics:
o Comprehensive dashboards and reporting capabilities for command staff and supervisors, with options for secure, anonymized access for authorized external oversight entities o Ad-hoc reporting capabilities
o Data visualization tools for trend analysis and performance metrics x Training and Support:
o Initial system setup and configuration
o Comprehensive training for administrators, supervisors, and end-users o Ongoing technical support and system maintenance
o Regular updates to the platform, including new features and improvements o Annual system effectiveness review meetings with vendor representatives to ensure ongoing alignment with department needs and objectives
x Security and Compliance:
o Robust data security measures and access controls
o Compliance with relevant law enforcement data protection standards o Audit trails and system activity logging
x Customization and Scalability:
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 3 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
o Ability to tailor the system to BPD's specific needs and workflows o Scalability to accommodate future growth and additional data sources x The vendor will work closely with BPD to ensure successful implementation, adoption, and ongoing utilization of the EIS platform.
III. SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
All proposals shall include the following information, organized as separate sections of the proposal. The proposal should be concise and to the point.
1. Contractor Identification:
Provide the name of the firm, the firm's principal place of business, the name and telephone number of the contact person and company tax identification number.
2. Client References:
Provide a minimum of three (3) client references, preferably from law enforcement agencies of similar size to BPD. Provide the designated person's name, title, organization, address, telephone number, and the project(s) that were completed under that client's direction.
3. Price Proposal:
The proposal shall include pricing for all services, including the EIS platform subscription, implementation, training, and ongoing support. Pricing shall be all-inclusive unless indicated otherwise. Provide a breakdown of costs for the initial implementation and annual subscription fees for a contract duration of 2- 5 years, ensuring the total does not surpass $100,000 per year. Pricing proposals shall be a separate document.
4. Technical Proposal:
a. Detailed description of the proposed EIS platform, including all features and capabilities outlined in the Scope of Services
b. Implementation plan and timeline
c. Training and support model
d. Data security and compliance measures
e. Integration capabilities with existing BPD systems and potential future CAD systems f. Customization options and scalability of the platform g. Product roadmap and update schedule
5. Company Experience and Qualifications:
a. Overview of the company's experience in providing EIS solutions to law enforcement agencies b. Qualifications of key personnel who will be involved in the project c. Any relevant certifications or partnerships
6. Contract Terminations:
If your organization has had a contract terminated in the last five (5) years, describe such incident.
Submit full details of the terms for default, including the other party's name, address, and phone number.
Present the vendor's position on the matter. If the firm has not experienced any such termination for default or early termination in the past five (5) years, so indicate.
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 4 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
IV. SELECTION CRITERIA
The following criteria will be considered, although not exclusively, in determining which firm is hired.
1. Technical Solution (30 points)
a. Comprehensiveness and quality of the proposed EIS platform b. Alignment with BPD's requirements and goals
c. Integration capabilities with existing and potential future systems d. Data security and compliance measures
e. User interface and ease of use
2. Implementation and Support (30 points)
a. Implementation plan and timeline
b. Training and support model
c. Ongoing maintenance and update processes
3. Company Experience and Qualifications (20 points)
a. Relevant experience in providing EIS solutions to law enforcement agencies b. Quality of client references
c. Qualifications of key personnel
4. Cost Proposal (20 points)
a. Overall cost-effectiveness of the solution
b. Clarity and reasonableness of pricing structure
c. Value for money over the contract duration
* Effective 1/1/2022. Local Vendor Preference. For the purposes of comparing pricing as part of this competitive RFP for goods up to $100,000 or non-professional services up to $250,000, 5% shall be deducted from the bid price proposal from any local Berkeley vendor.
A selection panel will be convened of staff to evaluate and score submittals.
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 5 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
IV. PAYMENT
Invoices: Invoices must be fully itemized, and provide sufficient information for approving payment and audit.
Invoices must be accompanied by receipt for services in order for payment to be processed. Email invoices to Accounts Payable and cc: Project Manager [email protected]; (List on invoice, Attn: A.
Malmberg/Police) and reference the contract number.
City of Berkeley
Accounts Payable
P.O. Box 700
Berkeley, CA 94710-700
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 510-981-7310
Payments: The City will make payment to the vendor within 30 days of receipt of a correct, approved and complete invoice.
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 6 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
VI. CITY REQUIREMENTS
A. Non-Discrimination Requirements:
Ordinance No. 5876-N.S. codified in B.M.C. Chapter 13.26 states that, for contracts worth more than $3,000 bids for supplies or bids or proposals for services shall include a completed Workforce Composition Form.
Businesses with fewer than five employees are exempt from submitting this form. (See B.M.C. 13.26.030)
Under B.M.C. section 13.26.060, the City may require any bidder or vendor it believes may have discriminated to submit a Non-Discrimination Program. The Contract Compliance Officer will make this determination. This applies to all contracts and all consultants (contractors). Berkeley Municipal Code section 13.26.070 requires that all contracts with the City contain a non-discrimination clause, in which the contractor agrees not to discriminate and allows the City access to records necessary to monitor compliance. This section also applies to all contracts and all consultants.
Bidders must submit the attached Non-Discrimination Disclosure Form with their proposal.
B. Nuclear Free Berkeley Disclosure Form:
Berkeley Municipal Code section 12.90.070 prohibits the City from granting contracts to companies that knowingly engage in work for nuclear weapons. This contracting prohibition may be waived if the City Council determines that no reasonable alternative exists to doing business with a company that engages in nuclear weapons work. If your company engages in work for nuclear weapons, explain on the Disclosure Form the nature of such work. Bidders must submit the attached Nuclear Free Disclosure Form with their proposal.
C. Oppressive States:
The City of Berkeley prohibits granting of contracts to firms that knowingly provide personal services to specified Countries. This contracting prohibition may be waived if the City Council determines that no reasonable alternative exists to doing business with a company that is covered by City Council Resolution Nos. 59,853-N.S., 60,382-N.S., and 70,606-N.S. If your company or any subsidiary is covered, explain on the Disclosure Form the nature of such work.
Bidders must submit the attached Oppressive States Disclosure Form with their proposal.
D. Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance:
Chapter 13.105 of the Berkeley Municipal Code prohibits the City from granting and or retaining contracts with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”).
Bidders must submit the attached Sanctuary City Compliance Statement with their proposal.
E. Conflict of Interest:
In the sole judgment of the City, any and all proposals are subject to disqualification on the basis of a conflict of interest. The City may not contract with a vendor if the vendor or an employee, officer or director of the proposer's firm, or any immediate family member of the preceding, has served as an elected official, employee, board or commission member of the City who influences the making of the contract or has a direct or indirect interest in the contract.
Furthermore, the City may not contract with any vendor whose income, investment, or real property interest may be affected by the contract. The City, at its sole option, may disqualify any proposal on the basis of such a conflict of interest. Please identify any person associated with the firm that has a potential conflict of interest.
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 7 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
F. Berkeley Living Wage Ordinance:
Chapter 13.27 of the Berkeley Municipal Code requires that contractors offer all eligible employees with City mandated minimum compensation during the term of any contract that may be awarded by the City. If the Contractor is not currently subject to the Living Wage Ordinance, cumulative contracts with the City within a one-year period may subject Contractor to the requirements under B.M.C. Chapter 13.27. A certification of compliance with this ordinance will be required upon execution of a contract. The current Living Wage rate can be found here: Information for Vendors | City of Berkeley (berkeleyca.gov). The Living Wage rate is adjusted automatically effective June 30th of each year commensurate with the corresponding increase in the Consumer Price Index published in April of each year. If the Living Wage rate is adjusted during the term of your agreement, you must pay the new adjusted rate to all eligible employees, regardless of what the rate was when the contract was executed.
G. Berkeley Equal Benefits Ordinance:
Chapter 13.29 of the Berkeley Municipal Code requires that contractors offer domestic partners the same access to benefits that are available to spouses. A certification of compliance with this ordinance will be required upon execution of a contract.
H. Statement of Economic Interest:
The City’s Conflict of Interest Code designates “consultants” as a category of persons who must complete Form 700, Statement of Economic Interest, at the beginning of the contract period and again at the termination of the contract. The selected contractor will be required to complete the Form 700 before work may begin.
VII. OTHER REQUIREMENTS
A. Insurance
The selected contractor will be required to maintain general liability insurance in the minimum amount of $2,000,000, automobile liability insurance in the minimum amount of $1,000,000 and a professional liability insurance policy in the amount of $2,000,000 to cover any claims arising out of the performance of the contract. The general liability and automobile insurance must name the City, its officers, agents, volunteers and employees as additional insured.
B. Worker’s Compensation Insurance:
A selected contractor who employs any person shall maintain workers' compensation insurance in accordance with state requirements. Sole proprietors with no employees are not required to carry Worker’s Compensation Insurance.
C. Business License
Virtually every contractor that does business with the City must obtain a City business license as mandated by B.M.C. Ch. 9.04. The business license requirement applies whether or not the contractor has an office within the City limits. However, a "casual" or "isolated" business transaction (B.M.C. section 9.04.010) does not subject the contractor to the license tax. Warehousing businesses and charitable organizations are the only entities specifically exempted in the code from the license requirement (see B.M.C. sections, 9.04.295 and
9.04.300). Non-profit organizations are granted partial exemptions (see B.M.C. section 9.04.305). Persons who, by reason of physical infirmity, unavoidable misfortune, or unavoidable poverty, may be granted an exemption of one annual free license at the discretion of the Director of Finance. (See B.M.C. sections 9.04.290).
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 8 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
Vendor must apply for a City business license and show proof of application to Purchasing Manager within seven days of being selected as intended contractor.
The Customer Service Division of the Finance Department located at 1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, issues business licenses. Contractors should contact this division for questions and/or information on obtaining a City business license, in person, or by calling 510-981-7200.
D. Recycled Paper
Any printed reports for the City required during the performance of the work shall be on 100% recycled paper, and shall be printed on both sides of the page whenever practical.
E . State Prevailing Wage:
Certain labor categories under this project may be subject to prevailing wages as identified in the State of California Labor Code commencing in Section 1770 et seq. These labor categories, when employed for any “work performed during the design and preconstruction phases of construction including, but not limited to, inspection and land surveying work,” constitute a “Public Work” within the definition of Section 1720(a)(1) of the California Labor Code requiring payment of prevailing wages.
Wage information is available through the California Division of Industrial Relations web site at:
http://www.dir.ca.gov/OPRL/statistics_and_databases.html
F. Local Vendor Preference
City of Berkeley applies a local vendor preference for comparing pricing submittals in RFP responses (City Council Resolution No. 69,890-N.S.)
A local business is defined as “a business firm with fixed offices or distribution points located within the City of Berkeley boundaries and listed in the Permits and License Tax paid file, with a Berkeley business street address.”
Competing for non-professional services
For the purposes of comparing pricing as part of this competitive RFP for non-professional services up to $250,000, 5% shall be deducted from the bid price proposal from any local Berkeley vendor in order to assign evaluation points to the pricing section.
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 9 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
VIII. SCHEDULE (Dates are subject to change)
Issue RFP to Potential Bidders: Wednesday, September 11, 2024 Questions Due Friday, September 27, 2024
Proposals Due from Potential Bidders Thursday, October 10, 2024 Complete Selection Process Friday, November 1, 2024
Council Approval of Contract (over $50k) Tuesday, November 19, 2024 Award of Contract Wednesday, November 20, 2024
Sign and Process Contract Wednesday, December 4, 2024 Notice to Proceed Thursday, December 5, 2024
Thank you for your interest in working with the City of Berkeley for this service. We look forward to receiving your proposal.
Attachments:
x Check List of Required items for Submittal Attachment A x Non-Discrimination/Workforce Composition Form Attachment B x Nuclear Free Disclosure Form Attachment C
x Oppressive States Form Attachment D
x Sanctuary City Compliance Statement Attachment E
x Living Wage Form Attachment F
x Equal Benefits Certification of Compliance Attachment G x Right to Audit Form Attachment H
x Insurance Endorsement Attachment I
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 10 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
ATTACHMENT A
CHECKLIST
Proposal describing service (one (1) PDF of proposal)
Contractor Identification and Company Information
Client References
Costs proposal by task, type of service & personnel (as a separate document from the proposal)
Other items the contractor is being requested to supply
The following forms, completed and signed in blue ink (attached):
o Non-Discrimination/Workforce Composition Form Attachment B
o Nuclear Free Disclosure Form Attachment C
o Oppressive States Form Attachment D
o Sanctuary City Compliance Statement Attachment E
o Living Wage Form (may be optional) Attachment F
o Equal Benefits Certification (EBO-1) (may be optional) Attachment G
ADDITIONAL SUBMITTALS REQUIRED FROM SELECTED VENDOR AFTER COUNCIL APPROVAL TO AWARD CONTRACT.
Provide original-signed in blue ink Evidence of Insurance
o Auto
o Liability
o Worker’s Compensation
Right to Audit Form Attachment H
Commercial General & Automobile Liability Endorsement Form Attachment I
Berkeley Business License (Current Year Certificate)
For informational purposes only: Sample of Personal Services Contract can be found on the City’s website on the current bid and proposal page at the top of the page.
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 11 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
NON-DISCRIMINATION/WORKFORCE COMPOSITION FORM FOR NON-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS To assist the City of Berkeley in implementing its Non-Discrimination policy, it is requested that you furnish information regarding your personnel as requested below and return it to the City Department handling your contract:
Organization: _____________________________________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________ Business Lic. #: ___________
Occupational Category:
__________________________
(See reverse side for explanation of terms) Total
Employees
White
Employees
Black
Employees
Asian
Employees
Hispanic
Employees
Other
Employees
Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Official/Administrators
Professionals
Technicians
Protective Service Workers
Para-Professionals
Office/Clerical
Skilled Craft Workers
Service/Maintenance
Other (specify)
Totals:
Is your business MBE/WBE/DBE certified? Yes: _____ No: _____ If yes, by what agency? _______________________
If yes, please specify: Male: _____ Female: _____ Indicate ethnic identifications: ___________________________
Do you have a Non-Discrimination policy? Yes: _____ No: _____
Signed: ________________________________________________________________ Date: __________________
Verified by: _____________________________________________________________ Date: __________________ City of Berkeley Contract Compliance Officer
Contract Description/Specification No: Early Intervention System Platform / 25-11673-C Attachment B (page 1)
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 12 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
Occupational Categories
Officials and Administrators - Occupations in which employees set broad policies, exercise overall responsibility for execution of these policies, or provide specialized consultation on a regional, district or area basis. Includes:
department heads, bureau chiefs, division chiefs, directors, deputy superintendents, unit supervisors and kindred workers.
Professionals - Occupations that require specialized and theoretical knowledge that is usually acquired through college training or through work experience and other training that provides comparable knowledge. Includes:
personnel and labor relations workers, social workers, doctors, psychologists, registered nurses, economists, dietitians, lawyers, systems analysts, accountants, engineers, employment and vocational rehabilitation counselors, teachers or instructors, and kindred workers.
Technicians - Occupations that require a combination of basic scientific or technical knowledge and manual skill that can be obtained through specialized post-secondary school education or through equivalent on-the-job training.
Includes: computer programmers and operators, technical illustrators, highway technicians, technicians (medical, dental, electronic, physical sciences) and kindred workers.
Protective Service Workers - Occupations in which workers are entrusted with public safety, security and protection from destructive forces. Includes: police officers, fire fighters, guards, sheriffs, bailiffs, correctional officers, detectives, marshals, harbor patrol officers, and kindred workers.
Para-Professionals - Occupations in which workers perform some of the duties of a professional or technician in a supportive role, which usually requires less formal training and/or experience normally required for professional or technical status. Such positions may fall within an identified pattern of a staff development and promotion under a "New Transporters" concept. Includes: library assistants, research assistants, medical aides, child support workers, police auxiliary, welfare service aides, recreation assistants, homemaker aides, home health aides, and kindred workers.
Office and Clerical - Occupations in which workers are responsible for internal and external communication, recording and retrieval of data and/or information and other paperwork required in an office. Includes:
bookkeepers, messengers, office machine operators, clerk-typists, stenographers, court transcribers, hearings reporters, statistical clerks, dispatchers, license distributors, payroll clerks, and kindred workers.
Skilled Craft Workers - Occupations in which workers perform jobs which require special manual skill and a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of the processes involved in the work which is acquired through on-the- job training and experience or through apprenticeship or other formal training programs. Includes: mechanics and repairpersons, electricians, heavy equipment operators, stationary engineers, skilled machining occupations, carpenters, compositors and typesetters, and kindred workers.
Service/Maintenance - Occupations in which workers perform duties which result in or contribute to the comfort, convenience, hygiene or safety of the general public or which contribute to the upkeep and care of buildings, facilities or grounds of public property. Workers in this group may operate machinery. Includes: chauffeurs, laundry and dry-cleaning operatives, truck drivers, bus drivers, garage laborers, custodial personnel, gardeners and groundskeepers, refuse collectors, and construction laborers.
Contract Description/Specification No: Early Intervention System Platform / 25-11673-C Attachment B (page 2)
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 13 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
CITY OF BERKELEY
Nuclear Free Zone Disclosure Form
I (we) certify that:
1. I am (we are) fully cognizant of any and all c ontracts held, products made or otherwise handled by this business entity, and of any such that are anticipated to be entered into, produced or handled for the duration of its contract(s) with the City of Berkeley. (To this end, more than one individual may sign this disclosure form, if a description of which type of contracts each individual is cognizant is attached.)
2. I (we) understand that Section 12.90.070 of the Nuclear Free Berkeley Act (Berkeley Municipal Code Ch. 12.90; Ordinance No. 5784-N.S.) prohibits the City of Berkeley from contracting with any person or business that knowingly engages in work for nuclear weapons.
3. I (we) understand the meaning of the following term s as set forth in Berkeley Municipal Code Section
12.90.130:
"Work for nuclear weapons" is any work the pu rpose of which is the development, testing, production, maintenance or storage of nuclear w eapons or the components of nuclear weapons; or any secret or classified research or evaluation of nuclear weapons; or any operation, management or administration of such work.
"Nuclear weapon" is any device, the intended ex plosion of which results from the energy released by reactions involving atomic nuclei, either fissi on or fusion or both. This definition of nuclear weapons includes the means of transporting, guiding, propelling or triggering the weapon if and only if such means is destroyed or rendered useless in the normal propelling, triggering, or detonation of the weapon.
"Component of a nuclear weapon" is any device, ra dioactive or non-radioactive, the primary intended function of which is to contribute to the operation of a nuclear weapon (or be a part of a nuclear weapon).
4. Neither this business entity nor its parent nor an y of its subsidiaries engages in work for nuclear weapons or anticipates entering into such work for the duration of its contract(s) with the City of Berkeley.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Printed Name: ___________________________________ Title: ____________________________________
Signature: _______________________________________Date: ____________________________________
Business Entity: ___________________________________________________________________________
Contract Description/Specification No: Early Intervention System Platform / 25-11673-C Attachment C
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 14 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
CITY OF BERKELEY
Oppressive States Compliance Statement
The undersigned, an authorized agent of_________________________________________________ (hereafter "Vendor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of Berkeley City Council Resolution Nos. 59,853-N.S., 60,382-N.S., and 70,606-N.S., (hereafter "Resolutions"). Vendor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with those Business Entities which maintain business relationships with morally repugnant regimes. Vendor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the Resolution:
"Business Entity" means "any individual, firm, partnership, corporation, association or any other commercial organization, including parent-entities and wholly-owned subsidiaries" (to the extent that their operations are related to the purpose of the contract with the City).
"Oppressive State" means: Tibet Autonomous Region and the Provinces of Ado, Kham and U-Tsang; and Burma (Myanmar)
“Personal Services” means “the performance of any work or labor and shall also include acting as an independent contractor or providing any consulting advice or assistance, or otherwise acting as an agent pursuant to a contractual relationship.”
Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the contract it provides Personal Services to:
a. The governing regime in any Oppressive State.
b. Any business or corporation organized under the authority of the governing regime of any Oppressive State. c. Any person for the express purpose of assisting in business operations or trading with any public or private entity located in any Oppressive State.
Vendor further understands and agrees that Vendor's failure to comply with the Resolution shall constitute a default of the contract and the City Manager may terminate the contract and bar Vendor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination.
The undersigned is familiar with, or has made a reasonable effort to become familiar with, Vendor's business structure and the geographic extent of its operations. By executing the Statement, Vendor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the Resolution and that if any time during the term of the contract it ceases to comply, Vendor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Printed Name: ____________________________________ Title: _______________________________________
Signature: ________________________________________ Date: ______________________________________
Business Entity: ____________________________________________________________________________________
Contract Description/Specification No: Early Intervention System Platform / 25-11673-C
I am unable to execute this Statement; however, Vendor is exempt under Section VII of the Resolution. I have attached a separate statement explaining the reason(s) Vendor cannot comply and the basis for any requested exemption.
Signature: _______________________________________ Date: ______________________________________
Attachment D
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 15 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
CITY OF BERKELEY
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement
The undersigned, an authorized agent of (hereafter "Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of Berkeley Code Chapter 13.105 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”). Contractor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”).
Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:
a. "Data Broker” means either of the following:
i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies;
ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used.
b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services." Extreme Vetting does not include:
i. The City’s computer-network health and performance tools; ii. Cybersecurity capabilities, technologies and systems used by the City of Berkeley Department of Information Technology to predict, monitor for, prevent, and protect technology infrastructure and systems owned and operated by the City of Berkeley from potential cybersecurity events and cyber-forensic based investigations and prosecutions of illegal computer-based activity.
Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.
Contractor further understands and agrees that Contractor's failure to comply with the SCCO shall constitute a material default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the Contract and bar Contractor from bidding on future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the contract termination.
By executing this Statement, Contractor certifies that it complies with the requirements of the SCCO and that if any time during the term of the Contract it ceases to comply, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Any person or entity who knowingly or willingly supplies false information in violation of the SCCO shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and up to a $1,000 fine.
Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this _______ day of ________, 20__, at _____________, California.
Printed Name: Title:
Signed: Date:
Business Entity:
Contract Description/Specification No: Early Intervention System Platform / 25-11673-C Attachment E
SCCO CompStmt (10/2019)
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 16 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
CITY OF BERKELEY
Living Wage Certification for Providers of Services
TO BE COMPLETED BY ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES ENGAGING IN A CONTRACT FOR PERSONAL SERVICES WITH THE CITY OF BERKELEY.
The Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 13.27, Berkeley's Living Wage Ordinance (LWO), provides that contractors who engage in a specified amount of business with the City (except where specifically exempted) under contracts which furnish services to or for the City in any twelve (12) month period of time shall comply with all provisions of this Ordinance. The LWO requires a City contractor to provide City mandated minimum compensation to all eligible employees, as defined in the Ordinance. In order to determine whether this contract is subject to the terms of the LWO, please respond to the questions below. Please note that the LWO applies to those contracts where the contractor has achieved a cumulative dollar contracting amount with the City. Therefore, even if the LWO is inapplicable to this contract, subsequent contracts may be subject to compliance with the LWO. Furthermore, the contract may become subject to the LWO if the status of the Contractor's employees’ changes (i.e. additional employees are hired) so that Contractor falls within the scope of the Ordinance.
Section I.
1. IF YOU ARE A FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS
a. During the previous twelve (12) months, have you entered into contracts, including the present contract, bid, or proposal, with the City of Berkeley for a cumulative amount of $25,000.00 or more? YES ____ NO ____
If no, this contract is NOT subject to the requirements of the LWO, and you may continue to Section II. If yes, please continue to question 1(b).
b. Do you have six (6) or more employees, including part-time and stipend workers? YES ____ NO ____
If you have answered, “YES” to questions 1(a) and 1(b) this contract IS subject to the LWO. If you responded "NO" to 1(b) this contract IS NOT subject to the LWO. Please continue to Section II.
2. IF YOU ARE A NON-PROFIT BUSINESS, AS DEFINED BY SECTION 501(C) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1954, PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS.
a. During the previous twelve (12) months, have you entered into contracts, including the present contract, bid or proposal, with the City of Berkeley for a cumulative amount of $100,000.00 or more? YES ____ NO ____
If no, this Contract is NOT subject to the requirements of the LWO, and you may continue to Section II. If yes, please continue to question 2(b).
b. Do you have six (6) or more employees, including part-time and stipend workers? YES ____ NO ____
If you have answered, “YES” to questions 2(a) and 2(b) this contract IS subject to the LWO. If you responded "NO" to 2(b) this contract IS NOT subject to the LWO. Please continue to Section II.
Section II
Please read, complete, and sign the following:
THIS CONTRACT IS SUBJECT TO THE LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE.
THIS CONTRACT IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE.
Contract Description/Specification No: Early Intervention System Platform / 25-11673-C Attachment F (page 1)
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 17 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
The undersigned, on behalf of himself or herself individually and on behalf of his or her business or organization, hereby certifies that he or she is fully aware of Berkeley's Living Wage Ordinance, and the applicability of the Living Wage Ordinance, and the applicability of the subject contract, as determined herein. The undersigned further agrees to be bound by all of the terms of the Living Wage Ordinance, as mandated in the Berkeley Municipal Code, Chapter 13.27. If, at any time during the term of the contract, the answers to the questions posed herein change so that Contractor would be subject to the LWO, Contractor will promptly notify the City Manager in writing. Contractor further understands and agrees that the failure to comply with the LWO, this certification, or the terms of the Contract as it applies to the LWO, shall constitute a default of the Contract and the City Manager may terminate the contract and bar Contractor from future contracts with the City for five (5) years from the effective date of the Contract termination. If the contractor is a for-profit business and the LWO is applicable to this contract, the contractor must pay a living wage to all employees who spend 25% or more or their compensated time engaged in work directly related to the contract with the City. If the contractor is a non-profit business and the LWO is applicable to this contract, the contractor must pay a living wage to all employees who spend 50% or more or their compensated time engaged in work directly related to the contract with the City.
These statements are made under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California.
Printed Name: ___________________________________ Title: ________________________________________
Signature: _______________________________________ Date: _______________________________________
Business Entity: ______________________________________________________________________________
Section III
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
x * * FOR ADMINISTRATIVE USE ONLY -- PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY * * *
I have reviewed this Living Wage Certification form, in addition to verifying Contractor's total dollar amount contract commitments with the City in the past twelve (12) months, and determined that this Contract IS / IS NOT (circle one) subject to Berkeley's Living Wage Ordinance.
_________________________________ _________________________________________ Department Name Department Representative
Contract Description/Specification No: Early Intervention System Platform / 25-11673-C Attachment F (page 2)
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 18 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024 RFP Revised Nov2022
Form EBO-1
CITY OF BERKELEY
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH EQUAL BENEFITS ORDINANCE If you are a contractor, return this form to the originating department/project manager. If you are a vendor (supplier of goods), return this form to the Purchasing Division of the Finance Dept.
SECTION 1. CONTRACTOR/VENDOR INFORMATION
1BName: 2BVendor No.:
3BAddress: 4BCity: 5BState: 6BZIP:
7BContact Person: 8BTelephone:
9BE-mail Address: 10BFax No.:
SECTION 2. COMPLIANCE QUESTIONS
A. The EBO is inapplicable to this contract bec ause the contractor/vendor has no employees.
Yes No (If “Yes,” proceed to Section 5; if “No”, continue to the next question.) B. Does your company provide (or make available at the employees’ expense) any employee benefits? Yes No
If “Yes,” continue to Question C.
If “No,” proceed to Section 5. (The EBO is not applicable to you.) C. Does your company provide (or make availabl e at the employees’ expense) any benefits to the spouse of an employee? ......................................................................................... Yes No D. Does your company provide (or make availabl e at the employees’ expense) any benefits to the domestic partner of an employee?.......................................................................... Yes No If you answered “No” to both Questions C and D, proceed to Section 5. (The EBO is not applicable to this contract.) If you answered “Yes” to both Questions C and D, please continue to Question E.
If you answered “Yes” to Question C and “No” to Question D, please continue to Section 3.
E. Are the benefits that are available to the spouse of an employee identical to the benefits that are available to the domestic partner of the employee? ............................................... Yes No If you answered “Yes,” proceed to Section 4. (You are in compliance with the EBO.) If you answered “No,” continue to Section 3.
SECTION 3. PROVISIONAL COMPLIANCE
A. Contractor/vendor is not in compliance with the EBO now but will comply by the following date:
By the first effective date after the first open enrollment process following the contract start date, not to exceed two years, if the Contractor submits evidence of taking reasonable measures to comply with the EBO; or
At such time that administrative steps can be taken to incorporate nondiscrimination in benefits in the Contractor’s infrastructure, not to exceed three months; or Upon expiration of the contractor’s current collective bargaining agreement(s).
Contract Description/Specification No: Early Intervention System Platform / 25-11673-C Attachment G (page 1) To be completed by
Contractor/Vendor
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 19 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
B. If you have taken all reasonable measures to comply with the EBO but are unable to do so, do you agree to provide employees with a cash equivalent? * .................................... Yes No
* The cash equivalent is the amount of money your company pays for spousal benefits that are unavailable for domestic partners.
SECTION 4. REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION
At time of issuance of purchase order or contract award, you may be required by the City to provide documentation (copy of employee handbook, eligibility statement from your plans, insurance provider statements, etc.) to verify that you do not discriminate in the provision of benefits.
SECTION 5. CERTIFICATION
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that I am authorized to bind this entity contractually. By signing this certification, I further agree to comply with all additional obligations of the Equal Benefits Ordinance that are set forth in the Berkeley Municipal Code and in the terms of the contract or purchase order with the City.
Executed this _______day of _________________, in the year __________, at __________________, ________ ( C i t y ) ( S t a t e )
_____________________________________ ______________________________________ Name (please print) Signature
_____________________________________ ______________________________________ Title Federal ID or Social Security Number
0BFOR CITY OF BERKELEY USE ONLY
Non-Compliant (The City may not do business with this contractor/vendor) One-Person Contractor/Vendor Full Compliance Reasonable Measures Provisional Compliance Category, Full Compliance by Date: _________________________________________ Staff Name (Sign and Print): _____________________________________Date: ____________ ________________
Contract Description/Specification No: Early Intervention System Platform / 25-11673-C Attachment G (page 2)
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 20 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
CITY OF BERKELEY
Right to Audit Form
The contractor agrees that pursuant to Section 61 of the Berkeley City Charter, the City Auditor’s office may conduct an audit of Contractor’s financial, performance and compliance records maintained in connection with the operations and services performed under this contract.
In the event of such audit, Contractor agrees to provide the Auditor with reasonable access to Contractor’s employees and make all such financial, performance and compliance records available to the Auditor’s office. City agrees to provide Contractor an opportunity to discuss and respond to/any findings before a final audit report is filed.
Signed: ______________________________________ Date: ___________________
Print Name & Title: _______________________________________________________
Company: _______________________________________________________________
Please direct questions regarding this form to the Auditor's Office, at (510) 981-6750.
Contract Description/Specification No: Early Intervention System Platform / 25-11673-C Attachment H
Internal
City of Berkeley Specification No. 25-11673-C Page 21 of 21 Early Intervention System Platform Release Date 9/11/2024
RFP Revised Nov2022
CITY OF BERKELEY
Commercial General and Automobile Liability Endorsement
The attached Certificates of Insurance are hereby certified to be a part of the following policies having the following expiration dates:
Polic
y No. Company Providing Policy Expir. Date
_______________ __________________________ _________
_______________ __________________________ _________
_______________ __________________________ _________
_______________ __________________________ _________
The scope of the insurance afforded by the policies designated in the attached certificates is not less than that which is afforded by the Insurance Service Organization's or other "Standard Provisions" forms in use by the insurance company in the territory in which coverage is afforded.
Such Policies provide for or are hereby amended to provide for the following:
1. The named insured is __ ______________________________________.
2. CITY OF BERKELEY ("City") is hereby included as an additio nal insured with respect to liability arising out of the hazards or operations under or in connection with the following agreement:
____________________ ___________________________________.
The insurance provided applies as though separate policies are in effect for both the named insured and City, but does not increase the limits of liability set forth in said policies.
3. The limits of liability under the policies are not less than those shown on the certificate to which this endorsement is attached.
4. Cancellation or material reductio n of this coverage will not be effective until thirty (30) days following written notice to __________________________________, Department of ___________________________, Berkeley, CA.
5. This insurance is primary and in surer is not entitled to any contribution from insurance in effect for City.
The term "City" includes successors and assigns of City and the officers, employees, agents and volunteers.
_________________ ______________________
I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y
Date: _____________ By: ______________ ________________________ S i g n a t u r e o f U n d e r w r i t e r ' s
Authorized Representative
Contract Description/Specification No: Early Intervention System Platform / 25-11673-C Attachment I
APPENDIX F
ĞƌŬĞůĞLJWŽůŝĐĞĞƉĂƌƚŵĞŶƚtŽƌŬůŽĂĚ^ƚƵĚLJ;ŝƚLJŐĂƚĞ^ƚĂĨĨŝŶŐƐƐĞƐƐŵĞŶƚͿ
This page was intentionally left blank
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Table of Contents Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Policy Choices Framework .............................................................................................................................. 1 General Summary of Citygate’s Assessment .................................................................................................. 2 Challenge #1 ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Challenge #2 ...................................................................................................................................... 3 Citygate’s Recommendations and Goals ......................................................................................................... 4 Organizational Summary ................................................................................................................... 5 Operations Division (Patrol) ............................................................................................................. 6 Support Services Division ................................................................................................................. 6 Investigations Division ...................................................................................................................... 7 Professional Standards Division ........................................................................................................ 8 Citygate Recommendations and Funding Priorities ........................................................................................ 8 Section 1—Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 17
1.1 Report Organization ........................................................................................................................ 17
1.2 Project Overview ............................................................................................................................. 18
1.2.1 Project Scope .................................................................................................................... 18
1.2.2 Project Methodology ......................................................................................................... 19
1.2.3 Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................... 19
1.3 City of Berkeley Profile .................................................................................................................. 20
1.3.1 Demographics ................................................................................................................... 20
1.3.2 University of California, Berkeley .................................................................................... 21
1.3.3 City Crime Data ................................................................................................................ 22 Section 2—Organizational Review ........................................................................................................................... 25
2.1 Mission, Vision, Values, and Priorities ........................................................................................... 25
2.2 Staffing and Attrition....................................................................................................................... 26
2.3 Employee Survey ............................................................................................................................ 27
2.3.1 Employee Survey Key Findings ....................................................................................... 27
2.3.2 Employee Survey Recommendations ............................................................................... 28
2.4 Organizational Structure.................................................................................................................. 28
2.5 Police Beat Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 30
2.5.1 Police Beat Structure......................................................................................................... 30
2.5.2 Police Beat Service Demand ............................................................................................. 31
2.5.3 Police Beat Findings ......................................................................................................... 33
2.5.4 Police Beat Recommendations .......................................................................................... 33
2.6 Benchmark Analysis........................................................................................................................ 34
2.6.1 Staffing Benchmark .......................................................................................................... 34
2.6.2 Rank Structure Benchmark ............................................................................................... 35
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Page ii Table of Contents
2.6.3 Crime Rates and Clearances Benchmark .......................................................................... 36
2.6.4 Perspective for Berkeley ................................................................................................... 38
2.7 Overtime Analysis ........................................................................................................................... 38
2.7.1 Sworn Officers .................................................................................................................. 39
2.7.2 Professional (Civilian) Staff ............................................................................................. 42
2.7.3 Overtime and Policy ......................................................................................................... 44
2.7.4 Overtime Findings ............................................................................................................ 46
2.7.5 Overtime Recommendations ............................................................................................. 47 Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review ...................................................................................................... 49
3.1 Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability ............................................................................ 49
3.2 Creation of a new Deputy Chief’s Position ..................................................................................... 49
3.3 Administrative and Fiscal Services ................................................................................................. 49
3.3.1 Administrative and Fiscal Services Finding ..................................................................... 51
3.3.2 Administrative and Fiscal Services Recommendation ..................................................... 51
3.4 Internal Affairs Bureau .................................................................................................................... 51
3.4.1 Police Accountability Board ............................................................................................. 52
3.4.2 Internal Affairs Bureau Finding ........................................................................................ 54
3.4.3 Internal Affairs Bureau Recommendation ........................................................................ 54 Section 4—Operations Division Review ................................................................................................................... 55
4.1 Patrol Coverage ............................................................................................................................... 55
4.2 Bike Team ....................................................................................................................................... 56
4.3 Community Services Bureau ........................................................................................................... 56
4.4 Patrol Response Time Analysis ....................................................................................................... 57
4.4.1 Understanding Fractile versus Average Measurement ..................................................... 57
4.4.2 Patrol Response Time ....................................................................................................... 59
4.5 Incident Data Review ...................................................................................................................... 60
4.5.1 Patrol Utilization ............................................................................................................... 60
4.6 Patrol On-Scene Time ..................................................................................................................... 64
4.6.1 Calls for Service ................................................................................................................ 64
4.7 Additional Operational Demands on Patrol .................................................................................... 74
4.7.1 Booking/Jail Delays .......................................................................................................... 74
4.7.2 Ancillary Duties/Training ................................................................................................. 75
4.7.3 Video Retrieval ................................................................................................................. 75
4.7.4 Use of Force Reporting ..................................................................................................... 75
4.7.5 Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) Reporting ........................................................ 85
4.7.6 Equipment Ordinance Reporting ...................................................................................... 85
4.7.7 Miscellaneous Service Call Reporting .............................................................................. 85
4.8 The ICMA “Rule of 60” .................................................................................................................. 85
4.8.1 Resource Allocation .......................................................................................................... 86
4.8.2 Workload Efficiency ......................................................................................................... 87
4.8.3 Applying the Rule of 60 .................................................................................................... 87
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Table of Contents Page iii
4.9 Operations Division Findings and Recommendations .................................................................... 88
4.9.1 Findings............................................................................................................................. 88
4.9.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 89 Section 5—Investigations Division Review .............................................................................................................. 91
5.1 Division Overview .......................................................................................................................... 91
5.1.1 Youth Services Unit .......................................................................................................... 95
5.1.2 School Resource Officer ................................................................................................... 95
5.1.3 Crime Scene Unit .............................................................................................................. 95
5.1.4 Investigations Division Findings ...................................................................................... 96
5.1.5 Investigations Division Recommendations....................................................................... 97
5.2 Traffic Bureau ................................................................................................................................. 98
5.2.1 Current Staffing and Responsibilities ............................................................................... 99
5.2.2 Education Programs ........................................................................................................ 101
5.2.3 Traffic Stops.................................................................................................................... 101
5.2.4 Deployment Locations .................................................................................................... 102
5.2.5 Enforcement Details and Related Grants ........................................................................ 102
5.2.6 Use of Social Media ........................................................................................................ 103
5.2.7 Collision Data ................................................................................................................. 103
5.2.8 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collision Statistics ..................................................................... 103
5.2.9 Office of Traffic Safety Review ..................................................................................... 107
5.2.10 Parking Enforcement ...................................................................................................... 108
5.2.11 Traffic Bureau Findings .................................................................................................. 109
5.2.12 Traffic Bureau Recommendations .................................................................................. 110 Section 6—Professional Standards Division Review ............................................................................................ 113
6.1 Division Overview ........................................................................................................................ 113
6.1.1 Personnel and Training ................................................................................................... 113
6.1.2 Recruiting ........................................................................................................................ 114
6.1.3 Policy and Planning ........................................................................................................ 114
6.1.4 Audit and Inspection ....................................................................................................... 115
6.1.5 Professional Standards Division Findings ...................................................................... 116
6.1.6 Professional Standards Division Recommendations ...................................................... 116 Section 7—Support Services Division Review ....................................................................................................... 117
7.1 Division Overview ........................................................................................................................ 117
7.2 Berkeley Public Safety Center (Jail) ............................................................................................. 117
7.2.1 Public Safety Center (Jail) Findings ............................................................................... 120
7.2.2 Public Safety Center (Jail) Recommendations ............................................................... 120
7.3 Technology Unit ............................................................................................................................ 121
7.3.1 Technology Unit Findings .............................................................................................. 121
7.3.2 Technology Unit Recommendations............................................................................... 122
7.4 Property Room .............................................................................................................................. 122
7.4.1 Property Room Findings ................................................................................................. 123
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Page iv Table of Contents
7.4.2 Property Room Recommendations ................................................................................. 124
7.5 Records Unit .................................................................................................................................. 124
7.5.1 Records Unit Findings .................................................................................................... 125
7.5.2 Records Unit Recommendations..................................................................................... 126
7.6 Communications Center ................................................................................................................ 126
7.6.1 Standards and Best Practices .......................................................................................... 128
7.6.2 Communications Center Findings................................................................................... 130
7.6.3 Communications Center Recommendations ................................................................... 130 Section 8—Summary of Personnel Priorities and Findings and Recommendations ......................................... 131
8.1 Findings ......................................................................................................................................... 131
8.1.1 Employee Survey ............................................................................................................ 131
8.1.2 Police Beat ...................................................................................................................... 132
8.1.3 Overtime ......................................................................................................................... 132
8.1.4 Administrative and Fiscal Services ................................................................................. 133
8.1.5 Internal Affairs Bureau ................................................................................................... 133
8.1.6 Use of Force .................................................................................................................... 133
8.1.7 Operations Division ........................................................................................................ 133
8.1.8 Investigations Division ................................................................................................... 135
8.1.9 Traffic Bureau ................................................................................................................. 136
8.1.10 Professional Standards Division ..................................................................................... 136
8.1.11 Public Safety Center (Jail) .............................................................................................. 137
8.1.12 Technology Unit ............................................................................................................. 137
8.1.13 Property Room ................................................................................................................ 138
8.1.14 Records Unit ................................................................................................................... 138
8.1.15 Communications Center.................................................................................................. 138
8.2 Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 139
8.2.1 Employee Survey ............................................................................................................ 139
8.2.2 Police Beat ...................................................................................................................... 139
8.2.3 Overtime ......................................................................................................................... 140
8.2.4 Administrative and Fiscal Services ................................................................................. 140
8.2.5 Internal Affairs Bureau ................................................................................................... 140
8.2.6 Use of Force .................................................................................................................... 140
8.2.7 Operations Division ........................................................................................................ 140
8.2.8 Investigations Division ................................................................................................... 142
8.2.9 Traffic Bureau ................................................................................................................. 143
8.2.10 Professional Standards Division ..................................................................................... 144
8.2.11 Public Safety Center (Jail) .............................................................................................. 144
8.2.12 Technology Unit ............................................................................................................. 145
8.2.13 Property Room ................................................................................................................ 146
8.2.14 Records Unit ................................................................................................................... 146
8.2.15 Communications Center.................................................................................................. 147
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Table of Contents Page v
Table of Tables
Table 1—Recommendations and Funding Priorities ..................................................................................................... 9 Table 2—Berkeley Demographic Percentages by Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................ 20 Table 3—Berkeley Part I Crime Data (2018–2023) .................................................................................................... 23 Table 4—Historical Sworn Staffing Levels ................................................................................................................. 26 Table 5—Berkeley Police Department Attrition.......................................................................................................... 26 Table 6—Calls for Service by Beat (2018–2023) ........................................................................................................ 32 Table 7—Benchmark: Agency Staffing ....................................................................................................................... 34 Table 8—Benchmark: Rank Structure ......................................................................................................................... 35 Table 9—Benchmark: Rank Structure ......................................................................................................................... 36 Table 10—Benchmark: Crime Rates ........................................................................................................................... 36 Table 11—Benchmark: Violent Crime Clearance Rates ............................................................................................. 37 Table 12— Benchmark: Property Crime Clearance Rates .......................................................................................... 37 Table 13—Overtime: Patrol/Operations ...................................................................................................................... 39 Table 14—Overtime: Police Court Pay – Patrol/Operations ...................................................................................... 40 Table 15—Overtime: Hazardous Duty – Patrol/Operations ........................................................................................ 40 Table 16—Overtime: Investigations – Detectives / Crime Analyst............................................................................. 40 Table 17—Overtime: Investigations – Traffic ............................................................................................................. 40 Table 18—Overtime: Professional Standards – Policy and Audit ............................................................................... 41 Table 19—Overtime: Professional Standards – Personnel and Training..................................................................... 41 Table 20—Overtime: Chief’s Office – Administrative and Fiscal Services................................................................ 41 Table 21—Overtime: Chief’s Office – Internal Affairs ............................................................................................... 41 Table 22—Overtime: Support Services – Communications Center ............................................................................ 42 Table 23—Overtime: Support Services – Jail .............................................................................................................. 42 Table 24—Overtime: Support Services – Records/Subpoena ..................................................................................... 42 Table 25—Overtime: Support Services – Communications Center ............................................................................ 43 Table 26—Overtime: Support Services – Jail .............................................................................................................. 43 Table 27—Overtime: Investigations – Parking Enforcement ...................................................................................... 43 Table 28—Overtime: Investigations – Detectives/Crime Analyst............................................................................... 43 Table 29—Overtime: Support Services – Records/Subpoena ..................................................................................... 44 Table 30—Overtime: Investigations – Traffic ............................................................................................................. 44 Table 31—Overtime: Professional Standards – Personnel and Training..................................................................... 44 Table 32—Patrol Team Coverage of Week ................................................................................................................. 55 Table 33—Utilization by Unit Type: Occupied and Available Hours ......................................................................... 61 Table 34—Public-Generated CFS – Incidents and Committed Hours (2021) ............................................................. 62 Table 35—Public-Generated CFS – Incidents and Committed Hours (2022) ............................................................. 63 Table 36—Public-Generated CFS – Incidents and Committed Hours (2023) ............................................................. 64 Table 37—Most Frequent Call Responses by Call Type and Year ............................................................................. 65 Table 38—Alarms/Security: 55,327 Total Incidents ................................................................................................... 66 Table 39—Complaints/Code Violations: 64,754 Total Incidents ................................................................................ 67 Table 40—Vehicle Incidents: 30,354 Total Incidents ................................................................................................. 68
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Page vi Table of Contents
Table 41—Property Incidents: 22,969 Total Incidents ................................................................................................ 69 Table 42—Public Assistance: 16,370 Total Incidents ................................................................................................. 69 Table 43—High Risk – Individual Safety: 12,177 Total Incidents ............................................................................. 70 Table 44—High Risk – Public Safety: 2,171 Total Incidents ...................................................................................... 71 Table 45—Welfare: 17,621 Total Incidents................................................................................................................. 71 Table 46—Categories of Force by Use (2024) ............................................................................................................ 77 Table 47—Berkeley Sworn Personnel Allocation ....................................................................................................... 86 Table 48—Investigations Division and Personnel ....................................................................................................... 91 Table 49—Criminal Case Clearances (2019–2022) .................................................................................................... 93 Table 50—Case Reports .............................................................................................................................................. 93 Table 51—Traffic Unit Staffing................................................................................................................................... 99 Table 52—Parking Enforcement Unit Staffing.......................................................................................................... 100 Table 53—Traffic Collision Investigations (2019–2023) .......................................................................................... 100 Table 54—Traffic Citations (2019–2023) ................................................................................................................. 101 Table 55—Jail Staffing .............................................................................................................................................. 117 Table 56—Communications Center Overtime Hours ................................................................................................ 127 Table of Figures
Figure 1—Part I Crimes Categories ............................................................................................................................. 22 Figure 2—Berkeley Police Department – Current Organizational Structure .............................................................. 29 Figure 3—Berkeley Police Department – Proposed New Organizational Structure ................................................... 29 Figure 4—Current Beat Structure (14 Beats)............................................................................................................... 30 Figure 5—Former Beat Structure (16 Beats) ............................................................................................................... 31 Figure 6—Internal Affairs Bureau Allegations (2023) ................................................................................................ 53 Figure 7—Fractile versus Average Response Time Measurements ............................................................................ 58 Figure 8—Utilization: Total Hours by Starting Task .................................................................................................. 61 Figure 9—Patrol: Public-Generated Priority 1 Calls for Service (2020–2023) ........................................................... 72 Figure 10—Patrol: Officer-Initiated Calls for Service (2020–2023) ........................................................................... 73 Figure 11—Vehicle Incidents (2020–2023)............................................................................................................... 102 Figure 12—Berkeley Traffic Collisions by Primary Cause (2021–2023) ................................................................. 104 Figure 13—Berkeley Fatal Collisions by Primary Cause (2021–2023) .................................................................... 104 Figure 14—Injury Collisions by Day of Week by Hour (2021–2023) ...................................................................... 105 Figure 15—Bicycle Collisions by Hour (2021–2023) ............................................................................................... 105 Figure 16—Bicycle Collision Location Heat Map (2021–2024) ............................................................................... 106 Figure 17—Pedestrian Collisions by Hour (2021–2023)........................................................................................... 106 Figure 18—Office of Traffic Safety City Comparison Analysis (2021) ................................................................... 108 Figure 19—Example 12-Hour Shift Schedule ........................................................................................................... 119
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Berkeley (City) retained Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) to conduct a Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department (Department). This assessment includes a review of the adequacy of current and future deployment systems , staffing levels throughout the Department, sustainable alternatives, beat struc ture, overtime, and organizational structure. The methodology utilized in this study can be found in Section 1 of this report.
Citygate’s review includes a detailed analysis of the data that drives staffing recommendations including data related to police unit response tim es, crime, calls for service, and overtime. The review also includes a staffing analysis of supervision, management, and support functions within each division of the Department. Our work was combined with a review of the City’s ongoing efforts related to alternative response methods to non-police or low-level emergencies and other care needs in the City. This transition is already underway to provide appropriate alternative services to the co mmunity when a tr aditional 9-1-1 police patrol response is not necessary.
Citygate’s assessment encompasses recommendations to support the Department’s success over the next five to seven years.
Overall, this report contains 74 key findings and 54 specific, actionable recommendations. Findings and recommendations are presented in their narrative context in Sections 2 through Section 7. A comprehensive list of all findings and recommendations is presented sequentially in Section 8. Recommendations are also presented in Table 1 of this Executive Summary.
POLICY CHOICES FRAMEWORK
Currently, there are no mandatory federal or state regulations directing the level of police field service staffing, response times, and necessary outcomes.
The International Asso ciation of Chiefs of Po lice (IACP) and the In ternational City/County Management Association (ICMA) recommend methods for determining appropriate staffing levels based on local priorities. The National Emergency Number Asso ciation (NENA) provides standards for 9-1- 1 call answering, and the Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials International (APCO) and the International Academies of Emergency Dispatching (IAED) provide best practices that illuminate staffing needs for communications centers providing dispatch services.
Using a data-driven framework as advocated in this report —and already embraced and practiced by the Department —the City can continue to engage the community in adapting future public safety services to utilize alternative and community-focused, non-police officer strategies to address community-wide, neighborhood, and social issues.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 2
Personnel costs are often the most significant cost center in any depa rtment budget. One of the City Council’s greatest challenges is managing scarce fiscal resources and allocating them wisely across the vast needs of municipal government public safety operations. The recommendations in this Workload Organizational Study are made based on best practices, Citygate’s experience, and guidelines established by professional industry organizations. The City’s fiscal capabilities and non-9-1-1 alternative services delivery measures must be considered when weighing these recommendations.
GENERAL SUMMARY OF CITYGATE’S ASSESSMENT
Citygate commends the Department and the Ci ty for its many innovative, forward-looking, and community-focused programs, including its Transparency Hub; the Mental Health Division’s Mobile Crisis Unit; the Specialized Care Unit, which provides cr isis service with no police involvement; the prioritization of employee wellness; the Community Services Bureau (CSB) and its community liaisons; and the Bike Team. Residents can call 9-1-1 for life-threatening emergencies and can ask dispatchers for mental h ealth support. All Mobile Crisis Team (MCT) calls may be accompanied by fire fighter-paramedics or police officers, who ensure safety at the scene while allowing the MCT to assist. If such calls are made when MCT members are off duty, City police officers have extensive experience helping people through mental health and substance abuse crises, and regularly utilize de-escalation and crisis intervention strategies. Further, the City’s Specialized Care Unit (SCU) is a partnership program with Bonita House, Inc. Staff assigned to the SCU will respond to those unde rgoing a mental health- or substance-use-related crisis without police involvement.
The Chief of Police has also recently created a new Deputy Chief’s position and a new unit: the Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability ( OSPA). The Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability will report directly to the Chief and will serve as a pivotal entity in enhancing data- driven approaches in policing performance, Departmental accoun tability, risk management, and oversight—as well as addressing community and external stakeholder needs.
Throughout Citygate’s assessment, Citygate found a department with high professionalism at all levels and a staff willing to implement new ideas and technologies to improve policing in the City.
The members of the Department are extremely dedicated to the community they serve. No organization is perfect, and many of the findings and recommendations in this report are items the Department is aware of and is already taking steps to implement. Some changes will take time and require resources as part of the Department’s normal budgeting process.
All of the City’s work to date and the issues researched for this study present two policy challenges for the Council and commun ity to work together on —not to the exclusion of one or the other. Both challenges require resources b ecause, if one set of services falls short, other services and overall public well-being can be negatively impacted.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 3
Challenge #1
Maintain Emergency and Needed Police Services Commensurate to Current Demands i Citygate found that many s ections of the Department —especially Patrol and the Communications Center (Dispatch) —suffer from a shortage in staffing , which frequently necessitates overtime or diverting staff from other units to fill vacancies in Patrol.
i Many sworn members, particularly those with supervisory responsibilities, are responsible for several ancillary duties and often find themselves spending increasingly more time on administrativ e tasks apart from their primary duties, which include leadership and supervision in the field.
i The Department also faces hurdles in recruiting, hiring, and training new staff while keeping pace with attrition as th e public perception of the law enforcement profession evolves. To heighten the focus on recruiting, the Chief has recently assigned a full-time Recruitment Officer.
i Overall, from 9-1-1 call receipt to the arrival of the right resource in response to a specific incident —whether Patrol, Investigations, Traffic, Mobile Crisis Team, etc.—there are multiple current limitations adversely affecting the Department’s efforts to meet the high volume of calls for assistance received every hour. i Staffing shortages and technical limitations affect morale, overtime, recruitment, and retention.
Challenge #2
Grow Non-9-1-1 Services to Support Berkeley’s Compassionate and Caring Human Services The City is actively working on reimagining public safety, a process initiated in 2021. City goals emphasize a more holistic, integrated, and community-centered approach to society’s needs that do not require an emergent polic e/fire/ambulance response. The City’s goals, and the work the City has already started, aim to address these needs by incorporating a range of professionals and response strategies.
i Alternatives to a police patrol response require the programs to be developed and non-sworn personnel to be hired—such as Community Service Officers (CSOs) and specialists for response to people experiencing homelessness-related issues or mental health crisis.
i Building the desired enhanced programs requires planning, mid-managers, recruitment, training, and quality of care oversight —all of which the Department is strained to provide currently.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 4
i The Specialized Care Unit (SCU) is an innovative part nership program between the City of Berkeley and Bonita House, Inc. The SCU currently operates 24 hours per day Sunday through Wednesday. The SCU also operates from 6:00 am to 4:00 pm Thursday through Saturday. When someone calls 9-1-1, they can ask public safety dispatchers for support related to mental health or substance-use issues, which may also come in the form of the Mental Health Division’s Mobile Crisis Unit. Firefighter-paramedics or police officers may also accompany all Mobile Crisis Unit calls, while an SCU response is one with no police involvement. The SCU can be reached directly if someone is undergoing a mental health- or substance-use-related crisis and needs assistance.
i The Vision Zero Action Plan is a strategy to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healt hy, and equitable mobility for all. It is, first and foremost, an engineering strategy that aims to design and build Berkeley streets to eliminate severe and fatal traffic injuries. Equity-driven Vision Zero traffic enforcement utilizes the best possible data and is focused on areas of the City where engineering and education efforts have already been implemented. i The Berkeley Police Department’s online Transparency Hub shares Police Department policies, actions, and data with City partners and community stakeholders. This data includes police stop data to ensure fair and impartial policing through an analysis of calls for service, use of force, and current trends. i The Department’s four Area Coordinators serve as community liaisons for the Department. They can help with long-term problems such as persistent issues with illegal dumping or abandoned vehicles.
CITYGATE’S RECOMMENDATIONS AND GOALS
Throughout this assessment, Citygate provides recommendations to serve the Department in its efforts to achieve the following six goals:
1. Increasing staffing in some areas and deploying and redeploying staff where and when they are most needed based on accurate and timely data and analysis.
2. In the context of employee wellness a nd accountability, carefully evaluating the various collateral duties many employees are assigned, giving particular attention to supervisors who are often being pulled from their supervisory roles.
3. Continuing efforts to track and manage overtime and limiting its use to when it is necessary.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 5
4. Continuing the Department’s strong and creative efforts related to data analysis to drive performance and continuous improvement.
5. Continuing the Department’s strong focus on employee wellness. A focus on wellbeing not only benefits individual employees but also promotes a healthier work environment, reducing the risk of fatigue and enhancing Departmental morale.
6. Improving employee retention and prioritizing employee morale. The benefits of improving police morale are many, including better service for the community, more community trust in the Department, and a motivated, purposeful workforce.
Citygate analyzed current capabilities to project future needs for the Department, with actionable recommendations and strategies provided for implementation based on the growth and development of the City. If this study’s recommendations are implemented over several fiscal years:
i The Department will be well positioned to deepen its ability to provide proactive policing.
i The community will be able to increase interaction with partners in the Department to foster joint crime prevention strategies.
i The prevention of crime and di sorder and the closure of i nvestigations of serious incidents will increase.
i When the public interacts with Berkeley police, they will know them and trust them to be fair —and will not assume they are representative of what is wrong with policing elsewhere in America.
SUMMARY OF POLICE SERVICES FINDINGS BY TOPIC
Organizational Summary
At the time of Citygate’s analysis, the Department was operating with an authorized (budgeted) total staffing level of 313.20 employees, which includes 181 total authorized sworn staff. The Department is currently organ ized into four major divisions —Operations, Investigations, Professional Standards, and Support Services—each commanded by a Police Captain. The Chief of Police recently informed staff of a planned Depa rtmental reorganization that will result in the creation of a new Deputy Chief’s position and a new Office of Strateg ic Planning and Accountability (OSPA). The reorganization w ill also entail a Captain being promoted to Deputy Chief, and units within the current Professional Standards Division being transferred to other Departmental offices or divisions.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 6
As part of this review, Citygate performed a benchmark analysis to contrast Department staffing with that of five selected comparator agencies. The agencies chosen were similarly situated municipal police departments with comparable geographical and population metrics. Citygate also utilized other. One benchmark measure assessed was the City’s rate of Part 1 Violent Crime and Part 1 Property Crime, along with the respective case clearance rates of the City and comparator agencies. Citygate noted that the Be rkeley’s property crime rate was higher than that of the five benchmark agencies. The City’s violent crime rate was second highest behind that of the City of Richmond.
The Department’s property crime clearance rates have remained consistent over the past five years, while incidents of propert y crime rose between 2018 and 2022. The Department’s violent crime clearance rates have improved since 2018 , with the 2022 rate being 33.3 percent —which was equal to the city of Fremont’s but lower than the cities of Hayward (39.6), Concord (35.8), and Santa Clara (51.9).
Citygate also reviewed overtime data for ev ery organizational unit and learned that most Department overtime is spent in Patrol, Commu nications (Dispatch), and Investigations. The Department realized a 13 percent reduction in overtime in 2023 and can now closely monitor and manage overtime expenditures down to the level of individual employees. The Department’s efforts to track, manage, and reduce overtime—along with a reduction in the number of beats from 16 to 14—appear to be effective.
Operations Division (Patrol)
The field Operations Divisi on is organized into seven Patrol teams responsible for uniformed police response to the community.
Additionally, the Operations Division includes the Community Services Bureau (CSB) and a Bike Team. Each of the four CSB officers are assigned to a quadrant of the City where they serve as community liaisons who focus their time on addressing long-term neighborhood concerns. The CSB also houses the Data Analysis Team, which has created an impressive Transparency Hub that provides the public and staff access to a wide range of police data. Finally, Bike Team officers spend most of their time focusing on retail areas downtown and south of the university campus.
They address qualify-of-life issues, which relieves Patrol officers of many of these responsibilities.
Support Services Division
The Support Services Division in cludes the City Jail, the Technology Unit, the Property and Evidence Room, the Records Bureau, and the Communications Bureau.
An issue of high concern within the Communications Center (Dispatch) of Support Services is dispatcher staffing and overtime. The Department has been successful in recruiting new dispatchers, which should eventually result in a much-needed reduction in overtime.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 7
The City’s Computer-Aided-Dispatch (CAD) system urgently needs replacement. Its outdated technology, inefficient database schema, and unint uitive interface hinder effective emergency response. This extends to re cords management, corrections, and mo bile field reporting systems.
While upgrading will require additional implementation costs, the benefits of a modern, integrated system far outweigh the challenges related to persisting with obsolet e technology. Superior alternatives exist, promising enhanced efficiency and effectiveness across emergency services.
The City Jail is led by a Sergeant, who is responsible for oversight of three civilian supervisors and 14 Community Service Officer jailer s. Between January 2022 and December 2022, Department officers booked 5,902 arrestees —a daily average of 16 arrestees. Recruitment for Community Service Officers (CSOs) is arduous. Citygate sees an opportunity for improvement by forming a Recruitment and Retention Committee. A civilian ma nager may be a good fit for this all-civilian unit.
A Sergeant leads the Technology Unit. The Unit is an ancillary duty for five other members.
Citygate sees an opportunity to improve operational efficiency by transferring the Sergeant to a position that requires uniformed supervision and filling the current posit ion with a civilian Information Technology Specialist who can provide long-term technical expertise to the Unit and Department.
Citygate learned that the Department has made online reporting available to the public by using Coplogic. Citygate applauds this effort as it provides a viable alternative for those who wish to report certain offenses. Using Coplogic, a victim of a crime can enter their information into an online report form and receive a temporary report/incident number. Reports that do not involve a suspect, or only involve the theft of property, can be performed online and do not require the presence of an officer.
Our review of Property and Evidence revealed some areas for improvement, including the need to add temporary staff to reliev e backlogs. Citygate also believes Property and Evidence would benefit greatly by measuring its policies, procedures, and practices against those in the Law Enforcement Evidence and Property Management Guide (Fourth Edition, 2022).1 Investigations Division
Citygate found several areas where we believe the Investigations Division can be improved. For example, Investigations staff have not made full use of an existing case management system that would help to track detective caseloads including open cases, closed cases, and those held in a pending status—which are mostly property crimes cases that lack investigative leads.
1 https://post.ca.gov/portals/0/post_docs/publications/Evidence_and_Property_Management.pdf
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 8
Professional Standards Division
A Lieutenant leads the Personnel and Training Unit and oversees a Sergeant, four civilian Police Aides, and two other professional staff (eight personnel total). The Unit is responsible for working closely with the Human Resources Depa rtment, assigning and reviewing background investigations, conducting applicant interviews, coordinating academies and recruits, managing the armory, facilitating the H onor Guard, coordinating police aides , managing defensive tactics and firearms units, coordinating chaplains, ordering and accounting for ammunition, coordinating with Bay Alarm for support, coordinating with the recruiting team, and more.
When interviewing staff, Citygate found a theme: many personnel have a difficult time completing their primary responsibilities due to numerous ancillary duties. One of the ancillary duties includes the recruiting team. Citygate believes there is room to improve recruiting by removing it as an ancillary duty responsibility and making it a primary duty. A recruitment plan would also help to guide individuals (or a team) and track results. The Chief recently announced the creation of a new officer’s role that will be wholly dedicated to recruiting.
The Audit and Inspection Unit was formerly staffed by a Sergeant; however, the Sergeant was temporarily reassigned in February of 2024, and the position’s duties have since been absorbed into the new Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA).
CITYGATE RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING PRIORITIES
The following table lists all recommendations in summary form and identifies the following:
i Recommendations that can be implemented at no cost (other than staff time). i Remaining recommendations that will require a General Fund expense to implement.
i The funding priority level for any recommendations requiring funding. i Staffing additions associated with the implementation of a recommendation — noted in parentheses immediately next to the “X” in the Funding Priority columns to the right of the table—which are totaled at the bottom of the table.
NOTE: While funding priorities are identi fied, these recommendations are not presented in a general priority order. Greater context and further content related to each recommendation is provided throughout this report.
FTE numbers in the “No Cost” column followed by an asterisk indicate positions that are already authorized/funded.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 9
Table 1—Recommendations and Funding Priorities
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2
Organizational Review
EMPLOYEE SURVEY
1. Given the percentage of Employee Survey respondents who indicated a willingness to leave the Department within three years, Citygate believes there is a pressing need for the Department to implement strategic retention strategies to foster a more supportiv
e organizational culture and mitigate potential
turnover.
X
POLICE BEATS
2. Retain the 14-Beat model while continuing to collapse the number of beats to 7 beginning at or about 2:00 am (0200 hours). X
3. The Department’s strong data and predictive analysis should dictate where staff are assigned. Periodically review beat activity and workload demand and adjust as necessary.
X
OVERTIME
4. Continue to record, analyze, and manage overtime to reduce the likelihood of employee fatigue and burnout. X
Office of the Chief of Police Review
ADMINISTRATIVE AND FISCAL SERVICES
5. By adding a Senior Management Analyst and an Associate Management Analyst (which can likely be filled by promoting one of the three existing Assistant Management Analysts), Citygate believes the Unit can keep better pace with work demands while also creating a career ladder, which is critical
given that the
current Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager will be eligible to retire over the next two years.
X (1)
INTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU
6. Given the number of complaints received by the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB), the time constraints related to completing investigations, and many other administrative demands—
including those required of the Director of Police Accountability and outlined in the City Charter, which often involve significant IAB staff time—Citygate recommends that the Department add one clerical support staff position to the IAB.
X (1)
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 10
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2
Operations Division Review
7. Given the number of reported Level 1 uses of force in Berkeley—in which a subject did not experience more than temporary discomfort—Citygate recommends the City and
Department modify use of force reporting requirements to those more in line with the policies of the cities of Fremont, Hayward, Richmond, San Leandro, and Santa Clara, whose Lexipol-
created policies comply with both state and federal law.
X
8. Restore Patrol staffing by adding 15 additional officers—four officers each to teams 1, 2, and 3; and three officers to Team 7— bringing the total from the current 58 to 73. It is Citygate’s understanding that these additional positions are funded but not currently filled. The added staffing would reduce the need for Patrol overtime, which would reduce the likelihood of fatigue and burnout while affording officers the ability to take time off without the need to “sell” shifts.
[Note: “Selling” a shift occurs when Patrol
minimum staffing is reached, and Patrol officers want time off.
They are generally allowed such time off only if they can find another officer to fill in for them on an overtime basis.] X (15)*
9. Add five CSOs (Citygate understands these positions have already been funded) to support Patrol officers on weekday morning and evening shifts. Given existing call demands and committed time, Citygate believes the Department should strategically deploy five Patrol CSOs
to match those times of day
and days of week where Patrol time is most obligated currently (Day Shift and Swing Shift), which would help to reduce the committed time of Patrol officers, affording them more time for community engagement and
to be proactive while also ensuring
greater availability to respond to emergencies and cover assignments.
X (5)*
10. CSOs should be trained to take many non-emergency calls and write related reports, recover stolen vehicles and found property, tow abandoned vehicles, retrieve and download video evidence, transport witnesses and victims, etc.
X
11. After staffing is added to Patrol, create a team of five officers led by one Sergeant that can be flexibly deployed to quickly address most any emerging public safety issue, which might include organized retail theft, robberies, carjackings, etc.
Such a team might also serve as a field resource for detectives.
This team should also be one that can move rapidly across shifts and days of the week to address issues identified in the Department’s strategic analysis of crime.
X (6)
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 11
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2
12. The Department should continue to closely evaluate Patrol spans of control; call patterns, including the number, location, and types of calls; response time; unobligated (available) police time; and call
-handling (on-scene) time. These factors are essential in assessing Patrol’s staffing needs now and in the future. Further, even though call volume may remain stable in future years, call- handling time—and the nature/type of such calls along with other operational work demands—may suggest the need for more staff and/or the redeployment of existing staff to ensure Patrol can meet the service expectations of City residents.
X
13. When the Community Services Bureau’s PIO and Strategic Analysis Team are transferred to the Chief’s Office, the Bike Team should be realigned under the Community Services
Bureau, where the Community Services Bureau Lieutenant can provide oversight, thus relieving a Patrol Lieutenant from this responsibility.
X
Investigations Division Review
14. If, at full staffing, the recommended Patrol team is found to be overwhelmed and insufficient to manage narcotics investigations, the Department should consider creating a team comprised of detectives and a Sergeant to investigate narcotics offenses.
X
15. Investigations Division Supervisors and managers should make broader use of the existing case management system within the current records management system to better track cases assigned to detectives. Each unit supervisor should be able to see the caseload carried by each detective in real time, including the number of open, closed, pending, and cleared cases.
X
16. Add a full-time, Real-Time Crime Analyst to support both Patrol and Investigations. This position will focus on rapidly operationalizing data to officers in the field and detectives working active cases.
X (1)
17. Construct a “soft” interview room to help victims and survivors feel safe and at ease when sharing difficult experiences. Such rooms can be used by survivors of crime, domestic abuse, sexual assault, and children in traumatic situations.
X
18. Develop a training matrix for Investigations. The training matrix should include a formal training program for newly assigned detectives and a list of POST/ICI training courses required for each detective.
X
19. Create a plan to reduce the number of daily trips detectives make to the crime lab in Richmond. The addition of a CSO (or a retired annuitant) could relieve detectives from having to make frequent trips to Richmond for evidence pickup and drop-off X (1)
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 12
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2
20. Purchase software to install on additional computers in the Investigations Division that would allow detectives to review, save, and copy video footage from all available sources within the City—including City-owned street cameras, officer body-worn cameras, and private cameras in situations where the owners have given the Department access.
X
21. Consider hiring a cold case detective, potentially a retired annuitant, to investigate cold cases. X (1)
22. Consider adding a second School Resource Officer to Berkeley High School given the extensive workload of the current SRO.
X (1)
23. Add one additional Crime Scene Technician to the current staff of four. X (1)
TRAFFIC BUREAU
24. The Department should endeavor to fully staff the Traffic Bureau so that it can handle most (if not all) injury collisions, as well as increase education and enforcement efforts in traffic safety. These changes would significantly free Patrol personnel to focus on their primary responsibilities.
X (4)*
25. Create a structured plan for targeted enforcement and educational initiatives based on analyzing variables associated with high crash data from the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) and the Traffic Injury Mapping System (TIMS).
X
26. Continue to expand the use of statistical data for deployment of Traffic Unit personnel. X
27. Expand the use of social media to inform the public of traffic safety and enforcement efforts to enhance their impact on driving behavior. Use of social media and other approaches to promote bicycle and pedestrian safety and enforcement efforts could also be effective.
[Note: At the time of Citygate’s writing of this report, the Public Information Officer was being moved to the Office of the Chief as part of a new Office of Strategic Communications.] X
28. Add a civilian CSO to conduct or aid in collision
investigations and traffic educational/safety presentations. This would be more cost-effective than an additional Traffic Unit officer and would allow for increased traffic enforcement by current Traffic Unit officers.
X (1)
29. Build the Traffic Unit comprising both Motorcycle officers and Patrol cars. Traffic enforcement and collision investigation can be effectively conducted using either a car or a motorcycle.
X
30. Consider working with an OTS Law Enforcement Liaison to acquire an Allied Agency Reporting Service (i.e., Crossroads) via grant.
X
31. The Traffic Bureau should collaborate with the City Traffic Engineer to update outdated traffic surveys. X
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 13
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2
32. Consider appointing an additional supervisor within the Parking Enforcement Unit to mitigate the current extensive span of control and decrease overtime.
X (1)
33. At current (reduced) staffing levels, consider expanding the workload and responsibilities of the Traffic Unit Lieutenant or reallocating the position to a role where it can be more effectively utilized. At full staffing, Citygate believes the Lieutenant’s position is justified.
X
Professional Standards Division Review
34. To reduce unnecessary resignations, the Department should consider establishing a Retention Team with members from several different units to review and evaluate exit interviews. The committee can identify preventable reasons for resignations and make recommendations to improve employee retention.
X
35. When the Policy and Planning Unit is transferred during the Department’s planned reorganization, the roles and
responsibilities of the Sergeant should be more narrowly focused to allow for the successful completion of all assigned duties. If additional responsibilities are included, consideration should be given to adding a clerical support position.
X (1)
Support Services Division Review
BERKELEY PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER (JAIL)
36. The Department should proceed with securing a contract for an architect to upgrade the control board, add cameras, and potentially expand the size and functionality of the Booking Room at the Jail facility.
X
37. Consider creating a civilian manager position and
reassigning the sworn supervisor to oversee the Property Room (as per the property recommendation) or reallocating the Sergeant to address a higher-priority need for sworn supervision.
X (1)
38. Consider reducing the requirement to always have three CSOs on duty, given that the booking officer is required to remain in the booking area during the processing of an arrestee.
X
39. Consider a change to the current requirement that does not allow CSOs to transport prisoners. Such a change would
necessitate additional training for the CSOs but would reduce overtime and the need for two sworn staff members during transportation.
X
40. Consider further study of a four-team, 12-hour shift model for Jail operations. Citygate believes this model could potentially increase the number of CSOs on-duty, providing opportunities for CSOs to aid in prisoner transportation, patrol duties, or other assigned responsibilities.
X
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 14
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2
TECHNOLOGY UNIT
41. Evaluate the number of responsibilities managed by
Technology Unit staff. Consider reducing service levels or adding more staff.
X
42. Consider appointing a full-time civilian information technology specialist to oversee the Technology Unit rather than relying on a sworn Sergeant. This transition will ensure stability, expertise, and continuity in navigating the Department through the ever-evolving technology field.
X (1)
43. Consider investigating alternative software solutions for all facets of police operations. Prioritizing the convenience of retaining current software vendors should not overshadow the importance of advancing operational efficiency.
X
44. Consider adding categories such as Non-Injury Traffic Accidents, Non-Injury Hit-and-Run Traffic Accidents, and Non- Injury Single-Vehicle-Property-Damage-Only Traffic Accidents as options within the online reporting system. Software solutions offered by companies like LexisNexis can facilitate this initiative.
By diverting or referring more calls for service to online reporting, the Department would likely create more available time for officers in Patrol
—which could ultimately help to reduce overtime
usage within the Department.
X
PROPERTY ROOM
45. The Department could enhance its efficiency by establishing a short-term, dedicated task force to address the evidence backlog and improve and streamline the organization of evidence and property rooms. The Unit’s ongoing, permanent staffing should consist of one Supervisor, two full-time Specialists, and one part-time staff member capable of providing support for both planned and unplanned absences and conducting periodic audits.
X
46. The Department should conduct a thorough assessment of the current state of property and evidence facilities including the physical infrastructure, storage capacity, security measures, and compliance with current standards. The Department should also consider a POST review of current evidence practices,
procedures, and policies.
X
47. Citygate has provided Property and Evidence staff with the POST Property and Evidence Function’s Agency Self-Evaluation (revised February 2022) and recommended that the Supervisor and staff review it annually. Given the sensitive nature of evidence, effective risk management requires thorough oversight and rigorous control measures.
X
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Executive Summary page 15
Recommendation No Cost Funding
Priority 1
Funding
Priority 2
RECORDS UNIT
48. The Department would benefit from staffing the Records Unit with an Office Specialist I to manage the increased volume of CPRA requests. Adding such an entry-level specialist would help existing staff meet their work demands.
X (1)
49. Consider enrolling both Office Specialist III positions in the POST 40-hour Records Supervisor Course to support their professional development and to assist in meeting some of the requirements outlined in their job specifications.
X
50. The ergonomic features and capabilities of workstations, along with workstation and workflow analysis, should be assessed and tailored to enhance operational efficiency.
X
51. There are numerous resources available for team building, and one particularly effective resource for fostering team trust and performance is Patrick Lencioni’s book, The Five
Dysfunctions of a Team: The Official Guide to Conducting the Five Dysfunctions Workshops for Teams and Team Leaders. The Department should contemplate appointing a trusted executive team leader to implement some of the facilitated learning outlined in the book.
X
COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
52. New recruitment and retention efforts for dispatchers should be continued. X
53. Consider prioritizing the planning and acquisition of additional floor space and workstations to meet current and future needs of the PSAP. The Department should consider utilizing another City- owned facility or reconfiguring the adjoining office space (Bike Unit) for expansion.
X
54. Consider increasing Supervisory Public Safety Dispatcher staffing from four to six to ensure proper leadership and supervision for all shifts.
X (2)
Total Recommended Personnel by Priority --* 4 15
Total Recommended Personnel 19
* Indicates positions which have already been authorized by the City; 31 sworn personnel are currently funded but vacant In total, Citygate recommends 19 new personnel in addition to the Department’s 31 currently vacant sworn positions. This report also details where Citygate believes some positions could be transferred or eliminated and replaced by civilian specialists.
This page was intentionally left blank
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 17
SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION
Citygate Asso ciates, LLC (Citygate) is pleased to present this Staffing Needs Assessment and Organizational Analysis for the City of Berkeley (City) Police Department (Department). This introductory section will discuss th e organization of the assessment, the project scope of work, and the methodology used by Citygate.
1.1 R EPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized into the following sections.
Executive
Summary
A summary of Citygate’s general assessment of current services. A table that lists all of Citygate’s recommendations and their funding priority levels is also provided.
Section 1 Introduction: An introduction to the report’s organization; goals, including project scope; and project methodology.
Section 2
Organizational Review: A discussion of City and agency background, history, and organization. The City’s crime data, overtime, organizational structure, and the internal employee (SWOT) survey are also discussed.
Section 3 Office of the Chief of Police Review: A review of the Chief’s Office, including Internal Affairs and the Office of Administrative and Fiscal Services.
Section 4
Operations Division (Patrol) Review: A review of Patrol services, the Community Services Bureau, and the Bike Team, including staffing, scheduling, and supervision. Workload analysis and an assessment of response times is also included.
Section 5
Investigations Division Review: A review of the Investigations Division, including the Investigations Bureau (detectives), the Traffic Bureau, and Youth Services.
Section 6
Professional Standards Division Review: A review of the Professional Standards Division, which includes Personnel and Training, Policy and Planning, and Audit and Inspection.
Section 7
Support Services Division Review: A review of the Support Services Bureau, which includes Records, Communications (Dispatch), Property and Evidence, the City Jail, and the Technology Unit.
Section 8
Summary of Personnel Priorities and Findings and Recommendations: A comprehensive list of all personnel full-time equivalent (FTE) recommendations and their associated priority levels that appear in this report, and a sequential list of all findings and recommendations that appear throughout the report.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 18
1.2 P ROJECT OVERVIEW
1.2.1 Project Scope
Citygate was retained to c onduct a comprehensive Workload Organizational Study of the Berkeley Police Department. The scope of Citygate’s analysis included the following elements.
i Provide a complete review and analysis of organizational structure; staffing levels based on current workload and projected workload.
i Determine whether the allocation of resources of the divisions is efficient and adequate for the Department's needs. Review the current workload data such as:
calls for police service, received and dispatched; breakdown of calls for service by type, frequency, distribution, relative priority, and response times. i Establish performance objectives to include a ratio of calls for service available for proactive/discretionary time.
i Review operations for assessing effectiveness and recommend efficiencies with geographical boundaries of patrol zones based on response times, workload, and resource deployment.
i Evaluate the current beat structure and deployment model; make recommendations on whether a beat, sector or hybrid model best suits the needs of our City. i Evaluate the Department’s current rank structure, the number of managers and supervisors at every level and function, and the authority at each level of the chain of command, with an emphasis on effective strategies for professional development.
i Review and evaluate the impact on existing resources and workload to comply with the new laws (SB 1421) requiring review and disclosure of digital evidence and media.
i Evaluate current building facilities relative to current and future staffing, parking, equipment storage, and training needs.
i Define critical issues facing the Department over the next five years; analyze impact of critical issues on staffing levels and calls for service. i Project the Department’s attrition for the next ten years. i Analyze current ancillary duty assignments to determine what can and should be outsourced or handled as a regional responsibility.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 19
i Forecast future needs considering both short and long-term objectives, community growth, and any other factors that could change staffing requirements. i Evaluate the efficiency of the online reporting system and assess any additional services that can be enhanced or handled with technology such as video chat, mobile apps, etc.
i Analyze staff overtime causes and identify alternative solutions. i Any other organizational improvements that can be made to enhance overall service. This will also include consider ation for the morale and well-being of the police staff.
1.2.2 Project Methodology
In preparing this Workload Organizational Study, Citygate consultants engaged in the following processes.
i Reviewed available documents and records relating to the management, operation, staffing, training, and budgeting of the Department.
i Conducted an anonymous online internal emp loyee survey to assess Department strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT). i Interviewed sworn and professional sta ff throughout the Depa rtment along with other City staff and elected officials
i Conducted an on-site visit of Department facilities.
i Reviewed available computer-aided dispatch (CAD) and workload measurement data.
i Conducted a legislative review, interviews, and review of organizational impacts. i Considered best practices in other agencies and recommended by police professional organizations when applicable to the Department.
1.2.3 Acknowledgements
Citygate would like to thank the members of the Berkeley Police Department for their participation in this assessment and acknowledge the diligent work ethic within the Department. The vast majority of employees made time in their busy schedules for interviews, to acquire requested information, and to provide historical perspective and context related to issues necessary for this assessment.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 20
1.3 C ITY OF BERKELEY PROFILE
i The City’s 2024 population is estimated to be 127,230. i The City is growing at an annualized average rate of 3.36 percent and its population has increased by 2.43 percent since the most recent census, which recorded a population of 124,206
i ABAG projects the city will grow to a population of 136,000 by 2030 and to 141,000 by 2040
i The median household income is $95,360
i About 42 percent of the City’s households are considered low income i Seniors ages 65 to 74 are the fastest-growing age group and now comprise 9.2 percent of the population
i Residents ages 15 to 24 comprise the largest age group at 33,051 residents i The median age in the city is 32.5 years
i The City’s total land mass covers 10.5 square miles
1.3.1 Demographics
The following table reflects 2023 data sourced from World Population Review and the City’s General Plan (Housing Needs, Section 3).
Table 2—Berkeley Demographic Percentages by Race and Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Percentage of
Population
White 55.49
Asian 21
Hispanic/Latinx 11
Two or more races 9.82
Black or African American 7.7
Other race 5.22
Native American .69
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander .21
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 21
According to the City’s Housing Element Update: 2023–2031:
i The City’s population is anticipated to continue to grow steadily between 2020 and 2040 based on ABAG Plan Bay Area 2040 projections.
i City residents ages 15 to 24 comprised the largest group in both 2010 (29 percent) and 2019 (27.2 percent).
i While the population ages 15 to 24 stay ed relatively flat between 2010 and 2019, the population ages 25 to 34 increased by 25 percent, suggesting that students may be choosing to stay in Berkeley after their degree is complete. i Berkeley’s household income increased by 11.4 percent between 2010 and 2019. i 42 percent of City households are considered lower income, earning less than 80 percent of the median income.
i American Indian / Alaska Native, Asian /API, and Black / African American households are all more likely to fall w ithin one of the lower income categories when compared to City households as a whole.
i The largest employer in the City is the University of California, Berkeley (13,750 employees, or 20.3 percent) followe d by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (3,773 employees, or 5.8 percent).
1.3.2 University of California, Berkeley
The University of California Berkeley’s total Fall/Spring Year -Average Headcount (Undergraduate and Graduate) over the past decade is shown in the following table.
Year Year-Average
Headcount
2014–15 37,775
2015–16 37,289
2016–17 39,234
2017–18 40.955
2018–19 41,433
2019–20 42,107
2020–21 41,189
2021–22 43,931
2022–23 44.194
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 22
Total Fall 2023 student enrollment was 33,078 unde rgraduates and 12,621 graduate students (a total of 45,699 students).
Approximately 27 percent (roughly 7,000) of UC Berkeley’s undergraduates live in university - owned, operated, or affiliated housing. The remaining 73 percent live off-campus. Popular neighborhoods near campus include North Berkeley and Southside.
The UC Berkeley Campus Master Plan of 2022 includes a long-range development plan population projection, which projects a growth from 39,710 students (2018–2019) to 48,200 students in 2036– 2037. The plan also projects a growth of faculty and staff from 15,420 19,000 within the same timeframe.2
UC Berkeley currently owns approximately 9,020 beds for students and faculty, which are located in the cities of Berkeley and Albany. The Campus Master Plan has identified a future need for approximately 10,200 to 11,730 net new beds. Most of this net new residential demand is anticipated to be accommodated through undergraduate apartments.3
1.3.3 City Crime Data
Part I Crimes
Many crimes are not reported to the police by victims. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program’s focus in statistical reporting separates re ported crime into two categories, with four crimes in each category. These are referred to as “Part I Violent Crimes” and “Part I Property Crimes,” as detailed in the following figure.
Figure 1—Part I Crimes Categories
Part I Violent Crimes Part I Property Crimes
Homicide Burglary
Sexual Assault Motor Vehicle Theft
Robbery Larceny Theft
Aggravated Assault Arson
The following table reflects both categories of the City’s Part I crimes data over a six-year period analyzed by Citygate.
2 UC Berkeley’s Long Range Development Plan: https://capitalstrategies.berkeley.edu/campus-planning/planning- documents
3 UC Berkeley Master Plan 2022: https://berkeley.app.box.com/s/nvwnlm1xgivdq8pvmd0g5joys3bhvgcl
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 1—Introduction page 23
Table 3—Berkeley Part I Crime Data (2018–2023)
Crime Type
Number of Incidents
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
VIOLENT CRIME 586 618 537 542 666 766
Homicide 1 0 6 1 3 1
Sexual Assault 65 74 47 57 89 97
Robbery 353 369 274 274 292 386
Aggravated Assault 167 175 210 210 282 282
PROPERTY CRIME 5,381 6,256 5,535 5,703 6,483 7,194
Burglary 820 771 797 814 1,036 1,228
Motor Vehicle Theft 548 492 805 1,114 836 1,350
Larceny Theft 4,004 4,993 3,933 3,775 4,611 4,532
Arson 31 17 52 68 52 84
Source: California DOJ, Open Justice, Data Exploration; 2023 data from Department’s Annual Crime Report (2023) The City’s five-year average for violent crime was 590 (2018–2022). The property crime average over the same period was 5,872. In 2022, both violent crimes and property crimes reflected increases over the City’s five-year average.
The City also experienced significant increases in several Part 1 crime categories in 2023. Overall:
i Part 1 crime rose by 15 percent.
i Robberies rose by 32 percent.
i Overall property crime rose approximately 11 percent, driven largely by increases in burglaries (18.5 percent), and motor vehicle theft (61.5 percent). i Total violent crime (766) in 2023 was nearly 30 percent above the five-year average of violent crime of 590.
i Property crime (7,194) in 2023 was 22.5 percent above the five-year average of 5,872.
Both overall violent crime and overall property crime have shown consistent increases each of the past three years since 2020.
This page was intentionally left blank
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 25
SECTION 2—ORGANIZATIONAL REVIEW
2.1 M ISSION, VISION, VALUES, AND PRIORITIES
As detailed in the City’s 2022 Law Enforcement Services Manual, the Berkeley Police Department’s mission, vision, values, and current priorities are as follows.
Mission
United in service, our mission is to safeguard our diverse community through proactive law enforcement and problem solving, treating all people with dignity and respect.
Vision
The Berkeley Police Department will be a team of leaders at every level. We will foster strong relationships with our community, inspiring trust through our service, building on our historic tradition of progressive policing, and dedicated to the safety of all.
Values
Service is our calling. As members of this community, the Berkeley Police Department team is committed to proactive law enforcement and problem solving, holding these as our core values:
Integrity: We are ethical, fair, and trustworthy in all we do.
Safety: We strive to keep our community and each other safe.
Respect: We fulfill our duties with dignity, compassion, and empathy.
Diversity: We value the strength of a diverse workplace and community. We endeavor to reflect the community we serve, promoting inclusion and fairness.
Professionalism: We commit to organization al excellence t hrough progressive training, positive attitude, and superior performance.
Current Priorities
i Service
i Recruiting and Retention
i Communication/Collaboration
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 26
2.2 S TAFFING AND ATTRITION
As of May 2024, Department staffing stands at 15 0 sworn personnel, while authorized staffing stands at 181 sworn personnel. Additionally, 24 of 150 officers are eligible to retire during 2024.
The following table shows the Department’s historic sworn staffing levels.
Table 4—Historical Sworn Staffing Levels
Year Sworn Staffing
2010 178
2011 172
2012 171
2013 170
2014 169
2015 174
2016 174
2017 172
2018 161
2019 170
2020 174
2021 161
2022 156
2023 153
Citygate’s review of attrition within the Department is reflected in the following table.
Table 5—Berkeley Police Department Attrition
Year Retirements Resignations Other Total
2016 9 7 0 16
2017 12 8 0 20
2018 5 11 0 16
2019 6 5 0 11
2020 11 1 1 13
2021 11 7 2 20
2022 5 7 0 12
2023 4 3 0 7
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 27
As the table shows, the Department is losing an average of 13 employees per year, which is in addition to 31 current vacancies.
One other concern that became prominent during Citygate’s assessment of the Department was the frequent use of “provisional” assignments or promotions. These are temporary promotions to fill critical supervisory and managerial roles until a permanent candidate is identified and appoin ted. In response to c oncerns about these temporary assignments, the Chief has already taken steps to reduce their impact — limiting their duration to six months, timing such transiti ons around “timesheets,” and naming the next permanent promotions as soon as an upcoming vacancy is identified.
2.3 E MPLOYEE SURVEY
With the assistance of Department staff, Cityga te conducted an online survey of Department personnel, with a total of 68 employees responding to the survey. Eighteen (18) responses were received from professional staff, a nd 50 (73.5 percent) were receiv ed from sworn staff. Of the Department’s four major divisions , there were 39 Operations personnel who responded to the survey (57 percent of all respondents), 13 personnel from Investigations, 12 personnel from Support Services, and 4 personnel assigned to Professional Standards.
Relative to the tenure of respondents:
i 1 had less than a year of service.
i 6 had 1 to 3 years of service.
i 7 had 4 to 5 years of service.
i 14 had 6 to 10 years of service.
i 12 had 10 to 15 years of service.
i 25 had 16 to 25 years of service.
i 3 had more than 25 years of service.
2.3.1 Employee Survey Key Findings
Finding #1: 51 of the 68 respondents to Citygate’s Employee Survey indicated that they dedicate at least two hours daily to collateral assignments.
Finding #2: 42 personnel who responded to the Employee Survey self-identified as “engaging in proactive activities.” Within this subgroup, 25 respondents indicated that they spend one hour or less on proactive activities daily. This outcome suggests that
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 28
Operations staff may have limited capacity to engage in proactive policing, which is supported by narrative comments from some respondents.
Finding #3: Analysis of the data from 68 respondents to the Employee Survey revealed a significant risk of employee attrition, with 60 percent of Department respondents indicating an intent to leave the Department within three years. This outcome suggests multiple concerns related to the retention of personnel.
Finding #4: Respondents to the Employe e Survey who indicated a desire to leave the Department within three years also e xpressed neutral to negative sentiments related to the strengths and opportunities of the Department, suggesting a personal disengagement from the Department’s mission.
Finding #5: Another notable revelation related to pers onnel who indicated an intent to leave the Department in the near future was that when re spondents were questioned about their reasons for doing so, 34 respondents (52 percent) cited better job opportunities, while 30 respondents (46 percent) expressed concerns about the work environment or culture. In analysis of survey comments regarding the reasons behind these sentiments, Citygate found that many pointed towards a perceived lack of support from the community and City Council.
2.3.2 Employee Survey Recommendations
Recommendation #1: Given the percentage of Employee Survey respondents who indicated a willingness to leave the Department within three years, Citygate believes there is a pressing need for the Department to implement strategic retention strategies to foster a more supportive organizational culture and mitigate potential turnover.
2.4 O
RGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
The following figure shows the current organization al structure of the Department. As the figure shows, in the Department’s existing organizational structure, the Chief has a large span of control.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 29
Figure 2—Berkeley Police Department – Current Organizational Structure The Chief’s large span of control is especially clear when one considers the breadth of the Chief’s role, which involves significant time servi ng as a public liaison for the Department. Th e Chief’s role may involve meetings with other department heads; law enforcement leaders; the City Manager; members of City Council; members of the Police Accountability Board; relevant employee bargaining groups; and community members, including residents, business owners, and other stakeholder groups.
The following figure shows a proposed organizational structure to maximize the Department’s operational efficiency and improve the Chief’s span of control.
Figure 3—Berkeley Police Department – Proposed New Organizational Structure Chief of Police
Internal Affairs
Deputy Chief
Operations Division
Investigations
nvestigation
Division
Support Services /
Support Services /
Administrative and
Administrative and
Administrative and
Fiscal Services
Office of Strategic
Office of Strategic
Planning and
Planning and
Planning and
Accountability
Office of Strategic
Office of Strategic
Communications /
municat
municat
PIO
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 30
In the Department’s new organizational structure, the Chief’s span of control is reduced , which should afford the Chief more time and flexib ility to meet with staff and others —including members of the City Council and other City sta ff, community members, business owners and groups, faith-based leaders, parents, students, etc.
2.5 P OLICE BEAT ANALYSIS
2.5.1 Police Beat Structure
The following figures show the Department’s current , 14-beat configuration in contrast with the former 16-beat configuration. Under the new beat structure, beats collapse from 14 to 7 after 2:00 am, with the number of beats remaining at 7 until 11:00 am.
Figure 4—Current Beat Structure (14 Beats)
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 31
Figure 5—Former Beat Structure (16 Beats)
In the transition from 16 beats to 14, Beats 1 and 2 were combined into Beat 1. Former beats 8, 9, 10, and 11 have been reorganized into beats 8, 9 and 10. Another busy beat, Beat 6, was made smaller while Beat 5 was slightly enlarged.
2.5.2 Police Beat Service Demand
The Department dispatches calls for service (C FS) based on how urgently response is required.
The City’s Calls are prioritized into four categories as described by the City’s website:4 i PRIORITY 1 : Calls dispatched immediately. These calls include situations involving threat to life, crime of violence, in-progress felonies, missing juveniles (under 12 years old), and accidents with injuries.
i PRIORITY 2: These calls should be dispatched within 20 minutes. They include situations involving business or residential alarms, calls with a threat of violence,
4 https://berkeleyca.gov/safety-health/police/report-crime
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 32
and suspicious circumstances (involving suspicious vehicles, or suspicious persons).
i PRIORITY 3: These calls should be dispatched within 60 minutes. These are calls in which a significant amount of time has passed since the crime occurred. These include crimes such as burglary, thefts, and vandalism, with the responsible parties gone.
i PRIORITY 4 and PRIORITY 5 : These calls include parking matters and abandoned automobiles.
Citygate’s evaluation of calls-by-beat extends from 2018 through August of 2023 as shown in the following table. Thus, the analysis is of the Department’s 16-beat configuration, since the 14-beat structure was not implemented until the first quarter of 2023. The table shows data for Priority 1, Priority 2, and Priority 3 CFS only.
Table 6—Calls for Service by Beat (2018–2023)
Beat Priority 1 Priority 2 Priority 3 Total
1 2,022 5,942 6,107 14,071
2 2,269 8,083 4,910 15,262
3 1,589 5,821 2,754 10,164
4 4,250 12,170 5,623 22,043
5 1,529 4,489 2,766 8,784
6 2,951 9,417 4,614 16,982
7 2,204 7,653 5,589 15,446
8 1,772 7,182 3,469 12,423
9 2,450 7,140 3,490 13,080
10 2,266 5,291 2,857 10,414
11 2,169 5,716 4,692 12,577
12 2,219 6,058 4,284 12,561
13 1,482 3,997 3,786 9,265
14 1,049 3,760 2,118 6,927
15 654 1,866 1,179 3,699
16 664 2,213 1,280 4,157
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 33
As the table shows, under a 16-Beat configuration, the busiest beat by pub lic-generated call demand over the period of data analyzed by Citygate was Beat 4. Beat 4 is downtown and encompasses both Berkeley High School and Police Headquarters. As such, its disproportionately higher call volume is not surprisi ng. Beyond Patrol officer coverage, both Beat 4 and Beat 6 are also supported by Bike Team officers. There is also a School Resource Officer assigned to Berkeley High School. Beats 14, 15, and 16 combined (excluding an assessment of far fewer calls of lower priority) total 14,783 dis tinct incidents / CFS, while Beat 4 alone managed 22,043 CFS of the same three levels of highest priority. Beat 4 also had the highest number of Priority 1 incidents (4,250), followed by Beat 6 with 2,951 incidents. Beat 4 had the highest number of Priority 2 incidents (12,170), followed by Beat 6 (9,417) and Beat 2 (8,083). Beat 1 had the highest number of Priority 3 incidents (6,107), followed by 4 (5,623) and Beat 7 (5,589).
For the current, 14-Beat model, Beat 4 was reduced in size, which makes sense given its disproportionate workload. Additional changes in beat size appear to have reduced the inequity in calls demands.
2.5.3 Police Beat Findings
Finding #6: Given the wide disparity in call volume between some of the former 16 beats, the reduction in number from 16 to 14 in 2023 appears reasonable and consistent with the 2014 Patrol Beat study.
Finding #7: Collapsing of beats (from 14 to 7) beginning in the early morning appears to be a reasonable and wise use of limited resources given reduced call demands during such times.
Finding #8: Reducing the size of Beats 4 and 6 appears necessary given their higher call volumes.
Finding #9: The calls for service demand of beats 15 and 16 were much lower than those of other beats, which is consistent with the 2014 study.
2.5.4 Police Beat
Recommendations
Recommendation #2: Retain the 14-Beat model while continuing to collapse the number of beats to 7 beginning at or about 2:00 am (0200 hours).
Recommendation #3: The Department’s strong data and predictive anal ysis should dictate where staff are assigned. Periodically review beat activity and workload demand and adjust as necessary.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 34
2.6 B ENCHMARK ANALYSIS
As part of this review, Citygate has established several benchmark measurements with similarly situated municipal police agencies. When selecting benchmark agen cies, Citygate sought input from the Department as to which agencies the Department typically compares itself with. Citygate also utilized other geographical and population metrics. For the purposes of this assessment, the following municipal police agencies were used for benchmarking. i City of Fremont Police Department
i City of Hayward Police Department
i City of Richmond Police Department
i City of Concord Police Department
i City of Santa Clara Police Department
It should be noted that Citygate does not make staffing recommendations based on population measures (i.e., one officer per 1,000 residents). Rather, Citygate utilizes a data-informed workload analysis based on calls for service (CFS), which will be discussed later in this report. Nonetheless, population benchmarking does provide a snapshot in time of current, staffing-related ratios for an agency in comparison with other benchmark agencies.
2.6.1 Staffing Benchmark
The following staffing benchmark table compares chosen agen cies by population, the ratio of residents per officer, and the number of sworn police officers employed per 1,000 residents. The table is sorted by officers per 1,000 residents.
Table 7—Benchmark: Agency Staffing
Agency Population Sworn Citizens per
Officer
Officers per
1,000 Pop.
Berkeley PD 117,145 181 647* 1.55*
Santa Clara PD 121,151 153 792 1.26
Richmond PD 115,639 143 809 1.23
Hayward PD 159,827 195 820 1.22
Concord PD 124,074 138 899 1.12
Fremont PD 221,514 205 1,080 0.92
Data sorted by officers per 1,000 population; population figures for all cities are from 2021; sworn personnel numbers were sourced from the comparator agencies’ respective city operational budgets * See continued narrative below for context
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 35
The figures in the previous table require qualification. Berkeley figures are based on authorized personnel; if adjusting for actual, current Department staffing, the ratios would be 781 residents per sworn officer and 1.28 officers per 1,000 population —closer to the ratio of Santa Clara.
However, even this measure is potentially lacking in context, as not all agencies are the same or have the same division or unit structure, which are driven by more local concerns. There are a number of variables that basic benchmarking does not account for.
As previously noted, Citygate does not make staffing recommendations based on the per capita ratio of officers to residents, but rather, incorporates this comparison along with several other factors including workload and community priorities.
2.6.2 Rank Structure Benchmark
The following rank structure benchmark table compares the police agencies’ number of personnel by rank. For this operational assessment, Cit ygate considered only sworn positions. The reader should not infer that non-sworn professional staff are not critical to any police agency’s operational effectiveness and efficiency; however, as every agency deploys professional staff somewhat differently, Citygate concentrated solely on sworn staff for this assessment. The table is sorted by population.
Table 8—Benchmark: Rank Structure
Agency Population
Rank/Classification
Sworn Chief
Assistant/
Deputy
Chief
Captain Lieut. Sgt. Officer
Fremont PD 221,514 205 1 1 3 9 31 160
Hayward PD 159,827 198 1 1 3 12 27 154
Concord PD 124,074 138 1 0 2 7 19 109
Santa Clara PD 121,151 153 1 2 3 7 29 111
Berkeley PD 117,145 181 1 1 3 9 32 135
Richmond PD 115,639 143 1 1 3 8 23 107
Berkeley recently created a new Deputy Chief position while eliminating a Captain position.
Notably, Berkeley has the most sergeants among the agencies assessed, particularly in relation to the City’s population. Santa Clara ’s staffing includes 44 crossing guards, one probation officer, 160 per diem (by the day allowance) special event police officers, and 75 per diem special event traffic control officers.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 36
Table 9—Benchmark: Rank Structure
Agency Chief
Assistant/
Deputy
Chief
Captain Lieutenant Sergeant Officer
Fremont 1 1 3 9 31 160
Hayward 1 1 3 12 27 154
Concord 1 0 2 7 19 109
Santa Clara 1 2 3 7 29 111
Berkeley 1 1 3 9 32 135
Richmond 1 1 3 8 23 107
2.6.3 Crime Rates and Clearances Benchmark
The following crime rate benchmark table compares the police agencies’ rates o f property crime and violent crime. In the table, both violent crime and property crime represent the five-year average of 2018 through 2022. To calculate crime rates, Citygate divided the five-year average number of both violent crimes and property crimes by the number of people in the community according to 2021 population figures. Citygate then multiplied the results by 1,000 to reflect the rate of crime per 1,000 people for each measure.
Table 10—Benchmark: Crime Rates
City Population Violent
Crime
Property
Crime
Violent
Crime Rate
Property
Crime Rate
Fremont 221,514 448 5,401 2.02 24.38
Hayward 159,827 576 4,899 3.60 30.65
Concord 124,074 564 3,869 4.55 31.18
Santa Clara 121,151 262 3,974 2.16 32.8
Berkeley 117,145 590 5,872 5.03 50
Richmond 115,639 1,010 3,555 8.73 30.74
Data from https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime-statistics/crimes-clearances; population figures for all cities are from 2021
In Berkeley, violent crime rose during the period of data analyzed, with 537 incidents in 2020 and 666 incidents in 2022 indicating a 24 percent incr ease. Aggravated assaults rose consistently between 2018 and 2022, from 167 incidents to 282. Burglaries increased between 2019 and 2022, from 771 incidents to 1,036. Berkeley’s property crime rate is higher than any of the other cities shown.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 37
The following violent crime benchmark table compares the police agencies’ clearance rates between 2018 and 2022. California’s Open Justice website notes that clearance rates represent the percentage of Part 1 violent and property crimes that are considered solved after an arrest. The tables show the number of crimes cleared in a calendar year divided by the number of crimes reported in the same calendar year. It should be noted that some crimes are cleared in subsequent years, so clearance rates may be deflated in periods of increasing crime.
Table 11—Benchmark: Violent Crime Clearance Rates
Agency 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Berkeley 27.6 23.6 26.1 31.3 33.3
Fremont 54.8 63.3 53.6 61.2 33.3
Hayward 42.9 44.9 39.2 42.5 39.6
Richmond 28.2 34.3 24.2 39.4 27.6
Concord 26.8 22.2 55.8 36 35.8
Santa Clara 39.9 46.7 43.2 49.3 51.9
Data from https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime-statistics/crimes-clearances Notably, with the exception of Berkeley and Santa Clara, every agency had lower violent crime clearance rates in 2022 when compared to 2021. Fremont had the highest clearance rates in 2018 and 2019. Concord’s clearance rate more than doubled in 2020. Fremont once again had the highest clearance rate in 2021 but experienced a significant drop-off in 2022. Berkeley’s rate has improved steadily since 2019. Hayward’s has remained relatively the same.
The following property crime benchmark table compares the police agencies’ clearance rates between 2018 and 2022.
Table 12— Benchmark: Property Crime Clearance Rates
Agency 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Berkeley 6.4 6.5 7 6.3 7.3
Fremont 7.5 5.9 3.8 2.7 2.8
Hayward 13 13.3 8.3 10.9 7.6
Richmond 3.1 4.2 6.5 5.2 2.4
Concord 7.7 3.7 7 3.9 3.8
Santa Clara 5.5 5.1 5.6 4.4 8.5
Data from https://openjustice.doj.ca.gov/exploration/crime-statistics/crimes-clearances
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 38
Berkeley’s property crime clearance rates have remained largely unchanged in recent years. In 2022, the City’s property crime clearance rate was higher than that of three of the five other agencies measured.
2.6.4 Perspective for Berkeley
The City should understand that benchmarking, while informative, has limitations including the sample size and selection bias. The benchmark measures in this report are intended to give the community perspective regarding how the Department measures against other comparable agencies and are just one of many data points that Citygate used to understand the Department’s specific context and formulate the recommendations contained within this report.
2.7 O VERTIME ANALYSIS
For Citygate’s assessment of Department overtime, we reviewed a selection of overtime reports from the years 2021 through 2023. We also interviewed several staff members, reviewed relevant Department policy, and read the City Auditor’s 2022 Audit Report of Police Department Overtime.
Citygate found that overtime is most prevalent in Patrol, Dispatch (Communications), and Investigations. While the bulk of overtime was us ed to backfill Patrol vacancies, Citygate discovered (as we have with other clients) that there are many other categories of overtime in the Department. For example:
i Staff are also paid overtime to attend court.
i Detectives are paid overtime when they are called back to duty to investigate serious crime that often exceeds the resources and expertise of Patrol. i Some overtime is grant funded, such as overtime for specia l traffic enforcement actions.
Citygate also realizes, and staff has confirmed, that the availability of different types of overtime can mean that some types of overti me are more attractiv e than others. For example, officers expressed to Citygate that working overtime in Patrol to cover weekend nights is probably the least desirable use of overtime. Since specialized units (such as the Bike Team, Investigations, Community Services, etc.) are generally off-duty and not available to fill Patrol beats on weekend nights, adequately staffing these shifts is critically important to ensure sufficient staff are available to ensure Citywide coverage when unanticipated vacancies occur.
Citygate also concurs with the City Auditor that excessive use of overtime can lead to fatigue, burnout, and an increased risk of injury and mis takes. In one summary of research, it was determined that fatigue may do more than affect the way officer s perform routine tasks such as maneuvering a Patrol car. Recent evidence suggests it can influence officers’ ability to exercise
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 39
good judgment.5 Further, Citygate agrees that some police overtime is necessary and unavoidable, especially when critical events occur at the end of an officer’s shift , or when officers are needed for traffic control and pedestrian safety due to protests or other events involving large crowds.
2.7.1 Sworn Officers
Citygate captured data related to most overtime worked over the period between 2021 and 2023, but the tables presented in this subsection do not reflect overtime worked and paid in the form of earned compensatory time off (CTO). Nevertheless, as the City Auditor noted in the 2022 Audit Report, CTO is not costless and has the potential to cause a chain reaction of more backfill, and thus more CTO. The Department does have a policy of limiting sworn officers’ accumulation of CTO to 120 hours, which should limit the am ount of unfunded liability that comes with accumulated CTO.
The following table shows overtime hours worked in Patrol/Operations between 2021 and 2023.
Table 13—Overtime: Patrol/Operations
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 1,210 hours 1,640 hours 1,627 hours
Sergeant 7,496 hours 7,435 hours 6,734 hours
Police Officer 24,160 hours 30,184 hours 25,725 hours*
Total 32,913 hours 39,443 hours 34,111 hours**
* Includes 375 hours of police recruit overtime
** 34,111 hours of overtime worked (as in 2023) represents approximately 20 full-time positions—or 1 Lieutenant, 4 Sergeants and 15 officers —assuming a full work year is 2080 hours, but 20 percent of that time (416 hours) is not worked due to time off, which can include vacation, sick leave, military leave, CTO, etc.
Depending on their number of years of service , officers can accrue 80 to 240 vacation hours a year. Each employee is also credited with one eight-hour workday of sick leave with full pay for each month of service. Employees hired before September 11, 2012, accrue 16 hours of paid sick leave for each month of service after completion of 20 years of service.6 In 2023, there was a reduction in Patrol overtime of approximately 13 percent —which can likely be attributed to the reduction in Patrol beats from 16 to 14, which reduced the need to assign an officer to each beat across each day, as well as the Department’s heightened focus on overtime management. The Department also routinely transferred staff to Patrol from their regular duties outside of Patrol.
5 See “The Alarming Consequences of Police Working Overtime ” https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-police- officers-overworked-cops.html
6 See: 2023–2026 Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Berkeley and the Berkeley Police Association.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 40
The following tables show overtime hours w orked by type, employee classification, and organizational unit between 2021 and 2023.
Table 14—Overtime: Police Court Pay – Patrol/Operations Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 9 hours 4 hours ---
Sergeant 113 hours 134 hours 129 hours
Police Officer 589 hours 728 hours 584 hours
Total 711 hours 866 hours 713 hours
Table 15—Overtime: Hazardous Duty – Patrol/Operations
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 33 hours 23 hours 29 hours
Sergeant 207 hours 43 hours 104 hours
Police Officer 791 hours 302 hours 785 hours
Total 1,031 hours 371 hours 926 hours
Table 16—Overtime: Investigations – Detectives / Crime Analyst Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 575 hours 779 hours 12 hours
Police Officer 8,092 hours 6,461hours 6,136 hours
Sergeant 1,911 hours 2,632 hours 2,815 hours
Total 10,578 hours 9,872 hours 8,963 hours
Table 17—Overtime: Investigations – Traffic
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 361 hours 779 hours 541 hours
Police Officer 544 hours 1160 hours 1,548 hours
Sergeant 387 hours 396 hours 407 hours
Total 1,313 hours 2,335 hours 2,496 hours
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 41
Table 18—Overtime: Professional Standards – Policy and Audit Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant --- --- ---
Police Officer --- 27 hours ---
Sergeant 557 hours 863 hours 715 hours
Total 557 hours 890 hours 715 hours
Table 19—Overtime: Professional Standards – Personnel and Training Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 208 hours 44 hours 92 hours
Police Officer 438 hours 511 hours 382 hours
Sergeant 189 hours 190 hours 494 hours
Total 835 hours 745 hours 1,105 hours
Table 20—Overtime: Chief’s Office – Administrative and Fiscal Services Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 166 hours --- ---
Police Officer --- --- 10 hours
Sergeant --- ---
Total 166 hours --- 10 hours
Table 21—Overtime: Chief’s Office – Internal Affairs
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant --- --- 110 hours
Police Officer 10 hours 10 hours ---
Sergeant 266 hours 176 hours 164 hours
Total 276 hours 186 hours 174 hours
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 42
Table 22—Overtime: Support Services – Communications Center Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant 239 hours 218 ---
Police Officer --- --- ---
Sergeant --- --- 6
Total 239 hours 218 hours 6 hours
Table 23—Overtime: Support Services – Jail
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant --- --- ---
Police Officer 10 hours --- ---
Sergeant 131 hours 198 hours 78 hours
Total 141 hours 198 hours 78 hours
Table 24—Overtime: Support Services – Records/Subpoena
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Lieutenant --- --- ---
Police Officer 173 hours 420 hours 419 hours
Sergeant 22 hours --- 260 hours
Total 195 hours 420 hours 679 hours
2.7.2 Professional (Civilian) Staff
Unlike Patrol and Investigations, overtime usage in Communications continued to rise in 2023. It was also not uncommon for supervisory dispatchers to work overtime by filling vacant dispatcher positions.
The following tables show overtime hours w orked by type, employee classification, and organizational unit between 2021 and 2023.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 43
Table 25—Overtime: Support Services – Communications Center Rank 2021 2022 2023
Public Safety Dispatcher (PSD II) 8,202 hours 9,445 hours 9,888 hours Supervisory PSD 1,967 hours 2,684 hours 2,803 hours
Total 10,175 hours 12,129 hours 12,691 hours*
*12,691 hours of overtime (2023) is the equivalent to nearly 8 full- time positions, assuming dispatchers’ (and supervisory dispatchers’) average leave time is 20 percent (or 1,664 total hours worked in a 2,080 -hour work year). The increase in both PSD II and Supervisory PSD overtime hours of 2022 above 2021 was consistent across every month of the year, with the exception being in August 2021 versus August 2022, with 209 hours of Supervisory PSD overtime logged in 2021 and 182 hours logged in 2022.
Table 26—Overtime: Support Services – Jail
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Community Service Officer 1,178 hours 1,374 hours 1,383 hours CSO Supervisor 559 hours 500 hours 325 hours
Total 1,737 hours 1,874 hours 1708 hours
Table 27—Overtime: Investigations – Parking Enforcement Rank 2021 2022 2023
Parking Enforcement Officer 1630 hours 2,621 hours 2,559 hours Parking Enforcement Supervisor 448 hours 298 hours 490 hours Total 2,078 hours 2,919 hours 3,049 hours
Note: In 2023, disproportionately more hours were worked by Parking Enforcement officers on Saturdays, and disproportionately more hours were worked during the summe r months of July, August, and September. The same pattern was found in 2021, when 976 of 1,630 hours of Parking Enforcement officer overtime were worked on Saturdays. The 1,630 hours of overtime almost equals one full-time equivalent employee. In 2022, Parking Enforcement officers worked 1,263 hours on Saturdays. Citygate learned that due to CAL Berkeley footba ll games and other special events such as street fairs and a Farmer’s Market, Parking Enforcement overtime is predominately worked on Saturdays.
Table 28—Overtime: Investigations – Detectives/Crime Analyst Rank 2021 2022 2023
Community Service Officer 123 hours 211 hours 246 hours Crime Scene Supervisor 19 hours 1 hour 14 hours
Public Safety Dispatcher II 10 hours --- ---
Crime Analyst --- 10 hours 64 hours
Total 152 hours 222 hours 324 hours
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 44
Table 29—Overtime: Support Services – Records/Subpoena
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Community Service Officer 50 hours 48 hours 88 hours
CSO Supervisor 112 hours 164 hours 44 hours
Office Specialist II 358 hours 208 hours 158 hours
Office Specialist III 98 hours 238 hours 558 hours
Office Specialist Supervisor 440 hours 338 hours 247 hours Total 968 hours 996 hours 1,095 hours
Table 30—Overtime: Investigations – Traffic
Rank 2021 2022 2023
Office Specialist II 28 hours 90 hours 362 hours
Total 28 hours 90 hours 362 hours
Table 31—Overtime: Professional Standards – Personnel and Training Rank 2021 2022 2023
Office Specialist II 12 hours --- 362 hours
Office Specialist III 39 hours 80 hours ---
Administrative Assistant 8 hours --- ---
Total 59 hours 80 hours 362 hours
2.7.3 Overtime and P olicy
In Department Policy 1015 (Fitness for Duty), within Section 1015.7 (Limitation on Hours Worked), it is noted that, “Absent emergency operations, members should not work more than:
i 16 hours in a one-day (24-hour) period
i 30 hours in any 2-day (48-hour) period
i 84 hours in any 7-day (168-hour) period
i 7 consecutive days in a row.”
The policy further makes clear that, “Except in very limited circumstances, members should have a minimum of 8 hours off between shifts. ” Moreover, the policy notes that supervisors are
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 45
authorized to deny overtime or relieve any member who has exceeded the above guidelines to off- duty status.
To ensure enforcement of these policies, the Department has implemented new CareWare staffing software and now has the means to track overtime across all organizational units, including overtime worked by individuals. The Department generates a monthly “Scheduling Rules Violation Report” detail ing policy exceptions that have been necessary to maintain minimum staffing levels. In one such report, dated November 1 – November 30, 2023, 244 violations were documented, covering virt ually every organizational unit, including Communications, Patrol, Community Services, Homicide, Motors, Parking Enforcement, Personnel and Training, Property Crimes, Police Technology, Records Management, and Youth and Family. The violations included every category outlined in Policy 1015.
In the City Auditor’s report, it was noted that in fiscal year (FY) 2020, backfilling for officer vacancies and absences was the most common and costly reason for overtime, accounting for 21 percent of sworn officer’s overtime hours and costing nearly $1.3 million. This same pattern was apparent in the years Citygate reviewed.
In Police Overtime: An Examination of Key Issues published by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), David Bayley and Robert Worden note that supervision of overtime is often seen as the first line of defense against overtime abuses. Nevertheless, they add, “Most of the factors that determine overtime are beyond the control of any middle-rank manager, such as contract regulations, calls for service, crime emergencies, vacations, injuries, retirements, and approval for special events.”7 To control overtime in policing, Bayley and Worden make clear that the answer lies in recording, analyzing, managing, and supervising its use. Of these, they argue that managing is the key, and that it comes in two forms: (1) creating an infrastructure for recording and analyzing the use of overtime, and (2) making policies related to overtime based on an understanding of what is happening.
Bayley and Worden add that police managers must continually ask questions in their efforts to control overtime:
1. Are overtime expenditu res justified in terms of the work being done, or can the same work be performed at less cost on straight time?
2. Do the police and the local government have the capacity to pay for overtime? Answering this question requires police managers to know whether they are “on budget” throughout the year to avoid cost overruns.
7 National Institute of Justice, Research in Brief, Police Overtime: An Examination of Key Issues by David H. Bayley and Robert E. Worden, May 1998; https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles/167572.pdf.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 46
3. Is overtime being abused or used in wa ys that cannot be justified? To avoid embarrassment, police departments need to analyze patterns of overtime expenditure—both as time and as money —by individuals, by units, and by the nature of the work performed.
Bailey and Worden explain that exemplary departments have developed protocols for recording and analyzing data, and programs that automatically provide managers with perspective on overtime.
2.7.4 Overtime Findings
Finding #10: As noted by the City Auditor, the number of filled positions is not the same as the number of officers available to work. New hires, for example, although counted as filling a position, are not available for solo officer duties for nearly a year, and authorized positions differ from those actually fi lled. An officer position might be “filled,” but the officer may not be available due to a long -term injury or military leave.
Finding #11: To ensure enforcement of overtime rules, the Department now generates a monthly Scheduling Rules Violation Report which details policy exceptions that have been necessary to maintain minimum staffing levels.
Finding #12: Persistent backfilling to fill necessa ry positions indicates a chronic shortage of personnel in relation to work needing to be completed.
Finding #13: Overreliance on overtime can increase fatigue and burnout and decrease productivity.
Finding #14: Overtime availability outside of Patrol may make overtime availability in Patrol less attractive, which could result in the same limited number of officers taking these assignments.
Finding #15: The Department has implemented new staffing software (“Care Ware”) and develops regular management reports that provide timely, accurate, and complete information regarding overtime, hours worked, and time off taken.
Finding #16: The Department now has the means to track overtime across all organizational units, including that worked by individuals.
Finding #17: Reducing the number of beats from 16 to 14 appears to have contributed to the reduction in overtime in 2023.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 2—Organizational Review page 47
Finding #18: Policy 1015 requires that supervisors verify all overtime worked before approving overtime requests.
2.7.5 Overtime Recommendat ions
Recommendation #4: Continue to record, analyze, and manage overtime to reduce the likelihood of employee fatigue and burnout.
This page was intentionally left blank
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review page 49
SECTION 3—OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF POLICE REVIEW
3.1 O FFICE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Citygate has reviewed the Chief’s January 12, 2024 proposal to create an Office of Strategic Planning and Accountability (OSPA), which will report directly to the Chief. The proposal notes that OSPA “…will serve as a pivotal entity in enhancing data -driven approaches in police performance and Departmental accountability, risk management, and oversight, as well as addressing community and external stakeholder needs.”
OSPA will be headed by a dedicated civilian manager who will lead a team of technical analysts.
The manager will be responsible for coordin ating with command staff, engaging with the community, and ensuring alignment with the Department’s goals and vision.
Finally, the Chief indicated that the OSPA will work closely with an external consultant to improve and enhance the Early Warning System (EWS) and overall risk management strategies, and then manage that system into the future.
Citygate supports the Chief’s proposal as we believe that equitable, ethical, and data- driven approaches can improve public safety while promoting police accountability.
3.2 C REATION OF A NEW DEPUTY CHIEF’S POSITION
Citygate also reviewed the Chief’s June 5, 2023 recommendation to establish a new Deputy Police Chief job class. The Chief describes the new Deputy Chief’s role as one which will provide professional and administrative support and oversight of the Department’s day-to-day operations.
Citygate supports the proposal to create a new Deputy Chief position and sees it as an opportunity to provide the Chief of Police with more time ( both internally and externa lly) to meet with and engage staff and external stakeholders.
3.3 A DMINISTRATIVE AND FISCAL SERVICES
The Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager currently supervises three Assistant Management Analysts. The role is one that is responsible for planning, organi zing, directing, and supervising the overall administrative, business service, and fiscal activities of a Berkeley City department.
For the Police Department, the Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager prepares, monitors, and oversees the Department’s budget, grants, contracts, and overtime. Under the Department’s new structure, the Administrative and Fiscal Services Unit will report directly to the Deputy Chief.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review page 50
Citygate learned that the Unit is finding it difficult to keep up with changes with the C ity’s new finance system. Under the City’s new financial system, many responsibilities were pushed out to City departments, which are now responsible for receiving invoices, putting them into the system, and scheduling payments. Checks to vendors are then issued by City Finance. The system allows a limited time (three to five days) to process invo ices. If invoices are not re viewed within this window of time, checks to vendors can be delayed an additional two weeks.
Further, relative to other large City depa rtments (Public Works and Health, Housing and Community Services [HHCS]), the Police Depa rtment has significantly less administrative support to manage its budget, grants, and contracts. When the Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager is off work, the Chief or a police Capt ain must approve invoices. And when the Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager retires, there is currently no internal subordinate who has the knowledge and experience to fill the role.
To secure a smooth transition, Citygate belie ves that by adding a Senior Management Analyst sooner rather than later, the Department can ensure that oversight related to the budget, grants, and contracts will continue seamlessly—which should be the goal of any quality succession plan.
Further, there is currently no career path for any existing internal employee to reach the level of Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager. While subordinate staff understand contracts and perform well in this regard, only the Administrativ e and Fiscal Services Manager possesses the necessary budgeting experience. Ci tygate also discovered that the Unit receives a significant number of public records act requests.
A Senior Management Analyst could also serve in an acting capacity, unlike any of the current Assistant Manag ement Analysts. According to the job specifications, Senior Management Analysts:
i Perform complex administrative, systems , statistical, budget development, and other management analyses in support of activities and functions in a major department or division or on a program management basis. i Make recommendations for action and a ssist in policy, procedure, and budget development and management.
i May be assigned to supervise the work of professional, paraprofessional, and office support or other technical staff.
i Perform related work as assigned.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review page 51
3.3.1 Administrative and Fi scal Services Finding
Finding #19: Creating and filling a Senior Management Analyst position would complete the career ladder necessary to prepare current Assistant Management Analysts for more demanding work.
3.3.2 Administrative and Fi scal Services Recommendation Recommendation #5: By adding a Senior Management Analyst and an Associate Management Analyst (which can likely be filled by promoting one of the three existing Assistant Manag ement Analysts), Citygate believes the Unit can keep better pace with work demands while also creating a career ladder, which is critical given that the current Administrative and Fiscal Services Manager will be eligible to retire over the next two years.
3.4 I
NTERNAL AFFAIRS BUREAU
The Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) consists of two Investigative Sergeants who report directly to the Chief of Police. It is Citygate’s understanding that this reporting relationship will remain after the Chief’s announced Departmental reorganization takes effect.
Police Department Policy 1010 (Personnel Complaints) sets forth the following responsibilities of Sergeants assigned to the IAB:
1. Investigating all externally received complaints alleging employee misconduct.
2. Investigating internally initiated complaints of misconduct as may be assigned by the Chief of Police.
3. Preparing investigations and reports on inquiries into employee conduct as may be required by the Chief of Police.
4. Preparing letters, documents and memoranda associated with the disciplinary process in complaint matters.
5. Preparing letters and correspondence on other matters as may be required by the Chief of Police.
6. Maintaining liaison with the District A ttorney’s office duri ng investigations involving alleged criminal conduct on the part of an employee.
7. Coordinating the Department’s Complaint Review Board process.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review page 52
8. Assisting the City Attorney’s Office with investigation of civil claims against BPD and/or its employees.
9. Assisting the City Attorney’s Office in the preparation and presentation of Pitchess Motions.
10. Acting as liaison with the City Attorney, the Police Accountability Board and legal defense attorneys.
11. Advising the Chief of Police on matters relating to discipline, liability, and training issues.
The two Sergeants assigned to IAB serve in an important advisory role to the Chief, support the City Attorney, and serve as liaisons to the District Attorney. Due to recent change s in the Department, their work has grown more complex as they now investigate complaints made to the Department as well as complaints made to the PAB. Citygate sees an opportunity for the Department to add one clerical support staff position to the IAB given the number of complaints received, the time constraints related to completing investigations, and many other administrative demands placed on personnel.
IAB staff utilize case management software known as “IAPro.” The software provides real -time case information to supervisors and managers, allowing them to initiate and track all IAB investigations. The BlueTeam component of IAPro also allows supervisory and command staff to identify staff performance issues in real time.
The Department’s webpage provides links for those who wish to make a commendation or personnel complaint. It also provides a link for those who prefer to make commendations or complaints with the Director of Police Accountability.
Police Department Policy 1010 makes clear that co mplaints made to the Police Accountability Board shall also be investigated by IAB as “external complaints.”
3.4.1 Police Accountability Board
The Police Accountability Board (PAB) and Director of the Police Accountability Board were created with the passage of Measure II, which amended the City Charter in November of 2020 and became operational in July of 2021.
Section 125 of the City Charter sets forth the role and purpose of the PAB and the Director. The PAB’s purpose is to promote public trust through independent, objective civilian oversight of the Berkeley Police Department; to provide community participation in setting and reviewing Police Department policies, practices, and procedures; and to provide a means for prompt, impartial, and fair investigation of complaints brought by members of the public against sworn employees of the Berkeley Police Department. The purpose of the Director is to investigate complaints filed against
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review page 53
sworn members, to reach an independent finding as to the facts, and recommend corrective action where warranted.
The Berkeley City Charter also authorizes the PAB to receive and consider findings and recommendations from the Director regarding complaints filed by members of the public against sworn employees of the Department, and to recommend whether disciplinary action is warranted.
Further, the PAB is required to provide an annual report to the public, which will include (but not be limited to) a discussion of the PAB’s activities, and the Department’s /PAB’s processes and procedures for investigating alleged misconduct.
Subsection 16 of Section 125 of the City Charter describes the statistical data PAB is to include in its annual report. Such data shall include but is not limited to trends and patterns in vehicle and pedestrian stops, citations, arrests, searches and seizures, other patterns by the Department; trends and patterns regarding use of force and officer-involved shootings, etc.
In 2023, 238 allegations (a single complaint may include several different allegations) were investigated by the IAB as shown in the following table. Of these, many were initiated by the PAB.
Under the “Admin Closed” column of the table are cases in which a complainant does not cooperate with the IAB, fails to appear for an interview, or other circumstances occur that render investigators unable to complete investigations.
Figure 6—Internal Affairs Bureau Allegations (2023)
Active
Admin
A
d
m
i
n
Closed
Unfounded
Exonerated
Not
N
o
t
Sustained
Sustained
Received
2023 Allegations
125800025Improper Use of Force
1991601045Discourtesy
183500026Improper
Stop/Search/Seizure/Arrest
3161001149Inadequate Investigation
0000000Improper Detention (Jail)
204700031Discrimination
85100014Harassment
264600339Improper Procedure
1100002Improper Cite/Tow
0500005Other
1000102Dishonesty
1364253034238Total
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 3—Office of the Chief of Police Review page 54
3.4.2 Internal Affairs Bureau Finding
Finding #20: The work of the two Sergeants assigned to Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB) has grown more complex. Not only must they investigate compl aints made to the Department, but they now also investigate complaints made to the Police Accountability Board (PAB). Further, they serve an important advisory role to the Chief, support the City Attorney, and serve as liaisons to the District Attorney and the PAB.
3.4.3 Internal Affairs Bureau Recommendation
Recommendation #6: Given the number of complaints received by the Internal Affairs Bureau (IAB), the time constr aints related to completing investigations, and many other administrative demands —including those required of the Director of Police Accountability and outlined in the City Charter, wh ich often involve significant IAB staff time — Citygate recommends that the De partment add one clerical support staff position to the IAB.
3.5 S TRATEGIC COMMUNICATIONS / PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER Media and public relations are critical in policing because they help shape perception, build trust, share public safety information, and foster commu nity partnerships. Si nce a Pub lic Information officer (PIO) often speaks for the Chief and always represents the Department when speaking to the media, it is essential that such a person has a direct line to the Chief and does not have to go through someone else to obtain access.
Where possible, Citygate believes the Department’s PIO should be incl uded in all appropriate meetings and briefings, with an understanding that ha ving a fully informed perspective and knowing the totality of circumstances is a vital component in the PIO’s ability to communicate with the community and the media effectively.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 55
SECTION 4—OPERATIONS DIVISION REVIEW
The Operations Division of the Department encompasses Patrol Operations, the Bike Team, and the Community Services Bureau.
Patrol Operations is the largest bureau of the Department and includes the following allotted positions: one Captain, four Lieutenants, 14 Sergeants, and 58 Patrol officers (as of the most recent “timesheet” from May 2024). These personnel provide continuous delivery of police services to the community through numerous and varied funct ions, which include re sponding to calls for service, proactive patrol (officer-initiated activ ity), maintenance of public order, discovery of hazards, investigation of crimes and incidents, arresting offenders, traffic enforcement and control, emergency services, and the reporting of information to other appropriate organizational units.
Recently, Patrol has tried to maintain at least 60 sworn officers (58 sworn officers were reflected in Patrol’s most recent May 2024 “ timesheet”), broken into seven teams of seven to ten officers based on their beat and shift allocations. Some teams may be staffed with more officers above the minimum level to absorb absences.
4.1 P ATROL COVERAGE
The following table shows Patrol coverage of the week by team.
Table 32—Patrol Team Coverage of Week
Team # Personnel Days of Week Shift Times
Team 1 2 Sergeants, 8 officers M/T/W/Th 6:00 am to 4:00 pm Team 2 2 Sergeants, 7 officers M/T/W/Th 11:00 am to 9:00 pm Team 3 2 Sergeants, 8 officers M/T/W/Th 3:30 pm to 1:30 am Team 4 2 Sergeants, 8 officers M/T/W/Th 8:30 pm to 6: 30 am Team 5 2 Sergeants, 8 officers F/S/S 6:00 am to 6:30 pm Team 6 2 Sergeants, 10 officers F/S/S 12:30 pm to 1:00 am Team 7 2 Sergeants, 9 officers F/S/S 6:00 pm to 6:30 am Patrol’s coverage of 14 beats appears to align with current demand for service:
i The overlap between Team 2 and Team 3 occurs during the period of peak call demand from 4:00 pm to 9:00 pm, Monday through Thursday. i Team 2’s overlap with Team 1 adds staffing during the period from 11 :00 am to 4:00 pm, when Team 1 goes off duty.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 56
i Team 4 overlaps with Team 3 between the hours of 8:30 pm and 1:30 am. i Team 7 overlaps with Team 6 between 6: 00 pm and 1:00 am on Friday through Sunday, when Team 6 goes off duty.
Patrol’s timesheet and minimum staffing levels are a starting point for each shift which is assessed every six months. Overtime to backfill officer vacancies is typically triggered when a Patrol team’s staffing drops below 7 or 8, depending on the team and any other immediate needs (crimes, emergencies, protests, etc.).
4.2 B IKE TEAM
The Bike Team has an authorized staffing of one sergeant and five police officers—a change from the previous staffing of two sergeants and six officers. In the past, the Unit has been staffed with as many as 12 officers. The Team is currently managed by a Patrol Lieutenant, who also manages two Patrol teams.
The Bike Team primarily focuses on commercial shopping districts in the downtown Shattuck Avenue and Telegraph Avenue areas.
Citygate learned that when Patrol overtime cannot be filled voluntarily, it is not uncommon for police commanders to pull Bike Team officers from their primary duties to fill Patrol vacancies.
4.3 C
OMMUNITY SERVICES BUREAU
A Police Lieutenant manages the Community Services Bureau (CSB), which includes four area coordinators who are police officers, each of whom are assigned to a quadrant of the City. A Sergeant supervises the coordinators, who serve as community liaisons and assist in addressing long-term, persistent public safety concerns in their respective quadrants. Residents are encouraged to contact their area coordinators about ongoing neighborhood issues.
Prior to the Department’s reorganization, staffing within the CSB also included the Department’s Strategic Analysis Team, which included a police officer and a civilian Data Analyst, who is often called upon to provide information and analysis to other Depar tment units and the PAB. The Strategic Analysis Team also created and regularly updates the Department’s online Transparency Hub and internal Executive Dashboard.
The Transparency Hub represent s an abundant resourc e to supply police data available to the public. Such data include calls for service, crime, current public safety trends, police stop data, use of force, community engagement activity, and traffic safety—including information on collisions and their locations.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 57
The Department’s Public Information Officer (PIO) had also been assigned to the CSB, although this position, along with the Strategic Analysis Team, will soon be transferred to the Chief’s Office. Am ong other duties, the PIO’s workload includes monitoring the Department’s broad social media presence on sites including Face book, Instagram, TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), YouTube, and Nextdoor.
4.4 P ATROL RESPONSE TIME ANALYSIS
In Citygate’s assessment of the Department’s response time to calls for service (CFS), Citygate assessed the police response to both Priority 1 CFS (the highest-priority calls) and Priority 2 CFS.
We also determined median police response time, which is th e amount of time it takes for the police to arrive at the scene of an incident after receiving a call for assistance.
4.4.1 Understa nding Fractile versus Average Measurement Police response time has historically been presented as an average, which is measured by adding the total response times of a given set of incidents and dividing that total by the number of incidents. The shortcoming of th e average response time measurement is that it only identifies a single point on a continuum, and thus cannot show how widely the data is spread across that same continuum.
A more descriptive best practice in many fields —including not only police services, but fire and EMS—is the transition to measuring the percent completion of a specified response goal. Citygate often uses this measure to provide insight into response times, with 90 percent as the standard.
The best way to illustrate this concept can be seen in the following two statements:
i “The community can expect a response of X minutes or less, 90 percent of the time,” or
i “Nine times out of ten, the public can expect a response in X minutes or less.” Mathematically, this is referred to as a “fractile” measure.8 To illustrate the difference between the fractile and average response time measurements, the following figure shows the response time for a fictitious police department in the United States.
This department is small and received 20 calls for service during the period reviewed. Each response time for the calls for service has been pl otted on the graph, in order from the shortest response time to the longest response time.
8 A fractile is that point below which a stated fraction of values lie. The fraction is often given as a percent value; the term “percentile” may then be used. See: https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/fractile-response
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 58
The figure shows that the average response time is 8.7 minutes. However, the average response time does not properly account for four calls with response times fa r exceeding the threshold in which positive outcomes could be expected.
Figure 7—Fractile versus Average Response Time Measurements
As the figure shows, 20 percent of responses from this hypothetical department could be considered too slow, and an average time measurement would not reveal this important aspect of the data that a fractile measurement would. Citygate believes the fractile measurement is a more accurate reflection of the service delivery situation of this hypothetical department.
Citygate assessed response time data in the City utilizing the fractile measurement. With this 90th percentile response time standard employed, Citygate found that 90 percent of the applicable calls in the City were responded to by the Department in less than 19:00 minutes.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 59
4.4.2 Patrol Response Time
Key Factors
There are a number of elements which drive an agency’s overall response times beyond the physical movement of any unit (or units) travelling to a public-generated CFS. The following key factors are each important as part of an analysis of response time data, determining trends and trajectories related to the data, etc.
i Number of officers on duty
i Location of the call
i Severity of call
i Police discretion
i Dispatcher call-handling time
i Patrol officer travel time
Patrol Response Time to Priority 1 Calls
Citygate’s analysis of 31,814 Priority 1 CFS revealed the following. i The median response time to Priority 1 CFS was approximately 7:00 minutes. i 55 percent of the time, the first-responding unit arrived in less than 8:00 minutes. i 90 percent of the time, the first-responding unit arrived in less than 19:00 minutes. i Since 2019, median response time to Priority 1 CFS has remained steady at 6:00 or 7:00 minutes.
Patrol Response Time to Priority 2 Calls
Citygate’s analysis of 97,570 Priority 2 CFS revealed the following. i The Department’s 2023 Annual Report shows that since 2020, the median response time to Priority 2 CFS has increased—from 12:00 minutes in 2020 to 18:00 minutes in 2023.
i Our analysis of 97,570 Priority 2 incidents revealed an average response time to Priority 2 CFS of 14:30 minutes.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 60
4.5 I NCIDENT DATA REVIEW
As part of Citygate’s assessment of the Department’s Patrol staffing levels, we also considered numerous other factors and data provided by the Department, including the Department’s existing Patrol staffing levels as well as established minimum staffing levels. Citygate also evaluated the time officers and other field pe rsonnel were committed (obligate d) and uncommitted (available) from 2018 through March 2023; calls for service, including the number, type, and time committed to such calls; overtime in Field Services; and the City’s most recent five -year crime history and population growth.
4.5.1 Patrol Utilization
Both in interviews of Department staff and in responses to our SWOT (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats) survey, Ci tygate learned that many Patrol Sergeants and Lieutenants carry numerous ancillary duties, leaving them with less actual time in the field where they can watch, coach, supervise, and mentor their subordinates.
Citygate understands that not all Patrol activity will be neatly captured in computer-aided dispatch (CAD) data . For example, an officer assigned to one call may leave the call to assist another officer without first a dvising Communications.
Before “clearing” a call, some officers may drive by another officer ’s traffic or pedestrian stop to ensure they are safe and do not require assistance (cover). Citygate also learned that City officers have a pra ctice of sometimes showing themselves as available (to dispatchers) when they are not. For example, an officer may advise Dispatch that they are available while they are writing a report. This practice allows officers to know that other officers are available for cover or assistance if they choose to initiate a stop or contact.
Citygate also realizes that staffing needs will vary by time of day, day of week, and month of year.
Ideally, staffing is highest when service demand is highest, but Citygate believes the Department is correct in maintaining higher minimums on week end shifts since support units are rarely available as a resource, and the overlap between Team 6 and Team 7 ends at 1:00 am when Team 6 goes off duty. The following figure and table show data related to Patrol utilization.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 61
Table 33—Utilization by Unit Type: Occupied and Available Hours
Figure 8—Utilization: Total Hours by Starting Task
Data as of 05/11/24
The table and figure above show that Patrol officers were available approximately 43 percent of their total hours worked; however, many work-rela ted tasks are not reflected. Such tasks may include report writing, transporting prisoners, attendi ng meetings, etc. Also, and as noted previously, the available time Patrol officers have had was made available, in part, by the addition of officers and Sergeants working overtime virtually every day.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 62
Citygate’s analysis found that officers and Sergeants in Patrol worked a combined 37,619 hours of overtime in 2022, and 32,459 hours in 2023. Assuming that officers and Sergeants were not available for work 15 percent of their total work hours in a year on average (2080 hours divided by 15 percent), then each officer/Sergeant worked 1,768 hours each year on average. At a “leave rate” of 15 percent, 32,459 overtime hours would equal approximately 18 full -time equivalent (FTE) employees. Additionally, officers from other units, such as the Bike Unit, were frequently pulled to Patrol to fill vacancies.
The following tables show the average number of public-generated CFS by hour of day and day of week for 2021, 2022, and 2023. The left side of each table shows averag e distinct incidents (CFS) per hour and day, while the right side of each table shows the average number of committed hours per hour and day of week.
Table 34—Public-Generated CFS – Incidents and Committed Hours (2021)
In the 2021 data, committed time to public-generated CFS begins to increase at 8:00 am (usually when people are awake and di scover something is broken or missing) and then remain at an increased volume well into the early evening, until 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Friday and Saturday nights
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 63
also show increased work demand later in the night beginning at 10:00 pm. The outliers (extremely high numbers) could be due to demonstrations/protests or, possibly, officers not logging off an incident.
The following table reflects data from 2022.
Table 35—Public-Generated CFS – Incidents and Committed Hours (2022)
The table shows patterns that are similar to those from 2021. The following table reflects data from 2023.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 64
Table 36—Public-Generated CFS – Incidents and Committed Hours (2023)
The table shows data patterns similar to those from both 2021 and 2022.
4.6 P ATROL ON-SCENE TIME
In Citygate’s assessment of Patrol officer on -scene time, we reviewed average on-scene time for 204,350 distinct on-scene incidents (public-generated calls for service). We also assessed average on-scene time for 51,225 distinct police-initiated incidents.
4.6.1 Calls for Service
Public-Generated
Citygate learned that officers were on-scene at public-generated incidents:
i 70 minutes or less, 90 percent of the time.
i 24 minutes or less, 70 percent of the time.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 65
i 11 minutes or less, 51 percent of the time.
Officer-Initiated
Citygate learned that officers were on-scene at officer-initiated incidents:
i 56 minutes or less, 90 percent of the time.
i 20 minutes or less, 70 percent of the time.
i 11 minutes or less, 51 percent of the time.
In summary, officers generally spent more time on the scene of public-generated CFS, which represent approximately 77 percent of the CFS to which they responded.
In a separate analysis of on-scene time, the Department found that officers are spending more on- scene time for each call, “ reflecting both the increasingly complex and demanding nature of calls.”9
The following table shows the most frequent call types by year. The table includes CFS data from 2021 through August 2023. Thus, the 2023 numbers within the parentheses are projected totals for 2023—assuming the same volume of CFS experienced from January through August.
Table 37—Most Frequent Call Responses by Call Type and Year Call Type 2021 2022 2023
Alarms Security 12,881 13,534 9,681 (14,521)
Complaints / Code Violations 10,602 10,434 7,615 (11,422) Vehicle Incidents 6,038 6,202 4,892 (7,338)
Public Assistance 3,732 3,840 3,113 (4,669)
Property Incidents 3,454 4,179 3,072 (4,608)
Welfare 2,978 2,912 2,123 (3,184)
High Risk 2,555 2,628 1,998 (2,997)
Most of the most frequent call types (which include both public-generated CFS and officer- initiated activity) have seen increases each year since 2021, except for minor drops in Complaints / Code Violations and Welfare in 2022. The projected 2023 numbers represent a 7 percent increase in Alarms/Security calls over 2022, and an almost 13 percent in crease over the number of calls/responses in 2021. Further, the projected percentage increases over 2022 would be 9 percent relative to Complaints / Code violations; 18 percen t relative to Vehicle Incidents; 21 percent
9 Berkeley Police Department, 2023 Annual Report, page 14.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 66
relative to Public Assistance calls; 9 percent relative to Welfare calls, and 14 percent relative to High-Risk calls.
Citygate reviewed data related to 245,680 public-generated CFS and 52,408 officer- initiated incidents assigned to Patrol.
All data was captured from the period of January 2020 through August 2023.
Within the period of data analyzed by Citygate, Patrol responded to 55,327 public-generated CFS in the Alarms/Security category. The following table provides details related to this category of CFS.
Table 38—Alarms/Security: 55,327 Total Incidents
Call Type Number of
Incidents
Audible Alarm 21,416
Wireless 9-1-1 13,852
Suspicious circumstances 10,610
Suspicious person 7,717
Silent Alarm 1,193
Unknown problem 312
Security check 178
Bank Alarm 36
Surveillance 12
Citygate believes that the great majority of calls falling into the cate gory of Alarms/Security should continue to be assigned to officers. There are simply far too many unknown safety factors first responders must consider, a nd might face, at the scene of such calls. For example, suspects might be on-scene or nearby; or investigative leads could be present at the scene, so the timely identification of these leads could point to a suspect or a suspect vehicle.
The Department should consider alternative respons es for several of the other, less frequent call types depending on what dispatchers determine during their screening of calls.
Within the period of data analyzed by Citygate, Patrol responded to 64,754 public-generated CFS in the Complaints / Code Violations category. The following table provides details related to this category of CFS.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 67
Table 39—Complaints/Code Violations: 64,754 Total Incidents Call Type Number of
Incidents
Disturbance 33,003
Noise Disturbance 12,845
Trespassing 9,374
Family Disturbance 3,574
Loud Report 1,314
Civil Standby 870
Harassing phone calls 782
Indecent exposure 712
Intoxicated person 450
Lodging in public 406
Barking dogs 366
Illegal dumping 278
Gambling 45
Business and Professions Code Violations 42
Prostitution 11
Animal matter 3
As the table shows, the bulk of Complaints / Code Violations ca lls (58,796 of 64,754) involved disturbances or trespassing. In Citygate’s experience, such calls should continue to be assigned to officers, because disturbances can (and do) quickly escalate to violence. Alternative (non-police) responses should be considered for those calls that lack the potential for violence and/or do not indicate that a suspect is nearby or on-scene —e.g., lodging in public, ba rking dogs, and illegal dumping.
Within the period of data analyzed by Citygate, Patrol responded to 30,354 CFS in the Vehicle Incidents category. The following table provides details related to this category of CFS.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 68
Table 40—Vehicle Incidents: 30,354 Total Incidents
Call Type Number of
Incidents
Auto Burglary 9,506
Abandoned Vehicle 6,126
Stolen Vehicle 5,350
Traffic Hazard 3,359
Suspicious Vehicle 3,350
Reckless Vehicle 2,898
Vehicle Damage 2,703
Vehicle Code Violation 1,010
Transportation 468
Exhibition of Speed 315
Throwing Substance at a Vehicle 185
Embezzled Vehicle 105
VIN Verification 86
Carjacking 71
“Lojack” Incident * 28
Suspicious Vehicle (Code 11-96) 21
Traffic Stop 18
Vehicle Recovery 6
* Lojack refers to a brand of theft recovery system that uses GPS, radio frequency and wireless technology to track and locate stolen vehicles. It is a battery-operated system that is hidden in a vehicle by a certified technician and helps law enforcement track and recover a stolen vehicle.
In Citygate’s review of Vehicle Incidents CFS, we discovered many calls that could be assigned to a police alternative such as a Community Service Officer (CSO). For example, depending on what dispatchers learn during the screening of a cal l, most auto burglaries , abandoned vehicles, traffic hazards, VIN verifications, and vehicle recoveries could be diverted from officers and assigned to Parking Enforcement officers or CSOs.
Within the period of data analy zed by Citygate, Patrol responded to 22,969 CFS in the Property Incidents category. The following table provides details related to this category of CFS.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 69
Table 41—Property Incidents: 22,969 Total Incidents
Call Type Number of
Incidents
Theft 9,940
Burglary 3,608
Found Property 2,589
Grand Theft 2,494
Vandalism 1,843
Recovered Stolen Vehicle 1,074
Identity Theft 676
Property Damage 226
Forgery 155
Theft In-custody 155
Defrauding an Innkeeper 102
Possessing Stolen Property 57
Lost Property 46
Prescription Fraud 4
In Citygate’s review of Property Incidents, we also believe many could be handled by civilian first responders or diverted to online reporting. In Citygate’s experience, c alls or reports of theft, burglary, found property, grand theft, and vandalism are frequently handled by CSOs at other agencies. If a call indicates a suspect might be known, on the scene, or nearby, then a police officer should be assigned instead.
Within the period of data analyzed by Citygate, Patrol responded to 16,370 CFS in the Public Assistance category. The following table provides details related to this category of CFS.
Table 42—Public Assistance: 16,370 Total Incidents
Call Type Number of
Incidents
Advice 8,266
Aid to Citizen 6,401
Call for Help 890
Information 752
Flag Down 55
City Manager Request 6
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 70
In Citygate’s review of c alls categorized as “Public Assistance,” we found that non-sworn personnel can likely handle many such incidents. For example, depending on the advice sought or the aid needed, it does appear that a CSO could first respond to such calls and then assess the need for police officers.
Within the period of data analyzed by Citygate, Patrol responded to 12,177 CFS in the High Risk / Individual Safety category. The following table provides details related to this category of CFS.
Table 43—High Risk – Individual Safety: 12,177 Total Incidents Call Type Number of
Incidents
Battery 5,831
Robbery 1,469
Suicide 1,443
Person Down 1,214
DUI 373
Assist (Code 1) 369
Sexual Assault 274
Domestic Violence (misdemeanor and felony) 510
Missing Person (at-risk) 219
Serious Battery 130
Prowler 82
Hate Crime 62
Child Neglect 58
Sexual Molestation 18
Sexual Assault 13
Residential Robbery 11
Kidnapping 11
Child Molestation 6
Within the period of data analyzed by Citygate, Patrol also responded to 2,171 CFS in the High Risk / Public Safety category. The following table provides details related to this category of CFS.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 71
Table 44—High Risk – Public Safety: 2,171 Total Incidents Call Type Number of
Incidents
Brandishing a Weapon 1,111
Assault with a Deadly Weapon 407
Person with a Gun 304
Arson 210
Shooting 59
Shooting 53
Demonstration 10
Explosion 6
Bomb Threat 4
Structure Fire 3
Bart Tunnel Incident 3
Bomb Technician Incident 1
Given the obvious public and officer safety concerns surrounding most “ High-Risk” incidents, officers should be the assigned as first responders to this category of incident. Even if suspects are not on-scene when these calls are made to disp atchers, officers are likely to pursue them after meeting with victims and witnesses, or as new information is provided to and conveyed by dispatchers. Also, the need to both identify and preserve evidence (including victim and witness statements) should dictate the response of trained officers.
Within the period of data analyzed by Citygate, Patrol responded to 17,621 CFS in the Welfare category. The following table provides details related to this category of CFS.
Table 45—Welfare: 17,621 Total Incidents
Call Type Number of
Incidents
Welfare Check 15,500
Missing Person 1,144
Restraining Order Violation 647
Incorrigible Juvenile 124
Cruelty to Animals 106
Missing Juvenile 100
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 72
Officers are likely to be assigne d to most such welfare calls, but their response will depend on what dispatchers learn from callers. “Welfare ch ecks” and calls of missing persons may involve serious or violent crimes. While some of these CFS may initially be taken by non-sworn personnel, sworn officers will still likely be needed if any suspects are identified or a serious crime has occurred.
The following figure shows the Department’s response to public-generated Priority 1 (highest- priority) CFS.
Figure 9—Patrol: Public-Generated Priority 1 Calls for Service (2020–2023)
There were 31,814 Priority 1 CFS between January 2020 and August 2023. 55 percent of these calls fell into the categories of high or medium risk, which would likely necessitate the response of at least two police officers. A spike in such calls began in July of 2023 and continued into August. After an expected dec line in the police response to Pri ority 1 calls in 2020 given the outbreak of COVID-19, police response to such CFS began to rise in 2021 —peaking in October of that year. There was also a significant decrease in response to such CFS in February 2022. 2023 saw an increase over 2022, peaking in August of that year.
The following figure shows the Department’s response to 52,408 officer-initiated incidents between January 2020 and August 2023.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 73
Figure 10—Patrol: Officer-Initiated Calls for Service (2020–2023)
A plurality of these incidents were vehicle incidents (likely car stops), followed by alarms and security checks. Th ere was a significant decline in officer -initiated activity in 2020 and, in the years since, the reduced level of activity has continued through 2023 —a pattern Citygate has observed with other recent clients. There was als o a decline in officer-in itiated activity in 2023, which corresponds with a simultaneous increase in several Part 1 crime categories over the same period.
Of the 52,408 incidents:
i 44 percent were vehicle incidents
i 31 percent were alarms/security
i 10 percent were public assistance
i 8 percent were stops/obstruction/resisting/drug-related i 1.4 percent were parking related.
Citygate’s analysis of officer-initiated activity yielded the following:
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 74
i Since 2019, officer-initiated activity has decreased by 30 percent. i There was an average of 740 officer-initiated incidents per month in 2022. i There was a 15 percent reduction in officer -initiated incidents in 2023 to 627 per month.
i There was also a 15 percent increase in Part 1 crime in 2023.
The Department’s 2023 Annual Report shows the following data for officer-initiated calls from 2019 through 2023:
i 2019: 20.4K calls
i 2020: 14.6K calls
i 2021: 15.2K calls
i 2022: 15.3K calls
i 2023: 14.1K calls10
4.7 A DDITIONAL OPERATIONAL DEMANDS ON PATROL
Citygate found that there are many additional, service-related needs and operational demands that are increasingly consuming more Patrol officer and Patrol Sergeant time, leaving them less time for proactive work —including preventative patrols, traffic enforcement, field supervision, and community engagement.
Some of these service-related needs and operational demands include:
4.7.1 Booking/Jail Delays
Since the COVID-19 outbreak, far more arrestees are not being admitted into the City Jail, since many now require a “fit for incarceration” clearance from a local hospital. When such arrestees are rejected at the City Jail, they are then transported (after medical clearance) to the Alameda County Santa Rita Jail in D ublin for booking. Bookings at the Santa Rita Jail have grown increasingly more time consuming to the extent that a simple arrest may now take hours for booking. This process also takes at least two officers out of service for each arrestee.
10 Berkeley Police Department, 2023 Annual Report, page 18.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 75
4.7.2 Ancillary Duties/Training
Citygate learned that a lot of on-dut y time is spent on police duties beyond an officer’s or Sergeant’s core duties. Some of these ancillary assignments include active shooter training, SWAT training, firearms training and qualifications, peer support meetings, etc.
4.7.3 Video Retrieval
Retrieving, reviewing, and downloading video —including officer body-worn camera video and video captured by privately owned cameras—consumes a lot of time.
The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office informed Citygate that retrieving video from privately owned cameras is expected and of ten necessary to prosecute crime. If officers cannot retrieve such video initially, the District Attorney’s office expects that Department staff will make and document all follow-up attempts. Patrol office rs attempt to recover vi deo where practical, which involves locating cameras and their owners and collecting or requesting that owners produce necessary video files/clips. Officers then view footage before sharing it with investigators.
Officers also spend significant time review ing their own body-worn camera video prior to completing police reports. Finally, detectives must often then make similar follow-up efforts related to whatever video Patrol officers are unable to locate and retrieve.
Officers also frequently discover victims who ow n electronic devices equipped with their own tracking devices. Many people now plant small trackers in or on their bags, vehicles, and even pets, which allow for tracking a stolen or missing item’s whereabouts in real time. These devices may also require significant time to track and locate.
4.7.4 Use of Force Reporting
In February 2021, the Department transitioned to a new Use of Force policy. The new policy expands use-of-force reporting requirements and sets forth four supervisory use of force reporting levels—from Level 1 (control holds, the use of leverage or body weight with no injury or complaint of pain, grabbing, and takedowns), to Level 4 (deadly force, or any force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury).
Citygate has learned that supervisors expend significant time responding to, evaluating, and reporting the police use of force.
The Department’s policy (General Order 300) is comprehensive, outlining when force should be used and how it is to be reported. The policy makes clear that all uses of force shall be documented promptly, completely, and accurately.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 76
Berkeley Police Department – Use of Force Reporting Levels LEVEL 1
The officer used any of the following, and the
circumstances of the application would lead
an objectively reasonable officer to conclude
that the subject did not experience more than
temporary discomfort:
Control holds/pain compliance techniques
Leverage
Grab
Bodyweight
The officer lowered the subject to a seated
position or to the ground while partially or
completely supporting the person’s
bodyweight.
Takedown
If the incident fits the parameters for a Level 1 incident, the supervisor will enter all applicable data into the BlueTeam11 template with a brief summary.
LEVEL 2
No suspect injury or complaint of pain due to
interaction with officer. The officer’s use of
force was limited to the following:
Firearm drawn from the holster or otherwise
deployed during an interaction with an
individual and/or pointed at an individual.
Control hold, pressure point, leverage, grab,
takedown and/or bodyweight, and the
application would lead a reasonably objective
officer to conclude that the individual may
have experienced more than momentary
discomfort.
An uninvolved supervisor, when feasible, will respond to the scene and conduct a use of force investigation, ensuring all statements are taken from the suspect and witnesses, and that photos are taken of all involved parties. If the incident fits the parameters for a Level 2 incident, the supervisor will enter all applicable data into the BlueTeam template with a brief summary.
LEVEL 3
Suspect has sustained an injury or complains
of injury or continuing pain due to interaction
with the officer. The incident would have
otherwise been classified as a Level 2 except
an officer’s body-worn camera was not
activated in a timely manner, prior to the
enforcement contact, per policy. Officers used
any of the following force options:
Chemical agents / munitions
Impact weapon strikes
Personal body weapons
11 BlueTeam is a web-enabled frontline software that enables paperless use-of-force reporting and review within IAPro, which is a set of specialized online applications designed to support Professional Standards and front-line uniform and supervisory personnel. It is now used by over 950 public safety agencies.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 77
An uninvolved supervisor, when practical, will re spond to the scene and conduct a use of force investigation, ensuring that statements are taken from the suspect and witnesses. If the incident fits the parameters for a Level 3 incident, the supervisor will enter all applicable data into the Blue Team template.
The supervisor will also complete a use of force investigation report narrative in BlueTeam for review through the Use of Force Review process. Suspect and witness statements from the crime report will be attached to the use of force investigation.
LEVEL 4
Any incident involving deadly force or any
force likely to cause death or serious bodily
injury will be investigated under separate
protocols outlined in another policy (Policy P-
12). Supervisors are also required to respond
to any reported use of force, if reasonably
available. They are then expected to perform
the following tasks:
Obtain the basic facts from the involved
officers.
Ensure that any injured parties are examined
and treated.
Ensure that photographs have been taken of
any areas involving visible injury or complaint
of pain.
Identify witnesses not already included in
related reports.
Review body camera footage related to the
incident.
While Use of Force Level 3 and Le vel 4 require a more comprehensive investigation, a Use of Force classified as Level 1 or Level 2 also requires supervisors to enter all applicable data into a BlueTeam template with a brief summary. When a Level 2 Use of Force is used, an uninvolved supervisor is also required to respond to the scene. When a Level 1 Use of Force is used, sergeants are to be notified; they then speak to involved officers and review any relevant body-worn camera footage, but generally do not respond to the scene.
Even a Level 1 Use of Force—the least amount of potential force used—can consume hours of a supervisor’s time, leaving supervisors unavailable to lead and supervise their respective teams.
The Police Transparency Hub shows that officers used force in 187 incidents in 2024 (as of August 11). In these incidents, 484 officers and 204 subjects of police contact were involved, and use of force categories were recorded as shown in the following table.
Table 46—Categories of Force by Use (2024)
Level of Force Total Uses
Level 1 441
Level 2 184
Level 3 34
Level 4 0
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 78
Relevant state law sets forth guidelines for when and how officers should use force, representing a significant step toward more accountable law enforcement practices regarding the use of force.
Specifically, Penal Code Section 835a (3) notes th at the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated carefully and thoroughly in a manner that reflects the gravity of that authority and the serious consequences of the use of force by peace officers. Government Code Section 7286 outlines 23 provisions that each California law enforcement is required to have in their use of force policies.
The City of Berkeley appears to exceed the standards set forth in state law.
Use of Force Reporting – Other Local Agencies
To further evaluate the City’s use of force reporting practices, Citygate reviewed the policies of several other local agencies.
San Francisco Police Department
The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) Use of Force Policy is found in SFPD General Order 5.01 (dated February 2021). The policy, like Berkeley’s, rightly emphasizes safeguarding human life, the importance of es tablishing communication, de-esc alation, proportionality, crisis intervention, fair and unbiased policing, and the duty to intervene when an officer knows or has reason to know that another officer is about to use or is using unnecessary force.
However, San Francisco residents recently passed Measure E in March 2024. The measure limits the amount of time a patrol officer may spend on administrative tasks to 20 percent of on-duty time and requires written reports for use of force events only when a physical injury occurred or if a firearm was removed from an officer’s holster, allowing body camera footage to satisfy reporting requirements.
Fremont Police Department
The Fremont Police Department’s Use of Force Policy (found in Fremont Police Department General Order 300) notes that the following uses of force shall be made known to supervisors as soon as practicable following the application or alleged application of force in any of the following circumstances.
i The application caused a visible injury.
i The application would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the individual may have experienced more than momentary discomfort.
i The individual subjected to the force complained of injury or continuing pain. i An individual alleges unreasonable force was used or that any of the above has occurred.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 79
i Any application of a restraint device other than handcuffs, shackles, or belly chains (i.e. WRAP).
i The individual subjected to the force was rendered unconscious. i Any application or attempted application of a TASER device, impact weapon, or control device.
i Any application of a pain compliance technique used to overcome resistance. i When a K9 is deployed and bites or otherwise causes injury to a suspect. i An individual was struck, kicked, or taken to the ground. i Any lawful intervention with a vehicle to include a Pursuit Intervention Technique (PIT).
i Any use of the Vehicle Containment Tec hnique (VCT) when vehicle contact occurs.
i Any deployment of a noise flash diversionary device (NFDD). i Any deployment of chemical agents (CS Gas).
i Any other required notification outlined in another FPD policy.
The Fremont Police Department requires supervisors to respond to any reported use of force, if reasonably available, and to conduct an administrative review of the use of force in accordance with established departmental guidelines and state law (Government Code 7286(b)).
Richmond Police Department
The Richmond Police Department’s Use of Force Policy (found in Richmond Police Department General Order 300) notes that incidents require reporting when the suspect had more than momentary discomfort, has a visible injury, complains of injury or continued pain, was struck with personal body weapons or impact weapons, was rendered unconscious, or the incident include application of a conducted electrical weapon (CEW) or wrap restraint. Richmond’s policy further adds that any use of force by an officer shall be reported immediately to a supervisor, including but not limited to the following circumstances (Penal Code Section 832.13). i The application caused a visible injury.
i The application would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the individual may have experienced more than temporary discomfort.
i The individual subjected to the force complained of injury or continuing pain. i The individual indicates an intent to pursue litigation.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 80
i Any application of a conducted energy device or control device. i Any application of a restraint device other than handcuffs, shackles, or belly chains. i The individual subjected to the force was rendered unconscious. i An individual was struck or kicked.
i An individual alleges unreasonable force was used or that any of the above has occurred.
Supervisors under Richmond’s policy are required to respond to any reported use of force, if reasonably available. The responding supervisor, per Government Code Section 7286(b), is then expected to:
i Obtain the basic facts from the involved officers.
i Ensure that any injured parties are examined and treated. i When possible, separately obtain a recorded interview with the subject upon whom force was applied.
i Ensure that photographs have been taken of any areas involving visible injury or complaint of pain, as well as overall photographs of uninjured areas. i Identify any witnesses not already included in related reports. i Review and approve all related reports.
i Determine if there is any indication that the subject may pursue civil litigation. i Evaluate the circumstances surrounding the incident and initiate an administrative investigation if there is a question of policy non-compliance or if for any reason further investigation may be appropriate.
Santa Clara Police Department
The Santa Clara Police Department’s Use of Force Policy (found in Santa Clara Police Department General Order 300) notes that the following us es of force shall be immediately reported to a supervisor.
i The application caused a visible injury.
i The application would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the individual may have experienced more than momentary discomfort.
i The individual subjected to the force complained of injury or continuing pain. i The individual indicates intent to pursue litigation.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 81
i Any application of a conducted energy device or control device. i Any application of a restraint device other than handcuffs, shackles, or belly chains. i The individual subjected to the force was rendered unconscious. i An individual was struck or kicked.
i An individual alleges unreasonable force was used or that any of the above has occurred.
Supervisors are required to respond to any re ported use of force if reasonably available.
Supervisors are then expected to:
i Obtain the basic facts from the involved officers. Absent an allegation of misconduct or excessive force, this will be considered a routin e contact in the normal course of duties.
i Ensure that any injured parties are examined and treated. i Once any initial medical assessment has been completed or first aid has been rendered, ensure that photographs have been taken of any areas involving visible injury or complaint of pain, as well as overall photographs of uninjured areas.
These photographs should be retained until all potential civil litigation has expired. i Identify any witnesses not already included in related reports. i Review and approve all related reports.
i Determine if there is any indication that the subject may pursue civil litigation. i Evaluate the circumstances surrounding the incident and initiate an administrative investigation of there is a question of policy non-compliance or if any reason further investigation may be appropriate.
San Leandro Police Department
The San Leandro Police Department’s Use of Force Policy can be found in the city’s General Order 300. By policy, San Leandro officers are required to notify supervisors under the following circumstances.
i The application caused visible injury.
i The application would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the individual may have experienced more than momentary discomfort.
i The individual subjected to the force complained of injury or continuing pain.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 82
i The individual indicates intent to pursue litigation. i Any less lethal deployment, including a TASER device or OC spray (even if the subject was not hit).
i Any application of a restraint device other than handcuffs, shackles or belly chains. i The individual subjected to the force was rendered unconscious. i An individual was struck or kicked by any means, including impact weapons. i Any maneuver that results in a subject being taken down to the ground (regardless of injury).
i K-9 bites.
i An individual alleges unreasonable force was used or that any of the above has occurred.
i Additional situations that require supervisory notification and documentation in an officer’s report.
i Whenever an individual arrested by a member of this Department has received an obviously recent injury, and it has been clearly determined the injury occurred solely as a result of an incident prior to police contact. i Whenever an individual arrested or detained has received an injury while in police custody which is not the result of the application of force.
Hayward Police Department
Hayward’s Use of Force Polic y can be found in the city’s General Order 300 (June 2023) and describes that officers are to notify supervisors in the following circumstances. i The application caused visible injury.
i The application would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the individual may have experienced more than momentary discomfort.
i The individual subjected to the force complained of injury or continuing pain. i The individual indicates intent to pursue litigation. i Any application of a CED or control device.
i Any application of a restraint device other than handcuffs, shackles, or belly chains. i The individual subjected to the force was rendered unconscious.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 83
i An individual was struck or kicked.
i An individual alleges unreasonable force was used or that any of the above has occurred.
Under Hayward’s policy, supervisors are required to respond to any reported use of force, if reasonably available. The responding supervisor is expected to:
i Obtain the basic facts from the involved officers.
i Ensure that any injured parties are examined and treated. i When possible, separately obtain a recorded interview with the subject upon whom force was applied.
i Ensure that photographs are taken of any areas involving visible injury or complaint of pain.
i Identify witnesses not already included in related reports. i Review and approve all related reports.
i Determine if there is any indication that the subject may pursue civil litigation. i Evaluate the circumstances surrounding the incident and initiate an administrative investigation if there is a question of policy non-compliance or if for any reason further investigation may be appropriate.
Use of Force Policy Analysis – Reporting Protocols
Berkeley’s Use of Force Policy appears to be an outlier wh en compared to the aforementioned agencies. In particular, Fremont, Hayward, Rich mond, San Leandro, and Santa Clara all require notification of a supervisor when a use of force results in visible injury or when the application of force would lead a reasonable officer to believe that the individual may have experienced more than temporary (or momentary) discomfort. Berkeley’s Level 1 guidelines establish a different threshold, requiring officers to notify supervisors when officers use control holds/pain compliance techniques, leverage, grabbing, bodyweight, takedowns, or the officer lowers a subject to a seated position while partially or completely supporting the person’s bodyweight , and an objectively reasonable officer would conclude that the subject did not experience more than temporary discomfort.
Berkeley’s Level 2 Use of Force does require notification of a supe rvisor if an officer draws a firearm from his/her holster or employs a control hold, pressure point, leverage, grab, takedown and/or bodyweight and the application would lead a reasonably objective officer to conclude that the individual may have experienced more than temporary discomfort.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 84
Sergeants today are expected to be actively engaged with the community and leading their officers on the street. Further, it is essential that sergeants closely monitor the police radio to remain aware of what officers in their command are doing, and to respond quickly to certain calls —especially critical incidents where the chances of conflict or public attention are high.12 Berkeley’s requirement that officers notify supervisors when a Level 1 Use of Force—in which a reasonable officer would conclude that the sub ject did not experience more than temporary discomfort—differs from that of the cities of Fremont, Hayward, Richmond, San Leandro, and Santa Clara. Data from the Department’s Transparency Hub reveals that a Level 1 Use of Force is the most frequently reported use of force, and although such uses of force do not require that a supervisor respond to the scene, they do require extensive supervisor time to speak with involved officers, review any related video, and then document their findings in a BlueTeam template.
Use of Force Finding
Finding #21: Berkeley’s Level 1 Use of Force criteria, while well intentioned, unnecessarily diverts supervisor time to review actions that do not require in-depth review. The supervisors’ time is better spent with officers on calls so that supervisors can train personnel and model intera ctions in accordance w ith policy, training, and Departmental values.
Use of Force Recommendation
Recommendation #7: Given the number of reported Level 1 uses of force in Berkeley —in which a subject did not experience more than temporary discomfort— Citygate recommends the City and Department modify their reporting requirements to those more in line with the policies of the cities of Fremont, Hayward, Richmond, San Leandro, and Santa Clara, whose Lexipol-created policies comply with both state and federal law.
Additional Use of Force Considerations
Citygate believes Berkeley officers can and should still document these lower-level uses of force in crime reports. Officers should also continue to capture such contacts with their body-worn cameras. Such documentation woul d meet the Department’s reporting goals while freeing sergeants from having to speak to officers and re view video following eve ry such encounter, as the time spent on such reports and video review is time lost overseeing the activities of officers.
Of course, if officers fail to capture such contacts on their body-worn cameras, then response from a sergeant should be mandatory (as it is now for uses of force that fall within the guidelines of
12 See Promoting Excellence in First-Line Supervision: New Approaches to Selection, Training, and Leadership Development, October 2018, published by the Police Executive Research Forum:
https://www.policeforum.org/assets/FirstLineSupervision.pdf
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 85
force levels 2, 3, and 4), and nothing should prevent a sergeant, command officer, or another organizational unit from randomly auditing such videos.
4.7.5 Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) Reporting The Department transitioned to RIPA stop data collection effective October 1, 2020, which was well in advance of the legally required date of January 1, 2022. Data collected by the Department conforms to requirements set forth in Government Code section 12525.5, which was enacted as a result of Assembly Bill 953, the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) of 2015. The Department publishes its data online via its RIPA Data Collection Project.
4.7.6 Equipment Ordinance Reporting
Assembly Bill 481, which became effective on January 1, 2022, requires law enforcement agencies to obtain approval of the applicable governing body (mayor and City Counc il) by adoption of a military equipment use policy prior to taking certain actions related to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. The Department’s military equipment includes unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial, or ground vehicles; mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles or armored personnel carriers; high-mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles ( HMMWV); tracked armored vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants; a nd command and control vehicles. The Department deployed specialized gear 64 times in 2023, which is 27 percent fewer times than in 2022.
4.7.7 Miscellaneous Service Call Reporting
Several Sergeants informed Citygate that they must review all dispatched calls to an officer where a report is not written. They estimated that nearly 1.5 hours per shift is spent reviewing such calls.
4.8 T HE ICMA “RULE OF 60”
Since 2008, the International City/County Management Association (ICMA) Center for Public Safety Management has conducted police operational and data analyses. The ICMA data analysis, like Citygate’s, relies on information captured in a department’s incident data report system.
The ICMA has long recommended a now widely used guideline for evaluating police patrol staffing known as the “Rule of 60.”
The “Rule of 60” has its shortcomings in that it relies almost exclusively on demand as understood through 9-1-1 calls, and thus ignores ot her elements of community demands placed on a department. To overcome these shortcomings, the ICMA recommends that workload demands should be modeled and then p laced in context w ith the other operati onal demands facing a department.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 86
The “Rule of 60” applies to two critical variables:
1. Of the total number of sworn officers in a department, approximately 60 percent should be assigned to the patrol function.
2. The average workload for patrol staff should not ex ceed 60 percent. The busiest communities in the ICMA analysis did not dedicate more than 60 percent of their patrol resources towards workload (which includes public-initiated CFS, police- initiated CFS, administrative and out-of-service time, as well as directed patrol time).
4.8.1 Resource A llocation
60 Percent of Sworn Officers: The Rule of 60 suggests th at approx imately 60 percent of a department’s total sworn officers should be assigned to the patrol function. This ensures s ufficient personnel dedicated to maintaining a visible presence within the community and responding to calls for service.
For the City, 60 percent of 181 authorized sworn officers across the Department would mean that 109 sworn personnel (per the “Rule of 60”) should be assigned to Patrol. Currently , due to vacancies, the City deploys a total of 150 sworn personnel Depar tment-wide rath er than the authorized 181. Of those 150, 58 police officers are assigned to Patrol, four officers (area coordinators) are assigned to Community Services, and five more are assigned to Bike Patrol.
Additionally, Patrol staffing includes 14 Sergeants, four Lieutenants, and one Captain. Together, this means a total of 86 sworn personnel (including the four officers assigned as area coordinators and five on the Bike Team) are deployed within the Department’s Patrol function, as shown in the following table.
Table 47—Berkeley Sworn Personnel Allocation
181 authorized sworn personnel
Department-wide
86 actual sworn personnel
within Patrol
- 135 police officers - 67 police officers
- 32 Sergeants - 14 Sergeants
- 9 Lieutenants - 4 Lieutenants
- 3 Captains
- 1 Deputy Chief
- 1 Captain
- 1 Chief of Police
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 87
Of 181 total authorized sworn personnel, 86 sworn personnel represents 48 percent of the Department’s uniformed personnel being dedicated to Patrol— thus falling short of the ICMA resource allocation guideline of at least 60 perc ent. However, it is necessary to note that the Department frequently supplements Patrol staffing with officers working on an overtime basis, and other officers are often pulled from their regular duties to cover Patrol beats when necessitated by vacancies. For a figure based solely on actual/available (rather than authorized) staffing: 86 sworn personnel dedicated to field ope rations, compared only to the current total sworn staff of 150 Department-wide, still sits below the ICMA guideline at 57 percent.
4.8.2 Workload Efficiency
60 Percent of Patrol Time: The Rule of 60 suggests that out of the total patrol officer time, no more than 60 percent should be spent responding to calls for service (reactive workload). This leaves 40 percent for discretionary time, allowing officers to:
i Proactively address community problems and concerns.
i Engage in community policing initiatives.
i Maintain availab ility for emergencies requiring
immediate response.
Citygate determined that Patrol utilization in the City was approximately 57 percent, which meets the 60 percent workload efficiency threshold (guideline) established by the Rule of 60. However, when evaluating utilization, Patrol was only able to achieve such availability because of the more than 35,000 annual (average ) hours of overtime that were spent b ackfilling Patrol vacancies in recent years. Further, the Department has also routinely pulled Bike Team officers from their normal duties to fill Patrol vacancies. As a result, the time utilized or committed that was assessed by Citygate did not always capture the time spent on the other operational demands.
4.8.3 Applying the Rule of 60
Data Analysis: The Rule of 60 is applied by analyzing data related to personnel allocation, call volume, call types, response times, and officer activity logs.
Benchmarking: Comparing the Department’s data to the Rule of 60 serves as a benchmark.
Identifying Needs: Deviations from the rule can highlight potential resource imbalances or workload inefficiencies.
Decision-Making: Based on the analysis, informed decisions can be made regarding:
Adjusting staffing levels to meet community needs.
Optimizing Patrol deployment for better coverage.
Improving Patrol practices to increase proactive policing time.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 88
Overall, the Rule of 60 provides a valuable framework for police departments to assess and optimize their patrol staffing, ai ming for both efficient resource allocation and effective community engagement.
It is important to highlight that the Rule of 60 is not a rigid standard but a general guideline. The specific needs and circumstances of each community will necessitate adjustments. Citygate considered these factors as part of the workload analysis, along with crime trends, demographics, and patrol coverage needs.
4.9 O PERATIONS DIVISION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
4.9.1 Findings
Finding #22: 34,111 overtime hours were worked in Patrol in 2023.
Finding #23: Calls for service and calls per shift per officer have increased.
Finding #24: Incidents within most Part 1 crime categories have increased.
Finding #25: Case reports have steadily risen since 2020.
Finding #26: The Department’s allotted span of control in Patrol (Sergeant to officer) is approximately one Sergeant to four or five officers, which appears reasonable, if not better than, recommende d best practices. By adding 15 officers, the span of control of the 14 Patrol sergeants, at a ratio of 1:5 or 1:6, would still be reasonable and consistent with best practices.
Finding #27: Sergeants and Patrol officers ar e now spending m ore time on various administrative, prisoner transportation, or evidence collection tasks that consume increasingly more time and may also take multiple officers off the street and out of the City (or otherwise out of service) for hours at a time.
Finding #28: An analysis of Patrol officer utilization reveals that officers were available for calls for service 43 percent of their tota l work time on average. However, such availability was achieved, in part, by adding thousands of overtime hours and the frequent reassignment of Bike Team officers to Patrol to fill vacant positions.
Finding #29: The Department now has the data and analysis capacity to regularly assess staffing levels in Patrol. By monitoring calls for service, response times, time for community engagement, unobligated po lice time, and other work demands not captured in CAD records, the Department should be able to assess how many officers and other staff (such as CSOs) are needed in Patrol across the three shifts.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 89
The Department can then make staffing adjustments which can then be reflected in future “timesheets.”
Finding #30: The Community Services Bureau provides many necessary and valuable roles.
The problem-solving efforts of the four co mmunity liaisons undoubtedly reduce call and work demands on Patrol.
Finding #31: The Community Services Bureau ’s Transparency Hub is an impressive source of a wide variety of police information that includes data on crime, use of force, and traffic safety. It is a model for other police agencies and also reinforces the Department’s commitment to building community trust, confidence, and support.
Finding #32: The Bike Team enjoys strong support. Like the Community Services Bureau, their work also likely reduces call and other work demands on Patrol.
Finding #33: Given reduced staffing levels and the additional time officers are not available on the street, officer-initiated activity has declined, average response time to Priority 2 and Priority 3 calls has increased since 2020, and average officer time on-scene has increased.
4.9.2 Recommendat ions
Recommendation #8: Restore Patrol staffing by adding 15 additional officers—four officers each to teams 1, 2, and 3; and three officers to Team 7 —bringing the total from the current 58 to 73. It is Citygate’s understanding that these additional positions are funded but not currently filled. The added staffing would reduce the need for Patrol overtime, which would reduce the likelihood of fatigue and burnout while a ffording officers the ability to take time off without the need to “sell” shifts . [Note:
“Selling” a shift occurs when Patrol minimum staffing is reached, and Patrol officers want time off. They are generally allowed such time off only if they can find another officer to fill in for them on an overtime basis.]
Recommendation #9: Add five CSOs (Citygate understands these positions have already been funded) to support Patrol officers on weekday morning and evening shifts. Given existing call demands and committed time, Citygate believes the Department should strategically deploy five Patrol CSOs to match those times of day and days of week where Patrol time is most obligated currently (D ay Shift and Swing Shift), which would help to reduce the committed time of Patrol officers, affording them more time for community engagement and to be proactive while
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 4—Operations Division Review page 90
also ensuring greater availability to respond to emergencies and cover assignments.
Recommendation #10: CSOs should be trained to take many non-emergency calls and write related reports, recover stolen vehicles and found property, tow abandoned vehicles, retrieve and download video evidence, transport witnesses and victims, etc.
Recommendation #11: After staffing is added to Patrol, create a team of five officers led by one Sergeant that can be flexibly deployed to quickly address most any emerging public safety issue, which might include organized retail theft, robberies, carjackings, etc. Such a team might also serve as a field resource for detectives. This team should also be one that can move rapidly across shifts and days of the week to address issues identified in the Department’s strategic analysis of crime.
Recommendation #12: The Department should continue to closely evaluate Patrol spans of control; call patterns, including the number, location, and types of calls; response time; unobligated (available) police time; and call-handling (on-scene) time. These factors are essential in assessing Patrol’s staffing needs now and in the future. Further, even though call volume may remain stable in future years, call-handling time —and the nature/type of such calls along with other operational work demands— may suggest the need for more staff and/or the redeployment of existing staff to ensure Patrol can meet the service expectations of City residents.
Recommendation #13: When the Community Services Bureau’s PIO and Strategic Analysis Team are transferred to the Chief’s Office, the Bike Team should be realigned under the Community Services Bureau, where the Community Services Bureau Lieutenant can provide oversight, thus relieving a Patrol Lieutenant from this responsibility.
City of Berkeley, CA
Workload Organizational Study of the Police Department
Section 5—Investigations Division Review page 91
SECTION 5—INVESTIGATIONS DIVISION REVIEW
5.1 D IVISION OVERVIEW
A Captain leads the Investigations Division. In ad dition to regular duties, the Captain carries several ancillary duties —which include serving as the Department’s Wellness and Resilience Coordinator, a Peer Support Team Liaison, and a Defensive Tactics Instructor. The Captain is also tasked with attending several monthly meetings, including those with the Police Accountability Board and the City Council, and also regularly attends meetings with community members related various public safety issues, including traffic safety and homelessness.
Other Division staffing includes one Lieutenant; five Sergeants; one non-sworn Supervisor who oversees the Crime Scene Unit; and 15 detectives —including two in the Homicide detail, two in the Robbery detail, three in the Special Victims Unit, three (including a School Resource Officer) in the Youth Services detail, and five assigned to the Property Crimes detail (two of these positions are vacant). There are also three civilian Crime Scene Investigators and one Crime Analyst.
The following table displays the number of Investigations personnel by position.
Table 48—Investigations Division and Personnel
Position Number of
Personnel
Captain 1
Lieutenant 1
Sergeants 5
Detectives 15*
School Resource Officer 1
Community Services Officer (Crime Scene Investigators) 3 Crime Scene Unit Civilian Supervisor 1
Crime Analyst 1
* Includes two vacancies
Investigations’ cases generally originate from Patrol officers who conduct initial preliminary investigations in th e field and then complete and forw ard their crime reports. Detective assignments to Investigations are generally limited to three years, plus one additional year, based on performance. This time frame is also flexible based on the expertise of individual detectives.
In interviews with Investigations staff, Citygate noted that staff enjoy serving as investigators, but some did express concerns.