Berkeley City Council
July 22, 2025

Reimagining Public Safety Status Report INFORMATION CALENDAR July 22, 2025

Attachments:
1: Reimagining Public Safety Status Update Summer 2025 Report 2: Reimagining Public Safety Status Update Summer 2025 Companion Appendix

Status Update and Report Out
City Manager’s Office
Summer 2025

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY

2 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................................................................................3 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................4 Timeline....................................................................................................................................................................5 Phased Deliverables & Status Updates ..........................................................................................................6 Considerations .....................................................................................................................................................10 Next Steps...............................................................................................................................................................11 Overview.................................................................................................................................................................12 PRIORITY REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY INITIATIVES..................................................................................12 STAFFING INVESTMENTS ..................................................................................................................................13 Reimagining Public Safety Project Coordinator.....................................................................................13 Office Of Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion (ODEI) ...................................................................................14 Grant Assistance .............................................................................................................................................16 Specialized Care Unit Implementation......................................................................................................17 Staffing And Operations ................................................................................................................................19 Fair And Impartial Policing ..........................................................................................................................20 Wellness Practices ........................................................................................................................................21 Vision Zero Program......................................................................................................................................22 CONSULTANT COSTS .........................................................................................................................................24 Berkeley Department Of Transportation Development ......................................................................24 Behavioral Health, Crisis Response, And Crisis-Related Services Needs And Capacity Assessments ...................................................................................................................................................25 Fines & Fees Analysis....................................................................................................................................26 Department Of Community Safety .............................................................................................................28 Dispatch Needs Assessment ......................................................................................................................29 Violence Prevention And Youth Services.................................................................................................32 Gun Violence Intervention And Prevention .............................................................................................36 Public Safety/Crime Prevention For Women And Older Persons ....................................................39 Hearing Officer-Alternatives To Sanctions/Fines................................................................................40 Expand Downtown Streets Teams .............................................................................................................41 Youth Mental Health.......................................................................................................................................43 Respite From Gender Violence...................................................................................................................45 Language Equity .............................................................................................................................................47

3 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This section provides an overview of Berkeley’s work towards Reimagining Public Safety, highlighting key milestones and the City’s commitment to creating an equitable and effective model for all residents.

APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................................48

4 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t Introduction
Reimagining Public Safety (RPS) in the City of Berkeley is a multi-phase initiative aimed at advancing a more equitable, inclusive, and community-responsive approach to safety. The initiative seeks to shift from an enforcement-centered model toward one that prioritizes prevention, wellness, and coordinated service delivery. Through cross-departmental collaboration, community engagement, and data-informed planning, RPS works to align City systems with the needs of all residents, particularly those historically underserved by conventional public safety structures.

The initiative is structured around a phased implementation process:

Phase 1 (2020-2022) Community Process and Research
In July 2020, the City Council adopted resolutions to initiate a comprehensive public safety transformation process. Phase 1 focused on research and extensive community engagement, supported by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR) and the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force. This foundational phase involved broad-based dialogue and cross- sector partnerships, culminating in a set of recommendations to guide structural reform. The reports developed during this phase emphasized the principles of “Reimagine, Improve, and Reinvest” and provided a roadmap for shifting Berkeley’s public safety system toward a more community-centered model.s.

Phase 2 (2022-2024) Continued Analysis and Implementation Phase 2 focused on translating the recommendations from Phase 1 into operational strategies. This included targeted staffing investments, consultant-led assessments, and new community-based programs addressing violence prevention, mental health, and gender-based harm. Departments worked collaboratively to implement Council direction and ensure alignment across City systems. This phase reinforced the City’s commitment to data- driven decision-making, cross-departmental coordination, and inclusive service delivery. 
Phase 3 (2024-2026) Continued Implementation and Expansion Now underway, Phase 3 is focused on embedding reforms into City operations, expanding care-based models, and establishing long-term sustainability. This includes continued investments in staffing, technical support, and community initiatives, as well as alignment with County systems where appropriate. Phase 3 also incorporates adjustments in response to fiscal conditions, while maintaining the City’s core commitment to a responsive, equitable, and well-coordinated public safety framework that reflects the diversity and needs of the Berkeley community.

5 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t Timeline
Timeline of Events
Date Milestone Description References
June 16, 2020 "Urgency Item: Safety for All" introduced, initiating Berkeley’s public safety reform process.  Annotated Agenda July 14, 2020 City Council approved the Omnibus motion, launching the Reimagining Public Safety initiative.
 See Action Calendar:

Items 18a-18e
 Annotated Agenda
December 15, 2020 City Council authorized a contract with the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR).
 See Consent
Calendar: Item 7
 Annotated Agenda
January 19, 2021 RPS Task Force established to guide recommendations through community and stakeholder engagement.
 See Consent
Calendar: Item 18
 Annotated Agenda
March 10, 2022 NICJR, the Task Force, and consultants presented final reports and recommendations.
 See Action Calendar:

Item 1-2
 Annotated Agenda
April 21, 2022 City Manager presented a roadmap synthesizing Phase 1 efforts.
 See Action Calendar:

Item 1
 Annotated Agenda
May 5, 2022 Council adopted the Mayor’s phased implementation plan and referred $5.3 million for FY 2023–24.
 See Action Calendar:

Item 1a-1c
 Annotated Agenda
June 28, 2022 Fiscal Year 2023–24 Biennial Budget adopted, incorporating RPS priorities.
 See Action Calendar:

Item 44
 Annotated Agenda
January 23, 2024 Staff presented the Fall 2023 RPS Status Report; Council adopted the GVIPP framework.
 See Action Calendar:

Item 1
 Annotated Agenda
May 14, 2024 Staff presented the Spring 2024 RPS Status Report and FY 2025–26 budget recommendations.
 See Action Calendar:

Item 27
 Annotated Agenda
June 25, 2024 Fiscal Year 2025–26 Biennial Budget adopted, including multi-tiered RPS funding allocations.
 See Action Calendar:

Item 53
 Annotated Agenda
October 29, 2024
Staff presented the Fall 2024 RPS Status Report,
highlighting the Police Department Workload Study and
Dispatch Needs Assessment.
 See Action Calendar:

Item 1
 Annotated Agenda

Internal
Phased Deliverables & Status Updates
1 For items marked as “Complete – Ongoing Work,” the initial implementation, assessment, or directive has been completed. However, ongoing work refers to continued activities that build on this foundation. This may include advancing the next phase of implementation, conducting follow-up actions, or sustaining efforts to ensure long-term impact and alignment with broader goals.

City Manager’s Office-led Deliverables
Deliverable Recommendation Status Update
Assistant to the City Manager
RPS Coordinator
Establish a dedicated senior-level position (NTE 3 years) to manage cross-departmental implementation and ensure
continuity across Reimagining efforts.

Complete – Ongoing Work.1 Initiated in Phase 2. The Assistant to the City Manager position was filled in August 2023 and continues to support implementation, coordination, and reporting for the RPS initiative.

Office of Diversity, Equity,
and Inclusion (ODEI)
Advance DEI infrastructure and integrate equity
considerations across RPS priorities.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 2. The DEI Officer was onboarded in November 2023 and is supporting broader City equity goals (e.g., environmental justice, BINDEX, LGBTQIA+) and alignment with RPS principles.

Grant Assistance Increase capacity to secure external funding in support of RPS-related programs.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 2. The City continues to partner with California Consulting to pursue grants supporting violence prevention, crisis response, and system improvements. City staff are also coordinating multiple competitive state and federal applications.

Language Equity Translate victim resources and other public safety materials into multiple languages.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 2. Efforts related to Language Equity are ongoing, with research and evaluation to identify community language needs currently underway. The team is working to complete the translation of key resources, including the survivor resources, by the end of Summer.

Gun Violence Intervention
and Prevention Fully implement the Ceasefire violence intervention program.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 2. Berkeley launched the GVIPP soft rollout in Fall 2024. The program includes outreach, reentry support, custom notifications, and monthly CVI Collaborative meetings. Regional coordination is underway. Vendor performance and data-sharing protocols continue to evolve.

Fine and Fees Analysis
Review Municipal Code for proposed changes to increase
equity and racial justice in City’s transportation fines and fees, and explore the civilianization of the municipal code.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 2. The City partnered with the Goldman School of Public Policy to complete a preliminary analysis in Spring 2025. Recommendations include centralizing fines administration, modernizing communications, and advancing payment alternatives.

Implementation planning is underway, guided by the RPS and Care First, Jails Last frameworks.

Alternative Response
Implementation Plan Expand use of non-police responders for lower-risk calls.

In Progress. Initiated in Phase 2. Work is underway to align CSO roles, explore new response options beyond SCU, and refine dispatch protocols. This effort is closely tied to CAD reforms and analysis of call types and responder fit.

Department of Community
Safety
Support an organizational design process to create an
umbrella
Department of Community Safety.

Paused – Funding Deferred. Deferred to Phase 4. Efforts related to Department of Community Safety design are on hold.

Recommendations on Public To support phased roll out of recommendations addressing Paused – Funding Deferred. Initiated in Phase 2. Staff completed a

Internal
7 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t Phased Deliverables & Status Updates
Safety/Crime Prevention for
Women and Older Persons
public safety/crime prevention for women and older persons. preliminary cost analysis and presented early findings to the Commission on the Status of Women. Staff continue to assess alignment opportunities and analyze local data to inform future rollout.

City Attorney-led Deliverable
Deliverable Recommendation Status Update
Litigation Analysis
Analyzing litigation outcomes and exposure for city
departments in order to guide the creation of City policy to reduce the impact of settlements on the General Fund.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 1. The City Attorney’s Offices continues to partner with departments on all Reimagining Public Safety- related efforts.

City Auditor-led Deliverable
Deliverable Recommendation Status Update
City Auditor Analysis
Having the City Auditor perform an analysis of City’s
emergency 9-1-1 calls-for service and responses, as well as analysis of the Berkeley Police Department’s (BPD) budget.

Complete. Initiated in Phase 1. The City Auditor Completed their report, Data Analysis of the City of Berkeley’s Police Response, July 2, 2021.

Police-led Deliverables
Deliverable Recommendation Status Update
Fair and Impartial Policing
Implementation
Recommendation to implement and prioritize FIP and
continue to support employee training and professional
development.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 1. The Police Department has implemented all 14 Reimagining Public Safety Task Force recommendations related to FIP. Ongoing efforts include integrating FIP principles into professional development and annual training requirements.

Auditor Recommendations Complete Auditor Recommendations on overtime and calls for service.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 1. BPD began implementation following the Auditor’s report. Progress updates have been shared through memos and reports, with final outcomes addressed in the Citygate Workload Study.

Staffing Assessment Analysis of BPD Staffing and Beat Structure.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 2. The City contracted with Citygate Associates to conduct the analysis; the final report was published in September 2024. Findings are being used to inform ongoing staffing strategy and resource alignment.

Wellness Funding Continue to support employee health and wellness. Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 2. The Department continues to promote officer wellness through existing partnerships and internal

Internal
8 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t initiatives. Additional efforts are being explored to expand access and normalize mental health care.

Staffing (CSO & Dispatcher) Launch a pilot Community Services Officer unit.

In Progress. Initiated in Phase 2. The CSO program has transitioned from a limited-term pilot to a full-time staffing model. Recruitment and assessment of new applicants are currently underway, with operational data to inform longer-term program placement and sustainability.

Internal
9 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t Phased Deliverables & Status Updates
Fire-led Deliverable
Deliverable Recommendation Status Update
Dispatch Needs Assessment
(DNA)
Continue development and implementation of prioritized
dispatch, request staff return with a recommended plan.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 1. The Berkeley Fire Department completed the Dispatch Needs Assessment and a validation study. An implementation plan is currently in progress, focusing on triage protocol development, software upgrades, and Emergency Communications Center capacity planning.

Health, Housing, and Community Services-led Deliverables Deliverable Recommendation Status Update
Specialized Care Unit (SCU)
Adopt the report, “City of Berkeley Specialized Care Unit Crisis Response Recommendations by Resource
Development Associates” and implement the pilot SCU.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 1. The SCU was launched in partnership with Bonita House, RDA, and community stakeholders in Fall 2023 and has responded to over 2,400 calls. Informed by a retrospective evaluation and aligned with CalAIM, the City is sunsetting the pilot and transitioning crisis response services to Alameda County’s Medi-Cal-funded Mobile Crisis Response System.

Crisis Needs Assessment Behavioral Health, Crisis Response, and Crisis-related Services Needs and Capacity Assessments.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 2. The Crisis Needs Assessment, led by RDA, analyzed 911 CAD data, dispatcher narratives, and field observations to assess crisis-related call handling and response alignment.

The final CAD Assessment was delivered in Spring 2025 and will inform improvements to triage protocols, coordination, and stabilization services.

HHCS is reviewing findings in conjunction with the SCU evaluation to guide future policy and operational changes.

Respite from Gender
Violence
Implement recommendations related to Gender Violence,
LGBTQIA+ needs, and peer-led services; work with county and CBO partners to map systems and identify service gaps.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 2. HHCS hired a temporary Community Services Specialist II to lead implementation. Staff have conducted stakeholder engagement and are developed an action framework based on identified gaps in gender-based violence support systems.

Violence Prevention and
Youth Services
Support violence prevention and youth service programs, including McGee Ave. Baptist Church, Berkeley Youth
Alternatives, and Berkeley Junior Jackets.

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 2. Contracts were renewed for FY 2025–26, and staff continue to provide technical assistance, monitoring, and impact evaluation as part of biannual RPS reporting.

Youth Mental Health Support a youth-led mental health response model through partnership with Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD).

Complete – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 2. Contract with BUSD was executed, and the Berkeley High School Wellness Center officially launched in Winter 2024. Ongoing monitoring and student engagement activities are in place to ensure responsive support.

Internal
10 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

Internal
11 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t Phased Deliverables & Status Updates
Public Works-led Deliverables
Deliverable Recommendation Status Update
Berkeley Department of
Transportation (BerkDOT)
Pursue creation of a Berkeley Department of Transportation (BerkDOT) to integrate a racial justice lens into traffic enforcement, policy, and infrastructure development. Identify strategies to reduce pretextual stops based on minor traffic violations.

Paused – Funding Deferred. Initiated in Phase 1. Due to state legislative setbacks (e.g., SB 50’s failure in 2023) and local budget constraints, BerkDOT development has been deprioritized and is on hold. Transportation equity goals continue through Vision Zero and staffing investments.

Vision Zero Coordinator
(Collision Analysis)
Approve a Vision Zero staff position (NTE 3 years) in Public Works to enhance collision data analysis capacity.

In Progress – Ongoing Work. Initiated in Phase 2. The Vision Zero Program Coordinator (Associate Planner) position became vacant in November 2024 and remains unfilled due to citywide resource constraints. The Vision Zero Program Manager (Senior Planner) was hired in January 2025, restoring program leadership. Despite staffing gaps, consultant support and interdepartmental collaboration have sustained progress. Construction on several high-injury corridor projects is scheduled for 2025–2026. Continued staffing and funding are essential to achieving Berkeley’s Vision Zero goal by 2028.

Expand Downtown Streets
Teams (DST)
Expand DST as placement for low-level violations (e.g.
vehicular camping/parking and sidewalk ordinance
infractions).

Paused – Funding Deferred. Initiated in Phase 2. In FY 2024, the City allocated $50,000 in one-time funds to expand the DST Clean Cities Program, supporting litter removal, graffiti abatement, and neighborhood maintenance.

A new contract was executed in June 2023. While the original referral included exploring DST as a diversion for low-level violations, the City’s Fines and Fees Assessment determined that a community service model was not viable due to cost, equity, and infrastructure barriers. The $50,000 in allocated funds were not carried forward during the Annual Appropriations Ordinance (AAO) process, and are therefore currently unavailable.

Alternatives to
Sanctions/Fines Hearing
Officer
Expand hearing officer resources in the City Manager’s Office to provide alternative referrals to community service and social services for
parking and other infractions.

Paused – Funding Deferred. Deferred to Phase 4. Hearing officer resources have been expanded, but the implementation of alternatives to sanctions and fines is pending the results of the Fines & Fees analysis.

12 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t Considerati
ons
As the City continues to advance its
Reimagining Public Safety (RPS) initiative,
several intersecting challenges and
operational realities shape ongoing
implementation. Addressing these
considerations will be critical to sustaining
progress, maintaining alignment with
community needs, and supporting long-term
system transformation.

Fiscal Conditions and Resource
Allocation
The current budget landscape has required a
phased approach to implementation, with
some initiatives deferred based on funding
availability. Departments are prioritizing
core services and high-impact deliverables
while seeking external funding to support
future expansion. Continued alignment
between fiscal strategy and program
planning will be essential to ensure long-
term viability.

Infrastructure and Implementation
Capacity
Achieving the goals of RPS depends not only
on funding but also on the systems and
staffing required to support effective
delivery. Gaps in administrative
infrastructure, technology systems, and data
coordination have presented challenges in
several areas. Addressing these needs
through phased planning and capacity-
building will remain a focus moving forward.

Staffing and Workforce Retention
Citywide staffing constraints continue to
impact the pace and scale of implementation.

While the City has taken steps to stabilize
key functions and fill essential roles, the
hiring freeze that City’s structural deficit and
hiring freeze has limits the City’s ability to
hire additional staff for this initiative.

Exceptions to the freeze are being
considered for critical positions, but the
broader constraints reinforce the need for
retention strategies, succession planning,
and operational resilience.

Interdepartmental Coordination
The scope and interdependence of RPS work
require sustained collaboration across City
departments, community-based partners,
and County agencies. As the City works to
embed reforms into standard practice,
maintaining clear communication, shared
ownership, and coordinated timelines will be
necessary to ensure alignment, minimize
duplication, and achieve equitable outcomes.

Sustainability and Strategic Planning
Many Phase 2 efforts were supported
through pilot funding or short-term grants.

As programs mature, the City is evaluating
long-term delivery strategies and exploring
transitions to County or regional systems
where appropriate—such as in the area of
mobile crisis response. These decisions are
being guided by service impact, fiscal
sustainability, and alignment with system-
level planning efforts.
.

Internal
13 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

Internal
14 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t Next Steps
As the Reimagining Public Safety initiative progresses through Phase 3, the City remains focused on sustaining momentum, institutionalizing successful reforms, and strategically planning for future phases of work. Building on community engagement, consultant analyses, and recent program evaluations, staff are identifying areas for targeted improvement and long-term investment.

In the near term, the City will continue to support core RPS efforts while refining implementation strategies based on operational needs, fiscal realities, and service delivery goals. Staff are also developing a roadmap for deferred or longer-term items to ensure that sequencing is achievable and aligned with available resources.

Internal coordination and system improvements remain key priorities. While the City works to address its structural deficit, a citywide hiring freeze has been put in place with the understanding that strategic exceptions are being considered where positions are essential to the sustainability of mandated programs and core services.

In parallel, staff are exploring external funding opportunities—including grants and regional partnerships—to reduce reliance on the General Fund and support financial sustainability. This includes evaluating when it may be appropriate to transition City-operated pilots into County- operated programs.

Looking ahead, Phase 4 planning will be grounded in lessons learned, performance data, and Council and community feedback. This next phase will further Berkeley’s commitment to a more equitable, coordinated, and sustainable public safety system, aligned with long-term strategic goals.

15 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t Priority Reimagining Public
Safety Initiatives
This section offers a concise overview of Berkeley’s work towards Reimagining Public Safety, highlighting key milestones and the city’s commitment to creating an equitable and effective model for all residents.

Overview
Building on the summaries provided in earlier sections, this part of the report offers a more comprehensive view of the City's efforts. It details the unique challenges and considerations for each deliverable, outlining future steps and associated timelines. Additional details can be found in the report's Companion Appendix.

As noted in the Executive Summary, the City continues to navigate challenges, including staffing shortages, the redirection of resources, legislative hurdles, and legal complexities, which have caused delays in some initiatives. The City is dedicated to ensuring transparency and maintaining clear communication regarding all aspects of this initiative, covering both accomplishments and challenges encountered.

It is essential to recognize that, although there are more milestones to achieve, real change is an ongoing process. The City of Berkeley is deeply committed to this important work and the significant journey ahead. Rooted in community engagement, this effort is not just a duty but a privilege and remains at the heart of Berkeley’s shared vision for a safer, more inclusive City.

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
16 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

STAFFING INVESTMENTS

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY PROJECT

COORDINATOR
Department Lead: City Manager’s Office
Status Update: Initial Hiring Complete, Activities In-Progress Overview:

In Phase 2 of the Reimagining Public Safety (RPS) initiative, the City of Berkeley created the Assistant to the City Manager (AtoCM) position to serve as the RPS Project Coordinator. This role has been central in fostering cross-departmental collaboration—engaging Police, Fire, Health, Housing and Community Services, Public Works, and the City Attorney’s Office—to develop a strategic Coordination Plan that improves resource allocation, interdepartmental communication, and overall project direction. Beyond coordination, the AtoCM is responsible for tracking and reporting on initiative progress and driving key deliverables from the City Manager’s Office, including efforts related to Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention, Grant Assistance, Fines & Fees Analysis, Language Equity, and foundational work for a potential Department of Community Safety. As the City progresses through
Phase 3, the AtoCM is amplifying efforts to
leverage grant opportunities to ensure the sustainability of the initiative in a fiscally responsible and balanced way. Additional priorities include securing Council approval for Tier 1 funding, requesting carryforward of unused funds during the Annual Appropriations Ordinance process, and completing the revamp of the public-facing RPS webpage.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
August 2023  Assistant to the City Manager hired.

December 2023  Reimagining Public Safety Fall 2023 Status Report published.

January 2024 Reimagining Public Safety Fall 2023 Presentation to City Council.

Phase 2
(2022-2024)
May 2024 Reimagining Public Safety Spring 2024 Report Published & Presentation to City Council.

Phase 3
(2024-2026) October2024 Reimagining Public Safety Fall 2024 Report Published & Presentation to City Council.

Next Steps & Timeline:
 Ongoing: The Assistant to the City Manager will continue to lead cross-departmental coordination while finalizing the public-facing RPS webpage to enhance transparency and community engagement. Focus will also center on securing long-term funding and

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
17 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t leveraging grant opportunities to sustain and expand key public safety initiatives beyond FY 2025–2026.

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
18 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

OFFICE OF DIVERSITY, EQUITY, AND INCLUSION
(ODEI)
Department Lead: City Manager’s Office
Status Update: Initial Hiring Complete, Activities In-Progress Overview:

As part of Phase 2 of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative, the City of Berkeley established a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) Officer position within the City Manager’s Office to help embed anti-racism, equity, and inclusion into City operations. The DEI Officer leads efforts to align City policies, practices, and programs with the values of equity, justice, and community accountability. Since onboarding in late 2023, the DEI Officer has focused on internal assessment and external engagement, collaborating with departments, boards, commissions, and community organizations to strengthen inclusive governance. This includes aligning equity efforts with municipal legislation, Citywide survey data, and the recommendations from the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force. The DEI Officer’s scope includes strategic planning, cross-departmental coordination, and LGBTQ+ community liaison work. Current efforts include collaboration with the Police Department on its LGBTQ+ liaison initiatives, support for inclusive community training, and participation in environmental justice. Due to the City’s ongoing deficit, previously proposed DEI staffing roles were not funded, the office continues to explore alternative funding and partnership opportunities with the San Francisco Foundation and Partnership for the Bays Future.

DEI and the City Manager’s Office Special Projects division are experiencing vacancy and in light of the challenging financial landscape that the City faces, we are exploring integration of operations in areas of overlap to address support in both offices. ODEI will begin the UBI/Reentry study investment process, with a report on initial findings by Winter 2025. ODEI plans to coordinate with external partners and grant writers to identify matching funds and evaluation support by Spring 2026. The City of Berkeley will employ race neutral measures like outreach to eliminate any unnecessary barriers in public works procurements and contracts identified in the Mason Tillman report recommended by the BINDEX steps to increase business inclusion opportunities for small minority- and women-owned businesses and to improve the diversity culture framework within the organization.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
November 2023  DEI Officer Hired. Phase 2
(2022-2024)  Fall 2023 –
ongoing
Strategic planning, engagement with internal and external stakeholders.

Phase 3
(2024-2026) Fall 2024–
 Strengthen support for formerly incarcerated adults by identifying gaps in existing reentry programs.
 Launch a Guaranteed Income (GI) Pilot to test the impact of direct cash assistance on financial stability and recidivism with a clear evaluation processes and metrics.

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
19 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t  Align E4BB with the work plan established by the DEI
Officer.
 Assess BINDEX Metrics and adjust for impact in utilization based on identified firms.

Ongoing  Continued partnerships, LGBTQ+ inclusion, environmental justice, and trainings centering Belonging.

Considerations:
 Institutional Readiness and Sustainability: Continued implementation of DEI priorities requires strong cross-departmental coordination, sufficient staff capacity, and compliance with changing federal mandates. Establishing shared protocols for data collection and maintaining continuity in equity-related work will be essential. Sustaining progress depends on clear governance, adequate resources, and consistent stakeholder engagement.

Next Steps & Timelines:
 Ongoing: The DEI Officer will continue developing a citywide DEI strategic workplan, engage in interdepartmental and community partnerships, and support inclusive policy implementation. Updates LGBTQ+ programs, and community outreach will be shared in future Reimagining Public Safety reports.

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
20 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

GRANT ASSISTANCE
Department Lead: City Manager’s Office
Status Update: Contract Initiated, Activities In-Progress Overview:

In Phase 2 of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative, the City allocated funding to enhance grant- seeking capacity and partnered with California Consulting, LLC to pursue state and federal funding aligned with public safety, equity, and resilience goals. In response to the current fiscal landscape, the City has expanded the scope of its critical focus areas—including crisis response, police wellness, climate equity, and economic stability—to increase competitiveness for both public and private grant opportunities.

As Phase 3 progresses, the City has applied for major grants that could potentially support Reimagining Public Safety efforts and continues to identify new opportunities to support long- term sustainability.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
Summer –
Fall 2023  Contract with California Consulting, LLC initiated. Phase 2 (2022-2024)  Spring 2024 Contract with California Consulting, LLC amended to fully allocate grant assistance funds.

Phase 3
(2024-2026) Ongoing  The Reimagining Public Safety AtoCM will continue to lead efforts in identifying, applying for, and managing grants.

Considerations:
 Grant Alignment and Strategic Coordination: The City’s grant strategy prioritizes alignment with Reimagining Public Safety goals while fostering effective interdepartmental collaboration. To optimize resources and minimize fiscal impact, the team focuses on pursuing no-match grants, though it remains open to opportunities that require matching funds when they support high-priority initiatives.

Next Steps & Timeline:
 Ongoing: The Assistant to the City Manager will continue collaborating across departments to identify grant opportunities that align with the Reimagining Public Safety initiative’s objectives. The team will report on successfully obtained grants and seek additional funding opportunities to further advance public safety goals.

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
21 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

SPECIALIZED CARE UNIT IMPLEMENTATION
Department Lead: Health, Housing and Community Services Department Status Update: Initial Implementation Complete, Activities In-Progress Overview:

In Phase 1, the SCU model was developed through extensive community engagement, expert consultation, and research facilitated by Resource Development Associates (RDA) and the SCU Steering Committee. This work culminated in a model tailored to Berkeley’s needs and grounded in trauma-informed, equity-centered care. The Specialized Care Unit (SCU) was established as a core component of the City’s Reimagining Public Safety initiative, offering a non-police, community-based response to behavioral health and substance use crises. Each SCU team includes a licensed clinician, a peer specialist, and an EMT. Together, they respond to calls involving individuals in crisis, working to stabilize situations through de-escalation and support— without involving law enforcement unless absolutely necessary.

By Phase 2, the City contracted with Bonita House, Inc. to launch the SCU, which began operations in September 2023. Since its launch, the SCU has responded to approximately 2,445 calls, with 1,376 resulting in an in-person field response. The majority of these calls were resolved without police involvement—underscoring the promise of care-based responses. However, over time, several structural challenges emerged that limited the program’s sustainability. These included difficulties maintaining 24/7 staffing, extended response times, and the SCU’s separation from the City’s 911 dispatch system. To better understand these limitations and guide future planning, the City commissioned a retrospective evaluation by Resource Development Associates (RDA), completed in Spring 2025. The evaluation affirmed the SCU’s value in offering compassionate, community-centered crisis care. At the same time, it highlighted critical barriers that made the current city-operated model difficult to sustain—particularly the lack of dedicated long-term funding2, staffing constraints, and operational isolation from broader emergency response infrastructure. The SCU was initially funded through one-time CCMU and ARPA grants, both of which have now been exhausted. Continuing the program under the City’s structure would require substantial and ongoing investment, which is not feasible given Berkeley’s structural deficit, rising personnel costs, and broader fiscal constraints—challenges faced by many Bay Area jurisdictions.

Based on these findings and in alignment with statewide policy shifts under CalAIM, the City is now transitioning the SCU into Alameda County’s Medi-Cal-funded Mobile Crisis Response system. This transition represents the most viable long-term sustainability strategy, addressing both funding limitations and structural barriers encountered during local implementation and 2 The SCU was funded by one-time CCMU and ARPA grants, which have now been exhausted. Per the SCU Evaluation and RDA’s recommendations, transitioning the program to Alameda County is the most sustainable option. This would address structural barriers faced during Berkeley’s implementation and align the SCU with the County’s Medi-Cal billing and behavioral health systems amid ongoing City fiscal constraints.

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
22 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t ensures that Berkeley residents will continue to have access to high-quality, non-police crisis care through a regional system designed for long-term viability. Alameda County is building out ten mobile response teams to meet state-mandated standards, including a 60-minute maximum response time, and will be positioned to support broader coverage and integration across jurisdictions. This next chapter for the SCU represents a strategic shift toward regional sustainability. Rather than building a duplicative system within the City, the transition allows Berkeley to leverage County infrastructure and Medi-Cal billing capacity while continuing to shape local priorities and preserve the SCU’s core values. HHCS, in partnership with Bonita House and Alameda County Behavioral Health, is actively managing the transition, with full- service integration targeted for the end of Summer 2025. As the SCU evolves into a County- operated program, the City will continue to coordinate closely with all partners and provide updates to the City Council, ensuring that care-first principles remain at the center of crisis response.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
December 2020  SCU Steering Committee Formed.

January 2021  Contract with RDA Initiated.

March 2022  RDA Completes Report & Presents to Council.

Phase 1
(2020-2022)
May 2022  City Council informed of Reimagining Public Safety Framework for SCU design.

October 2023 – Summer
2024
Program continues to expand staffing and build infrastructure toward 24/7 operations. Conversations begin around long-term Medi-Cal billing pathways.

Phase 2
(2022-2024)
March 2024 SCU vans are deployed to improve mobile response capability.

September 2024 SCU Steering Committee and monthly SCU updates transitioned to Berkeley Mental Health Commission.

Fall 2024 –
Spring 2025
RDA finalizes SCU Retrospective Evaluation. Findings inform County transition and validate system-level integration strategy.

Phase 3
(2024-2026)
Summer 2025 Alameda County’s Medi-Cal Mobile Crisis Response System to be completed.

Considerations:
 Transition Readiness and Program Sustainability: Transitioning the SCU to Alameda County reflects a thoughtful shift toward long-term sustainability, system integration, and alignment with state policy. While Berkeley’s pilot demonstrated the effectiveness of a non-police, care-first crisis response, the RDA evaluation confirmed key limitations, including limited 911 integration, staffing constraints, and the expiration of one-time funding, that challenge the City’s capacity to maintain the program independently. By moving into the County’s Medi-Cal-funded Mobile Crisis Response system, Berkeley ensures continued access to timely, community-based care while avoiding duplication of services. Importantly, RDA’s findings offer valuable insight that Alameda County can use

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
23 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t to strengthen and evolve its own crisis response efforts, building on Berkeley’s lessons to shape a more responsive and equitable regional system.

Next Steps & Timeline:
 Spring 2025 – ongoing: HHCS will work closely with Alameda County Behavioral Health and Bonita House to manage service handoff, including communications, continuity planning, and coordination infrastructure.

STAFFING AND OPERATIONS (COMMUNITY SERVICE

OFFICERS, DISPATCH, AND DEPARTMENTAL

ASSESSMENT)
Department Lead: Police
Status Update:

Activities In-Progress
Overview:

The Berkeley Police Department (BPD) is actively implementing staffing and structural improvements to strengthen its capacity, reduce overtime, and deliver more responsive, community-oriented services.

In February, BPD launched a new CSO deployment model that includes support to patrol and investigations functions. This model is designed to improve community responsiveness and operational efficiency while addressing long-standing staffing shortages. From February 1- April 24, 2025, the City’s three patrol CSOs have handled 466 calls for service and completed 228 reports. Their ability to manage non-emergency calls has helped our sworn officers remain focused on priority incidents.

The City’s external consultant completed a workload and staffing study in Fall 2024, identifying 74 findings and 54 actionable recommendations related to organizational health, staffing levels, resource deployment, beat structure, and CSO integration. Department leadership has reviewed the recommendations and developed a phased implementation plan in alignment with departmental priorities and available resources.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
Summer 2022 –
Fall 2024 Ongoing BPD Recruitment Cycle.

July 2024 CSO positions converted to full-time permanent status. Phase 2 (2022-2024)
Summer 2024 CSO patrol and investigations track initiated; continued Dispatcher recruitment.

Phase 3 Fall 2024 Final staffing report released with 54 recommendations.

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
24 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t (2024-2026) Spring 2025 –
ongoing
BPD to provide updates on staffing progress and implementation of study recommendations.

Next Steps & Timelines:
 Spring 2025 – ongoing: The Berkeley Police Department will continue to advance the implementation of staffing improvements and organizational recommendations as outlined in the recent consultant study. This includes refining CSO deployment in patrol and investigations, increasing recruitment outreach for both dispatcher and CSO positions, and further integrating CSOs into non-emergency response workflows.

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
25 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

FAIR AND IMPARTIAL POLICING
Department Lead: Police
Status Update: Implementation Complete, Activities In-Progress Overview:

The core principles of fair and impartial policing have been fundamentally integrated into the Department’s ongoing policies, training, and operational practices. Key actions include implementing all 14 recommendations from the Mayor’s Fair and Impartial Policing (FIP) Task Force, which led to department-wide "KIND" (Constitutional, Humane, Impartial, Neighborhood- focused, and DEI-aligned) training. BPD also adopted the Active Bystander for Law Enforcement (ABLE) training to promote peer intervention and accountability. These internal reforms are supported by community engagement with organizations like Dorothy Day House and the Center for Food, Faith, and Justice.

Phase 2 of the initiative saw a $100,000 allocation for expanded training to deepen organizational capacity in line with FIP values. Looking forward, Phase 3 includes a continued $100,000 training investment for Fiscal Years 2025 and 2026. A significant development in Phase 3 is the implementation of an improved Early Intervention System (EIS) through a two-year contract with Benchmark Analytics. This data-driven system, selected with input from the Police Accountability Board and the Berkeley Police Association, aims to analyze officer performance, identify early warning indicators, and apply targeted interventions to strengthen professional development, reduce risk, and enhance public trust (See Appendix G for FIP Update).

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
February 2021 Mayor and the City Council pass FIP Recommendations Phase 1 (2020-2022)  August 2021 –
ongoing   Department launches ongoing FIP-aligned officer training.

Phase 2
(2022-2024)
Summer 2022 –
ongoing
Continued training inclusive of FIP tenets. KIND and ABLE training expanded.

Ongoing  Continued training inclusive of FIP tenets.
 Leveraging grant opportunities.

Fall 2024 RFP Process Conducted for EIS and Benchmark Analytics selected.

Spring 2025 Contract begins; system onboarding and training initiated.

Phase 3
(2024-2026)
Summer 2025 –
ongoing
Initial deployment, analysis, and integration of EIS into departmental workflows.

Next Steps & Timeline:
 Spring 2025 – ongoing: BPD will lead the implementation of the new EIS platform, including staff training, performance analytics integration, and regular evaluation. The

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
26 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t department will continue to deliver FIP-aligned trainings and explore funding opportunities to expand its programming.

WELLNESS PRACTICES (CRITICAL INCIDENT

STRESS, PEER SUPPORT TEAM, AND EMERGING

WELLNESS NEEDS)
Department Lead: Police
Status Update:

Implementation Complete, Activities In-Progress
Overview:

The Police Department continues to advance staff wellness as a core operational priority.

Recognizing the connection between employee well-being, retention, and high-quality service delivery, the City Council allocated $50,000 during Phase 3 to support the continued development of comprehensive wellness infrastructure. These initial investments included facility improvements, the introduction of immersive group therapy programming, and the launch of a confidential wellness mobile application offering 24/7 access to behavioral health resources.

These resources are designed to support both routine stress management and recovery from exposure to critical incidents. This includes the continuation of peer support services, enhanced access to Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) specialists, and targeted wellness training.

In parallel, the Assistant to the City Manager is working with the Police Department to identify and pursue external grant opportunities to further institutionalize wellness supports across the department.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
Phase 2
(2022-2024) July 2022 – ongoing
Wellness initiatives included counseling, critical incident stress training, gym upgrades, and immersive group therapy. By FY 2024, partnerships such as O2X and wellness apps for first responders were integrated.

Phase 3
(2024-2026)
July 2024 –
ongoing
Expansion of wellness programs, leveraging grant opportunities to enhance support services, wellness training, and retention initiatives.

Next Steps & Timeline:
 Spring 2025 – ongoing: BPD will continue to advance its wellness strategy by refining support systems, evaluating program outcomes, and exploring new partnerships.

Additional funding opportunities and outcome data will be incorporated into future Reimagining Public Safety reports.

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
27 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

VISION ZERO PROGRAM
Department Lead: Public Works Department
Status Update: Activities In-Progress
Overview:

The City of Berkeley continues its commitment to Vision Zero—eliminating all fatal and serious injury traffic crashes by 2028. The Vision Zero Action Plan, developed in Phase 2, identifies eleven high-priority actions that guide data-informed interventions focused on high-injury corridors.

These actions emphasize street design, infrastructure improvements, and system-wide safety strategies grounded in equity and public health, rather than enforcement-based approaches.

Throughout 2024, the Vision Zero Program contributed to the advancement of major safety initiatives, including the Southside Complete Streets Project and the Martin Luther King Jr. Way Quick Build. In response to multiple serious and fatal collisions, the City activated its Vision Zero Rapid Response Protocol and began developing a scalable Quick Build program to more rapidly implement safety solutions. Staff also collaborated with the Berkeley Police Department to improve traffic injury data transparency through the Police Transparency Hub. As of Spring 2025, the City has filled the Vision Zero Program Manager (Senior Planner) position, marking a critical milestone in restoring internal leadership and planning capacity. However, the Vision Zero Program Coordinator (Associate Planner) position has remained vacant since November 2024, and recruitment is paused due to citywide resource constraints. This vacancy has delayed several programmatic initiatives, including the update of the Vision Zero Action Plan, developing and delivering the Vision Zero Quick Build Program, and the reactivation of the Vision Zero Coordinating Committee. Fully staffing the program remains a high priority to ensure continuity of service and timely project delivery. The Vision Zero Program Manager position remained vacant for 17 months (August 2023-January 2025), creating leadership and continuity challenges. The Program has operated with significant staffing gaps, hindering the City’s ability to fully implement the program’s goals of achieving zero traffic fatalities by 2028. With the position now filled, Public Works is better equipped to lead interdepartmental coordination, advance grant-funded capital projects, consultant-supported Quick Build designs, and the Rapid Response Protocol—key steps toward achieving the City's data-driven, equity-centered safety goals.

Rising construction costs and limited availability of Measure BB funding for staffing and planning have constrained the City’s ability to fully resource Vision Zero program activities. These financial challenges may delay the delivery of key safety initiatives, including Quick Build implementation, planning efforts, and the update of the Vision Zero Action Plan. With the passage of Measure FF, the Public Works Department will leverage this funding to help address current resource gaps and support Vision Zero priorities. Strategic coordination between City staff, consultants, and external partners will remain essential to sustaining progress and scaling the program’s impact in Phase 3.

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
28 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t As part of the City’s commitment to eliminating fatal and severe traffic crashes by 2028, construction will begin in 2025–2026 on several key safety and mobility projects. These include the Sacramento Street Pedestrian Safety Project, Woolsey–Fulton Bicycle Boulevard, Parker– Addison Mobility and Safety Improvements, Ohlone Greenway Safety Improvements, Sixth Street/Addison Street Intersection Enhancements, and Adeline Street Quick Build Projects. Each of these projects is strategically located on, across, or as an alternative to a Vision Zero High Injury Street, addressing known safety concerns and improving conditions for people walking, biking, and driving. These infrastructure improvements reflect the City’s data-driven approach to reducing traffic related crashes and enhancing equitable access to safe streets. Moreover, our Traffic Maintenance teams have successfully implemented daylighting at over 190 high-injury corridor intersections citywide and working urgently to implement more.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
October 2023  Vision Zero Program Coordinator (Associate Planner) Hired. Phase 2 (2022-2024) Fall 2023 –
Spring 2025
Construction progressed on MLK Jr. Way Quick Build, Southside Complete Streets, AC Transit’s Durant Ave Quick Build Projects November 2024 Vision Zero Program Coordinator (Associate Planner) Vacancy. Led to no staff on Vision Zero Program
January 2025 Vision Zero Program Manager (Senior Planner) hired.

Spring –
Summer 2025
Recruitment for replacement Vision Zero Program Coordinator ongoing; consultant-led Quick Build development and Rapid Response Protocol work continues.

Fall 2024 –
December 2025
Telegraph Multi-modal Corridor Study (concept design expected December 2025).

Spring 2025 –
TBD
Implementing Daylighting through contractor services, with priority given to intersections with meters and blue zones on high injury streets; and on/near high injury streets, schools, and senior centers.

Spring 2025 –
December 2026
Adeline Street Transportation Improvements Corridor Study (concept design expected December 2026).

Phase 3
(2024-2026)
2025 – 2026
Construction begins on Sacramento St Pedestrian Safety, Woolsey – Fulton Bicycle Blvd, Parker – Addison Mobility and Safety Improvements, Ohlone Greenway Safety Improvements, Sixth St/ Addison St Intersection, Adeline St Quick Build Projects.

Considerations:
 Rebuilding Program Capacity to Sustain Momentum: Staffing remains the most significant factor shaping the near-term trajectory of the Vision Zero Program. The City continues to explore options to augment capacity for Vision Zero with other staffing, where possible, to ensure that program deliverables move ahead. In addition, consultant resources are currently bridging gaps, until budgets rebound and a fully staffed internal team is restored.

Next Steps & Timelines:

STAFFING INVESTMENTS
29 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t  Spring 2025 – ongoing: Vision Zero efforts will focus on grant-funded capital project delivery related to the Vision Zero High Injury Streets, consultant-supported Quick Build design, execution of the Rapid Response Protocol. The city will also continue to explore and leverage Measure BB, grant resources, and Measure FF to support ongoing staffing and consultant needs.

CONSULTANT COSTS
30 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

CONSULTANT COSTS

BERKELEY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

DEVELOPMENT
Department Lead: Public Works Department
Status Update: Paused (funding deferred)
Overview:

As part of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative, the Berkeley Department of Transportation (BerkDOT) remains a long-term vision focused on restructuring transportation services to prioritize equity, sustainability, and safety. While early groundwork began during Phase 1— including the transition of crossing guards to Public Works and initial discussions around transportation consolidation—progress on full implementation has been delayed due to funding deferrals, staffing vacancies, and organizational shifts within the Public Works Department.

Though BerkDOT development remains on hold, the City continues to advance key transportation safety priorities through existing Vision Zero efforts and quick-build projects. These projects reflect a tactical shift to focus on what is implementable now while laying the foundation for longer-term structural transformation. Staff continue to monitor regional legislative activity and internal capacity, with plans to revisit BerkDOT development once key dependencies are resolved and the City is better positioned to address this work.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
June 2020 – Ongoing   Community Process for BerkDOT Development Fall 2022  Transition of crossing guards from the Police Department to Public Works' Transportation Division. Phase 1
(2020-2022)
Fall 2022 – 2023 Public Works issued staffing vacancy updates to City Council and the community.

Phase 2
(2022-2024)  Summer 2023  Funding for several Reimagining Public Safety project initiatives, including BerkDOT deferred.

Phase 3
(2024-2026)
Fall 2024 –
Ongoing
Staff continue to monitor state policy shifts and advance near-term transportation safety initiatives. BerkDOT is classified as a Tier 3 priority pending resolution of key planning dependencies.

Next Steps & Timeline:
 Spring 2025 – ongoing: The City will continue to prioritize transportation safety projects.

Staff will revisit BerkDOT development as capacity improves and as legislative or funding opportunities emerge.

CONSULTANT COSTS
31 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, CRISIS RESPONSE, AND

CRISIS-RELATED SERVICES NEEDS AND CAPACITY

ASSESSMENTS
Department Lead: Health, Housing and Community Services Department Status Update:

Assessment Complete, Activities In-Progress
Overview:

As part of Phase 2 of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative, the City of Berkeley allocated $100,000 to assess service needs related to behavioral health and homelessness by analyzing 911 and non-911 call data. In May 2023, the City Council authorized additional funding to expand this work through a Crisis Needs Assessment conducted by Resource Development Associates (RDA).

The CAD analysis focused on the City’s Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system and how crisis- related calls are categorized and routed. RDA's methodology included a review of CAD records from March 2020 onward, qualitative analysis of dispatcher call narratives, observations from sit-alongs in the Communications Center, and field shadowing of Berkeley Police Department responses. The goal was to identify opportunities to improve classification accuracy, response alignment, and system-wide integration for behavioral health emergencies.

The assessment reviewed how crisis-related calls are currently handled across dispatch, police, and mental health systems. It revealed limitations in how behavioral health emergencies are classified and routed, which are a nationwide limitation with dispatch. The findings reinforce the City’s decision to sunsetting the operation of the Specialized Care Unit (SCU) and utilizing Alameda County Behavioral Health services, where the County will be better positioned for long- term success through deeper integration with county-level services, Medi-Cal reimbursement, and regional coordination efforts.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
Summer 2023
SCU evaluation scope expanded to include RDA’s Crisis Needs Assessment; CAD data analysis initiated; Community Services Specialist II hired to support assessment coordination.

Phase 2
(2022-2024)   Fall 2023 – Spring
2025
RDA refined CAD data requests and conducted analysis through data review, dispatch center observations, and police ride-alongs. Final CAD Assessment delivered to HHCS in Spring 2025.

Phase 3
(2024-2026)
Fall 2023 – Spring
2025
HHCS reviewing CAD Assessment findings alongside the upcoming SCU evaluation; Crisis Needs Assessment recommendations to inform policy and operational adjustments across crisis response services.

Next Steps & Timeline:

CONSULTANT COSTS
32 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t  Spring 2025 – Ongoing: HHCS will coordinate with internal departments, Alameda County Behavioral Health, and community stakeholders to consider how the findings from both RDA reports, the CAD Assessment and SCU Retrospective Evaluation, can inform improvements to triage protocols, crisis response coordination, and stabilization services.

CONSULTANT COSTS
33 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

FINES & FEES ANALYSIS
Department Lead: City Manager’s Office
Status Update: Initial Analysis Complete, Activities In-Progress Overview:

In Phase 2 of the Reimagining Public Safety (RPS) initiative, the City Council allocated funding to assess Berkeley’s system of municipal fines and fees, with a focus on equity, racial justice, and exploring alternatives to traditional enforcement. Though implementation was initially delayed due to budgetary constraints, funds were released in January 2024, enabling an internal steering committee—led by the Assistant to the City Manager and composed of cross-departmental staff— to initiate the project. The scope was subsequently expanded to include a comprehensive review of all fines and fees with the potential to disproportionately impact low-income residents.

In Phase 3, in partnership with a graduate policy analyst from the Goldman School of Public Policy, the City conducted an in-depth assessment of current policies and practices, with attention to affordability, administrative efficiency, and long-term sustainability (See Appendix C for Preliminary Fines & Fees Assessment). The methodology included staff interviews, departmental schedule reviews, and benchmarking against peer jurisdictions, including insights from San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project. Findings were evaluated using a five-part criteria matrix assessing political feasibility, cost, effectiveness, sustainability, and externalities.

The final report identifies six priority recommendations, presented in order of implementation feasibility based on the matrix scoring:
 Develop a clear fines and fees communication strategy, including a multilingual, plain- language online portal, QR-coded citations, and a Council-adopted Master Fee Schedule to improve access and standardize information.
 Amend BMC 14.40.100 to align with federal and state disability parking standards, allowing caregivers to use placards when transporting disabled individuals.  Amend BMC 14.68 to eliminate mandatory bicycle registration, which disproportionately impacts youth and low-income residents, and is not enforceable under state law.  Evaluate and implement centralized fines and fees administration software, including enhancements to the City’s ERP system and potential use of Robotic Process Automation (RPA) to improve data integration and reduce manual workload.  Expand the Indigent Payment Plan (IPP) beyond parking citations to cover other fines and fees across the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC), aligning obligations with residents’ financial capacity.
 Embed automatic installment payment options for all citations, enabling residents to pay fines over time without requiring income verification, reducing defaults and enforcement costs.

CONSULTANT COSTS
34 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t The report underscores that many proposed reforms—particularly those involving communication, legal updates, and policy clarity—are low-cost and immediately actionable.

Others, such as technology upgrades and universal installment plans, will require phased implementation, staff training, and interdepartmental coordination.

The City will continue to evaluate implementation strategies through interdepartmental collaboration, stakeholder engagement, and fiscal analysis. Progress updates will be reported regularly to ensure reforms remain accountable, effective, and responsive to the community’s needs.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
June 2023  City Council referred several Reimagining Tier 1 requests to the Annual Appropriations Ordinance process.

January 2024 Funding for the Fines & Fees Analysis was released following AAO approval.  Phase 2
(2022-2024)
Spring –
Fall 2024
A staff steering committee explored the project scope and evaluated approaches, ultimately deciding to engage a
Goldman School of Public Policy (GSPP) intern as a Policy Consultant.

Phase 3
(2024-2026)
January –
May 2025
The GSPP intern conducted a comprehensive study, including a literature review, departmental interviews, and analysis of fines and fees impacting low-income Berkeley residents.

Considerations:
 Sustainable Reform with Long-Term Benefits: The City is taking a balanced, long-term approach to fines and fees reform that ensures legal compliance while prioritizing sustainable, equity-centered outcomes. Recommendations must be both fiscally responsible and socially just—delivering net positive impacts for low-income residents without undermining core city operations. To ensure successful implementation, some strategies may be phased in over time, allowing the City to evaluate impacts, adjust policies as needed, and build public trust through transparent, measured progress.

Next Steps & Timelines:
 Summer 2025 – ongoing: Findings will be reviewed by the steering committee to identify priority recommendations and explore phased implementation strategies, including potential Municipal Code amendments and administrative reforms that support long-term equity and sustainability.

CONSULTANT COSTS
35 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SAFETY
Department Lead: City Manager’s Office
Status Update: Paused (funding deferred)
Overview:

As part of Phase 2 of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative, the City allocated $250,000 in FY 2024 to begin design work for a new Department of Community Safety. However, due to competing citywide priorities and resource constraints, the initiative was deferred during the Annual Appropriations Ordinance process in January 2024. This decision was based on staff’s recommendation to sequence investments more strategically across the multi-year initiative, with a focus on ensuring assessments, pilot programs, and interdepartmental structures are in place before launching a new department. The City continues to prioritize immediate public safety reforms and system evaluations. The design of a standalone department will be re-evaluated in Phase 4 (FY 2026–2028), following additional implementation of core Reimagining programs and stabilization of staffing and funding capacity. This approach ensures that the development of a Department of Community Safety can be undertaken with clear operational goals, strong interdepartmental alignment, and community-informed design principles.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase   Timeline   Milestone
June 2023   Council referred several Reimagining Tier 1 requests to the Annual Appropriations Ordinance process.   Phase 2
(2022-2024)   January 2024  Funding for the Department of Community Safety deferred.

Phase 3
(2024-2026)  June 2024  Funding for the Department of Community Safety deferred to align with Phase 4, Fiscal Year 27-28.

Considerations:
 Phased Planning for Sustainable Implementation: The decision to defer funding for the Department of Community Safety underscores the City’s commitment to responsible sequencing and sustainable public safety transformation. Rather than initiate new structures prematurely, staff are focused on ensuring foundational reforms—such as dispatch modernization, alternative response programs, and community-led evaluations—are stabilized first. Revisiting this department concept in Phase 4 will allow the City to incorporate learnings from current efforts, align staffing needs, and evaluate long-term fiscal viability.

Next Steps & Timelines:
 Spring 2025 – ongoing: Staff will revisit the concept and funding proposal for the Department of Community Safety as part of Phase 4 and future planning as resources become available.

CONSULTANT COSTS
36 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

CONSULTANT COSTS
37 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

DISPATCH NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Department Lead: Fire Department
Status Update: Assessment Complete, Activities In-Progress Overview:

As part of the City of Berkeley’s Reimagining Public Safety (RPS) initiative, modernizing the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) is a critical investment in the city’s long-term capacity to deliver responsive, equitable, and efficient emergency services. The ECC serves as the central hub for dispatching police, fire, EMS, and emerging alternative response units—but current limitations in infrastructure, staffing, and protocols have constrained its ability to meet growing and evolving community needs.

Phases 1 and 2 of the initiative laid the foundation through a comprehensive Dispatch Needs Assessment (DNA), followed by a validation study that confirmed urgent areas for improvement.

These findings provided a roadmap to align Berkeley’s dispatch operations with national best practices, including triage-based response, integration of behavioral health alternatives, and enhanced public safety outcomes. With foundational assessments complete and internal coordination in progress, the City is well-positioned to transition from planning to phased implementation.

Now in Phase 3, with the police and fire departments meeting weekly to map interdepartmental dependencies, evaluating funding scenarios, and sequencing key upgrades to minimize disruption and maximize impact. The goal is to establish a clear, phased implementation plan spanning the next 5 to 10 years. Priority enhancements include:

Project 1: Enhance Staffing and Operations
The staffing enhancement project addresses critical operational challenges through the implementation of a Public Safety Dispatcher I (PSDI) position focused on call-taking and records management. This restructuring creates a more manageable career progression that improves immediate and long-term staff retention while maintaining service quality standards and serves as a backstop to a 65% vacancy rate that is yet to increase in the coming months.

The Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP) will ensure essential emergency services remain functional during staffing transitions or crises. These combined improvements work together to ensure sustainable staffing levels, reduce training pressure, and maintain essential emergency communications capabilities for our community.

Key Tasks:
 Establish call taker position
Status: Approved by personnel board and implementation initiated.

CONSULTANT COSTS
38 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t  Develop a dispatcher longevity plan
Status: Consultant kickoff complete; site visit completed. Deliverable expected late Summer 2025.
 Design and implement COOP
Status: Initiated
 Revise onboarding and training protocols; launch structured exit interviews Status: In progress

Project 2: Advanced Dispatch Triage and Technology Integration Implement protocol software that standardizes emergency dispatch that improves consistency, accuracy, and efficiency in handling emergency calls as well as allows for triaging. This has resulted in increased community confidence, reduced complaints, lower staff turnover, and enhanced dispatcher professionalism, reduced attrition, increased training success in 153 of the 200 largest US cities that develop a structured training approach, implementing exit interview protocols, and deploying AWS technology to handle administrative calls assists management in improving processes use it.

Key Tasks:
 Implement AWS to route non-emergency/admin calls
Status: In progress following policy alignment; 30-day pilot upcoming.  Procure and implement ProQA protocol software
Status: Preparing materials to initiate next review phase.

Project 3: Upgrade ECC Facilities
To support projected staffing and technology growth, the City is assessing expansion options for ECC workspace within the Public Safety Building. With the Fire Department relocating to the Gilman District, adjacent space may become available for retrofit and use—though funding and design considerations remain in early stages.

Key Tasks:
 Review proposals to repair or replace dispatch consoles Status: Quotes completed
 Evaluate ECC space expansion scenarios
Status: Consultant presentation and budget delivered

As Phase 3 progresses, success will hinge on securing the necessary resources and making strategic, data-informed investments that ensure both immediate improvements and long-term system sustainability.

CONSULTANT COSTS
39 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
Phase 1
(2020-2022)
Winter 2021 –
Fall 2022  Completion of the RFP process and Stage One of the DNA.

Spring 2023  Completion of the Initial Needs Assessment.

Spring 2024  Completion of the Assessment Validation Report. Phase 2 (2022-2024)  Spring 2024 –
Fall 2024 Discussions with City stakeholders to decide on next steps for the DNA.

Fall 2024 Contract for ongoing consultant support related to DNA. Phase 3 (2024-2026) Ongoing Sequencing of ECC enhancements begins; focus on staffing, technology, and triage-based dispatch.

Considerations:
 Strategic Investment Across Staffing, Infrastructure, and Funding: Upgrading the Emergency Communications Center (ECC) will require coordinated action across multiple domains. Addressing the City’s long-standing dispatcher vacancy rate—now exceeding 65%—is foundational, as staffing shortages limit implementation capacity and may trigger labor negotiations when protocols change. Simultaneously, the Public Safety Building's current space constraints pose a challenge to facility expansion. With the Fire Department’s upcoming relocation to the Gilman District, adjacent space may become available for ECC use, though design and construction costs remain unfunded. Full implementation—including technology procurement, infrastructure upgrades, staffing, and operations—will require sustained funding. As the Police Department assumes lead oversight of the ECC, strategic resource alignment will be essential to advancing system- wide improvements that meet national standards and support alternative response models.
 Fiscal Impacts: The fiscal impact of addressing the ECC crisis in the City of Berkeley is significant but necessary to ensure public safety and operational stability. Persistent understaffing and outdated technology have forced the city to spend nearly $1 million annually on overtime, while high turnover and vacancies cost approximately $200,000 per lost dispatcher due to recruitment, training, and overtime leading to burnout. Delaying investments in staffing, facility upgrades, and technology not only drives up long-term costs—potentially reaching up to $1.3 million in immediate needs. Proactive investment will reduce additional ongoing overtime, recruitment, and liability costs, ultimately saving money compared to the escalating expenses and operational risks associated with continued vacancies and deferred upgrades.

Next Steps & Timeline:
 Ongoing: The City is partnering with a consultant to develop a phased, multi-year implementation roadmap that prioritizes ECC upgrades based on feasibility, operational readiness, and funding availability. Long-term success will require sustained investment,

CONSULTANT COSTS
40 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t staffing stability, and close coordination between the Police and Fire Departments to ensure that system enhancements are delivered effectively and equitably.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
41 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS

VIOLENCE PREVENTION

VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND YOUTH SERVICES
Department Lead: Health, Housing and Community Services Department Status Update: Initial Implementation Complete, Activities In-Progress Overview:

As part of the City of Berkeley’s Reimagining Public Safety initiative, the City continues to invest in community-rooted strategies to prevent youth violence and promote long-term wellbeing. In FY 2025, funding was provided to three key community-based organizations to support programming focused on mentorship, mental health, leadership development, and positive youth engagement. The funding supports trusted partners that have deep connections with Berkeley’s youth and families, offering culturally responsive programs in safe, supportive environments.

This section provides a summary of each organization’s program goals and serves as a placeholder for updates on how FY 2025 funds were utilized.

Voices Against Violence (VAV) – McGee Avenue Baptist Church.

Led by Reverend Dr. Michael A. Smith and supported by Community Peace Ambassadors, the Voices Against Violence program works to interrupt cycles of violence and promote healing among high-risk youth in South and West Berkeley. The program provides mentoring, life-skills training, leadership development, and culturally affirming violence prevention workshops for middle and high school students. In FY 2025, the program continued to build trust with participants through healing-centered events and engagement with partner organizations like Live Free USA.

VAV FY2025 Activities:
 Partnered with Live Free USA, City of Berkeley Parks and Recreation, Berkeley Junior Jackets Football and cheer, along with vulnerable youth from South and West Berkeley in mentoring, violence prevention training, and interventions.  Served 30 middle and high school youth through trainings in their violence prevention curriculum
 Engaged with vulnerable youth, young adults and families at-risk for gun or community violence through listening sessions and presentations, including:
 December 11, 2024 – 2 Community Peace Ambassadors presented to the VAV Mentoring Program to 32 middle and high school youth. Several youth in attendance shared how they had been impacted by recent gun violence and ongoing fights on school campuses and recreation centers.
 2 Follow-up Sessions to the VAV Mentoring Program were conducted by the Community Peace Ambassadors in January and February 2025.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
42 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t  Seven (7) Violence Prevention Training sessions conducted between December 2024 and March 2025 and additional sessions planned through the end of June 2025, led by Pastor Smith and joined by additional staff in the funded program. Sessions include addressing:
(1) the emotional and financial costs of gun violence; (2) reflection on how violence has personally impacted young people’s lives and the life of their communities; and (3) providing opportunities for expression of their thoughts and experiences through poetry, spoken word, art, and journaling.

VAV Youth Development
 ART PROJECTS: All of the participants in the program are now engaged in art projects that can support healing from the pain of violence in its many forms. Gun violence in particular is one of the projects that participants are proposing is a quilting project which will be youth lead and inspired by the most vulnerable young people in our community artists and community activist. This is an activity being worked on this year and will continue past June.
 URBAN GARDENING: All of the participants in the program are engaged in urban gardening as a strategy for healing, and environmental/food justice. It has been a therapeutic practice for the young people have helped maintain the garden at Grove Park and in planting the spring garden at McGee.
 COMMUNITY CLEAN-UP: As part of April Earth Day activities, VAV staff worked with youth participants to plant out the garden spaces at Grove Park as well as McGee Avenue Baptist Church while participating in a community clean-up in South Berkeley. The community clean-up concluded with a discussion of how blight, environmental injustice and food insecurity create conditions that may escalate feelings of trauma and even lead to apathy and violence in urban communities.

Berkeley Youth Alternatives (BYA).

BYA continues to serve as a critical resource for Berkeley’s youth and families, offering year- round counseling services and summer enrichment programs. The Summer Jam Day Camp
fosters social-emotional growth through arts, literacy, recreation, and expressive therapy.

Meanwhile, BYA’s
Counseling Center provides individual and group therapy, case management, and support for transition-age youth navigating school, employment, or personal challenges.

Counseling
The BYA Counseling Program served a total of 84 clients, including both Berkeley and non- Berkeley residents. Of these, 58 clients are either residents of Berkeley or attend a Berkeley school. Among the 58 clients, the demographic breakdown is as follows: 5% are Asian, 43% are Black/African American, 9% are White, and 10% are White with Hispanic ethnicity. Additionally, 9% belong to combined race categories, and 24% are from other combined race categories that also include Hispanic ethnicity. In terms of the ages among these 58 counseling clients, 41% are aged 5-12, 36% are aged 13-17, 21% are aged 18-24, and 2% are aged 25-34. Overall, the clients participated in 1,450 individual counseling sessions and 299 group counseling sessions.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
43 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t The counseling clients participated in weekly Boys' and Girls' group sessions, which provided a space for open discussions and helped participants learn coping techniques and strategies to manage stress. BYA's counselors collaborate with clients’ Student Support Teams (SSTs) and Individualized Education Program (IEP) Case Managers to deliver school-based counseling and socio-emotional support during the school day. BYA's counselors maintained and strengthened their ongoing partnership with after-school teachers and staff, focusing on providing a combination of academic and socio-emotional support for counseling clients. This effort included regular meetings to identify participants' strengths and areas for development, ensuring a comprehensive approach to their growth and well-being. BYA's counselors also assisted with BYA's Food Distribution events to further support the community.

Summer Jam Day Camp
The next session of BYA’s Summer Jam program will begin in June 2025, with an anticipated 30 participants. This year’s program will offer a wide range of fun and enriching activities, including beach days, indoor games, art and activity centers, Creations dance classes, city walks, cooking classes with 18 Reasons, LEGO building, Social Lab, therapeutic and creative writing groups, group games like kickball, soccer, and dodgeball, pool days, art classes, sports activities, hikes at Tilden Park, therapy groups, and field trip days every Friday.

The final two weeks will focus on BYA’s media program, Lights, Camera, Action.

Each week will
feature a themed field trip: a visit to Angel Island with a “Time Travelers” theme, a movie outing at Jack London Square with a “Hollywood” theme, a trip to Lake Chabot with a “Sports” theme, an excursion to LEGOLAND with a “LEGO” theme, a day at the Exploratorium with a “Science” theme, and visits to both the USS Hornet Museum and Scandia, both highlighting the “Lights, Camera, Action” theme.

Berkeley Junior Jackets Violence Prevention Program.

The Berkeley Junior Jackets, operating under the YLM Foundation, concluded their eighth season with meaningful progress across strategic goals, program impact, and financial stewardship (See Appendix B for Berkeley Junior Jackets FY 25 Report). Serving 148 youth—107 from Berkeley, the majority of whom are Black or African American—the program provided both football and cheerleading opportunities while advancing leadership development, mental wellness, and violence prevention. With $150,000 in City of Berkeley funding, they maintained equitable access by awarding scholarships to 75% of participants, provided coaches with stipends and training, and enhanced team culture through events like an annual banquet and quarterly staff meetings. The organization invested significantly in field rentals, game fees, and equipment to support a high- quality sports experience, while also delivering staff training and strategic capacity-building to reinforce infrastructure and sustainability.

The Junior Jackets met 12 goals spanning coaching, equity, transparency, and community engagement. Notable achievements included launching an operational strategic plan, tracking participation metrics, and expanding their impact through enriched youth development

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
44 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t experiences. Their standout “Girl Power, Boys to Men” summit was so well-received it catalyzed the launch of Berkeley’s Leaders of Today & Tomorrow (BL2T)—a new, grant-funded initiative in partnership with the UC Berkeley Cameron Institute and Live Free USA. Backed by a $15,000 UC Chancellor’s Grant, BL2T will integrate athletics, mentorship, and violence prevention to serve over 200 youth annually through monthly leadership tables and an expanded youth summit.

Looking forward, the Junior Jackets are beginning conversations around securing a turfed, lined field to ensure safe, year-round access to high-quality athletic space for Berkeley’s underserved youth—cementing their role as a key partner in the city’s Reimagining Public Safety agenda and broader community wellness landscape.

The City will continue to work with all program partners to evaluate outcomes and align efforts with the broader Reimagining Public Safety goals. These updates will inform future investments and ensure that violence prevention efforts remain responsive, community-driven, and youth- centered. Program and financial reporting for FY 2026 will be reflected in the next status report cycle.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
Phase 2
(2022-2024)
July 2022 –
June 2024
Funds allocated to CBOs for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. Impact reporting via RPS status updates.

Phase 3
(2024-2026)
July 2024 –
June 2026
Funds allocated to CBOs for Fiscal Year 2025-2026. Impact reporting via RPS status updates.

Next Steps & Timelines:
 Spring 2025 – Summer 2026: The City will continue funding McGee Avenue Baptist Church, Berkeley Youth Alternatives, and the Berkeley Junior Jackets through Fiscal Year 2026.

Program updates and outcomes will be reported through the Reimagining Public Safety status reports, ensuring transparency and accountability in tracking the effectiveness of these violence prevention and youth services initiatives.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
45 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

GUN VIOLENCE INTERVENTION AND PREVENTION
Department Lead: City Manager’s Office
Status Update: Initial Implementation Complete, Activities In-Progress Overview:

In Phase 2 of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative, the City of Berkeley allocated $2 million to address the growing impact of gun violence, resulting in the development and adoption of a four- pronged strategy: place-based interventions, direct engagement through custom notifications, street outreach, and robust social services. A key milestone was the completion of the Gun Violence Prevention (GVP) Report in Summer 2023, followed by the launch of an RFP in Spring 2024. By early Summer 2024, a contract was awarded to Live Free USA, subcontracting with the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR), with partnerships formed with McGee Avenue Baptist Church’s Center for Food, Faith and Justice and Voices Against Violence, and the YLM Foundation also known as Berkeley Junior Jackets (See Appendix A for LIVE FREE USA Impact Report).

Entering Phase 3, the City initiated the soft launch of GVIPP with significant on-the-ground progress. LIVE FREE has staffed a CVI Field Coordinator and CVI Implementation Specialist, deployed a Street Outreach Team of two full time local community-based practitioners, in which three of them are providing life coaching. The street outreach and life coach training were provided by the National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform. Additionally, they have brought on, trained and compensated nine Credible Messengers—individuals with lived experience who are trusted within the community—to begin engagement efforts. Staff and partners have participated in foundational training to ensure alignment with evidence-based, trauma-informed practices.

Currently, this program has launched initiatives and key partnerships across City departments, BPD, Berkeley CBO’s, BUSD, the county juvenile detention center and Santa Rita jail. LIVE FREE has also provided subgrants and capacity building to local Berkeley CBOs.

Additionally, we have launched our focused deterrence strategy with NICJR guiding the process in partnership with the Berkeley Police Department and LIVE FREE. The GVPA, shooting review and custom notification kick-off trainings took place in Phase 2 and 3. The GVPA process is being completed by BPD with deep support and guidance from NICJR’s data team. Once that is complete, we will have a clear series of risk factors and indicators for BPD and Live Free to work from in regards to who in the city is likely to be at the greatest risk for gun violence. We have now drafted our data sharing agreement which will now allow us to pilot the shooting reviews, coordination meetings, and custom notifications. This will greatly strengthen our efforts.

To foster coordination and shared ownership, we hosted two community town halls during the program design phase in late 2024, then launched a monthly Community Violence Intervention (CVI) Collaborative in February 2025 focused on priorities identified through these listening

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
46 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t sessions. These gatherings unite community-based organization leaders, advocates, and community members most impacted by violence to share resources, receive updates, and strengthen collaboration across the ecosystem. Additionally, regional coordination efforts facilitated by NICJR and LIVE FREE are aligning Berkeley's strategy with broader Bay Area violence prevention initiatives in partnership with Oakland, Richmond, Antioch, Vallejo, and San Francisco—connecting both city governments and community leadership on the ground.

The City is also actively pursuing new public and private grant opportunities to ensure the long- term sustainability of the program. These efforts, combined with ongoing implementation and evaluation activities, are designed to reduce gun violence and violence crime, mitigating conflicts, while building community capacity and trust in a durable, equity-driven framework.

Impact:

The first five months of 2025 have shown remarkable progress in community safety initiatives, with non-fatal shootings dropping from 3 incidents in early 2024 to zero this year—a 100% reduction. While fatal shootings remained at zero for both periods, incidents involving shots fired decreased by 50%, from 8 to 4 cases between January and May. These improvements build upon consistent communication and collaboration with the city partnership, schools, law enforcement, and community organizations.

The year-over-year comparison reveals even more significant gains: incidents involving shots fired dropped from 21 to 4 (an 81% reduction), while both non-fatal and fatal shootings were eliminated entirely in 2025 thus far. While these outcomes align with the timing of this program’s expanded street outreach, life coaching, and crisis response efforts, it’s important to recognize that the downward trend began prior to the program’s full implementation. The partnership’s approach remains focused on building long-term trust and relationships, and early signs point to its value in reinforcing and sustaining citywide safety efforts. Additionally, we’ve observed a reduction in school-based conflicts through collaboration with BUSD, though a formal MOU has not yet been established to support comprehensive data sharing and evaluation.

Notably, these local trends mirror a broader national shift. According to data aggregated from hundreds of U.S. jurisdictions, violent crime—including murder and shootings—has fallen significantly across the country in early 2025, continuing the downward trajectory that began in 2023. While it’s important to interpret year-to-date data with caution, especially early in the year, the consistency of this trend across multiple sources—including the Real-Time Crime Index and FBI reporting—suggests that these declines are meaningful. Still, experts emphasize that such improvements are influenced by a complex set of local, regional, and national factors.

As we head into the summer months, we remain mindful of the seasonal risks for increased violence and are actively preparing to respond. Sustaining and building upon recent gains will require ongoing coordination, continued investment, and community-centered approaches and evaluation to better understand the program’s role within the broader safety landscape.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
47 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
Phase 1
(2020-2022)  Spring/Summer 2022  Community Process and Budget Allocation.

Summer 2023  GVP Report complete.  Assistant to the City Manager – Reimagining Public Safety Project Coordinator hired.

January 2024 Comprehensive RPS update to City Council.  Research and stakeholder engagement for next steps and RFP process.   Phase 2 (2022-2024)

Summer 2024
Completion of the RFP process, contract finalized with Live Free USA, including subcontracting with NICJR, and partnerships established with McGee Avenue Baptist Church's Voices Against Violence and Berkeley Junior Jackets Violence Prevention efforts.

Fall 2024
Soft launch of the Gun Violence Intervention and Prevention program, including ongoing data collection, community engagement, and training.

Phase 3
(2024-2026) December 2024 –
Ongoing
Implementation, data collection, CVI Collaborative meetings, regional coordination, and sustainability planning for funding.

Considerations:
 Legal Compliance: The program must operate within a strong legal framework that governs data privacy, public funding, and service delivery. Proactive collaboration with legal advisors will be critical to ensuring all program components—custom notifications, outreach, and service coordination—adhere to local, state, and federal laws while protecting individual rights.
 Financial Sustainability and Strategic Growth: To ensure long-term success, GVIPP must diversify its funding portfolio. While initial General Fund investments laid a strong foundation, sustained impact will require pursuing competitive grants and leveraging regional partnerships to expand services, build local capacity, and institutionalize successful practices.

Next Steps & Timeline:
 Ongoing: GVIPP will continue building momentum through a phased implementation strategy focused on impact, coordination, and sustainability. Immediate priorities include deepening community engagement through monthly CVI Collaborative meetings and refining intervention protocols. Training and capacity-building for staff and partners will continue to ensure alignment with trauma-informed, evidence-based practices. The City will also expand regional coordination through NICJR and pursue competitive public and private grant opportunities to secure long-term funding.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
48 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
49 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

PUBLIC SAFETY/CRIME PREVENTION FOR WOMEN

AND OLDER PERSONS
Department Lead: City Manager’s Office
Status Update: Paused (funding deferred)
Overview:

The City Council adopted the recommendation on public safety and crime prevention for women in February 2024. The strategy includes a data-informed partnership with BPD to identify high-risk areas and times for escorts; a citywide safety forum focused on women and older persons; deployment of community ambassadors in commercial and residential areas; a safety escort program modeled after the 2003 Respect-BART initiative; and potential expansion of the Go-Go Grandparent ride-share program, pending budget approval.

In Spring 2024, staff presented early crime data to COSOW to help identify priority areas and shape a phased implementation strategy. A preliminary cost-benefit analysis of similar Bay Area programs informed the $250,000 cost estimate, but the funding was not approved in the FY 2025 AAO.

Staff are exploring alternative grant opportunities and assessing alignment with existing City programs. In parallel, they are analyzing local safety data to identify high-risk areas and times for women, informing a phased rollout. This is complemented by insights from the Reimagining Public Safety survey, ensuring the program remains grounded in lived experience and responsive to community needs.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
February 2024 Recommendation approved by City Council.

March 2024
Preliminary research and data. Presentation to the Commission on the Status of Women. Staff conducted a preliminary cost-benefit analysis of comparable safety escort and ambassador models to estimate feasibility and refine the proposed $250,000 program budget.

Phase 2
(2022-2024)
Spring 2024
Ongoing research and stakeholder engagement to refine the scope, timeline, and budget, leveraging grants, and prioritizing actions based on data-driven needs analysis.

Phase 3
(2024-2026) Fall 2024
Staff continue exploring grant opportunities and aligning the initiative with existing public safety efforts until funds are available. Staff are analyzing local data and survey insights to identify high-priority locations and times for program rollout.

Next Steps & Timeline:

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
50 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t  Spring 2025 – ongoing: Pending funding availability, continue refining the program's scope, timeline, and budget through ongoing research and stakeholder engagement.

Focus on leveraging grants and external funding opportunities, and prioritize actions based on a comprehensive needs analysis driven by data.

ALTERNATIVES TO SANCTIONS/FINES

HEARING OFFICER-ALTERNATIVES TO

SANCTIONS/FINES
Department Lead: Public Works Department
Status Update: Paused (funding deferred)
Overview:

The City has explored non-punitive approaches to minor infractions by assessing the feasibility of expanding hearing officer resources. These resources are intended to offer restorative alternatives to traditional sanctions, such as referring individuals with low-level violations— including parking and administrative offenses—to community and social services. Under Phase 2, the City allocated $150,000 in FY 2024 to support this initiative. However, funding was deferred as staff prioritized alignment with the Fines & Fees Analysis. In Phase 3, progress remains contingent on the completion of the Fines & Fees recommendations and subsequent City Council direction. To ensure strategic alignment with long-term public safety and fiscal justice goals, staff have recommended shifting this initiative to Phase 4. This adjustment allows for coordinated planning and resource deployment once the analysis and policy recommendations are finalized.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
June 2023  Council referred several Reimagining Tier 1 requests to the Annual Appropriations Ordinance process.

January 2024 Funding for Expanding Hearing Officer Resources/Alternative to Sanctions/Fines deferred.

Phase 2
(2022-2024)
May 2024 Staff recommended funding for the next bi-annual fiscal year, pending council direction on the Fines & Fees recommendations.

Phase 3
(2025-2026) Fall 2024
Continued deferral of funding for Expanding Hearing Officer Resources/Alternatives to Sanctions/Fines to better align with broader public safety goals.

Next Steps & Timeline:
 Fall 2024 – ongoing: Given the deferral and reallocation of funds, staff recommend revisiting this item in Phase 4 for potential future funding and implementation, once the outcomes of the Fines & Fees Analysis and council direction are determined.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
51 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
52 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

EXPAND DOWNTOWN STREETS TEAMS
Department Lead: Public Works Department
Status Update: Paused (funding deferred)
Overview:

As part of Phase 2 of the Reimagining Public Safety initiative, the City allocated $50,000 in FY 2024 to support an expansion of the Downtown Streets Team (DST) contract. This one-time funding, allowed the City to enhance DST’s Clean Cities Program—encompassing litter removal, leaf sweeping, graffiti abatement, and poster removal in commercial districts—and begin scoping an expanded role for DST in the City's public safety ecosystem. In June 2023, Public Works executed a new contract with DST, leveraging the funds to formalize an expanded scope of work. The current contract continues to support neighborhood maintenance. In 2024, DST reported substantial impact in Berkeley through its service-based model:
 3,895 hours volunteered
 50 team members served
 13 leads hired
 100,745 gallons of debris were removed
This demonstrates DST’s continued value in providing both environmental maintenance and meaningful pathways toward stability and employment for individuals experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.

In Phase 3, the City conducted a comprehensive Fines and Fees Assessment, which evaluated alternatives to monetary penalties, including community service programs. The report concluded that community service is not a viable alternative at this time due to several key factors:
 Equity and Accessibility Concerns: The traditional community service model, often focused on manual labor, may not be appropriate or accessible for all individuals. Newer models—like those seen in Texas and New Mexico—offer broader service options (e.g., counseling, vocational training), but would require substantial redesign and investment to be feasible in Berkeley.
 High Administrative and Supervision Costs: Previous efforts in Berkeley to offer community service in lieu of fines were found to be financially unsustainable. The program required overtime to supervise participants, significantly increasing operational costs without a proportional benefit in compliance or revenue.  Lack of Programmatic Infrastructure: The City currently lacks a staffed and centralized infrastructure to manage and verify a community service system. This gap creates concerns about implementation feasibility, consistency, and equity in administration.

Given these limitations—and in the context of ongoing revenue challenges and limited Measure P funding—Public Works is unable to utilize the originally allocated $50,000, as the funds were not

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
53 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t carried forward during the AAO process. As a result, the City is not pursuing a pilot community service referral program and will instead focus on sustaining existing DST services with available resources.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
June 2023  City Council referred several Reimagining Tier 1 requests to the Annual Appropriations Ordinance process.

January 2024 Funding for the Transportation Fines & Fees Analysis was released.

Phase 2
(2022-2024)
Summer 2024 Needs assessment and initial steps for fines and fees analysis.

Phase 3
(2025-2026) Spring 2025 Fines and fees analysis complete.

Next Steps & Timeline:
 Spring 2025 – ongoing: Based on the findings of the Fines and Fees Assessment, which determined that a traditional community service referral program is not currently viable due to equity, cost, and infrastructure barriers, the City will not pursue this component of the original referral.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
54 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH, BEHAVIORAL, AND CRISIS

RESPONSE

YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH
Department Lead: Health, Housing and Community Services Department Status Update: Initial Implementation Complete, Activities In-Progress Overview:

As part of the City of Berkeley’s Reimagining Public Safety initiative, Berkeley Unified School District (BUSD), in collaboration with the City’s Mental Health Division, launched the Berkeley High School Wellness Center to address the growing need for school-based mental and behavioral health supports. Guided by a 2023 Mental Health Needs Assessment conducted by Resource Development Associates (RDA), the Center was designed to promote emotional resilience, prevent escalation of mental health crises, and strengthen the culture of care across the Berkeley High School campus.

The Center held a soft opening in Fall 2023, followed by a formal grand opening in December.

Since then, it has served as a vital access point for students seeking support for a variety of concerns including academic stress, anxiety, grief, depression, and social-emotional challenges.

While individual visits may vary, common themes among early Center usage include the need for low-barrier access to quiet space, the importance of peer validation and trusted adult connections, and increased demand for non-clinical coping tools. The Center also serves as a key referral hub for students in need of more acute services, with coordination support from the BHS Health Center and other campus-based programs.

The program is staffed by a full-time Mental Health & Wellbeing Coordinator, funded through a $350,000 investment over two years from the City of Berkeley’s Reimagining Public Safety Initiative. In addition to the Wellbeing Coordination, the Center’s staff includes two Restorative Justice Counselors and a Wellness Counselor. Although the Wellness Coordinator position experienced a personnel transition in 2024, the Center successfully maintained services with support from school and City partners. Additional infrastructure established in its first year includes the formation of a school-based Care Response Team, a Mental Health Handbook to guide staff protocols, and a student-led substance use survey to inform future programming.

Now completing in its second year, the Center is focusing on:
 Onboarding counseling department to data collection that complements the Wellness Center Work Plan
 Systematizing Mental Health reentries and safety plans; and

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
55 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t  Articulating and developing Tier 2 supports (targeted and group interventions), which are complemented by existing Tier 3 supports (intensive, individualized interventions) provided at the Health Center
BUSD plans to implement relevant components of the RDA Needs Assessment, further systematize counseling and wellness coordination at the Center, and conduct a self-assessment of the Center through a multi-tiered system of support (MTSS) lens to ensure that all students are being referred and served in the most efficient and effective way possible and that no students are falling through the cracks.

Data indicates that the Center is widely used by students. Between August - December 2024, the Center received 1,395 student visits from 425 unduplicated students. These figures are up from 1,120 student visits between January - May 2024 from 380 unduplicated students. For more impact information, please see the Mental Health & Wellbeing Coordinator Impact Report (March 2. 2025) in the Companion Appendix (See Appendix E for Mental Health & Wellbeing Coordinator Impact Report).

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
Summer 2023  Soft opening of Wellness Center at Berkeley High School.

Winter 2023 BHS Wellness Center Grand Opening.

Phase 2
(2022-2024)
December 2023 – May
2024

1. Over 1,120 student visits by 380 individual students and implementation of key wellness supports.

2. Created mental health infrastructure for BHS:
a. Established a Care Response Team (to support educators and staff deal with behavioral/emotional crises on campus). b. Developed a Mental Health Handbook to strengthen and systematize BHS response to MH issues on campus.
c. Conducted a student substance abuse survey which will inform next steps.

Phase 3
(2024-2026)
Fall 2024 – March
2025

1. Over 1,395 student visits by 425 individual students.

2. Stronger collaboration with BHS Health Center and BHS Counseling Program.

3. Refinement of data indicators and collection.

Next Steps & Timeline:
 Spring 2025 – ongoing: The Wellness Center will continue refining its services based on student and staff feedback, aligning with RDA’s recommendations. Priorities include securing FY 2025–2026 funding, expanding outreach, and adapting programming to emerging needs. Efforts are also underway to establish a long-term vision for the Center’s role in campus mental health and well-being.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
56 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

RESPITE FROM GENDER VIOLENCE

RESPITE FROM GENDER VIOLENCE
Department Lead: Health, Housing and Community Services Department Status Update: Initial Gap-Analysis Complete, Activities In-Progress Overview:

As part of the City of Berkeley’s Reimagining Public Safety (RPS) initiative, the Health, Housing, and Community Services Department (HHCS) conducted a gap-analysis to address domestic, intimate partner, and gender-based violence through a care-first, survivor-informed framework.

This research aims to create accessible, trauma-informed, and non-carceral interventions that center the lived experiences of survivors, particularly those from historically marginalized communities. The following work below, provides an executive summary of the analysis conducted:

HHCS hired a Temporary Community Services Specialist II to coordinate this work and launched a community-driven needs assessment process. Outreach methods included direct engagement with survivors, service providers, shelter staff, youth advocates, and field outreach in encampments and transitional housing sites. HHCS also reviewed best practices from peer municipalities and national “Care First, Jails Last” initiatives, applying a four-part evaluative lens:
 Harm Reduction: Does this recommendation reduce the number of people who cycle through crisis & carceral systems? Does this recommendation reduce the harm and trauma caused by an abuser, as well as the trauma caused by the systems that sought to provide the survivor with respite?
 Transformation: Does this recommendation reinforce the status quo, or would its implementation meaningfully create new pathways/investments in public safety (crisis diversion & stabilization)? Does this recommendation support the healing and long-term positive change for everyone involved in or proximate to a violent relationship?  Political Feasibility: Is this recommendation responsive to the needs and priorities of the Berkeley community?
 Financial Feasibility: Is the implementation of this recommendation financially possible, given current budgetary constraints?
This work led to the identification of seven
draft recommendations designed to address gaps in
Berkeley’s response to gender violence:

1. Restorative Justice & Circle Work – Establish a pilot restorative justice program with trained community-based practitioners to provide healing pathways for survivors and those who have caused harm, outside of the traditional court system.

2. Financial Stabilization & Independence – Improve survivor access to coordinated job training, social services, and emergency financial supports to build long-term safety and independence.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
57 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

3. Language Access for Survivors of Violence – Ensure information and resources are translated and available in plain language across Berkeley’s most commonly spoken languages.

4. Support for Emergency Shelter Beds – Assess and expand emergency shelter capacity for survivors, prioritizing non-congregate options and culturally responsive care.

5. Young People’s Involvement in Community Violence Survey – Engage youth through surveys and focus groups to better understand the impact of domestic and gender-based violence in their lives and communities.

6. Trauma-Informed, Non-Carceral Crisis Response – Strengthen coordination between BPD and the crisis teams for non-violent domestic disturbance calls, expanding trauma- informed care options.

7. Law Enforcement Protocol on Occupational Survival Crimes – Develop care-based alternatives to arrest for sex work-related interactions, particularly for LGBTQIA+ and BIPOC community members engaged in survival economies.

In overseeing a range of housing, physical and mental health services, HHCS identified that clients experiencing domestic, intimate partner and gender-based violence were accessing a range of city services -- beyond care offered specifically by domestic-violence focused CBOs.

HHCS is refining these recommendations through continued collaboration with city departments, commissions, and community partners (See Appendix F for Draft Recommendations presented to COSOW). In light of the City’s current fiscal constraints and evolving federal grant priorities, HHCS will work with partners to identify priority recommendations and explore available resources and implementation opportunities.

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
August 2023  Temporary Community Services Specialist II hired to lead gender violence respite analysis.

Phase 2
(2022-2024)
Fall 2023 –
Fall 2024
Stakeholder engagement launched; best practice review conducted; draft policy recommendations developed with COSOW, Mental Health Commission, and City departments. HHCS engaged community members, clients, and service providers on priority policy areas in line with a “care-first” model of social service provision. Stakeholder input and feedback collected through one-on-one meetings with community leaders, community field outreach at encampments, shelters and service centers as well as via commission and community forum information reports.

Phase 3
(2024-2026)
Spring –
Summer 2025
Recommendation refinement underway, including development of the City’s Care First, Jails Last Policy. Recommendations are non- exhaustive and are a part of a phased process.

Next Steps & Timelines:
 Spring 2025 – Ongoing: HHCS will finalize the draft recommendations based on continued community engagement, commission feedback, and policy alignment and will incorporate them into the Care First, Jails Last Policy and staff report.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
58 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
59 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

LANGUAGE EQUITY

LANGUAGE EQUITY
Department Lead: City Manager’s Office
Status Update: Initial Implementation Complete, Activities In-Progress Overview:

The City of Berkeley continues to advance language equity to ensure that public safety information is accessible to all residents. In Phase 2, the City Council allocated $15,000 to support the translation and publication of survivor-focused resources in multiple languages and plain language formats. Guided by Census data and public health analysis indicating that 4% of Berkeley households have limited English proficiency, staff initiated an interdepartmental effort—led by HHCS and the City Manager’s Office—to identify and prioritize key materials for translation. The City began translating materials, such as SCU outreach materials, into Berkeley’s most commonly spoken non-English languages. This includes the translation and upcoming launch of a domestic, intimate partner, and gender-based violence resource, as well as other public safety materials, into Spanish, Mandarin, Cantonese, Korean, Vietnamese, and Tagalog. Smaller print batches in other languages such as Arabic, Russian, Farsi, and Hindi will also be available upon request.

These efforts reflect a broader commitment to expanding language equity across City services.

As part of Phase 3, staff will continue to explore new opportunities to build on this progress— including evaluating translation gaps, assessing community language access needs, and identifying additional materials that would benefit from translation (See Appendix H for Translated DV Brochure Samples).

Key Accomplishments and Next Steps:

RPS Phase  Timeline  Milestone
Fall 2023 –
Ongoing
Research and evaluation to identify resources available based on the needs of the community; coordination to identify usage for language equity funds.

Phase 2
(2022-2024)  Spring –
Summer 2024
Interdepartmental coordination began; translation of materials initiated.

Phase 3
(2024-2026) Spring 2025 Launch of translated gender-based violence in top non-English languages.

Next Steps & Timeline:
 Spring 2025 – ongoing: Complete translation and distribution of key public safety resources, including gender-based violence materials. Staff will continue identifying high-priority materials and explore expanded language access efforts in coordination with city departments.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENTS
60 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

Internal
61 Page | R e i m a g i n i n g P u b l i c S a f e t y S t a t u s R e p o r t

APPENDIX
Please refer to the Reimagining Public Safety Status Update Summer 2025 Companion Appendix

COMPANION APPENDIX

REIMAGINING PUBLIC SAFETY
Status Update and Report Out
City Manager’s Office
Summer 2025

Introduction
The companion appendix document for the 5HLPDJLQLQJ Public Safety Status Report serves a dual purpose. Firstly, it acts as an archival record, detailing the work conducted in Phase 1 3KDVHDQGFXUUHQWO\ 3KDVHof the initiative.

Secondly, it aims to ensure transparency by supplying supporting documents relevant to the initiative ’s direct engagements. This includes details such as impact reports, presentations, contract numbers and scope of services
for contractor role agreements, with the full
contracts being accessible through public record requests. This document reflects the commitment to both accountability and due diligence in the ongoing process of redefining public safety measures.

Summer55366WDWXV8SGDWH
$SSHQGL[/HJHQG
$SSHQGL[$Live Free USA GVIPP Report
$SSHQGL[%Berkeley Junior Jackets FY 2025 Report
$SSHQGL[&Preliminary Fines & Fees Assessment
$SSHQGL['6SHFLDOL]HG&DUH8QLWSupporting Materials
$SSHQGL[(Mental Health & Wellbeing Coordinator Impact Report $SSHQGL[)Domestic and Intimate Partner Violence Draft Recommendations $SSHQGL[*Fair & Impartial Policing (FIP) Supporting Materials $SSHQGL[+Translated Domestic Violence Brochure Samples

APPENDIX A
Live Free USA GVIPP Report

Reimagining Public Safety CBO Annual Report
GVIPP/Berkeley CVI Program, LIVE FREE California
Program Information
Program Calendar Link: Available through Live Free’s website event page and internal scheduling system Mobilize: Berkeley CVI Collaborative Action Forums.

Program Description: The Berkeley Community Violence Intervention (BCVI) program is a comprehensive community-based initiative launched in July 2024 to prevent and reduce gun violence in Berkeley, California. The program employs evidence-based strategies including life coaching for high-risk individuals, crisis response and intervention, community outreach and engagement, school-based con
flict mediation, and regional collaboration with neighboring jurisdictions.

This annual report includes information collected from July 2024 to May 2025.

Goals:
● Reduce fatal and non-fatal shootings in Berkeley
● Interrupt cycles of violence through community-based intervention ● Provide intensive life coaching and support services to high-risk individuals ● Build community capacity for violence prevention and healing ● Establish regional collaboration for cross-jurisdictional violence reduction Target Audience:
● High-risk individuals aged 16-35 involved in or at risk of gun violence ● Families and community members affected by violence
● Students in Berkeley United School District experiencing conflict ● Community members in South and West Berkeley neighborhoods ● Regional networks spanning Berkeley, Oakland, and Richmond Key Activities:
● 24/7 crisis response to shooting incidents and community conflicts ● Intensive life coaching sessions (2-3 times weekly with participants) ● School-based mediation and conflict resolution
● Community outreach and engagement events
● Pre-release services at Santa Rita Jail
1

● Regional coordination with Oakland DVP and Richmond ONS Number of People Served | Individuals: 589+ across all program components Breakdown by Age Group (June-December 2024):
● Children (Ages 0-10): 75 individuals (15 carried over, 60 new admissions) ● Youth (Ages 11-17): 105 individuals (35 carried over, 70 new admissions) ● Young Adults (Ages 18-24): 130 individuals (50 carried over, 80 new admissions) ● Parents/Legal Guardians: 65 individuals (25 carried over, 40 new admissions) ● Additional Family Members: 14 individuals (4 carried over, 10 new admissions) Service Type Breakdown:
● Life Coaching Participants: 15+ individuals receiving ongoing intensive services (200+ total sessions conducted)
● Crisis Response: 12+ individuals directly engaged during shooting scene responses
● School Mediation: 75+ students and parents engaged in conflict resolution ● Community Outreach: 400+ community members reached through events and forums
Additional Metrics
Violence Reduction Outcomes (January-May 2025 vs. 2024):
● Fatal Shootings: 100% reduction (3 incidents in 2024 → 0 incidents in 2025) ● Non-Fatal Shootings: 100% reduction (3 incidents Jan-May 2024 → 0 incidents Jan-May 2025)
● Incidents with Shots Fired: 50% reduction (8 incidents Jan-May 2024 → 4 incidents Jan-May 2025)
● Year-over-year Shots Fired reduction: 81% (21 incidents 2024 → 4 incidents 2025 to date)
Crisis Response Metrics:
● 4 shooting scenes responded to (July - December 2024) ● 0 shooting scenes responded to (May 2025) - demonstrating significant improvement
● Multiple school crisis interventions across Berkeley High, B-Tech, Willard Middle, and Longfellow Middle
● Regional crisis support provided for Oakland and Richmond incidents affecting Berkeley residents
2

Community Engagement
Community Meetings and Events:
● 2 Major Community Forums: December 6, 2024 (in-person) and December 14, 2024 (virtual)
● Community Collaborative Sessions: Multiple sessions throughout the year including CVI Collaborative launch February 2025
● Neighborhood Block Parties: Participation in local community events for relationship building
● Faith and Community Events: Partnership with McGee Avenue Baptist Church including press events and harvest festivals, Voices against Violence and other community based events
● School Engagement: Regular presentations and interventions at BUSD middle and high schools
Attendance Numbers:
● December Community Forums: 100+ participants across both sessions ● Berkeley Jr. Jackets Summit: 200+ attendees with family engagement focus ● Harvest Festival events: 200+ community members reached ● School-based interventions: 75+ students and parents engaged ● Regional violence prevention showcase: Multi-agency collaboration event Community Asset Mapping:
● Comprehensive mapping of South and West Berkeley resources and stakeholders
● Connection with 20+ community-based organizations
● Identification of credible messengers and community influencers ● Establishment of elder and community-led council concepts for shooting review processes
Workshops and Training Sessions
Number of Workshops Conducted: 4 training events plus ongoing capacity building Tr
aining Events:

1. Life Coaching and Street Outreach Training (November 18-19, 2024) ○ 2-day intensive training facilitated by NICJR
○ 14 participants including BCVI staff, credible messengers, and community members
3

○ Curriculum covered evidence-based intervention strategies and trauma-informed care

2. Mental Health First Aid Training (March 2025)
○ All-day training for entire BCVI team
○ Focus on crisis response and trauma-informed care
○ Integration with ongoing service delivery protocols

3. Custom Notifications Training (March 20, 2025)
○ Collaborative training with BPD, Live Free, and City staff ○ NICJR-facilitated session on purpose and format of Custom Noti
fications
○ Planning for implementation protocols

4. Internal Life Coaching Model Training (ongoing)
○ Weekly internal training sessions on motivational interviewing ○ De-escalation strategies and crisis response techniques ○ Case conferencing and documentation protocols
Topics Covered:
● Evidence-based violence intervention strategies
● Life coaching and mentoring techniques
● Crisis response and de-escalation
● Trauma-informed care and mental health first aid
● Conflict mediation and restorative practices
● School engagement and family involvement strategies
Participant Feedback:
● Strong positive reception for hands-on, practical training approaches ● Request for ongoing technical assistance and refresher training ● Emphasis on value of peer learning and cross-agency collaboration ● Integration requests for BPD partnership building and role clarification Partnerships and Collaborations
Primary Partners:
● National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR): Technical assistance, training, and program design support for life coaching, street outreach and focused deterrence strategies
● Center for Food, Faith and Justice (CFFJ): Community engagement, street outreach and life coach management, and faith-based support through McGee Avenue Baptist Church
4

● City of Berkeley Departments: City Manager's Office, Berkeley Police Department, Health Housing and Community Services, GVIPP All Hands group and Reimagining Taskforce/GVIPP Steering Committee ● Oakland DVP (Violence Prevention): Regional coordination and case referrals ● Richmond Office of Neighborhood Safety (ONS): Regional coordination and case referrals
Community-Based Organization Partners (20+and creation of a Resource Guide):
● Berkeley Unified School District
● Berkeley Junior Jackets Football and Cheer
● Good Brotha Network
● Berkeley Faith and Justice Coalition
● Berkeley Black Ecumenical Ministerial Alliance (BBEMA) ● The Way Berkeley Christian Center
● Healthy Black Families
● Berkeley Community Hub
● Youth ALIVE
● Friends of Adeline
● Family Spirit Center
● Berkeley NAACP
● Green the Church
● Berkeley People's Alliance
● BOSS
● UC Berkeley
Regional and County Partners:
● Alameda County Probation (Youth Services Division and reducing youth violence coordination)
● Santa Rita Jail (pre-release services partnership)
● Alameda County Office of Violence Prevention
● Felton Institute Program (Vallejo and Antioch)
● San Francisco Violence Intervention Program (SFVIP)
Educational and Research Partners:
● University of Chicago CVI Leadership Academy
● Evidence-based program model implementation partnerships Collaboration Impact:
● Seamless regional crisis response coordination
5

● Shared resource allocation and service delivery
● Joint training and capacity building initiatives
● Coordinated community engagement strategies
● Cross-jurisdictional information sharing for violence prevention Success Stories and Testimonials
Individual Success Stories:

Case Study - Juvenile Justice Success: GP was referred to BCVI through the juvenile justice system while facing probation violations. Through intensive life coaching sessions conducted 2-3 times per week, family engagement support, and coordination with probation of
ficers, GP successfully completed program
requirements. On April 29, 2025, GP's juvenile probation case was dismissed - a signi
ficant milestone demonstrating the program's effectiveness in supporting youth through the legal system while addressing underlying risk factors.

Case Study - School Conflict Resolution: BCVI teams successfully intervened in a multi-school conflict involving Berkeley High and B-Tech students that had escalated. Through coordinated mediations involving students, families, and school administrators, the team prevented retaliatory violence and established ongoing agreements between the parties. Follow-up monitoring confirmed sustained conflict resolution with no further incidents.

Case Study - Regional Crisis De-escalation: When violence in Oakland threatened to spill over into Berkeley involving cross-jurisdictional networks, BCVI teams worked closely with Oakland DVP and Richmond ONS to provide coordinated crisis response.

Through credible messenger engagement and family mediation, the team successfully prevented retaliatory violence while supporting affected families through crisis services.

Family Testimonials:
"The BCVI team was there for us when we needed them most. After [family member] was shot, they didn't just show up once - they stayed with us through the whole process. They helped us navigate everything from the hospital to the funeral planning, and they made sure we had the support we needed to heal as a family." - Family member supported through crisis response
"My son was heading down a really bad path, getting involved with the wrong people. The life coach from BCVI didn't judge him or lecture him - they met him where he was and helped him see that he had other choices. Now he's thinking about his future differently." - Parent of life coaching participant 6

Community Leader Testimonials:
"The BCVI program has brought something to Berkeley that we've been missing - real community-based intervention that works. When there's a crisis, we know we can call them and they'll be there. But more than that, they're building relationships and trust that prevent crises from happening in the
first place." - Community
organization leader
"What I appreciate about BCVI is that they understand this work has to be regional.

Violence doesn't stop at city boundaries, and neither should our response. The coordination between Berkeley, Oakland, and Richmond has made all of our communities safer." - Regional partner organization
School Staff Testimonials:
"Having BCVI available when conflicts arise has been invaluable. They have the credibility and skills to de-escalate situations that might otherwise have led to suspensions, expulsions, or worse. They're helping us create a culture of resolution rather than punishment and retaliation." - Berkeley High School administrator Credible Messenger Testimonials:
"Being part of the BCVI team has given me a way to use my own experiences to help young people avoid the mistakes I made. The training and support they provide helps me be more effective, and knowing I'm part of a larger team makes the work feel sustainable." - Community Peace Ambassador Feedback and Surveys
Participant Satisfaction Ratings:

Life Coaching Participants (N=15):
● Overall satisfaction with services: 92% positive
● Feeling of safety and trust with life coach: 95% positive ● Perception of program helpfulness: 88% positive
● Likelihood to recommend to others: 90% positive
School-Based Intervention Feedback:
● Students: 78% reported improved understanding of conflict resolution ● Parents: 85% satisfaction with mediation process and outcomes ● School Staff: 92% found BCVI intervention helpful and effective 7

Community Partner Feedback:
● Collaboration effectiveness: 88% rated partnership as "very effective" or "extremely effective"
● Communication quality: 85% positive
● Mutual benefit: 90% agreement that partnership benefits both organizations ● Sustainability: 83% confidence in long-term partnership viability Areas for Improvement (Based on Feedback):

Service Delivery Enhancement:
● Request for expanded evening and weekend availability ● Desire for more Spanish-language services and materials ● Interest in additional mental health and trauma counseling resources Community Engagement Expansion:
● Expanded resources and capacity building for grassroots community ● Desire for neighborhood-specific engagement strategies ● Interest in youth-led programming and increased mentorship ● Request for enhanced family engagement programming
Regional Coordination Strengthening:
● Need for faster information sharing protocols during crisis situations ● Desire for joint training opportunities across jurisdictions ● Interest in shared resource development and funding strategies ● Request for standardized data collection and outcome measurement Program Enhancement Suggestions:
● Integration of technology platforms for service delivery and communication ● Development of alumni network for program graduates
● Enhanced career development and employment services
● Expansion of pre-release services and reentry support Implementation Timeline for Improvements:
● Immediate (0-3 months): Enhanced evening and weekend availability, strengthen communication protocols
● Short-term (3-6 months): Spanish-language materials, quarterly community forums
8

● Medium-term (6-12 months): Youth and adult leadership institute launch, alumni network development
● Long-term (12+ months): Technology platform integration, expanded reentry services
Feedback Collection Methods:
● Regular participant surveys
● CVI Collaborative meetings with community members and partners ● One-on-one feedback sessions with life coaching participants ● Community forum feedback interviews/surveys
● Partner organization feedback interviews/surveys
● School staff and administrator interviews/surveys
● Family member feedback collection during crisis response follow-up The feedback collection is ongoing and integrated into program operations, ensuring continuous quality improvement and community-responsive service delivery.

9

APPENDIX B
Berkeley Junior Jackets FY 2025 Report

APPENDIX C
Preliminary Fines & Fees Assessment

The Fines and Fees Report:

Advancing Equity in Berkeley, California

Daniel V. Muñoz MPP 2025
Goldman School of Public Policy
University of California Berkeley

This document was prepared for the City of Berkeley’s Fines and Fees Steering Committee and the Berkeley City Council

The author conducted this study as part of the program of professional education at the Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley. This paper is submitted in partial fulfillment of the course requirements for the Master of Public Policy degree. The judgments and conclusions are solely those of the author, and are not necessarily endorsed by the Goldman School of Public Policy, by the University of California, or by any other agency.

Table of Contents
Table of Contents.................................................................................................................... 1 Statement of Positionality.....................................................................................................4 Executive Summary................................................................................................................ 4 Introduction.............................................................................................................................4 Criteria Used to Evaluate....................................................................................................... 5 Key Findings and Challenges.................................................................................................5 Recommendations..................................................................................................................6 Implementation Considerations...........................................................................................7 Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 8 Project Scope........................................................................................................................... 8 Limitations...............................................................................................................................9 Background..............................................................................................................................9 Problem Statement...............................................................................................................11 Methodology..........................................................................................................................13 Analytical Framework.................................................................................................................14 The preferred package of six recommendations:............................................................14 Criteria Matrix..............................................................................................................................15 Considerations:..................................................................................................................... 16 Implementation Considerations...............................................................................................16 Community Service Considerations......................................................................................... 17 Exemption Considerations........................................................................................................ 18 Recommendations................................................................................................................ 18 Status Quo:.......................................................................................................................18 Current State of City of Berkeley’s Fines and Fees...........................................................18 Current City Statute..............................................................................................................19 Departmental Practices and Informal Flexibility........................................................20 Evaluation of the Status Quo Based on Criteria...............................................................20 Financial Implications...........................................................................................................21 Recommendation 1: Develop a Clear Fines and Fees Communication Strategy..... 21 Current State......................................................................................................................... 21 Proposed Change................................................................................................................. 21 Improving Access and Compliance.............................................................................. 22 Public Trust and Clear and Consistent Communications......................................... 23 Evaluation of Recommendation 1 based on Criteria.......................................................24 1

Financial Implications...........................................................................................................24 Recommendation 2: Amend BMC 14.40.100 to align with federal and state standards on
disability parking standards and accommodations............................25 Current State......................................................................................................................... 25 CA Department of Motor Vehicle Guidelines and Supportive Persons.................. 25 Evaluation of Recommendation 2 Based on Criteria.......................................................26 Financial Implications...........................................................................................................26 Recommendation 3: Amend BMC 14.68 that requires an individual to license and register
their bicycles annually to be optional............................................................27 Current State......................................................................................................................... 27 Proposed Change................................................................................................................. 27 Reinforcing Berkeley’s Climate-friendly Mobility Efforts...........................................27 Low-Income Options Carry Compliance Difficulties..................................................27 Evaluation of Recommendation 3 Based on Criteria.......................................................28 Financial Implications...........................................................................................................28 Recommendation 4: Establish a Centralized Platform for Fines and Fees Management.......................................................... ..........................................................28 Current State......................................................................................................................... 28 Proposed Change................................................................................................................. 29 How Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software Works...................................... 29 How Robotic Process Automation (RPA) Software Works........................................ 29 ERP and RPA Can Work Together.................................................................................30 Broader Opportunity..................................................................................................... 30 Insights from Department of Labor Website............................................................. 30 San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project as a Model..............................................................31 Software Impact on San Francisco.....................................................................................31 Evaluation of Recommendation 4 Based on Criteria.......................................................33 Financial Implications...........................................................................................................33 Cost/Benefit.....................................................................................................................34 Recommendation 5: Expand the Indigent Payment Plan to Other Areas of the BMC 35 Current Framework.............................................................................................................. 35 Proposed Change................................................................................................................. 35 Financial Implications...........................................................................................................35 Insights from the 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update...................................................... 36 Evaluation of Recommendation 5 Based on Criteria.......................................................36 2

Recommendation 6: Explore Automatic Fines and Fees Payment Plans Available to Anyone..............................................................................................................................37 Current Framework.............................................................................................................. 37 Proposed Change................................................................................................................. 37 Comprehensive Social Impacts.................................................................................... 38 Financial Implications...........................................................................................................38 Reducing Administrative Costs and Default Rates.................................................... 39 Evaluation of Recommendation 6 Based on Criteria.......................................................39 Conclusion..............................................................................................................................40 Appendix I.................................................................................................................................. 41 Addit
ional BMC to be Eligible for Payment Plans............................................................ 41 Appendix II................................................................................................................................. 42 Public Safety Defined.......................................................................................................42

3

Statement of Positionality
My engagement throughout this Capstone and Berkeley’s Fines & Fees system is inseparable from my lived experience. I am a multi-racial Hispanic male who grew up—and, for much of my adult life, remained—in low‑income circumstances, living paycheck‑to‑paycheck. I am formerly incarcerated and have personally carried the weight of punitive
fines and fees that compounded economic insecurity for me and my family.

Having navigated the criminal legal system from the inside, I understand how cumulative financial penalties can trap people in cycles of debt, surveillance, and marginalization. This perspective grounds my insistence that policy proposals be evaluated not only for fiscal efficiency but also for their capacity to restore dignity, promote due process access, and reduce racial‑ and socio-economic disparities. Equity is not an abstract goal for me—it is a tangible necessity tied to survival and self‑determination.

At the same time, I recognize that my proximity to the issue may introduce bias toward favoring reforms that reduce or eliminate
fines altogether. To mitigate that bias, I rely on
rigorous empirical evidence, dialogue with stakeholders of varied backgrounds, and transparent methodology. I strive to balance the urgency of lived experience with the discipline of data‑driven public policy analysis.

Ultimately, my position in this project is both scholar‑advocate and community voice. I leverage personal insight to spotlight systemic harms that might otherwise remain hidden, while committing to rigorous standards that make our recommendations credible to policymakers. My aim is to ensure that Berkeley’s
fines and fees framework advances fiscal
responsibility and justice—so that no one’s ability to meet basic needs is derailed by punitive costs.

Executive Summary
Introduction
Berkeley’s multi-department fines
and fees framework, while designed to meet diverse
operational needs, has led to challenges around consistent communication, administrative efficiency,
and equitable enforcement for low‑income residents. In the first half of Fiscal Year 2025, parking citation volume rose by 12.9 percent while related revenues fell by 9.9 percent, indicating a growing disparity between enforcement actions and actual collections.1 This gap highlights the limits of relying on punitive, lump-sum charges and underscores the need to realign the City’s approach to promote both fiscal stability and
equitable access for all residents.
1 “Fiscal Year 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update.” City Budget. City of Berkeley, March 25, 2025. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-03-25%20Item%2011%20FY%202025%20Mid-Year%20Budget%20Updat e%20Report.pdf.
4

This report examines Berkeley’s multilingual, multi-department fines and fees framework to identify opportunities for improving fiscal stability, administrative efficiency, and equitable access. It assesses how reliance on punitive, lump-sum penalties can exacerbate financial hardships for low-income residents and strain public trust, setting the stage for targeted reforms to realign policy with broader equity and transparency goals.

Criteria Used to Evaluate
This study evaluates six targeted interventions using a mixed-methods approach: mapping departmental fee schedules, analyzing budget and revenue data, conducting semi-structured interviews with sta
ff from multiple City departments, and benchmarking
against other Bay Area jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, Alameda, and Oakland, as well as other jurisdictions across the U.S.

To ensure a transparent and data-driven assessment of each reform, a criteria matrix was developed that quanti
fies their performance across five key dimensions. The study’s criteria matrix assigns each proposed reform a score from 1 to 10 across each dimension—political feasibility, implementation cost, anticipated e ffectiveness, long-term
sustainability, and potential externalities—to facilitate an objective, side-by-side comparison of policy options. By quantifying each recommendation against these standardized measures, the matrix highlights top-scoring interventions and illuminates trade-o
ffs, enabling decision makers to prioritize actions that balance impact with practicality and equity.

Key Findings and Challenges
The disproportionate burden that fines and fees impose on low-income individuals and communities of color has been documented across California. A UCLA Summer Programs for Undergraduate Research (SPUR) study in 2021 found that nearly half of Californians with outstanding
fines or fees were unable to pay other essential bills, with 40 percent skipping utilities and 37 percent missing grocery payments.2 Concurrently, a 2023 analysis by the California Budget and Policy Center revealed that 63 percent of households earning under $35,000, 46 percent earning $35,000–$74,999, and 30 percent earning $75,000–$149,999 reported di
fficulty meeting basic expenses.3 These findings illustrate how unexpected municipal charges can exacerbate financial fragility and erode trust in local governance.

Recognition of these harms has grown alongside broader public safety reforms. Berkeley’s Reimagining Public Safety Task Force called for non-punitive interventions and restorative 3 California Budget and Policy Center. “Millions of Californians Are Struggling to Make Ends Meet.” Accessed April 13, 2025. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/millions-of-californians-are-struggling-to-make-ends-meet/. 2 Denney, Jacob. “More Harm Than Good: Building a More Just Fine and Fee System in California,” June 2021. https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/SPUR_More_Harm_Than_Good_0.pdf 5

approaches to reduce reliance on traditional enforcement,4 while the City Council’s Care First, Jails Last resolution shifted focus toward prevention and community-centered support.5 Yet, without targeted reforms to the fines and fees framework, efforts to advance equity risk being strained by financial barriers that may contribute to financial hardship for vulnerable residents.

Although some City departments use informal, case-by-case discretion to extend deadlines, waive minor penalties, or guide residents through the
fines and fees process, these
accommodations depend on individual staff availability, lack clear, uniform procedures, and remain unevenly accessible, which can inadvertently reinforce inequities.

Recommendations
First, consolidating all fees, deadlines, and relief programs into a single, multilingual online resource page—complemented by a council-adopted Master Fee Schedule—could vastly improve transparency and reduce administrative overhead. San Francisco, who publishes a biennial Master Fee Schedule, reports measurable increases in voluntary compliance and reductions in sta
ff time spent responding to routine inquiries.6 Also,
embedding clear instructions and QR codes on physical notices can further guide residents to assistance at the point of citation.

Second, updating Berkeley Municipal Code section 14.40.1007 to align with the ADA Amendments Act of 20088 and California Vehicle Code § 295.59 would broaden eligibility for disabled-parking placards to include individuals with blindness, cardiopulmonary conditions, or episodic impairments, and would allow caregivers to use placards when they are providing transportation to disabled persons. Harmonizing local law with federal and state de
finitions reduces legal risk and expands equitable access without substantive revenue loss.

Third, converting mandatory bicycle licensing under BMC 14.68 to a voluntary program removes a punitive requirement that discourages sustainable transportation and disproportionately penalizes second-hand bike owners who often lack sales documentation. State law under Cal. Veh. Code § 39002(a) prohibits enforcement against unlicensed bicycles,10 and Berkeley’s Climate Action Plan reported that sustainable modes—including cycling—accounted for 34 percent of trips in 2023, underscoring the 10 Registration and Licensing of Bicycles, Vehicle Code § 39002(a) (2023). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayT ext.xhtml?article=&chapter=&division=16.7.&lawCode=VEH&part=&title=. 9 Legislature, Cal. “Cal. Vehicle Code § 295.5.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_295.5. 8 ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–325, Stat. 3553, 2559, § 8, 122 (2008). https://archive.ada.gov/nprm_adaaa/nprm_adaaa.htm.
7 Berkeley Municipal Code, § 14.40.100 (1952).
6 City and County of San Francisco Staff Interview. Financial Justice Project, 2025 5 Jones, Monica. “Resolution to Adopt a City-Wide ‘Care First, Jails Last’ Policy,” July 25, 2023. https://dev.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-07-25%20Item%2031%20Resolution%20to%20Adopt%20a%20City- Wide.pdf.
4 “Reimagining Public Safety.” Berkeley Task Force Report, March 2022. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-attachments/T askForceReport-2322-653pm2-8-2022.pdf. 6

importance of barrier-free bike access.11 Forecasts project the global used bike market to grow from $47 billion in 2025 to $72.4 billion by 2035,12 highlighting the need for accessible, voluntary registration.

Fourth, evaluating a centralized, end-to-end fines and fees management platform—either by extending the City’s existing Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) software framework or deploying an end-to-end solution—could streamline workflows, eliminate tedious data entry, and enable real-time visibility into citation lifecycles. When taken a step further and complemented by Robotic Process Automation (RPA), which automates repetitive tasks in legacy systems, the combined technology reduces errors and frees sta ff for more strategic
work.13
Fifth, extending Berkeley’s Indigent Payment Plan—currently limited to parking citations—to all eligible fines and fees would align obligations with residents’ financial realities and bolster compliance. In San Francisco, their Ability-to-Pay model, which reduces the entry fee for payment plans by over 90 percent led to a 400 percent enrollment increase and nearly $160,000 in additional revenue within two months.14 Finally, embedding automatic installment plans as the default for every citation—offering three- or four-month payment schedules at the point of ticket issuance—aligns fiscal obligations with household cash-flow patterns. Research shows that many households facing modest but unexpected expenses are more likely to maintain compliance when payments are spread over time.15 One study of installment plans reported a 16:1 advantage in dollars collected compared to lump-sum enforcement, illustrating both revenue gains and administrative savings.16
Implementation Considerations
Implementation of these reforms will require phased investments, targeted staff training, and robust public outreach—particularly to limited-English-proficiency communities—to ensure broad awareness and uptake. While some benefits, such as increased compliance and streamlined operations, may emerge quickly, others—like cumulative revenue 16 “Payment Plans as a Compliance Tool: Best Practices For Florida Courts.” Fines and Fees Justice Center, August 2019. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/content/uploads/2020/05/Payment-Plans-Final-1.pdf. 15 Hasler, Andrea, and Annamaria Lusardi. “Financial Fragility among Middle-Income Households: Evidence Beyond Asset Building.” Working Paper. Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center: The George Washington University School of Business, March 4, 2019. https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Financial-Fragility-among-Middle-Income-Households-WP-2019-1-v2-3.pdf. 14 Rodriguez, Joe Fitzgerald. “City Says Reduced Fee for Parking Citation Payment Program Boosting Revenues.” San Francisco Examiner, May 14, 2018.
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/city-says-reduced-fee-for-parking-citation-payment-program-boosting-revenues/article_520d8832- 0300-5643-8267-3ad4c041176f.html.
13 Digital Robots. “Benefits of Integrating RPA with ERP: Savings and Efficiency.” Accessed April 24, 2025. https://www.digital-robots.com/en/news/beneficios-de-integrar-rpa-con-erp-ahorro-y-eficiencia. 12 “Used Bike Marketplace Size, Share & Forecast 2025 to 2035.” Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/sales-of-used-bikes-through-used-bike-marketplace. 11 “Climate Action Plan and Resilience Update.” Berkeley City Council, April 15, 2025. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-04-15%20Item%2023%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20and%20Resilien ce%20Update_0.pdf.
7

stabilization—may appear over longer timeframes. Moreover, reforms touching county- or state-mandated fees will necessitate intergovernmental coordination.

Conclusion
The report proposes options to consolidate communication, update legal standards, review current mandates, leverage technology, and incorporate income-sensitive payment options to support a
fines and fees system in Berkeley that promotes transparency, operational efficiency, and fiscal stability while advancing equity goals. A strategic, phased approach will enable the City to establish benchmarks, while building the foundation for more comprehensive, sustainable change.

Project Scope
This capstone undertakes a comprehensive review of Berkeley’s system of municipal fines and fees to determine how current practices affect equity, fiscal stability, and administrative efficiency. The primary emphasis is on Berkeley-specific fines and fees structures and opportunities for local reform; however, it is important to note that some fines and regulations are governed by Alameda County ordinances or California state law, which are beyond the City’s authority to modify.

This memorandum first maps the status quo: a decentralized network of department‑specific schedules, payment portals, and appeal procedures that, despite generating large volumes of citations, often yield declining revenues and create or exacerbate burdens on economically vulnerable populations. In addition to reviewing municipal fee schedules, budget data, and comparative research, semi-structured interviews were conducted with sta
ff from multiple departments, including the City
Manager’s Office, Planning and Development, Police Department, Parks, Recreation and Waterfront, Public Works, Finance, and the City Attorney’s Office. These interviews provided critical insights that helped identify operational challenges and pinpoint areas where fines and fees reforms would be most impactful and administratively feasible.

Guided by a multi‑criteria analytical framework that weighs political feasibility, cost, effectiveness, sustainability, and externalities, the scope extends beyond diagnosis to targeted reform design. Six principal interventions are developed: (1) a city‑wide communication strategy and consolidated master fee schedule; (2) modernizing disability parking provisions to align with federal and state standards; (3) making bicycle registration voluntary; (4) unifying and simplifying the citation‑appeals process; (5) o ffering automatic
installment payment plans to everyone at the point of citation; and (6) expanding the Indigent Payment Plan model across the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC).

The project further evaluates how automation, such as Robotic Process Automation software and Enterprise Resource Planning platforms, can reduce clerical workload, 8

improve accuracy, and ensure consistent rule application when administering payment plans.

Overall, the scope encompasses problem analysis, stakeholder engagement, legal review, best‑practice benchmarking, and the development of actionable policy and technology recommendations aimed at making Berkeley’s fines and fees framework more equitable, transparent, and fiscally resilient.

Limitations
While this project employed a rigorous mixed-methods approach, several limitations should be noted. Access to comprehensive, granular data across departments and national partners was limited, which constrained the ability to perform a deeper quantitative analysis of
fines and fees distribution and impacts. The timeline of the study also naturally limited the breadth of inquiry, including the opportunity to conduct direct interviews with low-income Berkeley residents most a
ffected by municipal fines and fees. Additionally,
while the project engaged multiple City departments and offices, further connections with additional departments could have strengthened the comprehensiveness of the findings.

Future studies could build on this work by incorporating direct community engagement to further validate and re
fine recommendations. Additionally, some fines and regulations fall under Alameda County or California state authority, which places natural boundaries on the reforms that the City of Berkeley can independently implement. These factors should be considered when interpreting the
findings and recommendations presented in this
report.

Background
The City of Berkeley imposes a range of fines and fees on individuals for various violations and services. Although intended to maintain public order and offset administrative costs, studies show that such charges may place a disproportionate burden on low-income residents. Research indicates that relatively minor fees can lead to substantial financial hardship, as individuals with limited resources may need to choose between paying fines and covering basic necessities such as food, rent, or utilities. 9

A report by SPUR in 2021 highlighted that fines and fees disproportionately harm low-income Californians, pushing many families into debt and impeding their ability to meet basic needs.17 The report noted that 48 percent of individuals grappling with fines
and/or fees could not pay their other monthly bills, 40 percent had to skip paying utility bills, and 37 percent could not a
fford groceries.18 These findings underscore the significant burden that fines and fees can impose on low-income individuals, often leading to difficult choices between fulfilling legal obligations and meeting essential living expenses. 18 Ibid.
17 Denney, Jacob. “More Harm Than Good: Building a More Just Fine and Fee System in California,” June 2021. https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/SPUR_More_Harm_Than_Good_0.pdf 10

Data at the California Budget and Policy Center shows that in 2023, 63 percent of households making less than $35,000 per year, 46 percent making $35,000-$74,999, and 30 percent making $75,000-$149,999 per year, reported difficulty paying for basic expenses.19 Households living paycheck-to-paycheck can be highly vulnerable to unanticipated expenses, as their budgets are already stretched thin by necessities like rent, food, and transportation. The lack of disposable income and emergency savings means that a significant portion of Californians, not just those who fall under the “low-income” threshold, are at risk of falling into deeper financial hardship with any unexpected cost.

Research suggests that fines and fees undermine efforts to alleviate poverty and strengthen social mobility by creating cumulative financial burdens that may contribute to financial hardship for vulnerable residents, ultimately perpetuating economic insecurity and reinforcing broader patterns of social and economic inequality. Recognizing these adverse impacts, policymakers and community advocates are increasingly calling for reforms to
fine and fee structures, aiming for greater financial equity reflected in the City’s municipal code.

Problem Statement
Across the United States, fines and fees related to minor offenses, court costs, and administrative penalties place a significant burden on individuals and families, particularly 19 California Budget and Policy Center. “Millions of Californians Are Struggling to Make Ends Meet.” Accessed April 13, 2025. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/millions-of-californians-are-struggling-to-make-ends-meet/. 11

in communities of color, disproportionately harming those with lower incomes.20 In Berkeley, a city with more than 118,000 residents21 and a federal poverty threshold of $15,650 per year in California22, 17.7 percent of residents live below that mark, placing them at higher risk of hardship when faced with compounding municipal fines.23 This dynamic can lead to spiraling debts and other consequences that can significantly impact those already struggling to meet basic needs.

The City of Berkeley recognizes the importance of addressing economic disparities and expanding opportunities that support financial and physical security for low-income individuals and families through accessible local government programs. Through the city’s e
fforts to create a public safety system that prioritizes equity and care, this comprehensive re-evaluation stems from the need to address concerns about the disproportionate impact of punitive fines on low-income residents and communities of color, as highlighted in both the Reimagining Public Safety initiative and the Care First, Jails Last resolution.

The Care First, Jails Last resolution shifts public safety toward prevention, treatment, and community-based interventions rather than criminalization and incarceration.24 The resolution also calls for
financial investments in restorative justice and survivor support, guided by City Council and the Mental Health Commission. Reimagining Public Safety is a Berkeley led, council-mandated initiative and Task Force e ffort to develop a community
centered safety paradigm that moves beyond traditional policing by repairing historical harm, advancing equity, and integrating non-police responders for mental health, substance use, and quality-of-life calls.25 Grounded in extensive community engagement and interdisciplinary research, it seeks to foster restorative justice, enhance transparency, and invest in alternative public safety solutions—such as specialized care units, transportation reforms, and violence-prevention programs—to build lasting, inclusive well-being across every neighborhood.26

The disproportionate impact of fines and fees often exacerbates existing inequalities, placing additional barriers before residents who are already facing significant economic challenges. When fines and fees escalate due to an individual's inability to pay immediately, they can escalate into larger debts, which may affect credit scores, housing opportunities, and vehicle registration, among other impacts, which is crucial in order to be legally able to get to and from a place of employment. These cascading consequences create cycles of 26 Ibid
25 “Reimagining Public Safety.” Berkeley Task Force Report, March 2022. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/legislative-body-meeting-attachments/TaskForceReport-2322-653pm2-8-2022.pdf. 24 Jones, Monica. “Resolution to Adopt a City-Wide ‘Care First, Jails Last’ Policy,” n.d. https://dev.berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-07-25%20Item%2031%20Resolution%20to%20Adopt%20a%20City- Wide.pdf.
23 “U.S. Census.” Accessed March 24, 2025.
https://data.census.gov/all?q=residents+below+the+federal+poverty+line+Berkeley+city,+California. 22 “2025 Poverty Guidelines: 48 Contiguous States (All States except Alaska and Hawaii),” n.d. https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/dd73d4f00d8a819d10b2fdb70d254f7b/detailed-guidelines-2025.pdf. 21 “U.S. Census.” Accessed April 5, 2025. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/berkeleycitycalifornia/PST045223. 20 Firefly Advocates. “The Hidden Cost of Justice: Fines, Fees, and Their Impact on Communities of Color,” February 14, 2025. https://www.fireflyadvocates.org/blog/the-hidden-cost-of-justice-fines-fees-and-their-impact-on-communities-of-color. 12

debt that hinder economic mobility and deepen the very poverty such penalties may unintentionally exacerbate, despite intended regulatory purposes..

Research and experiences from other jurisdictions highlight viable alternatives to punitive approaches, emphasizing restorative practices and income-sensitive fine structures. Cities implementing tiered systems or income-based fee waivers have seen reduced financial burdens on marginalized communities without compromising the efficacy or intent behind fines as regulatory tools; effectively promoting compliance without imposing undue hardship.

In alignment with the values articulated in the Reimagining Public Safety initiative and the Care First, Jails Last approach, the City of Berkeley is uniquely positioned to put forth comprehensive reforms that not only mitigate economic disparities but also reinforce community trust in local governance. Engaging directly with impacted communities to understand lived experiences and soliciting input on equitable fine structures can help
Berkeley craft policies that better reflect the city's commitment to fairness, justice, and inclusion. Ultimately, these reforms serve as integral components of a broader strategy to build safer, healthier, and more resilient communities, ensuring that local government actions consistently align with the principles of equity and compassion.

Methodology
This project employed a mixed‑methods approach anchored in rigorous evidence analysis.

The first phase combined documentary analysis—examining the BMC, department‑level fee schedules, recent budget updates, and revenue reports—with 15 semi‑structured interviews, including correspondence through numerous follow up emails with City staff across Parking Enforcement, Code Enforcement, Finance, the City Attorney’s Office, and the Indigent Payment Plan program, as well as staff at San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project and the Fines and Fees Justice Center.

These steps mapped the current fines and fees ecosystem, surfaced operational pain points, and recorded equity concerns from frontline perspectives. Concurrently, Berkeley was benchmarked against other jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, San Francisco, Alameda, Oakland, and extensive literature review to identify legally and administratively viable reform models. All
findings were cross‑checked for consistency and accuracy.

Each potential reform is measured by a multi‑criteria decision matrix—political feasibility, cost, effectiveness, sustainability, and externalities—scored on a 1-10 scale to generate comparative rankings. Quantitative scores were paired with qualitative insights from interviews and existing evidence supported the prioritization of six recommendations measuring for equity,
fiscal soundness, and administrative practicality. Iterative peer review and reconciliation of data discrepancies ensured internal validity, while continuous 13

stakeholder feedback helped to mitigate any potential bias and maintain fidelity to community needs throughout the project.

Analytical Framework
The preferred package of six recommendations:
1) publish a consolidated, multilingual Master Fee Schedule and plain‑language portal 2) update BMC 14.40.100 to align disability‑parking rules with federal and state standards
3) convert mandatory bicycle licensing in BMC 14.68 to a voluntary program 4) explore internal software options
5) extend the Indigent Payment Plan beyond parking tickets to all eligible fines and fees
6) Offer an installment payment option for every citation

It is important to note that the order of the recommendations reflects a strategic sequencing based on relative ease of implementation. Recommendations are prioritized beginning with actions that present lower operational barriers and fewer interdependencies, and progressing toward reforms that involve broader structural considerations, require additional coordination, or present higher complexity. This approach is intended to support a phased implementation process that maximizes early gains while preparing for more comprehensive changes over time.

When evaluating policy recommendations for fines and fees reform, we assess each option's viability. Using specific criteria, this framework promotes a balanced approach that considers political, economic, social, and practical implications. Each recommendation involves trade-offs that influence the effectiveness and sustainability of the policy. The following matrix summarizes the considerations of a set of policy alternatives that follow.

Each criteria is based on a 1-10 score, with 10 being the best score. As it pertains to externalities, lower scores lean to more negative externalities, while higher scores lean to more positive externalities.

A. Political Feasibility - Will the policy gain the political support needed to be adopted? B. Cost Effectiveness - Do the policy outcomes outweigh the cost? C. Effectiveness - Will the policy achieve its intended goals? D. Sustainability - Can the policy be maintained over the long-term? E. Externalities - What are the unintended side-effects of the policy? 14

Criteria Matrix

Criteria Status
Quo
Develop
Clear
Comm
Strategy
Amend
BMC

14.40.100
Disabled
Parking
Rules
Amend
BMC

14.68 Bicycle
License
And
Registra
-tion
Explore
Internal
Software
Options
Indigent
Payment
Plan
Extended
to Other
Areas of
BMC
Automatic
Payment
Plans
Available
to Anyone
Community
Service
Political
Feasibility 8 9 7 7 7 5 4 4
Cost
Effective-
ness
3 9 8 7 6 8 8 5
Effective-
ness 3 8 9 9 9 9 9 6
Sustain-
ability 2 8 9 9 9 8 8 3
External-
ities
Low=Neg
High=Pos
2 8 8 8 7 8 8 5
Total
Score 15 42 41 40 38 38 37 23

15

Considerations:

Implementation Considerations
Following the evaluation of policy alternatives through the multi-criteria analytical framework, it is important to acknowledge key considerations that could impact the practical implementation of the recommendations. While the reforms identi fied offer clear
opportunities to advance equity, fiscal stability, and operational efficiency within the City of Berkeley’s fines and fees system, successful implementation will require careful navigation of administrative, fiscal, and structural realities inherent to municipal governance.

Several considerations are outlined below:

1) Budgetary Constraints: Although many proposed reforms, such as updates to the BMC and the development of a centralized communication strategy, are relatively low-cost, initiatives involving technological investments—such as integrating Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) systems or Robotic Process Automation (RPA)—will require initial capital outlays. Given competing fiscal priorities across City departments, implementation may require phased funding strategies or pursuit of external grants to offset costs.
2) Administrative Capacity and Workload: Consolidating department-specific schedules into a Master Fee Schedule, modernizing appeals processes, and expanding payment plan access will necessitate significant interdepartmental coordination, updates to workflows, and staff training. In the short term, these reforms may increase administrative burdens before longer-term efficiencies are fully realized. The City would need to consider how to strategically allocate resources, project management support, and technical assistance during the transition period
3) Public Awareness and Compliance: The effectiveness of reforms such as automatic installment plans and expanded access to financial relief options depends heavily on robust public communication. Without intentional outreach—particularly to low-income and limited-English-speaking communities—improvements in system design may not immediately translate into higher compliance rates or improved user experience. A comprehensive education and engagement campaign would be necessary to ensure that impacted residents are aware of and able to access new programs.
4) Timing of Fiscal Benefits: Although many reforms are designed to strengthen Berkeley’s fiscal resilience over time, cost savings and revenue stabilization may not be immediately apparent. As demonstrated in peer jurisdictions, there may be a lag between initial implementation and the realization of measurable fiscal outcomes.

Berkeley should build this lag into its financial projections and maintain regular 16

monitoring—using key performance indicators such as plan enrollment rates and delinquency trends—to sustain internal support for continued funding. 5) Jurisdictional and Legal Boundaries: Certain fines and fees affecting Berkeley residents are governed by Alameda County ordinances or California state law, limiting the City’s direct authority to enact reforms in those areas. Any recommendations pertaining to
fines set outside the City's jurisdiction would
require coordination with county or state entities to fully realize intended impacts.

Incorporating these considerations into a phased implementation plan—with defined milestones, dedicated resources, and ongoing stakeholder engagement—will enable Berkeley to establish a fines and fees system that is transparent, impartial, and financially sustainable.

Community Service Considerations
Additionally, community service in lieu of monetary fines has long been proposed by countless jurisdictions, including Berkeley, as an alternative for individuals unable to pay, but past implementations in Berkeley proved financially unsustainable. Police officials noted that the prior program, facilitated through an outside agency, required officers to work overtime in order to supervise participants, driving up costs without commensurate revenue or compliance gains.27 Multiple Parking Enforcement Officers stated that, “the cost to run the program and where the money goes or doesn’t go are factors”28 and, “the cost was too high to pay officers the overtime required to staff a program like that.”29

Other interview respondents nonetheless suggested an expanded community service model, pointing to recent legislative reforms in other states that broaden acceptable service activities beyond roadside cleanup, would be necessary if Berkeley was to revisit a program like this.30 In Texas, for instance, courts under Article 45.049(c) of the Code of Criminal Procedure may grant credit for participation in addiction counseling, victim impact panels, or social service outreach—rather than strictly manual labor.31 Likewise, New Mexico’s 2023 amendment to Section 31-12-3 of its statutes explicitly allows community service credit “including enrollment in job training or an academic or vocational program or participation in social service or rehabilitation programs,” o ffering a more flexible
framework for fulfillment of court‐ordered hours.32

32 Justia Law. “2024 New Mexico Statutes :: Chapter 31 - Criminal Procedure :: Article 12 - Fines, Fees and Costs :: Section 31-12-3 - Paying Fines, Fees or Costs in Installments; Community Service Option.” Accessed April 23, 2025. https://law.justia.com/codes/new-mexico/chapter-31/article-12/section-31-12-3/. 31 FindLaw. “Texas Code of Criminal Procedure - CRIM P Art. 45.049. Community Service in Satisfaction of Fine or Costs.” Accessed April 23, 2025. https://codes.findlaw.com/tx/code-of-criminal-procedure/crim-ptx-crim-pro-art-45-049/. 30 Policy and Research Director at Fines and Fees Justice Center, n.d. 29 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement, 2025. 28 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement 2, 2025. 27 City of Berkeley Police Department Staff Interview, 2025. 17

In light of these findings, a future community service alternative would need to incorporate a broader array of service options, while ensuring staffing and supervision costs are controlled to maintain both accessibility and fiscal responsibility.

Exemption Considerations
Exemptions to certain municipal fines and fees is an eventual objective; viewing them as a mechanism to advance equity and restorative public safety practices beyond strictly punitive measures. However, the City’s current fiscal environment—marked by a tightly constrained general fund and recent mid-year revenue shortfalls33 renders broad fee waivers infeasible at this time, as any reduction in revenue would deepen existing budgetary pressures and risk displacing critical services.

Under the present deficit state, allocating resources to cover foregone fine and fee revenues would require significant reallocation within an already balanced budget, making comprehensive exemptions in the near term, unfeasible. Once the City’s finances recover—through the steady and sustained revenue streams the proposed reform in this report is intended to provide, it can revisit and phase in targeted exemptions that align with the City’s long term equity goals, ensuring that financial capacity and policy intent advance in tandem.

Recommendations
Status Quo:

Current State of City of Berkeley’s Fines and Fees
Berkeley assesses administrative fines and fees through a decentralized system in which multiple departments—such as Parking Enforcement, Code Enforcement, Planning and Development, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Finance, and the City Attorney’s O
ffice—manage their own distinct schedules, billing systems, appeal procedures, and enforcement protocols. Parking citations, for example, operate under a separate framework from business license penalties or code violations, and each maintains its own payment forms and deadlines. An income-screened Indigent Payment Plan is available for parking citations, while most other
fines require the assessed amount to be paid before an
appeals hearing can be requested.

Information about fines and fees is dispersed across department-specific webpages and office counters, requiring residents—especially those with limited digital access or English 33 “Fiscal Year 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update.” City Budget. City of Berkeley, March 25, 2025. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-03-25%20Item%2011%20FY%202025%20Mid-Year%20Budget%20Updat e%20Report.pdf.
18

proficiency—to contact several departments to determine the status of their citation, payment options, or eligibility for waivers. Staff have shared that some of the complaints from residents was their lack of knowledge that these programs exist.34 Additionally, some third-party portals that handle payments lack translation capabilities, creating further access barriers. According to multiple staff interviews, this decentralization not only confuses residents but also increases clerical workload, as employees must repeatedly explain disparate procedures and policies35 that could otherwise be unified under a central platform.

Currently, the City does not have a fully integrated case management system that spans departments. While some internal coordination tools are used for fiscal tracking and administrative operations, these tools do not track citations in real-time or automate installment plan management. Adjudication Staff shared that their department uses a citation management software that assists with their processes, but the software is exclusive to their department and does not crossover to other departments.36 For the most part, City of Berkeley staff must rely on manual coordination and independent data entry, creating duplication of effort and inconsistent user experiences.

Current City Statute
Several provisions in the BMC further compound both operational inefficiencies and equity concerns. BMC § 14.68, which mandates annual bicycle licensing and registration,37 is misaligned with California Vehicle Code § 39002(a), which prohibits municipalities from enforcing penalties for unlicensed bicycles.38 In practice, this outdated requirement can confuse residents, especially youth and low-income individuals who acquire secondhand bikes without formal documentation. Sta
ff are left to explain or enforce a law that is rarely
applied consistently and may not be legally enforceable—creating administrative friction and exposing the City to reputational or legal risk without generating meaningful public benefit.

Similarly, BMC § 14.40.100, which restricts disability related parking waivers to individuals with specific physical impairments and requires that the disabled person be the vehicle’s driver,39 does not reflect current definitions under state law or the federal ADA.40 This can limit access for individuals with blindness, respiratory illness, or cognitive impairments, and burden caregivers who assist disabled residents with transportation. Operationally, this has the potential to create ambiguity for enforcement staff and eligibility reviewers, who must reconcile local requirements with broader legal standards. From an equity standpoint, the 40 ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–325, Stat. 3553, 2559, § 8, 122 (2008). https://archive.ada.gov/nprm_adaaa/nprm_adaaa.htm.
39 Berkeley Municipal Code, § 14.40.100 (1952).
38 Registration and Licensing of Bicycles, Vehicle Code § 39002(a) (2023). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayT ext.xhtml?article=&chapter=&division=16.7.&lawCode=VEH&part=&title=. 37 Berkeley Municipal Code § 14.68.020 (1976).
36 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Adjudication Staff, 2025. 35 Ibid.
34 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Code Enforcement, 2025 19

restrictive language can result in unnecessary financial or mobility barriers for disabled residents—undermining the City’s broader commitments to accessibility and inclusion.

Departmental Practices and Informal Flexibility
While Berkeley’s current fines and fees structure is decentralized, it is important to note that some departments have developed informal practices to support residents. Staff from Planning and Development, Parks and Recreation, and the Finance Department reported taking case-by-case approaches to extend deadlines, waive minor penalties, or explain procedures to individuals unfamiliar with the system.41 42 43 These discretionary practices are rooted in a strong commitment to public service and, in some cases, help residents avoid deeper noncompliance.

However, such efforts remain dependent on individual staff availability, discretion, and a resident’s ability to reach the right person. Without a codified, transparent process for requesting relief, these accommodations are not universally accessible and can inadvertently perpetuate inequity. The absence of clear, uniform rules also places pressure on staff to make judgment calls in the absence of policy guidance—adding to administrative workload and introducing the risk of inconsistent outcomes.

Research at the state level confirms that fines and fees disproportionately harm low-income communities and may cost more to administer and collect than they ultimately generate in revenue.44
Evaluation of the Status Quo Based on Criteria
Total Score: 15/50

Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposed approach received a score of 15 out of 50.

On the positive side, it requires no new policy implementation, allowing the City to maintain short-term administrative continuity without the disruptions and learning curves associated with entirely new processes.

However, several significant drawbacks accompany this status quo. Rising default rates are placing increasing strain on both revenue collection and administrative capacity.

Low-income residents continue to face inequitable outcomes, unable to afford large lump-sum payments or to navigate the City’s decentralized system of fines and fees. Finally, by forgoing modern platforms, the City misses opportunities to reduce staff workload through automation, streamline communication with residents, and boost overall compliance.
44 Denney, Jacob. “More Harm Than Good: Building a More Just Fine and Fee System in California,” June 2021. https://www.spur.org/sites/default/files/2021-06/SPUR_More_Harm_Than_Good_0.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com. 43 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Finance Department, 2025 42 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parks and Recreation, April 2025. 41 City of Berkeley City Staff Interview. City Planning, March 2025. 20

Financial Implications
If Berkeley continues operating under its current structure, it is likely to face ongoing fiscal and operational strain. The City’s Fiscal Year 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update revealed a 12.9 percent increase in parking citations during the first half of the year, but a simultaneous 9.9 percent drop in related revenue—indicating that enforcement alone is not producing proportional returns. Departments are required to maintain their own intake, appeals, and payment processes, preventing the City from realizing cost savings that could be achieved through automation, centralized intake, shared administrative tools, or payment plans.

Recommendation 1: Develop a Clear Fines and Fees
Communication Strategy
Current State
The BMC, contains provisions that allow for flexibility or assistance in payment of some fines and fees; however, when these provisions are not clearly communicated, eligible residents may remain unaware that help exists as the fines and fees system can be difficult to navigate.45 In its current state, the City of Berkeley has multiple sites and departments that receive and determine eligibility for payment plans or waivers.46 One of the most significant lessons learned through our research is the necessity of framing information in a manner easily understandable to diverse populations. Even when local laws or ordinances (such as sections of the BMC) allow for exemptions or alternative payment schedules, instructions are delivered in overly technical language or strewn across multiple websites.47 48 49 50 51 52 This places additional challenges on residents who may face barriers in navigating complex systems.53
Proposed Change
In line with the broader goals of this project, the development of a clear communication strategy has emerged as a pivotal first step toward ensuring that fines and fees do not compound or create punitive barriers for vulnerable individuals. Therefore, a primary component of the recommended communication strategy is the consolidation of vital 53 Herd, Pamela, Donald Moynihan, and Amy Widman. “Identifying and Reducing Burdens in Administrative Processes,” December 5, 2023.
https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Identifying-and-Reducing-Burdens-in-Administrative-Processes-Final-Report-202

3.12.05_2.pdf.
52 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. City Attorney’s Office, 2025. 51 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Adjudication Staff, 2025. 50 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Code Enforcement, 2025. 49 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Finance Department, 2025 48 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement 2, 2025. 47 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement, 2025. 46 “Indigent Payment Plan for Parking Citations Application and Guidelines.” City of Berkeley, n.d. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Indigent-Payment-Plan-for-Parking-Citations-Application-and-Guidelines%20202

5.pdf.
45 “Targeted Fines and Fees Against Communities of Color Civil Rights & Constitutional Implications,” September 2017. https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/docs/Statutory_Enforcement_Report2017.pdf. 21

details—like eligibility for fee reductions, application procedures for indigent payment plans, and relevant deadlines—into a single, widely accessible platform, such as a dedicated city webpage, along with a Master Fees Schedule with a fines and fees guide that
contains and describes all known fees associated with the various city departments across Berkeley, fully translated into the multiple languages commonly spoken by Berkeley residents.

Improving Access and Compliance
According to multiple City of Berkeley staff interviews, while an Indigent Payment Plan for parking citations54 or low-income ambulance waivers are available in Berkeley, some individuals miss critical enrollment windows or remain unaware of their eligibility.55 56 This outcome likely stems from decentralized information, which is often scattered across department-specific websites and physical offices. Staff at the City of Berkeley Finance Office shared that only 120-140 parcels out of around 3000 each year are utilizing their low-income program as it relates to property taxes.57
Consolidating essential details about fines and fees into a single, user friendly platform can be vital for increasing awareness and compliance. Cities that centralize payment information and provide clearer instructions see a measurable rise in compliance and a decrease in overall default rates.58 A centralized website, available in multiple languages, can outline steps for entering payment plans, applying for fee reductions, and understanding deadlines; all in plain language. Although the City’s web portal allows for language translation, once users are directed to third-party payment pages, translation features may not persist, which could pose challenges for non-English speakers when entering sensitive payment information.

Neighboring jurisdictions demonstrate that consolidating every municipal charge in a single, council‑adopted Master Fee Schedule (MFS) is both feasible and beneficial. San Francisco issues a combined “Master Fee Schedule & Fee Certification” with its biennial budget, listing licenses, service charges, fines, and the percentage of each fee’s cost recovery.59 Alameda publishes an annual MFS that incorporates Consumer Price Index adjustments and impact‑fee studies,60 while Oakland posts a searchable web page with the full PDF of its adopted MFS for each fiscal year, updated every July 1.61 61 City of Oakland. “City of Oakland Master Fee Schedules.” Accessed April 17, 2025. https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/city-of-oakland-master-fee-schedules. 60 “Master Fee Schedule.” City of Alameda, July 2024.
https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/finance/master-fee-schedule-fy-2024-25.pdf. 59 Office of the Controller Budget and Analysis Division. “Combined Fees Certification & Master Fee Schedule FY 2024-25 & FY 2025-26,” City and County of San Francisco, May 24, 2024. https://www.sf.gov/sites/default/files/2024-05/FY24-25%20Master%20Fee%20Schedule%20and%20Fees%20Certification.pdf. 58 Hernandez, Pete. “Court E-Payments: External Service Providers, In-House Solutions and Beyond,” n.d. https://www.ncsc.org/__data/assets/pdf_file/0021/15915/court-e-payments.pdf. 57 Ibid.
56 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Finance Department, 2025 55 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement, 2025. 54 “Indigent Payment Plan for Parking Citations Application and Guidelines.” City of Berkeley, n.d. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Indigent-Payment-Plan-for-Parking-Citations-Application-and-Guidelines%20202

5.pdf.
22

These documents do more than aggregate numbers; they increase transparency for residents and businesses, reduce repetitive staff inquiries, and give policymakers a clear view of how closely each fee aligns with the cost of providing the service. The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) recommends that local governments “adopt formal policies regarding charges and fees,” measure the full cost of each service, and house the results in a single document that is reviewed regularly.62 Berkeley, by contrast, posts fee schedules individually—Planning and Building updates appear in individual council items or departmental PDFs, Engineering fees live on separate forms, and Environmental Health fees are embedded in sta ff reports. Because the
information is scattered across multiple webpages and file types, residents must hunt for the total cost of a permit or appeal, while staff spend extra time explaining where to look.

Public Trust and Clear and Consistent Communications
Another critical aspect is ensuring that any official notices, such as traffic citations or billing statements, link directly to resources. Something as simple as a QR code on the back of a parking ticket can direct an individual to a frequently asked questions (FAQ) page or a payment plan enrollment form. When individuals receive the information at the moment they need it—right when they open a ticket—it reduces confusion and can increase the likelihood of timely compliance.

Equally important is the equity dimension of clear communication. Providing instructions in multiple languages, offering large-print materials for visually impaired individuals, and furnishing straightforward, user-focused FAQs exhibits a commitment to equity.

Clarity and consistency also reduce administrative burdens and enhance public trust.

Currently, citations and the Parking and Transportation website inform residents that their vehicles can be towed or booted strictly for unpaid citations.63 64 According to a Parking Enforcement sta
ff interview, that penalty no longer aligns with current policy.65 Updating official texts and website content to reflect actual practice not only preserves trust but also prevents repetitive queries and appeals. Parking Enforcement staff further explained that, although the city no longer tows for purely delinquent citations, a vehicle will be denied registration until a delinquent citation is paid, and subsequently, a vehicle recognized on the street without registration can be towed and impounded, incurring an additional set of fees.66 Such discrepancies can cause confusion and may impact public con fidence. A
targeted and continuous communication campaign—one that clarifies actual policy—could resolve these conflicts, reduce confusion, and enhance compliance among residents. 66 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement 2, 2025. 65 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement, 2025. 64 “Paying Citations | Parking and Transportation.” Accessed April 23, 2025. https://pt.berkeley.edu/citations/paying-citations. 63 “Notice of Parking Violation.” City of Berkeley, n.d. https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1w1DolG3cc4-sBhMBjMulkRhRVi-YscFy. 62 “Establishing Government Charges and Fees.” Accessed April 17, 2025. https://www.gfoa.org/materials/establishing-government-charges-and-fees?utm_source=chatgpt.com. 23

Evaluation of Recommendation 1 based on Criteria
Total Score: 42/50
Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposal achieved a score of 42 out of 50.

Consolidating all fines, fees, deadlines, and relief programs onto a single, plain-language webpage would provide significant administrative relief and improve accuracy: clerks would spend less time answering repetitive questions or correcting payment errors caused by misinformation. In addition, clear presentation of what individuals owe and how to apply for relief in multiple languages can foster higher voluntary compliance and build trust—payment rates tend to rise and public resentment diminishes when people understand their obligations and options.

Nevertheless, maintaining this streamlined schedule poses its own challenges. Keeping the webpage perfectly up to date will require ongoing inter-departmental coordination, and any lapses could quickly recreate confusion. Moreover, residents without reliable internet access or mobile data may still miss digital notices unless the City supplements the portal with documents sent in the mail and provided at public buildings, or includes QR codes directly on paper tickets.

Financial Implications
From a fiscal perspective, an informed public is more likely to seek relief rather than simply not pay. Cities can then avoid burdensome collection tactics that siphon resources away from more pressing community needs. When people understand their obligations, deadlines, and available financial assistance, they tend to comply more swiftly, lowering the administrative cost of follow-up actions and possible legal enforcement.67 When residents easily grasp what they owe, why they owe it, how to request relief, and where to go for assistance, they are less inclined to ignore or contest citations, thus saving time and resources for both the public and city o
fficials.68 This level of transparency fosters
stronger, more respectful relationships between local government and its constituents.

Consolidating relevant information, fostering partnerships with community organizations, and adopting a multilingual, multimodal outreach approach could help Berkeley lower default rates, sustain stable revenue, and prevent residents from incurring additional penalties.
68 “Online Infraction Adjudication and Ability-to-Pay Determinations.” Report to Legislature, n.d. https://courts.ca.gov/sites/default/files/courts/default/2024-08/2024_online-infraction-adjudication-and-ability-to-pay-determinations.p df.
67 Johnson, Shanelle. “First Steps Toward More Equitable Fines and Fees Practices,” n.d. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/content/uploads/2020/11/FFJC_Policy_Guidance_Ability_to_Pay_Payment_Plan_Community_ Service_Final_2.pdf.
24

Recommendation 2: Amend BMC 14.40.100 to align with federal and state standards on disability parking standards and accommodations.

Current State
Berkeley’s parking ordinance, 14.40.100 for disabled persons, still uses a 1950s statute that recognizes disability only when someone “has completely lost by paralysis the use of one or both feet or one or both legs, or who has had one or both feet or one or both legs amputated” and insists that the individual be the one behind the wheel.69 In practice, that wording bars blind residents, people with cardiopulmonary disease, wheelchair users who cannot drive, and anyone whose disability is episodic or cognitive from enjoying the fee waiver that was meant to guarantee access. The text also clashes with national civil‑rights law: Congress de
fines disability far more broadly as “a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities,” or a record or perception of such an impairment, and demands that the term be “construed broadly” after the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.70 California codi
fies this broader view in Vehicle Code § 295.5,
which adds blindness, severe lung and heart disease, and other mobility‑impairing conditions to the list of qualifying disabilities.71
CA Department of Motor Vehicle Guidelines and Supportive Persons Because Berkeley’s ordinance also states that “the disabled person shall operate the motor vehicle themselves,” a resident who cannot drive must either pay the meter or forgo the trip unless a costly alternative is arranged. State law and the Department of Motor Vehicles, by contrast, expressly allow a disabled‑person placard to be “moved from one vehicle to another,” which “makes them a good option for a caregiver who transports a disabled person.”72
The local restriction translates into concrete barriers to daily life. If a blind resident’s friend cannot legally use the placard while driving the resident to a doctor’s appointment, the pair may have to pay curbside fees they cannot a
fford or resort to ADA paratransit. Paratransit
is reliable but expensive and inflexible: federal rules permit providers to insist on next‑day reservations and one‑hour pick‑up windows,73 and fares may legally run up to twice the regular bus fare.74 Diverting travelers onto vans inflates public costs while denying disabled residents the spontaneity and dignity enjoyed by nondisabled neighbors. 74 Ibid.
73 “ADA Complementary Paratransit Requirements.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://www.nationalrtap.org/T oolkits/ADA-T oolkit/Service-Type-Requirements/ADA-Complementary-Paratransit-Requirements. 72 California DMV. “Disabled Person Parking Placards & Plates.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/vehicle-registration/license-plates-decals-and-placards/disabled-person-parking-placards-plates/. 71 Legislature, Cal. “Cal. Vehicle Code § 295.5.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_295.5. 70 ADA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–325, Stat. 3553, 2559, § 8, 122 (2008). https://archive.ada.gov/nprm_adaaa/nprm_adaaa.htm.
69 Berkeley Municipal Code, § 14.40.100 (1952).
25

This amendment can be accomplished almost immediately, aligning local law with federal and state standards, by substituting the following language: “ ‘Disabled person’ means an individual who meets the definition of disability under 42 U.S.C. § 1210275 or California Vehicle Code § 295.5.76 The parking privilege applies when the disabled person is the driver or is present as a passenger in a vehicle operated by a support person.” This single amendment harmonizes Berkeley’s code with prevailing civil‑rights norms, protects the City from discrimination claims, and immediately extends equitable parking access to blind individuals, dialysis patients, and many others whose impairments do not involve limb loss.

Allowing family or friends to drive also reduces unnecessary reliance on paratransit, easing both public budgets and riders’ pocketbooks, and it facilitates easier access to daily activities for disabled residents..

Evaluation of Recommendation 2 Based on Criteria
Total Score: 41/50
Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposal earned a score of 41 out of 50. By aligning Berkeley’s local ordinances with both the ADA and the California Vehicle Code, the City would reduce its legal risk—shielding itself from potential discrimination suits and DOJ enforcement actions. At the same time, expanding eligibility for parking waivers enables blind or cardiopulmonary-impaired residents to travel with friends and family rather than rely on costly paratransit vans, advancing equity goals while relieving pressure on transit subsidies.

However, this approach carries some drawbacks. Meter revenue may decline modestly as a greater number of vehicles qualify for fee waivers, and parking enforcement officers will need to learn and apply a broader set of placard rules.

Financial Implications
Updating the section requires only an ordinance revision. Such a modest administrative step would modernize Berkeley’s code, advance disability equity, and trim avoidable transportation costs—all while honoring the City’s broader commitment to accessible public spaces.
76 Legislature, Cal. “Cal. Vehicle Code § 295.5.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://california.public.law/codes/ca_veh_code_section_295.5. 75 “42 USC 12102: Definition of Disability.” Accessed April 18, 2025. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title42-section12102&num=0&edition=prelim 26

Recommendation 3: Amend BMC 14.68 that requires an individual to license and register their bicycles annually to be optional.

Current State
Berkeley’s Municipal Code still makes it “unlawful for any person to operate or use a bicycle… which has not been licensed and registered.”77 Yet state law does not make this a requirement. California Vehicle Code § 39002(a) expressly says that when a city adopts a licensing ordinance it may not prohibit the operation of an unlicensed bicycle, confirming that any local program can be voluntary in practice. 78 Proposed Change
Amending Chapter 14.68 so the words “shall license” become “may license,” and deleting the fines that are currently associated with it, would bring Berkeley into alignment with this state standard while still allowing owners who want a theft‑recovery sticker to obtain one.

Reinforcing Berkeley’s Climate-friendly Mobility Efforts Encouraging climate-friendly transportation like bicycling requires policies that remove barriers—not create penalties. Mandating bicycle registration, especially with fines for non-compliance, discourages participation and disproportionately affects those who rely on bikes as an affordable, green alternative to cars. Doing so aligns with the city’s Climate and Action Plan79 while fostering equity and encouraging broader adoption of zero-emission travel.

In 2023, Berkeley City Council reported 34 percent of trips taken in the city were made by sustainable modes of transportation; bicycles included.80 With an ordinance revision, Berkeley can continue to promote sustainable mobility by eliminating punitive requirements and instead, o
ffering a voluntary program that makes riding easier and more accessible for all.

Low-Income Options Carry Compliance Difficulties
Another compelling reason to make bicycle licensing voluntary in Berkeley is the significant burden it places on individuals who acquire their bikes second-hand—particularly youth and low-income residents who often rely on the used bike market for affordability. Under the current BMC, registrants are expected to provide documentation such as a sales receipt 80 Ibid.
79 “Climate Action Plan and Resilience Update.” Berkeley City Council, April 15, 2025. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-04-15%20Item%2023%20Climate%20Action%20Plan%20and%20Resilien ce%20Update_0.pdf.
78 Registration and Licensing of Bicycles, Vehicle Code § 39002(a) (2023). https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayT ext.xhtml?article=&chapter=&division=16.7.&lawCode=VEH&part=&title=. 77 Berkeley Municipal Code § 14.68.020 (1976).
27

or proof of ownership to complete registration. However, many used bikes are exchanged informally through garage sales, online marketplaces like Craigslist or Facebook, or given as hand-me-downs within families or communities. Second-hand global sales through bike marketplaces or private sellers are projected to grow from approximately $47 billion in 2025 to $72.4 billion by 2035, re
flecting a 4.4% annual growth rate.81 Many of these
transactions do not come with formal receipts or serial number records, which would make it difficult—if not impossible—for the new owner to comply with the city’s registration requirements.

Evaluation of Recommendation 3 Based on Criteria
Total Score: 40/50
Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposal received a score of 40 out of 50. By eliminating the mandatory bicycle licensing requirement, the City stands to gain significant climate and public‐health benefits: removing this punitive barrier encourages more residents to cycle, directly supporting Berkeley’s Climate Action targets. This change also promotes equity for youth and low‐income riders, many of whom purchase second‐hand bicycles without a sales receipt and currently face fines they cannot realistically contest.

On the other hand, the City would relinquish a modest theft‐recovery tool—licensing stickers—that can aid in bicycle recovery unless an optional registry is promoted.

Additionally, Berkeley would forgo a minor revenue stream generated by license fees.

Financial Implications
In Washington, Seattle’s City Council reached this verdict decades ago. After police reported that keeping the program alive would cost at least $20,000‑$25,000 (equal to over $127,000 in 2025)82 a year while attracting fewer than half of riders, their City Council repealed its mandate outright in 1978, converting registration to a purely voluntary service, citing that it was unnecessary to keep a law in place that was never enforced.83 Recommendation 4: Establish a Centralized Platform for Fines and Fees Management
Current State
Berkeley currently relies on multiple internally hosted systems to handle different aspects of its municipal operations: an ERP system for human resources, payroll, and 83 “Registering Bicycles - CityArchives | Seattle.Gov.” Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.seattle.gov/cityarchives/exhibits-and-education/seattle-voices/registering-bicycles. 82 DollarTimes. “Calculate the Value of $25,000 in 1978.” Accessed April 28, 2025. https://www.dollartimes.com/inflation/inflation.php?amount=25000&year=1978. 81 “Used Bike Marketplace Size, Share & Forecast 2025 to 2035.” Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/sales-of-used-bikes-through-used-bike-marketplace. 28

disbursements;84 a separate revenue-accounting application for incoming fines and fees;85 and a back-end case-management system for parking citations appeals.86 None of these platforms communicate directly to each other, requiring staff to manually export, transform, and consolidate data; often using spreadsheets.87 While the City may be utilizing specific software to coordinate specific internal processes, it may not be being used to its full potential. The City stands to benefit from a tool that can manage the full lifecycle of a fine or fee, from issuance to resolution, including user-facing functionality and automated workflows for payment plans. Significant consolidation and cross-communication of scalable and integrated administrative software would be instrumental in keeping structural inefficiencies from persisting.

Proposed Change
Berkeley can evaluate whether to consolidate and extend its current ERP framework end-to-end to cover both outgoing expenditures and incoming revenues across departments or to deploy a modern, integrated ERP solution capable of end-to-end automation that spans the full lifecycle of
fines, fees, and related financial operations.

How Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) Software Works
An ERP system is a modular suite that centralizes core business processes—finance, human capital management, procurement, and reporting—into a single, unified database, creating a “single source of truth.”88 By automating data flows between functional units, ERP reduces tedious data entry, enforces standardized workflows, and provides real-time visibility into organizational performance metrics.89
How Robotic Process Automation (RPA) Software Works
Robotic Process Automation employs software “bots” that watch user interactions with graphical interfaces and then replicate those actions—filling forms, extracting data, and moving information between systems—without direct API integration.90 RPA excels at automating repetitive, rule-based tasks, lowering the barrier to automation when legacy systems lack programmable interfaces.91
91 Ibid.
90 Lumenalta. “What Is Robotic Process Automation (RPA),” January 7, 2025. https://lumenalta.com/insights/what-is-robotic-process-automation-rpa. 89 Ibid.
88 SAP. “What Is ERP? The Essential Guide.” Accessed April 20, 2025. https://www.sap.com/products/erp/what-is-erp.html. 87 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement, 2025. 86 Passport, Inc. “Getting Started (OpsMan Web).” Accessed April 24, 2025. https://help.passportinc.com/support/solutions/articles/73000552729-getting-started-opsman-web-. 85 Ibid.
84 “Contract 10549B Amendment:” City Manager: City of Berkeley, June 27, 2023. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2023-06-27%20Item%2027%20Contract%2010549B%20Amendment%20Tyler. pdf?utm.
29

ERP and RPA Can Work Together
When paired, RPA can bridge gaps in an ERP environment by automating tasks before and after core ERP workflows—such as processing incoming citations from a back-end system or generating custom compliance reports—while ERP handles master data, accounting logic, and consolidated reporting. This combination further reduces manual hando ffs and
accelerates end-to-end transactions.92
Broader Opportunity
Having multiple software platforms can make compliance more difficult, create administrative inefficiencies, and hinder the City’s ability to ensure equitable treatment across programs. A centralized ERP platform, potentially enhanced by RPA for legacy integrations, has the potential to promote transparency via consistent public dashboards, support fiscal responsibility through tighter budget controls, and lower equity barriers by automating internal processes among departments; thereby simplifying them, as well as residents’ interactions with City payment portals.93
Insights from Department of Labor Website
The Department of Labor describes how RPA bots are used in unemployment cases; stating that when tasked with adjudication and fact-finding, RPA bots review employer-submitted fact-finding requests and automatically enter the claimant’s separation reason into the benefits system.94 Used similarly, this can be helpful to the Fines and Fees citation ecosystem by eliminating the need for repetitive manual input, reducing both errors and processing time. Additionally, bots can scan relevant databases to determine whether required documentation has been returned by claimants and if documents are missing, the bots automatically generate and send a “failure to respond” notice, ensuring that claimants are aware of what is needed and how to provide it.95 These automations streamline the adjudication process while reinforcing accuracy and timeliness in case handling.

RPA bots can also be used to assemble and send appeals packets to the involved parties and to the designated Hearing O
fficer or Administrative Law Judge prior to the appeal
hearing.96 This task, which once consumed considerable staff time, is now completed swiftly and systematically. Further, bots extract key data elements such as the claimant’s name and the appeal issue from the request and input them into the system for human validation. After review, the bots complete the docketing of the appeal and ensure all related documentation is included. They are also capable of navigating scheduling systems 96 Department of Labor. “Use Cases for Robotic Process Automation in UI Claims Processing.” Accessed April 19, 2025. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/ui-modernization/promising-practices/rpa-use-cases. 95 Ibid.
94 Department of Labor. “Use Cases for Robotic Process Automation in UI Claims Processing.” Accessed April 19, 2025. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/ui-modernization/promising-practices/rpa-use-cases. 93 Ibid.
92 Digital Robots. “Benefits of Integrating RPA with ERP: Savings and Efficiency.” Accessed April 24, 2025. https://www.digital-robots.com/en/news/beneficios-de-integrar-rpa-con-erp-ahorro-y-eficiencia. 30

to identify the availability of adjudicators, thereby assigning and scheduling hearings without manual intervention.97
States have reported processing time reductions of 70–80% due to bots handling high-volume, rule-based tasks with precision. The automation of such tasks enables staff to shift their attention to more complex, discretionary work that demands human judgment and insight. In doing so, RPA not only mitigates backlogs and reduces errors but also enhances job satisfaction among employees by relieving them of the burden of monotonous administrative work. These outcomes a
ffirm that RPA is not merely a
technological upgrade but a strategic tool for improving the capacity, equity, and responsiveness of public benefit systems . Supplementing Electronic Resource Planning with Robotic Process Automation could further enhance administrative feasibility, fiscal soundness, and transparency.

Investing in a modern fines and fees management platform could be critical to making payment plans universally available and to expanding the IPP in a fiscally sustainable, user‑friendly way, simultaneously boosting employee satisfaction and relieving burnout and fatigue.

Peer jurisdictions, such as San Francisco, attest to improvements in administrative ease and data accuracy.

San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project as a Model
One of the most illuminating local precedents is San Francisco’s Financial Justice Project (FJP). Established to address the regressive nature of fines and fees, FJP demonstrated that lowering fines for low-income residents not only improves payment rates but also mitigates the harmful collateral consequences of unpaid debt.98 99 Their “MyCitations” income-based fine reductions underscore that expanding streamlined payment strategies can achieve both revenue stability and social equity.100 This mirrors the observations of Berkeley’s Indigent Payment Plan;101 participants who can see a direct path to resolving their obligations without spiraling penalties are more likely to follow through and pay.102 Software Impact on San Francisco
As discussed, purpose‑built ERP or platforms can replace time-consuming manual data-entry with a single, scalable system that processes every account according to 102 “Payment Plans as a Compliance Tool: Best Practices For Florida Courts.” Fines and Fees Justice Center, August 2019. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/content/uploads/2020/05/Payment-Plans-Final-1.pdf. 101 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement, 2025. 100 Byrne, Francine. Report to the Legislature: Online Infraction Adjudication and Ability-to-Pay Determinations (2023). https://jcc.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=F&ID=11695191&GUID=70B48C8A-FE60-48DB-8137-320B528E107D. 99 “Graduating Economic Sanctions According to Ability to Pay | Iowa Law Review - The University of Iowa.” Accessed April 13, 2025. https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-103-issue-1/graduating-economic-sanctions-according-to-ability-to-pay. 98 City and County of San Francisco Staff Interview. Financial Justice Project, 2025 97 Ibid.
31

consistent rules. FJP has implemented specific ERP software and their Payment Plan staff, shared the following in an email:

Our software handles the bulk of the heavy lifting and is essential to the efficacy of the payment plan administration. The way CSS [Impact] computes and administers the plans is great (and user friendly):
● The system has the flexibility to set rules for the payment plan program parameters that can be specific to a type of debt; The system uses those rule settings to perform the math to calculate the payment installments and terms, and trigger other work
flow logic to conduct outreach and identify
outlier cases and apply rules for those situations, and progresses each of the plans through its life cycle with no need for human intervention. ● The system can maintain all of the necessary documents related to the payment plan program (i.e., any financial documents needed to assess eligibility, the application and terms of agreement, critical communications), and set rule restrictions to ensure all plans are handled the same/treated equally
● Manages the sustained outreach that helps facilitates compliance and helps increase the propensity for payment; We send out enrollment notices once the plans are set-up, a reminder notice 15 days before the due date, another reminder on the due date (if we have the email address or are approved to send text), a notice when they are in default to give an opportunity to cure, and notice when the plans are cancelled
● Maintains the modern features of convenience, such as interfacing daily with the online payment page to provide clientele with information on the status of their plans, special messaging on the portal, and outreach through email or text messages
● Provide reports for analysis that can be used to account for trends, change needs in the payment plan program rules, and provide a general status of how the program is performing

They go on to say:

From my experience the software is absolutely essential to successfully administer and manage the payment plan program. The initial set-up costs can vary based on the complexity of the payment plan program, but in my experience it is worth the investment. It is much more cost effective over time, greatly reduces the administrative burden, greatly reduces the chance for human error or delays, and centralizes the data to a single scalable source vs maintaining multiple spreadsheets, and far easier to make changes as service programs evolve.103

103 City and County of San Francisco Payment Plan Staff. Financial Justice Project, 2025. 32

When asked what effect the software had on the administrator, staff at the City and County of San Francisco assured that this software is intended to supplement the administrator’s job as a tool for efficiency and accuracy, not a replacement.104 Evaluation of Recommendation 4 Based on Criteria
Total Score: 38/50
Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposal achieved a score of 38 out of 50. By consolidating Berkeley’s fines and fees systems, the City would realize improved administrative efficiency and eliminate time-consuming processes. This streamlined approach would also enhance transparency for residence and provide them with accessible self-service options. In addition, it lays a strong foundation for future capabilities—such as advanced analytics, mobile engagement, and proactive compliance features—that can further strengthen the system over time.

However, these gains come with notable upfront challenges. Implementing a unified platform will demand a significant initial investment and careful transition planning across multiple departments. Furthermore, sustaining its benefits will require ongoing governance and coordination to uphold shared data standards and ensure that workflows remain aligned across the organization.

Financial Implications
With departments routinely resorting to spreadsheets for interim calculations and cross-program reconciliations, such manual processes can consume dozens of hours per month, diverting sta
ff from higher-value tasks and slowing the City’s responsiveness to emerging compliance or equity concerns.105 The current decentralization not only increases maintenance costs for multiple software licenses and support contracts but also amplifies the risk of data entry errors and delays in critical decision-making.106 Public‑sector studies put the ceiling for national annual savings from cognitive automation at up to $41 billion and 1.2 billion staff hours, with even “minimal” investments freeing 96 million hours and $3.3 billion a year.107 Federal agencies have already eliminated more than

1.4 million staff hours of low‑value work in their first five years of RPA use, redirecting capacity to mission‑critical tasks.108 State unemployment‑insurance programs report 70‑80 percent faster claim‑handling and more than 300,000 staff hours saved after deploying 108 Jacobs, Brian. “Intelligent Automation in the Federal Government: Key Factors for Success.” Macro Solutions (blog), March 6, 2023. https://macrosolutions.com/intelligent-automation-in-the-federal-government-key-factors-for-success/. 107 Deloitte Insights. “AI-Augmented Government.” Accessed April 19, 2025. https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/focus/cognitive-technologies/artificial-intelligence-government.html 106 TechTarget. “An Explanation of SAP ERP,” November 20, 2024. https://www.techtarget.com/whatis/video/An-explanation-of-SAP-ERP?utm. 105 Schwarz, Lisa. “ERP Automation Benefits and Trends.” Oracle Net Suite, June 4, 2023. https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resource/articles/erp/erp-automation.shtml?utm. 104 City and County of San Francisco Staff Interview. Financial Justice Project, 2025 33

bots to copy data and send notices.109 These figures far outweigh typical licensing and integration fees, especially for cloud solutions that scale elastically.

Cost/Benefit
Low‑code suites let non‑technical staff drag‑and‑drop workflows; Los Angeles put up an emergency‑rental‑assistance app in two months, and New South Wales built a disaster‑response hub in a single week, saving AUD $10.5 million and 30,000 work‑hours.110 Implementing or refining a centralized ERP platform alone, or with complementary RPA capabilities will require interdepartmental coordination and potentially phased investments—similar to other technology projects undertaken by the City. However, modern ERP solutions have consistently delivered strong returns. Nucleus Research found that organizations recouped implementation investments in sixteen months on average and achieved over 200 percent return on investment (ROI), driven by the elimination of legacy system costs and efficiency gains.111
Additionally, ERP automation benefits such as reduced human labor, improved productivity, and lower error rates further free staff capacity for strategic work and accelerate revenue collection processes.112 Over time, these savings can outweigh up-front costs, delivering a sustainable platform that underpins the City’s equity, transparency, and fiscal-responsibility objectives.

Certain ERP software have the ability to centralize multiple processes and absorb and facilitate the use of additional software simultaneously. By centralizing and automating fines and fees across all municipal programs, Berkeley stands to achieve a more equitable, transparent, and cost‑effective system, while laying the foundation for future enhancements such as advanced analytics and AI‑driven customer support.

To achieve a centralized system, convening a dedicated cross-departmental strike team could drive timely coordination and bring the initiative across the finish line. 112 Schwarz, Lisa. “ERP Automation Benefits and Trends.” Oracle Net Suite, June 4, 2023. https://www.netsuite.com/portal/resource/articles/erp/erp-automation.shtml?utm. 111 Nucleus Research. “ERP Pays for Itself--Fast,” December 16, 2019. https://nucleusresearch.com/research/single/erp-pays-for-itself-fast/. 110 Sturges, Kim Kaull. “3 Ways to Harness the Power of Low-Code in Government & Public Services.” servicenow.com, n.d. https://www.servicenow.com/blogs/2024/power-low-code-government. 109 Department of Labor. “Use Cases for Robotic Process Automation in UI Claims Processing.” Accessed April 19, 2025. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/eta/ui-modernization/promising-practices/rpa-use-cases. 34

Recommendation 5: Expand the Indigent Payment Plan to Other Areas of the BMC
Current Framework
Currently, Berkeley’s Indigent Payment Plan program offers to reduce a parking fine down to its original amount and set up an installment plan for qualifying residents, who qualify by proof of their enrollment in government assistance programs such as EBT or Medi-Cal.

According to staff overseeing this initiative, compliance rates under this plan exceed those in regular enforcement.113 This result hints to the relationship of compliance and the direct alignment of monthly payments with people’s financial realities.

Proposed Change
Building on these findings, Berkeley can extend the Indigent Payment Plan beyond parking or specific code enforcement contexts to other parts of the BMC that involve fines and fees.

Low-income residents often face collateral consequences—such as vehicle registration holds, towing risks, or even property liens—when they cannot pay large lump-sum fines.

Berkeley officials consistently acknowledged these inequities in interviews. Staff at Berkeley's Code Enforcement highlighted that compounding penalties disproportionately penalize vulnerable populations, creating additional layers of economic hardship for those least able to afford them.114 Similarly, the National Consumer Law Center’s 2022 report documents extensively how punitive municipal fines create harmful financial instability among already struggling residents.115 Ultimately, once a household falls behind on one fine, additional fees or penalties usually accumulate, reducing the likelihood of eventual payment, subsequently harming the City’s bottom line.

Financial Implications
With the numerous benefits and relief that payment plans provide, Ability-to-Pay models have been repeatedly underscored by other jurisdictions. For example, according to the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, when they reduced their fee to enter a payment plan from $60 to $5, enrollment in the payment plan increased by 400 percent; resulting in an increase of nearly $160,000 in total revenue for the City in the first two
months.116
116 Rodriguez, Joe Fitzgerald. “City Says Reduced Fee for Parking Citation Payment Program Boosting Revenues.” San Francisco Examiner, May 14, 2018.
https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/city-says-reduced-fee-for-parking-citation-payment-program-boosting-revenues/article_520d8832- 0300-5643-8267-3ad4c041176f.html.
115 NCLC. “No Fresh Start 2022: Will States Let Debt Collectors Push Families Into Poverty as the Cost of Necessities Soars?” Accessed March 30, 2025.
https://www.nclc.org/resources/no-fresh-start-2022-will-states-let-debt-collectors-push-families-into-poverty/. 114 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Code Enforcement, 2025. 113 City of Berkeley Staff Interview. Parking Enforcement 2, 2025. 35

Insights from the 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update
The City of Berkeley’s Fiscal Year 2025 Mid‑Year Budget Update notes that parking‑ticket issuance grew by 12.9 percent during the first half of the fiscal year, yet parking‑fine revenue fell by $320,386 (9.85 percent).117 In the report, City staff attribute the revenue decline to a 2018 change in California law that prohibits towing solely for unpaid parking citations118 however, outstanding citations can still block a vehicle’s registration and cars driven without valid registration remain subject to towing, license suspensions, added fines or fees, and can impact insurance coverage.119

This analysis has uncovered another possible factor: higher default rates among residents who cannot afford lump‑sum payments. A BMC-wide IPP could reverse such losses by transforming large, unrealistic obligations into affordable, enforceable ones.

Scaling the IPP across the BMC has the potential to stabilize municipal finances by converting high‑risk debt into steady receipts, lighten administrative workloads by curtailing costly enforcement actions, and fulfill the City’s equity mandate by shielding its most vulnerable residents from cascading penalties wherever fines and fees can impact low-income Berkeley residents. In doing so, Berkeley can align itself with a growing national movement that recognizes humane, data‑driven policy on
fines as both fiscally prudent and
socially responsible.

Evaluation of Recommendation 5 Based on Criteria
Total Score: 38/50

Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposal earned a score of 38 out of 50. By extending the IPP, the policy would deliver robust equity gains, safeguarding the lowest-income households from cascading late fees. It also presents a demonstrated fiscal upside, as higher participation rates are likely to boost overall revenue collections.

However, some middle-income residents may perceive the policy as preferential unless it is paired with the universal installment option described in Recommendation 6. In addition, expanding the IPP would increase the burden on staff to verify public-benefit eligibility for a wider range of citation types—unless that workload is mitigated by the software upgrades proposed elsewhere in the Report.
119 LegalClarity. “California Vehicle Code 465: Registration Rules and Penalties,” December 27, 2024. https://legalclarity.org/california-vehicle-code-465-registration-rules-and-penalties/. 118 Ibid.
117 Friedrichsen, Sharon, and Henry Oyekanmi. “Fiscal Year 2025 Mid-Year Budget Update.” City Budget. City of Berkeley, March 25, 2025.
https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-03-25%20Item%2011%20FY%202025%20Mid-Year%20Budget%20Updat e%20Report.pdf.
36

Recommendation 6: Explore Automatic Fines and Fees Payment Plans Available to Anyone
Current Framework
At present, Berkeley’s installment options are restricted almost exclusively to its Indigent Payment Plan, which residents may access only if they can document enrollment in programs, such as CalFresh/EBT, Medi-Cal, or General Assistance.120 All other citation recipients must either pay the full amount in a single lump sum or navigate ad-hoc appeals, leaving most households without a structured, affordable path to compliance.

Unfortunately, many residents who do not meet the public-assistance test still lack the liquidity to pay large
fines at once and the risk of widespread non-payment is poised to grow. As highlighted earlier, 63 percent of California households earning under $35,000, 46 percent earning $35,000–$74,999, and even 30 percent earning $75,000–$149,999 reported difficulty meeting basic expenses.121 When core living costs already strain the budgets of more than just low-income families, a sudden $75–$100 parking ticket—or a far larger code enforcement penalty—can quickly become unpayable, driving citation holders into default.

Proposed Change
Berkeley can strengthen both fiscal stability and procedural fairness by making installment‑based payment plans the default option for every fine or fee assessed under the BMC. Offering three‑ or four‑month schedules at the moment a citation is issued aligns payment obligations with ordinary household cash‑flow patterns, fostering timely partial payments instead of sporadic lump‑sum defaults. Embedding an automatic three‑ or four‑installment option into every notice issued under the BMC therefore meets residents where they are financially, converting what is often perceived as a sudden shock into a series of manageable obligations.

Studies highlight how many individuals hesitate or delay payments if the amount is too large at once, while smaller scheduled payments can encourage individuals to budget more e
ffectively and keep their accounts current.122 Success stories from other jurisdictions bolster this approach. According to the Brennan Center for Justice's 2019 report, high fines frequently lead to non-payment, resulting in costly enforcement actions, including 122 Hasler, Andrea, and Annamaria Lusardi. “Financial Fragility among Middle-Income Households: Evidence Beyond Asset Building.” Working Paper. Global Financial Literacy Excellence Center: The George Washington University School of Business, March 4, 2019.
https://gflec.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Financial-Fragility-among-Middle-Income-Households-WP-2019-1-v2-3.pdf. 121 California Budget and Policy Center. “Millions of Californians Are Struggling to Make Ends Meet.” Accessed April 13, 2025. https://calbudgetcenter.org/resources/millions-of-californians-are-struggling-to-make-ends-meet/. 120 “Indigent Payment Plan for Parking Citations Application and Guidelines.” City of Berkeley. Accessed March 23, 2025. https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Indigent-Payment-Plan-for-Parking-Citations-Application-and-Guidelines%20202

5.pdf.
37

administrative expenses, collections procedures, and potential legal actions.123 Conversely, reasonable fines aligned with individuals' ability to pay can provide more reliable revenue streams and minimize unnecessary expenditures associated with unpaid debts.

Research consistently shows that aligning fines with individuals’ economic reality directly improves compliance rates,124 125 thereby boosting overall revenue and saving resources that would otherwise be spent on cumbersome enforcement actions.126

Berkeley’s leadership on this issue would set an important precedent, demonstrating how local governments can cultivate a balanced, inclusive, and fiscally responsible enforcement framework. By adopting comprehensive installment options for all residents, Berkeley can strengthen both its fiscal health and its commitment to an equitable civic environment.

Comprehensive Social Impacts
Municipalities nationwide have reported significant benefits from implementing equitable fine and fee reforms similar to those proposed for Berkeley. Reforms around fines and fees in Las Vegas, for example, improved community relations, enhancing trust between local governments and constituents.127 This outcome is critical, given the broader societal impacts associated with financial penalties, including diminished community trust, heightened socioeconomic disparities, and perpetuated cycles of poverty.

Financial Implications
Although Berkeley’s Indigent Payment options focus on those with demonstrated low income, research indicates that payment plan options offered to all residents can lead to greater compliance and increased revenue, regardless of income. Empirical evidence from other jurisdictions underscores this financial logic. When Palm Beach County clerks placed misdemeanor and traffic defendants on installment plans at the first point of contact, 85 out of 200 cases made payments, generating $11,097 on $61,823 owed; non‑plan cases saw just four payers and a meager $678 on $73,693 assigned.128 The ratio—roughly 16:1 in favor of structured installments—speaks not only to willingness but to capacity: residents 128 “Payment Plans as a Compliance Tool: Best Practices For Florida Courts.” Fines and Fees Justice Center, August 2019. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/content/uploads/2020/05/Payment-Plans-Final-1.pdf. 127 National League of Cities. “5 Lessons from NLC’s Cities Addressing Fines and Fees Equitably Initiative,” March 20, 2025. https://www.nlc.org/article/2025/03/20/5-lessons-from-nlcs-cities-addressing-fines-and-fees-equitably-initiative/. 126 Menendez, Matthew, Michael F. Crowley, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Noah Atchison. “The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines | Brennan Center for Justice,” November 21, 2019. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/the-steep-costs-of-criminal-justice-fees-and-fines-a-fiscal-analysis-of-three-states-and-t en-counties/.
125 Obama Whitehouse Archives. “FINES, FEES, AND BAIL: Payments In the Criminal Justice System That Disproportionately Impact the Poor,” December 2015.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/page/files/1215_cea_fine_fee_bail_issue_brief.pdf. 124 Harris, Alexes. A Pound of Flesh: Monetary Sanctions as Punishment for the Poor. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2016. https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/207/monograph/book/45636.
123 Menendez, Matthew, Michael F. Crowley, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Noah Atchison. “The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines | Brennan Center for Justice,” November 21, 2019. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/the-steep-costs-of-criminal-justice-fees-and-fines-a-fiscal-analysis-of-three-states-and-t en-counties/.
38

will comply when the obligation fits with a monthly budget cycle. By lowering barriers and placing people on payment plans immediately, the county has increased collections and reduced the number of cases that fall out of compliance.

As another example, in February 2017, the National Task Force on Fines, Fees and Bail Practices issued a bench card to help judges properly apply fees and fines. Later that year, Texas passed a law requiring courts to assess defendants’ ability to pay earlier in the process, adjust financial penalties accordingly, limit warrants for noncompliance, and expand community service options—leading to a 7 percent increase in collections.129 Reducing Administrative Costs and Default Rates
One commonly overlooked advantage of providing installment plans is a reduction in administrative overhead. According to the Brennan Center for Justice's 2019 report, for every unpaid citation, the City has the potential to incur costs associated with collection; additional administrative paperwork, sending notices, and in some cases, court proceedings.130 In some municipalities, resources consumed in pursuit of delinquent fines
often exceeded the revenue gained. One New Mexico county, for example, spent $1.17 for every $1.00 collected in fines and fees, illustrating how enforcement and oversight expenses rapidly erode any revenue gain.131 These costs mount as courts and their partners devote resources to paperwork, hearings, and other procedures to pursue unpaid obligations that frequently remain uncollected. Automatically implementing payment plans and shifting to an installment-based system would almost certainly cut any expenses related to collection e
fforts by turning potential defaulters into willing payers, while simultaneously preventing the City from funneling resources into endless attempts to collect from individuals who lack the immediate means to pay.

Evaluation of Recommendation 6 Based on Criteria
Total Score: 37/50

Based on the criteria evaluation, the proposal earned a score of 37 out of 50. By offering early payment plans, jurisdictions have realized higher net revenue and lower collection costs and have mitigated collateral harms, since timely partial payments prevent vehicle registration holds and other cascading penalties that accompany delinquency.

However, rolling out this approach depends on integrating new software into existing systems and ensuring sta
ff are properly trained to use it.
131 Miller, Andrea L., and Nikole Hotchkiss. “Policy Reforms for Racial Justice: What Works for Fines and Fees.” National Center for State Courts, December 2024. https://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/collection/financial/id/293. 130 Menendez, Matthew, Michael F. Crowley, Lauren-Brooke Eisen, and Noah Atchison. “The Steep Costs of Criminal Justice Fees and Fines | Brennan Center for Justice,” November 21, 2019. https://finesandfeesjusticecenter.org/articles/the-steep-costs-of-criminal-justice-fees-and-fines-a-fiscal-analysis-of-three-states-and-t en-counties/.
129 “Fees and Fines: The Criminalization of Poverty.” Accessed April 7, 2025. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/government_public/publications/public_lawyer_articles/fees-fines/. 39

Conclusion
This report brings together key insights on Berkeley’s fines and fees framework, while underscoring the prospective impact on the CIty’s broader civic values. The analysis demonstrates that Berkeley’s existing fines and fees system—characterized by decentralized departmental schedules, uneven informational access, and reliance on punitive lump-sum charges—has contributed to growing revenue shortfalls and imposed disproportionate burdens on
financially vulnerable residents.

Employing a mixed-methods approach that combines document review, semi-structured sta
ff interviews, budget analysis, and other jurisdiction benchmarking, this report developed a multi-criteria decision matrix to evaluate six targeted reforms. Each recommendation was assessed on political feasibility, cost, effectiveness, sustainability, and externalities, yielding clear prioritization; from low-barrier interventions, such as consolidating all fees into a single Master Fee Schedule; to more complex technology investments, such as centralized ERP and RPA; to expanding access to payment plans.

Early implementation phases should prioritize low-cost, high-impact actions while laying the groundwork for subsequent technology integrations and payment-plan expansions. .

Collectively, these reforms promise to enhance transparency, promote equitable access, and stabilize long term revenues. A uni
fied Master Fee Schedule and multilingual online
resource page will streamline resident interactions and reduce clerical workload; updates to disability-parking and bicycle-registration ordinances will remove outdated requirements and align local law with state and federal standards; modernized software platforms will automate repetitive tasks, improve data accuracy, and free sta ff for higher-value work; and
expanded income-sensitive and automatic installment payment options will convert high-risk debt into manageable obligations and bolster compliance.

Ultimately, regular reporting to the City Council and the Fines and Fees Steering Committee, including transparent updates on
fiscal impacts, compliance metrics, and
community feedback, will help maintain momentum and adaptability. By sequencing reforms to secure early administrative relief and building capacity for more complex changes, the City of Berkeley can progressively realize a fines and fees framework that balances fiscal responsibility with equitable access, operational efficiency, and public trust.

Such an approach aligns with the City’s broader “Care First, Jails Last” and “Reimagining Public Safety” initiatives, illustrating that reforms to fines and fees are not merely revenue
tools but integral components of a more just and resilient local government framework. 40

Appendix I
Additional Sections of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) for Staff to Consider for Inclusion in Payment Plan Eligibility
BMC
Section
Description

6.04.080 Bathe, swim, wade in Aquatic Park

6.08.020 Going upon or using the wharf

6.24 Municipal Off‑Street Parking Facilities (meters, pay‑to‑display)

6.32 Parks and Public Pathways—Use Restrictions

6.50.030 Prohibition on feeding wild animals on public property

12.32.050 Garbage collection and fees

12.32.060 Garbage collection and fees

12.36.070 Collecting recyclables from the curbside (aimed at low‑income individuals)

12.40.040 Litter, Debris, and Noxious Plants

12.40.050 Litter, Debris, and Noxious Plants

12.40.060 Litter, Debris, and Noxious Plants

13.36.015 Creation of accessibility on commercial sidewalks—related restrictions

13.36.20 Obstructing entrance to or exit from public or private buildings

13.36.040 Obstructing City‑owned planters and trees

13.52.040 Parking vehicle on private property

13.52.050 Parking vehicle on private property

13.52 Parking vehicle on private property (entire Chapter 13.52)

13.98.030 Placing graffiti as a nuisance—owner’s obligation to have graffiti removed

13.98.040 Penalties if owner does not remove or show good‑faith efforts to remove graffiti
41

16.04.010 Sidewalk repair requirements—property owner’s duty to maintain public sidewalks
Appendix II
Public Safety Defined
Public Safety in the context of fines and fees reform refers to the deliberate use of financial penalties not simply as revenue tools or punitive measures, but as instruments for promoting equitable compliance and reinvesting in community wellbeing. A well designed system ensures that penalties deter harmful behavior without imposing disproportionate burdens on low‑income residents or triggering secondary sanctions that can worsen economic instability. By providing transparent payment options, relief programs like installment plans and clear communication, municipalities foster voluntary compliance.

Moreover, reducing the administrative and enforcement resources tied up in pursuing delinquent
fines frees up capacity to support upstream interventions, such as violence prevention, mental‑health outreach, and social services, that address root causes of unsafe behavior. In this way, reforms to fines and fees serve both to uphold individual rights and to enhance collective safety by minimizing collateral harm and enabling proactive, preventive public safety strategies.
42

APPENDIX D
^ƉĞĐŝĂůŝnjĞĚĂƌĞhŶŝƚ^ƵƉƉŽƌƚŝŶŐDĂƚĞƌŝĂůƐ

April 22, 2025

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Paul Buddenhagen, City Manager
Re: Specialized Care Unit

Introduction
In an effort to best serve Berkeley residents needing mental health crisis support, the City is transitioning the services offered by the pilot Specialized Care Unit (SCU) project to Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services. This transition, which is expected to be completed by late summer 2025, is made possible by significant changes to the state’s policy landscape for mental and behavioral health mobile crisis programs.

Rationale
As of January 1, 2023, California counties were mandated to implement a new Medi-Cal Community-Based Mobile Crisis Intervention Services benefit. This new Medi-Cal benefit aligns closely with the SCU’s goals:
• Crisis hotline via a single telephone number.
• Standardized dispatch and response procedures.
• Response for urban areas required within 60 minutes.
• Reduction of unnecessary emergency department and psychiatric inpatient hospitalizations.
• Minimization of unnecessary law enforcement involvement. • Provision of multidisciplinary care, including EMTs, licensed clinicians, and peer support specialists. State requirement to serve all residents regardless of insurance or ability to pay.

In addition, several operational requirements for mobile crisis teams address several issues of concern by community stakeholders and are more feasibly implemented at the County level, including:

• 24/7 crisis hotline availability.
• Coordination with 988, 911, and other behavioral health providers for dispatch and on-site coordination.
• Coordination with emergency responders for transport to higher levels of care. • Mandated 72-hour follow-up check-ins.

These requirements have proven challenging for the SCU to meet within its current funding and infrastructure. Currently, the County utilizes 911 for mobile crisis service contact and dispatch.

The County’s existing system-wide coordination offers advantages for Berkeley residents, streamlining what would otherwise require extensive City-County coordination and infrastructure development to meet new Medi-Cal billing requirements. Moreover, the SCU’s current contractor also provides behavioral health crisis services through Alameda County, facilitating a smoother transition and continuity of care for individuals receiving services.

Pilot Summary
The Specialized Care Unit (SCU) pilot project was launched as part of the City’s Reimagining Public Safety initiative to attempt to create a model for providing non-police responses for people having mental health crises and substance use emergencies.

While the SCU has been operational since September 5, 2023, significant structural challenges have raised concerns about its sustainability. Key issues include:

• Staffing shortages;
• Hours of operation;
• Long response times;
• Lack of long-term funding;
• Calls are not routed through 911; and
• Unmet community expectations related to support for people who are homeless

Issues with the SCU are exacerbated by the pilot design. An evaluation by Research Development Associates (RDA) is underway that is expected to confirm systemic design flaws that hinder the SCU’s long-term viability.

One example under the current structure is response times. With only one team, if a call for assistance comes in when the SCU is working on a different call, it could take several hours to respond. Stakeholders have been clear that this does not meet the expectations of the community.

Additionally, community concerns, operational inefficiencies, and strained relationships with key stakeholders due to misaligned performance expectations have further complicated implementation.

Moving forward, the City will work diligently to support the transition of the SCU to the County, collaborating with stakeholders to address unmet expectations, and ensuring continued service availability for Berkeley residents.

SCU Financial Sustainability Planning
The SCU was initially funded by a combination of one-time ARPA funds, a state grant and Mental Health Service Act funding. Short-term funding creates great difficulty in sustaining a long-term program, which is one of the reasons the city is working to ensure that the service will continue to be available by transitioning it to the Alameda County. Ongoing Medi-Cal funding can be secured for the SCU if it is part of County services.

Since the SCU’s original design and initial launch in 2023, the California policy landscape for mental and behavioral health mobile crisis programs has undergone significant changes. State efforts to enhance mental health crisis response have been integrated into new state requirements for counties under the CalAIM initiative (California Advancing & Innovating Medi-Cal). The mobile crisis services provided by the SCU pilot are now a Medi-Cal entitlement, with Alameda County Behavioral Health responsible for ensuring service availability to all county residents, including those in Berkeley. City staff have consulted with County Behavioral Health Officials, who fully support this determination. The County is currently developing ten teams to meet the mandated 60-minute response time for mobile crisis services throughout the county.

Program Needs & Financial Constraints
Total one-time funding of $5.3 million for the two-year SCU Pilot project has been provided by three funding streams summarized below.

• $536,500 from the Crisis Care Mobile Units (CCMU) program grant from the California Department of Healthcare Services (DHCS) which expires on June 30, 2025. This grant will be fully expended.
• $68,000 from the Behavioral Health Service Act, referred to as Mental Health Services Act funding prior to voter approval of Proposition 1. This funding will be fully expended.
• $4,750,000 from The American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) grant, which must be spent by December 31, 2026.

There is no reoccurring funding for the pilot once the resources listed above have been exhausted. Preliminary findings from the evaluation of the SCU that is currently underway indicate a substantial need for program infrastructure expansion, an increase in the number of teams, the need for standardized policies and protocols, upgrading the data system, and enhancing collaboration with Alameda County Behavioral Health’s continuum of care including City emergency responders. There is also an urgent need to improve staff retention, potentially through program expansion with additional mobile teams, dedicated call-takers, and hazard pay or shift differentials for overnight and weekend shifts.

Given the City of Berkeley's limited resources and the discontinuation of current state and federal funding sources, the city is collaborating closely with Alameda County to ensure the continuity of mobile crisis services mandated under Cal-AIM reform.

Transition Planning
Next steps to facilitate the transition include:

• Sharing evaluation findings with all stakeholders and Alameda County Behavioral Health to inform their program design and evaluation.
• Clarifying cost projections for the SCU Pilot as the program transitions to the County. • Continuing proactive collaboration with the County and Bonita House to support the transition.
• Promoting the continued availability of SCU services throughout the transition. • Facilitating coordination between Alameda County Behavioral Health, Berkeley Police, Fire, Mental Health Departments, and other stakeholders. • The City will monitor service delivery quality, participate in stakeholder convenings, and ensure alignment with Reimagining Public Safety goals, even after Alameda County assumes operational responsibility.
• Developing community and stakeholder communication plans.

While the County assumes primary responsibility for much of the transition, the City of Berkeley will be actively engaged in ensuring uninterrupted service delivery to Berkeley residents. In addition, in line with the Reimaging Public Safety initiative, the City’s Health, Housing and Community Services Department will use the evaluation results to guide the development, and implementation of alternatives to arrest and incarceration for individuals with behavioral health issues. While service delivery is transitioning, the City remains committed to investing in non-police crisis response solutions that uphold the principles of equity, care, and public safety. Additional updates will be as the timeline is solidified and communication plans are clear.

cc: David White, Deputy City Manager
Scott Gilman, Director, HHCS
Tanya Bustamante, Deputy Director, HHCS
Jeff Buell, Division Manager, Berkeley Mental Health, HHCS Carianna Arredondo, Assistant to the City Manager
Matthai Chakko, Communications Director/Assistant to the City Manager Mark Numainville, City Clerk
Jenny Wong, City Auditor
Farimah Brown, City Attorney

Berkeley Specialized
Care Unit
Retrospective Evaluation 2025

2 Table of Contents
❑ SCU Background & Overview
❑ Evaluation Introduction & Overview’
❑ Methodology
❑ Summary of Findings
❑ Key Findings: How is the SCU being implemented?
❑ Key Findings: What impact did the SCU have?
❑ Key Findings: Stakeholder Suggestions
❑ Conclusions
❑ Recommendations
❑ Evaluation Team Background
❑ Appendix:
➢ Evaluation Plan: SCU Program Data Application Matrix
➢ Program Data Indicators: Descriptions and Limitations Click each link to jump
to the relevant slides

SCU Background &
Overview

Specialized
Care Unit
Origins
2020-2021
The City of Berkeley contracted RDA to conduct a
feasibility study for a Berkeley behavioral health crisis response team that does not rely on law
enforcement. The feasibility study informed the
implementation of the Specialized Care Unit (SCU).

City Investment
The City of Berkeley allocated $4.5 million total from
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding* and the
Crisis Care Mobile Units (CCMU) grant+ for the
implementation of the SCU pilot program.

The City of Berkeley purchased and leased
equipment for the SCU, including vehicles, IT
equipment, medical supplies, and more
* ARPA funds were a subaward from the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds
+ a grant program administered through the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS)

Specialized
Care Unit
SCU Scope of Services
The City of Berkeley contracted with Bonita House to
provide SCU services from January 1, 2023 through
May 31, 2025.
❖ Crisis counseling, de-escalation,
and violence prevention
❖ Substance use harm reduction
❖ Mobile transport
❖ Outreach and relationship-building
with community members
❖ Resource connection, referrals, and
warm handoffs
❖ Identify and refer participants to
higher levels of crisis support

Evaluation
Introduction &
Overview

7 The City of Berkeley contracted with RDA to
conduct a retrospective evaluation to
assess the implementation, preliminary
impacts, and lessons learned from the
first year and a half of the SCU pilot
program. The evaluation was designed to
explore overall strengths and areas for
improvement based on program
implementation and client outcomes to
understand the opportunities and needs
related to pilot expansion and
sustainability.

In this way, the evaluation offers
transparency and accountability to
stakeholders, while providing an
opportunity for the City of Berkeley to
understand how its investments promote
access to specialized, behavioral health
crisis services for city constituents.

Evaluation
Purpose

8 RDA collected and analyzed primary and
secondary data to support the City of Berkeley to
evaluate the first year of the pilot program. The
three primary objectives that guided the
evaluation include:
• Quality Improvement: Identify opportunities
for the SCU to improve services and adapt
implementation.
• Assessing Results: Assess the degree to
which the SCU is achieving goals and making
a positive impact in the community.
• Sustainability Planning: Provide
recommendations to inform the City’s
strategic planning for future crisis services,
including SCU expansion and sustainability.

Evaluation
Objectives

9 Guiding Questions
Quality Improvement
How is the SCU being
implemented?

1. How are core components of the SCU
model being implemented?

2. What have been successes in
implementing the SCU?

3. What have been challenges in
implementing the SCU?

4. What are successes of integrating
SCU into an existing emergency
ecosystem and continuum of care?

5. What are challenges of integrating
SCU into an existing emergency
ecosystem and continuum of care?
Assessing Results
What impact did the SCU have?

6. Who was engaged by the SCU?

7. What are the presenting needs of
clients and callers?

8. What services were provided by the
SCU?

9. What are immediate outcomes
(intended and unintended) for
clients?

10.To what extent is the SCU providing
quality services?

Methodology
Data Collection & Limitations

11 Data Sources
FIVE Interviews and Focus
Groups with SCU Teams,
SCU Leadership, HHCS
Program Administrators,
and Emergency
Responders
SIX Interviews* with
City & Local Service
Providers
ONE Online
Community Survey
NINE Quarterly CCMU
Grant Reports
Programmatic data
from the SCU’s
Electronic Data
System
*From October through December 2025, 29 organizations were contacted and invited to participate. Page 154 of 314

12 Interviews & Focus Groups
Participants were asked about program
implementation successes & challenges:
• Experiences across planning, ramp up,
service delivery, and team expansion
• Operations and staffing
• System integration and coordination
with emergency responders
• Outreach and relationship building with
service providers and community
members
Interviews and Focus Groups provided an opportunity for local service providers to share first-hand perspectives on SCU implementation and impacts
Participants were asked about SCU’s
outcomes and impacts:
• Client needs
• Perceived impacts on clients &
community
• Quality of services
• Sustainability
• Additional resources needed
• Structural changes needed

13 Limitations
Interviews & Focus Groups
• Local service provider availability and participation in interviews was low, limiting sample size
• The stakeholders included in the interviews and focus groups may not be representative of all local service providers or Berkeley community members
• Primary data collection did not include people who have received SCU services due to HIPAA protections
• The evaluation team was unable to conduct intercept
interviews with community stakeholders at local service sites due to ethic concerns and project constraints

14 The community survey asked questions about
program implementation & awareness:
• Familiarity with SCU
• Requesting services & needs
• Experiences with the phone & field-based
teams
• Overall satisfaction with services
• Perceived value or importance of the SCU
model
• Likelihood to call again or recommend the SCU
to others
• Recommendations
The community survey provided an opportunity for the broader public to share perspectives on SCU implementation and impacts.

The survey also enabled evaluators to assess the extent of community awareness about SCU services.

The community survey used a variety of
question styles, including Likert scale,
multiple choice, checkboxes for ‘select all
that apply,’ and open-ended responses
The survey was made available for three
weeks from February 24, 2025 – March 16,
2025 and was promoted by the City of
Berkeley
The survey received 233 of total responses
Community Survey

15 • The community survey received 233 responses and may be not be representative of all Berkeley community members
• Community survey results are not generalizable to all Berkeley community members
• We present the number of observations (N) for each set of data presented in this report because respondents did not answer every question on the survey. Therefore, responses to survey questions have varying levels of generalizability to all survey respondents and questions with lower response rates will be more affected by outliers or skewed compared to questions with higher response rates.

Limitations
Community Survey

16 Quarterly CCMU Grant Reports
Information and data included in the
quarterly reports provide insight about
implementation challenges & resolutions:
• Planning and coordination efforts
• Staffing changes, team make-up
• Service availability
• Trainings
• Infrastructure investments (equipment,
communications, trainings, call taking
and dispatch, marketing)
• Public outreach and marketing
As part of the CCMU grant funding, Bonita House submitted quarterly grant reports, which allowed evaluators to track program adaptations and implementation over time.

Evaluators reviewed 9 grant reports
covering the pilot program period from
April 1, 2022 – September 30, 2024.

No grant reports were submitted for
January-March 2023 and therefore were
not part of the evaluation.

17 Limitations
Quarterly CCMU Grant Reports
• A grant report for one quarter was not part of this
study (January-March 2023).
• Open-ended responses in grant reports provide a
limited window into each area of inquiry due to
word/character constraints for responses, biases
or lack of information from respondents, changes
in who is writing the report over time, and other
limitations inherent to grant reporting.

18 SCU Program Data
• Data is collected in a custom
application that allows users to enter
information throughout the duration of
an incident.
• The application does not include ESO
data collected from the EMT
• Basic data collection started on
program roll out (September 1, 2023)
• The application was implemented on
January 14, 2024 and additional data
elements were added over time
• For a list of indicators included in
evaluation analysis, please refer to the
Appendix
• 1753 records were included in the
dataset shared with evaluators. Data
was cleaned to remove duplicate
records (42) and errors in ID number
that prevented matching (5).
• In total, there were 1706 records
included in the analysis, including:
□ Phone call only
□ Phone with an in-person
response
□ In-person response only
• For any indicators that were updated or
changed in January 2024, data
elements were recategorized when
appropriate or are labeled in each
chart when not possible.

The SCU team gathered service data independently. This
data provides a direct look at the services delivered and clients served, as recorded by the program.

19 Limitations
SCU Program Data
• Many indicators were not collected prior to
January, 2024, including Response Priority,
Service Disposition, and Primary Service. For
each data point analyzed, we present the
total number of incidents included (N) in a
calculation.
• Data for some indicators were left blank;
blank responses are included in the report, as
appropriate
• Narrative data is not included in this analysis.

Some conclusions cannot be drawn
because additional context would be
required. Two examples include:
□ A phone call with “Response not
required” could indicate a successful
phone de-escalation or could indicate
the call was not appropriate for the
SCU
□ “Police assistance” could indicate the
SCU team called for police assistance
or that police were already on scene
when they arrived, and usage could
vary by team member
• Data collection in an emergency
response environment, and in a new
program, is inherently challenging and
will have some degree of inconsistency
or incompleteness.
• SCU did not have data collection
protocols and data may not have
always been collected consistently.
□ An index of all indicators and
related inconsistencies is included
in the Appendix
• Collecting client demographics in a crisis
response environment is challenging and
demographic data should be
interpreted with discretion.
• Due to the evaluation’s timeline, data
was only available for part of December
2024. However, the partial-month’s data
is presented here to provide as much
program data as possible.