View Attachment A — Oakland City Council, June 3, 2025

© PFM 1
Oakland Police Department Baseline
Organizational and Staffing Review
Prepared for the Oakland Office of the Inspector General December 2024
© PFM 2
General Disclosure
The content included in this report is based on the PFM team’s (PFM Group Consulting LLC, EJM Advisory Firm LLC, V2A Consultants) review and analysis of the information and data obtained from the City of Oakland’s Police Department and/or its employees, through documents and interviews.

Throughout this report, quantitative and qualitative data and inputs were used to complete the requested scope of services. The information and data obtained from the City of Oakland’s Police Department through documents and interviews were taken to be reliable – with noted limitations and caveats throughout the report. Consequently, every statement from Department personnel and data input used for an assumption contained in this report cannot be individually guaranteed to be accurate and thus findings involve a degree of uncertainty and/or necessary assumptions.

Actual results may vary from those presented in this report. Further, changes in law, regulations, agreements, the overall operational conditions of the City of Oakland’s Police Department, as well as other factors that may occur, can alter the assumptions and baseline findings presented in this report.

Additionally, certain processes and policies noted in this report are subject to the collective bargaining process with represented employees. PFM is not a law firm, does not provide legal advice, and did not obtain a legal opinion to determine which aspects of the report – if any – would fall under the purview of collective bargaining. © PFM 3
Index
 Project Overview…………………………………………………….............4
 Department Overview……………………………………………..............10
 Estimating Baseline OPD Workload-Based Staffing Results……….....20  Overview of OPD Collective Bargaining Agreements…………..………23  Summary of OPD Benchmarking Analyses…………………….............35  Bureau, Division, and Section Overviews………………………............43 • Bureau of Field Operations (BFO1 & BFO2)………………….…….44 • Bureau of Investigations………………………………………............53 • Bureau of Services……………………………………………………..64
• Bureau of Risk Management…………………………………............74
• Office of the Chief of Police……………………………………….......84  Overview of Workload Drivers and Outcomes……………………….....92  OPD Workload-Based Baseline Patrol Staffing Analysis.………........109 • Methodology…………………………………………………………...110
• Patrol Officer Staffing and Availability………………………………118 • Patrol Officer Workload…………………………………………...….126
• Allocation of Officer Time…………………………………………….140
• Estimating Baseline Staffing Needs………………………………...146
 OPD Workload-Based Investigations Baseline Staffing Analysis…...151 • Methodology…………………………………………………………...152
• Estimating Baseline Staffing Needs………………………………...162
• Staffing Results and General Observations………………………..186  Estimating Baseline OPD Workload-Based Staffing Results……….................189  Alternative Call Responses…………………………………………………………192
 Appendices……………………………………………………………….................199 • Appendix A: Overview of OPD Employee Paid Time Off……………………200 • Appendix B: Overview of OPD Overtime Utilization……………..................211 • Appendix C: Leave Type Categories………………………………………….224 • Appendix D: Professional Titles by Categories………………………………227 • Appendix E: Calls for Service Categories…………………………………….230 • Appendix F: Example of Log Book for Investigations Workload Analyses..239 • Appendix G: Clearance Rate Benchmarking Detail…………………………241 • Appendix H: Scope of Services Crosswalk…………………………………..243 © PFM 4
Project Overview
© PFM 5
Project Overview
Engagement Background and Scope
Background
 Policing agencies require a clear and concrete plan for the deployment of sworn and non-sworn personnel to deliver efficient, effective law enforcement services – particularly as most American cities navigate a national shortage of qualified officers.  However, before identifying the optimal number and distribution of staffing, a police department needs to first assess its baseline workload to level-set facts and create a common point of departure for policy, goals, and personnel discussions.  In December 2023, the City of Oakland engaged PFM Group Consulting LLC (PFM) to document the Oakland Police Department’s (“OPD” or “the Department”) baseline
operations and workload. The City’s independent Office of the Inspector General served as the City-designated project manager for this work.  Baseline workload is defined as the workload absent changes to then-current operations, organization, and policies.  Baseline staffing is an estimate of the number of sworn staff needed to handle OPD’s then-current workload (defined as 2022 for patrol workload / 2023 for investigations workload, given available data during this engagement) and operational goals for the patrol and investigative functions during this report.*  Consistent with these definitions, the baseline review is presented as maintaining the then-current state of OPD operations.

Additionally, the baseline results are presented within the context of the methodological and data limitations noted throughout this document.
 OPD leadership indicates the current state of operations and staffing levels are insufficient to meet City needs and goals. The workload-based baseline projection for authorized sworn staffing shows the number of authorized sworn staff necessary to meet conditions and workload (+199 above current authorized) at the time of this study (2022 for patrol workload / 2023 investigations workload). Current conditions are not well-suited for long-term safety goals of the City and OPD.
 With the baseline analysis completed, the natural next step for Oakland’s elected and appointed leaders, stakeholders, and the public is to identify – beyond baseline staffing and organization – what functions they want OPD to perform and what outcomes they want to achieve. Then, using this baseline analysis as a point of departure, the City and Department should create a long- term staffing plan for sworn and professional employees to meet those mandates efficiently, effectively, and sustainably. Any resultant plan will need to be implemented deliberately over a multi-year period. *Note: Patrol workload is based on 2022 data. Investigations workload uses 2023 caseload data. © PFM 6
Project Overview
Engagement Background and Scope
Scope
 PFM worked with OPD to identify the Police Department’s baseline functions across a broad set of tasks assigned by the scope of services to help Oakland’s elected and appointed leaders – and the public – have detailed data to inform ongoing and future policy, operational, and fiscal decisions.  The assigned scope of services included 14 tasks, summarized in four main groupings:
• Documenting the department's organization, budget, staffing (sworn and professional), collective bargaining agreements, paid time off, overtime use and activity drivers, and key performance measures. • Conducting benchmarking analyses comparing OPD to police departments in similar-sized cities. • Performing a baseline (absent changes to then-current operations, organization, and policies) workload-based staffing assessment of the sworn patrol and investigative functions of the Department to estimate the number of sworn staff needed to handle the then-current workload (as of 2022 for patrol and 2023 for investigations) and operational goals (at present) of these two divisions.
• Given time and resource constraints, the scope was focused to estimate OPD’s baseline number of sworn staff. A future analysis of professional staff needs and opportunities is an important component of OPD’s long-term efficiency and effectiveness.
• Review call types to highlight opportunities for additional analyses on appropriateness of potential alternative responses.
© PFM 7
Project Overview
Methodology and Data Limitations
 Several data limitations impact the analyses produced in this report, including:
• Patrol: Limited data on calls for service beyond 2022 is available through OPD’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. The workload-based analysis of patrol staffing relies on data for all units responding to calls for service. Most calls in 2023 and 2024 data (January-April) had no unit-level information logged in CAD. This prevented a detailed analysis of 2023 calls for service and workload and necessitated using 2022 as the most recently available data. • Investigations: OPD does not have a centralized database tracking assigned and cleared cases. Due to the lack of data, the project team developed a log for investigators to complete to serve as a proxy for understanding how many cases investigators work on and complete as part of their workload. Over a two-month period, OPD investigators recorded time on task for discrete components of their work in electronic log books. The project team appreciates this effort.

However, not all data entries were completed or thoroughly completed. This hampered the analyses and resulted in the need to develop and use specific assumptions. These assumptions are noted within the Investigations section of this document.
• Crime data: OPD’s reporting of crimes to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program contained an error that caused an abnormally high number of reported aggravated assaults in 2023. For purposes of this report, where FBI UCR data is used to show crime trends in Oakland over time or compare Oakland crime to other jurisdictions, the project team instead adjusted UCR data to use the number of aggravated assaults reported on Oakland’s own year-end crime report, and have noted that throughout the report.
• Note on time-series data: Throughout the report, time-series of data are shown by calendar year (CY) or fiscal year (FY).

Fiscal years are used when reporting actual and budgeted expenditures. Calendar year is used when presenting operational data for patrol, such as calls for service. © PFM 8
 The following analyses provide insight and context into OPD's baseline organization, operations, and staffing levels.
 Baseline analyses are provided to define the state of OPD and its workload at the time of study and help level-set the then-present facts – they do not represent the “ideal” state and are presented within the context of the methodological and data limitations noted on the prior page.
 Additionally, as with all staffing projections, it is critical to note that this report and its results are not intended to provide a formulaic single “right” answer for OPD baseline staffing – there is no such thing.
 Rather, the report findings and workload-based outputs should be used to help inform judgments and decision-making by elected and appointed leaders, stakeholders, and the public.

Project Overview
Note for Readers
© PFM 9
Negotiated Settlement Agreement
Overview of Impact on Oakland PD
 The City of Oakland's Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) dates from January 22, 2003, when the City of Oakland and OPD entered into an agreement resolving allegations of police misconduct raised by private plaintiffs in a civil lawsuit.  The NSA requires police reforms in several areas, including internal affairs, supervision of officers, police use of force, training, personnel practices, and community policing. The NSA outlines specific "Tasks" that OPD (or the City) must complete. Court-appointed monitors review the work related to these Tasks to determine whether OPD is compliant with NSA requirements.
 Based on the August 2024 report of the Monitors:
• On May 12, 2022, the Court issued an Order placing the City into a one-year sustainability period. The Court noted, “The NSA the parties executed...contemplated that federal court oversight would terminate after the defendants achieved substantial compliance with all of the provisions of the NSA and maintained that compliance for a year.” • The Court extended the sustainability period in an Order on April 18, 2023, citing “the City’s inability to achieve full compliance.” The Order set out some new provisions for the sustainability period and reduced the number of active Tasks to five remaining categories. In the Order, the Court noted, “The Court is wrestling with the utility of its role in helping the City achieve constitutional policing after 20 years of monitoring compliance with the NSA. As discussed at the last Case Management Conference, much good work has been accomplished. Fundamental questions regarding the Oakland Police Department’s ability to police itself remain.” • On January 23, 2024, the court further extended the sustainability period in a Case Management Conference, reducing the scope of oversight to a narrower range of topics.
• The monitors have found the OPD to be in compliance with all but two remaining Tasks (Task 5: complaint procedures for Internal Affairs Division and Task 45: consistency of disciplinary policy). © PFM 10
Department Overview
© PFM 11
Organizational Chart
As of August 2024
 OPD is the primary law enforcement agency for the City of Oakland. It is responsible for serving the City’s more than 430,000 residents, businesses, and visitors within its 78 square miles (55.8 square miles of land area).
 The department is led by Floyd Mitchell, the Chief of Police, who assumed that role in May 2024.
 As of August 2024, the department was comprised of 1,033 total employees, including 657 sworn officers dedicated to maintaining public safety and 376 professional staff
supporting operational and administrative functions
 OPD is organized into six bureaus, each focused on
providing specialized law enforcement functions or
administrative services. Excluding the Office of Chief of Police and Ceasefire Division, each bureau is led by a
Deputy Chief or professional (civilian) Deputy Director reporting directly to the Assistant Chief of Police. The Assistant Chief of Police reports to the Chief of Police.

Office of
Chief of Police
Chief
Assistant
Chief of Police
Assistant Chief
Bureau of Field
Operations 1
Deputy Chief
Bureau of Field
Operations 2
Deputy Chief
Bureau of
Services
Deputy Director
Bureau of Risk
Management
Deputy Chief
Bureau of
Investigations
Deputy Chief
Ceasefire
Division
Captain
© PFM 12
Department Staffing
Authorized and Filled Staffing, FY 2021 through FY 2025  From FY 2021 to FY 2025, OPD’s authorized positions
decreased by 10.5 percent, or at a compound annual
growth rate (CAGR) of 2.6 percent.* The most
significant changes occurred between FY 2022 and FY
2023 and FY 2024 and FY 2025.
• From FY 2022 to FY 2023, authorized sworn
positions decreased by 11.3 percent (89 positions) –
most of which were at the Officer level (86 positions). • Between FY 2024 and FY 2025, OPD’s authorized
headcount was reduced by 58 authorized positions –
28 sworn and 30 professional positions.
 During the same period, OPD’s filled staffing levels – the number of authorized positions that were filled –
increased from FY 2021 to FY 2022, before receding to
roughly FY 2021 levels by FY 2023, and further
decreasing to five-year lows in FY 2025.
 OPD noted that, based on the City’s budget deficit at the time of this report, when a professional position
becomes vacant, it must be frozen – this generally
results in more work for sworn staff.
 When such positions are frozen or eliminated, certain functions often become the responsibility of sworn
officers, which reduces available officer time and
efficient deployment of staff.

OPD Authorized and Filled Staffing by Position, FY 2021 through FY 2025 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 CAGR
Authorized 1,092 1,117 1,029 1,039 981 -2.6%
Sworn 772 791 702 706 678 -3.2%
Officer 611 630 544 547 523 -3.8%
Sergeant 120 118 118 118 111 -1.9%
Lieutenant 27 27 24 26 28 0.9%
Captain 9 10 10 10 10 2.7%
Deputy Chief 3 4 4 3 4 7.5%
Assistant Chief 1 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Chief of Police 1 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Professional 320 326 327 333 303 -1.4%
Front-line 295 300 302 309 277 -1.6%
Supervisor 13 12 13 15 15 3.6%
Manager 12 14 12 9 11 -2.2%
Filled 917 928 918 900 864 -1.5%
Sworn 669 680 640 632 605 -2.5%
Officer 529 537 504 492 468 -3.0%
Sergeant 101 104 98 99 93 -2.0%
Lieutenant 25 25 23 26 28 2.9%
Captain 9 8 9 10 10 2.7%
Deputy Chief 3 4 4 3 4 7.5%
Assistant Chief 1 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Chief of Police 1 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Professional 248 248 278 268 259 1.1%
Front-line 224 224 253 248 240 1.7%
Supervisor 13 12 13 13 11 -4.1%
Manager 11 12 12 7 8 -7.7%
*Note: Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) is used throughout this report to represent annual growth over a period of time. The authorized and filled staffing information was manually compiled from OPD annual reports (2020, 2021, and 2022). OPD also provided additional staffing reports for 2023 and 2024 that were also manually compiled to complete this analysis. Filled staffing for FY 2021 through FY 2024 is as December of that fiscal year. Filled staffing for FY 2025 is as of July 2024, the start of FY 2025. Position counts exclude police officer trainees and student trainees.
© PFM 13
Department Staffing
Authorized and Filled Staffing, FY 2021 through FY 2025, by Bureau  For most bureaus, authorized sworn and
professional positions were lower in FY 2025
than in FY 2021, as OPD’s total authorized
positions decreased.
• OPD re-organizations during this period
shifted certain positions between bureaus
and affected results – particularly for the
Bureau of Risk Management (which did not
exist until 2021), the Office of the Chief of
Police, and the Bureau of Services.
 BFO 1 authorized positions decreased at a
CAGR of 6.8 percent from FY 2021 to FY
2025, with much of that reduction in patrol
areas 1 and 2. BFO 2 authorized sworn
positions decreased for much of this period but
increased in FY 2025 due to additional staffing
of crime reduction teams following the closure
of the Violent Crime Operations Center within
the Bureau of Investigations.
 Total filled positions also decreased in most
bureaus over this period.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 CAGR
Authorized 1,092 1,117 1,029 1,039 981 -2.6%
Bureau of Field Operations 1 307 312 236 252 232 -6.8%
Sworn 288 293 218 235 216 -6.9%
Professional 19 19 18 17 16 -4.2%
Bureau of Field Operations 2 279 269 261 241 272 -0.6%
Sworn 251 241 240 222 255 0.4%
Professional 28 28 21 19 17 -11.7%
Office of Chief of Police 92 50 45 47 67 -7.6%
Sworn 65 45 41 41 61 -1.6%
Professional 27 5 4 6 6 -31.3%
Bureau of Risk Management 0 75 73 88 89 -
Sworn 0 41 39 49 49 -
Professional 0 34 34 39 40 -
Bureau of Services 218 169 170 170 150 -8.9%
Sworn 52 15 11 13 5 -44.3%
Professional 166 154 159 157 145 -3.3%
Bureau of Investigations 196 242 244 241 171 -3.4%
Sworn 116 156 153 146 92 -5.6%
Professional 80 86 91 95 79 -0.3%
Filled 917 928 918 900 864 -1.5%
Bureau of Field Operations 1 284 287 246 209 202 -8.2%
Sworn 269 273 230 197 190 -8.3%
Professional 15 14 16 12 12 -5.4%
Bureau of Field Operations 2 225 223 234 240 237 1.3%
Sworn 203 202 209 223 220 2.0%
Professional 22 21 25 17 17 -6.2%
Office of Chief of Police 71 41 36 42 67 -1.4%
Sworn 57 38 33 37 60 1.3%
Professional 14 3 3 5 7 -15.9%
Bureau of Risk Management 0 62 59 76 80 -
Sworn 0 38 35 44 51 -
Professional 0 24 24 32 29 -
Bureau of Services 182 134 144 138 128 -8.4%
Sworn 47 12 10 11 6 -40.2%
Professional 135 122 134 127 122 -2.5%
Bureau of Investigations 155 181 199 195 150 -0.8%
Sworn 93 117 123 120 78 -4.3%
Professional 62 64 76 75 72 3.8%
Note: The authorized and filled staffing information was manually compiled from OPD annual reports (2020, 2021, and 2022). OPD also provided additional staffing reports for 2023 and 2024 that were also manually compiled to complete this analysis. Filled staffing for FY 2021 through FY 2024 is as December of that fiscal year. Filled staffing for FY 2025 is as of July 2024, the start of FY 2025.

Position counts exclude police officer trainees and student trainees. © PFM 14
Department Staffing
Vacancy Rate, FY 2021 through FY 2025, by Bureau
 From FY 2021 to FY 2025, authorized
positions decreased by a CAGR of 2.6
percent, while filled positions decreased at a
lower CAGR of 1.5 percent. This led OPD’s
overall vacancy rate to decline from 16.0
percent in FY 2021 to 11.9 percent in FY 2025.
 Vacancy rates declined most – from 22.5
percent in FY 2021 to 14.5 percent in FY 2025
– for professional positions, as authorized
front-line professional positions decreased and
filled front-line professional positions
increased.
 In some years across this period, bureaus had
negative vacancy rates – meaning they had
more filled positions assigned to them than
were authorized. This is due to OPD’s practice
of loaning between bureaus.
• The following slide presents more detail
on the impact of loaning in FY 2025.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
OPD Total 16.0% 16.9% 10.8% 13.4% 11.9%
Sworn 13.3% 14.0% 8.8% 10.5% 10.8%
Professional 22.5% 31.4% 23.4% 19.5% 14.5%
Bureau of Field Operations 1 7.5% 8.0% -4.2% 17.1% 12.9% Sworn 6.6% 6.8% -5.5% 16.2% 12.0%
Professional 21.1% 26.3% 11.1% 29.4% 25.0%
Bureau of Field Operations 2 19.4% 17.1% 10.3% 0.4% 12.9% Sworn 19.1% 16.2% 12.9% -0.5% 13.7%
Professional 21.4% 25.0% -19.0% 10.5% 0.0%
Office of Chief of Police 22.8% 18.0% 20.0% 10.6% 0.0%
Sworn 12.3% 15.6% 19.5% 9.8% 1.6%
Professional 48.1% 40.0% 25.0% 16.7% -16.7%
Bureau of Risk Management - 17.3% 19.2% 13.6% 10.1%
Sworn - 7.3% 10.3% 10.2% -4.1%
Professional - 29.4% 29.4% 17.9% 27.5%
Bureau of Services 16.5% 20.7% 15.3% 18.8% 14.7%
Sworn 9.6% 20.0% 9.1% 15.4% -20.0%
Professional 18.7% 20.8% 15.7% 19.1% 15.9%
Bureau of Investigations 20.9% 25.2% 18.4% 19.1% 12.3%
Sworn 19.8% 25.0% 19.6% 17.8% 15.2%
Professional 22.5% 25.6% 16.5% 21.1% 8.9%
Vacancy Rate, by Bureau, FY 2021 through FY 2025
Note: The authorized and filled staffing information was manually compiled from OPD annual reports (2020, 2021, and 2022). OPD also provided additional staffing reports for 2023 and 2024 that were also manually compiled to complete this analysis. Filled staffing for FY 2021 through FY 2024 is as December of that fiscal year. Filled staffing for FY 2025 is as of July 2024, the start of FY 2025.

Position counts exclude police officer trainees and student trainees. © PFM 15
Department Staffing
Loaning of Filled Positions, by Bureau, FY 2025
 As of July 2024 (the start of FY 2025), 30 filled
positions were loaned out of their authorized
bureau assignment.
 A breakdown of the loans to and from bureaus, as
seen in the table to the right, showed that loaning
of staff resulted in positions authorized for Bureau
of Field Operations 1 and 2 flowing out of those
bureaus to support operations in other OPD
bureaus – essentially the two BFOs (patrol
response) subsidized other areas of the
Department.
• BFO 2 had the highest net loss of staffing due
to loans – 17 positions, including 16 sworn
and one professional. BFO 1 also had a net
loss of eight positions, including seven sworn
and one professional.
• All other bureaus had a net increase in
staffing, with the Bureau of Risk Management
being the greatest beneficiary at a net
increase of 14 positions, including 13 sworn
and one professional.

Vacancy Rate and Loaned Filled Positions, by Bureau, FY 2025 FY 2025
Vacancy Rate
Loaned Filled Positions
To
Bureau
From
Bureau Net
Bureau of Field Operations 1 12.9% 1 9 -8
Sworn 12.0% 1 8 -7
Professional 25.0% 0 1 -1
Bureau of Field Operations 2 12.9% 1 18 -17
Sworn 13.7% 1 17 -16
Professional 0.0% 0 1 -1
Office of Chief of Police 0.0% 8 1 7
Sworn 1.6% 7 1 6
Professional -16.7% 1 0 1
Bureau of Risk Management 10.1% 15 1 14
Sworn -4.1% 14 1 13
Professional 27.5% 1 0 1
Bureau of Services 14.7% 2 1 1
Sworn -20.0% 2 0 2
Professional 15.9% 0 1 -1
Bureau of Investigations 12.3% 3 0 3
Sworn 15.2% 2 0 2
Professional 8.9% 1 0 1
Total 30 30 0
Source: Accounting of loaned positions at start of FY 2025, provided by OPD. © PFM 16
Department Budget
Historical Expenditures by Type, FY 2020 – FY 2024
 From FY 2020 actual to FY 2024 budget, OPD’s expenditures increased by a CAGR of 1.3 percent. • The most significant changes to the overall budget occurred between FY 2022 and FY 2023 when total expenditures grew by nearly $38.3 million. That year-over-year growth was driven by increases in all personnel expenditure categories (salaries, benefits, and overtime).
• During the five-year period, Personnel Expenses increased moderately, by a CAGR of 1.0 percent, as Salaries and Benefits increased by CAGRs of 3.3 percent and 2.0 percent, respectively. • Overtime decreased at the fastest rate (CAGR of 12.7 percent). This is due to FY 2024 budgeted overtime being less than half of the FY 2023 actual. This may be due to a misalignment of budgeted overtime to actual experience. In recent years, actual overtime has been significantly higher than the budgeted sum. For example, in FY 2023, actual overtime was $52.2 million - $20.7 million greater than the budgeted $31.5 million. Between FY 2020 and FY 2023, actual overtime was between $6.1 million and $26.3 million above the amount budgeted.
• Some, but not all, of the variance in overtime spending was offset by lower than budgeted salaries. Between FY 2020 and FY 2023, actual salaries were between $0.9 million and $9.8 million less than budgeted. • Non-Personnel Expenses increased by 12.8 percent (a CAGR of 3.0 percent), primarily driven by increases in Service Expenditures between FY 2023 and FY 2024.

OPD Historical Expenditures by Expense Type, FY 2020 – FY 2024 ($M) FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Budget
2020 - 2024
CAGR
Personnel Expenses 300.2 291.1 281.3 316.7 311.8 1.0%
Salaries 141.2 138.6 132.3 142.3 160.9 3.3%
Benefits 116.7 118.0 108.9 122.1 126.4 2.0%
Overtime 42.3 34.5 40.0 52.2 24.6 -12.7%
Non-Personnel Expenses 50.1 52.5 48.1 51.1 56.5 3.0%
Services 34.3 33.3 29.6 28.6 38.8 3.1%
Vehicle and Maintenance Costs 14.7 15.6 15.0 15.2 10.5 -8.0% Materials, Equipment and Supplies 0.4 2.8 3.1 6.9 6.4 98.8% Other Expenditures 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.4 0.9 1.0%
Total Expenditures 350.3 343.6 329.4 367.7 368.3 1.3%
Note: Budget data presented in this report includes only General and Special Revenue Funds. Internal Service, Capital Projects, and Fiduciary/Trust and Agency Funds are excluded. © PFM 17
Department Budget
Historical Expenditures by Bureau, FY 2020 – FY 2024
 During the five-year period, personnel expenditures decreased in most bureaus, following the decrease in staffing levels.  BFO 1 and BFO 2 personnel expenses decreased at CAGRs of 4.0 percent and 2.9 percent, respectively, and combined for a decrease of $24.2 million in personnel expenses from FY 2020 to FY 2024, driven by decreased staffing.  Bureau of Investigations personnel expenditures increased by $20.6 million (11.0 percent CAGR) over the five-year period – largely due to the addition of the Violent Crime Operations Center in FY 2022.  The Office of Chief of Police expenditures decreased by a CAGR of 9.4 percent – mostly due to the re-organization that moved the Office of Inspector General (now the Office of Internal Accountability), the Training Unit, and Internal Affairs to the Bureau of Risk Management (which saw a commensurate expenditure increase).

OPD Historical Expenditures by Bureau, FY 2020 – FY 2024 ($M) FY 2020
Actual
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Actual
FY 2024
Budget
2020 - 2024
CAGR
Personnel Expenses 300.2 291.1 281.3 316.7 311.8 1.0%
Office of Chief of Police 26.6 18.4 16.3 18.7 18.0 -12.1% Bureau of Services 43.7 26.7 26.8 31.3 38.1 -4.3%
Bureau of Investigations 44.0 47.3 58.9 66.0 64.6 11.0% Bureau of Risk Management 0.0 21.3 27.8 27.9 29.5 -
Bureau of Field Operations 1 94.6 90.9 76.9 85.5 80.4 -4.0% Bureau of Field Operations 2 91.3 86.7 74.7 87.3 81.3 -2.9% Non-Personnel Expenses 50.1 52.5 48.1 51.1 56.5 5.2%
Office of Chief of Police 31.1 28.3 20.9 18.8 20.9 -9.6% Bureau of Services 4.9 5.7 6.5 10.5 9.1 8.5%
Bureau of Investigations 3.6 3.7 4.7 5.1 8.5 24.6%
Bureau of Risk Management 0.0 3.0 3.2 4.2 6.8 -
Bureau of Field Operations 1 4.3 5.1 5.7 5.4 4.6 1.9%
Bureau of Field Operations 2 6.3 6.6 7.2 7.1 6.6 0.9%
Total 350.3 343.6 329.4 367.7 368.3 1.3%
Note: Budget data presented in this report includes only General and Special Revenue Funds. Internal Service, Capital Projects, and Fiduciary/Trust and Agency Funds are excluded. © PFM 18
Department Budget
Budgeted Expenditures by Type, FY 2025
 The City’s FY 2025 budget adopted top-line OPD
expenditures of $374.9 million, which is $6.6 million
above the FY 2024 budgeted level, though with some
notable changes to the distribution.
• FY 2025 budgeted salaries are $12.3 million less
than budgeted FY 2024 levels, reflecting reduced
budgeted staffing.
• Potentially due to projected lower staffing levels
(salaries), the FY 2025 budgeted Overtime is
$20.1 million greater than the FY 2024 budgeted
Overtime.
• Budgeted Service expenditures increased by $7.1
million in FY 2025 compared to FY 2024 due to
increased internal service / work order
expenditures.

FY 2025
Budget
% of Total
Personnel Expenses 316.9 84.5%
Salaries 148.6 39.6%
Benefits 123.7 33.0%
Overtime 44.6 11.9%
Non-Personnel Expenses 58.0 15.5%
Services 45.9 12.2%
Vehicle and Maintenance Costs 10.1 2.7%
Materials, Equipment and Supplies 1.4 0.4%
Other Expenditures 0.5 0.1%
Total 374.9
OPD Budgeted Expenditures by Type, FY 2025 ($M)
Note: Budget data presented in this report includes only General and Special Revenue Funds. Internal Service, Capital Projects, and Fiduciary/Trust and Agency Funds are excluded. © PFM 19
Department Budget
Actual and Budgeted Expenditures by Bureau, FY 2020 – FY 2025  From FY 2020 to FY 2024, OPD’s total expenditures by bureau changed, in part, due to departmental reorganizations shifting funds among bureaus (e.g., the Office of Inspector General (now the Office of Internal Accountability), the Training Unit, and Internal Affairs moved from the Office of the Chief to the Bureau of Risk Management; the Violent Crime Operations Center was moved to the Bureau of Investigations, etc.).  In FY 2025, BFO 2 received a more than $20 million year-over-year increase (23.1 percent) in budgeted funding, while BFO 1 received a $1.5 million increase. In BFO 2, salaries and benefits increased by approximately $9.3 million, and overtime increased by $9.6 million compared to FY 2024. The increase was driven by additional staffing for crime reduction teams following the closure of the Violent Crime Operations Center in the Bureau of Investigations.  In FY 2025, the Bureau of Investigations budget decreased by $12.0 million (16.4 percent), mainly because the Violent Crimes Operations Center was disbanded. Resources were reallocated toward crime reduction teams in BFOs 1 and 2.

Bureau 2020
Actual
2021
Actual
2022
Actual
2023
Actual
2024
Budget
2025
Budget
Office of Chief of Police 57.6 46.7 37.2 37.5 38.9 43.7 Bureau of Services 48.6 28.7 28.5 33.9 43.5 39.5
Bureau of Investigations 47.6 51.0 63.6 71.1 73.0 61.0
Bureau of Risk Management 0.0 27.9 35.8 40.0 40.0 36.0
Bureau of Field Operations 1 98.9 96.0 82.5 90.9 85.0 86.5 Bureau of Field Operations 2 97.6 93.3 81.8 94.4 87.9 108.2 Total 350.3 343.6 329.4 367.7 368.3 374.9
OPD Expenditures, by Bureau, FY 2020 - FY 2025 ($M)
Note: Budget data presented in this report includes only General and Special Revenue Funds. Internal Service, Capital Projects, and Fiduciary/Trust and Agency Funds are excluded. © PFM 20
Estimating Baseline OPD Workload-Based
Staffing Results
© PFM 21
Baseline Workload-Based Staffing
 As with all staffing projections, it is critical to note that this baseline report and its results are not intended to provide a formulaic single “right” answer for OPD staffing – there is no such thing. Rather, the report findings and workload-based outputs should be used to help inform judgments and decision-making by elected and appointed leaders, stakeholders, and the public.
 OPD leadership indicates the current state of operations is insufficient to meet City needs and goals. The PFM team concurs.
• The baseline is presented as maintaining the then-current state of operations during the period of study. The “baseline” does not represent the “ideal” state of department staffing. Additionally, the “baseline” results are presented within the context of the methodological and data limitations noted at the beginning of this document and reflective of the period of study.

As a reminder, the scope of services focuses on sworn staffing. Professional staffing is a critical component of broader OPD operations, but was beyond the scope of this analysis. • At “baseline,” the only assumed operational change included in estimates is increased proactive time for patrol officers to a minimum threshold (not to be considered ideal or a best practice). Please see the patrol workload-based staffing analysis section for a discussion of this assumption. Patrol staffing estimates assume no changes in calls for service volume, response policies, or time spent responding to calls for service (relative to CY 2022 data). Investigations staffing estimates similarly assume no change in case volume from 2023 levels. • The baseline assumes no changes to improve efficiency, such as calls for service handled by patrol officers that could potentially be redirected to other service providers, as outlined in the Alternative Call Response section of this report. • Such an operational change could change staffing needs, similar to a reduction in call volume or time spent on calls.  The following slide summarizes the results of the workload-based staffing analysis under then-current “baseline” conditions.  With the baseline analysis completed, the natural next step for Oakland’s elected and appointed leaders, stakeholders, and the public is to identify – beyond
baseline staffing and organization – what functions they want OPD to perform and what outcomes they want to achieve.
© PFM 22
Baseline* Workload-Based Staffing Summary
 At the time of this study, without changes to OPD organization and operations, the baseline workload-based analysis found a need for 199 more budgeted positions than included in the FY 2025 budget – much of the gap was in BFO 1 (+75) and BFO 2 (+65). The Bureau of Investigations analysis also suggested additional budgeted staff (+59).  Additionally, OPD may have opportunities to pursue additional efficiency and effectiveness measures – including assessing the appropriate number of professional staff – that would affect the baseline staffing projection and improve services. This is a natural next step for the City, OPD, and stakeholders to consider as they assess OPD staffing and operations.

Note: Lieutenants are budgeted at the area level, rather than the shift or watch level. *Please see slide 20 for a discussion of what is included in “baseline” staffing estimates.

Ofc Sgt Lt Cpt
Dep.

Chief
Asst.

Bargaining
Unit FTE
% of
Total
OPOA 589 68.6%
IFPTE 151 17.6%
SEIU 104 12.1%
OPMA 14 1.6%
Total 858
© PFM 25
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Effective Dates and Key Aspects
 All collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) are currently active and expire between June 2025 and June 2026.
 In addition to compensation, governance, discipline, and other critical matters, each bargaining unit’s CBA affects important operational functions and organizational aspects, such as:
• Wage Increases
• Shift Schedule
• Overtime
• Seniority
• Promotional Policies
• Paid Leave (Sick, Parental, Annual, etc.)
• Life Event and Workplace Injury Leave (Injury Compensation Leave, Jury Duty Leave, School Activities Leave)
Source: Collective bargaining agreements from the City of Oakland.

Contract Effective Dates, by Bargaining Unit
Bargaining
Unit
Contract Effective
Dates
OPOA 12/12/2018 - 6/30/2026
IFPTE 7/1/2022 - 6/30/2025
SEIU 7/1/2022 - 6/30/2025
OPMA 12/12/2018 - 6/30/2026
© PFM 26
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Recent Wage Increases
 Bargaining units have set wage increases for sworn
and professional employees’ base pay.
• In FY 2023, base wages increased 3.5 and 5
percent for sworn and professional employees,
respectively.
• In FY 2024, base wages increased 3.5 percent
(sworn), and 5 percent staggered (professional).
• Contractually-mandated annual base wage
increases in FY 2025 and FY 2026 will be 3
percent (sworn) and 4 percent staggered
(professional).

FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026
OPOA 3.5%
(July 2022)

3.5%
(July 2023)

3.0%
(July 2024)

3.0%
(July 2025)
OPMA 3.5%
(July 2022)

3.5%
(July 2023)

3.0%
(July 2024)

3.0%
(July 2025)
IFPTE 5.0%
(July 2022)

2.5%
(July 2023)
+

2.5%
(Jan 2024)

2.0%
(July 2024)
+

2.0%
(March 2025)
-
SEIU 5.0%
(July 2022)

2.5%
(July 2023)
+

2.5%
(Jan 2024)

2.0%
(July 2024)
+

2.0%
(March 2025)
-
Wage Increases, by Bargaining Unit, FY 2023 through FY 2026 Source: Collective bargaining agreements from the City of Oakland. © PFM 27
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Shift Schedules
 The OPOA agreement requires the four 10-hour shifts per week schedule to be the “core” patrol schedule for the duration of the agreement. • In practice, most patrol officers work four 10-hour shifts per week, with some working three to four 12-hour shifts per week.
 Outside of patrol, no specific shift structure is outlined in the agreement.

In practice, other members of the OPOA are assigned to schedules that vary based on assignment, including five 8-hour shifts per week. • OPOA members draw their preferred shifts annually based on seniority. • The City must notify OPOA members at least 21 calendar days in advance for changes to regular schedules, except for those with flexible schedules or power squads.
 Up to three times per year, the City can flex non-patrol officer schedules by advancing start and end times by three hours.  The City can flex patrol officer schedules for up to three hours on shifts starting after 12:00 pm, for a period of 14-60 days, up to three times per year.
 The OPMA agreement does not specify a work schedule for its members.  IFPTE and SEIU members work 37.5/40-hour a week schedules.

Bargaining
Unit Description
OPOA 4 10-hour shift is the core patrol
schedule. Other shifts vary based on
assignment between 5 8-hour shifts
per week, 4 10-hour shifts per week,
and 3 to 4 12-hour shifts per week.

OPMA Not specified by agreement
IFPTE 7.5 or 8-hour shifts, 5 days per week,
depending on subgroup within
bargaining unit
SEIU 8-hour shifts, 5 days per week
Source: Collective bargaining agreements from the City of Oakland.

Shift Length and Days per Week, by Bargaining Unit
© PFM 28
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Promotional Process
 The OPOA agreement includes requirements for promotion related to years of service (YOS), eligibility list, and written exams.
• Minimum eligibility for the following positions are:
 Sergeant – 5 YOS as Police Officer.
 Lieutenant – 3 YOS as Sergeant.
 Captain – 1 YOS as Lieutenant.
• Eligible employees may sign up to take a promotional examination. Examination scores are used to create a list of eligible candidates for promotion. A list is valid for 18 months.  SEIU and IFPTE members are subject to a promotional examination process.

Source: Collective bargaining agreements from the City of Oakland. © PFM 29
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Overtime
 For Police Officers: Under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), overtime is paid at 1.5 times an officer’s
hourly base pay.
• Under FLSA, overtime premium is applied to all
hours worked in excess of 171 hours per 28-day
cycle.
• 8-hour rest periods are offered for a member who
is involuntarily held beyond their regular shift.
 IFPTE and SEIU also provide an overtime rate of 1.5x
for any time worked after 40 hours in a week.
 Pay for hours worked during any holiday is accounted
for when calculating overtime pay.

Bargaining
Unit Description
OPOA Hours worked in excess of regular work week
or workday, including holiday will be paid at 1
1/2 times the rate of hourly base pay
2 1/2x the rate of hourly base pay if called
back to work
Hours worked in excess of 171 hours within a
28-day period must be compensated at OT
rate
OPMA No overtime
IFPTE and
SEIU
Any work done in excess of 40-hour work
week or 8-hour workday including holiday will
1 1/2 times the hourly base pay rate.

Source: Collective bargaining agreements from the City of Oakland.

Overtime Policies by Bargaining Unit
© PFM 30
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Leave
 Vacation/Holiday Leave
• OPOA and OPMA members accrue from
120 to 200 hours of vacation leave per
year, depending on years of service.
 Each member’s unused vacation leave
accumulates in a bank and the member
may sell back up to 120 hours of
vacation leave each calendar year
• OPOA and OPMA members receive
holiday pay in lieu of days off.
 Members also receive one floating
holiday (8 hours total).
• IFPTE and SEIU members are entitled to
80 to 240 hours of vacation leave based
on tenure, and 13 holidays (including a
floating holiday).
 IFPTE and SEIU members receive an
additional day of vacation on top of the
established structure for every 5 YOS.

Bargaining
Unit Vacation Leave Holiday Leave
OPOA and
OPMA
0-10 years: 12 days (120 hours)
11-13 years: 14.4 days (144 hours)
14-20 years: 16 days (160 hours)
21+ years: 20 days (200 hours)
In lieu of using 13 holidays for
leave, OPOA and OPMA
members are paid 8 hours of
base pay regardless of whether
they work the holiday. If the
holiday is worked all hours
worked are paid at 1.5x base
pay. or a holiday falls on their
day off. They also accrue one
hour of vacation leave for every
hour worked on a holiday.

IFPTE and
SEIU
0-4 years: 10 days (80 hours)
5-13 years: 15 days (120 hours)
13-15 years: 18 days (144 hours)
15-19 years: 19 days (152 hours)
20-25 years: 20 days (160 hours)
26-29 years: 25 days (200 hours)
30+ years: 30 days (240 hours)
Additional day given on top of
vacation leave structure every 5
YOS for IFPTE
Employees entitled to 13
holidays, along with a floating
holiday for personal use
Source: Collective bargaining agreements from the City of Oakland.

Vacation and Holiday Leave Policies by Bargaining Unit
© PFM 31
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Leave (continued)
 Sick Leave
• OPOA and OPMA members earn 12 days
(96 hours) of sick leave per year and can
participate in buy-back and service credit
programs in addition to cashing out excess
sick leave time. Sick leave can be accrued
to a maximum of 480 hours.
• IFPTE and SEIU members also receive 12
days of sick leave. Sick leave can be
accrued to a maximum of 150 working
days (1,200 hours per 8-hour schedule).

IFPTE and SEIU members can also sell
back up to 480 hours of sick leave.
 IFPTE members with 10+ YOS can
donate sick time at a 1/3rd of the rate to
City employees who are seriously ill and
financially distressed.
 Parental Leave/Family Medical Leave Act
• Each bargaining unit follows the citywide
standards set by the Oakland City
Administrator Office.

Bargaining
Unit Sick Leave Parental Leave
OPOA and
OPMA
Sick leave is earned at the rate
of 3.692 hours per pay period,
accumulating to 96 hours per
year. Can accumulate a
maximum of 480 hours, and any
in excess of 480 hours will be
cashed out
50% of sick leave can be
converted to vacation leave
50% of sick leave can be
cashed out at termination of
service
The City of Oakland's paid
parental leave standards follow
FMLA. Employee must have
been employed for 12 hours and
have 1,250 hours of services
during the 12-month period.

Employees are allowed to use
up to a maximum of 12 weeks.

IFPTE and
SEIU
Unit members earn sick leave
on a biweekly basis of one full
working day per month of
service
Annual: 12 days of sick leave
Source: Collective bargaining agreements from the City of Oakland.

Sick and Parental Leave Policies by Bargaining Unit
© PFM 32
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Leave (continued)
 Other Leave
• In addition to sick, vacation, and parental
leave, OPD sworn and professional
employees are entitled to a variety of leave
types centered on life events and workplace
injuries.
 Leave of Absence: The Chief of Police can
approve paid or unpaid leaves for up to 120
days.
 Management Leave:15 days of leave to
supervisory ranks in lieu of overtime or for
superior performance.
 School Activities Leave: 40 hours (5 days)
each year to participate in activities of the
school or care facility in which their children
are enrolled.

Bargaining Unit Other Leave Types
OPOA Leave of Absence, Military Leave, Pregnancy
Disability Leave, Family Death Leave
OPMA Management Leave, Leave of Absence, Pregnancy
Disability Leave, Military Leave, Family Death
Leave
IFPTE Management Leave, School Activities Leave,
Family Death Leave, Injury Compensation Leave,
Traumatic Incident Leave, Military Leave, Jury Duty
Leave
SEIU School Activities Leave, Family Death Leave, Injury Compensation Leave, Traumatic Incident Leave,
Military Leave, Jury Duty Leave
Source: Collective bargaining agreements from the City of Oakland.

Other Leave Types by Bargaining Unit
© PFM 33
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Leave (continued)
 Sworn officers and police management in OPOA and OPMA receive 224 to 304 hours of leave per year, on average, based on their year of service. For sworn police officers with 0 to 20 years of service, this equals 11 to 15 percent of total shifts in a 10-hour shift schedule and 10 to 14 percent in a 12-hour shift schedule.  OPOA and OPMA members accumulate unused vacation leave in a bank and can sell back up to 120 hours of accrued vacation leave each calendar year.
 Members also may accumulate up to 480 hours of unused sick leave. Members cannot sell back sick leave, but sick leave banks are cashed out on a 50 percent basis upon final separation from service. As part of a sick leave incentive program, 50 percent of sick leave accrued in excess of 480 hours is converted to vacation leave, which can be sold back.

Source: Collective bargaining agreements from the City of Oakland.

Total Leave Hours at 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 YOS for OPOA/OPMA Members Years of
Service Vacation Sick Personal Total
Hours
Equivalent
10-Hour
Shifts
% of Annual
10-Hour
Shifts
Equivalent
12-hour
Shifts
% of Annual
12-hour
shifts
1 120 96 8 224 22 11% 19 10%
5 120 96 8 224 22 11% 19 10%
10 144 96 8 248 25 12% 21 11%
15 160 96 8 264 26 13% 22 12%
20 200 96 8 304 30 15% 25 14%
© PFM 34
Collective Bargaining Agreements
Leave (continued)
 Professional staff members in IFPTE and SEIU receive 184 to 264 hours of leave per year depending upon years of service. On average, leave amounts to 9 to 13 percent of annual shifts for a 5-day/8-hour shift schedule. • Those who reach 25 and 30 YOS in IFPTE and SEIU get up to 200 and 240 hours of vacation leave. • IFPTE employees who reach the 4th, 9th, 14th, 19th, 24th, 29th YOS (and every following five years of service thereafter) receive an additional day of leave above and beyond the structure shown in the following table.  IFPTE and SEIU members can accumulate unused vacation leave up to a limit of twice their annual accrual. Members can sell back up to 160 hours of accrued vacation time each calendar year.  IFPTE and SEIU members also accumulate unused sick leave equivalent to no more than 150 working days. Members may sell back accumulated sick leave in excess of 480 hours or convert the excess to vacation leave, at a rate of 50 percent.

Source: Collective bargaining agreements from the City of Oakland. *Professional staff are entitled to holiday leave; however, the variability of positions within the group does not lend itself to one standard number.

Total Leave Hours at 1 ,5, 10, 15, and 20 YOS
Years of
Service Vacation Sick Holiday* Personal Total
Hours
Equivalent
8-Hour Shifts
% of Annual
8-Hour Shifts
1 80 96 0 8 184 23 9%
5 120 96 0 8 224 28 11%
10 120 96 0 8 224 28 11%
15 152 96 0 8 256 32 12%
20 160 96 0 8 264 33 13%
© PFM 35
Summary of OPD Benchmarking
Analyses
© PFM 36
Benchmarking Comparisons
 With input and cooperation from OIG and OPD, seven police departments were selected for benchmarking purposes.

The benchmark departments were selected based on a variety of factors, including (but not limited to): population and characteristics of population served, status of consent decree, and location (California and national) to provide additional context for analysis of the Oakland Police Department:
• Albuquerque, NM
• Baltimore, MD
• Cleveland, OH
• Fresno, CA
• Long Beach, CA
• New Orleans, LA
• Sacramento, CA
 Benchmarking information for Oakland and the seven comparators was sourced from publicly available data, including:
• Economic and demographic indicators (U.S Census, 2023 American Community Survey, 1-Year Data, U.S Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, August 2024). • Number of reported crimes and rates per staff and per 100,000 residents (Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reporting Data, 2023).
• Number of sworn and civilian staff (Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reporting Data, 2023). *Oakland does not report NIBRS data, therefore it is not included in the crime trends. © PFM 37
Population
 In 2023, the City of Oakland had a population of 436,508 within its 55.9 square miles, resulting in a population density of 7,805 residents per square mile.
 The City’s population density was more than 3,000 residents (62.5 percent) greater than the median density of the seven benchmark jurisdictions, lagging only Long Beach and Baltimore among comparators.  Oakland's daytime population decreased by 5.6 percent compared to its total population, while most other cities experienced growth in daytime population. This means more people left Oakland for work or are not part of the workforce compared to similar cities. Only Long Beach’s daytime population decreased at a greater rate.

Source: U.S Census, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (B01003, B08604, B08301). *Daytime Population = Total Population + Total Workers Working in Area – Total Workers Living in Area. Cleveland, OH data on total workers living not available for 2023 as of 10/9/2024.

Population
Land Area
Per Square
Mile (2020)
Population
Density per
Sq. Mi.

Daytime
Population*
(2023)
% Change
Total Pop to
Daytime 2010 2023 CAGR
(2010-2023)
Oakland 391,672 436,508 0.9% 55.9 7,805 412,080 (5.6%)
Albuquerque 547,585 560,283 0.2% 187.3 2,992 585,709 4.5% Baltimore 620,583 565,239 (0.8%) 81.0 6,983 648,997 14.8% Cleveland 396,240 362,670 (0.7%) 77.7 4,665 - 26.9%
Fresno 496,147 545,717 0.8% 115.2 4,738 577,096 5.8%
Long Beach 462,793 449,496 (0.2%) 50.7 8,864 420,435 (6.5%) New Orleans 347,858 364,136 0.4% 169.5 2,148 417,848 14.8% Sacramento 467,503 526,383 1.0% 98.6 5,338 616,053 17.0% Oakland Rank 7 of 8 6 of 8 2 of 8 7 of 8 2 of 8 8 of 8 7 of 8 Median (excl. Oakland) 467,503 526,383 0.2% 98.6 4,738 577,096 14.8% © PFM 38
Demographic Characteristics
 In 2023, Oakland had a four-percentage-point lower share of white residents (29.1 percent) than the comparison group median.

Oakland was within a half-percentage point of the median for share of Hispanic or Latino residents, at 30.2 percent.  The City's black population was over eight percentage points above the median, at 19.8 percent, and its Asian population was over 12 percentage points above the median, at 16.1 percent.  Oakland had the third highest median age (38.6 years) compared to the selected comparators.

Source: U.S Census, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year (DP05). *Hispanic or Latino counted as ethnicity and separate from race category within DPO5 ACS table.

Median
Age
(Years)
% White % Black
%
American
Indian and
Alaska
Native
% Asian
% Native
Hawaiian
and Other
Pacific
Islander
% Some
Other Race
% Two or
More
Races
% Hispanic
or Latino
Oakland 38.6 29.1% 19.8% 1.4% 16.1% 0.5% 19.1% 14.0% 30.2% Albuquerque 39.2 49.2% 3.6% 4.7% 3.4% 0.2% 14.3% 24.6% 47.7% Baltimore 36.5 26.8% 59.0% 0.6% 2.7% 0.0% 5.2% 5.6% 8.2% Cleveland 36.3 35.0% 46.7% 0.5% 2.9% 0.0% 5.3% 9.6% 13.6% Fresno 32.8 29.0% 6.4% 2.0% 15.4% 0.1% 22.3% 24.7% 51.4% Long Beach 37.6 37.1% 11.3% 1.5% 13.2% 0.4% 21.4% 15.0% 43.5% New Orleans 39.5 31.2% 54.5% 0.3% 2.9% 0.0% 2.3% 8.7% 8.1% Sacramento 36.2 32.8% 11.6% 1.2% 20.7% 1.8% 14.9% 17.0% 29.9% Oakland Rank 3 of 8 6 of 8 4 of 8 4 of 8 2 of 8 2 of 8 3 of 8 5 of 8 4 of 8 Median (excl. Oakland) 36.5 32.8% 11.6% 1.2% 3.4% 0.1% 14.3% 15.0% 29.9% © PFM 39
Socioeconomic Characteristics
 Among benchmark cities, Oakland ranked first in Median Household Income and had the second-lowest poverty rate, along with an employment rate near the median of the comparison group.  Oakland ranked first in educational attainment for the percentage of population with a ‘Bachelor’s degree or higher’, near the middle for educational attainment of ‘less than high school,’ and among the lowest for both ‘high school or equivalent education’ and ‘some college or Associate’s degree’ as the highest educational attainment.

City Poverty Rate
Median
Household
Income
Unemployment
Rate (August
2024)
Educational Attainment (25+)
Less than high
school graduate
High School or
Equivalent
Some college
or associate's
degree
Bachelor's
degree or
higher
Oakland 14.3% $96,828 5.9% 8.7% 16.3% 21.0% 47.2%
Albuquerque 14.7% $67,907 4.2% 5.0% 20.8% 29.8% 39.6%
Baltimore 20.2% $59,579 4.8% 3.8% 26.9% 24.3% 37.1%
Cleveland 30.7% $39,041 5.0% 5.3% 33.2% 26.9% 22.5%
Fresno 19.5% $67,603 7.5% 10.5% 24.1% 30.2% 26.0%
Long Beach 14.7% $81,606 6.8% 10.5% 18.6% 27.4% 36.8%
New Orleans 22.6% $55,580 4.9% 2.9% 21.0% 25.4% 44.7%
Sacramento 13.7% $85,928 5.6% 7.0% 21.5% 27.8% 37.9%
Oakland Rank 2 of 8 1 of 8 6 of 8 6 of 8 8 of 8 8 of 8 1 of 8 Median (excl. Oakland) 19.5% $67,603 5.0% 5.3% 21.5% 27.4% 37.1% Source: U.S Census, 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates (B19013, S1501, S1701), U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, August 2024.
© PFM 40
Headcount, Sworn and Professional Staff
 Based on 2023 FBI Law Enforcement Employees Data, Oakland reported 710 sworn officers and 263 professional staff employed in OPD, and:
• OPD ranked 6th among the eight comparable jurisdictions in sworn employees and 7th in total employees • When the headcount was reviewed per 100,000 residents, OPD was near the median for sworn employees, but near the bottom for professional employees.
 Since the reported 2023 FBI data, OPD sworn and professional employees have changed – as of July 2024, OPD had 678 budgeted sworn full-time equivalent positions (FTE) (605 of which were filled) and 303 budgeted FTE professional positions (259 of which were filled).

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reporting, Law Enforcement Employees Data, 2023 Total Headcount by Department, 2023
960 972 973
1,207 1,218 1,380
1,575
2,521
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
Sworn Civilian
Sworn
Staff
Professional
Staff % Professional Total
Employees
Per 100,000 Residents
Sworn Professional
Oakland 710 263 27% 973 163 60
Albuquerque 881 694 44% 1,575 157 124
Baltimore 2,047 474 19% 2,521 362 84
Cleveland 1,175 205 15% 1,380 324 57
Fresno 849 369 30% 1,218 156 68
Long Beach 697 275 28% 972 155 61
New Orleans 910 297 25% 1,207 250 82
Sacramento 678 282 29% 960 129 54
Median (excl.

Oakland) 881 297 28% 1,218 157 68
Oakland Rank 6 of 8 7 of 8 6 of 8 7 of 8 4 of 8 7 of 8
© PFM 41
Benchmark Part 1 Offenses Reported
Per Sworn and Civilian Staff, 2023
 Oakland’s 2023 reported violent and property crimes were higher than other benchmark cities.  The City had the highest total property crime rate among the compared cities and ranked third in total violent crime.  The City’s comparatively lower headcount totals resulted in a higher rate of violent and property crimes per sworn and professional staff.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reporting, Law Enforcement Employees Data, 2022, Table 8 – Offenses Known to Law Enforcement, 2017-2022.

Violent Crime Property Crime
Total Violent
Crime
Per Sworn
Staff
Per
Professional
Staff
Total
Property
Crime
Per Sworn
Staff
Per
Professional
Staff
Oakland 7,852 11.1 29.9 43,048 60.6 163.7
Albuquerque 7,363 8.4 10.6 26,304 29.9 37.9
Baltimore 8,887 4.3 18.7 24,178 11.8 51.0
Cleveland 6,100 5.2 29.8 17,236 14.7 84.1
Fresno 3,970 4.7 10.8 16,754 19.7 45.4
Long Beach 2,782 4.0 10.1 13,294 19.1 48.3
New Orleans 4,957 5.4 16.7 18,536 20.4 62.4
Sacramento 4,237 6.2 15.0 15,305 22.6 54.3
Median (excl. Oakland) 4,957 5.2 15.0 17,236 19.7 51.0
Oakland Rank 2 of 8 1 of 8 1 of 8 1 of 8 1 of 8 1 of 8
© PFM 42
Bureau, Division, and Section Overviews
© PFM 43
Bureau of Field Operations
(BFO1 & BFO2)
© PFM 44
Bureau of Field Operations (BFO 1 & BFO 2)
 OPD divides its patrol operations across two bureaus: Bureau of Field Operations 1 and 2 (BFO 1 and BFO 2). Each bureau is led by a deputy chief, reporting to the assistant chief of police.
• Each BFO covers three patrol areas. Each patrol area is led by a captain.
 Each BFO operates a special resources section (SRS), which manages community resource officers (CROs), crime
reduction teams (CRTs), and foot patrol units within its area of coverage.
 Each BFO provides some departmentwide services.
• For example, BFO 2 includes the support operations
division led by a captain. This division provides traffic and special operations support across the city and includes a traffic operations section responsible for traffic enforcement and a support operations section for specialized units such as canine, air support, and mental health response
resources.
• BFO 1’s administration division, led by a lieutenant, provides internal investigations support, performance
appraisals, and management reports across both BFOs.

Assistant
Chief of Police
Bureau of Field
Operations 1
Deputy Chief
BFO 1 Admin
Lieutenant
Area 1
Captain
Area 2
Captain
Area 3
Captain
BFO 1 SRS
Lieutenant
Bureau of Field
Operations 2
Deputy Chief
Area 4
Captain
Area 5
Captain
Area 6
Captain
BFO 2 SRS
Lieutenant
Support Operations
Division
Captain
Source: OPD Organizational Chart as of August 17, 2024. © PFM 45
Bureau of Field Operations 1 and 2
Patrol Geographic Coverage and Schedules
 BFO 1 covers west Oakland with patrol Areas 1, 2, and 3 while BFO 2 covers east Oakland and patrol areas 4, 5,
and 6.
 Each area operates three shifts. Each shift has two sides (A and B), which rotate days on and off to ensure coverage seven days per week.
 One lieutenant is assigned to each shift in each BFO, leading three sergeants who supervise each shift in the BFO. Shifts include:
• First watch is a 10-hour shift from 6:00am/7:00am to
4:00pm/5:00pm
• Second watch is a 12-hour shift from 2:00pm to 2:00am • Third watch is a 10-hour shift from 9:00pm/10:00pm to 7:00am/8:00am
 Each patrol area contains between five and seven beats, for a total of 35 beats across Oakland.
 OPD’s operational goal is to ensure at least one officer is assigned to each beat on each shift.

Source: City of Oakland Police District Locator.

Map of OPD Patrol Areas
© PFM 46
Bureau of Field Operations 1 (BFO 1)
Authorized and Filled Staffing, FY 2021 through FY 2025  Between FY 2021 and FY 2025, BFO 1 authorized
positions decreased by 24.4 percent (a CAGR of
-6.8 percent).
• The Bureau experienced its most significant
staffing change between FY 2022 and FY 2023,
losing 76 authorized positions, including 75
officer positions.
• During the five-year period, authorized sworn
positions decreased by 72 positions – a 25.0
percent decrease – including 58 officer positions.
• Authorized professional staff decreased by three
positions – a 15.8 percent decrease.
• During the same period, filled staffing levels
within the Bureau decreased at a greater rate
(28.8 percent – sworn staff by 29.3 percent,
professional staff by 20.0 percent).

BFO 1 Authorized and Filled Staffing, FY 2021 – FY 2025 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 CAGR
Authorized 307 312 236 252 232 -6.8%
Sworn 288 293 218 235 216 -6.9%
Officer 232 245 170 190 174 -6.9%
Sergeant 43 37 38 34 31 -7.9%
Lieutenant 9 7 6 7 7 -6.1%
Captain 3 3 3 3 3 0.0%
Deputy Chief 1 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Professional 19 19 18 17 16 -4.2%
Front-line 19 19 18 17 16 -4.2%
Supervisor 0 0 0 0 0
Manager 0 0 0 0 0
Filled 284 287 246 209 202 -8.2%
Sworn 269 273 230 197 190 -8.3%
Officer 220 228 193 162 156 -8.2%
Sergeant 36 35 27 25 23 -10.6%
Lieutenant 9 7 6 6 7 -6.1%
Captain 3 2 3 3 3 0.0%
Deputy Chief 1 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Professional 15 14 16 12 12 -5.4%
Front-line 15 14 16 12 12 -5.4%
Note: The authorized and filled staffing information was manually compiled from OPD annual reports (2020, 2021, and 2022). OPD also provided additional staffing reports for 2023 and 2024 that were also manually compiled to complete this analysis. Filled staffing for FY 2021 through FY 2024 is as December of that fiscal year. Filled staffing for FY 2025 is as of July 2024, the start of FY 2025. © PFM 47
Bureau of Field Operations 1
Budgeted Expenditures, FY 2025
 BFO 1’s FY 2025 budgeted expenditures are $86.5
million – 23.1 percent of the Department’s total
budget. It ranks as the second-highest budget among
OPD bureaus, trailing only BFO 2.
 Personnel Expenses comprise 92.6 percent of BFO
1’s FY 2025 budget.
• Within Personnel Expenses, Salaries are the largest
expenditure (42.6 percent of BFO 1’s total budget)
• BFO 1 has the second-largest budgeted Overtime
expenses, behind only BFO 2. BFO 1’s budgeted
overtime expenses are approximately one-quarter
(25.3 percent) of the Department’s total FY 2025
budgeted overtime.
 Non-Personnel expenses constitute 7.4 percent of the
Bureau’s total FY 2025 budget.
• Most of the Non-Personnel expenditures are
Services – primarily internal services and work
orders.

Bureau of Field Operations 1 Budgeted Expenditures, FY 2025, ($M) FY 2025
Budget
% of Bureau
Budget
Personnel Expenses 80.1 92.6%
Salaries 36.9 42.6%
Benefits 32.0 37.0%
Overtime 11.3 13.0%
Non-Personnel Expenses 6.4 7.4%
Services 6.3 7.3%
Materials, Equipment and Supplies 0.1 0.1%
Vehicle and Maintenance Costs 0.0 0.0%
Other Expenditures 0.0 0.0%
Total 86.5
Note: Budget data presented in this report includes only General and Special Revenue Funds. Internal Service, Capital Projects, and Fiduciary/Trust and Agency Funds are excluded. © PFM 48
Bureau of Field Operations 2 (BFO 2)
Authorized and Filled Staffing, FY 2021 through FY 2025  From FY 2021 to FY 2025, authorized positions within
BFO 2 decreased by seven – a 2.5 percent decline
(and CAGR of -0.6 percent).
• Authorized sworn positions increased by four, or 1.6
percent overall
• Authorized professional positions decreased by 11, a

39.3 percent decrease.
 Authorized positions in BFO 2 decreased yearly from
FY 2021 to FY 2024 before increasing in the FY 2025
budget. The increases in positions in the FY 2025
budget were primarily in the special resources section
and support operations division.
 From FY 2021 to FY 2025, BFO 2’s filled staffing
remained relatively stable and increased by 12
positions – most of which were officer positions.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 CAGR
Authorized 279 269 261 241 272 -0.6%
Sworn 251 241 240 222 255 0.4%
Officer 204 195 194 179 203 -0.1%
Sergeant 36 36 35 33 38 1.4%
Lieutenant 8 6 7 7 9 3.0%
Captain 2 3 3 3 4 18.9%
Deputy Chief 1 1 1 0 1 0.0%
Professional 28 28 21 19 17 -11.7%
Front-line 28 28 21 19 17 -11.7%
Filled 225 223 234 240 237 1.3%
Sworn 203 202 209 223 220 2.0%
Officer 165 164 164 181 177 1.8%
Sergeant 28 30 34 32 29 0.9%
Lieutenant 7 5 8 7 9 6.5%
Captain 2 2 2 3 4 18.9%
Deputy Chief 1 1 1 0 1 0.0%
Professional 22 21 25 17 17 -6.2%
Front-line 22 21 25 17 17 -6.2%
BFO 2 Authorized and Filled Staffing, FY 2021 – FY 2025 Note: The authorized and filled staffing information was manually compiled from OPD annual reports (2020, 2021, and 2022). OPD also provided additional staffing reports for 2023 and 2024 that were also manually compiled to complete this analysis. Filled staffing for FY 2021 through FY 2024 is as December of that fiscal year. Filled staffing for FY 2025 is as of July 2024, the start of FY 2025. © PFM 49
Bureau of Field Operations 2
Budgeted Expenditures, FY 2025
 The Bureau of Field Operations 2’s FY 2025 budgeted
expenditures of $108.2 million is the largest among all bureaus and accounts for 28.8 percent of the
Department’s total budget.
 Personnel Expenses comprise most of the Bureau’s
budget at 92.7 percent. BFO 2’s budgeted Personnel
Expenses are 26.7 percent of the Department’s total
FY 2025 budget.
• Within Personnel Expenses, Salaries are the largest
expenditure (40.5 percent of BFO 1’s total budget)
• At $19.1 million, BFO 2 has the largest budgeted
Overtime expenses in the Department (nearly 43
percent of all budgeted department overtime) – and
its budgeted overtime comprises 5.1 percent of the
overall Department budget.
 Non-Personnel Expenses constitute 7.3 percent of the
Bureau’s total budget.
• Most of the Non-Personnel expenditures are
Services – primarily internal services and work
orders.

Bureau of Field Operations 2 Budgeted Expenditures, FY 2025 ($M) Expenditures FY 2025
Budget
% of Bureau
Budget
Personnel Expenses 100.2 92.7%
Salaries 43.8 40.5%
Benefits 37.3 34.5%
Overtime 19.1 17.6%
Non-Personnel Expenses 7.9 7.3%
Services 7.7 7.1%
Materials, Equipment and Supplies 0.2 0.2%
Vehicle and Maintenance Costs 0.0 0.0%
Other Expenditures 0.0 0.0%
Total 108.2
Note: Budget data presented in this report includes only General and Special Revenue Funds. Internal Service, Capital Projects, and Fiduciary/Trust and Agency Funds are excluded. © PFM 50
Bureau of Field Operations
Administration Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The BFO 1 Deputy Chief of Police oversees BFO Administration and is responsible for the tracking and auditing of Use of Force (UoF) Investigations, Vehicle Pursuit Investigations, IAD Division Level Investigations (DLI), Annual Performance Appraisals, Officer Involved Collisions, and Monthly Management Reports for BFO 1 and BFO 2. • In addition, BFO Administration is responsible for Payroll for BFO 1, ordering supplies and purchasing for BFO 1, overseeing/managing ride-alongs for the Department, managing the Court Liaison’s Office, and managing the Departmental-wide Staffing System (Telestaff).
 PFM Team Observations:
• In 2022, BFO Administration tracked 4,519 UoF investigations (98% were the lowest force category), 128 Vehicle Pursuit investigations, and 461 DLIs.
• As of January 1, 2024, there were 17 Police Services Technicians (professional, non-sworn employees) assigned throughout BFO 1 & 2.
• These members report to Sergeants within Patrol Areas and regularly complete the following types of tasks:
taking reports related to vehicle thefts (w/ no suspects), collecting video evidence, traffic control, recovering stolen vehicles, assisting with towing, and citing illegally parked vehicles.

Sources: OPD 2022 Annual Report, PFM Survey of Police Service Technicians (August 2024); OPD Special Order 9208, effective June 4, 2022.
© PFM 51
Bureau of Field Operations
Special Resources Sections Overview
 Responsibilities:
• As noted, BFO 1 and BFO 2 each have a Special Resources Section (SRS) embedded within their organizational structures. The SRS contains units known as Community Resource Officers and Crime Reduction Teams (CRTs).

Both are dedicated to proactive policing efforts and community engagement to address quality-of-life concerns such as blight and abandoned properties. Foot Patrol units perform walking beats in areas with high foot traffic.  PFM Team Observations:
• SRS units are led by Lieutenants (or acting Lieutenants) , and members operate on a 10-hour shift schedule, four days a week. Scheduled days and times are flexible, and members can be deployed at times and on days needed to achieve operational objectives.
• Based on PFM site visit interviews, OPD employees appeared to perceive the risks of using force (potential misconduct complaints, potential for criminal charges, etc.) and the burden of additional use of force reporting requirements led to many officers not being interested in working in proactive units.  OPD personnel who were interviewed suggested these types of hesitation decreased the number of OPD sworn staff applying for specialized units.
 OPD members also expressed that, based on available staffing, goals and performance expectations for special units are often unfeasible.

Sources: OPD 2022 Annual Report, PFM interviews of OPD personnel conducted in May 2024. © PFM 52
Bureau of Field Operations
Special Operations Division Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Special Operations Division (SOD) is commanded by a Captain (or Acting Captain) and provides specialized capabilities to support patrol operations. The Division is comprised of the Special Operations Section and the Traffic Operations Section.
• Special Operations Section (SOS) includes Air Support, Alcoholic Beverage Action Team (ABAT), Canine Program, Crisis Intervention/Mental Health Liaison and Mobile Evaluation Team, Unhoused Outreach Unit, Marine Patrol, Reserve Program, Special Events, and the Tactical Operations Team (SWAT) • Traffic Operations Section (TOS) includes Traffic Investigations, Enforcement, Fatal Accident Standby Team, and Vehicle Enforcement Units.
 PFM Team Observations:
• SOS and TOS are led by Lieutenants (or acting Lieutenants). Staff work a 10-hour shift schedule, four days week.

Scheduled days and times are flexible, and members can be deployed at times and days that are needed for achieving operational objectives.
• Professional staff members support SOS and TOS units and complete administrative functions such as managing ABAT records, traffic accident records, and vehicle abatement details.

Sources: OPD 2022 Annual Report, January 2024 OPD Roster. © PFM 53
Bureau of Investigations
© PFM 54
Bureau of Investigations
Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The OPD’s Bureau of Investigation houses the
specialized investigative units responsible for
providing follow-up investigative support to
patrol for crimes committed in Oakland.
• It is led by a Deputy Chief and divided into the
Criminal Investigations Division, Criminalistics
Division, Crime Analysis Section, the Field
Support Unit, Youth & School Services Unit,
and the Property and Evidence Unit.
• Reactive investigations are housed under the
Criminal Investigations Division (CID). The
Division is led by a Captain who supervises
four Lieutenants and their respective Sections.
• Throughout this section, the terms
“Investigator” and “Officer” are used
interchangeably.
• The rank, or job title, is “Officer” and the role,
or assignment, is “Investigator.”
Bureau of Investigations
Deputy Chief
Criminalistics Division
Manager
Crime Analysis Section
Manager
Field Support Unit
Youth & School Services
Sergeant
Property and Evidence
Supervisor
Criminal Investigations
Division (CID)
Acting Captain
Homicide Section
Acting Lieutenant
Robbery & Felony
Assault Section
Lieutenant
Special Victims Section
Acting Lieutenant
Burglary & General
Crimes
Lieutenant
© PFM 55
Bureau of Investigations
Authorized and Filled Staffing, FY 2021 through FY 2025  Authorized positions within the Bureau of Investigations decreased by 25 positions between FY 2021 and FY
2025 – a 12.8 percent decrease – 24 sworn positions and one professional position.
 The Bureau’s increased authorized staffing in FY 2022 was largely attributed to the introduction of the Violent Crime Operations Center (VCOC) within the Bureau.
• The VCOC was authorized for 32 officers, 5
Sergeants, 2 Lieutenants, 1 Captain. For
professional positions, the division was authorized 1
front-line professional position.
• This unit was disbanded in 2024 and that action is
partially responsible for the Bureau’s FY 2025
decrease in authorized total staffing.
 Following this reorganization, the Bureau of
Investigation’s filled staffing returned to FY 2021 levels, with professional staff making up a greater share of its total staffing.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 CAGR
Authorized 196 242 244 241 171 -3.4%
Sworn 116 156 153 146 92 -5.6%
Officer 95 127 121 111 72 -6.7%
Sergeant 17 22 23 26 14 -4.7%
Lieutenant 2 4 6 6 4 18.9%
Captain 1 2 2 2 1 0.0%
Deputy Chief 1 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Professional 80 86 91 95 79 -0.3%
Front-line 78 84 88 92 76 -0.6%
Supervisor 0 0 1 1 1 -
Manager 2 2 2 2 2 0.0%
Filled 155 181 199 195 150 -0.8%
Sworn 93 117 123 120 78 -4.3%
Officer 75 91 97 91 57 -6.6%
Sergeant 14 19 19 20 15 1.7%
Lieutenant 2 4 4 6 4 18.9%
Captain 1 2 2 2 1 0.0%
Deputy Chief 1 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Professional 62 64 76 75 72 3.8%
Front-line 60 62 73 72 69 3.6%
Supervisor 0 0 1 1 1
Manager 2 2 2 2 2 0.0%
Bureau of Investigations Authorized and Filled Staffing, FY 2021 – FY 2025 Note: The authorized and filled staffing information was manually compiled from OPD annual reports (2020, 2021, and 2022). OPD also provided additional staffing reports for 2023 and 2024 that were also manually compiled to complete this analysis. Filled staffing for FY 2021 through FY 2024 is as December of that fiscal year. Filled staffing for FY 2025 is as of July 2024, the start of FY 2025. © PFM 56
Bureau of Investigations
Budgeted Expenditures, FY 2025
 For FY 2025, the Bureau’s budgeted expenditures
are $61.0 million – 16.3 percent of the Department’s
total budget.
 Personnel expenses are 87.0 percent of the
Bureau’s budget – mostly driven by salaries and
benefits.
 Non-personnel expenses are 13.0 percent of the
Bureau’s total budget.
• Most non-personnel expenditures are in the
service category, of which more than two-thirds
are internal service and work orders.

Bureau of Investigations Budgeted Expenditures, FY 2025 ($M) Expenditures FY 2025
Budget
% of Bureau
Budget
Personnel Expenses 53.0 87.0%
Salaries 25.8 42.3%
Benefits 21.4 35.1%
Overtime 5.9 9.6%
Non-Personnel Expenses 8.0 13.0%
Services 7.5 12.3%
Materials, Equipment and Supplies 0.5 0.8%
Vehicle and Maintenance Costs 0.0 0.0%
Other Expenditures 0.0 0.0%
Total 61.0
Note: Budget data presented in this report includes only General and Special Revenue Funds. Internal Service, Capital Projects, and Fiduciary/Trust and Agency Funds are excluded. © PFM 57
Bureau of Investigations
Criminal Investigations Division – Homicide Section Overview  Responsibilities:
• The Homicide Section is the primary investigative branch tasked with investigating deaths, Departmental Level 1 Use of Force Investigations, outside agency officer-involved shootings, and in-custody deaths that occur in Oakland. The Homicide Section is also responsible for all follow-up investigations involving suspicious and unexplained deaths.
• This Section’s investigators report to work on weekdays for eight-hour shifts. This is the only section that works in eight-hour shifts, the rest of the Criminal Investigations Division works ten-hour shifts. • Investigators in the Homicide Section are primarily assigned to cases by being called out to crime scenes by patrol Watch Commanders to investigate criminal death cases.
• The Section is divided into five teams of three to four investigators. One team is on standby for callouts to crime scenes each seven-day period. Teams rotate callout duty weekly, so each team serves a week of callout duty over a five-week period.
• Sergeants and Officers both function as “Investigators” within a team. Sergeants are not strictly supervisors but are also assigned as primary investigators in higher-profile investigations or Officer-Involved Shootings. • The Section also dedicates two investigators to cold case investigations. Cold cases refer to homicides that have been closed for insufficient evidence but have been reopened after new evidence has surfaced.  PFM Team Observations:
• The fact that Sergeants are also sometimes assigned investigative duties reduces their ability to be coaches and supervisors of officer investigators.
• The seven-day rotation of teams on callout duty can lead to workload imbalances. For example, in one seven-day period, 10 homicides could be reported and assigned to the team assigned to callout duty that week. Then, the next seven-day period, two homicides could be reported and assigned to the next team on duty that week.

Note; Level 1 Uses of Force are the most severe which usually involve great bodily harm which might result in death. See detailed description in BOI Policy and Procedure 19-01 Level Investigations.

Source(s): Interviews, OPD 2022 Annual Report.
© PFM 58
Bureau of Investigations
Criminal Investigations Division – Robbery & Felony Assault Section Overview  Responsibilities:
• The Robbery and Felony Assault Section includes the Robbery Unit and Felony Assault Unit. The Robbery Unit is responsible for investigating all robbery-related crimes, including carjacking and residential robberies. The Felony Assault Unit is responsible for investigating all shooting-related crimes, including shootings at occupied or unoccupied residences and vehicles and negligent discharges of firearms. The Felony Assault Unit is also responsible for investigating other felony aggravated assaults and batteries. • Investigators in this section are assigned geographically based on the six patrol areas and respond to investigative callouts, conducting preliminary and follow-up investigations for various violent and felony crimes. • In addition to callouts, investigators will self-assign cases by reviewing daily reported cases in their respective geography or police area.
• Investigators in this section participate in a “CID Call Out Rotation” where any felony assault, robbery, or burglary case that requires a response to a crime scene can be investigated by these investigators if it occurs within their rotation period.
 PFM Team Observations:
• Based on interviews and data availability, there appears to be little supervisory infrastructure for case assignment or case management. In practice, investigators use their best prerogative to self-assign cases based on solvability factors.
• From a workload-based perspective, assigning specialized investigators geographically may cause workload imbalances unless all police areas are geographically drawn based on criminal incidence.

Source(s): Interviews, OPD 2022 Annual Report.
© PFM 59
Bureau of Investigations
Criminal Investigations Division – Special Victims Section Overview  Responsibilities:
• The Special Victims Section (SVS) provides investigative services and intervention for all Special Victims cases in Oakland.
• The SVS is organized into six (6) units, each with a Sergeant overseeing unit activity. All six units report to the SVS Commander, a Lieutenant of Police. For this study, three units were considered reactive units, meaning their work is generated through community-generated calls for service, and three units were considered strategic or intelligence- based performing more proactive functions.
• Reactive Units:
• Missing Persons Unit (MPU): Investigates missing persons and runaway cases. It also investigates parental abduction cases involving non-custodial parents. The Juvenile Intake Unit (JVU) is a sub-unit of the MPU responsible for processing juveniles who have been arrested, and/or referring them to external support services. The JVU is supervised by the MPU sergeant.
• Domestic Violence Unit (DVU): Investigates reports of domestic violence and elder abuse; partners with support services advocates at the Family Violence Law Center.
• Special Victims Unit (SVU): Investigates reports of sexual assault and child abuse. o Proactive Units:
• Vice and Child Exploitation Unit (CEU): Investigates human trafficking with a focus on child exploitation and internet crimes against children. This unit’s work is mostly driven by strategic goals defined by OPD leadership. • Identification Unit and 2090 Enforcement: This unit monitors the compliance of all registered sex offenders living and/or working in the City of Oakland.
• Your Outreach Unit (YOU): Operates the Police Activities League (PAL) and Our Kids (OK) Program.

Source(s): Interviews, OPD 2022 Annual Report.
© PFM 60
Bureau of Investigations
Criminal Investigations Division – Burglary / General Crimes Section Overview  Responsibilities:
• Burglary Unit: Investigators in this unit assist in active and follow-up investigations of property thefts in which suspect(s) entered a dwelling, commercial property, or locked vehicle or container. This unit is also responsible for reviewing and approving all reports made on Coplogic (OPD’s online crime reporting system) about burglary crimes.
• General Crimes Unit (GCU): The primary function of the GCU is to follow-up and process cases that originated at the patrol level. These cases include but are not limited to: fraud, embezzlement, identity theft, forgery, elder financial abuse, grand theft, petty theft, auto theft, assault and battery, threats, vandalism, court order violations, and narcotics violations.
• Most officers assigned to these units are tasked with call-out duties, which involve conducting follow-up investigations of recently reported felony crimes.
 PFM Team Observations:
• During interviews, Burglary Section investigators noted that most of their time is spent investigating string cases, or burglaries that are part of a series of reports suspected to be related or performed by the same individual/s. • During interviews, the General Crimes supervisor noted that almost all of the investigators’ time is spent processing cases with suspects in custody at the time of referral to the CID.

Source(s): Interviews, OPD 2022 Annual Report.
© PFM 61
Bureau of Investigations
Criminalistics Division Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Criminalistics Division houses all personnel for Crime Laboratory functions and is led by the Laboratory Manager (professional position). The Laboratory provides analysis of physical evidence analyzed during the investigation of crimes and supports four broad disciplines: Drug Analysis, Firearms, Forensic Biology/DNA, and Latent Prints
• Crime lab personnel examine, evaluate, and interpret results of analyses and write reports. OPD reports that every analyst is trained to defend scientific findings in court, and, on rare occasions, Criminalistics personnel respond to crime scenes. Police Evidence Technicians are primarily responsible for collecting evidence at crime scenes, but they can work in tandem with detectives and sworn officers to manage evidence collection duties. • The Laboratory’s primary client is OPD, but services are provided to the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office, the Oakland Housing Authority, BART police, and other law enforcement agencies. The analyses conducted in the laboratory often lead to expert witness testimony in criminal trials. Laboratory personnel provide case consultation and training to OPD and local law enforcement agencies.  PFM Team Observations:
• Based on the January 2024 roster, the Criminalistics Division is entirely comprised with professional, non-sworn personnel. Based on a review of the Annual Reports from 2018-2022, this Division consistently reported having vacant criminalist positions, which indicates OPD has had difficulty recruiting and retaining lab talent.  This as has consistently led to backlogs in processing firearms evidence and analysis of drug evidence. • Based on Annual Reports from 2018-2022, the Division has consistently faced challenges with funding, resulting in reduced capacity to obtain necessary equipment and materials to complete scientific analysis.

Sources: OPD 2018-2022 Annual Reports, January 2024 OPD Roster. © PFM 62
Bureau of Investigations
Crime Analysis Section Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Crime Analysis Section is led by a Section Manager (professional, non-sworn member) and provides crime analysis information to stakeholders within the police department, outside law-enforcement partners, and city officials.
• The Crime Analysis Section is tasked with various analytical objectives, ranging from patrol support to major case investigations to statistical analysis. Patrol analysis includes daily and weekly tactical overviews of problem crime areas, temporal reporting, and hot-spotting analysis. The Section is also responsible for completing annual crime stats reporting with the FBI (UCR/NIBRS).
 PFM Team Observations:
• According to the January 2024 roster, the entire Crime Analysis Sectionis comprised of professional, non-sworn personnel.
• Based on a review of the Annual Reports from 2018-2022, this Section consistently reported having vacant analyst positions, which indicates the OPD has had difficulty recruiting and retaining analyst talent. Positions are also consistently loaned out to other functions/commands in the Department.

Sources: OPD 2018-2022 Annual Reports, January 2024 OPD Roster. © PFM 63
Bureau of Investigations
Property & Evidence Section Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Property and Evidence Section is led by a Property Specialist (professional, non-sworn member), and is responsible for storing and maintaining standards on all property and evidence collected by OPD members who are completing their investigative or enforcement related duties.  PFM Team Observations:
• This function reports to the Lieutenant in charge of the Burglaries and General Crimes within CID. • Based on the January 2024 roster, this Section is fully comprised of professional, non-sworn personnel. In prior years (2018-2021), the Department assigned sworn Lieutenants and Sergeants to lead the Section, but this was discontinued in 2022.

Sources: OPD 2018-2022 Annual Reports, January 2024 Roster. © PFM 64
Bureau of Services
© PFM 65
Bureau of Services
Overview
 The Bureau of Services is led by a Deputy Director (professional member) and comprises the following functions:

Records Division, Human Resources Section, Recruiting and Backgrounds Unit, Communications Division, and Fiscal Services Division.
o In previous years, the Research and Planning/IT Section reported to the Bureau of Services, but now reports to the Bureau of Risk Management (effective in 2024).

Bureau of
Services
Deputy Director
Records Division
Manager
Human Resources
Section
Manager
Recruiting &
Backgrounds
Sergeant
Communications
Division
Manager
Fiscal Services
Division
Manager
Source: OPD Organizational Chart as of August 17, 2024. © PFM 66
Bureau of Services
Authorized and Filled Staffing, FY 2021 through FY 2025  Between FY 2021 and FY 2025, authorized positions within the Bureau of Services decreased by 67, or -30.9 percent (a CAGR of -8.9 percent) – mostly driven by Department reorganizations – with the most significant changes occurring in FY 2021 and FY 2022 (-48 positions) and FY 2024 to FY 2025 (-20
positions).
• Authorized sworn positions decreased by 90.2 percent, from 51 in FY 2021 to five in FY 2025.
• Authorized professional positions decreased by 27.5 percent, or 21 positions.
 As noted, Department reorganizations drove the bulk of position changes – with the most recent being the Police Information Technology Unit and Research and Planning Unit transferring to the Bureau of Risk Management as of FY 2025.
 From FY 2021 to FY 2025, the Bureau’s filled staffing decreased by 53, or 29.3 percent – driven by 40 fewer sworn positions and 13 fewer filled professional positions (again, largely the result of reorganizations).
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 CAGR
Authorized 217 169 170 170 150 -8.9%
Sworn 51 15 11 13 5 -44.0%
Officer 42 11 10 11 4 -44.4%
Sergeant 6 2 1 1 1 -36.1%
Lieutenant 3 2 0 1 0-100.0%
Captain 1 0 0 0 0-100.0%
Professional 166 154 159 157 145 -3.3%
Front-line 148 135 141 140 127 -3.8%
Supervisor 12 11 11 11 12 0.0%
Manager 6 8 7 6 6 0.0%
Filled 181 134 144 138 128 -8.3%
Sworn 46 12 10 11 6 -39.9%
Officer 37 9 9 10 5 -39.4%
Sergeant 6 1 1 1 1 -36.1%
Lieutenant 3 2 0 0 0-100.0%
Captain 1 0 0 0 0-100.0%
Professional 135 122 134 127 122 -2.5%
Front-line 117 104 116 113 110 -1.5%
Supervisor 12 11 11 9 8 -9.6%
Manager 6 7 7 5 4 -9.6%
Bureau of Services Authorized and Filled Staffing, FY 2020 – FY 2025 Note: The authorized and filled staffing information was manually compiled from OPD annual reports (2020, 2021, and 2022). OPD also provided additional staffing reports for 2023 and 2024 that were also manually compiled to complete this analysis. Filled staffing for FY 2021 through FY 2024 is as December of that fiscal year. Filled staffing for FY 2025 is as of July 2024, the start of FY 2025. © PFM 67
Bureau of Services
Budgeted Expenditures, FY 2025
 The Bureau of Services’ FY 2025 budgeted
expenditures are $39.5 million – 10.5 percent of
OPD’s total budgeted expenditures.
 Personnel Expenses are 88.1 percent of the
Bureau’s budget, and 9.3 percent of the
Department’s total FY 2025 budget.
• Within Personnel Expenses, Salaries are the
largest expenditure (43.5 percent of the Bureau’s
total budget).
 Non-Personnel Expenses constitute 11.9 percent of
the Bureau’s total FY 2025 budget.
• The majority of Non-Personnel Expenditures are
services – primarily internal services and work
orders.

Bureau of Services Budgeted Expenditures, FY 2025 ($M)
FY 2025
Budget
% of Bureau
Budget
Personnel Expenses 34.8 88.1%
Salaries 17.2 43.5%
Benefits 13.7 34.7%
Overtime 3.9 9.8%
Non-Personnel Expenses 4.7 11.9%
Services 4.1 10.3%
Other Expenditures 0.5 1.4%
Materials, Equipment and Supplies 0.1 0.2%
Vehicle and Maintenance Costs 0.0 0.0%
Total 39.5
Note: Budget data presented in this report includes only General and Special Revenue Funds. Internal Service, Capital Projects, and Fiduciary/Trust and Agency Funds are excluded. © PFM 68
Bureau of Services – Records Division
Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Records Division is led by a Police Service Manager (professional member) whose duties include:
• Ensuring crime and arrest reports are entered and validated according to UCR/NIBRS standards and disseminated to the appropriate units for investigating and charging. Managing and fulfilling all public records requests assigned to the police department. Entering emergency protective orders, entering and confirming warrants, and sending and responding to teletypes on a 24/7 basis to fulfill service requests from the public and other law enforcement agencies. Processing peddler/solicitor permits, juvenile/adult record sealing, court orders/subpoenas, and issuing releases for towed and impounded vehicles.
 PFM Team Observations:
• The Division is comprised entirely of professional staff. • Based on site visit interviews and a review of the 2018-2022 Annual Reports, the Division has consistently had a vacancy rate between 15 and 20 percent, which staff reported impacted the section's capacity to consistently perform its duties and manage backlogs.
 The Division reported consistent use of voluntary overtime to backfill vacant positions or catchup on backlog • The Records Division coordinates with Communications Section personnel on warrant and NCIC checks that originate from the Bureau of Field Operations (1 & 2), and there can be delays in providing timely information to officers given staffing shortages
• OPD personnel from the Records Division also expressed concerns about meeting deadlines and the ability for technology systems to provide accurate and timely data to make required submissions to the FBI/NIBRS program.

Sources: OPD 2018-2022 Annual Reports, January 2024 OPD Roster, PFM Site Visit Interviews. © PFM 69
Bureau of Services – Human Resources Division
Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Human Resources (HR) Division is led by a Police Service Manager (professional, non-sworn member) and is comprised of the Administrative Unit, Payroll Unit, and Medical Unit.  In previous years, the Wellness Unit was part of the HR Division, but as of 2019, it was transitioned to the Training Division.
 PFM Team Observations:
• Based on a review of Annual Reports, the HR Division has consistently had 13 positions since 2018. • The HR Division oversees the rehabilitation plans of officers on light duty or those with medical restrictions.  HR provides guidance on the types of work light duty members can perform; however,the HR Division has limited options for holding them accountable if they are not making demonstrable progress on returning to full duty.
• During site interviews, managers expressed concern about budget and position creation limitations.  However, all members expressed positive anecdotes about City HR, stating that HR helps to identify candidates for open positions and ensures that managers are kept in the loop on which questions to ask applicants or participate in interview panels.

Sources: OPD 2018-2022 Annual Reports, January 2024 OPD Roster, PFM Site Visit Interviews. © PFM 70
Bureau of Services – Recruiting and Background Unit
Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Recruiting & Background Unit actively recruits for all departmental positions. It coordinates the selection process for the Police Officer Trainee position and has implemented processes to conduct thorough background investigations to ensure OPD onboards high-quality employees.  PFM Team Observations:
• The unit is split between two supervisors: one sergeant who directs the work of the majority of sworn officers and one Operations Specialist, a professional non-sworn member who directs the work of contracted background investigators.
 Contracted background investigators are generally retired officers and referred to as "annuitants" or "temporary contract services employees.” Per the police unit agreement with the OPD, the Background Investigator position is the only function for which retired officers can be hired. • The unit completes various recruitment and engagement events annually and committed to the 30x30 pledge to increase the proportion of female officers in the department to 30% by 2030. • The unit reported that the current technology system for tracking and managing applicant investigations is insufficient, and a new system was being evaluated to determine whether it could improve the efficiency of OPD background processes.
• While data on the number of applicants and cleared applications is provided in OPD annual reports from 2018- 2022, there is limited information on the final number of new sworn and non-sworn personnel hired into the Department each year.

Sources: OPD 2018-2022 Annual Reports, January 2024 OPD Roster, PFM Site Visit Interviews. © PFM 71
Bureau of Services – Communications Division
Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Communications Division is led by the Communications Manager (professional, non-sworn member). It is responsible for answering emergency and non-emergency calls for service and dispatching the appropriate resources to the appropriate agency or organizational unit.  PFM Team Observations:
• The performance and staffing of the Communication Division have been the subject of two investigations and negative report findings issued by the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury (2020 and 2023).  Each report outlined that the Division has consistently been unable to meet state standards for call answer times due, in large part, to a lack of appropriate staffing to manage call volume properly. Historical problems with the hiring process and recruitment have resulted in significant vacant positions and extensive use of mandatory overtime to cover essential positions.
 In response to these reports, the City of Oakland generally agreed with the need for additional staffing. It provided context that personnel schedules are not efficiently aligned with call volume tempo due, in part, to seniority rules on schedule assignments.
• In 2018, OPD completed a staffing analysis for the Communications Division that indicated the need for a minimum of 90 front-line call takers and dispatchers. Based on the January 2024 roster, there were 70 such personnel were on staff in the Division (not including supervisors).
 In response to the 2023 Grand Jury report, the City agreed to add as many as 37 new positions to the Division to assist in managing workload, but these positions do not yet appear in the OPD budget. In the 2024-2025 mid- cycle budget, 3 operator positions were reduced, further restricting capacity.

Sources: Alameda County Grand Jury Reports (2020, 2023), January 2024 OPD Roster, PFM Site Visit Interviews © PFM 72
Bureau of Services – Communications Division (Continued) Overview
 PFM Team Observations (Continued)
• The Division utilizes those in the “dispatcher” classification as both dispatchers and operators/call takers.  OPD personnel stated in interviews with the PFM team that “operator” classifications were largely eliminated through the budget process to provide funding for more dispatcher classifications, which have higher pay and additional duties (can dispatch and receive calls). As a result, all call-taking responsibilities (emergency and non- emergency) were folded into the workload for “dispatcher” classifications.  Generally, a more typical allocation of personnel in a large city 9-1-1 center would have a larger number of entry- level positions for operators/call takers than what is found in OPD, with dispatchers serving in a higher classification and performing dispatcher duties most of the time and only serving as call takers in limited cases. • The Division is required to process any non-emergency calls related to public complaints of police officer misconduct. Task 5 of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement requiresan OPD supervisor or Internal Affairs member to make contact with the complainant within 3 hours.
• OPD personnel shared that there are only two radio dispatcher channels for patrol operations in Oakland: East and West. Staff noted that as many as thirty officers could communicate over radio traffic at any given time during the shift in one channel, making monitoring radio traffic complex.  OPD personnel explained that this was designed to mirror the executive chain of command, with two deputy chiefs over the patrol districts (BFO 1 & 2), effectively splitting the city's geography in half.  When asked whether additional radio channels (e.g., one per district) would be possible, it was expressed that the Division did not have sufficient staff to deploy dedicated personnel to monitor additional channels.

Source: PFM Site Visit Interviews.
© PFM 73
Bureau of Services – Fiscal Services Division
Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Fiscal Services Division is led by a Services Manager (professional, non-sworn member) responsible for managing the operating budget. The Division conducts fiscal forecasting and financial reporting, processes accounts payables and receivables, facilitates grant and contract administration, and manages the False Alarm Reduction Program. Fiscal Services provides financial and overtime management and reporting, performs budget analyses, grant management functions, processes travel requests, and provides staff support, technical assistance, and training related to procurement.
 PFM Team Observations
• The 2022 Annual Report indicated a series of significant challengesfaced by the Division due to specific staff vacancies, which may indicate a lack of redundancy and cross-training in duties and responsibilities.

Source: OPD 2022 Annual Report.
© PFM 74
Bureau of Risk Management
© PFM 75
Bureau of Risk Management
Overview
 The Bureau of Risk Management was established in FY
2022 and is responsible for risk management, policy
development, training, and accountability within the
organization.
 It consists of the Office of Internal Accountability, the IT/Research & Planning Section, the Training Section,
and (at the time of our analysis) the Internal Affairs
Division.
• During the time of this analysis, the Internal Affairs Division was located within the Bureau of Risk
Management. However, as this report was in final
development, the PFM team was advised that the
division had been moved to the Office of the Chief of
Police.
 The Bureau focuses on issues affecting officer and
community safety, constitutional policing, and public
trust.
 The Bureau also leads OPD's efforts in demonstrating
compliance with the Tasks required bythe Negotiated
Settlement Agreement.

Bureau of Risk
Management
Deputy Chief
Internal Affairs
Division
Captain
Training
Division
Lieutenant
Professional
Development &
Wellness Unit
IT/Research &
Planning
Section
Manager
Office of Internal
Accountability
Lieutenant
Risk Analysis
Unit
Supervisor
Compliance
Inspection Unit
Supervisor
Risk Impact
Unit
PAS
Administration
Unit
Sergeant
Source: OPD Organizational Chart as of August 17, 2024. © PFM 76
Bureau of Risk Management
Authorized and Filled Staffing, FY 2022 through FY 2025  When the Bureau of Risk Management was established
in FY 2022, several existing units within OPD were
regrouped under this bureau.
• OPD’s Office of Inspector General (now the Office of
Internal Accountability), Training Division, and
Internal Affairs Division were moved to this bureau
from the Office of Chief of Police.
• The Personnel Assessment System (PAS)
Administration Unit was moved from the Bureau of
Services.
• The Audit Unit and Risk Analysis Unit were created
under this Bureau in 2021.
 In contrast to many other areas of the department, Risk Management Bureau authorized and filled staffing
increased since FY 2022.
 The Bureau’s authorized positions increased by 14,
including eight sworn and six professional positions.
 Filled positions in the Bureau increased by 18,
including 13 sworn and five professional positions.

Bureau of Risk Management Authorized and Filled Staffing, by Position, FY 2022 – FY 2025
2022 2023 2024 2025 CAGR
Authorized 75 73 88 89 5.9%
Sworn 41 39 49 49 6.1%
Officer 19 18 24 23 6.6%
Sergeant 16 16 19 19 5.9%
Lieutenant 4 3 4 5 7.7%
Captain 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Deputy Chief 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Professional 34 34 39 40 5.6%
Front-line 31 31 36 36 5.1%
Supervisor 1 1 3 2 26.0%
Manager 2 2 0 2 0.0%
Filled 62 59 76 80 8.9%
Sworn 38 35 44 51 10.3%
Officer 17 17 20 25 13.7%
Sergeant 15 13 17 18 6.3%
Lieutenant 4 3 5 6 14.5%
Captain 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Deputy Chief 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Professional 24 24 32 29 6.5%
Front-line 21 21 29 26 7.4%
Supervisor 1 1 3 2 26.0%
Manager 2 2 0 1 -20.6%
Note: The authorized and filled staffing information was manually compiled from OPD annual reports (2020, 2021, and 2022). OPD also provided additional staffing reports for 2023 and 2024 that were also manually compiled to complete this analysis. Filled staffing for FY 2021 through FY 2024 is as December of that fiscal year. Filled staffing for FY 2025 is as of July 2024, the start of FY 2025. © PFM 77
Bureau of Risk Management
Budgeted Expenditures, FY 2025
Bureau of Risk Management Budgeted Expenditures, FY 2025 Expenditures FY 2025
Budget
% of Bureau
Budget
Personnel Expenses 27.4 76.3%
Salaries 14.4 40.1%
Benefits 10.2 28.4%
Overtime 2.8 7.8%
Non-Personnel Expenses 8.5 23.7%
Services 8.0 22.2%
Materials, Equipment and Supplies 0.5 1.3%
Vehicle and Maintenance Costs 0.1 0.3%
Other Expenditures 0.0 0.0%
Total 36.0
 The Bureau of Risk Management’s FY 2025
budgeted expenditures are $36.0 million, accounting
for 9.6 percent of the department’s total budgeted
expenditures.
 Personnel expenses comprise most of the Bureau’s
budget (76.3 percent).
• Within personnel expenses, Salaries are the
largest expenditure (40.1 percent of the Bureau’s
total budget)
 Non-personnel expenses constitute 23.7 percent of
the Bureau’s total budget.
• Most non-personnel expenditures are services,
about half of which are contract service
expenditures, with most of the remaining
expenditures in the service category driven by
internal services and work orders.

Note: Budget data presented in this report includes only General and Special Revenue Funds. Internal Service, Capital Projects, and Fiduciary/Trust and Agency Funds are excluded. © PFM 78
Bureau of Risk Management – Internal Affairs Division
Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Internal Affairs Division (IAD) is led by a Police Captain. The Division is responsible for receiving and investigating all complaints of police personnel misconduct or failures to adhere to departmental policies. IAD is also responsible for managing and achieving compliance with various Tasks set forth inthe Negotiated Settlement Agreement (NSA) related to misconduct and discipline.
 PFM Team Observations:
• IAD uses non-sworn personnel for intake functions and record keeping functions and uses sergeants to conduct investigations into misconduct and policy violations. Lieutenants supervise the case work of investigating sergeants. Personnel selected to serve in IAD are not subject to selection policies that would generally apply to other specialized units, which provides the department with broad discretion in whom to select for IAD case work. • IAD members are scheduled to work Monday – Friday during daytime hours. Based on feedback from OPD personnel, the requirement of Task5 of the NSA creates a significant logistical issue that impacts scheduling and staffing of personnel:
 OPD personnel who become aware that a citizen wishes to file a complaint shall bring such citizen immediately, or as soon as circumstances permit, to a supervisor or IAD or summon a supervisor to the scene. If there is a delay of greater than three (3) hours, the reason for such delay shall be documented by the person receiving the complaint.
 Currently, if such complaints occur over the phone during the daytime hours, IAD handles the call. If such calls occur during evening or nighttime hours, the Communications Division must handle the call and then coordinate with either IAD members who are on-call or Patrol Supervisors to fulfill the NSA requirement of reaching out to the complainant within 3 hours.

Source: PFM Site Visit Interviews, January 2024 OPD Roster. © PFM 79
Bureau of Risk Management – Internal Affairs Division (Continued) Overview
 PFM Team Observations:
• While state law requires IAD cases to be completed within one year, the NSA requires completion of cases within 180 days. As a result, OPD must assign additional personnel to meet this requirement. The 180-day requirement is the primary metric used to measure and monitor performance for members of the Division. • Serious cases are handled by the Internal Affairs Division. Minor instances of policy violations are handled at the supervisor level through the Division level Inquiries process (DLI). However, the NSA requires full investigations of every misconduct claim regardless of its type.
 DLI cases are assigned to the applicable supervisor, unless there are too many cases to manage. In those instances, cases are reassigned out to various administrative units in the agency to complete based on that supervisor's capacity to manage the workload, regardless of whether the subject officer is part of the assigned supervisor's chain of command.
• Based on feedback from OPD personnel, IAD treats every complaint in the same manner, and does not triage the level of effort based on severity of the alleged misconduct (e.g., excessive force complaint treated in the same manner as discourtesy)
• Based on feedback from OPD personnel, any instance of an officer being accused of criminal misconduct is investigated by the Homicide Section, and not IAD. It was reported that IAD does not have sufficient capacity to investigate criminal allegations on top of its administrative investigation requirements.

Source: PFM Site Visit Interviews.
© PFM 80
Bureau of Risk Management – Training Division
Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Training Division is led by a Lieutenant. The Division is responsible for facilitating and managing all departmental in-service and providing the 24-week police academy instruction for new police recruits. The Division also houses the department's wellness coordinator and manages officer wellness resources.  PFM Team Observations:
• In 2021, the Training Division was transferred to the command of the Bureau of Risk Management. Previously it reported to the Office of the Chief of Police. Since 2021, it has been led by a Lieutenant, but in prior years was led by a Captain.  The administrative workload for the Training Commander (Lieutenant) was reported as extensive and that the position currently manages all in-service, recruit training, and officer wellness functions, but also pursuit board meetings, command level meetings related to POST requirements, and use of force review meetings. • According to the Annual reports from 2018-2022, and the roster from January 2024, the Division has consistently maintained nearly full staffing of its authorized strength.  Based on feedback from OPD personnel, the workload requirements for the recruit academy are managed by one sergeant and five officers, which may not be sufficient to manage recruit classes with more than 30 members, or more than two classes at once.
• Only one staff member is dedicated to officer wellness (non-sworn, professional member). • Based on OPD feedback, the Training Division supervisors are consistently assigned DLIsthat overflow from other parts of the agency, many of which are for minor use of force incidents. This workload is prioritized due to NSA requirements and can detract from the Training Division's core mission.

Source: PFM Site Visit Interviews, OPD Annual Reports 2018-2022, January 2024 Roster. © PFM 81
Bureau of Risk Management – IT/Research and Planning Division Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The IT/Research and Planning Division is led by a Project Manager (non-sworn, professional member), and is responsible for the development of all departmental agenda reports, the drafting of many of the Department’s policies, navigating the process of obtaining external feedback on draft policies and administering electronic document repositories of historical and current policies. The Division also manages all fleet responsibilities and IT projects for the OPD.
 PFM Team Observations:
• In 2024, the Division was moved from under the command of the Bureau of Services to the Bureau of Risk Management, it was also merged with the IT Unit, which in 2022 and prior years, was separate from Research and Planning functions.
• Based on PFM team expertise, it is not common for functions related to policy management, fleet management, and IT services to be led by a single division. These are often separated into individual commands, given the minimal overlap in the duties and responsibilities for each function. • Based on feedback from OPD personnel, the Division is greatly under-resourced, particularly as it relates to policy management and IT project management. The Division reported having as many as a dozen major IT efforts underway in the next two years with only two officers (who were on-loan) to assist in managing the effort.  Several OPD personnel reported a high potential for IT upgrades to improve productivity significantly.  The Division has non-sworn professional staff to support specific functions related to body-worn cameras, desktop support, and the early warning/early intervention (Vision) system, but no dedicated IT professionals with experience in managing IT projects.

Source: PFM Site Visit Interviews.
© PFM 82
Bureau of Risk Management – IT/Research and Planning Division (Continued)
Overview
 PFM Team Observations:
• Given the NSA’s requirements, policy revisions must be reviewed by the court-appointed monitoring team. Policies may also be submitted to the Oakland Police Commission for review and feedback.  These additional steps can cause significant delays in implementing new policies, even when such revisions are designed to improve policies or mitigate negative outcomes. • Similar to the Training Division, DLI cases are routinely assigned to the Research and Planning Division sergeant to complete (overflow from other commands)
• Based on feedback from the Research and Planning Division, a significant driver of workload across the agency are the creation and review of use of force reports related to the Type 32 category:
 Defined as force used to overcome resistance of a person during an arrest or a detention; or force used to defend oneself or another from combative action by another person that is not otherwise categorized as other force categories.
 Type 32 force is considered the lowest level category of force (Level 4). Implemented in 2022, the Type 32 policy resulted in the reporting of thousands of new use of force reports. In 2021, 681 level 4 uses of force were recorded; in 2022, there were 4,442, largely due to the adoption of the Type 32 force reporting requirement.  Several OPD personnel expressed concern that the Type 32 policy was too burdensome and could inhibit officers from taking necessary enforcement action(s) because of the administrative report requirements.

Source: PFM Site Visit Interviews, Annual OPD reports 2021-2022. © PFM 83
Bureau of Risk Management – Office of Internal Accountability Overview
 Responsibilities:
• A Lieutenant leads the Office of Internal Accountability (OIA) , which was previously the Office of the Inspector General (not to be confused with the Police Commission’s independent Office of the Inspector General that acted as the project manager for this engagement). It was renamed upon the creation of the Oakland Police Commission’s independent Office of the Inspector General.
 OIA acts as the liaison between the Department, the Monitor, and the Plaintiff’s Counsel on matters related to the Negotiated Settlement Agreement.
• OIA facilitates review boards, risk management meetings, Personnel Assessment System (PAS) panel meetings, and conducts audits to ensure the integrity of the Department’s internal processes.  PFM Team Observations:
• OPD personnel suggested OIA resources are strained and may be insufficient to maintain all report and audit requirements outlined in OPD's policies and work to secure compliance on remaining outstanding NSA Tasks. • Multiple positions within OIA were reported to be "on loan" from other parts of the agency, which raises concerns about the long-term stability and continuity of operations.
• While there are monthly risk management meetings that occur on various topics (use of force, vehicle accidents, complaint data, sick leave usage, productivity measures), it was reported that there are limited resources to follow up on any issues identified during these sessions
 Overtime usage was not reported as one of the topics reviewed during risk management meetings. • The personnel assigned to review data from PAS (Vision) coordinate with supervisory personnel when the system issues alerts regarding officer behavior. The PAS unit conducts various reports and data analysis and reports this data to the monitoring team in line with NSA requirements.

Source: PFM Site Visit Interviews, Annual OPD reports 2021-2022. © PFM 84
Office of the Chief of Police
© PFM 85
Office of Chief of Police
Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Office of the Chief of Police contains the executive- level leadership and support staff for the OPD. It also contains certain operational components that, by design, report to the Chief's Office, including the Public Information Unit, Ceasefire Division, Intelligence Unit, and the Crime Gun Intelligence Center.
• During the time of this analysis, the Internal Affairs Division was located within the Bureau of Risk Management, where it is shown in this report. However, as this report was in final development, the PFM team was advised that the division had been moved to the Office of the Chief.
 PFM Team Observations:
• The Intelligence Unit and CGIC were previously part of the Violent Crime Operations Center (VCOP) (which was under the Bureau of Investigations) until this was disbanded in 2024. • The Ceasefire Division’s reporting to executive leadership (rather than CID) is in line with national standards for how Ceasefire programs operate, even though the unit is largely comprised of investigative functions.

Office of Chief of
Police
Chief
Assistant Chief of
Police
Assistant Chief
Ceasefire Division
Captain
Crime Gun
Intelligence Center
Lieutenant
Chief of Staff
Sergeant
Public Information
Unit
Intelligence Unit
Sergeant
Source: OPD Organizational Chart as of August 17, 2024
© PFM 86
Office of Chief of Police
Authorized and Filled Staffing, 2020 through 2024
 From FY 2021 to FY 2025, the Office of the Chief of
Police’s authorized staffing decreased by 25 positions
(4 sworn, 21 professional).
• In 2021, the Internal Affairs Division, Office of
Inspector General (now the OPD’s Office of Internal
Accountability), and Training Division were relocated
under the new Bureau of Risk Management, causing
a significant drop in authorized and filled staffing in the Office of Chief of Police from FY 2021 to FY
2022.
 In FY 2025, the Chief of Police’s authorized staffing increased by 20 sworn positions due to increased
staffing in the Ceasefire Division.
 The Bureau’s filled positions decreased at a lower rate than authorized positions, leading to a reduced
vacancy rate.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 CAGR
Authorized 92 50 45 47 67 -7.6%
Sworn 65 45 41 41 61 -1.6%
Officer 38 33 31 32 47 5.5%
Sergeant 18 5 5 5 8 -18.4%
Lieutenant 5 4 2 1 3 -12.0%
Captain 2 1 1 1 1 -15.9%
Assistant Chief 1 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Chief of Police 1 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Professional 27 5 4 6 6 -31.3%
Front-line 22 3 3 5 5 -31.0%
Supervisor 1 0 0 0 0 -100.0%
Manager 4 2 1 1 1 -29.3%
Filled 71 41 36 42 67 -1.4%
Sworn 57 38 33 37 60 1.3%
Officer 32 28 24 28 48 10.7%
Sergeant 17 4 4 4 7 -19.9%
Lieutenant 4 3 2 2 2 -15.9%
Captain 2 1 1 1 1 -15.9%
Assistant Chief 1 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Chief of Police 1 1 1 1 1 0.0%
Professional 14 3 3 5 7 -15.9%
Front-line 10 2 2 5 6 -12.0%
Supervisor 1 0 0 0 0 -100.0%
Manager 3 1 1 0 1 -24.0%
Office of Chief of Police Authorized and Filled Staffing by Position, FY 2021 – FY 2025
Note: In 2024, OPD reported one more filled officer position than was authorized.

The filled professional staffing includes one crime analyst, one police records specialist, and one police services technician from BOI assigned to OCOP, which was more than the authorized number in 2024.
© PFM 87
Office of Chief of Police
Budgeted Expenditures, FY 2025
Office of Chief of Police Budgeted Expenditures, FY 2025, ($M) FY 2025
Budget
% of Bureau
Budget
Personnel Expenses 21.3 48.7%
Salaries 10.5 24.1%
Benefits 9.0 20.5%
Overtime 1.8 4.1%
Non-Personnel Expenses 22.4 51.3%
Services 12.4 28.3%
Vehicle and Maintenance Costs 10.0 22.8%
Materials, Equipment and Supplies 0.1 0.3%
Other Expenditures 0.0 0.0%
Total 43.7
 The Office of the Chief’s FY 2025 budgeted
expenditures are $43.7 million.
 Personnel Expenses ($21.3 million) account for

48.7 percent of the Office’s FY 2025 budget.
 Unlike other bureaus, non-personnel expenses
comprise most of the Office’s budget (51.3
percent).
• Vehicle and maintenance costs, including city
vehicle rentals and repairs and service
expenditures drive this category, collectively
totaling more than half of the Office’s budget.

Note: Budget data presented in this report includes only General and Special Revenue Funds. Internal Service, Capital Projects, and Fiduciary/Trust and Agency Funds are excluded. © PFM 88
Office of Chief of Police – Ceasefire Division
Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Ceasefire Division is led by a Lieutenant and a Project Manager (non-sworn, professional member). It is responsible for implementing a data-driven and partnership-based strategy that involves significant coordination with community, social service, and multiple law enforcement partners. • Ceasefire is the title of the Division within the Office of the Chief, but it is also the title of the Citywide strategy to combat violence that involves multiple entities within and outside of city government. The Ceasefire model is one commonly adopted by larger police departments. It uses dedicated personnel for special investigations, call-ins, custom notifications, violence interruption, and coordination of the delivery of prevention, intervention, rehabilitation, and re-entry resources.
 PFM Team Observations:
• In line with the national Ceasefire model, the division reports to the Assistant Chief of Police instead of through an Investigative or Special Operations command.
• From 2018-2024, the Division consistently staffed 4-5 operational squads but also consistently had 6-10 vacant officer positions during the same period.

Source: Annual OPD reports 2018-2022, January 2024 Roster. © PFM 89
Office of Chief of Police – Intelligence Unit
Overview
 Responsibilities:
• A sergeant leads the Intelligence Unit. The Unit is responsible for officer safety, department safety (including site security), protest/event monitoring and intelligence, assisting with locating and arresting wanted persons involved in homicide, shootings, robberies, and sexual assaults, dignitary protection (to include both local city government as well as any federal government visitors), sensitive investigations at the direction of the Chief, informant management, and liaison to outside agencies.
 PFM Team Observations:
• Based on a review of the Annual Reports from 2018-2022 , the Intelligence Unit was under the Office of the Chief from 2018-2020 and moved under the command of the Violent Crime Operations Center (VCOC) in 2021. • In 2024, the VCOC was disbanded, and its operational resources were redistributed to Patrol Community Response Teams while the Intelligence Unit returned under the direct oversight of the Office of the Chief. • From 2018-2024, the unit was consistently staffed with 7-8 sworn personnel. © PFM 90
Office of Chief of Police – Public Information Office (Unit) Overview
 Responsibilities:
• The Public Information Office (PIO) is led by an Assistant to the Chief (non-sworn, professional member). The Office serves as the OPD's liaison with the media and the public. • As the spokesperson(s) for the Department, the office is responsible for communicating critical information, including preparing news releases and public safety advisories for distribution by media outlets. The office is responsible for drafting speeches, arranging interviews, and providing content on the Department’s social media platforms.
 PFM Team Observations:
• Based on a review of OPD's annual reports from 2018-2022, the PIO has only been staffed with between 2-4 members, which is lower than peer agencies for major cities of comparable size.  OPD utilizes a combination of sworn and non-sworn members to serve PIO functions. • Annual reports state that the PIO function cannot effectively manage content for social media platforms (in addition to managing traditional media).
 A non-sworn professional could fill this role; other PIO responsibilities may require additional capacity. © PFM 91
Office of Chief of Police – Executive Office
Overview
 Members/Responsibilities:
• The Chief of Police: Chief executive for OPD, responsible for all departmental functions, personnel decisions, and policy direction/vision for the department.
• The Assistant Chief of Police serves as executive officer to the Chief of Police and, in the absence of the Chief, serves as the Acting Chief. The Assistant Chief is responsible for the implementation of the Chief of Police's vision and coordination of all Bureaus and executive staff. The position also oversees the Ceasefire Division and the Intelligence Unit.
• The Chief of Staff: partners closely with the Executive Team on a variety of projects across the organization in support of the overall mission of the department. The Chief of Staff also serves as the immediate supervisor for the Chief’s Executive Assistant, the Public Information Office and the Community Liaison/Trust Building Officers respectively.  PFM Team Observations:
• In prior years, the Chief of Staff position was filled by a Lieutenant, but as recently as May 2024, this position was filled by a Sergeant.
 While some agencies appoint a sworn member to this position, other departments use a professional member to serve this role.
• Community Liaison officers assigned to the Office of the Chief of Police may inhibit coordination with the Bureau of Field Operations on community engagement and response efforts. © PFM 92
Overview of Workload Drivers and Outcomes
© PFM 93
 The following analyses provide insight and context into OPD's baseline (current) organization, operations, and staffing levels.
 Baseline analyses are provided to define the “current” state and help level-set the current facts – they do not necessarily represent the “ideal” state. They are presented within the context of the methodological and data limitations noted at the beginning of this document.  Additionally, as with all staffing projections, it is critical to note that this report and its results are not intended to provide a formulaic single “right” answer for OPD staffing – there is no such thing – whether at baseline or into the future.
 Rather, the report findings and workload-based outputs should be used to help inform judgments and decision-making by elected and appointed leaders, stakeholders, and the public.

Overview of Workload Drivers and Outcomes
Note for Readers
© PFM 94
Crime in Oakland
Index Crimes, 2017 through 2023
 Total offenses reported in Oakland increased by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 8.6 percent from 2017 to 2023.

Violent crime increased by 6.0 percent annually, and property crime increased by 9.2 percent annually. • In 2023, there were 19,914 more offenses reported than there were in 2017. The largest increase was in motor vehicle theft, which had an increase of 11,015 offenses between 2017 and 2023 and more than doubled from 2022 to 2023 with an increase of 8,813 offenses.
• Within the violent crime category, robbery and aggravated assault increased most, each adding 1,155 offenses compared to 2017 levels. Robbery increased by 1,095 offenses, or 40 percent, from 2022 to 2023. Violent crime increased by 6.0 percent annually, and property crime increased by 9.1 percent annually.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reporting, Table 8 – Offenses Known to Law Enforcement, 2017-2023. *Oakland, along with many other jurisdictions, did not report complete data in 2021 due to a change in reporting requirements to transition into a NIBRS-only system. See Department of Justice Review of the Transition of Law Enforcement Agencies to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), page 3.
**Arson data not counted in property totals.

Note: There is significant concern regarding the accuracy of OPD’s reporting of crime data to the US Department of Justice’s UCR program, including the number of crimes reported and cleared. As a result, the project team adjusted Oakland’s aggravated assault figure to reflect OPD’s own reporting of 3,531 aggravated assault offenses rather than the UCR figure of 11,169, based on PFM ’s understanding the UCR figure was the result of a reporting error. 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total
Change
CAGR
(2017-2023)
Violent Crime 5,521 5,480 5,520 5,653 - 6,516 7,852 2,331 6.0% Robbery 2,676 2,624 2,859 2,479 - 2,736 3,831 1,155 6.2% Rape 400 448 372 362 - 330 372 (28) -1.2%
Aggravated Assault 2,376 2,338 2,211 2,710 - 3,329 3,531 1,155 6.8% Criminal Homicide 69 70 78 102 - 121 118 49 9.4%
Property Crime 25,422 23,190 27,868 22,622 27,737 43,048 17,626 9.2% Larceny-Theft 17,305 15,725 20,228 13,373 - 17,347 22,652 5,347 4.6% Motor Vehicle Theft 5,495 5,071 5,041 6,712 - 7,697 16,510 11,015 20.1% Burglary 2,622 2,394 2,599 2,537 - 2,693 3,886 1,264 6.8% Arson 196 245 207 236 - 191 153 (43) -4.0%
Total 31,139 28,915 33,595 28,511 - 34,444 51,053 19,914 8.6% OPD Reported Offenses, Part I Crimes, 2017 through 2023 © PFM 95
Crime Compared to Benchmark Cities
Part 1 Offenses Reported, 2023, Per 100,000 Residents
 Among benchmark cities, Oakland had the highest rate of violent and property crime per 100,000 residents.  Oakland’s total violent crime rate of 1,799 per 100,000 residents exceeded the median of benchmark cities (1,314) by 485 offenses (36.9 percent), and the city’s property crime rate of 9,862 was over 5,500 offenses higher than the median (4,277).  Among violent crimes, Oakland’s reported robberies, rapes, and homicides were notably greater than the benchmark medians – with robberies being nearly five times greater per 100,000 residents in Oakland (878) than the median of the comparison group (182). Within property crimes, Oakland’s rate of larceny-theft (5,189) and motor vehicle theft (3,782) were both significantly greater than benchmark medians per 100,000 residents (2,002 and 1,028, respectively).

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reporting, Table 8 – Offenses Known to Law Enforcement, 2017-2023. There is significant concern regarding the accuracy of OPD’s reporting of crime data to the US Department of Justice’s UCR program, including the number of crimes reported and cleared. As a result, the project team adjusted Oakland’s aggravated assault figure to reflect OPD’s own reporting of 3,531 aggravated assault offenses rather than the UCR figure of 11,169, based on PFM’s understanding the UCR figure was the result of a reporting error.

Reported Offenses per 100,000 Residents, 2023
Violent Crime Property Crime Total Violent
and
Property
Crime
Criminal
Homicide Rape Robbery
Aggravated
Assault Total Burglary
Larceny-
Theft
Motor
Vehicle
Theft Total
Oakland 27 85 878 809 1,799 890 5,189 3,782 9,862 11,661 Albuquerque 19 54 175 1,066 1,314 670 2,997 1,028 4,695 6,009 Baltimore 41 45 578 908 1,572 445 1,987 1,845 4,277 5,849 Cleveland 38 118 443 1,083 1,682 883 2,444 1,425 4,753 6,435 Fresno 7 49 167 506 729 453 2,002 616 3,070 3,799
Long Beach 6 37 182 394 619 505 1,615 838 2,958 3,577
New Orleans 53 187 180 941 1,361 478 2,771 1,841 5,090 6,451 Sacramento 8 32 226 538 804 523 1,681 703 2,908 3,712
Median (excl. Oakland) 19 49 182 908 1,314 505 2,002 1,028 4,277 5,849 Oakland Rank 4 of 8 3 of 8 1 of 8 5 of 8 1 of 8 1 of 8 1 of 8 1 of 8 1 of 8 1 of 8 © PFM 96
Crime by Patrol Area
2019 through 2023
 Crime increased in each patrol area, at varying rates. The most rapid increase in crime between 2019 and 2023 was
in area 6 which had 50.5 percent more reported crime in 2023 than in 2019 – including 1,021 more motor vehicle
thefts and 866 more burglaries than in 2019.
 In 2023, over one-fifth of violent crimes occurred in Area 4, driven by a high volume of robberies, with 945 compared to an average of 525 across the other patrol areas.
 Nearly two-thirds (61.6 percent) of property crimes in 2023 occurred in areas 1, 2 and 6.
• Areas 1 and 2 combined to account for more than half
(56.6 percent) of reported burglaries that year.
• Area 5 accounted for more than one-fifth (20.5 percent) of reported motor vehicle theft.
 The increase in motor vehicle theft from 2022 to 2023 was widespread across all patrol areas, ranging from 466
additional motor vehicle thefts in Area 6 to 906 in Area 2. 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
% of
2023
CAGR
2019-2023
Area 1 8,149 5,301 7,140 8,995 8,995 20.4% 2.5%
Violent Crime 1,179 1,030 1,045 1,058 1,258 14.0% 1.6%
Property Crime 6,970 4,271 6,095 7,937 7,737 86.0% 2.6% Area 2 6,487 4,761 5,308 7,029 8,959 20.3% 8.4%
Violent Crime 616 534 555 550 821 9.2% 7.4%
Property Crime 5,871 4,227 4,753 6,479 8,138 90.8% 8.5% Area 3 4,956 4,577 4,921 5,504 6,439 14.6% 6.8%
Violent Crime 794 846 1,021 1,020 1,203 18.7% 10.9%
Property Crime 4,162 3,731 3,900 4,484 5,236 81.3% 5.9% Area 4 4,798 4,872 4,852 4,788 5,973 13.6% 5.6%
Violent Crime 1,002 1,088 1,237 1,153 1,505 25.2% 10.7% Property Crime 3,796 3,784 3,615 3,635 4,468 74.8% 4.2% Area 5 4,268 4,639 4,675 4,728 5,727 13.0% 7.6%
Violent Crime 1,167 1,299 1,404 1,134 1,291 22.5% 2.6%
Property Crime 3,101 3,340 3,271 3,594 4,436 77.5% 9.4% Area 6 5,284 4,565 5,218 6,913 7,952 18.1% 10.8%
Violent Crime 963 1,140 1,229 1,077 1,189 15.0% 5.4%
Property Crime 4,321 3,425 3,989 5,836 6,763 85.0% 11.9% Crime Reported in Oakland, by Patrol Area, 2019 through 2023 Source: OPD’s End of Year Crime Report, 2023
© PFM 97
Case Clearances
 OPD’s Criminal Investigations Division reported they do not currently have a system that allows for tracking of all reported cases from when they were reported to their
closure. Reporting information on clearances requires
asking each individual investigator what cases they have cleared and by what means.
 The table to the right summarizes offenses and clearances reported by OPD to the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting
(UCR) program.
 OPD’s clearance rate (the number of cases cleared as a percentage of all reported offenses) for all Part I violent and property crimes decreased by 50 percent from 2.0
percent in 2019 to 1.0 percent in 2023 as total offenses increased during the same period.
• In nearly every Part I crime category, as total offenses increased, OPD cleared fewer cases in 2023 compared
to 2019, with the exception of homicide and aggravated
assault.
• In 2023, OPD cleared just three motor vehicle theft
cases while 16,510 offenses were reported that year.
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 CAGR
Clearance Rate 2.0% 4.4% - 1.5% 1.0% -14.8%
Violent Crime 9.3% 17.3% - 6.5% 6.2% -9.4%
Homicide 52.6% 47.1% - 29.8% 48.7% -1.9%
Rape 16.4% 11.9% - 12.1% 4.6% -27.3%
Robbery 5.6% 18.1% - 1.6% 1.0% -34.7%
Agg Assault 11.3% 16.2% - 9.0% 10.6% -1.4%
Property Crime 0.5% 1.1% - 0.4% 0.1% -35.5%
Burglary 2.2% 1.7% - 0.5% 0.2% -44.4%
Larceny-Theft 0.4% 1.4% - 0.5% 0.1% -25.7%
Motor Vehicle Theft 0.2% 0.5% - 0.2% 0.0% -43.5%
Offenses 33,388 28,275 - 34,253 50,901 11.1%
Violent Crime 5,520 5,653 - 6,516 7,853 9.2%
Homicide 78 102 - 121 119 11.1%
Rape 372 362 - 330 372 0.0%
Robbery 2,859 2,479 - 2,736 3,831 7.6%
Agg Assault 2,211 2,710 - 3,329 3,531 12.4%
Property Crime 27,868 22,622 - 27,737 43,048 11.5%
Burglary 2,599 2,537 - 2,693 3,886 10.6%
Larceny-Theft 20,228 13,373 - 17,347 22,652 2.9%
Motor Vehicle Theft 5,041 6,712 - 7,697 16,510 34.5%
Clearances 661 1,236 - 530 530 -5.4%
Violent Crime 511 978 - 422 490 -1.0%
Homicide 41 48 - 36 58 9.1%
Rape 61 43 - 40 17 -27.3%
Robbery 160 448 - 45 39 -29.7%
Agg Assault 249 439 - 301 376 10.9%
Property Crime 150 258 - 108 40 -28.1%
Burglary 56 44 - 14 8 -38.5%
Larceny-Theft 85 183 - 81 29 -23.6%
Motor Vehicle Theft 9 31 - 13 3 -24.0%
OPD Clearance Rates, Offenses, and Clearances,
Part I Violent and Property Crimes, 2019 through 2023
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reporting.

There is significant concern regarding the accuracy of OPD’s reporting of crime data to the US Department of Justice’s UCR program, including the number of crimes reported and cleared. As a result, the project team adjusted Oakland’s aggravated assault figure to reflect OPD’s own reporting of 3,531 aggravated assault offenses rather than the UCR figure of 11,169, based on PFM’s understanding t he UCR figure was the result of a reporting error.
© PFM 98
Benchmark Clearance Rates
 OPD’s clearance rates are very low relative to other agencies in the comparison group.
 For Part I Violent Crimes (e.g., homicide, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault), OPD averaged a clearance rate of 9.8 percent from 2019 through 2023 – 20 percentage points lower than the average median of the comparison group (29.9 percent) over this period. OPD’s clearance rate ranked last among this group in three of the four years it reported data over this period.
• OPD’s Part I Violent Crime clearance rate also decreased over this period from 9.3 percent in 2019 to 6.2 percent in 2023.  For Part I Property crimes (e.g., burglary, larceny-theft and motor vehicle theft), OPD averaged a clearance rate of 0.5 percent – nearly seven percentage points lower than the average
comparison group median (7.3 percent) over this period. OPD’s clearance rate ranked last among this group in each of the four years it reported data.

Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reporting, Offenses Known to Law Enforcement, 2023. Part I Violent Crimes include homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Part I Property Crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.

Long Beach, Oakland, and Sacramento did not report to UCR in 2021. There is significant concern regarding the accuracy of OPD’s reporting of crime data to the US Department of Justice’s UCR program, including the number of crimes reported and cleared. As a result, the project team adjusted Oakland’s aggravated assault figure to reflect OPD’s own reporting of 3,531 aggravated assault offenses rather than the UCR figure of 11,169, based on PFM’s understanding the UCR figure was the result of a reporting error. 1 See “Differences Between High and Low Performing Police Agencies in Clearing Robberies, Aggravated Assaults, and Burglaries” Cynthis Lum, Charles Wellford, Thomas Scott, Heather Vovak, Jacqueline A. Scherer, and Michael Goodier, Police Quarterly, 2024, Vol 27(2).

Clearance Rates, Part I Crimes, 2019 through 2023
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Part I Violent Crime
Oakland 9.3% 17.3% - 6.5% 6.2%
Albuquerque 31.7% 29.0% 23.6% 19.3% 25.1%
Baltimore 22.7% 24.3% 25.1% 29.5% 34.4%
Cleveland 15.3% 13.0% 13.9% 12.9% 14.4%
Fresno 52.6% 40.3% 28.4% 32.0% 35.6%
Long Beach 39.7% 40.4% - 37.1% 27.2%
New Orleans 30.9% 35.8% 26.2% 22.1% 25.3%
Sacramento 40.4% 40.7% - 37.3% 37.7%
Median (excluding Oakland) 31.7% 35.8% 25.1% 29.5% 27.2% Oakland Rank 8 of 8 7 of 8 - 8 of 8 8 of 8
Part I Property Crime
Oakland 0.5% 1.1% - 0.4% 0.1%
Albuquerque 10.0% 9.0% 6.0% 6.2% 6.4%
Baltimore 3.3% 3.5% 3.5% 4.1% 3.0%
Cleveland 3.1% 3.1% 3.1% 2.7% 2.9%
Fresno 16.2% 12.8% 5.9% 6.6% 8.3%
Long Beach 10.5% 8.6% - 5.7% 3.0%
New Orleans 11.9% 12.7% 11.6% 9.0% 9.4%
Sacramento 6.0% 6.5% - 6.5% 6.0%
Median (excluding Oakland) 10.0% 8.6% 5.9% 6.2% 6.0%
Oakland Rank 8 of 8 8 of 8 - 8 of 8 8 of 8
 Additional staff may or may not help improve investigations clearance rates. Research has suggested that in addition to staffing, a critical factor to improve clearance rates is the effective assignment, management, and supervision of investigators. 1  A detailed table of offenses reported and clearances for each jurisdiction in 2023 is provided in the appendix.
© PFM 99
Calls for Service Response Times
Analysis Approach
 OPD does not regularly measure or report calls for service response times.  PFM used information from OPD’s computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system to calculate response time and its sub- components:
• Wait time – the time between when the call was created in the CAD system to the time an officer was dispatched. This time can be an indicator of the availability of officers to respond to community-generated calls for service. High wait times may indicate that officers were busy clearing other calls before being able to respond. Priority level plays a role in wait times as well – responses to lower priority calls may be delayed in favor of faster response to high priority calls. • Travel time – the time between when the first officer was dispatched and when the first officer arrived on the scene.

This can vary based on the geographic size of areas and priority level • Response time – the total time from when the call was received to when the first officer arrived on the scene. This represents the total time from when the call was created in the CAD system to an OPD response (arrival).  As part of this review, we also include “handling time” which measures the time OPD units spend at the scene of a call.

This is measured from the first unit’s arrival time to the last unit’s clear time.  This analysis focuses on the median response time. The median represents the 50th percentile of the data, or the time at which 50 percent of the calls had a longer response time and 50 percent of the calls had a shorter response time. Outlier data impacts the median less than the average.
 To be included in this analysis, calls must have had a valid creation, dispatch, and arrival time, and a patrol officer unit identified as its primary unit.
© PFM 100
Calls for Service Response Times
Analysis Approach (continued)
 This analysis focuses on priority levels 1 through 3, which accounted for 99.7 percent of total calls analyzed from 2019 through 2022.
 OPD uses five priority levels that identify the urgency of calls. • Priority 0 – the highest priority, reserved for limited incident types involving officer safety and natural or man-made catastrophes
• Priority 1 – situations involving imminent potential for serious injury to persons • Priority 2 – urgent, but not an immediate emergency. This may include in-progress disputes with violence potential, suspects on scene.
• Priority 3 – no cover needed. Calls with this priority level include non-emergencies, cold reports, and other calls with no indication of danger to life and/or property.
• Priority 4 – non-emergency assignments, which may include phone reports and abandoned autos. © PFM 101
Calls for Service Response Times
Median Response Time, by Priority Level
 Median response time increased at each priority level (1 through 3) from 2019 to 2022. • At each priority level, both components of response time (wait time and travel time) increased.  Median response time to Priority 1 calls increased by about three minutes from 2019 to 2022. For priority 2 and 3 calls, median response time increased by over one hour (62 minutes, and 85 minutes, respectively).  The median wait time nearly doubled for Priority 2 calls from 2019 to 2022.  In 2022, median handling time was about equal to its 2019 value for priority 1 calls, but increased by nearly five minutes for priority 2 calls and by nearly 10 minutes for priority 3 calls.

Median Response Time in Minutes, by Priority Level 2019 through 2022 2019 2020 2021 2022 CAGR
Priority 1
Calls 33,477 34,425 40,586 39,771 6%
Wait Time 1.6 1.7 1.9 2.3 14%
Travel Time 5.9 6.4 7.0 7.2 7%
Response Time 8.6 9.5 10.9 11.6 11%
Handling Time 55.9 56.0 52.8 55.7 0%
Priority 2
Calls 76,341 62,745 58,878 54,622 -11%
Wait Time 69.2 79.8 103.8 121.9 21%
Travel Time 6.7 7.3 8.0 8.3 7%
Response Time 85.3 99.3 126.7 146.9 20%
Handling Time 18.1 21.1 21.9 22.7 8%
Priority 3
Calls 11,817 8,668 8,206 7,980 -12%
Wait Time 355.1 390.5 428.2 429.8 7%
Travel Time 7.0 7.5 8.3 8.9 8%
Response Time 389.0 433.5 482.8 473.6 7%
Handling Time 23.9 28.8 30.8 33.3 12%
© PFM 102
Calls for Service Response Times
Median Response Time, by BFO and
Priority Level
 At each priority level, response times were longer in BFO 2 than in BFO 1.
• Each BFO had similar travel times, but wait times were higher in BFO 2, especially at priority levels 2 and 3. • In 2022, the median wait time for a priority 2 call in BFO 2 was 209 minutes – more than two hours (129 minutes)
greater than the same priority level in BFO 1.
• The median wait time at priority level 3 in BFO 2 was over six hours (400 minutes) longer than the median wait time in BFO 2
 BFO 2 handled more priority 1 calls (21,636 compared to 18,118 in 2022). These high-priority calls also represented a greater share of total calls in BFO 2 compared to BFO 1 (43.3 percent, compared to 34.6 percent).
 High wait times may indicate that officers were often unavailable to be dispatched to a call. This could be because officers are already assigned more severe calls when non- emergency calls like those in priority 3 are received.
 Handling times were similar and increased in each BFO, with handling time increasing at the fastest rate for priority 3 calls.  Priority 2 and Priority 3 call volumes decreased across both BFOs at the same time as wait times increased in each BFO for those priority level calls.

BFO 1 Median Response Time by Priority (minutes)
2019 2020 2021 2022 CAGR
Priority 1
Calls 15,444 14,871 17,811 18,118 5%
Wait Time 1.4 1.4 1.8 2.0 12%
Travel Time 5.6 6.2 7.1 7.2 9%
Response Time 8.0 8.7 10.6 11.0 11%
Handling Time 55.4 56.9 55.3 55.2 0%
Priority 2
Calls 37,956 30,718 30,103 29,763 -8%
Wait Time 48.6 49.5 67.8 80.2 18%
Travel Time 6.5 7.5 8.2 8.4 8%
Response Time 62.5 66.3 86.6 100.0 17%
Handling Time 19.3 23.8 24.2 23.5 7%
Priority 3
Calls 6,067 4,422 4,163 4,424 -10%
Wait Time 239.4 232.2 279.4 285.8 6%
Travel Time 7.1 8.5 9.5 9.4 10%
Response Time 268.2 267.6 327.0 325.3 7%
Handling Time 23.9 30.5 33.5 31.4 10%
BFO 2 Median Response Time by Priority (minutes)
2019 2020 2021 2022 CAGR
Priority 1
Calls 18,011 19,531 22,760 21,636 6%
Wait Time 1.7 2.0 2.1 2.7 16%
Travel Time 6.1 6.5 6.9 7.2 6%
Response Time 9.2 10.2 11.2 12.3 10%
Handling Time 56.4 55.2 50.9 55.9 0%
Priority 2
Calls 38,358 32,009 28,760 24,832 -13%
Wait Time 98.4 129.4 162.5 209.4 29%
Travel Time 6.8 7.0 7.8 8.2 6%
Response Time 118.8 155.7 193.1 244.1 27%
Handling Time 16.9 18.4 19.1 21.5 8%
Priority 3
Calls 5,748 4,242 4,042 3,554 -15%
Wait Time 524.8 631.9 617.3 686.1 9%
Travel Time 6.9 6.6 7.2 8.4 7%
Response Time 566.6 685.0 673.0 746.5 10%
Handling Time 23.9 27.3 27.6 35.7 14%
© PFM 103
Calls for Service Response Times
Median Response Time to Priority 1 Calls, CY 2022, by BFO and Hour  Response times to calls received between 2:00pm and 3:00pm spiked significantly. This may be a result of shift changes.

Response to calls at the end of shifts may be delayed so they can be taken by officers working the shift that is about to transition on.
 Response times were also high from 6:00am to 7:00am due to OPD’s practice at the beginning and end of shifts. • OPD leadership reported that officers are expected to be at their patrol beats one hour after their shift begins. Officers are also typically called back to the station about one hour before their shift ends for report review. • In practice, this means that during shift changes, there may only be one watch cohort patrolling an entire BFO. • Using BFO 1 as an example, this means that between 6:00am and 7:00am, Patrol Area 1 and 3’s first watch is in the station preparing to be at their beats by 7:00am, while its third watches are returning to the station for report review. This leaves Area 2’s third watch as the only patrol shift operating in BFO 1 between 6:00am and 7:00am. • In BFO 2, a similar occurrence takes place during the 7:00am hour.

BFO 1 and 2 Median Response Time to Priority 1 Calls, by Hour Received 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Response Time (Minutes)
Hour of Day
BFO 1 BFO 2
© PFM 104
Calls for Service Response Times
Median Response Time to Priority 1 Calls, CY 2022. by BFO and Hour (continued)  The chart on the previous slide has been overlayed with the number of shifts active each hour of the day.  Shifts active have been adjusted to reflect the OPD practice at the start and end of a shift (officers in the station for the first and the last hour of a scheduled shift).
 When the number of shifts working was at its lowest (at 6:00am and 7:00am), median response time spiked. Median response time spiked again at 2:00pm in both BFOs, just before an influx of new shifts.

BFO 1 and 2 Median Response Time to Priority 1 Calls, by Hour Received, CY 2022 And Active Shifts by Hour
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7

0.0 5.0

10.0 15.0

20.0 25.0

30.0 35.0

40.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Shifts Active
Response Time (Minutes)
Hour of Day
BFO 1 BFO 2
© PFM 105
Specialized/Tactical Unit Responses
 When asked for metrics used to evaluate the performance of tactical and specialized units, OPD pointed the project team to OPD’s annual reports.
 OPD’s annual reports summarize “significant accomplishments” for each unit within the Support Operations Section, where OPD’s specialized and tactical units reside in the organization. • It is unclear whether specific metrics are used to indicate the effectiveness of OPD’s tactical and specialized units.

Many of the accomplishments listed in the annual reports lacked specificity. For example, an annual report noted that the Tactical Operations Team “participated in numerous planned and unplanned high-risk operations,” but did not provide a number of operations performed.
• For other units, some specific metrics are reported. These metrics are summarized in the following table.

Unit Metric 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Air Support Felony Arrests 403 500+ 370 578 500+
Sideshow Operations 50 68 94 114 100+
VCOC & Ceasefire Operations - - - 123 100+
OFD Fire Scene Assists 14 20 33 46 -
Guns Recovered - - 146 -
Alcohol Beverage
Action Team
Locations assessed/monitored for
compliance
700 450 450 470 400+
Cannabis Licensee inspections - - 80 80 80
Cease and Desist inspections - - 50 50 50
Crisis Intervention
Training
OPD Personnel Trained
- - - 41 100+
Courses offered to officers - 9 9 8 10
Unhoused Outreach
Unit
Encampment Interventions 102 26 150 150 100
Note: in the table above, “-” indicates a specific value was not reported in that year’s annual report. OPD’s 2023 annual report was not published at the time of this report. PFM was provided a draft of the 2023 Support Operations Section.

Support Operations Section Significant Accomplishments, According to OPD Annual Reports, 2019 – 2023 © PFM 106
OPD Partnerships
With the Community and Other City Departments
 OPD partners with the community and other city departments through its Ceasefire program and its Community Resource Officers.
 OPD’s Ceasefire program operates as a partnership between several groups to reduce gun violence in Oakland.

OPD’s partners in this program include the City’s Department of Violence Prevention, community-based violence intervention, and faith-based organizations.
 The program identifies high-risk individuals and issues direct communications to them, steering them toward social and violence prevention services. Contact is made with those individuals through custom notifications and by holding larger group “call-in” meetings.
 From 2019 to 2023, the program's total contacts increased, reaching its highest level over the five-year period in 2023 with 323 contacts, including 262 custom notifications and 61 call-in participants. 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
CAGR
2019-2023
Custom Notifications 259 91 137 169 262 0.3%
Call-in Participants 47 27 39 70 61 6.7%
Total 306 118 176 239 323 1.4%
Ceasefire Contacts, 2019 through 2023
Source: OPD Data.
© PFM 107
OPD Arrests
By Offense, CY 2019 through CY 2023
 The top 10 offense categories by number of arrests made in CY 2023 accounted for 88.7 percent of arrests that year. • Violent offenses, including assault, aggravated assault, and robbery, accounted for 43.0 percent of OPD arrests in CY 2023.
 OPD made 1,800 fewer arrests in CY 2023 than in CY 2019 – a decline of 24.0 percent. The number of warrant arrests drove this decline, decreasing by nearly half (47 percent). • In CY 2023, compared to CY 2019, there were 395 (66.6 percent) fewer local misdemeanor bench warrant arrests and 244 (61.3 percent) fewer outside felony warrant arrests.  Outside the top 10 offense categories (grouped within “All Other” in the table), arrests related to drug abuse, contempt of court, and runaways led the decline.

Offense 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
% of
2023
Total
CAGR
2019-2023
Assault 1,404 1,206 983 873 1,270 22.2% -2.5%
Aggravated Assault 872 1,029 960 981 967 16.9% 2.6%
Warrant 1,708 1,056 1,210 1,303 897 15.7% -14.9%
Larceny Theft 716 756 531 620 814 14.2% 3.3%
Weapons 295 384 350 388 283 4.9% -1.0%
Robbery 341 294 255 271 225 3.9% -9.9%
Burglary 227 314 161 144 174 3.0% -6.4%
DUI 284 218 175 135 173 3.0% -11.7%
Vandalism 75 107 101 115 165 2.9% 21.8%
Prostitution/Vice 367 155 219 191 114 2.0% -25.3%
All Other 1,240 987 655 596 647 11.3% -15.0%
Total 7,529 6,506 5,600 5,617 5,729 -6.6%
Source: OPD arrest data.

OPD Arrests by Most Serious Offense, Top 10 Offense Types, CY 2019 through CY 2023 © PFM 108
OPD Arrests
By Race and Ethnicity, 2019 through 2023
 By race and ethnicity, black arrestees declined at the fastest rate from 2019 to 2023, showing a 32.8 percent decline over this period, or a compound annual decrease of 9.5 percent.
• The decline in black arrestees was mostly in the warrant arrests category, with 504 fewer black arrestees in 2023 compared to 2019.
• The number of black individuals arrested for drug abuse decreased by 207 over this period – arrests related to possession of drugs or drug paraphernalia accounted for a decline of 123 arrests.  In 2023, 52.6 percent of OPD arrestees were black and 30.0 percent were Hispanic, combining for 82.5 percent of total OPD arrests. • In 2023, the top three offense type categories among black arrestees accounted for more than 55 percent of total arrests of black individuals: assault (22.3 percent), warrant (16.7 percent), and aggravated assault (16.4 percent). • The top three offense type categories among Hispanic arrestees accounted for more than 56 percent of total arrests of Hispanic individuals: assault (20.8 percent), aggravated assault (19.0 percent) and larceny-theft (16.3 percent).

Source: OPD arrest data.
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
% of 2023
Total
CAGR
2019-2023
Black 4,486 3,772 3,184 3,181 3,013 52.6% -9.5%
Hispanic 1,807 1,693 1,520 1,511 1,716 30.0% -1.3%
White 727 593 499 529 552 9.6% -6.7%
Asian/Pacific Islander 349 332 298 308 330 5.8% -1.4%
Other 97 68 50 55 73 1.3% -6.9%
Unknown 63 48 49 33 45 0.8% -8.1%
Total 7,529 6,506 5,600 5,617 5,729 -6.6%
OPD Arrests by Race and Ethnicity, CY 2019 through CY 2023 © PFM 109
OPD Workload-Based
Baseline Patrol Staffing Analysis
© PFM 110
OPD Workload-Based Patrol Staffing Analysis
Methodology
© PFM 111
 Workload-based staffing analyses use data on actual patrol workload to estimate the staffing required to meet a community’s demand for patrol service. The approach used in this report was based on a methodology published by the U.S. Department of Justice and implemented in police departments nationwide.
1  PFM’s analysis of OPD patrol staffing included a review of key data and assumptions that drive the results of the workload-based patrol staffing assessment, including:
• Staffing schedules and availability – This included reviewing actual leave use per officer and leave benefit terms to develop assumptions regarding patrol officer time away from patrol duty.
• Officer workload – This included reviewing the calls for service describing the temporal distribution of calls, the nature and frequency of calls, and the time officers committed to community-generated calls for service to generate assumptions regarding the time officers spend responding to each call.
• Officer time allocation – Workload analysis breaks a patrol officer’s shift time into three categories: (1) time allocated for answering community-generated calls for service, (2) time allocated for proactive work, and (3) time for breaks and completion of administrative tasks.

Patrol Workload-Based Staffing Analysis
Provide staffing estimates.

Establish performance objectives.

Calculate the shift-relief factor.

Estimate the time consumed on calls
for service.

Examine the nature and frequency of
calls.

Examine distribution of community-
generated CFS.
1 “A Performance-based Approach to Police Staffing and Allocation,” Jeremy M. Wilson and Alexander Weiss https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/ric/Publications/cops-p247-pub.pdf. © PFM 112
 Analysis of officer workload was primarily based on calls for service data provided from OPD’s Computer-Aided Dispatch (CAD) system.
 Data including all OPD calls and each unit responding to each call was provided for calendar years 2019 through 2023.
 As part of processing this data, PFM grouped calls into two major categories:
• Community-Generated calls are calls that that the CAD system indicated originated from calls or texts to 911 or calls on cell phones to OPD’s direct dial 3211 (emergency) or 3333 (non-emergency) lines. This call category is meant to represent calls for service to which the community requested a response. • Self-Initiated calls are calls that the CAD system indicated were initiated by a field unit. These include responses to incidents units may witness while in the field. A traffic stop is a common example of a self-initiated call.  Data was further analyzed to identify the types of units responding to calls. This analysis focuses only on events to which at least one patrol officer unit responded.
 A key limitation of this analysis was the lack of unit-level information for calls for service beyond 2022. • A majority of calls in 2023 and in 2024 data (January-April) had no unit-level information logged in CAD. • Without unit-level information, the types of units responding to calls and the time those units spent responding to calls could not be identified.
• As a result, data for 2023 and beyond was not used in this analysis.

Methodology
Calls for Service Data
Notes: Calls with sources “911,” “911 Call,” “Text to 911,” and “Default – Phone Init” were grouped as Community-Generated.

Calls with sources “MDT-Initiated,” and “Field Initiated By D” were grouped as Self-Initiated.

OPD General Order I-7, updated March 28, 2012 was used to identify units as patrol officers by their unit IDs. © PFM 113
Methodology
Call Categories
 To contextualize OPD call types, every call type was assigned to one of 14 categories that align with those used in a national review of police workload.1
• While there is no nationally recognized standard for comparing and categorizing calls for service, PFM’s methodology follows a nationally-accepted study. The categorizations of OPD call types were reviewed by – and finalized with input from – OPD.
• For more information on these categories and how each OPD call type was assigned, please see the Appendix. 1 Lum, C., Koper, C. S., & Wu, X. (2022). Can We Really Defund the Police? A Nine-Agency Study of Police Response to Calls for Service. Police Quarterly, 25(3), 255-280.

1. Administrative, organization-related, and non-crime events (or “Admin”)

2. Alarms

3. Vice

4. Disorder

5. Domestic-related

6. Follow-ups and service requests (or “Follow-up/Service”)

7. Mental

8. Medical

9. Missing Persons

10. Violence

11. Interpersonal-other

12. Property

13. Suspicions

14. Traffic-related
© PFM 114
 The resulting total calls for service showed a calls for service decline of 18.3 percent (from 187,304 in 2019 to 152,938 in 2022).
• Self-initiated calls declined at a greater rate than community-generated calls. • Self-initiated calls declined by 29.5 percent over this period, while community-generated calls declined by 15.4 percent.

Calls for Service
By Type, 2019 through 2022
Notes: Calls with sources “911,” “911 Call,” “Text to 911,” and “Default – Phone Init” were grouped as Community-Generated.

Calls with sources “MDT-Initiated,” and “Field Initiated By D” were grouped as Self-Initiated.

OPD General Order I-7, updated March 28 2012 was used to identify units as patrol officers by their unit IDs. 2019 2020 2021 2022 CAGR
Community-Generated 148,296 129,694 130,716 125,427 -5.4% Self-Initiated 39,008 29,628 25,775 27,511 -11.0%
Total 187,304 159,322 156,491 152,938 -6.5%
OPD Calls for Service with Patrol Officer Unit Response, by Type, 2019 through 2022 © PFM 115
 Community-generated calls for service volume was stable across months in 2022 and showed a similar trend in 2019 through 2021, although at higher volumes.

Community-Generated Calls for Service
By Month, 2019 through 2022
COVID-19
0 2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
2019 2020 2021 2022
OPD Community-Generated Calls for Service by Month, 2019 through 2022 © PFM 116
 Community-generated calls for service volume was also stable across days of the week in 2022 and showed a similar trend in 2019 through 2021, although at higher volumes.

Community-Generated Calls for Service
By Day of Week, 2019 through 2022
OPD Community-Generated Calls for Service per Day, 2019 through 2022 200
250
300
350
400
450
2019 2020 2021 2022
© PFM 117
 In 2022, by hour of day, community-generated calls for service volume was lowest in the early morning hours (1:00am through 6:00am), then increased rapidly from 6:00am to 9:00am, remaining high for the remainder of the day. • This pattern was seen in each year analyzed, with generally higher volumes in previous years.

Community-Generated Calls for Service
By Hour, 2019 through 2022
0 5
10 15
20 25
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Calls per Hour
Hour of Day
2019 2020 2021 2022
OPD Community-Generated Calls for Service per Hour, 2019 through 2022 © PFM 118
OPD Workload-Based Patrol Staffing Analysis
Patrol Officer Staffing and Availability
© PFM 119
Patrol Staffing and Scheduling
 OPD operates its patrol function across two bureaus – Bureau of Field Operations 1 (BFO 1) and Bureau of Field Operations 2 (BFO 2), each led by a Deputy Chief reporting to the Assistant Chief of Police.  Each bureau contains three patrol areas. Each area is led by a Captain.  Each area operates three shifts:
• First watch is a 10-hour shift from 6:00am/7:00am to 4:00pm/5:00pm • Second watch is a 12-hour shift from 2:00pm to 2:00am • Third watch is a 10-hour shift from 9:00pm/10:00pm to 7:00am/8:00am  Each shift has two sides (A and B) which rotate days on and off. Each side of each shift is assigned a Lieutenant and Sergeant to supervise its officers.
© PFM 120
Patrol Staffing and Scheduling
Shifts at Beats vs In Station
 OPD leadership reported that officers are expected to be at their patrol beats one hour after their shift begins. Officers are also typically called back to the station for report review about one hour before their shift ends.  This practice results in fewer officers at beats at certain hours than would appear based on shift start and end times.  Throughout this analysis, when comparing the number of officers scheduled each hour to call volume in that hour, the number of officers is adjusted to reflect the number of officers at beats and excludes officers in the station as those officers are not as available to handle calls.
 This practice has the greatest impact at 6:00am and 7:00am, when only three of the total nine scheduled shifts are at their beats and six in station. During the 6:00am hour, only one shift (Area 2’s Third Watch) is at beats in BFO 1.

During the 7:00am hour, Area 5’s Third Watch is the only shift at beats in BFO 2. 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Shifts
Hour of Day
Shifts at Beats Shifts in Station
Patrol Shifts at Beats and in Station, by Hour of Day
© PFM 121
Patrol Staffing and Scheduling
Officers at Beats vs Community-Generated Call Volume by Hour  The current OPD patrol schedule results in mostly stable staffing levels throughout the day. • Under full budgeted staffing, an average of 55.4 officers would be scheduled to work per hour. • Staffing levels vary throughout the day, including relatively low staffing at the 6:00am and 7:00am hours when most shifts are in station and increased staffing when shifts overlap – especially from 10:00pm to 1:00am when Second and Third Watches overlap.
 This staffing pattern does not reflect the trend in 2022 community-generated call volume per hour. • For example, from 1:00am through 5:00am, the average calls received was 9.6 per hour, while from 8:00am through 2:00pm the average calls per hour increased by more than two-thirds (67.6 percent) to 16.0. The average officers scheduled to be at beats is 53.7 during both periods.

Officers Schedule to be at Beats and Community-Generated Call Volume, Average, by Hour of Day
Note: Analysis based on patrol schedule as of September 2024 and 2022 community-generated call volume.

Analysis assumes full budgeted staffing.
0 5
10 15
20 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920212223
Average Calls Received
Avg Officers Scheduled
Hour of Day
Avg Officers at Beats Avg Calls Received
© PFM 122
Patrol Staffing and Scheduling
Officers Scheduled at Beats per Community-Generated Call by Hour and Day  When comparing full budgeted officer staffing per hour to 2022 community-generated call volume per hour, OPD averaged 4.2 officers scheduled per call.
 In the table to the right, this ratio is shown each hour on each day of week. Red shading indicates hours of relatively low staffing of officers per call while green shading indicates relatively high officer staffing per call.
 Officers per call varied by day of week and by hour of day. • Despite similar call volume each day of the week, because of the rotation of on and off days for each side of each shift, some days of the week have more shifts working than others. Friday had the most shifts working (22), while Tuesday and Wednesday had the lowest (18). This is reflected in the average officers per call on these days, which was 4.6 on Friday and 3.8 on Tuesday and Wednesday. • By hour, officers per call were generally highest in the early morning hours of midnight through 5:00am and lowest in the 7:00am hour, at

2.4 officers per call on average across the week.
• The 6:00am and 7:00am hours were when most shifts scheduled to work were in the station, and call volume began to increase.

Note: Analysis based on patrol schedule as of September 2024, FY 2025 budgeted staffing, and 2022 community -generated call volume.

Officers Scheduled to be at Beats per Community-Generated Call, Average, by Hour of Day and Day of Week
Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Avg
0 6.1 7.1 7.4 8.3 9.1 8.6 6.3 7.6
1 3.4 4.7 4.4 4.3 5.2 5.8 3.9 4.5
2 3.9 5.3 5.2 5.3 6.2 6.5 4.2 5.2
3 4.5 5.8 6.3 5.9 6.5 7.2 5.0 5.9
4 5.3 7.0 6.1 6.2 7.2 8.2 6.2 6.6
5 5.9 8.1 6.6 6.3 7.3 8.3 6.9 7.0
6 4.2 2.9 2.6 2.6 2.7 4.7 3.0 3.2
7 2.5 2.7 2.0 1.9 2.6 2.2 3.0 2.4
8 4.7 3.9 3.0 3.4 3.8 4.6 4.9 4.1
9 3.8 3.2 2.6 2.7 3.2 3.5 3.7 3.2
10 3.9 3.4 2.6 2.7 3.4 3.7 4.0 3.4
11 3.5 3.3 2.5 2.5 3.0 3.7 3.6 3.1
12 3.6 3.3 2.6 2.7 3.2 3.9 3.4 3.2
13 3.8 3.2 2.8 2.9 3.4 3.8 3.4 3.3
14 3.7 3.4 2.7 2.9 3.3 3.9 3.9 3.4
15 4.7 3.8 3.8 3.9 3.9 4.9 4.2 4.2
16 3.0 2.4 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.7 3.0 2.7
17 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.4 2.7 3.0 2.8
18 2.8 2.7 2.9 2.7 2.6 2.7 3.0 2.8
19 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7
20 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.6 2.8 2.6 3.2 2.8
21 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.7 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.7
22 4.0 5.0 4.6 4.4 4.6 4.1 4.8 4.5
23 6.5 6.7 6.3 6.3 7.0 6.4 5.5 6.4
Avg 3.9 4.1 3.8 3.8 4.2 4.6 4.1 4.1
© PFM 123
Patrol Officer Availability
Average Hours of Leave Used, by Category, CY 2023
 Actual CY 2023 leave use for officers assigned to patrol areas with one year of service completed entering 2023 was analyzed to produce an estimate of how much leave is taken by an average OPD patrol officer.

This totaled 306 patrol officers
 These officers used an average of approximately 357 hours of leave.  Types of leave were grouped into categories for analysis.  Most hours of leave were in the vacation and sick leave categories, followed by workers compensation.
• Administrative leave for disciplinary purposes had the fifth-most average hours used per officer.

Hours
Vacation 109.4
Sick 78.7
Workers Comp 58.6
Comp Time 50.4
Administrative Leave 47.6
Military Leave 7.3
Other Leave 2.9
Family Death Leave 2.6
Total 357.4
Average Hours of Leave Used by
Patrol Officers, CY 2023
Note: Analysis includes all police officers assigned to patrol areas according to leave data. This may include Officers that did were assigned to those areas in non-patrol functions. Leave data did not allow for specific analysis of Officers assigned to patrol.
© PFM 124
Patrol Officer Shift Relief Factor
 Each patrol post on each shift is staffed 365 days per year, totaling 3,650 hours per year for 10-hour shifts and 4,380 hours per year for 12-hour shifts.
 After adjusting for regularly scheduled days off, average hours of leave used, and time spent in training, officers were estimated to be available to work about 1,793 hours on 12-hour shifts and 1,688 hours on 10-hour shifts. • This is equivalent to officers being available to work 80.8 percent of their scheduled 10-hour shifts and 81.7 percent of their scheduled 12-hour shifts.
 The shift relief factor, ranging from 2.17 (10-hour shifts on First and Third Watch) to 2.45 (12-hour shifts on Second Watch), represents the number of officers that should be assigned to one post on one shift to ensure it is staffed year- round.
 The goal of staffing estimates produced by this study is to understand the staff OPD needs to meet its current workload – assuming no changes to policy, operations, or organization.

Shift Relief Factor, by Shift Length
12hrs 10hrs
Post Coverage Needed 4,380 3,650
Regular Time Off (2,190) (1,564)
Total Annual Officer Working Hours 2,190 2,086
Leave (357) (357)
Training (71) (71)
Net Annual Officer Working Hours 1,761 1,657
Shift Relief Factor (Post Coverage divided by Net) 2.49 2.20 Note: This analysis assumes 44 hours of required training per officer, per year, based on OPD input. © PFM 125
Patrol Staffing and Scheduling
Officers Available at Beats per Community-Generated Call by Hour and Day  In the table to the right, the previous comparison of budgeted officers scheduled to be at beats per call
received in 2022 is adjusted to reflect availability of 81.0 percent, based on the shift relief factor analysis.
 The average of 4.1 officers scheduled to be at beats
per 2022 average call received per hour declined to

3.3 officers available after considering time on leave
and in training per year.

Analysis based on patrol schedule as of September 2024, FY 2025 budgeted staffing, and 2022 community -generated call volume.

Estimated Officers Available to be at Beats per Community-Generated Call, Average, by Hour of Day and Day of Week
Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Avg
0 5.0 5.8 6.0 6.7 7.4 6.9 5.1 6.1
1 2.8 3.8 3.6 3.5 4.2 4.7 3.2 3.7
2 3.1 4.3 4.2 4.3 5.0 5.3 3.4 4.2
3 3.7 4.7 5.1 4.8 5.3 5.8 4.1 4.8
4 4.3 5.6 4.9 5.0 5.8 6.6 5.0 5.3
5 4.7 6.6 5.4 5.1 5.9 6.7 5.6 5.7
6 3.4 2.4 2.1 2.1 2.2 3.8 2.4 2.6
7 2.1 2.2 1.6 1.5 2.1 1.8 2.4 2.0
8 3.8 3.2 2.5 2.8 3.1 3.8 4.0 3.3
9 3.1 2.6 2.1 2.2 2.6 2.9 3.0 2.6
10 3.1 2.7 2.1 2.2 2.8 3.0 3.2 2.7
11 2.8 2.7 2.0 2.0 2.5 3.0 2.9 2.5
12 2.9 2.6 2.1 2.2 2.6 3.2 2.8 2.6
13 3.1 2.6 2.3 2.3 2.7 3.1 2.8 2.7
14 3.0 2.7 2.2 2.3 2.7 3.2 3.1 2.8
15 3.8 3.1 3.1 3.2 3.2 3.9 3.4 3.4
16 2.4 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.1
17 2.2 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.2
18 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.4 2.2
19 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.2 2.2
20 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.1 2.3 2.1 2.6 2.3
21 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.1 2.2
22 3.3 4.1 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.4 3.9 3.7
23 5.3 5.4 5.1 5.1 5.6 5.2 4.5 5.2
Avg 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.1 3.4 3.7 3.3 3.3
© PFM 126
OPD Workload-Based Patrol Staffing Analysis
Patrol Officer Workload
© PFM 127
Community-Generated Calls for Service
By Category, OPD Total, 2019 through 2022
 Total community-generated calls decreased at a CAGR of

5.4 percent from 148,296 in 2019 to 125,427 in 2022.
 The overall decrease in volume over this period was
driven by decreases in calls in the Disorder and Admin
categories.
• Disorder’s decrease was the result of fewer “Disturbing the Peace” calls including its sub-categories of
“investigate trouble” and “threats.”
• Admin’s decrease was driven by fewer 911 hang up
calls (with no further description).
 Calls in the Violence category increased most over this period. The most common call type in this category is
Battery, but the category’s increase was driven by
“Disturbing the Peace – Shot Spotter” calls which
increased by 3,272 calls from 2019 to 2022.
 In 2022, more than half of community-generated calls to which patrol officers responded (52.3 percent) were in the Violence, Disorder, or Property categories.
2019 2020 2021 2022
% of
2022 CAGR
Violence 24,264 25,826 27,955 26,523 21.1% 3.0%
Disorder 34,877 30,935 28,408 26,186 20.9% -9.1%
Property 13,333 11,664 11,809 12,858 10.3% -1.2%
Admin 16,630 10,056 10,119 11,534 9.2% -11.5%
Traffic-related 13,742 11,384 12,098 10,501 8.4% -8.6%
Alarms 12,281 8,963 9,421 9,544 7.6% -8.1%
Mental 8,544 8,056 8,266 7,556 6.0% -4.0%
Follow-up/Service 7,497 6,913 6,997 6,989 5.6% -2.3%
Suspicious 5,837 5,293 5,593 4,843 3.9% -6.0%
Domestic-related 5,580 5,272 5,079 4,591 3.7% -6.3%
Medical 2,034 2,158 2,314 2,192 1.7% 2.5%
Missing Persons 1,090 913 964 954 0.8% -4.3%
Vice 2,102 1,910 1,313 805 0.6% -27.4%
Interpersonal-other 485 351 380 351 0.3% -10.2%
Total 148,296 129,694 130,716 125,427 -5.4%
Community-Generated Calls, by Category, 2019 through 2022 Note: calls indicating breaks, broadcasts, emergency radio traffic, and beat information and report review are excluded.

This time is accounted for elsewhere in the workload model. © PFM 128
Community-Generated Calls
By Category and BFO, 2019 through 2022
 During this period, call volume declined faster in BFO 2 (CAGR of 6.9 percent) than in BFO 1 (4.0 percent).
 In 2022, there were about 3.8 percent more calls in BFO 1 than in BFO 2. The nature of calls varied between BFOs:
• BFO 1’s call volume was characterized by more calls in the Disorder, Admin, and Mental categories. In 2022,
compared to BFO 2, BFO 1 had:
• 2,192 (18.3 percent) more calls in the Disorder
category.
• 1,424 (46.5 percent) more calls in the Mental category – primarily “Insanity” calls.
• 1,250 (24.4 percent) more calls in the Admin category – primarily “911 call from cell phone” and “evaluate” calls. • BFO 2’s call volume was characterized by more Violence and Domestic-related calls.
• 4,543 (41.4 percent) more calls in the Violence
category – primarily Shot Spotter and Battery calls
• 1,202 (71.0 percent) more calls in the Domestic-related category – primarily “Disturbing the Peace – Family”
calls.

Note: calls indicating breaks, broadcasts, emergency radio traffic, and beat information and report review are excluded.

Data did not include sufficient information to determine BFO/Area/Beat for all calls, including 91 calls in 2022. “Evaluate” calls are those for which a dispatcher determines an officer needs to evaluate and assess a situation to determine next steps.

BFO 1
2019 2020 2021 2022
% of
2022 CAGR
Disorder 17,223 15,142 14,475 14,182 22.2% -6.3%
Violence 10,012 9,502 10,754 10,978 17.2% 3.1%
Property 6,575 5,634 5,799 6,808 10.7% 1.2%
Admin 8,642 5,308 5,611 6,374 10.0% -9.6%
Alarms 6,441 4,684 4,988 5,237 8.2% -6.7%
Traffic-related 6,599 5,061 5,633 5,223 8.2% -7.5%
Mental 4,898 4,689 5,001 4,489 7.0% -2.9%
Follow-up/Service 3,743 3,557 3,569 3,850 6.0% 0.9%
Suspicious 3,016 2,695 2,927 2,626 4.1% -4.5%
Domestic-related 1,817 1,780 1,808 1,694 2.7% -2.3%
Medical 1,018 996 1,162 1,135 1.8% 3.7%
Vice 1,293 1,166 891 576 0.9% -23.6%
Missing Persons 470 369 406 424 0.7% -3.4%
Interpersonal-other 298 197 240 231 0.4% -8.1%
Total 72,045 60,780 63,264 63,827 -4.0%
BFO 2
2019 2020 2021 2022
% of
2022 CAGR
Violence 14,222 16,303 17,181 15,521 25.2% 3.0%
Disorder 17,645 15,789 13,925 11,990 19.5% -12.1%
Property 6,754 6,027 6,006 6,045 9.8% -3.6%
Traffic-related 7,138 6,320 6,458 5,271 8.6% -9.6%
Admin 7,953 4,709 4,478 5,124 8.3% -13.6%
Alarms 5,840 4,278 4,433 4,307 7.0% -9.7%
Follow-up/Service 3,752 3,354 3,425 3,138 5.1% -5.8%
Mental 3,645 3,364 3,263 3,065 5.0% -5.6%
Domestic-related 3,763 3,491 3,270 2,896 4.7% -8.4%
Suspicious 2,821 2,596 2,665 2,217 3.6% -7.7%
Medical 1,016 1,159 1,152 1,056 1.7% 1.3%
Missing Persons 620 544 558 530 0.9% -5.1%
Vice 809 744 422 229 0.4% -34.3%
Interpersonal-other 186 154 140 120 0.2% -13.6%
Total 76,164 68,832 67,376 61,509 -6.9%
Community-Generated Calls, by Category, 2019 through 2022 © PFM 129
Community-Generated Calls
Category Share of Call Volume within Each Area, CY 2022  The composition of community-generated call volume
varied among areas, with the greatest differences in CY 2022 seen in the Violence, Disorder, and Alarms
categories.
• Areas 5 and 6 had 26.6 percent and 25.6 percent of
their calls, respectively, in the Violence category –
more than double Area 2 at 12.6 percent. Areas 5 and
6 each had more than 5,500 “Disturbing the Peace –
Shot Spotter” calls compared to an average of 2,110
across the other patrol areas.
• Area 1 had 24.3 percent of its calls in the Disorder
category, compared to 18.2 percent in Area 6.
• Area 2 had 11.6 percent of its calls in the Alarms
category, compared to Area 5 at 6.0 percent.

Note: calls indicating breaks, broadcasts, emergency radio traffic, and beat information and report review are excluded.

Data did not include sufficient information to determine BFO/Area/Beat for all calls, including 91 calls in 2022.

Share of Area Call Volume, by Category, CY 2022
Area 1
Area 2
Area 2
Area 5
Area 5
Area 6
Area 6

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%
Violence Disorder Alarms
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
© PFM 130
Community-Generated Calls for Service
Hours Spent by Officers, By Category, CY 2019 through CY 2022  Although call volume declined from 2019 to 2022, the total time officers spent responding to calls increased at a
compound annual rate of 1.4 percent, from 243,864 hours in 2019 to 254,000 hours in 2022.
 OPD officers spent more than one-third (35.7 percent) of their time responding to community-generated calls
on calls in the Violence category in 2022 – equivalent
to 137 FTE.
 Violence also saw the greatest increase in officer time over this period. Officers spent 13,925 more hours responding to calls in this category in 2022 than in 2019 – an 18.1 percent increase.
• Compared to 2019, within the Violence category, growth in 2022 was primarily driven by officers spending:
• 6,819 (2.5x) more hours on “Disturbing the Peace –
Shot Spotter” calls – equivalent to 10.3 FTE.
• 3,864 (31.8 percent) more hours on assault with a
deadly weapon calls – equivalent to 5.8 FTE.
• 2,349 (nearly 4x) more hours on murder calls –
equivalent to 3.5 FTE.
2019 2020 2021 2022
% of
2022 CAGR
Violence 76,849 83,988 91,849 90,774 35.7% 5.7%
Disorder 40,878 45,718 39,517 37,080 14.6% -3.2%
Property 23,192 23,705 22,879 24,568 9.7% 1.9%
Traffic-related 22,357 20,836 22,760 21,111 8.3% -1.9%
Mental 17,605 18,192 17,738 17,406 6.9% -0.4%
Admin 17,801 16,727 16,093 16,612 6.5% -2.3%
Follow-up/Service 8,260 9,535 9,349 10,188 4.0% 7.2%
Alarms 10,278 8,725 8,754 9,443 3.7% -2.8%
Domestic-related 10,053 9,864 9,909 8,920 3.5% -3.9%
Suspicious 5,968 6,445 7,019 7,165 2.8% 6.3%
Medical 6,027 6,730 7,651 6,952 2.7% 4.9%
Missing Persons 2,606 2,189 2,550 2,587 1.0% -0.2%
Vice 1,471 1,571 988 687 0.3% -22.4%
Interpersonal-other 519 460 405 507 0.2% -0.8%
Total 243,864 254,686 257,460 254,000 1.4%
Officer Hours on Community-Generated Calls,
by Category, CY 2019 through CY 2022
Note: calls indicating breaks, broadcasts, emergency radio traffic, and beat information and report review are excluded.

Equivalent FTE estimated assuming 1,657 available working hours per officer, with 40 percent of time dedicated to responding to calls for service.
© PFM 131
Community-Generated Calls for Service
Unit and Officer Responses, By Category, 2022
 In 2022, an average of 1.9 patrol officer units containing an average of 2.5 officers responded to each community- generated call for service.
 The average number of units and officers responding to each call varied by category. • For example, calls in the Violence category averaged the highest number of units (2.5) and officers (3.3). The involvement of more officers and units in these calls contributed to its high average officer time of 3.4 hours. This, coupled with high volume, drove this category’s significant overall officer time of 90,744 hours. • In contrast, the Vice category averaged less than one hour of officer time and received responses from an average of 1.5 units and 1.9 officers.

Unit and Officer Responses to Community-Generated Calls, by Category, 2022 Note: calls indicating breaks, broadcasts, emergency radio traffic, and beat information and report review are excluded.

Calls
Total Officer
Time (Hrs)
% of
Total
Avg Officer
Time (Hrs)
Avg
Units
Avg
Officers
Violence 26,523 90,774 213.5% 3.4 2.5 3.3
Disorder 26,186 37,080 87.2% 1.4 1.7 2.3
Property 12,858 24,568 57.8% 1.9 1.8 2.3
Traffic-related 10,501 21,111 49.7% 2.0 1.7 2.2
Admin 11,534 16,612 39.1% 1.4 1.7 2.1
Mental 7,556 17,406 40.9% 2.3 2.2 2.9
Domestic-related 4,591 8,920 21.0% 1.9 2.1 2.7
Suspicious 4,843 7,165 16.9% 1.5 1.7 2.3
Follow-up/Service 6,989 10,188 24.0% 1.5 1.8 2.3
Medical 2,192 6,952 16.4% 3.2 2.3 3.0
Alarms 9,544 9,443 22.2% 1.0 1.6 2.1
Missing Persons 954 2,587 6.1% 2.7 1.9 2.5
Interpersonal-other 351 507 1.2% 1.4 1.7 2.2
Vice 805 687 1.6% 0.9 1.5 1.9
All calls 125,427 254,000 2.0 1.9 2.5
© PFM 132
Community-Generated Calls
Hours Spent by Officers, By Category
and BFO, 2019 through 2022
 Officer time on calls increased in both BFOs during this period.  In 2022, each BFO spent a similar amount of time responding to community-generated calls for service, though the categories in which this time was spent varied.
• BFO 1’s time on calls was characterized by more time spent on Disorder, Mental, and Alarm calls. In 2022, compared to BFO 2, BFO 1 had:
• 2,552 (14.9 percent) more hours on Disorder calls –
primarily on Trespassing and Disturbing the Peace calls. • 2,293 (30.3 percent) more hours on calls in the Mental category – primarily on Insanity calls.
• 2,039 (55.1 percent) more hours on the Alarms category – primarily on Alarm – Ringing calls.
• BFO 2’s time on calls was characterized by more time in the Violence and Domestic-related categories. In 2022, compared to BFO 1, BFO 2 had:
• 9,467 (23.3 percent) more hours in the Violence category – primarily on Battery, Assault with a Deadly Weapon and
Shot Spotter calls.
• 2,189 (65.1 percent) more hours in the Domestic-related category – primarily on Disturbing the Peace – Family calls.

Note: calls indicating breaks, broadcasts, emergency radio traffic, and beat information and report review are excluded.

BFO 1
2019 2020 2021 2022
% of
2022 CAGR
Violence 34,198 34,220 39,555 40,586 32.2% 5.9%
Disorder 20,908 26,096 21,352 19,677 15.6% -2.0%
Property 11,679 11,694 11,868 12,921 10.2% 3.4%
Traffic-related 11,077 9,785 11,258 10,180 8.1% -2.8%
Mental 9,993 10,702 10,728 9,848 7.8% -0.5%
Admin 9,554 9,892 9,648 9,128 7.2% -1.5%
Follow-up/Service 4,526 5,422 5,188 5,836 4.6% 8.8%
Alarms 5,796 5,213 5,339 5,741 4.5% -0.3%
Medical 3,061 3,394 4,007 3,608 2.9% 5.6%
Domestic-related 3,717 3,940 3,959 3,363 2.7% -3.3%
Suspicious 3,124 3,303 3,540 3,281 2.6% 1.6%
Missing Persons 1,274 922 1,201 1,199 0.9% -2.0%
Vice 981 1,074 688 507 0.4% -19.8%
Interpersonal-other 342 238 276 328 0.3% -1.4%
Total 120,230 125,895 128,606 126,203 1.6%
BFO 2
2019 2020 2021 2022
% of
2022 CAGR
Violence 42,519 49,695 52,181 50,054 39.4% 5.6%
Disorder 19,926 19,617 18,059 17,126 13.5% -4.9%
Property 11,495 12,002 11,003 11,619 9.1% 0.4%
Traffic-related 11,271 11,043 11,493 10,925 8.6% -1.0%
Mental 7,612 7,484 7,009 7,555 5.9% -0.2%
Admin 8,138 6,655 6,307 7,180 5.7% -4.1%
Domestic-related 6,336 5,922 5,949 5,552 4.4% -4.3%
Follow-up/Service 3,712 4,106 4,152 4,350 3.4% 5.4%
Suspicious 2,844 3,142 3,479 3,884 3.1% 11.0%
Alarms 4,482 3,512 3,415 3,702 2.9% -6.2%
Medical 2,966 3,332 3,645 3,343 2.6% 4.1%
Missing Persons 1,332 1,267 1,349 1,388 1.1% 1.4%
Vice 491 497 300 180 0.1% -28.4%
Interpersonal-other 176 222 129 180 0.1% 0.6%
Total 123,300 128,496 128,471 127,037 1.0%
Officer Hours on Community-Generated Calls,
by Category, 2019 through 2022
© PFM 133
Community-Generated Calls
Category Share of Officer Time within Each Area, CY 2022  The greatest differences in time spent on calls within areas in CY 2022 were seen in the Violence, Disorder,
and Alarms categories.
• Areas 5 and 6 had the highest shares of their time in the Violence category, each at 40.4 percent,
compared to Area 2 at 24.2 percent.
• Area 2 had the greatest share of time in the Disorder category at 17.0 percent, compared to 11.8 percent
in Area 6.
• Area 2 also had the highest share of time in the
Alarms category with 6.8 percent, compared to 2.4
percent in Area 5.

Share of Area Officer Time, by Category, CY 2022
Note: calls indicating breaks, broadcasts, emergency radio traffic, and beat information and report review are excluded.

Area 2 Area 2
Area 2
Area 5
Area 5
Area 6
Area 6

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%
Violence Disorder Alarms
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
© PFM 134
Self-Initiated Calls for Service
By Category, 2019 through 2022
 From 2019 to 2022, total patrol officer self-initiated calls declined at a CAGR of 11.0 percent from 39,008 in 2019 to 27,511 in 2022.
 The category with the greatest number of self-initiated calls was On View which is a call type used to log various self- initiated activity.
• OPD was unable to provide specific descriptions of
the activities completed under the On View call type
– this information is not captured by OPD.
• This category showed the greatest decline in volume over the period – from 17,673 in 2019 to 13,166 in 2022.
 The next greatest decline was seen in the Follow-
up/Service category. This decline was driven by a 42.5
percent reduction in “security checks” from 9,844 in 2019 to 5,658 in 2022.
 Within the traffic-related category, “vehicle stops” declined by 41.6 percent, from 2,874 in 2019 to 1,676 in 2022.

Self-Initiated Calls, by Category, 2019 through 2022
Note: calls indicating breaks and report review are excluded. This time is accounted for elsewhere in the workload model.
2019 2020 2021 2022 CAGR
On View 17,673 14,268 12,890 13,166 -9.3%
Follow-up/Service 9,924 5,783 5,188 5,728 -16.7%
Traffic-related 4,660 3,502 2,654 3,300 -10.9%
Property 1,665 1,569 1,438 1,700 0.7%
Admin 1,902 1,396 1,179 1,227 -13.6%
Disorder 1,125 1,425 1,010 945 -5.6%
Violence 760 673 642 601 -7.5%
Suspicious 721 522 314 346 -21.7%
Mental 274 225 221 210 -8.5%
Medical 150 144 156 188 7.8%
Missing Persons 46 26 26 37 -7.0%
Domestic-related 55 37 27 34 -14.8%
Alarms 31 34 20 17 -18.1%
Vice 17 19 9 7 -25.6%
Interpersonal-other 5 5 1 5 0.0%
Total 39,008 29,628 25,775 27,511 -11.0%
© PFM 135
Self-Initiated Activity
By Category and BFO, 2019 through 2022
 Self-initiated calls declined in both BFOs from 2019 to 2022.
 Each year from 2019 through 2022, more self-initiated calls were completed in BFO 1 than in BFO 2.
• In 2022, BFO 1 completed about 29.7 percent more
self-initiated calls than BFO 2.
• BFO 1 completed nearly three times more follow-
up/service calls – the majority of which were
“security checks.” This call category declined by
more than half (57.1 percent) in BFO 2 over the
period, with 1,936 fewer calls in 2022 compared to
2019.
• BFO 2 completed more than twice as many traffic-
related calls – primarily vehicle stops – as BFO 1.

From 2019 to 2022, BFO 2 Traffic-related calls
declined moderately, but decreased significantly in
2021 before returning to 2019-2020 levels in 2022.

Note: calls indicating breaks and report review are excluded. Data did not include sufficient information to determine its BFO, including 237 calls in 2022.

Self-Initiated Calls, by Category, 2019 through 2022
BFO 1
2019 2020 2021 2022 CAGR
On View 10,403 8,354 7,465 7,382 -10.8%
Follow-up/Service 6,488 3,862 3,677 4,198 -13.5%
Admin 1,055 781 714 789 -9.2%
Traffic-related 2,445 1,463 1,057 1,065 -24.2%
Property 958 759 675 737 -8.4%
Disorder 592 774 502 531 -3.6%
Violence 348 245 252 282 -6.8%
Suspicious 370 271 131 135 -28.5%
Mental 165 141 147 132 -7.2%
Medical 74 71 81 98 9.8%
Missing Persons 29 10 15 20 -11.6%
Domestic-related 26 18 12 12 -22.7%
Alarms 20 22 9 11 -18.1%
Vice 12 12 6 5 -25.3%
Interpersonal-other 2 3 1 3 14.5%
Total 22,987 16,786 14,744 15,400 -12.5%
BFO 2
2019 2020 2021 2022 CAGR
On View 7,017 5,727 5,347 5,709 -6.6%
Traffic-related 2,191 2,023 1,585 2,220 0.4%
Follow-up/Service 3,391 1,849 1,458 1,455 -24.6%
Property 691 801 755 950 11.2%
Admin 638 492 421 395 -14.8%
Disorder 522 644 481 404 -8.2%
Violence 409 422 387 318 -8.0%
Suspicious 347 248 182 211 -15.3%
Medical 76 73 74 90 5.8%
Mental 108 82 74 76 -11.1%
Domestic-related 29 19 15 21 -10.2%
Missing Persons 17 15 11 17 0.0%
Alarms 11 12 11 6 -18.3%
Interpersonal-other 3 2 0 2 -12.6%
Vice 5 7 3 2 -26.3%
Total 15,455 12,416 10,804 11,876 -8.4%
© PFM 136
Self-Initiated Calls
Category Share of Call Volume within Each Area, CY 2022  The composition of self-initiated call volume varied
among patrol areas. The greatest differences in CY
2022 were seen in the On View, Follow-up/Service, and
Traffic-related categories.
• On View calls accounted for two-thirds of self-initiated call volume in Area 1 in CY 2022 – the highest share
among the six areas. Area 4 had just 29.1 percent of
its call volume in the On View category.
• Area 2 had 48.0 percent of its calls in the Follow-
up/Service category, compared to 7.7 percent in Area

5. Volume in this category was driven primarily by
“security checks.” Area 2 had 1,784 security checks
compared to an average of 761 in the five other
areas.
• Area 4 had 20.6 percent of its calls in the Traffic-
related category, compared to 4.6 percent in Area 1.

Area 5 had the overall highest volume of calls in this
category, driven primarily by its 543 “vehicle stop”
calls – compared to an average of 225 in the five
other areas.

Note: calls indicating breaks, broadcasts, emergency radio traffic, and beat information and report review are excluded.

Data did not include sufficient information to determine BFO/Area/Beat for all calls, including 237 calls in 2022.

Share of Area Call Volume, by Category, CY 2022
Area 1
Area 1
Area 2
Area 4
Area 4
Area 5
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
On View Follow-up/Service Traffic-relatedArea 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6 © PFM 137
Self-Initiated Calls for Service
Hours Spent by Officers, By Category, CY 2019 through CY 2022  Time spent on self-initiated calls declined at a slower rate (3.7 percent CAGR) than self-initiated call volume (11.0 percent CAGR).
 OPD officers spent nearly a quarter (23.3 percent) of their time responding to self-initiated calls in the On View category, followed by 19.8 percent on Traffic-
related calls and 15.4 percent on Admin calls.
 Violence and Disorder were the fastest-growing
categories. Growth in time on violent calls was driven
primarily by the “murder” call type, on which officers
spent 249 more hours in 2022 compared to 2019. In
the Disorder category, “sideshow” calls drove the
increase over this period, with 428 more hours on
these calls in 2022 compared to 2019.

Note: calls indicating breaks and report review are excluded. This time is accounted for elsewhere in the workload model.
2019 2020 2021 2022 CAGR
On View 5,525 4,785 4,002 4,254 -8.3%
Traffic-related 4,256 3,218 2,938 3,610 -5.3%
Admin 3,120 3,126 2,831 2,808 -3.4%
Violence 2,215 2,271 2,352 2,515 4.3%
Disorder 1,316 1,153 2,198 1,662 8.1%
Property 1,268 1,389 1,097 1,185 -2.2%
Follow-up/Service 1,009 776 552 956 -1.8%
Suspicious 1,064 783 527 592 -17.8%
Mental 361 356 422 410 4.3%
Medical 122 173 128 161 9.7%
Missing Persons 43 11 63 34 -7.7%
Domestic-related 80 50 42 32 -26.0%
Alarms 12 16 7 6 -21.3%
Vice 23 9 18 6 -36.6%
Interpersonal-other 3 7 0 3 1.6%
Total 20,417 18,123 17,179 18,234 -3.7%
Officer Hours on Self-Initiated Calls,
by Category, CY 2019 through CY 2022
© PFM 138
Self-Initiated Calls
Hours Spent by Officers, By Category
and BFO, CY 2019 through CY 2022
 Officer time on self-initiated calls decreased in both BFOs over this period.
• In 2022, each BFO spent a similar amount of time on self- initiated calls for service. The categories in which this time was spent varied by BFO.
• BFO 1’s time on calls was characterized by more time spent on On View and Admin calls. In 2022, compared to BFO 2, BFO 1 had:
• 1,057 (1.5x) more hours on Admin calls – primarily on hospital guard duty and special assignments
• 385 (20.3 percent) more hours on calls in the On View category
• BFO 2’s time on calls was characterized by more time in the Traffic-related and Violence categories. In 2022, compared to BFO 1, BFO 2 had:
• 971 (74.3 percent) more hours in the Traffic-related
category – primarily on vehicle stops and vehicle
collisions
• 422 (40.4 percent) more hours in the Violence category – primarily on murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and
shot spotter calls.

Note: calls indicating breaks, broadcasts, emergency radio traffic, and beat information and report review are excluded.

BFO 1
2019 2020 2021 2022
% of
2022 CAGR
On View 2,936 2,575 2,174 2,279 25.7% -8.1%
Admin 1,659 1,344 1,809 1,759 19.8% 2.0%
Traffic-related 2,024 1,436 1,244 1,306 14.7% -13.6%
Violence 1,218 956 963 1,046 11.8% -5.0%
Disorder 570 633 812 770 8.7% 10.5%
Follow-up/Service 668 452 328 580 6.5% -4.6%
Property 675 636 455 513 5.8% -8.7%
Suspicious 589 373 275 278 3.1% -22.1%
Mental 208 217 260 235 2.6% 4.1%
Medical 72 110 79 66 0.7% -2.4%
Missing Persons 31 3 43 16 0.2% -19.3%
Domestic-related 43 24 29 12 0.1% -34.5%
Vice 15 6 12 5 0.1% -29.0%
Alarms 7 4 2 3 0.0% -21.6%
Interpersonal-other 1 1 0 1 0.0% -1.3%
Total 10,713 8,771 8,486 8,869 -6.1%
BFO 2
2019 2020 2021 2022
% of
2022 CAGR
Traffic-related 2,226 1,778 1,687 2,276 25.9% 0.7%
On View 2,425 2,089 1,788 1,894 21.6% -7.9%
Violence 997 1,312 1,386 1,467 16.7% 13.8%
Disorder 602 519 1,156 803 9.1% 10.1%
Admin 1,111 1,363 857 702 8.0% -14.2%
Property 586 747 633 659 7.5% 4.0%
Follow-up/Service 335 322 223 361 4.1% 2.5%
Suspicious 476 409 252 314 3.6% -13.0%
Mental 154 138 163 170 1.9% 3.4%
Medical 50 63 49 94 1.1% 23.3%
Domestic-related 38 26 13 20 0.2% -18.8%
Missing Persons 12 6 20 18 0.2% 12.8%
Alarms 5 13 4 3 0.0% -20.8%
Interpersonal-other 2 6 0 2 0.0% 2.7%
Vice 8 2 5 1 0.0% -59.0%
Total 9,028 8,794 8,237 8,786 -0.9%
Officer Hours on Self-Initiated Calls,
by Category, 2019 through 2022
© PFM 139
Self-Initiated Calls
Category Share of Officer Time within Each Area, CY 2022  The greatest differences in time spent on calls within areas were seen in the On View, Traffic-related, Admin, and Violence categories.
• Area 1 had 35.7 percent of its time on self-initiated calls in the On View category – by far the largest share among all areas, with the next greatest share in Area 5 with 24.1 percent.
• Areas 4 and 6 had the highest shares of time in the traffic- related category with 28.5 percent and 27.8 percent,
respectively. In both areas, time was primarily driven by vehicle stops.
• Area 3 had 26.9 percent of its time in the Admin category - the highest share among all areas, followed by Area 1 at

17.7 percent.
• Area 3’s high share of time in this category was driven by hospital guard detail – likely due to the location of
Highland Hospital in Area 3.
• Area 1’s high share of time was driven by special
assignments in the area.

Share of Area Officer Time, by Category, CY 2022
Note: calls indicating breaks, broadcasts, emergency radio traffic, and beat information and report review are excluded.

Area 1
Area 1
Area 3
Area 4
Area 4
Area 4

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%
On View Traffic-related Admin
Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Area 6
© PFM 140
OPD Workload-Based Patrol Staffing Analysis
Allocation of Officer Time
© PFM 141
Workload-Based Patrol Staffing Assessment
Allocation of Officer Time
 In addition to officer workload from community-generated calls and officer availability to fill posts, the workload-based staffing model considered how officer time should be allocated to reflect the Department’s goals.  The workload-based staffing model divides officer time while on a shift into three categories:
• Responding to community-generated calls for service.
• Conducting proactive police activity – engaging with the community, proactively patrolling, etc. • Completing administrative tasks and taking breaks.
 An officer’s share of time allocated toward answering calls for service varies by Department based on the Department's staffing, goals, and community circumstances.
• Research and team experience suggest no more than 60 percent of officer time should be spent responding to calls for service.
1 However, this allocation can be significantly lower based on how much time a Department intends officers to conduct proactive work.
 For administrative tasks and breaks, OPD officers spend two hours in the station each shift—one at the start of a scheduled shift and one at the end. Assuming one additional hour for breaks and other administrative tasks throughout a shift results in three hours per shift, or 30 percent of a 10-hour shift and 25 percent of a 12-hour shift.  The following slides discuss current proactive time and the proactive time assumed in the model. 1International City/County Management Association, “An analysis of police department staffing: How many officers do you really need?”, https://icma.org/sites/default/files/305747_Analysis%20of%20Police%20Department%20Staffing%20_%20McCabe.pdf. © PFM 142
Workload-Based Patrol Staffing Assessment
Proactive Policing
 Responding to community-generated calls for service is the top priority of patrol officers. This staffing assessment accounts for expected time answering calls for service based on detailed analyses of time spent on calls for service (presented in the previous section).
 Staffing estimates produced in this assessment include a target allocation of proactive time in addition to time spent responding to calls for service. This reflects a co-developed assumption that City leaders, OPD, and Oakland residents want officers to be able to complete proactive, discretionary, or other-directed tasks during shifts, rather than spending shifts simply responding to calls for service.
• Officers are assumed to be available to answer calls for service during this proactive time. The inclusion of this added proactive time is intended to increase the average capacity of officers to work proactively.  Proactive time allows officers to perform tasks intended to prevent and reduce crime and disorder, rather than simply reacting to calls for service about crime and disorder. Specific proactive policing tasks should be determined by the Department, in alignment with its goals for community engagement and crime prevention. Such tasks may include:
• Increasing non-crime related interactions with the community – allowing for patrol officers to better understand their assigned area or beat and its needs.
• Hot spot proactive policing – policing focused at small areas that produce substantial crime. Research has suggested this strategy has the potential to reduce crime in targeted areas. • Preventive patrol – the routine movement of patrol officers through large geographic areas to deter crime.  Effective use of proactive time requires Department leadership to provide clear direction regarding how officers should spend proactive time and accountability strategies to monitor and manage use of this time.

Sources: Reforming the police through procedural justice training: A multicity randomized trial at crime hot spots; David Weisburd, Cody W. Telep, Heather Vovak, and Brandon Turchan March 28, 2022, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2118780119
.

Research Will Shape the Future of Proactive Policing, Paul A. Haskins, National Institute of Justice, October 24, 2019 https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/research-will-shape-future-proactive-policing. © PFM 143
Workload-Based Patrol Staffing Assessment
Allocation of Officer Time – Estimated Proactivity Capacity  Given officer community-generated workload, the estimated shift relief factor, and assumed time for administrative time and breaks, capacity for proactivity can be estimated.
 For example, 16 budgeted officer positions are assigned to the Second Watch in Area 4. Given the 1,761 estimated annual hours each patrol officer is available to work 12-hour shifts, 16 officers provide 28,180 working hours. With 18,131 hours spent responding to community-generated calls for service, and an assumed 25 percent of time for administrative tasks and breaks, this leaves 3,004 hours, or 11 percent of officer time, available for proactivity. • These estimates assume full budgeted staffing and do not represent actual time spent performing proactive actions. % of Total
Net Working Hours per Officer 1,761
Officers Assigned 16
Total Officer Working Hours 28,180
Hours on Calls for Service 18,131 64%
Hours for Admin/Breaks 7,045 25%
Remaining Hours for Proactivity 3,004 11%
Area 4, Second Watch, Example Calculation of
Proactivity Capacity Estimate
© PFM 144
Workload-Based Patrol Staffing Assessment
Allocation of Officer Time – Estimated Proactivity Capacity by Area and Shift  Estimated proactivity capacity varies across shifts, influenced by the number of hours spent on community-generated calls for service and the number of officers assigned to each shift.  Across all areas, the Third Watch averaged the greatest proactivity capacity at about 35 percent, followed by the Second Watch at about 12 percent, and the First Watch at about 10 percent.
 Many First and Second Watches have shares of time
answering calls for service near or above 60 percent – the generally-accepted upper limit.

Estimated Proactivity Capacity by Area and Shift
CFS Admin Proactivity
Area 1
First Watch 67% 30% 3%
Second Watch 72% 25% 3%
Third Watch 42% 30% 28%
Area 2
First Watch 65% 30% 5%
Second Watch 61% 25% 14%
Third Watch 32% 30% 38%
Area 3
First Watch 53% 30% 17%
Second Watch 58% 25% 17%
Third Watch 36% 30% 34%
Area 4
First Watch 60% 30% 10%
Second Watch 64% 25% 11%
Third Watch 32% 30% 38%
Area 5
First Watch 53% 30% 17%
Second Watch 63% 25% 12%
Third Watch 38% 30% 32%
Area 6
First Watch 64% 30% 6%
Second Watch 60% 25% 15%
Third Watch 33% 30% 37%
© PFM 145
Workload-Based Patrol Staffing Assessment
Allocation of Officer Time – Target Proactivity by Shift  Proactivity targets assumed in the patrol staffing
model are designed to increase proactivity to at
least 30 percent on each shift, with an upper limit
of 40 percent, based on the Department’s goals.
• For many shifts and areas, 30 percent
proactivity capacity can be a first step toward
reaching an eventual goal of closer to 40
percent proactivity.
 A target proactivity capacity of at least 30 percent reduces the share of time on community-
generated calls for service to no more than 45.0
percent for 12-hour shifts and 40.0 percent for 10-
hour shifts—below the recommended limit of 60
percent.
 Using the workload-based staffing framework, the
outputs suggests that additional staffing is
required to achieve these target shares of time
allocation, in which the average officer spends
less of their shift time responding to calls for
service and more of it on proactivity.

Current Estimate Targets Difference
CFS Admin
Pro-
activity CFS Admin
Pro-
activity CFS Admin
Pro-
activity
Area 1
First Watch 66% 30% 3% 40% 30% 30% (27%) 0% 27%
Second Watch 72% 25% 3% 45% 25% 30% (27%) 0% 27%
Third Watch 41% 30% 29% 40% 30% 30% (2%) 0% 2%
Area 2
First Watch 64% 30% 6% 40% 30% 30% (25%) 0% 25%
Second Watch 61% 25% 14% 45% 25% 30% (16%) 0% 16%
Third Watch 31% 30% 39% 32% 30% 38% 0% 0% 0%
Area 3
First Watch 52% 30% 18% 40% 30% 30% (13%) 0% 13%
Second Watch 57% 25% 18% 45% 25% 30% (13%) 0% 13%
Third Watch 35% 30% 35% 36% 30% 34% 0% 0% 0%
Area 4
First Watch 59% 30% 11% 40% 30% 30% (20%) 0% 20%
Second Watch 63% 25% 12% 45% 25% 30% (19%) 0% 19%
Third Watch 32% 30% 38% 32% 30% 38% 0% 0% 0%
Area 5
First Watch 52% 30% 18% 40% 30% 30% (13%) 0% 13%
Second Watch 63% 25% 12% 45% 25% 30% (18%) 0% 18%
Third Watch 38% 30% 32% 38% 30% 32% 0% 0% 0%
Area 6
First Watch 63% 30% 7% 40% 30% 30% (24%) 0% 24%
Second Watch 59% 25% 16% 45% 25% 30% (15%) 0% 15%
Third Watch 33% 30% 37% 33% 30% 37% 0% 0% 0%
Target Time Allocation by Area and Shift
© PFM 146
OPD Workload-Based Patrol Staffing
Analysis
Estimating Baseline Staffing Needs
© PFM 147
Workload-Based Baseline Patrol Staffing Assessment
Estimating Staffing Needs – Calculating Posts
 Baseline staffing needs were estimated by combining community-generated workload, shift relief factor, and time allocation targets.
 The following table shows the calculation that is completed for each shift on each beat, using Area 1, Beat 2 as an example.
 Row 7 indicates the number of posts, or number of officers that should be working each day, on average, to meet workload and proactivity targets. At this stage in the calculation, a minimum of 1.0 posts is implemented to reflect OPD’s goal of ensuring one officer is staffed to each beat.

Example of Patrol Officer Baseline Post Calculation, by Shift in Area 1, Beat 2 First
Watch
Second
Watch
Third
Watch
Step 1 - Calculate Posts to Respond to Community-Generated Calls 1 Community-Generated Calls for Service 1,306 1,676 890 2 Average Patrol Officer Time per Call (hours) 2.15 2.05 1.79 3 Total Hours on Community-Generated Calls for Service (Row 1 x Row 2) 2,809 3,438 1,596 4 Total Annual Post Hours 3,650 4,380 3,650
5 Posts Required at 100% CFS (Row 3 / Row 4) 0.8 0.8 0.4 Step 2 - Adjust for Target Time Allocation
6 Time allocated for CFS 40% 45% 40%
7 Patrol Posts Required at CFS Time Allocation (Row 5 / Row 6) 1.9 1.7 1.1 Note: Please see slide 19 for a discussion of what is included in “baseline” staffing estimates. © PFM 148
Workload-Based Baseline Patrol Staffing Assessment
Estimating Staffing Needs – Calculating Officer Staffing  To calculate the number of officers needed to staff calculated posts, posts calculated on each beat are summed at the area level for each shift.
 Total posts on each shift is then multiplied by the shift relief factor for that shift and rounded up to the next whole number to provide the number of officers needed to staff those posts given assumptions regarding officer availability.  In the example provided below for Area 1, the workload-based staffing analysis indicates an average of 12.3 officers should be working on the first watch in Area 1. To achieve that level of staffing, 28 officers would need to be on staff.

This would be 14 officers per team (A and B) on the First Watch in Area 1.  Across all shifts in Area 1, this analysis suggests 73 officers should be staffed and assigned to Area 1.

Example of Baseline Patrol Officer Calculation, Area 1
First
Watch
Second
Watch
Third
Watch Total
Total Posts Calculated 12.3 10.6 8.1 31.0
Beat 1 1.0 1.0 1.0 3.0
Beat 2 1.9 1.7 1.1 4.8
Beat 3 2.0 1.4 1.1 4.5
Beat 4 2.6 2.3 1.8 6.7
Beat 5 1.4 1.0 1.0 3.4
Beat 6 1.6 1.7 1.0 4.3
Beat 7 1.8 1.5 1.0 4.3
Shift Relief Factor 2.2 2.5 2.2 -
Officers Needed
(Posts x SRF, Rounded Up)

28.0 27.0 18.0 73.0
Note: Please see slide 19 for a discussion of what is included in “baseline” staffing estimates. © PFM 149
Workload-Based Baseline Patrol Staffing Assessment
Estimating Staffing Needs – Summary by Area and Shift
 With analyzed conditions, practices, and workload, calculated baseline staffing estimates indicate that more officers are needed on each shift in each area relative to budgeted positions.  The greatest need for additional officers was on the First Watch (53 officers total), with each area estimated to need between 6 and 12 more officers to meet workload and proactivity goals, followed by Second Watch (47 additional officers) and Third Watch (12 additional officers).
• Third Watch, which works 9:00pm/10:00pm to 7:00am/8:00am, was estimated to need the fewest officers due to its relatively low call volume and time spent on calls for service, though it is noted that the types of calls for service handled are an important consideration by area.
• The Third Watch was estimated to have relatively high proactivity capacity under current budgeted positions (an average of 35 percent, compared to 12.6 percent and 10.6 percent for the First and Second Watch, respectively).

Budgeted Officer Staffing
First
Watch
Second
Watch
Third
Watch Total
Area 1 16 16 16 48
Area 2 14 14 14 42
Area 3 16 16 16 48
Area 4 16 16 16 48
Area 5 16 16 16 48
Area 6 16 16 16 48
Total 94 94 94 282
Calculated Officer Staffing
First
Watch
Second
Watch
Third
Watch Total
Area 1 28 27 18 73
Area 2 24 21 17 62
Area 3 22 23 19 64
Area 4 24 23 17 64
Area 5 23 25 18 66
Area 6 26 22 17 65
Total 147 141 106 394
Net Change
First
Watch
Second
Watch
Third
Watch Total
Area 1 12 11 2 25
Area 2 10 7 3 20
Area 3 6 7 3 16
Area 4 8 7 1 16
Area 5 7 9 2 18
Area 6 10 6 1 17
Total 53 47 12 112
Note: Please see slide 19 for a discussion of what is included in “baseline” staffing estimates. © PFM 150
Workload-Based Patrol Staffing Assessment
Estimating Baseline Staffing Needs – Incorporating Span of Control  At baseline, additional supervisory positions would also be needed to maintain a span of control ratios that
accommodate close and effective supervision.
• For patrol, the span of control target ratios used are the following:
• No more than eight officers per sergeant
• No more than four sergeants per lieutenant
 To achieve these ratios, 22 sergeants would be added
(three to five added to each area), and six lieutenants would be added (one per area).

Budgeted and Workload-Model Suggested Positions for Officer, Sergeant and Lieutenant Titles, by Shift and Area
Note: Lieutenants are budgeted at the area level, rather than the shift or watch level.

Please see slide 19 for a discussion of what is included in “baseline” staffing estimates.

First
Watch
Second
Watch
Third
Watch Total
Ofc Sgt Ofc Sgt Ofc Sgt Ofc Sgt Lt Total
Budgeted Positions 94 12 94 12 94 12 282 36 12 330
Area 1 16 2 16 2 16 2 48 6 2 56
Area 2 14 2 14 2 14 2 42 6 2 50
Area 3 16 2 16 2 16 2 48 6 2 56
Area 4 16 2 16 2 16 2 48 6 2 56
Area 5 16 2 16 2 16 2 48 6 2 56
Area 6 16 2 16 2 16 2 48 6 2 56
Calculated Positions 147 20 141 20 106 18 394 58 18 470 Area 1 28 4 27 4 18 3 73 11 3 87
Area 2 24 3 21 3 17 3 62 9 3 74
Area 3 22 3 23 3 19 3 64 9 3 76
Area 4 24 3 23 3 17 3 64 9 3 76
Area 5 23 3 25 4 18 3 66 10 3 79
Area 6 26 4 22 3 17 3 65 10 3 78
Difference 53 8 47 8 12 6 112 22 6 140
Area 1 12 2 11 2 2 1 25 5 1 31
Area 2 10 1 7 1 3 1 20 3 1 24
Area 3 6 1 7 1 3 1 16 3 1 20
Area 4 8 1 7 1 1 1 16 3 1 20
Area 5 7 1 9 2 2 1 18 4 1 23
Area 6 10 2 6 1 1 1 17 4 1 22
© PFM 151
OPD Workload-Based
Investigations Baseline Staffing Analysis
© PFM 152
OPD Workload-Based
Investigations Staffing Analysis
Methodology
© PFM 153
• Total Investigations / Case Volume: In most departments across the country, crimes reported because of a community-generated call for service are referred to an investigative unit for follow-up, and before being assigned to a detective, they are screened by a supervisor using some level of solvability criteria. This filtering results in better use of investigative time; instead of having investigators look at every crime reported in the geography, they spend time on cases in which they are most likely to make an impact and eventually clear or apprehend a suspect.

OPD does not use this approach or any screening process. Instead, OPD investigators use their best judgment to prioritize cases they deem worthy of follow-up. OPD does not use a Case Management System to maintain records of case assignments and case progress. Investigators do not keep track of the number of cases they investigate and the time spent on each.

In lieu of this data, the project team used total reported crimes as a proxy for case volume. • Total Reported Crimes / Cases: OPD provided the total reported crimes and cases investigated via the Department’s 2023 Citywide End-of-Year Crime Report and internal reports provided through interviews and focus groups.

Workload-Based Investigations Staffing Assessment
Methodology – Case Volume
 During this study, access to reliable data regarding investigative work was very limited.  OPD leadership and staff recognize that sophisticated systems like Case Management Systems (CMS) and Records Management Systems (RMS) have been difficult to deploy across the organization, and the department's lack of discipline in tracking information is an area of opportunity (and an area of significant limitation for work like this engagement).  In the absence of robust and reliable data, the project team used multiple sources to inform its methodology and approach in OPD’s investigative function.
© PFM 154
• Touch Time: As noted, OPD does not track or record investigators’ time on tasks. The absence of a CMS, or any other time-keeping software or mechanism (like weekly or monthly timesheets or time logs), made it impossible to analyze any OPD data on touch time and touch time per case.

In the absence of any available OPD touch time data, the project team worked with OPD to create a proxy for this information using a 60-day activity log, completed by a subset of investigators, during this engagement.

Case Activity Log Methodology: The steps followed to complete this log and calculate Touch Time per case were:

1. The project team worked with OPD to develop a list of the most common activities performed during an investigation for each type of crime. Common activities may vary by type of investigation. For example, Felony Assaults may commonly require a visit to a Hospital to interview a victim, while Homicides will require some time to notify the victim’s next of kin.

2. Through interviews and focus groups with OPD investigators, the project team and OPD co-developed an assumed average time for each activity required (e.g., Witness Interview = 1 Hour, Writing Search Warrant = 2 Hours, etc.).

3. Investigators completed Case Activity Logs, documenting the number of activities completed on cases assigned to them over a 60-day period, from September 4, 2024 to November 4, 2024. This included cases that were closed upon initial review.

4. Total touch time for each case was calculated using the average time per activity determined through focus groups and interviews, and the number of activities completed, as reported through the Case Activity Log.

5. Finally, the average touch time per crime type was calculated by summing the total touch time on all cases logged and dividing by the total number of cases logged.

Workload-Based Investigations Staffing Assessment
Methodology – Touch Time
© PFM 155
• Average touch time, rather than median or another measure, is used in the calculation of staffing needs for several reasons:
• Outliers on the longer end of touch time ranges are considered positive outcomes. In most cases, they represent the maturity and progress of an investigation through all its stages, ending in an arrest and investigator court time.

Longer touch times can also represent complex or high-profile cases that require additional investigative time. • In contrast, using a median touch time to calculate staffing could equate the number of Investigators to the time spent in cases that required less investigation or were less complex. • Although these "shorter" cases could represent the greatest volume of cases, they typically represent at least a meaningful portion of cases that lacked enough evidence for in-depth investigations and/or those where patrol officers made an arrest on scene.

Workload-Based Investigations Staffing Assessment
Methodology – Use of Average Touch Time
© PFM 156
 Limitations to Case Activity Log Methodology
• While a case log approach was the best available methodology in the absence of available OPD data, the approach has limitations.
• The case activity log relies heavily on investigators to log all activities related to the investigated case.

Investigators may have omitted, or over-reported some activities performed, which can lead to under- or over-estimating time spent on cases. To reduce the impact, the team developed rules that helped correct the reported data in case of omitted activities. For example, if cases were reported as "charged" then any missing activities related to case preparation or consultation with DA were added. • Cases that did not require investigation are not always documented. It is less intuitive for investigators to document cases closed upon review or screened out of the process due to insufficient evidence. To mitigate this risk, the team compared expected case volumes to be reported during the study period to the number of cases reported in the Case Activity Log, and proceeded to make case volume adjustments to reflect cases that did not require investigation.
• The activity log could not capture the full time associated with cases that extended beyond the 60-day log period. Some longer investigations, like certain homicide investigations, required more than 60 days to close.

To adjust for this limitation, which would skew the touch time to a lower average number of hours, cases that were recently opened prior to the end of the study period were eliminated from the log book sample. • Relying on average touch time per activity can under- or over-estimate the time it takes to perform some activities. Each case can vary meaningfully; therefore, using average times can produce a margin of error when estimating the total workload. To account for this, investigators were able adjust the time per activity or add comments in case activities took longer than the average.

Workload-Based Investigations Staffing Assessment
Methodology – Limitations
© PFM 157
 Limitations to this workload-based study
• The availability of OPD data and record-keeping of workload, case volumes, training time, and case disposition were very limited.
• Although it is uncommon for police departments to develop data related to workload per investigations officer (or detective), most police departments have reliable data regarding case volumes, caseloads, and case status or disposition. OPD’s reliance on manual reporting and lack of a central source of information makes a workload-based staffing study a complex challenge.
• The results of the investigation study do not account for the times when investigators were deployed to special details in support of the patrol.
• For example, at the end of the study period, investigators were required to fill posts across the city during election day.
• Department leadership should evaluate the results of this study to determine whether they should strategically add capacity to investigative units for this type of support or whether that workload is best managed by other units within OPD.
• This workload-based analysis represents the time that investigators currently spend in each case, which can be a function of their current caseload.
• Very active departments may spend less time in each case than in departments with less criminal activity or violent crime.
• Therefore, the average touch times per type of case shown DO NOT represent an assertion of the time investigators SHOULD spend on each case.

Workload-Based Investigations Staffing Assessment
Methodology – Limitations
© PFM 158
Workload-Based Investigations Staffing Assessment
Methodology – Average Annual Hours of Leave
Leave Category Hours
Vacation 115.5
Administrative Leave 72.2
Sick 54.7
Comp Time 33.2
Workers Comp 19.3
Family Death Leave 5.5
Military Leave 1.4
Other Leave 1.3
Total 303
Average Hours of Leave Used by Officers
Assigned to Investigative Units, CY 2023
• Average Leave Time: According to personnel records,
the average leave time of investigators assigned to
investigative units (76 Officers) in 2023 was 303 hours.

This includes Vacation, Administrative Leave, Sick
Leave, Compensatory Time, Workers Compensation,
Family Death Leave, Military Leave, and other types of
leave.

Note: Average leave use based on leave use data provided by OPD. It included 76 officers assigned to investigative units in 2023. © PFM 159
Workload-Based Investigations Staffing Assessment
Methodology – Time in Training
Year as
Detective
Standard
Training
CID
Training
Total
Training
1 44 160 204
2 44 160 204
3 44 8 52
4 44 8 52
5 44 8 52
Avg 44 69 113
CID Investigators Training Hours by Year
 Training Time: According to OPD staff, there is no record of time spent in training for investigative units. To estimate time spent in training PFM used the following assumptions:
• Standard Training: Includes 40 hours of Continuing Professional Training (CPT) and four hours of qualifications. This training is completed by all officers every year.
• Criminal Investigations Division (CID) Training: Investigators are required to enroll in four basic investigations courses during their first 12 months, and another three advanced investigations courses within the first 24 months of transfer to the CID. Based on interviews with CID leadership, both the basic set of courses as well as the advanced set of courses will require detectives to be in training for four weeks, equivalent to 160 hours per year.

Policy 23-01 also recommends that officers assigned to the CID dedicate at least 8 hours of continuing training per year.
• According to department policy, investigators transferred out-of-patrol can remain in an investigations role for a maximum of five years. To estimate the average investigator’s annual hours in training, annual hours assumed to be spent in training were averaged for each of these five years – including the extensive CID training over a detective’s first 24 months in the role.
• On average, this yielded 113 hours per year in training.

Source(s): Interviews, Policy 23-01, General Order B4.
© PFM 160
• Total Available Hours: This represents the total number of hours a single investigator is available to perform investigative work. This time accounts for several different types of leaves, as well as time off duty spent in training. This analysis resulted in 1,664 hours per investigator – equivalent to 80 percent of scheduled hours.

Workload-Based Investigations Staffing Assessment
Methodology – Average Annual Hours of Leave and Training Hours
Total Required Working Hours 2,080
Investigator Average Leave 303
Investigator Training Time 113
Total Investigator Available Time
(Hours)
1,664
Investigator Available Time Calculation (Annual Hours)
© PFM 161
Key Drivers
• Total Investigations (Case Volume): The total annual cases assigned to a specialized unit per crime type.
• Touch Time: The time an investigator spends on a case, if uninterrupted. For example, a case can take months to
investigate, but the investigator assigned to it may spend only 40 hours of touch time on that case over that period.
1 • Available Hours: The annual time an investigator is available to work on cases. Total available hours equals the total annual scheduled work hours per investigator, net of vacation days, sick days, personal time off, and training days.
• Total Required FTEs: Each of the key drivers is used to calculate the total number of investigators needed in each unit.

Staffing estimates are provided in Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs).

One FTE is equivalent to a single investigator.

Workload-Based Investigations Staffing Assessment
Methodology – Calculating Required FTEs
Formula Description
A Case Volume
× Multiplied by
B Touch Time
= Equals
C Total Workload
÷ Divided by
D Available Hours
= Equals
E Total Required FTEs
A workload-based staffing assessment requires an understanding of the key drivers of workload per specialized unit. The workload-based approach quantifies these drivers – ideally, based on available data – and then follows a standard process (shown below) to provide a workload-based staffing level per unit (based on OPD data).

FTE Calculation Formula
1 Administrative and/or non-investigation time: Time spent in administrative duties is also estimated as touch time. © PFM 162
OPD Workload-Based
Investigations Staffing Analysis
Estimating Baseline Staffing Needs
© PFM 163
Robbery Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
Average Touch Time per Activity (Hours), Robbery Unit
Activities Time per
Activity
Average
Frequency
of Activity
Average
Touch
Time per
Activity
Initial Investigation 4.5
Video/Photo Evidence Analysis 4.0 0.5 2.1
BOLO & Emails 1.0 0.8 0.8
Initial Suspect ID 2.0 0.3 0.7
Victim Contacts 1.0 0.5 0.5
Outside Agency Coordination 0.5 0.4 0.2
Scene Response 2.0 0.1 0.1
Hospital Visits 2.0 0.0 0.0
In-Depth Follow Up 3.5
Search Warrants 2.0 0.5 0.9
Digital/Social Media Review 2.0 0.3 0.7
Canvassing or Surveillance 2.0 0.2 0.5
Resident/Vehicular Search Warrant 3.0 0.1 0.4
Digital/Social Media Subpoena 2.0 0.2 0.4
Phones Unlocked 2.0 0.2 0.3
Victim Follow-Up 1.0 0.2 0.2
Email Main Stakeholders 0.5 0.3 0.2
Additional Interviews 1.5 0.1 0.1
Prep for Witness Interview 1.0 0.0 0.0
Charges and Trial 2.5
Case Preparation 4.0 0.3 1.00
Suspect Interrogations 3.0 0.2 0.5
Arrest Warrants Issued 2.0 0.2 0.4
Consultation With Prosecution 2.0 0.2 0.4
Suspects Apprehended 1.0 0.2 0.2
Participate in Court Hearings 2.0 0.0 0.1
Administrative Time Block 0.5 0.0 0.5
Total 11.0
 Based on Focus Groups and interviews with OPD’s Robbery Unit staff, a list of activities per case and the average time spent on each activity was agreed upon – yielding the data shown in the “activities” and “time per activity” columns in the table at the right.
 The activities were categorized into three main stages of an investigation: Initial Investigation, In-Depth Follow Up, and Charges and Trial.
 Case Activity Logs completed by Robbery Unit investigators produced the “average volume of activity” column. This
column represents the number of activities completed per case during the 60-day log period.
• The average volume of activities generally decreases
with each phase because not all cases reach the ‘in-
depth follow up’ or ‘charges and trial’ phases.
 Time per activity was multiplied by average volume per activity to calculate average touch time.
• Average Touch Time per Case in the Robbery Unit
was calculated to be 11 hours per case.
• The results show, on average, Video/Photo Evidence
Analysis, Case Preparation, and Search Warrants
Written were the most time-consuming activities per
case. These activities accounted for around 37
percent of total average touch time per case.

Source(s): Case Activity Logs; Focus Groups with OPD Staff.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 164
Touch Time
Cases
89 30
0 30
90 80
70 60
50 40
20 10
0-2
8 15
18+15-1712-149-116-8
14 5
34 3-5
Distribution of Cases, by Touch Time, Robbery Unit
(Hours)
Robbery Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
 The graph at right shows the distribution of
touch time by the number of cases that fell into
the touch time range.
 Although the average touch time per case was
11 hours, less complex cases may require less
than five hours and complex cases can take
more than 18 hours to investigate.

Source(s): Case Activity Logs Submitted by Robbery Unit Investigators.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum. For discussion of the use of average touch time, please see the methodology section. © PFM 165
 According to CID staff, a total of 3,690 cases were reported and assigned to the Robbery Unit for investigation in CY 2023.
• Based on case volume (3,690) and average time per case (11 hours), at baseline, the Robbery Unit workload calculations result in with 25 FTE (Row 5).
• Based on FY 2025 budgeted positions (8 Officers), the baseline workload-based model calculation results in 17 fewer budgeted officers than the calculated figure.

Estimated Staffing Calculation, Robbery Unit
1 Cases Assigned for Investigation 3,690.0
2 Average Hours Spent per Investigation 11.0
3 Total Hours (Row 1 x Row 2) 40,590.0
4 Total Available hours per Officer 1,664.0
5 Officers Rounded Up (Row 3 / Row 4) 25.0
Robbery Unit
Staffing Study Results
Source(s): Interviews, Personnel Reports, Case Activity Logs, Annual Crime Report 2023.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 166
Average Touch Time per Activity (Hours), Felony Assault Unit Activities Time per
Activity
Average
Frequency
of Activity
Average
Touch Time
per Activity
Initial Investigation 2.5
Video/Photo Evidence Analysis 4.0 0.3 1.1
Initial Suspect ID 2.0 0.3 0.5
Victim Contacts 1.0 0.2 0.2
BOLO & Emails 1.0 0.2 0.2
Scene Response 2.0 0.1 0.2
Outside Agency Coordination 0.5 0.2 0.1
Hospital Visits 2.0 0.0 0.1
In-Depth Follow Up 2.0
Search Warrants 2.0 0.2 0.4
Digital/Social Media Review 2.0 0.2 0.3
Canvassing or Surveillance 2.0 0.2 0.3
Resident/Vehicular Search Warrant 3.0 0.1 0.3
Victim Follow-Up 1.0 0.2 0.2
Phones Unlocked 2.0 0.1 0.1
Witness Interview 1.5 0.1 0.1
Prep for Witness Interview 1.0 0.0 0.0
Email Main Stakeholders 0.5 0.1 0.0
Additional Interviews 0.5 0.0 0.0
Charges and Trial 1.0
Case Preparation 4.0 0.1 0.3
Suspect Interrogations 3.0 0.1 0.3
Arrest Warrants Issued 2.0 0.1 0.2
Consultation With Prosecution 2.0 0.1 0.2
Suspects Apprehended 1.0 0.1 0.1
Administrative Time Block 0.5 2.0 1.0
Total 6.5
 Based on Focus Groups and interviews with OPD’s Felony Assault Unit (FAU) staff, a list of activities per case and the average time spent on each activity was agreed upon –
yielding the data shown in the “activities” and “time per activity” columns in the table at the right.
 The activities were categorized into three main stages of an investigation: Initial Investigation, In-Depth Follow Up, and Charges and Trial.
 Case Activity Logs completed by Felony Assault Unit
investigators produced the “average volume of activity” column. This column represents the number of activities completed per case during the 60-day log period.
• The average volume of activities generally decreases
with each phase because not all cases reach the ‘in-
depth follow up’ or ‘charges and trial’ phases.
 Time per activity was multiplied by average volume per activity to calculate average touch time.
• Average Touch Time per Case in FAU was calculated
to be six and a half hours per case.
• The results show, on average, Video/Photo Evidence
Analysis, Administrative Time Block, and Initial
Suspect ID were the most time-consuming activities
per case. These activities accounted for around 41
percent of total average touch time per case.

Felony Assault Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
Source(s): Case Activity Logs; Focus Groups with OPD Staff.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 167
Touch Time
Cases
80 9
1 11
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
0 0-2 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17 18+
8 0
5 3-5
Distribution of Cases, by Touch Time, Felony Assault Unit (Hours)
Felony Assault Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
 The graph at right displays the distribution of
touch time by the number of cases that fell into
the touch time range.
 Although the average touch time per case was
six and a half hours, the graph to the right
shows that most cases required less than two
hours to investigate during the period.

Source(s): Case Activity Logs Submitted by Felony Assault Unit Investigators.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum. For discussion of the use of average touch time, please see the methodology section. © PFM 168
 According to CID staff, a total of 3,787 cases were reported and assigned to the FAU for investigation in CY2023.
• Based on case volume (3,787) and average time per case (6.5 hours) the FAU could be staffed with15 FTE (Row 5).
• Based on FY 2025 budgeted positions (8 Officers), this unit appears to have seven fewer budgeted officers than the workload estimate suggests is needed.

Estimated Staffing Calculation, Felony Assault Unit
1 Cases Assigned for Investigation 3,787.0
2 Average Hours Spent per Investigation 6.5
3 Total Hours (Row 1 x Row 2) 24,615.5
4 Total Available hours per Officer 1,664.0
5 Officers Rounded Up (Row 3 / Row 4) 15.0
Felony Assault Unit
Staffing Study Results
Source(s): Interviews, Personnel Reports, Case Activity Logs, Annual Crime Report 2023.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 169
Special Victims Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time Average Touch Time per Activity (Hours), Special Victims Unit Activities Time per
Activity
Average
Frequency
of Activity
Average
Touch Time
per Activity
Initial Investigation 5.0
Victim Contacts 2.0 1.1 2.2
Initial Suspect ID 1.0 1.5 1.5
Video/Photo Evidence Analysis 1.0 0.6 0.6
Outside Agency Coordination 0.5 0.6 0.3
BOLO & Emails 1.0 0.1 0.1
Hospital Visits 2.0 0.0 0.0
Scene Response 1.0 0.0 0.0
In-Depth Follow Up 3.0
Witness Interview 2.0 0.4 0.8
Prep for Witness Interview 1.0 0.6 0.6
Victim Follow-Up 1.0 0.6 0.6
Digital/Social Media Review 2.0 0.2 0.4
Search Warrant 2.0 0.1 0.2
Additional Interviews 0.5 0.2 0.1
Phones/Digital Equipment Forensics 2.0 0.1 0.1
Digital/Social Media Search Warrant 4.0 0.0 0.1
Residential/Vehicular Search Warrant 3.0 0.0 0.1
Email Main Stakeholders 0.5 0.0 0.0
Charges and Trial 1.5
Case Preparation 8.0 0.1 1.1
Consultation with Prosecution 2.0 0.2 0.3
Suspect Interrogations 3.0 0.1 0.2
Arrest Warrants Issued 2.0 0.1 0.1
Suspects Apprehended 1.0 0.0 0.0
Participate in Court Hearings 2.0 0.0 0.0
Administrative Time Block 0.5 1.0 0.5
Total 10.0
 Based on Focus Groups and interviews with OPD’s
Special Victims Unit (SVU) staff, a list of activities per case and the average time spent on each activity was
agreed upon – yielding the data shown in the “activities” and “time per activity” columns in the table at the right.  The activities were categorized into three main stages of an investigation: Initial Investigation, In-Depth Follow Up, and Charges and Trial.
 Case Activity Logs completed by Special Victims Unit
investigators produced the “average volume of activity” column. This column represents the number of activities completed per case during the 60-day log period.
• The average volume of activities generally
decreases with each phase because not all cases
reach the ‘in-depth follow up’ or ‘charges and trial’
phases.
 Time per activity was multiplied by average volume per activity to calculate average touch time.
• Average Touch Time per Case in SVU was
calculated to be 10 hours per case.
• The results show, on average, Victim Contacts,
Initial Suspect ID, and Case Preparation were the
most time-consuming activities per case. These
activities accounted for nearly half (48.3 percent) of
total average touch time per case.

Source(s): Case Activity Logs; Focus Groups with OPD Staff.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 170
Distribution of Cases, by Touch Time, Special Victims Unit Touch Time
Cases
14 34
9 11
6 1
6 10
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
0-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-20 18-20 21+ (Hours)
 The graph at right shows the distribution of
touch time by the number of cases in each
range.
 Although the average touch time per case was
ten hours, the graph to the right shows that
investigators spent more than 21 hours in more
complex cases during the period – though
most cases required less than eight hours.

Special Victims Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
Source(s): Case Activity Logs Submitted by Special Victims Unit Investigators.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum. For discussion of the use of average touch time, please see the methodology section. © PFM 171
 According to CID staff, a total of 1,141 cases were reported and assigned to SVU for investigation in CY2023.
• Based on case volume (1,141) and average touch time per case (10 hours) the SVU could be staffed with seven Officers (Row 5).
• Based on FY 2025 budgeted positions (6 Officers), this unit appears to have one less budgeted officer than the workload estimate suggests is needed.

Estimated Staffing Calculation, Special Victims Unit
1 Cases Assigned for Investigation 1,141.0
2 Average Hours Spent per Investigation 10.0
3 Total Hours (Row 1 x Row 2) 10,141.0
4 Total Available hours per Officer 1,664.0
5 Officers Rounded Up (Row 3 / Row 4) 7.0
Special Victims Unit
Staffing Study Results
Source(s): Interviews, Personnel Reports, Case Activity Logs, Annual Crime Report 2023.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 172
Activities
Time
per
Activity
Average
Frequency
per Activity
Average
Touch
Time per
Activity
Initial Investigation 3.2
Victim Contacts 2.0 0.5 1.0
Initial Suspect ID 1.0 0.7 0.7
Initial Victim ID 1.0 0.6 0.6
BOLO & Emails 1.0 0.5 0.5
Outside Agencies Coordination 0.5 0.5 0.2
Hospital Visits 2.0 0.0 0.1
Scene Response 1.0 0.1 0.1
Video/Photo Evidence 1.0 0.1 0.0
In-Depth Follow Up 6.1
Digital/Social Media Search Warrant 4.0 1.0 3.8
Canvassing or Surveillance 2.0 0.3 0.7
Witness Interview 2.0 0.2 0.5
Search Warrant 2.0 0.1 0.3
Victim Follow-Up 1.0 0.3 0.3
Digital/Social Media Review 2.0 0.1 0.2
Additional Interviews 0.5 0.4 0.2
Email Main Stakeholders 0.5 0.1 0.1
Phones/Digital Equipment Forensics 2.0 0.0 0.0
Prep for Witness Interview 1.0 0.0 0.0
Administrative Time Block 0.5 0.5 0.5
Total 9.5
Average Touch Time per Activity (Hours), Missing Persons Unit Missing Persons Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
 Based on Focus Groups and interviews with OPD’s Missing Persons Unit staff, a list of activities per case and the average time spent on each activity was agreed upon –
yielding the data shown in the “activities” and “time per activity” columns in the table at right.
 The activities were categorized into two main stages of an investigation: Initial Investigation and In-Depth Follow Up. 1  Case Activity Logs completed by Missing Persons Unit investigators in the unit produced the “average volume of activity” column. This column represents the number of
activities completed per case during the 60-day log period. • The average volume of activities generally decreases
with each phase because not all cases reach the ‘in-
depth follow up’ or ‘charges and trial’ phases.
 Time per activity was multiplied by average volume per activity to calculate average touch time.
• Average Touch Time per Case in Missing Persons
Unit was calculated to be nine and a half hours per
case.
• The results show, on average, Digital/Social Media
Search Warrant, Victims Contacted, and Initial
Suspect ID were the most time-consuming activities
per case. These activities accounted for over half (58
percent) of total average touch time per case.

Source(s): Case Activity Logs; Focus Groups with OPD Staff.

Missing person cases with one missing individual (“1 Cases”) investigated by the Missing Persons Unit do not proceed to the Charges and Trial stage as they are transferred to Specialized units when there is suspicion of a criminal act (i.e. Homicide or Felony Assault).

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 173
Touch Time
22 20
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 20
18 22
16 0
0-2 3-5 6-8 9-11 12-14 15-17 18+
21 9 9
5 5
Cases
(Hours)
Distribution of Cases, by Touch Time, Missing Persons Unit Missing Persons Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
 The graph at right shows the distribution of
touch time by the number of cases that fell into
each touch time range.
 Although the average touch time per case was
nine and half hours, simple cases took less
than five hours and more complex cases
required more than fifteen hours of
investigative time.

Source(s): Case Activity Logs Submitted by Missing Persons Unit Investigators.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum. For discussion of the use of average touch time, please see the methodology section. © PFM 174
 According to CID staff, 1,146 cases were reported and assigned to the Missing Persons Unit for investigation in CY2023.
• Based on case volume (1,146) and average time per case (9.5 hours), the Missing Persons Unit could be staffed with seven FTE (Row 5).
• Based on FY 2025 budgeted positions (2 Officers), this unit appears to have five fewer budgeted officers than the workload estimate suggests is needed.

Estimated Staffing Calculation, Missing Persons Unit
1 Cases Assigned for Investigation 1,146.0
2 Average Hours Spent per Investigation 9.5
3 Total Hours (Row 1 x Row 2) 10,887.0
4 Total Available hours per Officer 1,664.0
5 Officers Rounded Up (Row 3 / Row 4) 7.0
Missing Persons Unit
Staffing Study Results
Source(s): Interviews, Personnel Reports, Case Activity Logs, Annual Crime Report 2023.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 175
Average Touch Time per Activity (Hours), Domestic Violence Unit Activities Time per
Activity
Average
Frequency
per
Activity
Average
Touch
Time per
Activity
Initial Investigation 3.0
Victim Contacts 2.0 0.6 1.2
Video/Photo Evidence 1.0 0.1 1.0
Initial Suspect ID 1.0 0.6 0.6
Hospital Visits 2.0 0.1 0.1
Scene Response 1.0 0.1 0.1
Outside Agencies Coordination 0.5 0.0 0.0
In-Depth Follow Up 1.0
Victim Follow-Up 1.0 0.3 0.3
Digital/Social Media Review 2.0 0.1 0.2
Additional Interviews 0.5 0.4 0.2
Residential/Vehicular Search Warrant 3.0 0.0 0.1
Search Warrant 2.0 0.1 0.1
Witness Interview 2.0 0.0 0.0
Digital/Social Media Search Warrant 4.0 0.0 0.0
Email Main Stakeholders 0.5 0.1 0.0
Phones/Digital Equipment Forensics 2.0 0.0 0.0
Charges and Trial 2.5
Case Preparation 8.0 0.1 0.9
Consultation with Prosecution 2.0 0.4 0.9
Suspects Apprehended 1.0 0.3 0.3
Suspect Interrogations 3.0 0.1 0.1
Arrest Warrants Issued 2.0 0.0 0.1
Participate in Court Hearings 2.0 0.0 0.0
Administrative Time Block 0.5 0.7 1.0
Total 7.5
Domestic Violence Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
 Based on Focus Groups and interviews with OPD’s
Domestic Violence Unit (DVU) staff, a list of activities per case and the average time spent on each activity was
agreed upon – yielding the data shown in the “activities” and “time per activity” columns in the table at the right.  The activities were categorized into three main stages of an investigation: Initial Investigation, In-Depth Follow Up, and Charges and Trial.
 Case Activity Logs completed by DVU investigators
produced the “average volume of activity” column. This
column represents the number of activities completed per case during the 60-day log period.
• The average volume of activities generally
decreases with each phase because not all cases
reach the ‘in-depth follow up’ or ‘charges and trial’
phases.
 Time per activity was multiplied by average volume per activity to calculate average touch time.
• Average Touch Time per Case in DVU was
calculated to be seven and a half hours per case.
• The results show, on average, Victim Contacts,
Video/Photo Evidence, and Case Preparation were
the most time-consuming activities per case. These
activities accounted for nearly half (44.33 percent)
of the total average touch time per case.

Source(s): Case Activity Logs; Focus Groups with OPD Staff.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 176
Touch Times
Cases
91 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
90 100
3 5674
13 0-2 15-1712-149-116-83-5 18+ (Hours)
Distribution of Cases, by Touch Time, Domestic Violence Unit Domestic Violence Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
 The graph at right shows the distribution of
touch time by the number of cases that fell into
the touch time range.
 Although the average touch time per case was
seven and a half hours, detectives generally
spent three to five hours investigating or
processing these cases.

Source(s): Case Activity Logs Submitted by Domestic Violence Unit Investigators.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum. For discussion of the use of average touch time, please see the methodology section. © PFM 177
 According to CID staff, a total of 2,969 cases were reported and assigned to DVU for investigation in CY2023.
• Based on case volume (2,969) and average time per case (7.5 hours) the DVU could be staffed with 13 FTE (Row 5).
• Based on FY 2025 budgeted positions (8 Officers), this unit appears to have five fewer budgeted officers than the workload estimate suggests is needed.

Estimated Staffing Calculation, Domestic Victims Unit
1 Cases Assigned for Investigation 2,969.0
2 Average Hours Spent per Investigation 7.5
3 Total Hours (Row 1 x Row 2) 22,268.0
4 Total Available hours per Officer 1,664.0
5 Officers Rounded Up (Row 3 / Row 4) 13.0
Domestic Violence Unit
Staffing Study Results
Source(s): Interviews, Personnel Reports, Case Activity Logs, Annual Crime Report 2023.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 178
Burglary Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
Average Touch Time per Activity (Hours), Burglary Unit
Activities Time per
Activity
Average
Frequency
per Activity
Average
Touch
Time per
Activity
Initial Investigation 6.0
Video/Photo Evidence 4.0 0.8 3.2
Victim Contacts 0.5 1.9 0.9
Initial Suspect ID 2.0 0.4 0.7
BOLO and Emails 1.0 0.7 0.7
Initial Victim ID 1.0 0.1 0.1
Scene Response 1.0 0.1 0.1
Outside Agencies Coordination 0.5 0.0 0.0
In-Depth Follow Up 1.5
Canvassing or Surveillance 1.0 0.6 0.6
Email Main Stakeholders 0.5 0.9 0.4
Victim Follow-Up 1.0 0.2 0.2
Witness Interview 1.0 0.1 0.1
Additional Interviews 0.5 0.0 0.0
Prep for Witness Interview 1.0 0.0 0.0
Charges and Trial 0.50
Suspect Interrogations 3.0 0.1 0.2
Case Preparation 2.0 0.0 0.1
Suspects Apprehended 1.0 0.0 0.0
Administrative Time Block 0.5 1.6 0.5
Total 8.5
 Based on Focus Groups and interviews with OPD’s Burglary Unit staff, a list of activities per case and the average time spent on each activity was agreed upon – yielding the data shown in the “activities” and “time per activity” columns in the table at the right.
 The activities were categorized into three main stages of an investigation: Initial Investigation, In-Depth Follow Up, and Charges and Trial.
 Case Activity Logs completed by Burglary Unit investigators produced the “average volume of activity” column. This
column represents the number of activities completed per case during the 60-day log period.
• The average volume of activities generally decreases
with each phase because not all cases reach the ‘in-
depth follow up’ or ‘charges and trial’ phases.
 Time per activity was multiplied by average volume per activity to calculate average touch time.
• Average Touch Time per Case in the Burglary Unit
was calculated to be eight and a half hours per case.
• The results show, on average, Video/ Photo
Evidence, Victim Contacts, and Initial Suspect ID
were the most time-consuming activities per case.

These activities accounted for nearly two-thirds (61
percent) of total average touch time per case.

Source(s): Case Activity Logs; Focus Groups with OPD Staff.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 179
Burglary Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
Source(s): Case Activity Logs Submitted by Burglary Unit Investigators.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum. For discussion of the use of average touch time, please see the methodology section.  The graph at right shows the distribution of
touch time by the number of cases that fell into
the touch time range.
 Although the average touch time per case was
eight and a half hours, investigators spent less
than four hours on less complex cases and
more than twelve hours on complex cases.
26 16
8 10
12 14
16 18
0 2
22 4
24 26
6 8
20 10-11 12+
19 17
13 11
0-1 2-3 4-5 6-7 8-9
Touch Time
Cases
(Hours)
Distribution of Cases, by Touch Time, Burglary Unit
© PFM 180
 According to the volume of reported cases in the case activity log, an estimated total of 2,624 were assigned to Burglary for investigation in CY2023.
• Based on the estimated case volume (2,624) and average time per case (8.5 hours) the GCU could be staffed with 14 FTE (Row 5).
• Based on FY 2025 budgeted positions (7 Officers), this unit appears to have seven fewer officers than the workload estimate suggests is needed.

Estimated Staffing Calculation, Burglary Unit
1 Cases Assigned for Investigation 2,624.0
2 Average Hours Spent per Investigation 8.5
3 Total Hours (Row 1 x Row 2) 22,304.0
4 Total Available hours per Officer 1,664.0
5 Officers Rounded Up (Row 3 / Row 4) 14.0
Burglary Unit
Staffing Study Results
Source(s): Current Staffing: Case Activity Logs Submitted by Homicide Unit Investigators.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 181
Time Spent per Activity, General Crimes Unit
Activities Average Time
per Activity
Case Preparation 1.0
Review body worn cameras 1.0
Correct missing information 1.0
Upload to County DA office 0.5
Additional Follow Up 1.0
Total 4.5
General Crimes Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
 Based on interviews with General Crimes Unit, its
Investigators are currently tasked with reviewing, processing, and submitting “in-custody cases.”
 In-custody cases are crime reports with in-custody arrestees that have been completed in the field primarily by OPD Patrol and/or OPD Specialized Units, and most of the investigation was been completed by the arresting officer and/or unit.  Because of the volume of cases processed by these
investigators, as well as the transactional and repetitive nature of their duties, the General Crimes Unit did not participate in the Case Activity Log study. Their activities and average time per activity were captured through interviews with detectives and unit command.
 The most common activities performed in each case are listed in the table at right, along with the average time required to perform each activity.
 The average touch time per in-custody case is estimated at

4.5 hours.

Source(s): Case Activity Logs; Focus Groups with OPD Staff. © PFM 182
 According to CID staff, a total of 1,925 in-custody cases were reported and assigned to GCU for processing in CY 2023.
• Based on case volume (1,925) and average time per case (4.5 hours) the GCU could be staffed with 6 FTE (Row 5).
• Based on FY 2025 budgeted positions (7 Officers), this unit appears to have one more budgeted officer than the workload estimate suggests is needed.

Estimated Staffing Calculation, General Crimes Unit
1 Cases Assigned for Investigation 1,925.0
2 Average Hours Spent per Investigation 4.5
3 Total Hours (Row 1 x Row 2) 8,663.0
4 Total Available hours per Officer 1,664.0
5 Officers Rounded Up (Row 3 / Row 4) 6.0
General Crimes Unit (GCU)
Staffing Study Results
Source(s): Interviews, Personnel Reports, Case Activity Logs, Annual Crime Report 2023.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 183
Homicide Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
Average Touch Time per Activity (Hours), Homicide Unit
Activities Time per
Activity
Average
Frequency
of Activity
Average
Touch Time
per Activity
Initial Investigation 16.0
Video/Photo Evidence Analysis 8.0 1.0 7.6
Scene Response 4.0 0.9 3.4
Initial Suspect ID 3.0 0.9 1.7
BOLO & Emails 1.0 1.3 1.3
Outside Agency Coordination 0.5 1.9 0.9
Initial Victim ID 1.0 0.5 0.5
Hospital Visits 2.0 0.1 0.2
Next of Kin Notification 1.5 0.1 0.2
In-Depth Follow Up 19.5
Digital/Social Media Review 2.0 5.1 10.2
Digital/Social Media Search Warrant 4.0 0.7 2.6
Search Warrants 2.0 1.1 2.1
Witness Interview 1.0 1.7 1.7
Additional Interviews 0.5 1.6 0.8
Residential/Vehicular Search Warrant 3.0 0.3 0.8
Prep for Witness Interview 1.0 0.6 0.6
Phones/Digital Equipment Forensics 2.0 0.2 0.4
Canvassing or Surveillance 4.0 0.1 0.2
Email Main Stakeholders 0.5 0.1 0.1
Charges and Trial 23.0
Case Preparation 8.0 1.6 12.8
Consultation with Prosecution 2.0 1.8 3.5
Suspect Interrogations 3.0 1.1 3.2
Participate in Court Hearings 2.0 1.2 2.4
Arrest Warrants Issued 2.0 0.6 1.1
Suspects Apprehended 1.0 0.2 0.2
Administrative Time Block 0.5 3.9 3.0
Total 61.5
 Based on Focus Groups and interviews with OPD’s
Homicide Unit staff, a list of activities per case and the average time spent on each activity was agreed upon –
yielding the data shown in the “activities” and “time per activity” columns in the table at the right.
 The activities were categorized into three main stages of an investigation: Initial Investigation, In-Depth Follow Up, and Charges and Trial.
 Case Activity Logs completed by the Homicide Unit
investigators produced the “average volume of activity” column. This column represents the number of activities completed per case during the 60-day log period.
• The average volume of activities generally
decreases with each phase because not all cases
reach the ‘in-depth follow up’ or ‘charges and trial’
phases.
 Time per activity was multiplied by average volume per activity to calculate average touch time.
• Average Touch Time per Case in the Homicide Unit
was calculated to be 61.5 hours per case.
• The results showed, on average, Case Preparation,
Digital/Social Media Review, and Video/Photo
Evidence Analysis were the most time-consuming
activities per case. These activities accounted for
over half (51.1 percent) of the average touch time
per case.

Source(s): Case Activity Logs; Focus Groups with OPD Staff.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.
© PFM 184
Touch Time
Cases
4 4
1 5
3 1
2 0
1 2
3 4
5 15-29 30-44 45-59 60-74 75-89 90-104 105
+
Distribution of Cases, by Touch Time, Homicide Unit
(Hours)
 The following graph shows the distribution of
touch time by the number of cases that fell
into the touch time range.
 Although average touch time per case was

61.5 hours, the graph to the right shows that
less complex cases may require less than 29
hours and complex cases can require more
than 105 hours to investigate.

Homicide Unit
Key Assumptions: Touch Time
Source(s): Current Staffing: Case Activity Logs Submitted by Homicide Unit Investigators.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum. For discussion of the use of average touch time, please see the methodology section. © PFM 185
 According to CID staff, a total of 196 cases were reported and assigned to the Homicide Unit for investigation in CY2023.
• Based on case volume and average time per case (61.5 hours), the preliminary time-bound analyses suggested eight FTE (Row 5).
• However, in other major departments with which PFM has worked, the average homicide detective touch time hours per case were approximately 250 hours, while Oakland averaged approximately 62 hours (75% less than other major city departments studied).
• OPD’s comparatively low number of touch time hours was such a deviation from other departments that it suggested the result of 8 detectives (below) means the logbook data and other information received from OPD does not align with subject matter experience.
• If the average hours of other jurisdictions is used in lieu of OPD data, OPD would have 18 homicide detectives at baseline. The project team also recognizes that OPD assigns other functions to this unit beyond homicide (which is not uncommon) and affects workload for which insufficient data is available to substantiate. • For the purposes of baseline, the project team used 18 homicide detectives.

Estimated Staffing Calculation, Homicide Unit – OPD Data 1 Cases Assigned for Investigation (All types) 196.0
2 Average Hours Spent per Investigation 61.5
3 Total Hours (Row 1 x Row 2) 12,054.0
4 Total Available hours per Officer 1,664.0
5 Officers Rounded Up (Row 3 / Row 4) 8.0
Source(s): Interviews, Personnel Reports, Case Activity Logs, Annual Crime Report 2023.

Note: Figures are rounded and may not sum.

Homicide Unit
Staffing Study Results
Estimated Staffing Calculation, Homicide Unit – Subject Matter Expert Revision 1 Homicide Cases - 2023 119.0
2 Average Hours Spent per Investigation 248.0
3 Total Hours (Row 1 x Row 2) 29,512.0
4 Total Available hours per Officer 1,664.0
5 Officers Rounded Up (Row 3 / Row 4) 18.0
© PFM 186
Baseline OPD Workload-Based
Investigations Staffing Analysis
Staffing Results & General Observations
© PFM 187
Criminal Investigations Division (CID)
Summary of Staffing Needs
Unit / Detail Positions in
Budget
Calculated
Positions Difference
Robbery & Felony Assault Section 16 40 +24
Felony Assault Unit 8 15 +7
Robbery Unit 8 25 +17
Special Victims Section 16 27 +11
Special Victims Unit 6 7 +1
Domestic Violence Unit 8 13 +5
Missing Persons Unit 2 7 +5
Burglary & General Crime Section 14 20 +6
Burglary Unit 7 14 +7
General Crimes Unit 7 6 -1
Homicide Section 12 18 +6
Homicide Unit 12 18 +6
Totals 58 105 +47
Investigations Staffing Study Results Summary  Based on the staffing study results, the total number of CID
Investigators needed is 105, which
represents 47 additional
investigators compared to the 58
budgeted in FY 2025.

1. During the study, the Department experienced many organizational changes, starting with a new Chief of Police and cascading down to Division, Section, and Unit command.

2. Several, if not most, of the division and section commanders were in Acting roles (e.g., Acting Lieutenant, Acting Captain).

3. The General Crimes Unit mainly processes suspects apprehended by patrol. Its investigative duties are very limited.

Professional staff (civilians) can potentially perform this unit's duties.

4. The Homicide Unit’s seven-day rotation can become a source of officer burnout since it does not account for caseloads. Officers who are called out for multiple homicides during their rotation will: (1) incur a considerable amount of overtime; (2) most likely reduce the time spent in each case; and (3) likely experience a negative impact on their ability to rest between shifts. Other departments have a per-case squad rotation, whereby each consecutive case is assigned to a different homicide squad – therefore, no squad is assigned back-to-back callouts.

5. Geographic assignment of cases in the Robbery and Burglary Units can also generate a workload imbalance. Officers assigned to more active geographies (Police Areas) will have larger caseloads than those in less active geographies.

6. Although OPD is in the process of implementing a new Case Management System (CMS) and Records Management System (RMS), it should consider continuing the practice of logging hours and activities in a manner that can help supervisors and unit command have visibility of time spent in cases and overall investigator performance.

7. Regardless of the availability of a CMS, OPD could consider implementing a manual way for unit supervisors to screen cases before assigning them to investigators for follow up. This would enable investigators to prioritize their time in cases where they can identify a suspect, which could potentially result in solving a case. © PFM 189
Estimating Baseline OPD Workload-Based
Staffing Results
© PFM 190
Baseline Workload-Based Staffing
 As with all staffing projections, it is critical to note that this baseline report and its results are not intended to provide a formulaic single “right” answer for OPD staffing – there is no such thing. Rather, the report findings and workload-based outputs should be used to help inform judgments and decision-making by elected and appointed leaders, stakeholders, and the public.
 OPD leadership indicates the current state of operations is insufficient to meet City needs and goals. The PFM team concurs.
• The baseline is presented as maintaining the then-current state of operations during the period of study. The “baseline” does not represent the “ideal” state of department staffing. Additionally, the “baseline” results are presented within the context of the methodological and data limitations noted at the beginning of this document and reflective of the period of study.

As a reminder, the scope of services focuses on sworn staffing. Professional staffing is a critical component of broader OPD operations, but was beyond the scope of this analysis. • At “baseline,” the only assumed operational change included in estimates is increased proactive time for patrol officers to a minimum threshold (not to be considered ideal or a best practice). Please see the patrol workload-based staffing analysis section for a discussion of this assumption. Patrol staffing estimates assume no changes in calls for service volume, response policies, or time spent responding to calls for service (relative to CY 2022 data). Investigations staffing estimates similarly assume no change in case volume from 2023 levels. • The baseline assumes no changes to improve efficiency, such as calls for service handled by patrol officers that could potentially be redirected to other service providers, as outlined in the Alternative Call Response section of this report. • Such an operational change could change staffing needs, similar to a reduction in call volume or time spent on calls.  The following slide summarizes the results of the workload-based staffing analysis under then-current “baseline” conditions.  With the baseline analysis completed, the natural next step for Oakland’s elected and appointed leaders, stakeholders, and the public is to identify – beyond
baseline staffing and organization – what functions they want OPD to perform and what outcomes they want to achieve.
© PFM 191
Baseline* Workload-Based Staffing Summary
 At the time of this study, without changes to OPD organization and operations, the baseline workload-based analysis found a need for 199 more budgeted positions than included in the FY 2025 budget – much of the gap was in BFO 1 (+75) and BFO 2 (+65). The Bureau of Investigations analysis also suggested additional budgeted staff (+59).  Additionally, OPD may have opportunities to pursue additional efficiency and effectiveness measures – including assessing the appropriate number of professional staff – that would affect the baseline staffing projection and improve services. This is a natural next step for the City, OPD, and stakeholders to consider as they assess OPD staffing and operations.

Note: Lieutenants are budgeted at the area level, rather than the shift or watch level. *Please see slide 20 for a discussion of what is included in “baseline” staffing estimates.

Ofc Sgt Lt Cpt
Dep.

Chief
Asst.

Chief Chief
Total
Sworn
Total
Prof. Total
FY 2025 Budgeted Positions 523 111 28 10 4 1 1 678 303 981 Bureau of Field Operations 1 174 31 7 3 1 0 0 216 16 232 Bureau of Field Operations 2 203 38 9 4 1 0 0 255 17 272 Bureau of Investigations 72 14 4 1 1 0 0 92 79 171
Office of the Chief of Police 47 8 3 1 0 1 1 61 6 67
Bureau of Risk Management 23 19 5 1 1 0 0 49 40 89
Bureau of Services 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 145 150
Workload-Based Staffing 682 141 38 10 4 1 1 877 303 1,180 Bureau of Field Operations 1 235 42 10 3 1 0 0 291 16 307 Bureau of Field Operations 2 254 49 12 4 1 0 0 320 17 337 Bureau of Investigations 119 22 8 1 1 0 0 151 79 230
Office of the Chief of Police 47 8 3 1 0 1 1 61 6 67
Bureau of Risk Management 23 19 5 1 1 0 0 49 40 89
Bureau of Services 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 145 150
Difference 159 30 10 0 0 0 0 199 0 199
Bureau of Field Operations 1 61 11 3 0 0 0 0 75 0 75
Bureau of Field Operations 2 51 11 3 0 0 0 0 65 0 65
Bureau of Investigations 47 8 4 0 0 0 0 59 0 59
Office of the Chief of Police 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bureau of Risk Management 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bureau of Services 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Summary of Baseline Workload-Based Staffing Analysis
© PFM 192
Alternative Call Responses
© PFM 193
Assessment of Alternative Call Responses
Methodology
 The PFM team reviewed community-generated calls for service data from 2022 to analyze call incident types that received a patrol officer response.
• 2023 and 2024 data on calls for service did not contain complete information on the unit type and number of officers in response, so 2022 was the latest complete set available for analysis.  The project team performed a qualitative review of call incident categories. It leveraged the team’s subject matter expertise to preliminarily identify call types that could potentially be handled with a non-police alternative response. • A more thorough and nuanced review of the call types identified in this section would be required to determine whether these could be handled by an alternative response and the most appropriate alternative response type. A detailed analysis of this type is beyond this engagement's time, resources, and scope.  Categories for alternatives to a police officer response included incidents that are eligible to be handled by using:
• Online reporting response
• Telephone follow-up
• Diversion to a mental or behavioral health resource vendor (outsourcing) • Professional staff (civilianize function)
• Traffic accident management vendor (outsourcing)
• Full enforcement of false alarm reduction policies
© PFM 194
Community-Generated Calls with Potential for Alternative Response  Community-generated calls totaled 125,427
in 2022.
 Several call categories, given their nature,
are not likely to be eligible for alternative
call response.
• All calls categorized in Violence,
Suspicious, Domestic-related, Missing
Persons, and Vice, are assumed to
require police response.
• Calls categorized in Follow-up/Service
and Interpersonal-other represent
records of requested or documented
police officer activity and are assumed to
be ineligible for alternative call response.

Community-Generated Calls with Potential for Alternative Response, by Category, 2022
Source: OPD 2022 community generated calls for service; PFM Team subject matter analysis.

Note: Equivalent FTE estimated assuming 1,657 available working hours per officer, with 40 percent of time dedicated to responding to calls for service.
 The project team estimates that some amount of the subset of the 37,000 2022 potentially eligible calls for alternative response CFS handled by police officers could be eligible for some form of alternative call response or diversion strategy. • The 37,000 calls in the potentially-eligible categories represented 29.6% of call volume, or 21.9% of labor hours from patrol officers in 2022.
• The officer time spent responding to these calls was equivalent to 83.9 officers, based on assumptions used in the workload-based analysis of patrol. To be clear, not all calls within this cohort would be eligible alternative response.

Total Calls
Calls that may be eligible
for alternative response
Count
Total
Officer
Time (Hrs) Count
% of
Total
Count
Total
Officer
Time
(Hrs)
% of Total
Officer
Time
Estimated
Equivalent
FTE
Violence 26,523 90,774 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0
Disorder 26,186 37,080 116 0.4% 83 0.2% 0.1
Property 12,858 24,568 6,203 48.2% 10,569 43.0% 15.9
Admin 11,534 16,612 5,383 46.7% 3,156 19.0% 4.8
Traffic-related 10,501 21,111 8,714 83.0% 16,035 76.0% 24.2 Alarms 9,544 9,443 8,879 93.0% 8,887 94.1% 13.4
Mental 7,556 17,406 7,309 96.7% 16,001 91.9% 24.1
Follow-up/Service 6,989 10,188 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0
Suspicious 4,843 7,165 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0
Domestic-related 4,591 8,920 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0
Medical 2,192 6,952 479 21.9% 854 12.3% 1.3
Missing Persons 954 2,587 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0
Vice 805 687 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0
Interpersonal-other 351 507 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 0.0
Total 125,427 254,000 37,083 29.6% 55,653 21.9% 83.9
© PFM 195
Community-Generated Calls for Service Eligible for Alternative Response False Alarm Reduction Program
*Source: https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/register-for-alarm-permit; project team subject matter analysis.  False alarms represent another group of calls with the potential for an alternative response. In 2022, there were approximately 8,900 recorded alarms to which patrol officers responded, resulting in approximately 8,900 hours of officer time spent on calls that were reported to have no emergent need for an officer.
• When dispatch data records an alarm and a burglary or an attempted break-in takes place an address, the call type is updated to the appropriate offense category. Incidents that remain listed as alarms in the dataset are considered false alarms because no action is required from the police.
 The City of Oakland and OPD have a False Alarm Reduction Program that requires property owners to register for permits to maintain alarms monitored by third-party services.*
• The program has a provision to place addresses into “suspension.” In such cases, OPD will no longer respond to future automatic alarms after a third false alarm in a calendar year occurs at that address. Suspension of response service does not apply to manually activated (panic) alarms or other 9-1-1 emergencies not related to alarms. • Property owners are issued fines after each false alarm; if fines are not paid, addresses can also be suspended. • Alarm companies are also required to call two different phone numbers for a property owner to verify that burglar alarms are actual emergencies before notifying the OPD Communications Division.  OPD should annually review its CAD entries to verify that all recorded false alarms are from addresses with three or fewer alarms. Any addresses with three or more false alarms should be submitted for the suspension process to align with the False Alarm Reduction Program.
 OPD should also confirm with the Communications Division that dispatchers can identify addresses under suspension and are empowered to deny an alarm company any request until the owner of the address can verify the need for a police officer.  OPD could consider a non-police officer resource (either a professional staff resource or a contracted vendor) as an alternative response for alarm calls on addresses that are not suspended. © PFM 196
Community-Generated Calls for Service Eligible for Alternative Response Online Reporting and Police Services Technicians
*Source: OPD Special Order 9054 Revised Response to Calls and On-Line Reporting.

OPD Annual Reports 2018-2022. Note: While specific online report totals were provided in 2018-2021, in 2022, the report did not provide a specific total and only mentions that OPD handled “over 20,000” reports in that year (page 60)  Currently, the OPD authorizes the diversion of several call types to its online reporting platform, with the goal of alleviating this workload from patrol officers.
• Eligible call types include:* Theft, Identity Theft, Fraudulent Use of Credit Card, Mail Theft, Theft of a Dog or Animal, Vandalism, Vehicle Tampering and Attempted Auto Theft, Abandoned Vehicles, Hit and Run without Injury (suspect is no longer on scene), Harassing/Annoying Phone Calls (except for death threats), Forgery, Bad Checks, Lost Property, Auto Burglary (optional), Residential Burglary (optional).
• Auto and residential burglaries may be reported online, or an officer may be dispatched at the request of the reporting party.  Based on OPD Annual Reports, the Department reviewed over 20,000 online reports per year from 2018-2022:
 OPD policy also allows for non-sworn personnel in the classification of Police Services Technician to be assigned to the field to handle various call types that would otherwise be managed by sworn officers:
• Eligible call types include:* Auto in a Restricted Zone, Auto on the Sidewalk, Parking on Private Property, Emergency No Parking (temp signs), Stolen Vehicle, Recovered Stolen Vehicle, Auto Blocking a Driveway, Residential Burglary, Auto Burglary, Hazards.
• Officers are still dispatched for these call types when there is a threat of violence, an active disturbance, or if there are no Police Service Technicians available.

CY 2018 CY 2019 CY 2020 CY 2021 CY 2022
Online Report Volume per Year 21,926 24,295 24,340 21,360 *Over 20,000
© PFM 197
Community-Generated Calls with Potential for Alternative Response By Category of Alternative Response
Community-Generated Calls in 2022 with Potential for
Alternative Response, by Potential Alternative and Call Type Source: OPD 2022 community generated calls for service; PFM Team subject matter analysis.

Note: Equivalent FTE estimated assuming 1,657 available working hours per officer, with 40 percent of time dedicated to responding to calls for service.

MACRO is an alternative response program responding to calls for individuals experiencing homelessness, behavioral or mental health crises, and nonviolent disturbances.
 Diversion to Health Resource:
• For over 7,400 calls for service categorized under mental health or disorder, OPD may be able to divert response to some subset to a qualified mental or behavioral health service such as Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland (MACRO) Program, “9-8-8” lifeline for suicide prevention, or with EMS (e.g., for senile subjects) rather than dispatch a police officer.
 Online Reporting Response:
• OPD has an online reporting platform to allow its residents to receive services over email instead of an in-person patrol officer response; however, 2022 data shows that there were still over 2,200 incidents responded to by a police officer that may have been eligible for an online report. This represented over 3,700 hours of patrol officer time in 2022.
• OPD policy allows PSTs to handle certain call types. For example, a caller can request the option of an officer response for Auto Burglary, which is the largest category identified.

However, based on the City’s budget deficit at the time of this report, when professional positions become vacant, OPD
reported the positions are frozen.
 Telephone Follow Up Response:
• For 911 hang-up calls (and disconnected calls from cell phones), OPD could conduct a telephone follow-up to determine if any emergency exists rather than dispatching a patrol officer.

Count
Total
Officer
Time (Hrs)
Equivalent
FTE
Potential for Diversion to Health Resource 7,423 16,083 24.3 Insanity 5,761 11,811 17.8
Threatening Suicide 1,016 2,514 3.8
Attempt Suicide 322 1,259 1.9
Senile 117 211 0.3
Encampment 114 81 0.1
Found Senile 93 206 0.3
Potential for Online Reporting 2,208 3,761 5.7
Auto Burglary 1,173 1,988 3.0
Vandalism 465 871 1.3
Theft - Petty 420 663 1.0
Attempt Vehicle theft 51 94 0.1
Forgery 48 83 0.1
Vehicle Collision- Hit/run 17 19 0.0
Remove Parts from Vehicle 15 15 0.0
Theft of Services 13 20 0.0
Lost Property 6 10 0.0
Potential for Telephone Follow-up 5,243 2,945 4.4
911 call from cell phone 4,088 2,231 3.4
911 Hangup 1,155 714 1.1
© PFM 198
Community-Generated Calls for Service Eligible for Alternative Response By Category of Alternative Response (Part 2)
Community-Generated Calls in 2022 with Potential for Alternative Response, by Potential Alternative and Call Type
Source: Source: OPD Special Order 9054 Revised Response to Calls and On-Line Reporting.

OPD 2022 community generated calls for service; PFM Team subject matter analysis Note: Equivalent FTE estimated assuming 1,657 available working hours per officer, with 40 percent of time dedicated to responding to calls for service.
 Outsourcing to Traffic Accident Management
Vendor:
• Some qualified vendors can provide contracted
services to manage vehicle collisions, traffic hazards, and traffic control that can free up patrol officers from having to respond to these calls for service.
• In 2022, there were over 6,200 incidents – some
subset of which could likely have been outsourced.

In sum, those more than 6,200 incidents represented
over 14,000 hours of patrol officer time.
 Professional Staff Response:
• OPD 2022 data indicated there were over 7,100
property- and vehicle-related incidents that patrol
officers handled. A subset of these calls could be
eligible to be handled by professional staff.
• Per OPD policy, Police Service Technicians
throughout BFOs 1 & 2 perform these types of tasks
as an alternative to police officers unless there is a
threat of violence, an active disturbance, or if a
Technician is not available to be dispatched.

Count
Total
Officer
Time (Hrs)
Equivalent
FTE
Potential for Outsourcing to Vendor 6,228 14,473 21.8
Vehicle Collision - Personal Injury 2,204 9,003 13.6
Hazard 2,163 2,363 3.6
Vehicle Collision - Property Damage 1,012 1,388 2.1
Vehicle Collision - Ascertain if Ambulance Needed 479 854 1.3 Tow Car Requested 134 201 0.3
Traffic Control Post 129 436 0.7
Vehicle Collision - City Property 107 228 0.3
Potential for Professional Staff Response 7,102 9,436 14.2 Recovered Stolen Vehicle 2,525 5,354 8.1
Auto Blocking Driveway 1,822 1,444 2.2
Petty Theft- License Plate 1,108 1,053 1.6
Check Vehicle 826 861 1.3
Found Property 385 430 0.6
Auto in Restricted Zone 169 104 0.2
Auto on Sidewalk 161 113 0.2
Auto Improperly Parked 104 75 0.1
Abandoned Automobile 2 2 0.0
© PFM 199
Appendices
© PFM 200
Appendix A: Overview of OPD
Employee Paid Time Off
© PFM 201
Department-wide Leave Use
Hours Used, By Title and Category, CY 2020 through CY 2023 CY 2020 CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023
% of CY
2023
Total
CAGR
CY 2020-
CY 2023
Sworn 200,755 237,407 243,817 237,575 73.3% 5.4%
Vacation 58,944 86,423 71,401 77,222 24.0% 9.4%
Sick 41,715 55,075 50,083 47,355 14.7% 4.2%
Workers Comp 33,361 40,233 68,357 43,076 13.4% 7.5%
Admin Leave 25,140 19,012 17,133 30,885 9.6% 7.1%
Comp Time 32,621 27,158 29,250 30,452 9.5% -2.3%
Military Leave 4,744 5,785 4,020 4,516 1.4% -1.6%
Other Leave 2,150 1,900 2,034 2,372 0.7% -3.9%
Family Death Leave 1,847 1,754 1,539 1,696 0.5% -2.8%
COVID Leave 223 67 - - 0.0% -100.0%
Union 10 - - - 0.0% -100.0%
Professional 81,725 73,683 91,071 84,614 26.3% 1.2%
Vacation 25,757 30,569 35,036 36,918 11.5% 12.7%
Sick 20,796 26,747 36,068 26,838 8.3% 8.9%
Comp Time 9,154 9,306 8,382 9,220 2.9% 0.2%
Admin Leave 18,115 1,714 3,575 6,075 1.9% -30.5%
Family Death Leave 2,101 2,047 2,537 2,489 0.8% 5.8%
Other Leave 997 849 2,598 2,426 0.8% 34.5%
Workers Comp 624 816 1,963 303 0.1% -21.4%
Jury Duty 147 102 102 191 0.1% 9.0%
Military Leave 481 490 466 134 0.0% -34.8%
Union 432 254 347 22 0.0% -62.9%
COVID Leave 3,121 790 - - 0.0% -100.0%
Total 282,480 311,090 334,888 322,189 4.2%
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized leave data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. This document included hours worked, leave taken, and overtime worked by employees from 2020 to 2023. With feedback from OPD, PFM categorized the types of leave into major categories. Using employee rosters provided by OPD for the same period, PFM cross-referenced each employee's assignment and position at the beginning of each year. Since the employee rosters were taken at a specific point in time, some individuals in the leave data could not be linked to an assignment and were therefore excluded from our analysis.

Total Leave Hours Taken by OPD by Type, CY 2020 – CY 2023  In total, OPD used leave hours increased from CY 2020 to CY 2023 at a 4.2 percent CAGR. Department leave peaked in CY 2022, before declining by 3.8 percent in CY 2023.
 In CY 2023, sworn leave accounted for nearly three-quarters (73.3 percent) of OPD’s total leave, but approximately two- thirds (63.4 percent) of total OPD staff.
• Sworn staff leave grew by a 5.4 percent CAGR during the four-year period.
 In CY 2022, sworn staff recorded the highest total leave hours, while sworn staffing was at its lowest number
during the four-year period.
• Professional staff leave usage grew at a 1.2 percent
CAGR.
 During the same year, professional staff leave usage
accounted for 26.3 percent of OPD’s total leave, and
professional staff comprised 36.3 percent of total OPD
positions.
 Between CY 2020 and CY 2023, an average of 29 sworn staff were on Administrative Leave – or slightly more than four percent of total sworn staff.
© PFM 202
Leave Use: Bureau of Field Operations 1 and 2
Total Sworn Hours Used, By Category, CY 2023
 Based on the leave hours taken by sworn OPD
employees each year, the total leave taken by job
title and by leave type for BFO 1 & 2 was
calculated.
 In CY 2023, BFO 2 employees totaled slightly more
leave than BFO 1 (51.9 percent vs. 48.1 percent).
 Most Administrative Leave came from officers
assigned to BFO 2.
• 81.7 percent of Administrative Leave used by
officers within the two bureaus came from officers
in BFO 2.
 Five officers in BFO 1 used Administrative Leave.
• Of those five officers, two used over 1,000 hours
of Administrative Leave.
 Four sworn staff members used Worker’s Comp in
BFO 1.
• Of these four, two took over 1,000 hours of
Workers Comp Leave.
 Only two sworn staff members from BFO 2 used
Worker’s Comp.

Ofc. Sgt. Lt. All
Sworn
% Leave by
Bureau
Bureau of Field Operations 1 52,789 15,065 3,860 71,713 - Vacation 18,641 5,177 1,478 25,296 35.3%
Sick 14,344 2,561 160 17,065 23.8%
Workers Comp 7,285 3,191 36 10,512 14.7%
Comp Time 7,435 2,035 308 9,778 13.6%
Administrative Leave 3,206 2,008 1,736 6,950 9.7%
Military Leave 980 - - 980 1.4%
Other Leave 480 - 112 592 0.8%
Family Death Leave 418 92 30 540 0.8%
Bureau of Field Operations 2 66,885 9,636 2,386 78,907 - Vacation 16,837 3,813 1,340 21,990 27.9%
Administrative Leave 14,358 1,751 - 16,109 20.4%
Sick 11,048 2,235 184 13,467 17.1%
Workers Comp 12,342 316 30 12,688 16.1%
Comp Time 9,576 1,491 372 11,439 14.5%
Military Leave 1,886 - - 1,886 2.4%
Other Leave 420 - 460 880 1.1%
Family Death Leave 418 30 - 448 0.6%
Total 133,617 27,562 6,848 168,026
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized leave data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. This document included hours worked, leave taken, and overtime worked by employees from 2020 to 2023. With feedback from OPD, PFM categorized the types of leave into major categories. Using employee rosters provided by OPD for the same period, PFM cross-referenced each employee's assignment and position at the beginning of each year. Since the employee rosters were taken at a specific point in time, some individuals in the leave data could not be linked to an assignment and were therefore excluded from the analysis.

Total Leave Taken by Bureau of Field Operations 1 and 2, by Type, CY 2023¹
¹This analysis was limited to full-time employees who completed at least 1 YOS. © PFM 203
Leave Use: Bureau of Investigations
Total Sworn Hours Used, By Category, CY 2023
 The total number of leave hours used by sworn Bureau
of Investigations employees, by job title and type, was analyzed using actual leave hour data from CY 2023.
• Note: the Criminalistics Division is omitted here
because it did not have sworn staff.
 Of the 140 total sworn staff within the Bureau included in this analysis, 11 used more than 500 hours of
Worker’s Comp leave. The Worker’s Comp hours used
by these employees accounted for 21.3 percent of total
leave taken within the entire Bureau.
 Total leave hours for CID were primarily driven by
Vacation, Administrative Leave, and Sick leave – these
categories comprised 71.3 percent of total CID leave
and nearly 45 percent of total Bureau leave.
• Administrative leave within CID was primarily driven
by four officers who each used over 700 hours of
Administrative Leave. These three officers accounted
for 3.9 percent of the total sworn staff within CID and

97.8 percent of total Administrative Leave hours used.
 Total leave hours for the Violent Crime Operations
Center (VCOC) were primarily driven by Worker’s
Comp, Vacation, and Sick Leave – totaling 82.0 percent
of VCOC leave and 31.2 percent of total Bureau leave.

Ofc. Sgt. Lt. All
Sworn
% of
Total By
Division
Violent Crime
Operations Center
14,239 3,291 182 17,713
Workers Comp 7,100 1,240 - 8,340 47.1%
Vacation 2,767 1,019 96 3,882 21.9%
Sick 2,568 953 - 3,521 19.9%
Comp Time 1,544 80 86 1,710 9.7%
Military Leave 240 - - 240 1.4%
Other Leave 20 - - 20 0.1%
Criminal Investigations
Division
23,950 4,172 837 28,969
Vacation 9,206 1,911 389 11,866 39.7%
Administrative Leave 5,488 - 120 5,608 19.4%
Sick 4,402 412 320 5,142 17.7%
Comp Time 2,761 665 8 3,442 11.9%
Workers Comp 1,470 1,072 - 2,542 8.8%
Family Death Leave 428 - - 428 1.5%
Other Leave 95 112 - 207 0.7%
Military Leave 110 - - 110 0.4%
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized leave data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. This document included hours worked, leave taken, and overtime worked by employees from 2020 to 2023. With feedback from OPD, PFM categorized the types of leave into major categories. Using employee rosters provided by OPD for the same period, PFM cross-referenced each employee's assignment and position at the beginning of each year. Since the employee rosters were taken at a specific point in time, some individuals in the leave data could not be linked to an assignment and were therefore excluded from the analysis.

Total Leave Taken for Bureau of Investigations by Type, CY 2023¹ ¹This analysis was limited to full-time employees who completed at least 1 YOS. © PFM 204
Leave Use: Bureau of Investigations
Total Professional Hours Used, By Category, CY 2023
 The total number of leave hours used by Professional
Bureau of Investigations employees, by job title and
type, was analyzed using actual leave hour data from
CY 2023.
 In CY 2023, the Violent Crime Operations Center had
one professional staff member who was a full-time
employee with at least one year of service (the criteria used to examine leave data). That employee used
more than 1,400 hours of Administrative Leave.
 CID Professional staff leave usage was primarily driven by Vacation, Administrative Leave, and Sick leave.
• Hours taken for Administrative Leave in the Criminal
Investigations Unit were taken by two professional
staff members
Leave Type Hours % of Total
By Division
Violent Crime Operations Center 1,433
Administrative Leave 1,433 100.0%
Criminal Investigations Division 14,505
Vacation 5,658 36.0%
Administrative Leave 2,504 17.3%
Sick 4,472 30.8%
Comp Time 1,350 9.3%
Family Death Leave 419 2.9%
Other Leave 102 0.7%
Criminalistics Division 6,166
Vacation 3,397 55.1%
Sick 1,312 21.3%
Other Leave 1,237 20.1%
Comp Time 153 2.5%
Family Death Leave 38 0.6%
Administrative Leave 23 0.4%
Military Leave 8 0.1%
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized leave data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. This document included hours worked, leave taken, and overtime worked by employees from 2020 to 2023. With feedback from OPD, PFM categorized the types of leave into major categories.

Using employee rosters provided by OPD for the same period, PFM cross- referenced each employee's assignment and position at the beginning of each year. Since the employee rosters were taken at a specific point in time, some individuals in the leave data could not be linked to an assignment and were therefore excluded from our analysis..

Total Hours of Leave by Type for Bureau of Investigations Professional Staff, CY 2023¹
¹This analysis was limited to full-time employees who completed at least 1 YOS. © PFM 205
Department-wide Leave Use
Average Hours Used, By Title and Category, CY 2020 through CY 2023  The average¹ hours of leave taken per employee
by leave type was calculated based on the leave
hours taken by OPD employees each year.
 The average hours of leave taken by OPD
employees increased by a CAGR of 8.3 percent
between CY 2020 and CY 2023 – in part,
potentially influenced by the COVID-19 pandemic
that may have affected the CY 2020 and CY
2021 leave patterns.
 Average hours of sworn leave grew by an 8.0
percent CAGR between CY 2020 and CY 2023,
peaking in CY 2022. Professional staff leave
grew at a 7.4 percent CAGR, increasing each
year.
 In CY 2022, among the 689 sworn employees in
2022, 41.6 percent used some amount of
Worker’s Comp leave.
• This average hours of Worker’s Comp leave
was driven by 43 sworn employees who each
used more than 500 hours of Worker’s Comp
leave.

CY 2020 CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 CAGR
2020-2023
Sworn 264 321 352 336 8.0%
Vacation 77 117 103 109 12.1%
Sick 55 75 72 67 6.9%
Workers Comp 44 54 99 61 11.6%
Administrative Leave 33 26 25 44 9.8%
Comp Time 43 37 42 43 0.2%
Military Leave 6 8 6 6 0.8%
Other Leave 3 3 3 3 5.9%
Family Death Leave 2 2 2 2 -0.4%
COVID Leave 0.3 .1 - - -100.0%
Union 0.01 - - - -100.0%
Professional 171 186 198 212 7.4%
Vacation 54 77 79 92 19.6%
Sick 44 68 81 67 15.5%
Comp Time 19 24 19 23 6.4%
Administrative Leave 38 4 8 15 -26.3%
Family Death Leave 4 5 6 6 12.3%
Other Leave 2 2 6 6 42.7%
Workers Comp 1 2 4 1 -16.6%
Jury Duty 0 0 0 0 15.7%
Military Leave 1 1 1 0 -30.8%
Union 1 1 1 0 -60.7%
COVID Leave 7 2 - - -100.0%
Department Average 229 276 292 293 8.3%
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized leave data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. This document included hours worked, leave taken, and overtime worked by employees from 2020 to 2023. With feedback from OPD, PFM categorized the types of leave into major categories. Using employee rosters provided by OPD for the same period, PFM cross- referenced each employee's assignment and position at the beginning of each year. Since the employee rosters were taken at a specific point in time, some individuals in the leave data could not be linked to an assignment and were therefore excluded from our analysis.
¹The average hours of leave taken were calculated by summing all leave hours by type and dividing by the total number of employees in sworn and professional titles.

Average Leave Hours Taken by OPD by Type, CY 2020 – CY 2023 © PFM 206
Department-wide Leave Use
Total and Average Leave Hours Used, By Bureau and Title, CY 2023  In FY 2023, Officers, the most numerous sworn rank, generated the majority of sworn leave, taking more than three-quarters (76.9 percent) of all sworn leave.

Ofc. Sgt. Lt. All Sworn Professional
BFO 2 66,885 9,636 2,386 78,907 6,768
BFO 1 52,789 15,065 3,860 71,713 3,837
Bureau of Investigations 38,199 7,463 1,019 46,681 22,164 Bureau of Services 2,075 344 132 2,551 36,008
Bureau of Risk Mgmt 5,696 5,091 680 11,467 5,322
Office of Chief of Police 8,618 1,972 190 10,780 1,334
Department Overall 174,262 39,571 8,267 226,479 75,434
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized leave data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request.

This document included hours worked, leave taken, and overtime worked by employees from 2020 to 2023.

With feedback from OPD, PFM categorized the types of leave into major categories. Using employee rosters provided by OPD for the same period, PFM cross-referenced each employee's assignment and position at the beginning of each year. Since the employee rosters were taken at a specific point in time, some individuals in the leave data could not be linked to an assignment and were therefore excluded from the analysis.

Total Leave Hours Taken by Bureau by Title, CY 2023¹
¹This analysis was limited to full-time employees who completed at least 1 YOS.

Ofc. Sgt. Lt. All Sworn Professional
BFO 2 387 344 341 379 356
BFO 1 334 367 482 346 226
Bureau of Investigations 341 339 170 333 321
Office of Chief of Police 297 329 190 299 222
Bureau of Risk Mgmt 271 364 170 294 213
Bureau of Services 231 344 132 232 127
Department Overall 347 353 306 346 304
Average Leave Hours Taken by Bureau by Title, CY 2023¹
 Based on the CY 2023 leave hours taken by
OPD employees each year, the average
number of leave hours taken by job title, by
bureau was calculated:
• Officers assigned to BFO 2 took, on
average, the highest amount of leave
among all officers.
• Sergeants assigned to BFO 1 took, on
average, the highest amount of leave for all
sergeants.
• Lieutenants assigned to BFO 1 took, on
average, the highest amount of leave for all
lieutenants.
• Among all sworn staff, those assigned to
BFO 2 took, on average, the highest
amount of average leave, and staff assigned
to the Bureau of Services took, on average,
the lowest amount of leave.
• Professional staff assigned to BFO 2 took,
on average, the highest amount of leave
among professional staff.
© PFM 207
Leave Use: Bureau of Field Operations 1 and 2
Average Sworn Hours Used, By Category, CY 2023
 Based on the leave hours taken by sworn OPD
employees each year, the average leave hours
taken by job title and leave type was calculated
for BFOs 1 and 2.
 BFO 2 sworn staff used, on average, 33 more
hours of leave than sworn staff in BFO 1 (9.5
percent difference), despite having nearly
identical levels of sworn staff (BFO 1 had 207
and BFO 2 had 208).
 Sworn staff in BFO 2 used an average of 33
more hours of Administrative Leave.
• This average was driven by 15 sworn
members of BFO 2 (out of a total of 208);
eight of whom each used over 1,000 hours of
Administrative Leave.
 The average 217 hours of Administrative Leave
taken by lieutenants in BFO 1 was taken by a
single lieutenant who used 1,736 hours of
Administrative Leave.

Ofc. Sgt. Lt. All
Sworn
% Leave by
Bureau
Bureau of Field Operations 1 334 367 482 346
Vacation 118 126 185 122 35.3%
Sick 91 62 20 82 23.8%
Workers Comp 46 78 5 51 14.7%
Comp Time 47 50 39 47 13.6%
Administrative Leave 20 49 217 34 9.7%
Military Leave 6 - - 5 1.4%
Other Leave 3 - 14 3 0.8%
Family Death Leave 3 2 4 3 0.8%
Bureau of Field Operations 2 387 344 341 379
Vacation 97 136 191 106 27.9%
Administrative Leave 83 63 - 76 20.4%
Sick 64 80 26 65 17.1%
Workers Comp 71 11 4 61 16.1%
Comp Time 55 53 53 55 14.5%
Military Leave 11 - - 9 2.4%
Other Leave 2 - 66 4 1.1%
Family Death Leave 2 1 - 2 0.6%
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized leave data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. This document included hours worked, leave taken, and overtime worked by employees from 2020 to 2023. With feedback from OPD, PFM categorized the types of leave into major categories. Using employee rosters provided by OPD for the same period, PFM cross- referenced each employee's assignment and position at the beginning of each year. Since the employee rosters were taken at a specific point in time, some individuals in the leave data could not be linked to an assignment and were therefore excluded from the analysis.

Average Leave Taken by Bureau of Field Operations 1 and 2 by Type, CY 2023¹
¹This analysis was limited to full-time employees who completed at least 1 YOS. © PFM 208
Leave Use: Bureau of Investigations
Average Sworn Hours Used, By Category, CY 2023
 The average number of leave hours used by
sworn Bureau Investigations staff was analyzed by
job title and leave type.
 The average number of leave hours taken by
sworn staff was 326 hours – driven by Vacation,
Administrative Leave, and Sick Leave.
• Out of the 76 officers in the Criminal
Investigations Unit included in this analysis,
three used administrative leave, significantly
affecting the average for the division.
• Of the four lieutenants assigned to the Criminal
Investigations Unit, one took 120 hours of
administrative leave.

Ofc. Sgt. Lt. All
Sworn
% of
Total
Violent Crime
Operations Center 396 549 91 403
Workers Comp 197 207 - 190 47.1%
Vacation 77 170 48 88 21.9%
Sick 71 159 - 80 19.9%
Comp Time 43 13 43 39 9.7%
Military Leave 7 - - 5 1.4%
Other Leave 1 - - 0 0.1%
Criminal
Investigations Division 315 261 209 302
Vacation 121 119 97 120 39.7%
Administrative Leave 72 - 30 58 19.4%
Sick 58 26 80 53 17.7%
Comp Time 36 42 2 36 11.9%
Workers Comp 19 67 - 26 8.8%
Family Death Leave 6 - - 4 1.5%
Other Leave 1 7 - 2 0.7%
Military Leave 1 - - 1 0.4%
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized leave data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. This document included hours worked, leave taken, and overtime worked by employees from 2020 to 2023. With feedback from OPD, PFM categorized the types of leave into major categories. Using employee rosters provided by OPD for the same period, PFM cross- referenced each employee's assignment and position at the beginning of each year. Since the employee rosters were taken at a specific point in time, some individuals in the leave data could not be linked to an assignment and were therefore excluded from our analysis.

Average Hours of Leave by Type for Bureau of Investigations Sworn Staff, CY 2023¹
¹This analysis was limited to full-time employees who completed at least 1 YOS. © PFM 209
Leave Use: Bureau of Investigations
Average Professional Hours Used, By Category, CY 2023
 The CY2023 average hours of leave used by
professional staff within VCOC was an outlier
because there was only one professional staff
member in full-time status with at least one year of
service (the basis for this analysis).
 The average leave hours used by Professional staff
in CID was 356 – primarily driven by Vacation, Sick,
and Administrative Leave.
• The average leave used by CID professional staff
for Administrative Leave was driven by two
employees who each used over 500 hours of
administrative leave.
 The average number of leave hours used by
professional staff assigned to the Criminalistics
Division was 258 – primarily driven by Vacation,
Sick, and Other Leave.

Professional % of Total
Violent Crime Operations Center 1,433
Administrative Leave 1,433 100%
Criminal Investigations Division 356
Vacation 128.6 39.0%
Sick 101.6 17.3%
Administrative Leave 56.9 30.8%
Comp Time 30.7 9.3%
Family Death Leave 10 2.9%
Other Leave 2 .7%
Criminalistics Division 258
Vacation 141.5 55.1%
Sick 54.7 21.3%
Other Leave 51.5 20.1%
Comp Time 6.4 2.5%
Family Death Leave 1.6 0.6%
Administrative Leave 0.9 0.4%
Military Leave 0.3 0.1%
Workers Comp 0 0.0%
Bureau Total 23,260
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized leave data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. This document included hours worked, leave taken, and overtime worked by employees from 2020 to 2023. With feedback from OPD, PFM categorized the types of leave into major categories. Using employee rosters provided by OPD for the same period, PFM cross-referenced each employee's assignment and position at the beginning of each year. Since the employee rosters were taken at a specific point in time, some individuals in the leave data could not be linked to an assignment and were therefore excluded from our analysis. ¹This analysis was limited to full-time employees who completed at least 1 YOS.

Average Hours of Leave by Type for Bureau of Investigations Professional Staff, CY 2023¹
© PFM 210
Leave Use: Bureau of Services – Communications Division Average Dispatcher Hours Used, By Category, CY 2023
 In CY 2023, the average professional staff
member within the Bureau of Communications
took 75 percent more leave than the average
professional within the department.
 In addition to this analysis, dispatchers were
examined separately from all other professional
positions within the Communications Division of the
Bureau of Services to examine the impact of
vacancies on leave and overtime.
• Between CY 2020 and CY 2023, the dispatcher
job title had an average vacancy rate of 16.4
percent.
• Isolating dispatchers from the other professional
staff within the Bureau helped to identify
differences in trends between dispatchers and
other professional staff in the Bureau.
• In general, dispatcher leave was not markedly
different than professional staff leave – though
comp time was slightly higher and vacation and
sick leave slightly lower.

Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized leave data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. The document hours worked, leave, and overtime worked by employee for 2020-2023. PFM also utilized Employee Rosters provided by OPD that are as of January 1st of their respective year to cross reference employees with their hire data and bureau assignment. This analysis only includes full-time employees with at least 1 year of service. This analysis also excludes Captains and Deputy Chiefs.

Average Hours of Leave by Type for the Communications
Division Professional Staff, CY 2023¹
Dispatcher Professional All Professional
Communications 373 371 371
Vacation 149 170 151
Sick 123 135 124
Comp Time 60 38 58
Administrative Leave 19 - 17
Family Death Leave 19 15 19
Workers Comp 3 - 3
Other Leave - 14 1
© PFM 211
Appendix B: Overview of OPD Overtime
Utilization
© PFM 212
Department-wide Overtime
Hours of Overtime, By Title and Category, CY 2020 through 2023  Annual overtime was highest in CY 2023, primarily
driven by sworn employees who accounted for 82.2
percent of OPD’s total overtime.
 Professional overtime accounted for 17.8 percent of
OPD’s total overtime in CY 2023
 From CY 2020 to CY 2023, total overtime hours
worked by the Department increased by a CAGR of

6.1 percent.
 Sworn overtime grew by a CAGR of 6.6 percent
between CY 2020 and CY 2023. Special
Enforcement, Extension of Shift, and Overtime
primarily drove this.
• According to OPD, the “Special Enforcement”
category is typically used for specific events like
sideshows, festivals, sporting events and
downtown nightclub details, often on weekends.

It can also be requested for specific crime trends
requiring additional police presence.
 Professional overtime grew by a CAGR of 3.6
percent between CY 2020 and CY 2023. This was
primarily driven by Backfill, Overtime, and Special
Enforcement.
2020 2021 2022 2023
% of
2023
Total
CAGR
2020-
2023
Sworn 312,722 256,300 329,189 378,884 82.2% 6.6%
Special Enforcement 146,641 128,788 149,736 171,234 37.1% 5.3% Extension of Shift 49,943 35,867 55,867 71,952 15.6% 12.9% Overtime 43,506 32,448 41,449 56,099 12.2% 8.8%
Backfill 34,644 19,848 27,004 23,590 5.1% -12.0%
Training 13,040 16,228 25,170 19,576 4.2% 14.5%
Callback 10,834 10,042 11,851 13,441 2.9% 7.5%
Administrative Investigations 9,699 7,538 10,108 16,600 3.6% 19.6% Recruiting and Background 2,117 2,788 5,119 4,032 0.9% 24.0% Court Appearance 2,299 2,754 2,886 2,360 0.5% 0.9%
Professional 73,602 62,141 75,268 81,900 17.8% 3.6%
Backfill 34,855 31,045 32,645 32,627 7.1% -2.2%
Overtime 17,075 13,473 18,286 21,019 4.6% 7.2%
Special Enforcement 10,104 7,704 10,885 11,556 2.5% 4.6% Extension of Shift 9,150 7,957 11,660 14,991 3.3% 17.9% Callback 2,129 1,177 1,136 956 0.2% -23.4%
Court Appearance 134 174 254 383 0.1% 42.0%
Administrative Investigations 156 612 260 328 0.1% 28.0% Training - - 143 41 0.0% -
386,324 318,441 404,457 460,784 6.1%
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized overtime data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. The document included hours worked, leave, and overtime, by employee. for 2020-2023.

PFM also utilized Employee Rosters provided by OPD that are as of January 1st of their respective year to cross reference employees with their hire data and bureau assignment. This analysis only includes full- time employees with at least one year of service. This analysis also excludes Captains and Deputy Chiefs.

Hours of Overtime, Sworn and Professional, CY 2020 through CY 2023 © PFM 213
Department-wide Overtime
Average Hours of Overtime, By Title and Category, CY 2020 through CY 2023 2020 2021 2022 2023
CAGR
2020-
2023
Sworn 411 337 433 498 6.6%
Special Enforcement 193 174 216 242 7.9%
Extension of Shift 66 49 81 102 15.7%
Overtime 57 44 60 79 11.5%
Backfill 46 27 39 33 -9.8%
Training 17 22 36 28 17.3%
Callback 14 14 17 19 10.1%
Administrative Investigations 13 10 15 23 22.6%
Recruiting and Background 3 4 7 6 27.0%
Court Appearance 3 4 4 3 3.4%
Professional 154 157 164 205 10.0%
Backfill 73 78 73 82 3.8%
Overtime 36 34 41 53 13.7%
Special Enforcement 21 19 24 29 11.0%
Extension of Shift 19 20 26 37 25.1%
Callback 4 3 3 2 -18.7%
Court Appearance 0 0 1 1 50.7%
Administrative Investigations 0 2 1 1 35.8%
Department Average 313 282 352 419 10.2%
 Average overtime hours worked per employee
increased by a CAGR of 10.2 percent between
CY 2020 and CY 2023, from 313 to 419 hours.
• Average sworn overtime hours grew at a 6.6
percent CAGR.
• Special enforcement and extension of shift
were the largest drivers of average hours of
overtime.
• Average professional overtime hours grew at a

10.0 percent CAGR.
• Backfill needs drove much of the average
hours of overtime for professional
employees.

PFM also utilized Employee Rosters provided by OPD that are as of January 1st of their respective year to cross reference employees with their hire data and bureau assignment. This analysis only includes full-time employees with at least one year of service. This analysis also excludes Captains and Deputy Chiefs.

Average Hours of Overtime, Sworn and Professional,
CY 2020 through CY 2023
© PFM 214
Department-wide Overtime
Total Hours Used, By Bureau, CY 2020 – CY 2023
 The total number of overtime hours taken by each bureau within OPD was analyzed for CY 2020 through CY 2023.  During this period, overtime grew at a CAGR of 6.1 percent. The only year in which there was a decline in overtime was in CY 2021.
 Combined, the two Field Operations Bureaus comprised 56.4 percent of total OPD overtime hours during the four-year period. The “N/A” category designates overtime hours for which no Bureau was associated – annually a very small share of all OPD overtime.
 The Bureau of Investigations and the Office of Chief of Police experienced the highest annual growth over the four years, with CAGRs of 22.9 percent and 15.8 percent, respectively.

Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized overtime data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. The document included hours worked, leave, and overtime, by employee. for 2020-2023. PFM also utilized Employee Rosters provided by OPD that are as of January 1st of their respective year to cross reference employees with their hire data and bureau assignment. This analysis only includes full-time employees with at least one year of service. This analysis also excludes Captains and Deputy Chiefs.
2020 2021 2022 2023
Total
2020-
2023
% of
Total
CAGR
2020-
2023
Bureau of Field Operations 2 124,673 93,044 120,897 128,028 466,641 29.7% 0.9% Bureau of Field Operations 1 107,871 96,997 100,491 113,521 418,879 26.7% 1.7% Bureau of Investigations 59,646 50,340 90,000 110,760 310,746 19.8% 22.9% Bureau of Services 48,867 46,846 46,534 48,035 190,283 12.1% -0.6% Bureau of Risk Management 27,536 17,604 25,240 33,005 103,385 6.6% 6.2% Office of Chief of Police 16,665 13,054 18,279 25,902 73,901 4.7% 15.8% N/A 1,066 556 3,016 1,556 6,194 0.4% 13.5%
Total 386,324 318,441 404,457 460,808 1,570,029 6.1%
Hours of Overtime, by Bureau, CY 2020 through CY 2023
© PFM 215
Department-wide Overtime
Total Hours, By Bureau and Title, CY 2023
 Over three-quarters (75.8 percent) of total sworn overtime hours were generated by employees in the “officer” rank.

Sworn officers comprised 49.4 percent of total OPD sworn staff.  Most overtime hours were worked by officers in the Field Operations Bureaus – 61.0 percent of officer overtime occurred in Bureau of Fields Operations 1 and 2. In comparison, officers in the two BFOs comprised 28.6 percent of the total sworn staff.
 Sergeants worked approximately 18.7 percent of all sworn overtime hours.  Lieutenants worked the least amount of overtime of all sworn positions and comprised 5.4 percent of sworn overtime.  The Bureau of Services was responsible for 58.1 percent of total professional overtime. The Communications Division within the Bureau of Services drove Professional staff overtime.

Ofc. Sgt. Lt. All Sworn Professional
Bureau of Field Operations 2 95,000 17,496 3,628 116,124 7,203 Bureau of Field Operations 1 77,259 21,013 5,160 103,432 4,713 Bureau of Investigations 66,000 19,069 6,682 91,752 11,631 Office of Chief of Police 18,850 4,475 1,344 24,668 227 Bureau of Risk Management 13,568 4,938 1,624 20,130 3,677 Bureau of Services 2,209 577 943 3,729 38,008
Department Overall 272,887 67,567 19,381 359,835 65,459 Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized overtime data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. The document included hours worked, leave, and overtime, by employee. for 2020-2023. PFM also utilized Employee Rosters provided by OPD that are as of January 1st of their respective year to cross reference employees with their hire data and bureau assignment. This analysis only includes full-time employees with at least one year of service. This analysis also excludes Captains and Deputy Chiefs.

Total Hours of Overtime, by Bureau and Title, CY 2023
© PFM 216
Department-wide Overtime
Average Hours, By Bureau and Title, CY 2023
 Among all sworn staff in CY 2023, staff assigned to the Office of Chief of Police took the highest amount of average overtime, and staff assigned to the Bureau of Services took the lowest amount of overtime.  Officers assigned to BFO 2 worked, on average, the highest amount of overtime among officers. Officers assigned to the Bureau of Services worked the least overtime among officers.  Sergeants assigned to the Bureau of Investigations worked, on average, the highest amount of overtime for all sergeants.

On average, sergeants assigned to the Bureau of Risk Management worked the least amount of overtime among sergeants.
 On average, lieutenants assigned to the Bureau of Risk Management worked the least overtime among lieutenants. • Data for this analysis included only one lieutenant in the Office of Chief of Police. This lieutenant’s overtime hours were driven by primarily by administrative investigations.
• This includes six lieutenants in the Bureau of Investigations. Five of these six lieutenants worked over 1,000 hours of overtime. About 47 percent of the overtime hours worked by lieutenants in this bureau were for extension of shift.  Professional staff assigned BFO 2 worked, on average, the highest amount of overtime among professional staff.

Professional staff assigned to the Office of Chief of Police worked, on average, the least amount of overtime.

Ofc. Sgt. Lt. All Sworn Professional
Bureau of Field Operations 2 549 625 518 558 379
Bureau of Field Operations 1 489 513 645 500 277
Bureau of Investigations 589 867 1,114 655 169
Office of Chief of Police 650 746 1,344 685 38
Bureau of Risk Management 646 353 406 516 147
Bureau of Services 245 577 943 339 107
Department Average 544 603 718 508 264
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized overtime data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. The document included hours worked, leave, and overtime, by employee. for 2020-2023. PFM also utilized Employee Rosters provided by OPD that are as of January 1st of their respective year to cross reference employees with their hire data and bureau assignment. This analysis only includes full-time employees with at least one year of service. This analysis also excludes Captains and Deputy Chiefs.

Average Hours of Overtime, by Bureau and Title, CY 2023 © PFM 217
Overtime: Bureau of Field Operations 1 and 2
Total Hours, By Category, CY 2023
 Total CY 2023 overtime hours worked were
analyzed for BFO 1 and BFO 2 employees, by job
title and by overtime type.
• BFO 2 comprised 52.9 percent of overtime
worked between the two bureaus.
• In BFO 1, Sergeants and Lieutenants worked
more overtime hours than those in BFO 2.
• BFO 2 sworn staff had a higher total amount of
overtime worked by officers, and drove the
overall difference between BFO 1 and BFO 2.
• Within both bureaus, leading types of overtime
work were Special Enforcement, Extension of
Shift, and Overtime.

Ofc. Sgt. Lt. All
Sworn
% of Total
By
Bureau
Bureau of Field Operations 1 77,259 21,013 5,160 103,432 Special Enforcement 39,608 7,178 556 47,342 45.8%
Extension of Shift 13,587 3,672 795 18,053 17.5%
Overtime 9,611 4,630 1,339 15,579 15.8%
Backfill 5,868 1,633 602 8,102 7.8%
Administrative Investigations 173 3,315 1,537 5,024 4.9% Training 4,557 215 10 4,782 4.6%
Callback 1,494 292 322 2,107 2.0%
Recruiting and Background 1,784 30 - 1,814 1.8%
Court Appearance 579 51 - 629 0.6%
Bureau of Field Operations 2 95,000 17,496 3,628 116,124 Special Enforcement 52,167 5,652 366 58,184 50.1%
Extension of Shift 16,614 1,717 596 18,926 16.3%
Overtime 13,210 3,450 253 16913 14.6%
Backfill 3,617 2,754 1,047 7,418 6.4%
Training 4,990 805 - 5,794 5.0%
Administrative Investigations 609 2,379 1,036 4,024 3.5% Callback 2,538 727 331 3,596 3.1%
Court Appearance 844 12 - 856 0.7%
Recruiting and Background OT 414 - - 414 0.4%
Total 172,259 38,509 8,788 219,556
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized overtime data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. The document included hours worked, leave, and overtime, by employee. for 2020-2023. PFM also utilized Employee Rosters provided by OPD that are as of January 1st of their respective year to cross reference employees with their hire data and bureau assignment. This analysis only includes full-time employees with at least one year of service. This analysis also excludes Captains and Deputy Chiefs.

Total Overtime Hours Worked, by BFO 1 and 2 Sworn Staff, by Title and Type, CY 2023¹
© PFM 218
Overtime: Bureau of Field Operations 1 and 2
Average Sworn Hours Worked, By Category, CY 2023
 The average sworn CY 2023 overtime hours worked
were analyzed by job title and overtime type for BFO
1 and BFO 2 employees.
 Across all titles, sworn staff assigned to BFO 2
worked, on average, 58 more hours of overtime than
sworn staff in BFO 1.
• This was primarily driven by officers assigned to
BFO 2.
 Sergeants in BFO 2 worked, on average, more
overtime than Sergeants in BFO 1 – driven by Backfill
and Special Enforcement.
 Lieutenants assigned to BFO 1 worked, on average,
more overtime hours than Lieutenants assigned to
BFO 2 – mostly a result of greater hours of overtime
in Administrative Investigations and Special
Enforcement, among other types of overtime.

Ofc. Sgt. Lt. All
Sworn
% of
Total By
Bureau
Bureau of Field Operations 1 489 513 645 500
Special Enforcement 251 175 70 229 45.8%
Extension of Shift 86 90 99 87 17.5%
Overtime 61 113 167 75 15.1%
Backfill 37 40 75 39 7.8%
Administrative Investigations 1 81 192 24 4.9%
Training 29 5 1 23 4.6%
Callback 9 7 40 10 2.0%
Recruiting and Background 11 1 - 9 1.8%
Court Appearance 4 1 - 3 0.6%
Bureau of Field Operations 2 527 598 471 558
Special Enforcement 302 202 52 280 50.1%
Extension of Shift 96 61 85 91 16.3%
Overtime 76 123 36 81 14.6%
Backfill 21 98 150 36 6.4%
Training 29 29 - 28 5.0%
Administrative Investigations 4 85 148 19 3.5%
Callback 15 26 47 17 3.1%
Court Appearance 5 0 - 4 0.7%
Recruiting and Background 2 - - 2 0.4%
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized overtime data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. The document included hours worked, leave, and overtime, by employee. for 2020-2023. PFM also utilized Employee Rosters provided by OPD that are as of January 1st of their respective year to cross reference employees with their hire data and bureau assignment. This analysis only includes full-time employees with at least one year of service. This analysis also excludes Captains and Deputy Chiefs.

Average Overtime Hours Worked, by BFO 1 and 2 Sworn Staff, by Title and Type, CY 2023¹
© PFM 219
Overtime: Bureau of Investigations
Total Sworn Hours Worked, By Category, CY 2023
 Based on the total overtime hours taken by the
Bureau of Investigations’ sworn employees,
overtime by job title and type was analyzed.
• Note: the Criminalistics Division is omitted
here because it did not have sworn staff.
 The Criminal Investigations Division comprised

71.9 percent of total overtime for sworn staff
within the Bureau of Investigations.
 Special Enforcement, Extension of Shift, and
Overtime primarily drove total overtime hours
for the Criminal Investigations Division.
 Special Enforcement, Extension of Shift, and
Overtime primarily drove the Violent Crime
Operations Center's total overtime hours.

Ofc. Sgt. Lt. All Sworn
% of
Total By
Division
Violent Crime Operations Center 19,078 4,172 2,546 25,795 Special Enforcement 10,158 806 513 11,477 44.5%
Extension of Shift 4,025 599 1,379 6,003 23.3%
Overtime 2,384 1,461 54 3899 15.1%
Administrative Investigations 398 576 318 1,292 5.0%
Callback 886 141 158 1,185 4.6%
Training 467 497 - 964 3.7%
Backfill 431 84 124 639 2.5%
Court Appearance 261 9 - 270 1.0%
Recruiting and Background OT 68 - - 68 0.3%
Criminal Investigations Division 46,923 14,898 4,137 65,957 Special Enforcement 20,968 5,336 576 26,880 40.8%
Extension of Shift 10,345 4,613 1,762 16,720 25.3%
Overtime 6,377 2,003 835 9,215 14.0%
Callback 4,066 1,126 358 5,550 8.4%
Backfill 3,116 492 47 3,655 5.5%
Administrative Investigations 388 1,314 556 2,258 3.4%
Training 1,276 3 - 1,278 1.9%
Court Appearance 264 11 3 278 0.4%
Recruiting and Background OT 124 - - 124 0.2%
Total 66,000 19,069 6,682 91,752
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized overtime data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. The document included hours worked, leave, and overtime, by employee. for 2020-2023. PFM also utilized Employee Rosters provided by OPD that are as of January 1st of their respective year to cross reference employees with their hire data and bureau assignment. This analysis only includes full-time employees with at least one year of service. This analysis also excludes Captains and Deputy Chiefs.

Total Overtime Hours Worked by Sworn Staff,
by Division Title and Type, CY 2023¹
© PFM 220
Overtime: Bureau of Investigations
Average Sworn Hours Worked, By Category, CY 2023
 Average sworn CY 2023 overtime hours
worked by Bureau of Investigations sworn
employees were analyzed by job title and by
overtime type.
• Note: the Criminalistics Division is omitted
here because it had no sworn staff.
 In CY 2023, the average number of overtime
hours worked by sworn staff in the Criminal
Investigations Division was 687.
 During the same year, the average number
of overtime hours worked by sworn staff
assigned to the Violent Crime Operations
Center was 586.

Ofc. Sgt. Lt. All
Sworn
% of
Total By
Division
Violent Crime Operations Center 530 695 1,273 586
Special Enforcement 282 134 256 261 44.5%
Extension of Shift 112 100 690 136 23.3%
Overtime 66 244 27 89 15.1%
Administrative Investigations 11 96 159 29 5.0%
Callback 25 23 79 27 4.6%
Training 13 83 - 22 3.7%
Backfill 12 14 62 15 2.5%
Court Appearance 7 1 - 6 1.0%
Recruiting and Background OT 2 - - 2 0.3%
Criminal Investigations Division 617 931 1,034 687
Special Enforcement 276 334 144 280 40.8%
Extension of Shift 136 288 440 174 25.3%
Overtime 84 125 209 96 14.0%
Callback 54 70 90 58 8.4%
Backfill 41 31 12 38 5.5%
Administrative Investigations 5 82 139 24 3.4%
Training 17 0 - 13 1.9%
Court Appearance 3 1 1 3 0.4%
Recruiting and Background OT 2 - - 1 0.2%
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized overtime data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. The document hours worked, leave, and overtime worked by employee for 2020-2023. PFM also utilized Employee Rosters provided by OPD that are as of January 1st of their respective year to cross reference employees with their hire data and bureau assignment. This analysis only includes full-time employees with at least 1 year of service. This analysis also excludes Captains and Deputy Chiefs.

Average Overtime Hours Worked by Sworn Staff,
by Division Title and Type, CY 2023¹
© PFM 221
Overtime: Bureau of Investigations
Total Professional Hours Worked, By Category, CY 2023
 Based on the total overtime hours taken by the Bureau of Investigations’ Professional employees, overtime by job title and type was analyzed.
 Among Professional Staff within the Bureau of
Investigations, staff from the Criminal Investigations
Division took the most overtime.
• Extension of Shift, Backfill, and Special Enforcement primarily drove this result. These overtime types
accounted for 38.0 percent, 21.6 percent, and 18.4
percent of the total overtime taken within the Bureau.

Professional % of Total
Criminal Investigations
Division 11,606 99.8%
Extension of Shift 4,427 38.1%
Backfill 2,515 21.7%
Overtime 2,306 19.9%
Special Enforcement 2,141 18.4%
Court Appearance 119 1.0%
Callback 98 0.8%
Administrative Investigations 2 0.0%
Criminalistics Division 25
Overtime 11 45.8%
Extension of Shift 10 38.2%
Callback 4 16.1%
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized overtime data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. The document hours worked, leave, and overtime worked by employee for 2020-2023. PFM also utilized Employee Rosters provided by OPD that are as of January 1st of their respective year to cross reference employees with their hire data and bureau assignment. This analysis only includes full-time employees with at least 1 year of service. This analysis also excludes Captains and Deputy Chiefs.

Total Overtime Hours Worked, Professional Staff
by Division Title and Type, CY 2023
© PFM 222
Overtime: Bureau of Investigations
Average Professional Hours Worked, By Category, CY 2023  The CY 2023 average CY 2023 overtime hours worked
by Bureau of Investigations Professional employees, by
overtime type, was analyzed.
 Among Professional Staff within the Bureau of
Investigations, staff from the Criminal Investigations
Division used an average of 264 hours of overtime. This was primarily driven by Extension of Shift, Backfill, and Special Enforcement.

Professional % of Total
Criminal Investigations Division 264
Extension of Shift 101 38.1%
Backfill 57 21.7%
Overtime 52 19.9%
Special Enforcement 49 18.4%
Court Appearance 3 1.0%
Callback 2 0.8%
Administrative Investigations 0.05 0.0%
Criminalistics Division 1.0
Overtime 0.6 45.8%
Extension of Shift 0.4 38.2%
Callback 0.2 16.1%
Note: To complete this analysis, PFM utilized overtime data provided by OPD in response to an initial data request. The document hours worked, leave, and overtime worked by employee for 2020-2023. PFM also utilized Employee Rosters provided by OPD that are as of January 1st of their respective year to cross reference employees with their hire data and bureau assignment. This analysis only includes full-time employees with at least 1 year of service. This analysis also excludes Captains and Deputy Chiefs.

Average Overtime Hours Worked, Professional Staff
by Type, CY 2023
© PFM 223
Overtime Use: Bureau of Services – Communications Division Average Hours Worked, By Category, CY 2023
 Recent staffing shortages and scheduling
inefficiencies have impacted the Communications
Division. Personnel schedules do not appear to
align with the existing call volume.
 The average overtime worked for all
communications professionals was primarily driven
by the number of dispatchers within the division (58
dispatchers and 6 other professional positions).
• On average dispatchers worked 69.8 percent
more overtime than other professionals within the
Communications division.
 On average, backfill accounted for 65.5% of total
overtime for dispatchers, likely indicating the
significant impact of reported staffing shortages.

Dispatcher Professional All
Professional
Communications 450 265 432
Backfill 295 172 283
Overtime 126 44 118
Extension of Shift 16 19 16
Special Enforcement 11 29 13
Callback 1 0 1
Court Appearance - 1 0
Administrative
Investigations
- 0 0
© PFM 224
Appendix C: Leave Type Categories
© PFM 225
Appendix: Leave Categories by Element Type
Element Name Leave Category
ADO Administrative Leave Administrative Leave
ADSO Sworn Administrative Leave Administrative Leave
CFRA PBB Taken Other Leave
COVID19 Type123 Paid Leave Taken COVID Leave
COVID19 Type46 Paid Leave Taken COVID Leave
COVID19 Type5 Paid Leave Taken COVID Leave
CTU NonSworn CT Taken Comp Time
CTU Sworn CT Taken Comp Time
EVD Extra Vacation Day Vacation
FAM Sick Leave Taken Sick
FDL NonSworn Death Lv Family Death Leave
FDL Sworn Death Lv Family Death Leave
FHP Floating Holiday Comp Time
FMLA Comp Time Taken Sick
FMLA Extra Vac Day Taken Vacation
FMLA Floating Hol Taken Holiday
FMLA Management Taken Sick
FMLA Sick Taken Sick
FMLA Vacation Taken Vacation
JDL NonSworn Jury Duty Lv Jury Duty
Element Name Leave Category
MIL NonSworn Military Lv Military Leave
MIL Sworn Military Lv Military Leave
MLT Management Lv Taken Other Leave
OPA NonSworn Other Pd Lv Other Leave
OPA Sworn Other Paid Lv Other Leave
ORL NonSworn Org Lv Other Leave
ORL Sworn Org Lv Other Leave
SCK Sick Leave Taken Sick
Spec Vac OPOA Taken Vacation
SPSL Supplemental Paid Sick Leave TakenSick
SPSL2 Additional Suppl Sick Leave Taken Sick
UTM Union Meetings Union
UTO Union Steward Release Union
UTSO Union Steward Release Union
VAC Vacation Lv Taken Vacation
WCO Worker Comp Offset Workers Comp
ICF WC Free Prd Non Sworn Workers Comp
ICFS WC Free Prd Sworn Workers Comp
ICH WC Holiday Sworn Workers Comp
© PFM 226
Appendix: OT Categories by Element Type
Element Name Analysis Category2
AHO Acting High Rank OT Overtime
HDO Holiday OT Overtime
HDS Holiday OT Sworn Overtime
HMO Mandated Holiday OT Overtime
OTC NonSworn OT Court Court Appearance
OTC Sworn OT Court Court Appearance
OTP NonSworn OT Overtime
OTPAI Admin Investigations NS OT Administrative Investigations OTPAI_SwornAdmin Investigations OT Administrative Investigations OTPB_OPD Backfill NS OT Backfill
OTPC_OPD Callbacks NS OT Callback
OTPS_OPD SpecialEnf NS OT Special Enforcement
OTPX_OPD Extension NS OT Extension of Shift
OTS Sworn OT Overtime
OTSB_OPD SwornBackfill OT Backfill
OTSC_OPD SwornCallback OT Callback
OTSR_OPD SwornRec_Bkg OT Recruiting and Background OT
OTSS OPD SwornSpec Enf OT Special Enforcement
OTST_OPD SwornTraining OT Training
OTSU_OPD Sworn Unspec OT Overtime
OTSX_OPD SwornXtension OT Extension of Shift
© PFM 227
Appendix D: Professional Titles by
Categories
© PFM 228
Appendix: Professional Titles by Category
Title Professional
Category
Account Clerk I Front-line
Account Clerk II Front-line
Account Clerk III Front-line
Accountant II Front-line
Accountant III Front-line
Administrative Analyst Front-line
Administrative Analyst II Front-line
Administrative Analyst II, Selective Certification
Crime Front-line
Administrative Assistant I Front-line
Administrative Assistant II Front-line
Administrative Services Manager II Manager
Agency Administrative Manager Front-line
Annuitants Front-line
Assistant to the Director Front-line
Business Analyst II Front-line
Business Analyst III Front-line
Complaint Investigator II Front-line
Complaint Investigator III Front-line
Courier Front-line
Crime Analyst Front-line
Crime Laboratory Manager Manager
Criminalist I Front-line
Criminalist II Front-line
Criminalist II (underfilled as Crim 1) Front-line
Criminalist III Front-line
Title Professional
Category
Data Manager Manager
Deputy Director Manager
Director Manager
Evidence Technician Front-line
Executive Assistant to the Director Front-line
Fleet Compliance Coordinator Front-line
Forensic Technician Front-line
Front-line Front-line
Grants Coordinator Front-line
IBIS Technician Front-line
Intake Technician Front-line
Latent Print Examiner I Front-line
Latent Print Examiner II Front-line
Latent Print Examiner III Front-line
Management Assistant Front-line
Manager Manager
Office Assistant II Front-line
PA II Front-line
Payroll Personnel Clerk II Front-line
Payroll Personnel Clerk III Front-line
Police Cadet Front-line
Police Communications Dispatcher Front-line
Police Communications Dispatcher, Senior Front-line
Police Communications Manager Manager
Police Communications Operator Front-line
Police Communications Supervisor Supervisor
© PFM 229
Appendix: Professional Titles by Category
Title Professional
Category
Police Evidence Technician Front-line
Police Performance Auditor Front-line
Police Personnel Operations Specialist Front-line
Police Program & Performance Audit
Supervisor Supervisor
Police Program and Performance Audit
Manager
Manager
Police Property Specialist Front-line
Police Property Supervisor Supervisor
Police Records Specialist Front-line
Police Records Supervisor Supervisor
Police Service Technician Front-line
Police Service Technician II Front-line
Police Services Manager I Manager
Police Services Technician Front-line
Title Professional
Category
Police Services Technician II Front-line
Program Analyst II Front-line
Program Analyst III Front-line
Project Manager II Manager
Project Manager III Manager
Public Information Officer I Front-line
Reproduction Offset Operator Front-line
Reprographic Offset Operator Front-line
Reprographics Specialist Front-line
Research and Planning Unit Manager Manager
Student Trainee Front-line
Supervisor Supervisor
Volunteer Program Specialist II Front-line
Volunteer Services Coordinator Front-line
© PFM 230
Appendix E: Calls for Service Categories
© PFM 231
Appendix: Calls for Service Categories
Admin
900 Miscellaneous - Unknown
914 Phone Office (Or As Directed)
915 Phone Communications Division
924 Go to Your Office
925 Go to Communications Division
940 Meet the Officer
946 Tow Car Requested
947 Patrol Wagon Requested
950 Investigate Report from Citizen
953 Investigate Report of Person Down on Street
962 Meet a Citizen
4A50 OPD Helicopter
911C 911 call from cell phone
911H 911 Hangup
911N Not a 911 call matter
940A Provide Cover for Officer
940B Officer Needs Help
947J Patrol Wagon for Juvenile(s)
ADMIN Administrative
A'S Oakland A's
ASSIST Assist
AWOL Awol
BBALL Baseball
BLALRT Blue Alert
CCFILE Chronic Caller- File
CKPNT Check Prints
CMTG Community Meeting
CNCERT Concert
COL Coliseum
COMM Communications
CONCRT Concert
CVD19 COVID-19
ELEC Electric
EVAL Evaluate
EVENT Event
EVID Evidence
FNDGUN Found Gun
GUARD Hospital Guard
IA Internal Affairs
INFO Information
JGP John George Pavilion
LKOUT Look Out
LPROP Lost Property
LU Line-up
MACRO Marco Unit
MEET Meet
MFF Mobile Field Force
MISCAL Missed Call
MSDIAL Misdial
NOTIFY Notify
ONLINE Online
PAPER Paper
PARADE Parade
PAROLE Parole
PD Police Department

PGE PG&E
PHONE Phone
PI Private Investigator
POWER Power
RAIDER Raiders
RALLY Rally
SEARCH Search
SIGNAL Signal
SMOKE Smoke
SOCCER Soccer
SPCENF Special Enforcement
SPEC Special
STREET Street
SUPPL Supplemental
SURNDR Surrender
SURV Surveillance
SURVEI Surveillance
SUSP Suspect
SUSPS Suspects
TAM Administrative Transport
TARA Tarasoff v. Regents
TEC Technician
TXT911 Text 911
UNIT Unit
VICTIM Victim
VIDEO Video
VINVER VIN Verification
WAG Wagon
WALK Walk
WALKTR Walk through
WARSVC Warrant Service
WASH Wash
WATER Water
WIRES Wires
WIT Witness
WRNT Warrant
YELALT Yellow Alert
© PFM 232
Appendix: Calls for Service Categories
Alarms
211S Robbery Alarm/Silent
933AU Alarm- Auto
933MA Alarm- Manual activation
933R Alarm- Ringing
933S Alarm- Silent
933SA Alarm- Silent Alarm
933T Alarm- tracker
© PFM 233
Appendix: Calls for Service Categories
Disorder
148 Resists, Delays, or Obstructs
166 Contempt of Court
182 Conspiracy
272 Contributing To The Delinquency Of A Minor
290 Violation of Sex Offender Registration Act
311 Distribution of Obscene Matter
370 Public Nuisance
372 Public Nuisance
374 Littering
415 Disturbing the Peace
418 Trespassing
422 Criminal Threats
422.6 Deprivation of Rights
529 False Personation
530 False Personation
596 Poisoning an Animal
597 Animal Abuse
905 Abandoned Automobile
918 Person Screaming for Help
922 Drunk on Street
928 Explosion
929 Fire
941 Citizen Holding Prisoner
955 Animals Straying
963 Ball Playing in the Street
968 Pick Up Dead Animal
975 Stand-by and Preserve the Peace
23110 Throwing Substance at Vehicle
148_5A Making False Police Report
160B Soliciting Bail
23110A Throwing Substance at Vehicle
23110B Throwing Substance at Vehicle
273_6 Protective Order Violation
31VC Provide False Info to Police
415A Disturbing the Peace - Auto
415C Disturbing the Peace - Inv. Trouble
415CU Disturbing the Peace-Customer
415D Disturbing the Peace - Drinking
415E Disturbing the Peace - Music Party
415FC Disturbing the Peace- Firecrackers
415J Disturbing the Peace - Juvenile
415LT Disturbing the Peace- Landlord/Tenant
415N Disturbing the Peace- Neighbor
415P Disturbing the Peace
415RM Disturbing the Peace- Roommate
415TH Disturbing The Peace- Threats
415UG Disturbing the Peace- Unwanted Guest
601I Incorrigible Juvenile
601PU Juvenile Pick Up
601R Juvenile- Runaway
602L Trespassing
646_9 Solicitation of Personal Injury
647F Public Intoxication
653G Loitering around a school
653Y Abuse of 911 Emergency System
922A Drunk in Auto
922B Drunk inside Building
929AU Fire- Auto
955A Vicious Animal
955B Noisy Animal
955E Animal Bite
955F Injured Animal
© PFM 234
Appendix: Calls for Service Categories
Disorder (continued)
968A Live Animal - Pick Up First
ACU Animal Control Unit
CHASE Police Chase
CIVIL Civil
CVLDIS Civil Disobedience
ENCMP Encampment
EPO Emergency Protective Order
ESCAPE Escape
FLOOD Flood
HAZMAT Hazardous Material
HYDRNT Fire Hydrant
LEASH Leash
NOISE Noise
ODOR Odor
OMC Oakland Municipal Code
POU Pound- Animal Shelter
SDESHO Sideshow
SIDESH Sideshow
SLEEP Sleep
TRUANT Truancy
UNSEC Unsecure Premise
© PFM 235
Appendix: Calls for Service Categories
Domestic-Related
270 Child Neglect
271 Child Abandonment
368 Elder/Dependent Abuse
273A Child Endangerment
273D Child Abuse
300A Welfare check- child's well-being
300WI Welfare check- child's well-being
415BF Disturbing the Peace- Boyfriend
415F Disturbing the Peace- Family
415GF Disturbing the Peace- Girlfriend
Follow-up/Service
AOA Outside Agency Request
LOST Lost
LSTVEH Lost Vehicle
SECCK Security Check
WELCK Wellness Check
Interpersonal-Other
140 Threatening Witnesses
314 Indecent Exposure
907 Peeping Tom
136_1 Intimidating a Witness
653M Electronic Harassment
Medical
945 Ambulance Follow-Up
901B Vehicle Collision - Ascertain if Ambulance Needed
945A Ambulance Requested
945B Ascertain if Ambulance Needed (Non-Traffic)
ABC Airway, Breathing,CPR
OD Overdose
PDOA Possible Dead on Arrival
Mental
913 Suicide
5150 Insanity
5150B Insanity - Violent
913A Attempt Suicide
913TH Threatening Suicide
FNDSEN Found Senile
SENILE Senile
Missing Persons
FNDJUV Found Juvenile
FNDMP Found Missing Person
MJ Missing Juvenile
MP Missing Person
MPRISK Missing Person at Risk
© PFM 236
Appendix: Calls for Service Categories
Property
459 Burglary
470 Forgery
472 Forgery
475 Forgery
476 Forgery
484 Theft - Petty
487 Theft - Grand
496 Possession of Stolen Property
498 Illegally Obtaining Utilities
503 Embezzlement
508 Embezzlement
518 Extortion
524 Extortion
537 Theft of Services
591 Damaging Utility Lines
593 Damaging Utility Lines
594 Vandalism
906 Person Breaking In
10751 Remove VIN
10801 Operating Chop Shop
10851 Vehicle Theft-Auto
10852 Remove Parts from Vehicle
10855 Leased/rented vehicle theft
459AU Auto Burglary
484COD Petty Theft- Coin Operated Device
484E Petty Theft- Obtaining money by False Pretense
484G Petty Theft- Gun
484LP Petty Theft- License Plate
484TT Petty Theft- Till Tap
Property (continued)
487E Grand Theft
593D Theft of Services
A10851 Attempt Vehicle theft
A459 Attempt Burglary
A487 Attempt Grand Theft
FNDPRO Found Property
LOJACK Lo Jack
R10851 Recovered Stolen Vehicle
T18 Theft of Mail
Suspicious
910 Prowler Outside
912 Suspicious Person
921 Car Prowler or Clouter
949 Investigate Suspicious Occupant(s) in Auto
977 Walking Stop
977A Walking Stop - Cover Requested
© PFM 237
Appendix: Calls for Service Categories
Traffic-related
162 Big Rig parked in Red Zone
901 Vehicle Collision - Property Damage
970 Auto Improperly Parked
973 Traffic Control Post
976 Vehicle Stop - No Cover Requested
20001 Felony Hit/Run with Injuries
20002 Misdemeanor Hit/Run
23103 Reckless Driving
23109 Speed Contest-Racing
23152 Driving Under the Influence- Alcohol
21235V Operation of Motorized Scooter on Road
901A Vehicle Collision - Personal Injury
901CP Vehicle Collision - City Property
901D Vehicle Collision - Drunk involved
901H Vehicle Collision- Hit/run
970A Auto on Sidewalk
970B Auto Blocking Driveway
970C Auto in Restricted Zone
976A Vehicle Stop - Cover Requested
976B Bike Stop
CHP California Highway Patrol
CKVEH Check Vehicle
CRSARM Railroad Crossing Arms
HAZ Hazard
MS Motorized Scooter
OTC Oakland Traffic
STALL Stall
Vice
330 Illegal Gaming
647 Solicitation
11350 Possession of Controlled substance
11351 Possession for Sale- Controlled Substance
11357 Possession of Marijuana
11368 Forge/Alter Prescription for narcotics
11500 Under Influence of Controlled Substance
11550 Under Influence of Controlled Substance
647B Solicitation
647C Solicitation
MTHLAB Meth Lab
© PFM 238
Appendix: Calls for Service Categories
Violence
187 Murder
203 Mayhem
207 Kidnapping
209 Kidnapping
211 Robbery
215 Carjacking
220 Assault
236 False Imprisonment
240 Assault
242 Battery
244 Battery
245 Assault with Deadly Weapon
246 Discharge Firearm in Dwelling
247 Discharge Firearm at aircraft
261 Rape
262 Spousal Rape
277 Child Abduction
278 Child Abduction
285 Incest
286 Child Rape
288 Lewd and Lascivious Conduct
417 Assault with a Deadly Weapon
451 Arson
943 Fight (Describe Type)
12020 Caring a Concealed Knife/Dagger
166_4 Domestic Battery
212_5 Home invasion Robbery
243_4 Sexual Battery
243A Battery
243B Battery
243C Battery
243D Battery
243E Battery
261_5 Unlawful Sexual Intercourse
261KIT Sexual Assault Kit
261VIC Sexual Assault Victim
273_5 Battery
278_5 Child Abduction
415G Disturbing the Peace- Gun
415GS Disturbing the Peace- Gunshots
415SS Disturbing the Peace- Shot Spotter
626_1 Bring Dangerous weapon onto School grounds
647_6 Child Molestation
928C Investigate Possible Incendiary Device
928P Explosion - Possible (Bomb Threat)
A207 Attempt Kidnapping
A211 Attempt Robbery
A261 Attempt Rape
CODE7 Subject armed with a Gun
K4 K4 Use of Force
© PFM 239
Appendix F: Example of Log Book for
Investigations Workload Analyses
© PFM 240
• Total Touch Time: An illustrative view of the Case Activity Log Spreadsheet is seen below:

Workload-Based Investigations Staffing Assessment
Methodology – Touch Time, Continued
Case Activity +B41+B5:F41
Case/Report ID Case 1 Case 2 Case 3
Date Reported [enter date] [enter date] [enter date]
Crime Type Burglary Burglary Burglary
Will this be submitted to prosecution? (Yes/No/Likely/Unlikely) Yes Likely No Last Status/Disposition (Open/Closed Pending Further Leads/ Submitted/Arrested/Charged) Closed Open Charged
Date of last status/disposition [enter date] [enter date] [enter date] Additional Comments
Activities
Average Touch Time per Activity
(Hours)
Number of Activities Number of Activities Number of Activities Initial Investigation
Victim Contacts Made 0.5
BOLO and Emails Distributed 1
Initial ID Efforts for the Suspect (Database and criminal background checks from people involved) 2
Case Coordination with other Agencies 0.5
Scene Responses/Processings 1
Video/Photo Evidence Analysis 4
In-Depth Follow Up
Witness Interview / Statements Taken 1
Prep for a Witness Interview or Statement 1
Search Warrants Written 1
Victim Follow-Up 1
Physical Search Warrant Executed (Residential/Vehicular) 3 Digital/Social Media Search Warrant Executed / Subponea Executed 2
Digital/Social Media Review 2
Phones Unlocked 2
Emails Sent to Main Stakeholders (Update emails) 0.5
Additional Interviews Conducted 0.5
Charges and Trial
Consultation with Prosecution 2
Case Preparation 2
Arrest / Ramey Warrants Issued 2
Suspects Apprehended 1
Participate in Court Hearings / or Prep Sessions 2
Suspect Interrogations 3
Other
Administrative Time Block 0.5
© PFM 241
Appendix G: Clearance Rate
Benchmarking Detail
© PFM 242
Benchmark Clearance Rates – Offenses and Clearances, 2023 Source: Federal Bureau of Investigations, Uniform Crime Reporting, Offenses Known to Law Enforcement, 2023. Part I Violent Crimes include homicide, rape, robbery and aggravated assault. Part I Property Crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft.

Note: Oakland’s 2023 clearance rate uses OPD’s own reporting of 3,531 aggravated assault offenses rather than the UCR figure of 11,169, based on PFM’s understanding the UCR figure was a reporting error.

Oakland Albuquerque Baltimore Cleveland Fresno Long Beach New Orleans Sacramento Offenses
Part I Violent Crime 7,853 7,575 9,076 6,453 4,131 2,905 4,962 4,368 Homicide 119 117 233 139 39 28 198 41
Rape 372 506 444 781 424 290 681 301
Robbery 3,831 981 3,266 1,605 909 817 656 1,192
Agg Assault 3,531 5,971 5,133 3,928 2,759 1,770 3,427 2,834 Part I Property Crime 43,048 26,304 24,178 17,236 16,754 13,294 18,536 15,305 Burglary 3,886 3,756 2,518 3,203 2,470 2,268 1,742 2,752 Larceny-Theft 22,652 16,790 11,234 8,865 10,925 7,260 10,091 8,850 Motor Vehicle Theft 16,510 5,758 10,426 5,168 3,359 3,766 6,703 3,703 Clearances
Part I Violent Crime 490 1,901 3,120 927 1,471 791 1,255 1,648 Homicide 58 20 82 23 28 16 92 19
Rape 17 10 95 67 87 49 46 33
Robbery 39 108 718 122 294 122 273 385
Agg Assault 376 1,763 2,225 715 1,062 604 844 1,211
Part I Property Crime 40 1,690 726 506 1,385 404 1,746 911 Burglary 8 285 222 303 229 107 379 301
Larceny-Theft 29 1,130 214 104 870 170 963 409
Motor Vehicle Theft 3 275 290 99 286 127 404 201
Clearance Rate
Part I Violent Crime 6.2% 25.1% 34.4% 14.4% 35.6% 27.2% 25.3% 37.7% Homicide 48.7% 17.1% 35.2% 16.5% 71.8% 57.1% 46.5% 46.3% Rape 4.6% 2.0% 21.4% 8.6% 20.5% 16.9% 6.8% 11.0%
Robbery 1.0% 11.0% 22.0% 7.6% 32.3% 14.9% 41.6% 32.3%
Agg Assault 10.6% 29.5% 43.3% 18.2% 38.5% 34.1% 24.6% 42.7% Part I Property Crime 0.1% 6.4% 3.0% 2.9% 8.3% 3.0% 9.4% 6.0% Burglary 0.2% 7.6% 8.8% 9.5% 9.3% 4.7% 21.8% 10.9%
Larceny-Theft 0.1% 6.7% 1.9% 1.2% 8.0% 2.3% 9.5% 4.6%
Motor Vehicle Theft 0.0% 4.8% 2.8% 1.9% 8.5% 3.4% 6.0% 5.4% © PFM 243
Appendix H: Scope of Services Crosswalk
© PFM 244
Scope of Services Crosswalk
Scope
Element Scope Element Description Relevant Page(s)
1 Document the organization and briefly summarize the key responsibilities of primary divisions of the Department. 10, 42-91 2 Document the budgeted and actual sworn and civilian employees in each unit of the Department (as of a given date mutually agr eed upon by vendor and City of Oakland) 5 years (if feasible)
12-15, 46, 48, 55, 66, 76, 86,
227-229
3 Document and summarize key aspects of the three main Department Collective Bargaining Agreements with employees. 23-34 4 Document employee shift schedule(s). Specific focus on sworn members, patrol units, and investigations to include Internal Af fairs Unite and Criminal Investigations Unit. A general high- level review of specialty units such as the Marine unit should be documented, if feasible. 27, 29, 45, 51-52, 57, 119-
120, 188
5 Document employee paid time off. Particular focus should be on types of time used in order or identify frequency and type. 30-34, 123-125, 158-160, 200-210, 224
6 Document the personnel and non-personnel costs of each unit of the Department (using current year adopted budget and any project ed changes thereto). - Vehicle resources allocations and maintenance 16-19, 47, 49, 56, 67, 77, 87 7 Document overtime utilization if feasible, focus should be on sworn members in the patrol and investigations units - Total departmental overtime utilization by type
- For each unit within the Department, document overtime utilization by:
- Employee title for sworn and civilian staff (e.g., Officer, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, etc.). - Type of overtime (mandatory/forced, court, special detail, etc.). - Assignment location by beat or command area
16, 18-19, 29, 47, 49, 56,
67-68, 71, 77, 83, 87, 188,
211-223
8 Document reported crime in Oakland, using federal data (UCR, NIBRS) and Departmental data. 7, 36, 41, 68, 94-95, 97-98, 242
9 Document drivers and outcomes of Department activity and key performance indicators:
- Department response to resident-generated calls for service at different intervals (call to dispatch, dispatch to arrival, arrival to clear) for each precinct (if sufficient data is available); - Department self-initiated time of task, by type; Arrests; - Specialized/tactical unit responses.
- Documented partnerships with other City agencies such as the Department of Violence Prevention and Neighborhood Services as well as direct collaboration with community partners - Case closures -- Clearances by type
92-144, 152-185, 188, 194-
198, 231-242
10 Compare the Departments current resource allocation with similarly sized cities, with similar calls for service volume - If feasible Resource comparisons should include organizational structure, civilian and non- sworn staff, clearance rates, Part 1 crimes per officer, Internal Investigations requirements 36-41, 95, 98, 242 11 Assess gross patrol staffing and investigative requirements for the immediate future. - Use a workload-based approach to determine the number of field patrol officers and supervisors currently required to enable the department to:
- Respond to emergency and non-emergency resident-generated calls for service in a timely manner; - Conduct prevention and other proactive/self-initiated patrol tasks effectively, including community -oriented policing and problem solving; - Conduct all other necessary patrol tasks effectively, including traffic control and special missions; - Allow officers to meet all administrative requirements satisfactorily, including report writing, training, court, etc.; and - Promote the safety of the public and police officers. - Use a workload-based approach to determine the number of investigative staff and supervisors currently required to enable t he department to:
- Assign and investigate current caseloads in a sustainable and effective manner - Proactively investigate major criminal activities
- Allow officers to meet all administrative requirements satisfactorily, including report writing, training, court, etc.; and - Promote the safety of the public and police officers
7, 9, 92-191, 230-240
12 Prepare a detailed Microsoft PowerPoint report summarizing findings. 1-244 13 As directed, brief elected and appointed officials on findings through two presentations. To be scheduled pending City input
14 An Analysis Of Calls Of Service To Determine Alternative Call Responses And The Prioritization And Categorization Of Calls For S ervice 192-198

Oakland City CouncilJune 3, 2025

Oakland City Council
June 3, 2025