A Reimagining or Status Quo?
Berkeley is in the midst of reimagining public safety. On March 10th, the city council received the recommendations of both the Reimagining Task Force, composed of community members appointed by the Mayor and Council, and the consultant hired by the city — National Institute for Criminal Justice Reform (NICJR).
The task force’s message was clear: change is needed. Poverty is criminogenic — it breeds crime. Anything we can do to decrease poverty will intrinsically decrease crime. Berkeley, like the rest of the country, has historically relied on the police to decrease crime. There has been immense and increased spending on police, yet police have a general inability to control or mitigate crime. These aren’t failures of individual BPD officers, it’s the institution as a whole; policing has consistently proven unable to be reformed or rebuilt. Abandoning the police model isn’t an abandonment of public safety. We must build something new, something holistic and something designed for everyone.
The task force strongly recommended a Specialized Care Unit (SCU) be implemented, which would be a non-police response to noncriminal crises. The task force also recommended a universal guaranteed income for those living under the poverty level, one of the recommendations of NICJR.
The recommendations from both the task force and NICJR are now in the city manager’s hands. The next step in this process is tentatively scheduled for April 12, when the city manager will present her recommendations on reimagining public safety.
Unfortunately, there’s already evidence that some council members don’t support alternatives to the outdated and ineffective policing paradigm. Days before the reimagining work session, at a subcommittee meeting of the city council, Councilmember Taplin proposed the creation of a police Flex team — based on the disastrous Crime Suppression Unit of days gone by. Taplin justifies the need for this team due to the increase in gun incidents in Berkeley. Instead, he should heed the experience and expertise of NICJR, “If we could engage intensely 20 to 25 people and their families [in an Advance Peace type of program], we could significantly decrease violent crime in Berkeley.” Regrettably, the committee approved this item to be considered as part of the reimagining public safety process.
Meanwhile, on March 3rd, the City Auditor released a scathing report about BPD overtime. The report served to underscore the lack of transparency, lack of integrity and lack of oversight within BPD. Police overtime has increased over the past decade and is the primary cause of BPD’s overspending. The report also states that “BPD lacks a process to regularly assess the efficacy of minimum staffing levels, and cannot ensure that minimum staffing reflects the current needs of BPD and the community.”
The auditor’s overtime findings further erode the community’s trust in BPD, especially since BPD isn’t able to act on most of the auditor’s recommendations until 18–24 months from now. In addition, who will BPD be accountable to? Who will ensure that the egregious overtime practices will cease?
For now, the reimagining process must focus solely on non-police initiatives: the SCU, proven gun violence prevention programs and universal guaranteed income. To increase BPD funding given their current level of mismanagement would be irresponsible, wasteful and contrary to an actual reimagining of public safety.
This article was first published in the Berkeley Times on March 24, 2022.
