Item #2 Austin Police Department - BerryDunn Targeted Operational Review and Summary Report — original pdf

Backup

M E M O R A N D U M TO: Mayor and City Council THROUGH: Eddie Garcia, Assistant City Manager FROM: Chief Lisa Davis, Austin Police Department DATE: February 25, 2025 SUBJECT: BerryDunn Targeted Operational Review and Summary Report The purpose of this memorandum is to share the completed City of Austin-Austin Police Department Targeted Operational Review and Summary Report and to provide information about next steps following the Austin Police Department’s (APD) review of the enclosed findings and recommendations. The City of Austin contracted with Berry, Dunn, McNeil, & Parker, LLC (BerryDunn) in February 2024 to conduct a comprehensive assessment of functions of APD. This review included four areas of focus: • • • • Patrol Schedule Review of the Resource Intensive Service Calls (RISC) Model Business Process Mapping Field Technology and Data Integration Review Essential Call for Service (CFS) Evaluation APD has reviewed BerryDunn’s findings and is working to identify ways to incorporate recommended actions into operational plans. APD is also contracting with BerryDunn to complete a Work Analysis, through a separate scope of work, that will identify more efficient ways to utilize sworn and non-sworn personnel resources throughout the organization. Should you have any questions about the enclosed report or the progress of this work, please contact Chief of Staff Robin Henderson at 512-974-5030 or via email at Robin.Henderson@austintexas.gov. cc: T.C. Broadnax, City Manager Myrna Rios, City Clerk Corrie Stokes, City Auditor Judge Sherry Statman, Presiding Judge Mary Jane Grubb, Municipal Court Clerk CMO Executive Team Page 1 of 1 City of Austin – Austin Police Department Targeted Operational Review and Summary Report BerryDunn 2211 Congress Street Portland, ME 04102-1955 207.541.2200 Doug Rowe, Principal drowe@berrydunn.com Michele Weinzetl, Project Manager mweinzetl@berrydunn.com Submitted On: December 27, 2024 Table of Contents Section Page Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................... i List of Tables ............................................................................................................................. iv List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ vi Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1 1.0 Project Overview .................................................................................................................. 4 1.1 Project Scope .............................................................................................................. 4 1.2 Relevant Background ................................................................................................... 5 1.3 Project Introduction and Summary ............................................................................... 5 1.4 Changing Conditions .................................................................................................... 7 1.5 Principal Findings and Recommendations ................................................................... 7 Critical/Priority ........................................................................................................................ 7 High/Primary ........................................................................................................................... 8 Medium/Non-Urgent ..............................................................................................................11 Section 1 Recommendations .................................................................................................12 2.0 Business Processes .......................................................................................................14 2.1 Initial CFS Intake ........................................................................................................14 2.1.1 Communication Center Functions............................................................................15 2.2 Patrol Response and Preliminary Investigation ...........................................................16 2.3 Case Routing - Investigations .....................................................................................22 2.4 Case Routing – Prosecution .......................................................................................23 2.5 Open Records Unit/Public Information Request Unit (PIR) ..........................................24 Section 2 Recommendations .................................................................................................27 3.0 Field Technology & Integration .......................................................................................30 3.1 Evaluate Field Technology ..........................................................................................30 3.1.1 Field Technology Systems and Functional Capabilities ...........................................30 Table of Contents | i 3.2 Evaluate Data Integration and Supporting Technology ...............................................31 3.2.1 Software ..................................................................................................................31 3.2.2 Integration with CAD ...............................................................................................36 3.2.3 System Needs .........................................................................................................38 3.3 Technology Approach and Operational Structure ........................................................40 Summary ...............................................................................................................................40 Section 3 Recommendations .................................................................................................41 4.0 Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation ..................................................................43 4.1 Essential CFS Evaluation Process ..............................................................................43 4.1.1 Essential CFS Evaluation Work Plan Steps .............................................................43 4.1.2 Essential CFS Evaluation Discussion ......................................................................44 4.1.3 CFS Summary .........................................................................................................45 4.2 Essential CFS Evaluation Results ...............................................................................46 4.2.1 Quantitative Data Collection ....................................................................................46 4.2.2 Administration Coding Criteria .................................................................................46 4.2.3 APD CFS Types Coding Outputs ............................................................................47 4.2.4 Data Coding Protocols .............................................................................................47 4.2.5 Quantitative Data Results ........................................................................................50 4.3 APD Alternative Response Systems ...........................................................................56 4.3.1 Other Alternative Response.....................................................................................64 4.4 Summary ....................................................................................................................65 Section 4 Recommendations .................................................................................................66 5.0 Alternatives to Traditional Police CFS Research ............................................................68 5.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................68 5.2 Alternative CFS Response Models .............................................................................69 5.2.1 Mental Health Statistics ...........................................................................................69 5.2.2 Methods of Service ..................................................................................................70 5.2.3 Staffing Models........................................................................................................71 5.2.4 Funding ...................................................................................................................72 Table of Contents | ii 5.2.5 Grants .....................................................................................................................72 5.2.6 Creation of Unit .......................................................................................................73 5.2.7 Criminal/Violent CFS with Mental Health .................................................................73 5.3 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................74 Appendix A – Recommendations ..............................................................................................76 Appendix B – Acronyms ............................................................................................................82 Appendix C – Supplemental Tables ..........................................................................................84 Appendix D ............................................................................................................................. 106 Table of Contents | iii List of Tables Table 1.1: Priority Descriptions .................................................................................................. 6 Table 1.2: Short Recommendation Format ................................................................................. 6 Table 1.3: Full Recommendation Format ................................................................................... 7 Table 1.4: Section 1 Recommendations ....................................................................................13 Table 2.1: Sector Sizes .............................................................................................................21 Table 2.2: Processed Requests ................................................................................................24 Table 2.3: Section 2 Recommendations ....................................................................................27 Table 3.1: APD Software ...........................................................................................................33 Table 3.2: Technology Interfaces ..............................................................................................37 Table 3.3: Technology Needs ...................................................................................................38 Table 3.4: Section 3 Recommendations ....................................................................................41 Table 4.1: Essential Police CFS Evaluation Method ..................................................................45 Table 4.2: Essential Police CFS Evaluation Legend ..................................................................45 Table 4.3: Survey Legend .........................................................................................................49 Table 4.4: APD and Stakeholder Survey Results ......................................................................51 Table 4.5: APD Alternative Response Suggestions ...................................................................54 Table 4.6: Community Alternative Response Suggestions ........................................................55 Table 4.7: iReport Volume 2023 ................................................................................................56 Table 4.8: Online Reporting CFS Types and Volume ................................................................57 Table 4.9: Average Time Per CFS – BerryDunn Studies ...........................................................59 Table 4.10: TRU Volume ...........................................................................................................59 Table 4.11: Top 25 CAD FTEs by Grouped Category ...............................................................61 Table 4.12: APD Staff – Alternative Response Review CFS Types ..........................................62 Table 4.13: Section 4 Recommendations ..................................................................................66 Appendix Table C.1 APD Volume and Supplanting Hours ........................................................84 Appendix Table C.2 APD Patrol and Supplanting FTE’s by Sector............................................86 Appendix Table C.3 CAD CFS Types .......................................................................................88 List of Tables | iv Appendix Table C.4 CAD CFS Types ..................................................................................... 102 Appendix Table C.5: Community Survey Results .................................................................... 104 Appendix Table D.1: Summary Research on Prevalent Alternative CFS Models in Use .......... 106 List of Tables | v List of Figures Figure 2.1: Initial CFS Response ..............................................................................................19 Figure 2.2: Case Reports and Assignment ................................................................................20 Figure 2.3: PIR Request Process ..............................................................................................25 Figure 4.1: APD Online Reporting Categories ...........................................................................57 List of Figures | vi Executive Summary In February 2024, the City of Austin, Texas (City) contracted with Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC (BerryDunn) to conduct a Targeted Operational Review and assessment of functions of the Austin Police Department. That project involved four sections: • Patrol Schedule Review of the Resource Intensive Service Calls (RISC) Model • Business Process Mapping • Field Technology and Data Integration Review • Essential Call for Service (CFS) Evaluation In this executive summary, BerryDunn briefly describes the outputs for each of these areas. RISC The RISC model is designed to provide specially trained investigative teams to respond to incidents requiring significant resources and time. This allows patrol officers to be released from the incident to continue responding to community needs. BerryDunn recognizes that the RISC model is a very new program and noted a few minor areas for APD to consider (in a separate report). Overall, BerryDunn is impressed with this model and the innovative problem-solving and resource allocation that led to its inception. BerryDunn believes the model will reduce on-scene time for patrol for the most resource-intensive CFS, and the firm predicts it could also improve clearance rates on certain CFS types, due to the prompt and thorough level of initial investigation and the immediate follow-up that will occur even at the point of the CFS. Based on BerryDunn’s review of the RISC model, BerryDunn believes this model could become a best practice in other large police organizations. Patrol Schedule BerryDunn acknowledges that a review of the patrol schedule is outside the scope of this project. However, during the review of the RISC model, BerryDunn learned that the current patrol schedule utilizes an overlap day (where all officers for a given shift are scheduled, essentially doubling the number of personnel for that shift). Departments using these types of schedules often cite the use of overlap days for training, to cover for those taking leave, or for some other function. In reality, upon further inspection, this rarely occurs, and the overlap day becomes a wasted resource day. Regardless of any perceived effectiveness of a patrol schedule that includes overlap days, BerryDunn generally recommends against their use. For the APD, the use of overlap days is creating additional challenges for a patrol schedule that is already struggling to meet daily staffing allocations. BerryDunn was not contracted to and did not conduct a thorough patrol schedule review. The observation listed above and the ensuing recommendation was made as part of BerryDunn’s review of the RISC model. BerryDunn recommends APD consider eliminating the overlap day and thoroughly review and evaluate the current patrol schedule. Executive Summary | 1 Business Process Mapping BerryDunn explored various information and data related to specific business processes of the APD that relate to CFS response, and several of these processes were mapped in visual diagrams (throughout this report). During this process, BerryDunn reviewed initial CFS intake, patrol response and preliminary investigation, case routing (investigations), case routing (prosecution), and public information requests. BerryDunn observed that the APD has well-defined and mature processes for each of these areas, and BerryDunn observed various best practices in use. Despite these positive observations, BerryDunn also noted some areas for possible improvement related to CFS coding within computer-aided dispatch (CAD) and the opportunity to engage the use of solvability factors in the preliminary investigation and case assignment processes. BerryDunn also noted that deployment of patrol resources in a sector-based environment, which in some cases includes large geographical areas, might be contributing to inefficient response to CFS. Based on a review of the Public Information Request (PIR) Unit, BerryDunn noted there is a lack of uniform reporting and no secondary review or audit of data releases. Additionally, this unit is managing a significant volume and likely requires additional resources. Field Technology and Data Integration Review BerryDunn conducted an on-site review of the technology available for patrol officers in the field. That review included an in-person examination of the tools and their functionality in an APD patrol car guided by a well-accomplished patrol officer. The APD compares favorably against other law enforcement agencies BerryDunn has studied in its use and deployment of field technology. Despite access to more than typical resources in the field, APD officers experience efficiency issues due to a lack of system integration as well as inefficient data capture and movement processes. Officers are regularly required to enter data multiple times and then manually populate fields in forms or other systems that could easily be automated. Best practices in field reporting engage a philosophy that seeks to capture/create quality data once and to leverage interfaces and system integrations to move that data seamlessly across all reporting platforms. Entering data multiples times is not only inefficient, but it also creates the opportunity for errors, which can be extremely problematic from a criminal justice perspective. BerryDunn recommends the APD adopt a philosophy that includes the ability to capture relevant response and involvement data once (whether it is done electronically or manually) and to move that data electronically across all systems where it may be required. Essential Call for Service (CFS) Evaluation BerryDunn conducted an Essential CFS Evaluation for the APD that included an examination of its current CFS systems, including current Alternative Response systems. During the evaluation, BerryDunn isolated several CFS types that may be conducive for Alternative Response for the APD, in addition to those that are already available for such diversion. This process involved a multi-level assessment, including internal discussion and analysis and a community survey. Executive Summary | 2 Both internal and external direct engagement efforts revealed clear support for an alternative response to certain CFS (given the appropriate CFS type and circumstances), specifically for using a Telephone Response Unit (TRU) or online reporting. There was also support for diverting certain CFS volume to trained non-sworn personnel. Those interviewed supported the development of hybrid or independent response models for certain CFS types (e.g., mental health, medicals, fire-related, unhoused persons). Through a series of quantitative evaluation processes, the APD isolated 29 CFS types for alternative response consideration. Of that number, many have a substantial full time equivalent (FTE) volume that could be significantly improved through expanded alternative response. The APD is already diverting substantial CFS volume, but this could be expanded through developing additional Alternative Responses, consistent with this report. Current Alternative Response processes that are routing through 311 and/or iReport would benefit from adjustments. The APD should consider establishing its own TRU, and TRU and online reports that are routinely routed to the Investigations Bureau should be redirected to administrative personnel for review and routing, to improve efficiency of those processes. Executive Summary | 3 1.0 Project Overview In February 2024, the City of Austin, Texas (City) contracted with Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC (BerryDunn) to conduct a Targeted Operational Review and assessment of functions of the Austin Police Department (APD). During the project, BerryDunn interviewed staff and government officials, analyzed data, and produced a series of findings and recommendations. BerryDunn stands behind the core finding statements and purposes of the recommendations provided; however, the APD might implement those recommendations in several ways. Although BerryDunn has provided guidance and prompts within the recommendations, the APD should select an implementation approach that works best for its culture and environment. 1.1 Project Scope The project BerryDunn completed for the APD involved four sections: • Patrol Schedule/RISC Review (this work was delivered previously in a separate report) • Business Process Mapping • Field Technology and Data Integration Review • Essential Call for Service (CFS) Evaluation The following provides a brief overview of these areas as they relate to the project. Patrol Scheduling. There are many nuances to deploying patrol officers in a way that maximizes efficiency and effectiveness. Patrol staff are typically the most critical and costly resource for police departments, yet most police agencies use patrol schedules that are inefficient in a variety of ways. BerryDunn is aware that the APD has developed a new model for scheduling its patrol personnel, and the APD is interested in a review of that new model to assess its efficacy and to isolate any performance gaps in the structure of the new schedule. Business Process Mapping. Clear, thorough, and intentional business processes, that is, the systematic processes used to conduct operational work, are central to the effective and efficient delivery of police services. However, service delivery marks the beginning of these processes, and there are many administrative processes that are interdependent upon or occur because of initial service work. Understanding these processes and how to refine them is critical to maximizing public safety efficiency, both operationally and administratively. BerryDunn has a proven research-based approach and model for conducting this work, which includes a mixed-methods research design and uses both quantitative and qualitative data. Through this detailed approach, BerryDunn will identify and map key service-related business processes to identify possible efficiency gaps. 1.0 Project Overview | 4 Field Technology Use. Nearly all patrol-related public safety service work originates through the actions of patrol officers in the field. Sound policies and training underpin and guide the work of field personnel; however, the technology systems available and in use for patrol officers can greatly affect the efficiency of various aspects of field response. Although the capacity of patrol staff is a finite commodity, technology can add to efficiency and increase this capacity. Effective use of field technology can also improve the administrative efficiency of work that occurs after field response. Essential CFS Evaluation. BerryDunn’s Essential CFS Evaluation is a structured, collaborative methodology that helps communities identify essential versus non- essential police services. It provides an opportunity for determining whether a shift to the traditional service delivery model is appropriate, and if so, it helps determine which resource is best fit to respond to certain CFS categories. In conducting this work, BerryDunn will also examine and evaluate any online reporting capabilities and/or any telephonic reporting unit (TRU) the APD may be using. 1.2 Relevant Background The City was incorporated in 1839 and touches three counties: Travis, Hays, and Williamson. The City is primarily located in Travis County and is the most populous city in Travis County. Austin is the 11th most populous city in the United States and the fourth most populous in the State of Texas. According to the 2020 census, the City has a population of 961,855. It is worth noting that the City has been listed as one of the fastest-growing large cities in the United States since 2010. The City is approximately 305 square miles. The APD was formally created in 1862 and as of 2024 has an authorized strength of 1,812 sworn officers. This allocation represents a reduction of sworn staffing of 150 officers, which occurred in 2020. Despite APD’s authorized strength of 1,812 , APD currently has approximately 1,470 sworn officers. This equates to 342 vacancies (18.87% vacancy rate). APD currently has 472 officers assigned to the Patrol Division. Although this project did not include a staffing study for the APD for sworn, non-sworn, or support positions, the workload data BerryDunn examined within CAD suggests a need for additional response personnel. A more thorough workload analysis would be needed to determine specific staffing levels, however, initial data review suggests the APD is operating at a substantial personnel deficit for CFS response. 1.3 Project Introduction and Summary Within this report and its appendices, BerryDunn has provided various information as a means to validate and substantiate the observations of the team, as well as the associated recommendations. The formal recommendations from this project can be found in three sections: 1.0 Project Overview | 5 • First, a summary of the principal findings and recommendations is provided below. This is intended to provide consumers with a quick reference list of the formal recommendations made in this assessment. • Second, recommendations are included at the end of each section to which they apply. Each chapter recommendation is the result of the topical analysis from that section and includes a summary of the basis for the recommendation. • Third, for ease of review, each of the full recommendations is included sequentially within Appendix A. BerryDunn has separated formal recommendations into three prioritized categories in rank order. The seriousness of the conditions or problems that individual recommendations are designed to correct, their relationship to the major priorities of the community and the department, the probability of successful implementation, and the estimated cost of implementation are the principal criteria used to prioritize recommendations. Table 1.1 describes the priority levels used for the recommendations. Table 1.1: Priority Descriptions Overall Priorities for Findings and Recommendations Critical/Priority – These recommendations are very important and/or critical and the agency should prioritize these for action. High/Primary – These recommendations are less critical, but they are important and should be prioritized for implementation. Medium/Non-Urgent – These recommendations are important and less urgent, but they represent areas of improvement for the agency. BerryDunn has provided a summary of the full recommendations and findings in Principal Findings and Recommendations. The format of this information is provided in Table 1.2. Table 1.2: Short Recommendation Format Chapter: The Policing Environment Finding Recommendation Brief Finding Statement Succinct Recommendation Statement No. 1-1 This format provides readers with a quick review of the findings and recommendations. The format for the full recommendations is included in Table 1.3. Each finding and recommendation includes a description of the details supporting the recommendation and details regarding areas 1.0 Project Overview | 6 for agency consideration. Again, BerryDunn has provided each of the full recommendations in the body of the report and in Appendix A. Table 1.3: Full Recommendation Format [Section and Title] Issue and Opportunity Description Overall Priority Finding Area: (Finding Statement). Supporting information regarding the finding. Section: Recommendation: (Succinct Recommendation Statement). Additional details concerning the recommendation, including items for consideration. No. 1-1 1.4 Changing Conditions The APD is a dynamic and ever-changing organization. BerryDunn recognizes that numerous changes have taken place since the start of this assessment in early 2024. Understandably, it has been necessary to freeze conditions in order to prepare this report. The most current information on the conditions of the organization, including information on actions that constitute consideration and implementation of the recommendations included in this report, resides with APD’s command staff. 1.5 Principal Findings and Recommendations Critical/Priority Patrol Schedule No. 1-3 Finding Recommendation The current patrol schedule for the APD includes a weekly overlap day and accordingly, is likely not optimized to provide coverage and flexibility and to meet operational objectives. Although they serve a purpose, overlap schedules do not efficiently maximize the use of available personnel time. BerryDunn recommends APD thoroughly evaluate the current patrol schedule and seek options that do not include an overlap day. 1.0 Project Overview | 7 High/Primary No. 1-1 RISC Model Finding Recommendation APD developed the RISC model to assist in handling calls for service (CFS) that require significant resources. When RISC teams are not responding to resource intensive CFS, they handle priority 2, 3, and 4 calls to assist patrol and relieve some of the call volume. BerryDunn recommends APD monitor RISC teams’ response to non-RISC incidents and document any incidents when RISC teams are unavailable to respond to RISC incidents. RISC Model No. Finding Recommendation 1-2 In developing the RISC model, APD identified 10 incident types considered RISC incidents. BerryDunn recommends APD continue to utilize the Crime Analysis Division to monitor CFS types and identify any additional incident types that may qualify for inclusion as RISC incidents for RISC team response. No. Finding Recommendation CAD CFS Coding 2-1 In some instances (e.g., those for which APD will not respond), CFS received by the CC may not result in a CAD incident being generated. In other instances, some CFS may be closed without an APD response. There is no specific disposition code designation for either of these instances, which interferes with robust analysis of the CFS volume for the APD, particularly the volume in CAD. BerryDunn recommends the APD generate a CAD record for all incoming CFS requests, evaluate its disposition codes, and add appropriate codes that allow for more granular analysis of the data in CAD. 1.0 Project Overview | 8 No. 2-3 Sector and District Response Finding Recommendation The APD uses a sector model for deployment of patrol personnel, which allows for unstructured movement of resources and is likely contributing to inefficient response to CFS. The APD should examine its sector deployment model and consider implementing a district model that helps ensure appropriate distribution of personnel across the sector, while also recognizing the staffing limitations for each sector and/or shift. Open Records/PIR Unit Documentation No. Finding Recommendation 2-5 PIR unit requests for information are routed from various sources, and the documentation of data release is not uniform across all platforms. The APD should establish a single platform as the mandatory location for recording data requests and releases. Although there should be a single location for such releases, the APD could perform secondary recording of data releases, possibly using GovQA for the primary platform and Versaterm for the secondary platform. Open Records/PIR Unit Finding Recommendation The PIR Unit is responsible for processing a high volume of information requests involving sensitive information that is subject to complex laws and involves a high risk for litigation. The PIR Unit does not have adequate controls and audit standards. The APD should adopt clear controls for the PIR Unit, including secondary review of data for release, and regular quality control audits. Data Capture and Movement Finding Recommendation Field reporting processes for APD officers/field personnel lack automated data capture and routing functions, which regularly require The APD should adopt a philosophy that includes the ability to capture relevant response and involvement data once in the field (whether No. 2-6 No. 3-1 1.0 Project Overview | 9 Data Capture and Movement No. Finding Recommendation manual data entry, often multiple times for a single incident, and are inefficient and create an opportunity for data entry errors. it is done electronically or manually) and to move that data electronically across all systems where it may be required. No. 3-2 Pursue a Single Vendor CAD/RMS Solution Finding Recommendation The APD operates in a technology environment that uses CAD and RMS systems from different vendors and that lacks adequate interfaces across all APD records platforms. These conditions contribute to inefficiency and system errors. The APD should pursue a new CAD/RMS solution that operates with a single vendor. Additionally, the APD should evaluate all of its interfaces as part of a new CAD/RMS selection and take steps to ensure that all interfaces are compatible and functional with the new systems. Unified Technology Approach No. Finding Recommendation 3-3 The APD uses a multi-layered approach and hierarchy for managing its technology systems and needs, which includes Central Records, the PTU, and the APD Data and Analytics teams. This structure has not provided a uniform approach to data and technology solutions. The APD should develop an IT and data strategy that includes a structure that reports to a single oversight point. BerryDunn acknowledges that those with a vested interest in IT and data may be assigned to different units. This recommendation is not intended to circumvent that structure. However, all such units should report to a single point so that communication, collaboration, and decision- making can be centralized. Examine CFS Types for Expanded Alternative Response Finding Recommendation Analysis indicates the opportunity for the APD to divert additional CFS types to reduce the response burden for patrol. Internal and The APD should revisit each potentially divertible CFS type to assess its viability for Alternative Response and pursue Alternative Response methods whenever appropriate. No. 4-1 1.0 Project Overview | 10 Examine CFS Types for Expanded Alternative Response No. Finding Recommendation externally collected data suggests support for this approach. No. 4-4 Conduct an Expanded Workload Analysis Finding Recommendation Volume within CAD represents an estimated staff demand for approximately 1,200 positions. The level of analysis for this project did not include the workload distribution of that volume across various response personnel, units, and systems. The APD should conduct a thorough review of the CFS workload volume associated with each type of response unit to determine the appropriate personnel demands for each and to aid the department in considering additional Alternative Response processes and systems. Medium/Non-Urgent Solvability Factors No. Finding Recommendation 2-2 No. 2-4 The APD does not currently formally engage the use of solvability factors as an element of conducting a preliminary criminal investigation. The use of solvability factors helps increase the quality of preliminary investigations and can assist decision-makers in determining which cases should receive additional investigation. The APD should require the use of solvability factors by all staff who conduct preliminary criminal investigations and complete the associated reports. Solvability factors should be reviewed by patrol supervisors as a part of the incident report approval process and used to assist with the case activation and assignment process. Criminal Case Review and Assignment Finding Recommendation The process in place for reviewing criminal cases for follow-up and assignment to an investigator is inefficient and in need of adjustment. The APD should revise its process for reviewing criminal cases to delegate specific tasks to appropriate personnel and to save time for investigators. The current practice of having investigators review each criminal incident is time The APD should consider designating a single intake point for criminal case review, and 1.0 Project Overview | 11 Criminal Case Review and Assignment No. Finding Recommendation consuming, and in many cases, unnecessary. Many reports lack sufficient basis for follow-up, and having investigators review these is an inefficient process. assigned personnel, who are responsible for review of all incident reports, should be empowered to close criminal cases without the need for additional review. This decision should be based on the solvability factors (as completed by the originator of the incident report). No. 4-2 Develop a TRU Finding Recommendation The APD does not have a TRU but instead relies on City staff working within the 311 system. There is sufficient volume to support a TRU within the APD, and such a system would improve efficiency outputs. The APD should develop a TRU to manage telephonic reports that are routed from the CC or through 311. Route 311 and iReports to an Administrative Review Process No. Finding Recommendation 4-3 Reports generated through 311 and the iReports processes are routed to the Investigations Bureau for review. Most of these reports do not require review by investigators and could be done more efficiently with administrative personnel. The APD should route 311 and iReports to administrative, non-sworn personnel for review to remove this burden from the Investigations Bureau. If the APD establishes a TRU as recommended in this section, TRU personnel may be available to perform this function. Section 1 Recommendations As part of BerryDunn’s evaluation of the APD RISC model, BerryDunn produced three recommendations. Those recommendations have been provided below, without editing (other than changing the recommendation number). 1.0 Project Overview | 12 Table 1.4: Section 1 Recommendations RISC RISC Model Section 1: Project Overview Finding Area: APD developed the RISC model to assist in handling calls for service (CFS) that require significant resources. When RISC teams are not responding to resource intensive CFS, they handle priority 2, 3, and 4 calls to assist patrol and relieve some of the call volume. Recommendation: BerryDunn recommends APD monitor RISC teams’ response to non-RISC incidents and document any incidents when RISC teams are unavailable to respond to RISC incidents. RISC RISC Model Section 1: Project Overview Finding Area: In developing the RISC model, APD identified 10 incident types considered RISC incidents. Recommendation: BerryDunn recommends APD continue to utilize the Crime Analysis Division to monitor CFS types and identify any additional incident types that may qualify for inclusion as RISC incidents for RISC team response. No. 1-1 No. 1-2 No. Patrol Schedule Patrol Schedule Section 1: Project Overview Finding Area: The current patrol schedule for the APD includes a weekly overlap day and accordingly, is likely not optimized to provide coverage and flexibility and to meet operational objectives. Although they serve a purpose, overlap schedules do not efficiently maximize the use of available personnel time. 1-3 Recommendation: BerryDunn recommends APD thoroughly evaluate the current patrol schedule and seek options that do not include an overlap day. Overall Priority Overall Priority Overall Priority 1.0 Project Overview | 13 2.0 Business Processes As part of this project, BerryDunn explored various information and data related to specific business processes (operational practices) of the APD that relate to CFS response. Although there are many processes that support primary CFS response and public safety, BerryDunn has isolated several processes that are common opportunities for efficiency, including: • Initial CFS intake and dispatching to patrol staff (this is a dispatch/communications center function) • Patrol response and preliminary investigation • Evidence collection and processing during preliminary investigations • Patrol documentation of preliminary investigations, including initial CFS documentation, and incident report completion and routing (including supervisor review/approval) • Case review and activation of cases for supplemental investigation, including supervision and case monitoring • Case submission for prosecution, including tracking charge and no-charge decisions BerryDunn conducted a series of interviews with key APD personnel to isolate and map these processes, examining each for any potential process gaps or opportunities for improvement. Following the interviews and data review, BerryDunn completed three separate business process maps (see Figures 2.1 – 2.3 later in this section). 2.1 Initial CFS Intake Community-generated CFS, whether emergency or non-emergency, have traditionally been routed through a dispatch/communications center. Over the past several years, however, many police departments, including the APD, have expanded the number of CFS entry points. There are several CFS input opportunities currently available to the Austin community, including: • 911 (for emergency and non-emergency CFS) • 311 (which is a City of Austin resource for generating a wide range of service requests) • Online reporting through iReportAustin.com • Telephonic reporting through 311 Generally, CFS that route through 911 are entered into a computer aided dispatch (CAD) system, which tracks various CFS data, including the incident type, location, date, time, and officers assigned. CAD systems are also typically used to track officer-initiated activity, as well as the activities of other sworn or non-sworn units (e.g., investigations, animal control). CAD data creates a permanent record of these activities, which can later be referenced for a variety of purposes, including assessing workloads and, ultimately, staffing needs. Business Processes | 14 Other systems such as 311, online reporting, and telephonic reporting can be categorized as Alternative CFS Response methods since they generally do not involve dispatching a police officer to a particular location to respond to a specific situation or issue. These systems also capture workload data, which can also be analyzed, depending upon how the data they collect is structured. BerryDunn provides additional details on Alternative CFS Response in Section 4.0 of this report. Additionally, CAD data and Alternative CFS Response data are often integrated with a police department’s Records Management System (RMS). These systems can capture various CFS data for use in criminal investigations and other various data analysis functions. BerryDunn learned that the APD uses Central Square for CAD and Versaterm for RMS. These systems are not fully integrated (although some integration exists), and not all CAD incidents result in an RMS incident. Converting CAD data into the RMS is generally a manual process and only occurs when an officer/staff member determines there is a need to develop an RMS record/report. 2.1.1 Communication Center Functions BerryDunn interviewed communications center (CC) personnel to gain a general understanding of several common CC functions. Staffing The CC uses a system that includes call takers and dispatchers. Call takers collect the initial information needed to determine the nature of the CFS, and then this information is routed to a dispatcher who dispatches the appropriate sworn or non-sworn resources. The CC has 104 call taker positions and 75 dispatcher positions. At the time of this inquiry, the CC had a vacancy rate of 21.22%. This number is significant and indicative of the struggles many police and public safety agencies across the United States have encountered in trying to maintain staffing levels. The CC assigns dispatchers to each of the City’s 10 sectors, which includes 9 primary sectors and the airport. Dispatch staffing minimums at the CC are 10, but 13 is preferred. Each of the different sectors has a separate primary radio channel, including the airport. Although they can monitor multiple sectors, dispatchers generally focus on their primary sector assignment. Unit Dispatching When CFS are received by the CC, call takers will review the incident type and need, and when appropriate, they will suggest the caller file a report through 311 and/or online reporting. This practice helps reduce the need to dispatch officers in the field, and it is a best practice. If an officer response is needed, sector dispatchers will determine the most appropriate officer(s)/resources to send to the CFS. The CC engages the use of an automatic vehicle location (AVL) system, which monitors the location of police resources on a map that is visible to the dispatcher. Although dispatchers can see the location of officers in adjacent sectors, the typical practice is to use AVL to locate the nearest officer for the assigned sector. Once the appropriate resource is located, they can be assigned to the CFS. Business Processes | 15 Self-Assigning/Generating Incidents Once a CFS is started within CAD, APD officers (and any non-sworn personnel with access to CAD) can see the CFS on their mobile data terminal (MDT). If an officer sees a CFS on their MDT in their area, they can assign themselves to the incident, even before the dispatcher assigns them or another resource. There is no current restriction on self-assigning for CFS, and officers do this regularly (including assigning themselves as backup on a CFS assigned to another unit). Officers can also self-generate an incident. This typically occurs because of a traffic/pedestrian stop or based on some other officer-initiated and non-dispatched activity (e.g., observed crime, citizen approach to officer). Although officers could initiate a CFS on their own within CAD, most will ask the CC to create one for them. Non-Response During conversations with staff, BerryDunn learned that certain CFS to the CC might not result in a CAD entry. For example, the APD does not respond to car burglaries (theft from an auto) when there is no suspect present. Callers wishing to report a car burglary would be referred to use 311 or to the online reporting system (which they may or may not engage), and generally, no CAD record would be created. In other instances, such as a “cold” disturbance (one that occurred previously) where no officer is sent, the incident would be coded as a “no report.” This code is not used exclusively for this purpose, which can create challenges in evaluating CFS data within CAD. BerryDunn was also told by field personnel that in some cases, when CFS are very old (10 – 12 hours), they may be closed without response. CC personnel told BerryDunn that APD supervisors could clear old CFS; however, this is not a common practice, and they generally do not drop CFS out of the system. Understanding the APD’s actual volume, including which CFS were diverted, which were closed without response (if any), and which CFS actually generated a response—and by who—is a critical element in understanding overall workloads and demands. The APD uses a variety of disposition codes within its CAD system (e.g., report written, non-police matter, supplemental written); however, there are no specific codes to distinguish CFS that are diverted with no APD response or CFS that are closed without response for some other reason. Given the value of this information, BerryDunn recommends the APD evaluate its disposition codes and add appropriate codes that allow for more granular analysis of the data in CAD. 2.2 Patrol Response and Preliminary Investigation Field personnel, including patrol officers and those who support the patrol function (hereafter referred to as officers), respond to various CFS, based on their unit and sector assignment and their role. CFS can originate for officers in a variety of ways, including being dispatched by the CC, direct contact/request from the public, or through self-initiation, based on observed activity. Officers use an MDT to monitor CAD activity and to perform a variety of CFS functions. The CC will directly dispatch officers to high-priority CFS (0’s and 1’s), but Level 2 and 3 CFS (lower Business Processes | 16 priority) are queued within the CAD system, and officers are expected to assign themselves to those CFS based on their unit/sector assignment. Generally, officers will acknowledge being dispatched via radio, but when they self-assign, dispatchers will voice this self-assignment over the radio for awareness of the other units. Incident Documentation Most of the documentation for CFS occurs through the CAD system. When an officer completes a CFS, they will update the call notes within the CAD record (which may include adding names or other summary data in free-form narrative) and they will add a disposition to the incident. This information only occurs within CAD, and unless it is manually moved over to the RMS, it only exists within the CAD record. Officers estimate that about 25% of CFS require additional reporting within RMS; the rest are only reported in CAD. If the CFS involves a crime or otherwise requires a report to be written, the officer will need to generate an incident within RMS. Because the CAD and RMS are from different vendors, there is very limited integration between the two. It is possible to import the case number from CAD into RMS, but doing so requires that the officer clear themselves from the CFS first, which is cumbersome. Officers report that instead, they manually transfer the case number from CAD to RMS, which occasionally results in data entry errors. In addition to updating the CAD record and completing a report in RMS (when appropriate), officers are also required to collect Impartial Policing Data (IPD) for all police-related contacts. This information is entered through a separate contact form through the MDT (or it may be captured through a written report). BerryDunn notes that collecting IPD for all contacts is a best practice. Reports When a report is required, officers generate the report within RMS. The officer will type the report, and once completed, route it to their supervisor for review. Supervisors can reject or return a report to the originating officer, and they sometimes do this. More often, however, supervisors will ask the officer to complete a supplemental report explaining any omission or other issue with the prior report. Once a report is submitted by an officer, the report is also sent to the Investigations Bureau (IB) for review and possible action. Preliminary Investigation and Follow-Up Officers generally conduct their own investigations and interviews unless the incident is a homicide or it involves an officer (or some other high-level incident). If the incident type requires it, a detective will respond to the scene to assist with the investigation. Although officers usually conduct their own preliminary investigations, they generally do not have cases assigned to them for additional follow-up once the initial reports are filed. Solvability Factors Upon inquiry, BerryDunn learned that the APD does not engage the use of solvability factors as an assessment tool in determining which cases should be activated for additional investigation. Business Processes | 17 This means that Investigations supervisors may spend a great deal of time reviewing reports that are never going to actually be assigned for follow-up investigation (the exception is the Financial Crimes Unit, which does use solvability factors in its case assignment review). The reality of modern policing is that many CFS that include crimes reported to the police do not have actionable leads or those that would make investigation likely to produce a suspect. A great deal of research has been performed on what leads or evidence make a case likely to produce results and when the absence of such leads makes follow-up likely to be unproductive. These conditions are generally called solvability factors, and a weighted algorithmic scale of these factors can provide guidance on the anticipated effectiveness or efficiency of investigative follow-up. Solvability factors include information such as whether there is a known suspect, whether there is a vehicle description, whether there are witnesses to the crime, and whether there is physical evidence. The sum of these factors comprises the baseline of a thorough preliminary investigation. If officers do not collect this information and report on it, one could reasonably assert that the preliminary investigation and/or the report was incomplete. By design, requiring patrol staff to collect and record this information helps to ensure a thorough preliminary investigation, and it can expedite the process of determining whether a case should be forwarded to a detective for additional investigation. BerryDunn recommends the APD revise the report-writing and approval process and include solvability factors as a required element within that process for all personnel generating criminal reports. National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) In recent years, the FBI has shifted from the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) model to the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS) model. In the past, criminal coding occurred as a function of the records department. In contrast, NIBRS coding is done by officers in the field. APD officers perform this function on incidents they generate in RMS (those that require coding), and that process includes a validation check to ensure the incident is coded correctly. Evidence Collection During Preliminary Investigations Although the APD has a separate Crime Scene Unit, in most cases, responding officers will collect their own evidence. Patrol officers have evidence bags and limited equipment for collecting evidence. When warranted, the officer can request assistance from the Crime Scene Unit. Arrests In situations involving an arrest, officers are responsible for booking the offender and for completing an affidavit of arrest for the arrest review detective or sergeant, for approval (in addition to completing the report within RMS). Once approved, the affidavit/arrest warrant will be submitted to the judge for signature. In Figure 2.1 below, BerryDunn has provided a visual depiction of typical CFS routing from the point of the incident, through the officer’s response. Business Processes | 18 Figure 2.1: Initial CFS Response In Figure 2.2, BerryDunn provides a visual representation of when a case/arrest is generated by patrol, and how it is routed, either for arrest/warrant or investigation. Business Processes | 19 Figure 2.2: Case Reports and Assignment Patrol Response Summary The APD’s response to CFS and preliminary investigations by patrol is consistent with standard industry practices and includes appropriate controls for response and monitoring officer activity and outputs. As noted, the APD does not currently use solvability factors as part of preliminary investigations, and this is an area for improvement. Additionally, the lack of integration between CAD and RMS is less than ideal and creates various efficiency challenges and opportunities for data entry errors (BerryDunn expands on this discussion in Section 3.0). In discussions with staff, BerryDunn learned that the APD had moved away from a sector and district model to one where units are only assigned to sectors, eliminating the use of districts. Table 2.1 provides a breakdown of the population and square miles of each of the City’s sectors. Business Processes | 20 Table 2.1: Sector Sizes Sector Population 2023 Square Miles Adam Baker Charlie David Edward Frank George Henry Ida 172,721 137,336 86,087 157,059 120,682 152,689 14,319 77,128 66,014 Source: Agency-provided data 56.01 35.49 37.23 48.94 25.18 35.70 1.15 23.10 11.78 It is possible, and perhaps likely, that the original district model could not be maintained due to personnel shortages. However, as Table 2.1 reflects, some of the sectors are very large geographically. Without a district structure, it is conceivable that most or all available units could be centralized in one area of a sector, which could create extended response times. BerryDunn is aware—from direct experience—that traveling across the City, even for a scant few miles, can take significant time. Moreover, the use of AVL can exacerbate this issue, particularly when multiple CFS occur in a specific area within a sector. It is important to understand how the distribution of personnel within a sector can not only affect response times, but efficient response by the units assigned to that sector. CAD data will capture travel time from the point of dispatch to the time the officer arrives on the scene. What it will not do (without intentionally collecting this information) is capture the amount of time that it takes officers to return to a particular area after leaving it to take a call. Return time, which is the time it takes to get back to a specific location, is essentially lost time. Theoretically, if it takes an officer five minutes to respond from one location to another, it will take another five minutes to get back. In a prior study, BerryDunn calculated the lost time for officers responding out of beat and returning to their original assigned beat. For that agency, which was about one third of the size of the APD, BerryDunn calculated that the full available time for as many as 15 full-time officers was being consumed by inefficient cross-city/beat response. BerryDunn did not perform this type of calculation for the APD, and due to the abandonment of district assignments within the sectors, it is currently not possible to identify this metric for the APD. Still, it is highly likely that the APD is losing significant time and efficiency to CFS response, due to its unstructured deployment of personnel. Again, the original district structure for the APD may no longer be viable; however, BerryDunn recommends the APD consider revising its sector deployments and recreating a deployment structure (districts) that minimizes the need for cross-sector response. Business Processes | 21 2.3 Case Routing – Investigations In Figure 2.2 above, BerryDunn provided a visual depiction of how a case moves from the preliminary investigation phase in patrol to assignment to the IB. This section reviews how cases are received, assigned, and monitored within the IB. Receiving and Assignment As described above, when an officer completes a criminal report, it will automatically route to the IB. If the case involves multiple criminal charges, it may route to multiple units within the IB. Each unit within the IB has a report queue, and as reports are routed to that queue, an administrative staff member will pull them and assign them to a unit sergeant. Each unit sergeant will review the case and either close it, assign it to a detective, or reclassify it. If they reclassify it, the case will automatically re-route to the appropriate unit. Although various units may review a case, the highest crime level will determine which unit owns the case. Others who review the case may make notes about their review, and any possible intersections with their work, so that the primary unit sergeant can be aware of those items. When a case is assigned, the sergeant will also add a time-due flag for case completion. In some cases, investigators from multiple units may be assigned to a case. In those instances, there is a primary investigator (generally from the highest crime level) who is in charge of the case. Case Review and Monitoring The APD has a robust system for monitoring active cases. Unit sergeants set the initial time-due flag (the duration can vary by unit and case type) and will monitor case progression over time. If the case reaches the set due date, the sergeant will connect with the detective to check their progress on the case. Unit sergeants will also conduct periodic reviews and may conduct one- on-one case reviews with detectives. Additionally, IB lieutenants are expected to review five detective caseloads per month, and they are expected to rotate through the detectives. All supervisors are able to view the queues of each detective, and they are able to monitor case progress, based on the information in the queues. Staff explained to BerryDunn that the above process is in line with department policy on case review and monitoring. The case system is also set up so that if anyone adds something to an active case, the primary investigator will receive a notification. This helps ensure that the primary investigator is aware of any additional work completed by other detectives and/or any updates or notes left by supervisors. Case Closure Once an investigation has reached conclusion, either due to charges or closure for other reasons, the primary investigator will set a case closure code. Once a case closure code is added, the case will automatically route to the sergeant, who will review the case and either close it or reroute it as appropriate. Business Processes | 22 Case Review and Monitoring Summary Case routing to investigations of all criminal incidents is generally considered an inefficient practice. Many criminal cases lack sufficient solvability factors, which means there is little likelihood that the case will be assigned for follow-up investigation at all. Reviewing all of these cases is generally an unproductive use of time for investigative personnel. For the APD, this situation may be multiplied when cases are routed to multiple IB units for review. Essentially, investigative sergeants spend significant time reviewing case reports that do not require their attention nor warrant additional investigation. The APD should revise its process for reviewing criminal cases to delegate specific tasks to appropriate personnel and to save time for investigators. To accomplish this, the APD should have patrol officers fill out solvability factors (as outlined in Section 2.2), and the APD should designate a single entry point for review of all criminal cases, to determine which cases should be forwarded for IB review. To help ensure clear understanding of possible criminal connections, the crime analyst should review all criminal reports and forward any relevant information to the appropriate resources. Although BerryDunn is recommending revision to the case routing and assignment process, the case monitoring process in use by the APD is exceptional. Supervisors are expected to set clear timelines for case completion, and they are also expected to monitor ongoing case activity. These processes represent a best practice, and yet, they are not consistently applied in many law enforcement agencies. 2.4 Case Routing – Prosecution Prosecution of criminal cases for the APD occurs through two primary methods, either as a result of an arrest by patrol or when the IB initiates an arrest warrant on a case (see Figure 2.2). As noted previously, following a patrol arrest, the officer will complete an affidavit, which will be reviewed by the arrest review sergeant and then forwarded to the court for issuance of an arrest warrant. Other cases are generally initiated by the IB. Once a decision is made to pursue an arrest warrant (and supervisor approval is obtained), the detective will create an affidavit and upload it to a software program called CloudGavel. This software program is used to facilitate a review of the case by the judge. If the judge approves the case, either the appropriate prosecuting attorney will pick up the case (if the offender is in custody) or an arrest warrant will be issued if the person is not in custody. Once a case is opened with the prosecutor, the prosecutor will open a portal for all case data to be uploaded. When the portal is available, the assigned detective is notified, and they are responsible for transferring everything into the portal. The detective is also responsible for uploading any new information to the portal, where appropriate. It is BerryDunn’s observation that the case prosecution routing system in place at the APD has appropriate structure and oversight, and the process seems to be efficient. Business Processes | 23 2.5 Open Records Unit/Public Information Request Unit (PIR) BerryDunn met with APD personnel responsible for processing Open Records/Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. During that meeting, BerryDunn learned that there are several ways in which someone may request information from the City/APD. They include: • Online: A request can be made through the APD or City website. These requests are routed through GovQA, a software product that is designed to manage public records requests (among other requests). • Email: A request can be made through email. These are also routed through GovQA. • In Person: These can be filed in person using an approved form, and when they are received, they are uploaded to GovQA. • Written/Mail: Requests submitted through the mail on an approved form are uploaded into GovQA. • Subpoena or Other Governmental Agency: These are not routed through GovQA but instead are tracked and recorded on a spreadsheet. Staff usually update the tracker in Versaterm, but they do not do this when it is another agency making the request. • Council Requests: These involve various requests from council members for access to records. These releases are generally uploaded and tracked in GovQA, but they are not recorded in Versaterm. Staff reported to BerryDunn that they receive about 100 requests per day, and that generally, they have about five days to complete each request. Table 2.2 provides a list of annual request volume for the past four years. Table 2.2: Processed Requests Origin GovQA Subpoenas 2020 2021 2022 2023 21,173 21,444 23,470 26,358 346 332 323 345 Governmental Agency Requests 3,683 3,810 3,474 3,528 Source: Agency-provided data At the time of this inquiry, there were five staff members working on PIRs. When a request is received, a staff member is assigned to the request, and they process it. Processing the request involves significant effort to assess what information, if any, can be released. Staff will review the incident record, body worn camera (BWC) video, 911 recordings, and all documentation associated with the request. When cases are open for investigation, or are pending court proceedings, staff will request a Predetermination Letter (PDL) from the City’s legal team to determine what information may be released. If there are questions about what can be released, staff will reach out to the City legal team for clarification, and they are reportedly very responsive. Business Processes | 24 After staff review the incident data, they will prepare it for release. This may involve redacting various information such as dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, vehicle data, title numbers, and medical information. When any information is released, it is attached to the file within GovQA, and it is also tracked within Versaterm. Figure 2.3 provides a visual depiction of how PIRs are routed. Figure 2.3: PIR Request Process All staff within the PIR Unit are authorized to release information to the requestor, and they are expected to do so in compliance with the PDL and any appropriate laws. BerryDunn learned that there is no secondary review of data requests and the data being released, nor are there any audit protocols for regular or random audits of data releases. Based on initial conversations with staff, and in light of the information provided in Table 2.2, BerryDunn felt that a workload analysis for the PIR Unit would be appropriate. Such analysis would help quantify workload demands and assess business processes in a more detailed manner. In subsequent discussion, BerryDunn learned that work responsibilities for the PIR Unit were changing, and a workload analysis would not be appropriate at this time. BerryDunn recognizes that PIR units perform a high-risk function. There are many legal implications to the release or withholding of information, and it is in the best interests of the APD to closely monitor this function, to help mitigate potential litigation in the future. Business Processes | 25 For these reasons, regardless of the restructuring of the PIR Unit, BerryDunn recommends that the APD develop various controls to mitigate possible risks, including the addition of an audit function. Business Processes | 26 Section 2 Recommendations This section provides the six formal recommendations from Section 2.0. They are presented chronologically as they previously appeared in this report. Each recommendation below includes the section and subsection (if applicable), the recommendation number, and the priority as assessed by BerryDunn along with details concerning the findings and recommendations. Table 2.3: Section 2 Recommendations Business Processes No. CAD CFS Coding Overall Priority Section 2.1: Initial CFS Intake Finding Area: In some instances (e.g., those for which APD will not respond), CFS received by the CC may not result in a CAD incident being generated. In other instances, some CFS may be closed without an APD response. There is no specific disposition code designation for either of these instances, which interferes with robust analysis of the CFS volume for the APD, particularly the volume in CAD. 2-1 Recommendation: BerryDunn recommends the APD generate a CAD record for all incoming CFS requests, evaluate its disposition codes, and add appropriate codes that allow for more granular analysis of the data in CAD. No. Solvability Factors Overall Priority Business Processes Section 2.2: Patrol Response and Preliminary Investigation 2-2 Finding Area: The APD does not currently formally engage the use of solvability factors as an element of conducting a preliminary criminal investigation. The use of solvability factors helps increase the quality of preliminary investigations and can assist decision-makers in determining which cases should receive additional investigation. Recommendation: The APD should require the use of solvability factors by all staff who conduct preliminary criminal investigations and complete the associated reports. Solvability factors should be reviewed by patrol supervisors as a part of the incident report approval process and used to assist with the case activation and assignment process. Business Processes | 27 No. Sector and District Response Overall Priority Business Processes Section 2.2: Patrol Response and Preliminary Investigation Finding Area: The APD uses a sector model for deployment of patrol personnel, which allows for unstructured movement of resources and is likely contributing to inefficient response to CFS. 2-3 Recommendation: The APD should examine its sector deployment model and consider implementing a district model that helps ensure appropriate distribution of personnel across the sector, while also recognizing the staffing limitations for each sector and/or shift. No. Criminal Case Review and Assignment Overall Priority Business Processes Section 2.3: Case Routing – Investigations Finding: The process in place for reviewing criminal cases for follow-up and assignment to an investigator is inefficient and in need of adjustment. The current practice of having investigators review each criminal incident is time consuming, and in many cases, unnecessary. Many reports lack sufficient basis for follow-up, and having investigators review these is an inefficient process. Recommendation: The APD should revise its process for reviewing criminal cases to delegate specific tasks to appropriate personnel and to save time for investigators. 2-4 The APD should consider designating a single intake point for criminal case review, and assigned personnel, who are responsible for review of all incident reports, should be empowered to close criminal cases without the need for additional review. This decision should be based on the solvability factors (as completed by the originator of the incident report). Because case routing at the APD occurs simultaneous to routing of a case for review by the patrol supervisor, BerryDunn recommends the APD assign a supervisor to the single intake point for case reviews. Additionally, the crime analysis team should review all criminal cases, whether closed or forwarded for follow-up, to help ensure a consistent understanding of all criminal events and to look for patterns of activity or persons. If these are identified, the analysis team should forward relevant information to the appropriate commander or unit. Business Processes | 28 Business Processes No. Open Records/PIR Unit Documentation Overall Priority Section 2.5: Open Records Unit/Public Information Request Unit Finding Area: PIR unit requests for information are routed from various sources, and the documentation of data release is not uniform across all platforms. Recommendation: The APD should establish a single platform as the mandatory location for recording data requests and releases. 2-5 Although there should be a single location for such releases, the APD could perform secondary recording of data releases, possibly using GovQA for the primary platform and Versaterm for the secondary platform. No. Open Records/PIR Unit Overall Priority Business Processes Section 2.5: Open Records Unit/Public Information Request Unit Finding Area: The PIR Unit is responsible for processing a high volume of information requests involving sensitive information that is subject to complex laws and involves a high risk for litigation. The PIR Unit does not have adequate controls and audit standards. 2-6 Recommendation: The APD should adopt clear controls for the PIR Unit, including secondary review of data for release, and regular quality control audits. Business Processes | 29 3.0 Field Technology and Integration This section outlines BerryDunn’s observations regarding the use of field technology and the integration and leveraging of data in support of patrol operations processes; it also incorporates elements of the APD’s business processes and their relation to any gaps and/or opportunities. 3.1 Evaluate Field Technology BerryDunn conducted an on-site review of the technology available for patrol officers in the field. That review included an in-person examination of the tools and their functionality in an APD patrol car guided by a well-accomplished patrol officer. 3.1.1 Field Technology Systems and Functional Capabilities Like all modern public safety agencies, APD has mobile data terminals (MDTs) and other field reporting systems in all its patrol vehicles. These are essential tools for field officers and staff working in the Patrol Division. During an on-site review of APD field technology in the patrol car, BerryDunn noted the following functions: • Fully functioning computer (MDT) with internet access • Full access to CAD and mobile functions • e-Citation printer • In-car camera (currently do not have automated license plate readers [ALPRs], but the new cameras will have this feature) • CAD and full RMS access • IPD is collected for all police-related contacts through a form on the MDT • Ability to print crash information exchange and two sheets via e-Citation printer • Global Positioning System (GPS) and mapping features are available for navigation and location tracking • Officers have BWCs that are integrated with personal equipment and the vehicle • Department-issued smartphone with an app for generating e-Citations and initial crash report data BerryDunn noted the following limitations to field reporting: • There are no driver’s license readers in the patrol cars for capturing driver’s license data electronically. • Although tow sheets can be printed via the e-Citation printer, these documents are not imported or stored within the RMS or CAD system. Field Technology and Integration | 30 • There are no other custom forms available for processing/printing within the Patrol Unit, other than e-Citation, tow sheets, and crash information exchange. • There are no data capture opportunities (e.g., driver’s license, registration), except when importing e-Citation or crash data. • There is no data push from CAD to RMS (data in CAD stays in CAD and is not imported into any RMS record; this must be done manually). Summary/Other Observations The APD compares favorably against other law enforcement agencies BerryDunn has studied in its use and deployment of field technology. Despite access to better than average resources in the field, APD officers experience efficiency issues due to a lack of system integration and inefficient data capture and movement processes. Officers are regularly required to enter data multiple times, and they manually populate fields in forms or other systems that could easily be automated. Best practices in field reporting engage a philosophy that seeks to capture/create quality data once and to leverage interfaces and system integrations to move that data seamlessly across all reporting platforms. Entering data multiples times is not only inefficient, but it also creates the opportunity for errors, which can be extremely problematic from a criminal justice perspective. BerryDunn recommends the APD adopt a philosophy that includes the ability to capture relevant response and involvement data once (whether it is done electronically or manually) and to move that data electronically across all systems where it may be required. 3.2 Evaluate Data Integration and Supporting Technology BerryDunn met with key APD personnel and the APD Police Technology Unit (PTU) to discuss data integration from field technology (or other sources) and how these integrations support public safety and administrative operations. BerryDunn has evaluated the information gleaned in the on-site review and meetings with key APD team members. This report contains suggested changes (e.g., technology integrations, new purchases, transferring from one system to another), expected implementation timelines for any proposed solutions, and expected improved outcomes and opportunities to measure success. 3.2.1 Software The backbone of all effective police data functions is a robust RMS. Police agencies with a good RMS that is integrated with other field technologies (including CAD) are able to create operational efficiencies that save time and effort for staff. Proper use of these systems can be valuable in assessing a variety of police functions, and they can help agencies combat crime more effectively. During this assessment, BerryDunn learned that the APD has a good RMS, and generally, the APD is making good use of several components and features available within the RMS. However, there are many noted operational challenges with the various software systems the APD is using, most of which are related to integration issues. At BerryDunn’s Field Technology and Integration | 31 request, the APD developed a list of major software components and assessed their functional level and known challenges. This data is presented in Table 3.1. Field Technology and Integration | 32 Major Technology Component (Software) Table 3.1: APD Software Functional Assessment Level Description of Use (1 High – 10 Low) Noted Challenges Visinet Browser Computer Aided Dispatch Platform Enterprise CAD Computer Aided Dispatch Platform Enterprise Mobile Computer Aided Dispatch Platform 9-1-1 Call System 9-1-1 System GeoMSAG eCitations eCrash Warnings Records Management System Evidence.com DMAV - Panasonic Arbitrator CRIS 4 3 2 2 4 5 5 5 3 3 4 4 Test, Production, Secondary and Development are running different versions which creates differences in testing updates and processes. There are instances where a bug could exist in production but not in the test and development environment which forces extremely thorough testing in all environments because they will operate differently. The integration forces the CAD Call and the associated RMS GO Report to be linked manually after the CAD Call closes. Therefore, the officer must manually enter the Case Number in the GO and this can create duplicate reports and typo errors. At this time, we also don’t have the ability to relate automatically the CAD Call to Citations and Warnings. Configuration issues, device compatibility Configuration issues, device compatibility Configuration issues, device compatibility Not Affiliated with CAD, integration issues, redundancy of efforts Outdated technology. In the process of switching to AXON FLEET Field Technology and Integration | 33 Major Technology Component (Software) Description of Use (1 High – 10 Low) Noted Challenges Functional Assessment Level Police Equipment Issuing and Asset Management - Check in and out for small daily check in and out EasyStreetDraw Axon Standards Performance Maximo EZO HR Portal Dimensions Telestaff ArcGIS Pro ArcGIS Online Acadis Staffing Allocation Tool Qlik Sense Business Intelligence Kaseware Accurint Virtual Crime Center MicroStrategy 3 3 3 3 7 7 4 Must be done on a desktop computer to diagram the crash which can delay the report processing. Need to complete configuration, no internal dashboards for quick reporting, Cloud environment requires a stable internet connection for upload System is being phased out Replacing Checkmate Still in configuration Still in configuration Most of the Geospatial data is stored outside the ausps network and getting that data through the firewalls increases slow downs for large datasets. Not Approved for CJIS Data Not able to access via phones Field Technology and Integration | 34 Description of Use (1 High – 10 Low) Noted Challenges Functional Assessment Level System is being phased out Limited Mapping functionality which community members would like to be able to use to find the neighborhoods. Cloud environment requires a stable internet connection for upload Custom application to help with identification of which Wrecker company has what territory for crashes. Major Technology Component (Software) GovQA IA Case Management System Wrecker Confidential Informant System Case Service Picture Link PrintLogic PowerBI Cell Hawk i2 Analysis CABIS Wrecker Management Confidential Informant System DWI Faster Service Now Fill out DWI Forms for the State Help desk ticket Source: Agency-provided data Field Technology and Integration | 35 3.2.2 Integration With CAD The CAD and RMS in use by APD are manufactured and maintained by two separate vendors, and the RMS and CAD are not fully integrated. These systems are not able to automatically transfer all data. The lack of integration between these two systems represents a significant gap for APD. For example, when an officer creates an incident in CAD, they must close the incident and then manually enter the incident number into the RMS so that minimal information will be transferred. This process is inefficient and creates an opportunity for errors. APD staff report this process often results in incorrectly entered incident numbers and duplicate reports. Additionally, APD is not able to link a CAD call to issued citations or warnings. This lack of integration creates redundancy in work and opportunities for errors. BerryDunn recommends APD source CAD and RMS systems built and maintained by the same vendor that are fully integrated. Additionally, the APD should evaluate all of its interfaces and seek opportunities to either replace non-compatible systems or to develop/improve interfaces so that they function without undue errors. Engaging this process is part of the single data capture/creation and routing process BerryDunn has recommended above. Again, this best practice approach reduces inefficiencies and the likelihood of errors. At BerryDunn’s request, the APD provided an inventory of its current interfaces, and these are outlined in Table 3.2. During BerryDunn’s meeting with APD Information Technology (IT) and PTU staff, there was considerable discussion regarding system interfaces. Although they are not reflected in Table 3.2, staff outlined several challenges with existing interfaces, most of which related to incorrect, incomplete, or inaccurate passing of data. Again, best practices involve seamless and essentially error-free movement of data across all systems and platforms; this is not the condition with APD. Field Technology and Integration | 36 Table 3.2: Technology Interfaces Interface Description Case Service to vRMS Ingests online non-emergency reports to the Records Management System VersatermXML SC Export Ingests Verbal and Written Warnings from Brazos to RMS (SC) JournalTech: Austin DACC TX GENERICXML Ingests DACC Citations from Brazos to Journal (Municipal Court) GENERICXML Export (VersaGO) Ingests Offense Citations from Brazos to RMS (GO) JournalTech: Austin TX GENERICXML Ingests non- DACC Citations from Brazos to Journal (Municipal Court) Versadex RMS Austin TX GENERICXML (eCitation) Ingests Citations from Brazos to RMS (TK) TXDOT XML INTERFACE Sends State Mandated Crash Reports to TxDOT from Brazos. LEXISNEXIS INTERFACE Sends Crash Reports to LexisNexis for purchase from Brazos. Inco1 Picturelink Axon Evidence.com Categorization Warrants FOTS Call For Service data ingested into the RMS after a call for service closes. Including the Units assigned and the Call Notes Sends Mugshots from the Jail to RMS Extracts information from the data warehouse CAD and RMS tables to help with categorization of Bodyworn camera for retention Sends Warrants from municipal court to a custom Website for public viewing Source: Agency-provided data Extracts Citations from JournalTech to a database Table In addition to providing information regarding APD’s software and interfaces, BerryDunn asked the APD to outline its technology needs, to describe the need, and to identify the criticality of that need. That information is provided in Table 3.3. Field Technology and Integration | 37 3.2.3 System Needs Table 3.3: Technology Needs Major Technology Component Description of Need Criticality of Need (1 High – 10 Low) CAD/RMS Public Safety Enterprise GIS RMS to Cloud The need for one vendor for both CAD and RMS. The integration is lacking between two systems Deploying a CJIS-specific Esri tenant equips law enforcement agencies with a secure and streamlined platform for managing sensitive criminal justice information. Embracing digital transformation and harnessing cloud-based technologies enable agencies to fortify security, enhance operational efficiency, and ensure compliance with regulatory standards. By establishing a separate Esri tenant distinct from the broader city infrastructure, departments can tailor security measures precisely to the sensitivity of the data, while granting the wider city access to more user-friendly controls. This separation facilitates dedicated monitoring by a Public Safety CTM over a smaller, specialized user group, allowing for tailored decision-making without imposing unnecessary restrictions on the city at large. Moreover, bifurcation provides logical isolation, safeguarding each environment in case of a cyber attack on one or the other. RMS Cloud Migration (status: in development). Migrating the RMS from an on- premises server to a cloud-based solution assists in addressing challenges the department has in resolving data quality issues as well as increasing the department’s ability to share data. The project also facilitates the deployment of level two and level three reporting servers to comply with legal requirements for data reporting, accessibility, and storage. The project will facilitate efficient data analysis and public accessible data while ensuring information integrity. After cloud migration is complete, APD plans to solicit contractor support to evaluate and address current data integrity issues. The project will be administered by the department’s Research and Planning Unit with the assistance of the department’s Information Technology Unit. Given resource limitations, this project includes funding for contract resources to assist with implementation. 3 8 4 Field Technology and Integration | 38 Major Technology Component Description of Need Criticality of Need (1 High – 10 Low) Electronic ticketing system (status: in development). A request for information (RFI) is currently open for vendor response. The period for vendor response closes August 2, 2023. After cloud migration is complete, APD plans to seek a new electronic ticketing system for issuing citations which will replace the current technology. The current technology exhibits a variety of data integrity issues that the vendor cannot address and does not integrate with the department’s RMS. A new solution that addresses these issues is available. Implementing a CJIS specific Microsoft 365 tenant offers law enforcement agencies a secure and efficient platform for managing sensitive criminal justice information. By embracing digital transformation and leveraging cloud-based technologies, agencies can enhance security, improve operational efficiency, and ensure compliance with regulatory requirements, ultimately better serving their communities while mitigating risks associated with cyber threats and data breaches. One that is separate from the wider city will allow the department to secure the tenant in a way that is as restrictive as needed for the sensitive data but allow the broader city to embrace the more user friendly access controls. Separating the tenants would facilitate a Public Safety CTM monitoring a much smaller and specialized group of users and make decisions for Public Safety without impacting the overall city by requiring stricter limitations which are unnecessary for the city. Furthermore, bifurcation will offer logical silos should one or the other environment comes under cyber attack. Software to automate redactions PII/CJI/HIPAA etc. from Crime Reports for public information requests. This would alleviate the over 20,000 backlog of Public Information Requests 1 2 5 Electronic ticketing system Public Safety Enterprise M365 Tenant Automated Redaction Software Source: Agency-provided data As Table 3.3 reflects, the APD has identified several technology needs with high criticality. BerryDunn has reviewed the items in this table with the APD and concurs with its assessment of need. Although APD staff did not rate it as the most critical need, BerryDunn again notes the pressing need for a CAD/RMS system provided by a single vendor. Field Technology and Integration | 39 3.3 Technology Approach and Operational Structure The APD uses a multi-layered approach and hierarchy for managing its technology systems and needs, which includes (minimally) Central Records, the PTU, and the APD Data and Analytics teams. This structure has not provided a uniform approach to data and technology solutions. During conversations with various APD staff and those assigned to these units, BerryDunn noted a disconnected IT and data strategy that sought solutions benefiting individual units (and users) but did not fully consider the implications of software or IT changes across the department. Additionally, in some cases, BerryDunn learned that there was a lack of knowledge across units regarding solutions being pursued or other work being performed. It is BerryDunn’s observation that although different units responsible for IT and data have good intentions, there is a lack of recognition that the areas that are important to a particular unit are part of a larger system. There is also a lack of coordinated effort in solving system and data issues across all affected units. Accordingly, BerryDunn recommends the APD develop an IT and data strategy that includes a structure that reports to a single oversight point. BerryDunn acknowledges that those with a vested interest in IT and data may be assigned to different units and this recommendation is not intended to circumvent or eliminate that structure. However, all such units should report to a single point so that communication, collaboration, and decision-making can be centralized. Summary In this section BerryDunn reviewed the APD’s field technology and systems, as well as the technology, software, and systems that support its police records and reporting processes. Field technology available to officers/staff in the patrol vehicles is robust and is more complete than most police agencies BerryDunn has studied. However, there are various limiting factors, such as the inability to auto-capture, populate, and route CFS information, that reduce overall efficiency and contribute to data entry errors. Like field technology, the APD has deployed various software and technologies in support of its public safety operations. Many of these systems, however, suffer from inadequate interfaces, which impede overall performance. Most significantly, BerryDunn notes that the CAD and RMS systems in use by the APD are from different vendors, which is a contributing factor in many efficiency challenges. To correct for this, BerryDunn is recommending the APD deploy a CAD/RMS system from a single vendor, as well as the adoption of a philosophy that includes the ability to capture relevant response and involvement data once in the field (whether it is done electronically or manually) and to move that data electronically across all systems where it may be required. The APD, like many police agencies, has multiple units that have a vested interest in the technology the department uses and the manner in which that technology supports their unit and its constituents. Although BerryDunn observed that each unit has appropriate intentions, the IT and data approach lacks uniformity and pursuit of a mutual purpose. Accordingly, BerryDunn Field Technology and Integration | 40 recommends that the APD realign its oversight over all units that have a role within the IT and data functions for the department. Section 3 Recommendations This section provides the three formal recommendations from Section 3.0. They are presented chronologically as they previously appeared in this report. Each recommendation below includes the section and subsection (if applicable), the recommendation number, and the priority as assessed by BerryDunn along with details concerning the findings and recommendations. Table 3.4: Section 3 Recommendations Field Technology and Integration  No.  Data Capture and Movement Overall Priority  Section 3.1.1: Field Technology Systems and Functional Capabilities  3-1  Finding Area: Field reporting processes for APD officers/field personnel lack automated data capture and routing functions, which regularly require manual data entry, often multiple times for a single incident, and are inefficient and create an opportunity for data entry errors. Recommendation: The APD should adopt a philosophy that includes the ability to capture relevant response and involvement data once in the field (whether it is done electronically or manually) and to move that data electronically across all systems where it may be required. Field Technology and Integration  No.  Pursue a Single Vendor CAD/RMS Solution Overall Priority  Section 3.2.3: System Needs 3-2  Finding Area: The APD operates in a technology environment that uses CAD and RMS systems from different vendors and that lacks adequate interfaces across all APD records platforms. These conditions contribute to inefficiency and system errors. Recommendation: The APD should pursue a new CAD/RMS solution that operates with a single vendor. Additionally, the APD should evaluate all of its interfaces as part of a new CAD/RMS selection and take steps to ensure that all interfaces are compatible and functional with the new systems. Field Technology and Integration | 41     Field Technology and Integration  No.  Unified Technology Approach Overall Priority  Section 3.3: Technology Approach and Operational Structure  Finding Area: The APD uses a multi-layered approach and hierarchy for managing its technology systems and needs, which includes Central Records, the PTU, and the APD Data and Analytics teams. This structure has not provided a uniform approach to data and technology solutions. 3-3 Recommendation: The APD should develop an IT and data strategy that includes a structure that reports to a single oversight point. BerryDunn acknowledges that those with a vested interest in IT and data may be assigned to different units. This recommendation is not intended to circumvent that structure. However, all such units should report to a single point so that communication, collaboration, and decision-making can be centralized. Field Technology and Integration | 42   4.0 Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation For this project, BerryDunn conducted an Essential CFS Evaluation to outline opportunities for adjustment to the traditional police patrol response model. This section outlines the process and outputs. 4.1 Essential CFS Evaluation Process The best-practice approach to evaluating alternatives to the traditional police CFS model should expand the level of collaboration beyond the walls of the police department. The 21st Century Policing Task Force final report explains: Law enforcement agencies should work with community residents to identify problems and collaborate on implementing solutions that produce meaningful results for the community…and; Do things with residents in the co-production of public safety rather than doing things to or for them.1 Making changes to the traditional police CFS response model is an involved process that requires a thoughtful approach. BerryDunn has developed a collaborative Essential CFS Evaluation process that considers numerous critical factors to produce data that police staff, community members, and elected leaders can rely upon in making critical decisions about future public safety needs. BerryDunn’s Essential CFS Evaluation model is outlined below. BerryDunn followed this process in conducting this evaluation. The results of the process are provided in the sections that follow. 4.1.1 Essential CFS Evaluation Work Plan Steps BerryDunn followed the Essential CFS Evaluation work plan steps listed below: 1. Facilitate initial discussions with APD project team 2. Conduct staff and stakeholder interviews 3. Finalize and distribute Essential Police CFS Evaluation tool internally 4. Distribute Essential Police CFS Evaluation tool externally (via survey) 5. Perform data analysis 6. Develop Essential CFS Report 1 Final Report of The President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing – http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/taskforce_finalreport.pdf Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 43 4.1.2 Essential CFS Evaluation Discussion Determining possible alternatives to traditional CFS police response requires substantial data collection and analysis to inform and guide outcomes and recommendations. The work plan above briefly outlines BerryDunn’s collaborative approach to collecting and analyzing this type of data. One aspect of BerryDunn’s process involves analyzing the computer-aided dispatch (CAD) data for the police department. This determines CFS types to be evaluated and quantifies the level of annual work effort in full-time equivalent (FTE) sworn officer (or non-sworn) positions. For purposes of this analysis, calculating the value of a single FTE for patrol staff involves starting with the standard number of annual work hours (2,080), removing non-work time (e.g., vacation, sick leave, training), and calculating 30% of that value (which is the percent of time an officer is expected to be engaged in CFS activity). Based on prior studies, the average number of annual working hours for patrol officers is 1,700, once leave and other non-productive time is removed. This results in 510 hours of available CFS response time annually for each officer (on average). Quantifying the data in this way helps determine the potential impact various CFS alternative responses could have on agency workload. If the FTE level is negligible, this data reveals that diverting a CFS category will likely provide little workload relief and add little value to the department and the community (although there may still be other reasons to divert some CFS types). In addition to CAD data analysis, BerryDunn also uses a customizable CFS Evaluation instrument to collect quantitative data. This instrument is used to solicit data from members of the police department and various professional stakeholders, possible CFS response resources, and the community. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 reflect the numerous evaluative points of the instrument, which present a full range of areas to be considered in making decisions about future police response. Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 44 Table 4.1: Essential Police CFS Evaluation Method e c i v r e S , c i f f a r T , e m i r C : e p y T l e b a l i a v A s e c r u o s e R r e h t O e s n o p s e R e v i t a n r e t l A s E T F n i e m u o V l l e u a V y t i n u m m o C i l d e F m o t s u C r e g n a D l a i t n e t o P k s R i / e s n o p s e R e t a d e m m i I e t a d n a M e c i l o P CFS Activity Alarm Theft Domestic Medical Mental Health Traffic Table 4.2: Essential Police CFS Evaluation Legend Category Police Mandate Rating Yes, No Explanation Legal requirement for response Risk/Potential Danger High, Possible, Limited As assessed by call type and category Immediate Response Yes, No 24/7 response necessary/expected Type: Crime, Traffic, Service Category CFS category assigned Other Resources Available Yes, No, Limited, TBD Current, to some extent, or possible Alternative Response Yes, No TRU or online reporting options Volume in FTEs Calculated Value Based on CAD analysis Community Value Calculated Value Based on community input (1 – 5) Custom Field TBD TBD Lastly, BerryDunn’s process includes interviews with members of the department. This feedback is used to validate and support outputs from the quantitative efforts and to guide and shape final recommendations. 4.1.3 CFS Summary In the tables below, BerryDunn has provided data from its analysis of the CAD data provided by the APD. This project did not include a full workload analysis; however, BerryDunn did analyze Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 45 the CAD data to isolate and estimate overall work volumes, including examining total volumes and the volume of supplanting that is occurring. In this context, supplanting refers to resources who are not assigned primary patrol responsibilities but take CFS as a primary responding unit. In doing so, these units supplant existing resources, which effectively reduces the overall workload managed by patrol. This process masks and reduces actual patrol workloads. BerryDunn also provides workload full-time equivalent (FTE) counts in the tables, based on an expected 30% obligated workload for patrol personnel. Based on unit call numbers and information provided by the APD, BerryDunn isolated patrol staff, patrol support staff, non-APD units, and non-patrol units within the CAD dataset. In summary: • Based on BerryDunn’s limited review, the workload in CAD indicates 1,014.79 FTEs of workload volume being managed by patrol*, with an additional 185.76 FTEs of workload by personnel supplanting current staffing. In total, the data suggests the need for 1,200.55 patrol personnel (see Appendix C Table C.1). • Workloads associated with a specific sector within CAD total 992.89 FTEs* (see Appendix C Table C.2). There are notable variances in workload across the sectors. *Certain volume associated with patrol may involve volume that was managed through another alternative response method (e.g., online, TRU). 4.2 Essential CFS Evaluation Results This section describes the results of the quantitative and qualitative data collection and its analysis. 4.2.1 Quantitative Data Collection Quantitative data for this section originates from three sources: CAD data, survey data from the APD, and survey data from the community. 4.2.2 Administration Coding Criteria The initial CAD dataset BerryDunn reviewed contained 415 CFS types. Of this total, BerryDunn coded 211 as criminal, 169 as service, and 35 as non-CFS response related outsourcing (the full list of CFS types is provided in Appendix C Table C.3). Notably, there were many duplicates within the 415 CFS types within the CAD dataset. Generally, duplicates resulted from officers changing the original dispatched CFS type to another type (which is appropriate when the officer concludes the original CFS type was inaccurate). When this occurs within CAD, an asterisk or – sign is added to the coded CFS type, which produces a “duplicate.” BerryDunn examined the full CFS list from CAD and ultimately collapsed this list into 58 CFS Groups (see Appendix C Table C.4). BerryDunn provided the CFS types to the APD administration in an Excel spreadsheet to determine which CFS were conducive to potential diversion. APD administration was asked to Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 46 assess each CFS type and to consider and respond to the questions provided in the sections below. Criminal/Ordinance Incidents: • Does this CFS type require an in-person officer response? • Could this CFS type possibly be handled in person by a non-sworn staff member? • Could this CFS type possibly be diverted to a TRU or an online reporting portal? Non-Criminal Incidents: • Does this CFS type require an in-person officer response? • Could this CFS type possibly be handled in person by a non-sworn staff member? • Could this CFS type possibly be diverted to a TRU or an online reporting portal? • Does this CFS type require a police response at all (assuming another resource can be identified)? • Is it possible that this CFS type might not always require a police response? Category Removal: • Are there any categories of CFS types that do not apply to the APD or that cannot otherwise be diverted? 4.2.3 APD CFS Types Coding Outputs Designated APD staff reviewed the CFS incident types and determined there were 29 CFS types that were open to possible diversion, whether internal or external. Notably, the APD has performed a similar exercise previously, and these results were provided to BerryDunn (see Subsection 4.3, Table 4.12). Additionally, APD already diverts certain CFS volume, which BerryDunn also describes in Subsection 4.3. 4.2.4 Data Coding Protocols Based on the APD coding outputs, BerryDunn then developed an Excel spreadsheet for evaluation of the targeted CFS by internal staff. The spreadsheet isolated the 29 CFS types for expanded internal evaluation. BerryDunn requested that staff use the legend from Table 4.3 to form their responses to the 29 CFS types. Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 47 Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 48 Table 4.3: Survey Legend Category Rating Explanation Police Mandate Yes, No (Y - N) Legal requirement for response (or reporting) Risk/Potential Danger High, Possible, Limited (H - P - L) As assessed by call type and category Immediate Response Yes, No (Y - N) 24/7 response necessary/expected Category (C - O - T - S) CFS category assigned Type: Crime, Ordinance, Traffic, Service Other Resources Available Yes, No, Limited, TBD (Y - N - L - T) Alternative Response Yes, No (Y - N) Current (Y or N), Limited (to some extent), or TBD (possible) Telephone Response Unit (TRU) or online reporting options Volume in FTEs Calculated Value (CAD DATA) Based on CAD analysis Importance Rating 1 – 10 (10 = Most Important; 1 = Least Important) Police Department Value Calculate Value (Internal) Based on department input (1 – 10) Acceptance Rating 1 – 5 (5 = Most Accepting; 1 = Least Accepting) Community/Stakeholder Value: Open to Alternative Response (Phone/Online) Calculated Value (External) Based on stakeholder input (1 – 5) After the assigned sworn staff completed the ratings and submitted them, BerryDunn merged the responses for data analysis and reporting, using the data coding protocols detailed below: • Police Mandate: If any responses contained a Yes (Y), that category was coded with a Y. Otherwise, a No (N) was coded. • Risk/Potential Danger: Coded with the most frequent risk label (H-High, P-Possible, or L-Limited). • Immediate Response: If any responses contained a Y, that category was coded with a Y. Otherwise, an N was coded. • Crime, Ordinance, Traffic, Service: Coded with the most frequent label (C-Crime, O- Ordinance, T-Traffic, or S-Service). • Other Resources Available: If any responses contained a Y, that category was coded with a Y. Otherwise, an N was coded. If any response contained an L (Limited) or T (To be Determined), a T was coded. All narrative comments were copied from the response. Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 49 • Alternative Response: If any responses contained a Y, that category was coded with a Y. Otherwise, an N was coded. All narrative comments were copied from the response. • Police Department Value: Responses were averaged and rounded to the nearest whole number. (Outputs from this process are included in Table 4.4 below) 4.2.5 Quantitative Data Results Simultaneous to the internal CFS evaluation, BerryDunn developed and distributed an online survey for community review of the 29 CFS types isolated by the APD as being diversion eligible. A link to this survey was posted online on the Speak Up Austin website, and the City communications team promoted the survey opportunity through its various social media platforms. The online survey was active online for approximately four weeks. BerryDunn received 532 viable survey responses from the community. In Table 4.4 below, BerryDunn has combined the APD evaluation response (using Table 4.3 as the legend), the averaged community responses from the survey, and the FTE counts for the designated CFS types, as captured in CAD. There are different sections within Table 4.4 that are important to understand. First, within the CFS Category, the tan categories represent criminal-coded CFS types, and the light blue categories represent service-related CFS volume (note that CFS type classifications are generalized for consistency, and some CFS coded as criminal [e.g., Family Disturbance] may not result in a criminal charge, and some coded as service [e.g., Check Welfare] may result in an arrest and criminal charges). APD staff rated each of these areas and their responses are reflected in the dark blue vertical-titled columns. Responses from community members are reflected in the green vertical-titled columns. Data in the orange vertical-titled column reflects the FTE volume for a CFS type as captured in CAD. In some cases, overall FTE volume may be combined within another category. For example, the volume for Family Disturbance is included within the Disturbance/Disorderly Person(s) category. In these instances, an alpha-character has been placed in the FTE column, and these are referenced at the bottom of Table 4.4. APD staff responses in Table 4.3 suggest there are already many Alternative Response options available, particularly for criminal-coded events. Notably, some categories (e.g., Check Welfare, Motor Vehicle Crash) with high FTE counts are reported to have limited Alternative Response resources and no noted Alternative Response options. Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 50 Table 4.4: APD and Stakeholder Survey Results e c i v r e S , c i f f a r T , e c n a n d r O i , e m i r C C C C C C C C C C C C e l b a l i a v A s e c r u o s e R r e h t O T L Y L L Y Y Y Y Y Y ) e n i l / n O U R T ( e s n o p s e R e v i t a n r e t l A Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y r e g n a D l a i t n e t o P / k s i R P L L P L L P L L P L e s n o p s e R e t a i d e m m I N N N N N N N N N N N e t a d n a M e c i l o P N N N N N N N N N N N Crime Category CFS Category Assault - Aggravated (delayed report, no injury, no current danger) Auto Theft (delayed report, no known suspect, no evidence to collect) Disturbance/Disorderly Person(s) (delayed report or non-violent) Family Disturbance (non-violent) Prostitution (complaint, not in progress) Theft of Services (e.g., gas drive off, fail to pay at restaurant) Weapon/Gun/Firearm (delayed report, no known suspect, no evidence to collect) Burglary/Theft from Vehicle (delayed report, no known suspect, no evidence to collect) Criminal Damage to Property / Arson (no evidence to collect) Identity Theft Theft (delayed report, no known suspect, no evidence to collect) e s n o p s e R e v i t a n r e t l A l a n r e t x E e u l a V t n e m t r a p e D e c i l o P 7 5 1 8 3 3 5 4 5 5 3 n r o w S - n o N r e c i f f O e c i v r e S y t i n u m m o C 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 e n i l / n O U R T 3 3 4 3 * s E T F n i e m u o V l 18.01 36.72 254.70 a 0.29 11.02 49.79 24.20 5.49 b b Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 51 e s n o p s e R e v i t a n r e t l A l a n r e t x E e n i l / n O U R T 4 e c i v r e S , c i f f a r T , e c n a n d r O i , e m i r C C S S S S S S T C T T T C e l b a l i a v A s e c r u o s e R r e h t O Y N L L L L L L L L L L L ) e n i l / n O U R T ( e s n o p s e R e v i t a n r e t l A Y N N N N N N N N N N Y Y r e g n a D l a i t n e t o P / k s i R P P P P P L P P P P P P P e s n o p s e R e t a i d e m m I N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N e t a d n a M e c i l o P N Y N N Y N N N Y N N Y N Crime Category CFS Category Embezzlement 911 Hang-Up Animal - Urgent Loose Livestock Check Welfare of Person/Situation (non-dangerous) Request for Area Check (general complaint/request) Mental Health / EDP (Emotionally Disturbed Person) Motor Vehicle Crash (non-injury) Motor Vehicle Crash (minor injury) Reckless Driving Complaint Stalled Vehicle Roadway Related / Traffic Hazard / Complaint Suspicious Person/Vehicle/Circumstances (non-dangerous) * s E T F n i e m u o V l e u l a V t n e m t r a p e D e c i l o P n r o w S - n o N r e c i f f O e c i v r e S y t i n u m m o C 0.52 5 6.70 10 0.01 c 5 5 142.23 10 0.40 14.86 120.90 d 40.74 e e 80.70 2 5 1 5 5 5 5 5 4 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 3 Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 52 e c i v r e S , c i f f a r T , e c n a n d r O i , e m i r C S S O S S e l b a l i a v A s e c r u o s e R r e h t O Y N N N L ) e n i l / n O U R T ( e s n o p s e R e v i t a n r e t l A N N Y Y N r e g n a D l a i t n e t o P / k s i R P P P L H e s n o p s e R e t a i d e m m I N Y N N Y e t a d n a M e c i l o P N N Y N Y Crime Category CFS Category Grass Fire Suspicious Package (non-dangerous) Alarm Burglary/Glass/Other General Recovered Runaway Mental Health / Suicidal a - Included in Disturbance/Disorderly b - Included in Theft c - Included in Animal e u l a V t n e m t r a p e D e c i l o P 5 5 5 3 * s E T F n i e m u o V l 0.41 f 65.84 0.07 g 10 e n i l / n O U R T n r o w S - n o N r e c i f f O e c i v r e S y t i n u m m o C 3 3 3 3 3 e s n o p s e R e v i t a n r e t l A l a n r e t x E 3 3 3 3 3 d - Included in Motor Vehicle Crash (non-injury) e - Included in Roadway Related / Traffic Hazard / Complaint f - Included in Suspicious Person/Vehicle/Circumstances (non- dangerous) g - Included in Mental Health / EDP (Emotionally Disturbed Person) *FTE counts here consider all CFS data in CAD and may include data associated with other Alternative Response systems. Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 53 Within the community response area of Table 4.4, the survey data has been split into three categories: • Non-Sworn - Community Service Officer (CSO) response • TRU/Online response • External Alternative response For each of these categories, the number shown reflects the average of the respondents’ level of acceptance to an alternative response (with 5 being the most accepting and 1 being the least accepting). The survey response data in Table 4.4 generally reflects moderate to strong acceptance levels for alternative CFS responses, with all categories receiving an average response of at least 3 and many receiving a score of 4. In Appendix C, BerryDunn has provided the community response data from Table 4.4 in a separate table that reflects the survey categories and responses (see Appendix C Table C.5). As part of the process of evaluating Alternative CFS Response, the APD was asked to provide possible outsourcing opportunities or additional details regarding any CFS type. The unedited responses are provided in Table 4.5. Table 4.5: APD Alternative Response Suggestions CFS Category Other Resources, Alternative Response, and Comments Assault - Aggravated (delayed report, no injury, no current danger) Auto Theft (delayed report, no known suspect, no evidence to collect) Disturbance/Disorderly Person(s) (delayed report or non- violent) Family Disturbance (non-violent) Drug Information Identity Theft Embezzlement If there was any information that the situation was ongoing or had an element of revenge, it may require a response, but mostly this can be an online or TRU report. The only portion of these calls that requires anything more than an online or TRU report, is to verify the identity of the caller (has to be someone with standing to report the vehicle stolen). So, some sort of video conference would be necessary. If there is no indication that there is an ongoing threat, these can be TRU. I put C but depending on the circumstances, it could also be ordinance or service as well. Our FV [Family Violence] unit wants to keep these as a response because with an on-scene evaluation and further questioning, we often times identify safety issues or past abuse. Switched to Drug Information only (removed found drugs as a criteria). There may be some instances of when an officer should go, but the vast majority can be TRU or online. There may be some instances of when an officer should go, but the vast majority can be TRU or online. Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 54 CFS Category Other Resources, Alternative Response, and Comments 911 Hang-Up Animal - Urgent Loose Livestock Mental Health / EDP (Emotionally Disturbed Person) This is too vague to know what you are referring, so I went with the assumption it was a 911 hangup and we don’t know on the front end what the call was about. These calls vary from a loose dog to an attacking dog. It also includes dogs in locked cars in the summer heat, etc. Hard to put all into one category. This can be an emergency if the livestock is causing a potential to cause an accident. Other than that, this case can be diverted. I went with the assumption there was no threat to anyone. If the call details any threatening comments or behavior, my answers would change. Roadway Related / Traffic Hazard / Complaint Assuming the hazard could cause a subsequent crash. Suspicious Person/Vehicle/Circumstances (non- dangerous) Grass Fire Depending on call text, may seem non dangerous but officers may recognize the activity as related to another crime or trend. I think patrol should decide to respond or not. We only need to respond if Austin Fire Department (AFD) wants us there for traffic control or people. Similarly, BerryDunn also asked the community to identify any possible outsourcing suggestions for the CFS types that were in the survey. BerryDunn collected these responses from the survey respondents, and they are provided in Table 4.6. Table 4.6: Community Alternative Response Suggestions CFS Type Alternative Response Suggestions Alarm Burglary/Glass/Other General Recovered Runaway Mental Health / Suicidal Security company; Reserve APD officers, Civilian volunteers; non-sworn community service officer (CSO); Private contractor; the Code Department (or similar) Non-police task force, Lifeworks and/or Travis Co (already in use?), trained and licensed mental health worker (including psychologist or therapist), social worker, Child Protective Services (CPS), shelter employees, SAFE alliance, Gardner Betts, Integral Care or ATCEMS, juvenile probation, CSO Travis County Integral Care (or other trained/licensed mental health professional), Emergency Medical Service (EMS) providers with a mental health specialty, licensed therapist working in conjunction with courts, social worker, non-profit agencies, health worker, fire and EMS department, crisis intervention team, existing Expanded Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (EMCOT) and Community Health Paramedic (CHP) programs Grass Fire Fire (volunteer and/or career) Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 55 CFS Type Alternative Response Suggestions Suspicious Package (non-dangerous) CSO, Postal Service armed division, fire department with their robot bomb disposal unit 4.3 APD Alternative Response Systems Alternative CFS Response is not new to the APD. In fact, the APD has various methods available for alternative reporting, including: • 311 – a City of Austin resource for generating a wide range of service requests • Telephonic reporting via 311 • Online reporting through iReportAustin.com At BerryDunn’s request, the APD provided summary data regarding incidents and requests that were routed through the iReport system. As Table 4.7 shows, this involves substantial volume, some of which involves administrative tasks, not CFS (e.g., existing police report). Table 4.7: iReport Volume 2023 CFS Category Collision Evidence/Property Existing Police Report Family Protection/Child Custody Miscellaneous Noise/Alarm Officer Contact Request Request Police Report Vehicle Issues Totals Source: Agency-provided data Count 9,593 1,727 5,143 961 1,007 25,058 3,526 55,598 4,176 106,789 Still, other CFS categories in Table 4.7 represent volume that likely reduced workloads for patrol personnel (e.g., request police report, collision). The number of requests reflected in Table 4.7 is substantial and indicative of an appropriate strategy by the APD to try to manage the large volume of service demands from the community. Similarly, BerryDunn asked the APD to provide details regarding its online reporting system. Figure 4.1 provides a list of online reporting categories, as reflected on the APD’s website as part of the iReport system. Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 56 Figure 4.1: APD Online Reporting Categories Table 4.8 outlines the volume of reports that were filed through the APD online reporting system. Table 4.8: Online Reporting CFS Types and Volume Type of Call – Online Hit and Run Violation Burglary from a Motor Vehicle All Other Theft-Larceny Criminal Damage - Vandalism Mail Theft Shoplifting Lost Property Identity Theft C Harassment Burglary of a Shed Theft of a Bicycle # of Offenses 4,252 3,656 2,047 1,984 1,555 1,425 1,154 1,020 1,010 776 696 Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 57 Type of Call – Online # of Offenses Pocket-Picking Fraud - Other Burglary of a Residence Burglary of a non-residence Trespass Credit Card Automated Teller Machine (ATM) Fraud Forgery Debit Card ATM Fraud Theft of Motor Vehicle Parts Bicycle Registration Hate Crime Information Assault by Contact Assault by Threats Interfere with Child Custody Theft of Catalytic Converter Terroristic Threat Theft of Metal Theft of Services Assault with Injury Theft from Auto Graffiti Theft from Building Indecent Exposure Counterfeiting Wrecker Ordinance Violation Theft from Coin-Op Machine Harass - Online Impersonation Prescription Fraud Purse-Snatching Total Source: Agency-provided data 685 575 540 528 451 389 341 287 278 185 159 143 131 108 106 102 91 89 70 54 41 35 33 15 12 10 8 3 3 25,047 Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 58 Again, the data in this table reflects substantial volume, with the top 10 categories from Table 4.8 totaling 18,880 incidents. Although BerryDunn did not perform a detailed CFS analysis for the APD, Table 4.9 reflects average minutes per CFS from several prior law enforcement workload studies BerryDunn has conducted. Table 4.9: Average Time Per CFS – BerryDunn Studies Prior Study Averages % of Total Calls 39.01% 46.53% 14.46% Category Crime Service Traffic Total Avg. % of Total Call Time Minutes Per CFS 46.65% 38.52% 14.82% 56.47 39.10 48.41 47.22 Source: BerryDunn-provided data Using the average time per CFS reflected in Table 4.9 (47.22 minutes), BerryDunn calculates that the volume reflected in Table 4.8 (25,047 incidents) represents the equivalent response time of more than 38 full-time police officers/staff (25,047 x 47.22 minutes / 60 [time converted to hours] / 510 hours [available time per officer]). Essentially, if not for the volume diverted in Table 4.8, the APD would require an additional 38 officers/staff. Like online reporting, the APD also has many CFS that are reported via telephone. These reports are not filed with the APD directly but are received by administrative personnel at the City through the 311 system. Table 4.10 provides the CFS volume reported through the TRU. Table 4.10: TRU Volume # of Calls Type of Call – TRU Burglary Crash (includes Leave Scene & Fail to Stop Render Aid) Theft Trespassing Criminal Mischief & Graffiti Theft of License Plate Harassment Auto Theft Credit/Debit Card Abuse Request to Locate Identity Theft 3,943 2,803 2,410 1,292 1,087 983 922 703 666 479 475 Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 59 Type of Call – TRU # of Calls Fraud Mail Theft Lost/Missing Property Threats Interfere with Child Custody Suspicious Person Counterfeiting & Forgery Assault by Contact Theft of Trailer Auto Theft Information Shoplifting Terroristic Threat Wrecker Ordinance Violation Theft from Auto Suspicious Vehicle Theft Catalytic Converter Assault with Injury Assault Information Indecent Exposure Assist Complainant Totals 441 393 388 270 252 202 186 178 154 135 134 92 89 85 61 38 33 22 18 13 18,947 Source: Agency-provided data Using the same calculation method shown above, the data in Table 4.10 represents the equivalent demand for 29 full-time police officers/staff. Based on the volume from Tables 4.8 and 4.10, the APD is currently mitigating the demand for an estimated 67 full-time officers/staff through the use of Alternative Response to CFS. In Table 4.11, BerryDunn has provided a list of the top 25 CFS types by grouped category, based on the total number of FTEs required to manage the volume. Based on the data in CAD associated with these 25 types, it would require approximately 1,185 officers/staff to manage the volume. Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 60 Table 4.11: Top 25 CAD FTEs by Grouped Category CFS Type Disturbance/Disorderly Check Welfare Motor Vehicle Crash Trespass Assist Public/Other Agency Suspicion Alarm Unknown Weapon/Gun/Firearm Roadway Related/Traffic Complaint Auto Theft Burglary Assault - Aggravated Sexual Assault/Rape Mental Health/Suicidal Robbery Theft Other Criminal Missing Pedestrian on Highway 911 CFS/Related Criminal Mischief/Property/Arson Airport - Assist Warrant Found FTEs 254.70 142.23 120.71 98.19 86.13 80.70 65.84 57.50 49.79 40.74 36.72 24.20 18.01 17.62 14.86 12.18 11.02 11.00 10.65 8.53 6.70 5.49 5.08 3.57 3.27 Top 25 Total FTEs 1185.45 Source: Calculations from agency-provided CAD data As noted previously, BerryDunn performed a limited assessment of the CFS data in CAD to determine relative staffing needs and to calculate estimated FTE counts. These calculations suggest substantial work volume, and much of this work volume is being managed by patrol. Definitively calculating patrol vs. non-patrol volumes would require a more detailed analysis. It is Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 61 evident to BerryDunn, however, that the community is generating significant service demands that the APD has been working diligently to manage. As noted previously, the APD has recently conducted a similar Alternative CFS Response exercise to evaluate whether there were certain CFS that could be moved to an alternative process. A committee was convened to review 27 CFS types for consideration and feedback. Those types are listed in Table 4.12. The CFS types listed in Table 4.12 had been reviewed/developed/refined by patrol, dispatch, the legal department, and executive staff, however, there was no community involvement in this process. Following their additional review and analysis, feedback from this committee was provided to APD administration for further consideration. Table 4.12: APD Staff – Alternative Response Review CFS Types CFS Type Crash Response Crash Reports EDP Calls EDP Transports Traffic Hazards Animals on Roadway Parking Violations Animal Urgent Criminal Trespass Non-Residence Criminal Trespass Notice (CTN) Issued Criminal Trespass Calls from Alarm Companies Criminal Trespass Calls Blanket CTNs Criminal Trespass at Homeowners Association (HOA) Pools or House Rule Violations Missing Persons-adult or not suspicious Nuisance Calls at Parks (quality of life) DOC calls (except weapon or sex offenses) Suspicious Person/Vehicle (no crime) BOV/BOR (burglary of vehicle/residence) Check Welfare (no crime) Found Narcotics/Abandoned Property Disturbance Service Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 62 CFS Type Service Calls Old Theft Old Reports of Crimes at Schools or Correctional Facilities Repeat Alarm Calls Animal Bite Source: Agency-provided data BerryDunn observes that the CFS types in Table 4.12 are highly consistent with the CFS types isolated for review as a part of this project. Given the outputs from this process, and the prior effort of the APD in examining and expanding its Alternative Response processes, BerryDunn recommends the APD renew its efforts in considering various CFS diversions, consistent with its prior efforts and the results of this report. Other Discussion During interviews with APD staff, BerryDunn learned that as noted above, the APD does not have its own TRU but instead relies on City staff (who work within the 311 system) to take telephonic reports. There is a certain level of sophistication required for taking such reports, and City staff, who have more generalized skills, might not be in the best position to perform this task. In addition to understanding certain nuances in the police report and preliminary investigation process, City staff do not have the same level of ready access to APD personnel for questions or referral of certain reports, when appropriate. Based on the data in Table 4.10, there is ample volume to support a full-time TRU within the APD. Moving this function into the department would likely improve efficiency and provide other operational benefits. BerryDunn also learned from staff that 311 and iReport incidents are routed to the APD Investigations Bureau for review. BerryDunn acknowledges that each reported incident should receive secondary review, to ensure that the incident is routed for appropriate action, as needed. However, because of the nature of these systems and the pre-qualifications for filing via online or through a TRU, the vast majority of these incidents do not require secondary follow-up. Routing these incidents to the Investigations Bureau represents a misalignment of resources, as secondary review of these cases could easily be managed by an administrative staff member. BerryDunn recommends the APD develop a process for timely administrative review of online or TRU reports, including escalation to the Investigations Bureau when appropriate. As noted in Section 2.0, BerryDunn is aware that dispatchers in the CC will offer to route callers to the 311 or iReport system as an alternative to dispatching an officer. However, this CFS is still created within the CAD system. Accordingly, significant data within the CAD system is managed by non-patrol resources. Fully understanding which data within CAD relates to patrol or other alternative response resources is beyond the scope of this project. However, the APD would benefit from a more detailed analysis of its workloads to assess the distribution of work and to isolate opportunities for more efficient and effective CFS response. Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 63 4.3.1 Other Alternative Response During this project, staff discussed with BerryDunn several other alternative response options and systems in use by the APD. Homeless Outreach Street Team (HOST) HOST is an outreach team (not part of the APD) that primarily services the downtown Austin area. This team conducts direct outreach to homeless persons to offer services and coordinates other efforts such as camp cleanups. This team also works with Integral Care (a counseling and mental health service organization) to manage mental health needs for homeless persons. When necessary, HOST can contact APD for response to complete a mental health hold. HOST receives referrals from family members, business centers, and businesses. Although referrals do not typically come through the 911 communications center (CC), APD and emergency medical services (EMS) staff may contact the HOST team for support, particularly for individual high system users. HOST also coordinates monthly clinics to provide various resources to the unhoused. Mental Health Care The City and APD have several resources available for mental health response and services: • 911 Presence: During the hours of 2:00 p.m. – 10:00 p.m., 7 days a week, Integral Care staffs a mental health professional within the CC. If CFS are received that require mental health services, this professional will triage the CFS and determine the appropriate need and resources. • Mobile Crisis Outreach Team (MCOT): There are three mobile crisis outreach teams, which are run by Integral Care, whose hours are Mon-Fri 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and Sat-Sun 10 am to 8 p.m. These teams are available to respond to any mental health-related incidents. • Mental Health Assistance Line: Integral Care also manages the mental health call center (512-472-HELP). Callers can receive crisis support, can learn about other resources available, and can schedule appointments, if needed. Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) The APD has a CIT that works with EMS and Integral Care to provide support and offer services to individuals within the community. This team meets weekly to discuss possible needs and individuals who may benefit from direct outreach. Community Health Paramedic Program EMS operates a community health paramedic (CHP) program to divert low-acuity EMS CFS to various resources. This process engages the use of three to four response units, staffed with a single paramedic who is also cross-trained in mental health response, who can respond to assist those in need. When appropriate, Integral Care will respond with the paramedic. Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 64 Office of Violence Prevention (OVP) The OVP was formed in 2021 to strategically address and prevent violence. The approach involves preventive processes to interrupt and preempt the cycle of violence. “The Office of Violence Prevention (OVP) invests in the equitable access to safety in Austin through evidence- based, community-led programming targeted to those who need it most.”2 The OVP approach engages various programming to reduce community violence and to support overall community safety. The above list briefly describes several programs and response teams that are active within the City to support public safety. This list is not intended to be all-inclusive or an in-depth representation of the various services available. It does, however, provide a glimpse of the various efforts of the City and the APD in diversifying their approach to community safety. 4.4 Summary BerryDunn conducted an Essential CFS Evaluation for the APD that included an examination of its current CFS systems, including current Alternative Response systems. During the evaluation, BerryDunn isolated several CFS types that could be conducive for Alternative Response for the APD, in addition to those that are already available for such diversion. This process involved a multi-level assessment, including internal discussion and analysis, and a community survey. Both internal and external direct engagement efforts revealed clear support for an alternative response to certain CFS (given the appropriate CFS type and circumstances), specifically for using a TRU or online reporting. There was also support for diverting certain CFS volume to trained non-sworn personnel. Those interviewed supported the development of hybrid or independent response models for certain CFS types (e.g., mental health, medicals, fire-related, unhoused persons). Through a series of quantitative evaluation processes, the APD isolated 29 CFS types for alternative response consideration. Of that number, many have a substantial FTE volume that could be significantly improved through expanded alternative response. The APD is already diverting substantial CFS volume, but this could be expanded through developing additional Alternative Responses, consistent with this report. Current Alternative Response processes that are routing through 311 and/or iReport would benefit from adjustments. The APD should consider establishing its own TRU, and TRU and online reports that are routinely routed to the Investigations Bureau should be redirected to administrative personnel for review and routing to improve efficiency of those processes. 2 Office of Violence Prevention Programs | AustinTexas.gov Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 65 Section 4 Recommendations This section provides the four formal recommendations from Section 4.0. They are presented chronologically as they previously appeared in this report. Each recommendation below includes the section and subsection (if applicable), the recommendation number, and the priority as assessed by BerryDunn along with details concerning the findings and recommendations. Table 4.13: Section 4 Recommendations Essential CFS Evaluation No.  Examine CFS Types for Expanded Alternative Response Overall Priority  Section 4.3: APD Alternative Response Systems  4-1  Finding Area: Analysis indicates the opportunity for the APD to divert additional CFS types to reduce the response burden for patrol. Internal and externally collected data suggests support for this approach. Recommendation: The APD should revisit each potentially divertible CFS type to assess its viability for Alternative Response and pursue Alternative Response methods whenever appropriate. Essential CFS Evaluation No.  Develop a TRU Overall Priority  Section 4.3: APD Alternative Response Systems  Finding Area: The APD does not have a TRU but instead relies on City staff working within the 311 system. There is sufficient volume to support a TRU within the APD, and such a system would improve efficiency outputs. 4-2 Recommendation: The APD should develop a TRU to manage telephonic reports that are routed from the CC or through 311. Essential CFS Evaluation No.  Route 311 and iReports to an Administrative Review Process Overall Priority  Section 4.3: APD Alternative Response Systems  4-3  Finding Area: Reports generated through 311 and the iReports processes are routed to the Investigations Bureau for review. Most of these reports do not require review by investigators and could be done more efficiently with administrative personnel. Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 66     Essential CFS Evaluation No.  Route 311 and iReports to an Administrative Review Process Overall Priority  Section 4.3: APD Alternative Response Systems  Recommendation: The APD should route 311 and iReports to administrative, non-sworn personnel for review to remove this burden from the Investigations Bureau. If the APD establishes a TRU as recommended in this section, TRU personnel may be available to perform this function. Essential CFS Evaluation No.  Conduct an Expanded Workload Analysis Overall Priority  Section 4.3: APD Alternative Response Systems  4-4  Finding Area: Volume within CAD represents an estimated staff demand for approximately 1,200 positions. The level of analysis for this project did not include the workload distribution of that volume across various response personnel, units, and systems. Recommendation: The APD should conduct a thorough review of the CFS workload volume associated with each type of response unit to determine the appropriate personnel demands for each and to aid the department in considering additional Alternative Response processes and systems. Essential Calls for Service (CFS) Evaluation | 67 5.0 Alternatives to Traditional Police CFS Research As outlined in the prior section, one of the scope items for this project involved conducting an Essential CFS Evaluation for the APD. BerryDunn has previously conducted industry research on the traditional police CFS model, including an examination of other models. That research relied on the following questions: • What new alternatives to responding to CFS exist or are emerging in the field? • What are comparable cities across the nation doing? • Is there data available on the success of these alternatives? Because of its relevance to this project, BerryDunn has included that research here. Below, BerryDunn provides information from research on alternative CFS responses from selected models in use throughout the U.S. The information in this section has been collected from public sources, and BerryDunn updated its research in this area in 2024. A summary of the research models is also provided in Appendix C: Table c.1. 5.1 Introduction The questions outlined above suggest researching alternative CFS models to help the City determine the most cost-effective, appropriate, and/or innovative process for the APD to engage to manage mental health incidents and other CFS not requiring a police response. The goal was to identify an alternative system that provides high quality CFS response for non-police-required services, particularly for those in need of mental health services (and other CFS types), whether those resources are internal or external to the APD. Although alternative CFS response is commonly discussed in reference to mental health incidents (almost exclusively), nearly all active models that BerryDunn researched or is familiar with involve a hybrid approach which places mental health CFS within a spectrum of incidents that could be diverted to alternative resources. In reviewing the literature presented in support of this effort to determine the most cost-effective and appropriate ways to deal with mental health and other CFS, many of the reviewed publications and authors/researchers argue that the impetus for change started in 2020 with the murder of George Floyd. While Floyd’s murder was an event that appropriately garnered worldwide attention and generated calls for police reform, historic and related research suggests that the police/mental health crisis, in particular, started long before recent events. Some have even suggested that over the last decade, the systematic closing down of publicly-funded hospitals and other service reductions for people suffering from mental illness are largely responsible for the increasing challenges experienced by police personnel in managing these crisis events. So, although it may be accurate that Floyd’s murder has been a catalyst for broader changes in CFS response, many agencies have been using alternative response for a long time. In fact, one of the most well-known models, Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets (CAHOOTS), has been in place for more than thirty years. Despite the longevity of the CAHOOTS program, most models BerryDunn researched are relatively new, and accordingly, there is little data to validate program effectiveness. While there Alternatives to Traditional Police CFS Research | 68 are various models in use, the three most common types appear to be: (1) officer crisis intervention team (CIT), (2) co-responder, and (3) vendor/third-party response (definitions and explanations of these models are included in Appendix C: Table C.1). Each method has various degrees of positives and negatives depending on the needs of the community, and each is affected by workload demands, available staffing, and budget conditions. 5.2 Alternative CFS Response Models This subsection highlights research information and CFS response data that BerryDunn collected for this project. BerryDunn has also summarized known information about several alternative CFS models in Appendix C: Table C.1. 5.2.1 Mental Health Statistics Over the past 30 years, law enforcement has been inundated with CFS related to individuals experiencing a mental health incident or crisis. In the process, law enforcement officers have become de-facto social workers in responding to CFS involving suicidal ideation, self-harm, and individuals who are in mental distress. Many of these individuals are also chemically dependent, homeless, and/or are transient and live off the grid, increasing the likelihood that their mental health needs are underserved. Research suggests there are larger populations of those in need of mental health services in larger urban areas; however, this does not mean that smaller law enforcement agencies have any less of a challenge. Although certain data indicate a greater need in urban areas, there is no data that suggests certain community types (e.g., urban, suburban, rural) will experience a specific CFS percentage that tracks with national statistics or averages. In short, the volume of need is not predictable based on community size, but rather, it is assessed based on the needs of each unique community. One noted problem specific to mental health incidents is that mental health behaviors are often criminalized, and these subjects are commonly arrested and placed into the criminal justice system. Incarceration, whether at the local or state level, often further isolates individuals in need of mental health services. As an example of the prevalence of mental health incidents, the American Psychological Association (APA) estimates that approximately 20% of available patrol officer time is spent dealing with individuals affected by a mental health crisis in some manner. Further, a 2018 study conducted by A. C. Watson, and J. D. Wood estimates that 6-10% of the CFS the Chicago Police Department responds to involve individuals with a mental health need.3 In addition, information presented by Mental Illness Policy Org. highlights the increases in mental health response by the New York City Police Department (NYPD). Reportedly, in 1976, the NYPD responded to an estimated 1,000 CFS for those in emotional distress. Those numbers rose to 20,843 in 1980; 46,845 in 1985; and to 64,424 in 1998. In a paper authored by 3 Everyday police work during mental health encounters: A study of call resolutions in Chicago and their implications for diversion - PMC (nih.gov) Alternatives to Traditional Police CFS Research | 69 Arthur Cotton in 2017 that explored mental health response issues facing law enforcement, the author found that an estimated 5-10% of CFS he reviewed were mental health related.4 Although these studies point to a significant service need, reliable data on this volume is not available. One significant complication to an accurate and true representation of how many CFS are mental health related involves inconsistent and inaccurate data collection and coding (a national condition and one BerryDunn also observed with the APD). For example, some incidents are coded as criminal activity, some are coded as a medical-related, and others are coded as service-related (and numerous other inaccurate code categories). Moreover, many legitimate criminal, medical, or service incidents have mental health connections, even if a mental health crisis did not prompt the interaction, and even if professional mental health staff did not report to the scene. These coding issues—and failures to document a mental health connection with any CFS—create problems in developing a clear picture of the volume of mental health needs in any geographic area. This impacts the ability of the agency to quantify the need, which complicates the proper staffing level for alternative CFS response. Additionally, even if a particular agency codes these incidents in a manner that can be used to identify volumes, the lack of national standards in data collection and reporting makes cross-comparisons impossible, further complicating development of an appropriate staffing model. It is also worth noting that as indicated above, mental health challenges are often interwoven into other police CFS responses. Accordingly, agencies considering alternative CFS response should do so with an understanding that many CFS that do not originate or present as having a mental health connection, may involve one. Capturing and coding this data could be an important aspect of developing a broad understanding of the need for mental health services. 5.2.2 Methods of Service A review of contemporary research across law enforcement in the United States, Canada, and Australia provides three primary styles of response to dealing with mental health crisis CFS. The first is the CIT model, which originated in Memphis, Tennessee. In this model, law enforcement officers are provided with a 40-hour training course on how to interact with individuals in mental distress. This model still involves a law enforcement response, and officers handle everything from the start of the call to final disposition. Despite this focused training, there have still been problems related to unnecessary use of force (UOF), escalation, and criminalization of behavior in those CFS involving mental health issues. The overall cost of CIT training is somewhat varied, but costs around $800 per officer. A second primary model involves co-response, in which law enforcement is partnered with private/government social workers who respond as a collective unit to deal with those calls identified as someone experiencing mental health distress or crisis. Co-responding officers commonly do so in plain clothes to soften their presence, and they generally respond with a 4 https://shsu-ir.tdl.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11875/2285/1723.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Alternatives to Traditional Police CFS Research | 70 social worker or other professional staff member. Most often, these units are secondary responders who are summoned after a primary police department unit has arrived and assessed the situation. Many co-responder units only work Monday through Friday, typically from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. As part of this model, some agencies have also started to staff social workers and mental health professionals in dispatch centers, to help triage the CFS, and to help dispatchers determine appropriate uniformed response, diversion to CIT units, or diversion to other officers or social workers. A third primary model involves private vendors who are contracted or hired by community agencies to respond exclusively to mental health CFS, or welfare checks and other identified CFS. These teams typically include non-sworn civilian personnel, and generally include a two- to-three-person response, most commonly in a van that is equipped with general service items for the team’s use, and/or food, water, or other essentials, so they can provide some modicum of services to those who do not want additional or formal intervention. The most notable examples of this model include CAHOOTS in Oregon, Support Team Assisted Response (STAR) in Denver, and Canopy in Minneapolis. There are other programs that mirror this model in several ways; however, some of those programs target specific populations (e.g., unhoused) and/or do not have a mental health service focus. BerryDunn notes here that there are innumerable variations and iterations of models (particularly for mental health and mental-health-related incidents) either in use or proposed for implementation. However, succinctly, these models can be broken out into three main categories: • Use of specifically trained sworn police personnel (CIT) • Use of a co-response model with the police and professional personnel trained as social workers and/or mental health staff • Contracted services, which operate largely independent of the police department, but which may request assistance based on certain conditions Given the challenges associated with mental health CFS response and recognizing that many CFS may include mental health issues that were not apparent at the time of the CFS, BerryDunn recommends that departments consider CIT training as a mandate for all primary responding police personnel. This is true regardless of whether the department chooses an alternative response model for CFS and known mental health incidents. 5.2.3 Staffing Models In reviewing the literature, websites, and related public information, there are a very limited number of 24-hour response teams; this is typically due to cost issues and workloads but may also be affected by difficulty in securing and retaining qualified staff. Generally, 24-hour response teams appear to be isolated to large urban areas such as Eugene, Oregon, and Minneapolis, Minnesota. For Denver’s STAR program, the original pilot included a staffing model for only Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., with only one van working the entirety of the patrol response area. Stakeholders found this unacceptable, increased funding, and Alternatives to Traditional Police CFS Research | 71 expanded the service hours to include longer days and the entire week; however, they do not staff a 24-hour model. For smaller communities, staffing one or two daily shifts with professional co-responder personnel may provide for diversion of a significant volume of mental-health-related and other CFS, while balancing overall costs. 5.2.4 Funding Most of the funding sources for these projects appear to be direct line items created by governmental entities, or collaborative grants/partnerships with other government partners (e.g., county/state hospital with local law enforcement). CAHOOTS is a private collaboration between the White Bird Clinic, the City of Eugene, and the Eugene Police Department. Based on BerryDunn’s research, expended resources/funds related to co-responder and contract/vendor services demonstrate a positive relationship between allocated budget dollars and services rendered, which allows law enforcement officers more time to respond to non-mental-health issues. Despite this apparent/reported correlation, there is no known data that specifically quantifies and demonstrates this perceived/reported benefit. Even the CAHOOTS program in Oregon, which is considered a best-practice model, has not demonstrated such benefit, despite data released from CAHOOTS that suggests otherwise. In addition, it is worth mentioning that one of the challenges with the third-party vendor/contractor response model is the turnover and burnout of employees. This has become an even more significant issue recently, as some communities have had difficulty finding qualified candidates to fill these positions. It should also be noted that the vendors/contractors still commonly rely on police to respond first to an incident, and many regularly call police to respond to an incident because they feel unsafe, and/or because dispatching the co-responder unit was inappropriate, based on inaccurate or incomplete 911 information, or a misunderstanding of the person taking the call. 5.2.5 Grants There appears to be an increase in federal and state government grants that can be used toward creating units that deal with mental health issues. Federal grants have been available through the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), for example, and more states are also now providing funding. In some cases, grants have also been issued for sustaining alternative mental health services. There have also been community block grants, private foundation grants, and grants through the U.S. Department Health and Human Services. BerryDunn has not identified any specific federal grant opportunities at this time, however City staff have informed BerryDunn of a possible grants available through the State of Illinois. Health care insurance providers, as well as hospitals, have also been contacted by communities recently to help with funding of units to deal with mental health problems, and to triage patient entry into their own medical systems. Managing these conditions in the field frees up emergency rooms, and helps hospitals dedicate time to other emergent needs. Additionally, depending Alternatives to Traditional Police CFS Research | 72 upon qualifications and services provided, it may be possible to recover some costs through direct insurance billing. 5.2.6 Creation of Unit BerryDunn’s research and experience suggests that there are some keys to developing a successful unit to deal with mental health issues. These include: • Developing a solid leadership foundation between all partners/stakeholders to utilize this new engagement methodology • Standardized policies and procedures which demonstrate the duties, roles, and responsibilities (including communication center protocols) • Clear contracts for services between partners that also demonstrate duties, roles, responsibilities, and costs • Appropriate data coding, reporting, and analysis, to evaluate program success There are also indications in the literature that workers assigned to these units should be offered and afforded the chance to seek mental health support through various means, and minimally, through an employee assistance program (EAP) model. This is important because many of these workers, like law enforcement personnel, experience secondary trauma in managing these incidents. As with any program of this size and nature, continued programmatic review should be conducted to help ensure that performance metrics are clearly being met. There are various reasons for this, but chief among them is to demonstrate that the programs are successful and producing intended and expected results. Program evaluation can also assist in identifying process and policy improvements. Despite the need for such programmatic review, there is very little research data with which to conduct a cost benefit analysis in the utilization of these programs. Although CAHOOTS has been operating for thirty years, and available data suggest it is successful, until recently, there had never been a full program review of the CAHOOTS model (or any other model BerryDunn identified in the literature). However, in 2022-2023, BerryDunn was hired by the City of Eugene to conduct a full review of the CAHOOTS program. Although BerryDunn observed many positive aspects of the model, lack of oversight or regular review and monitoring, lack of accountability, an expansion of its initial purpose, and the independent operational model, completely independent of the City, have reduced the model’s overall effectiveness. BerryDunn provided the City of Eugene with numerous suggestions to help improve a number of noted gaps. 5.2.7 Criminal/Violent CFS with Mental Health In all instances, research suggests that CFS with a criminal or violent nexus should continue to be managed by law enforcement personnel, regardless of any known or suspected mental health overtone. This is also consistent with the Essential CFS Evaluation BerryDunn conducted for the APD. Alternatives to Traditional Police CFS Research | 73 5.3 Conclusion The research is clear that utilizing alternative CFS response methods has the potential to produce important benefits that include: • Freeing up sworn law enforcement time to manage other pressing CFS • Providing more appropriate mental health interventions to those in crisis • Reducing trauma (and UOF) for those in need of services By all accounts, diverting CFS to other resources, internal or external, relieves a portion of the work burden typically managed by sworn officers. Given the service demands faced by a growing number of police departments, this is an important benefit. Similarly, it is inarguable that including professionally-trained social workers and/or mental health workers in an alternative CFS model improves the interactions between those in crisis and responding personnel. Additionally, because of their focused vocation, professional staff are better equipped to provide counseling and connections to other resources, and they are more adept in de-escalating tense situations involving mental health circumstances. The common alternative response models include: • Use of specifically trained police personnel (CIT) • Use of a co-response model with police and professional personnel who are trained as social workers and/or mental health staff • Contracted services, which operate largely independent of the police department Departments can experience one or all of the above-listed benefits (among others) by engaging either a co-responder or contracted services model. However, cost remains a factor. Despite the potential for the above-listed benefits, there is a lack of data to confirm or refute the financial benefits of alternative CFS response models. Although it is well-established that certain non- sworn police personnel could manage certain CFS at a reduced cost, utilizing professional staff and/or engaging contracted services may not necessarily reduce costs to the City/department. This can be affected by the model used and the volume of service demands. Arguably, however, even if cost-reductions do not result from implementing an alternative CFS response model, aligning responding personnel with appropriate CFS types will likely produce positive outcomes more consistently. Although there are notable benefits to alternative CFS response, it would be cost-prohibitive in all but the largest communities for departments to staff an alternative response program that operates 24-hours per day. This is because, for smaller communities there is not enough workload volume to support development of a 24/7 alternative service response unit. In most cases, overnight personnel would be idle and underutilized. For these communities, utilizing a part-time/hybrid model is likely a more cost-effective solution. For the APD, there may be sufficient volume to support a 24/7 unit; however, additional CFS analysis would be needed to support this as a formal recommendation. Alternatives to Traditional Police CFS Research | 74 Despite the noted cautions about cost, providing the right public safety services to those in need, and utilizing the best resources available, may be a preferred course, even if there are no direct cost savings. Alternatives to Traditional Police CFS Research | 75 Appendix A – Recommendations No. 1-1 No. 1-2 RISC RISC Model Section 1: Project Overview Finding Area: APD developed the RISC model to assist in handling calls for service (CFS) that require significant resources. When RISC teams are not responding to resource intensive CFS, they handle priority 2, 3, and 4 calls to assist patrol and relieve some of the call volume. Recommendation: BerryDunn recommends APD monitor RISC teams’ response to non-RISC incidents and document any incidents when RISC teams are unavailable to respond to RISC incidents. RISC RISC Model Section 1: Project Overview Finding Area: In developing the RISC model, APD identified 10 incident types considered RISC incidents. Recommendation: BerryDunn recommends APD continue to utilize the Crime Analysis Division to monitor CFS types and identify any additional incident types that may qualify for inclusion as RISC incidents for RISC team response. No. Patrol Schedule Patrol Schedule Section 1: Project Overview Finding Area: The current patrol schedule for the APD includes a weekly overlap day and accordingly, is likely not optimized to provide coverage and flexibility and to meet operational objectives. Although they serve a purpose, overlap schedules do not efficiently maximize the use of available personnel time. 1-3 Recommendation: BerryDunn recommends APD thoroughly evaluate the current patrol schedule and seek options that do not include an overlap day. Overall Priority Overall Priority Overall Priority Appendix A – Recommendations | 76 No. CAD CFS Coding Overall Priority Business Processes Section 2.1: Initial CFS Intake Finding Area: In some instances (e.g., those for which APD will not respond), CFS received by the CC may not result in a CAD incident being generated. In other instances, some CFS may be closed without an APD response. There is no specific disposition code designation for either of these instances, which interferes with robust analysis of the CFS volume for the APD, particularly the volume in CAD. 2-1 Recommendation: BerryDunn recommends the APD generate a CAD record for all incoming CFS requests, evaluate its disposition codes, and add appropriate codes that allow for more granular analysis of the data in CAD. No. Solvability Factors Overall Priority Business Processes Section 2.2: Patrol Response and Preliminary Investigation 2-2 Finding Area: The APD does not currently formally engage the use of solvability factors as an element of conducting a preliminary criminal investigation. The use of solvability factors helps increase the quality of preliminary investigations and can assist decision-makers in determining which cases should receive additional investigation. Recommendation: The APD should require the use of solvability factors by all staff who conduct preliminary criminal investigations and complete the associated reports. Solvability factors should be reviewed by patrol supervisors as a part of the incident report approval process and used to assist with the case activation and assignment process. No. Sector and District Response Overall Priority Business Processes Section 2.2: Patrol Response and Preliminary Investigation Finding Area: The APD uses a sector model for deployment of patrol personnel, which allows for unstructured movement of resources and is likely contributing to inefficient response to CFS. 2-3 Recommendation: The APD should examine its sector deployment model and consider implementing a district model that helps ensure appropriate distribution Appendix A – Recommendations | 77 Overall Priority Overall Priority No. Sector and District Response Business Processes of personnel across the sector, while also recognizing the staffing limitations for each sector and/or shift. No. Criminal Case Review and Assignment Business Processes Section 2.3: Case Routing – Investigations Finding: The process in place for reviewing criminal cases for follow-up and assignment to an investigator is inefficient and in need of adjustment. The current practice of having investigators review each criminal incident is time consuming, and in many cases, unnecessary. Many reports lack sufficient basis for follow-up, and having investigators review these is an inefficient process. Recommendation: The APD should revise its process for reviewing criminal cases to delegate specific tasks to appropriate personnel and to save time for investigators. 2-4 The APD should consider designating a single intake point for criminal case review, and assigned personnel, who are responsible for review of all incident reports, should be empowered to close criminal cases without the need for additional review. This decision should be based on the solvability factors (as completed by the originator of the incident report). Because case routing at the APD occurs simultaneous to routing of a case for review by the patrol supervisor, BerryDunn recommends the APD assign a supervisor to the single intake point for case reviews. Additionally, the crime analysis team should review all criminal cases, whether closed or forwarded for follow-up, to help ensure a consistent understanding of all criminal events and to look for patterns of activity or persons. If these are identified, the analysis team should forward relevant information to the appropriate commander or unit. Business Processes No. Open Records/PIR Unit Documentation Overall Priority Section 2.5: Open Records Unit/Public Information Request Unit 2-5 Finding Area: PIR unit requests for information are routed from various sources, and the documentation of data release is not uniform across all platforms. Appendix A – Recommendations | 78 No. Open Records/PIR Unit Documentation Business Processes Recommendation: The APD should establish a single platform as the mandatory location for recording data requests and releases. Although there should be a single location for such releases, the APD could perform secondary recording of data releases, possibly using GovQA for the primary platform and Versaterm for the secondary platform. No. Open Records/PIR Unit Business Processes Section 2.5: Open Records Unit/Public Information Request Unit Finding Area: The PIR Unit is responsible for processing a high volume of information requests involving sensitive information that is subject to complex laws and involves a high risk for litigation. The PIR Unit does not have adequate controls and audit standards. 2-6 Recommendation: The APD should adopt clear controls for the PIR Unit, including secondary review of data for release, and regular quality control audits. Overall Priority Overall Priority Field Technology and Integration  No.  Data Capture and Movement Overall Priority  Section 3.1.1: Field Technology Systems and Functional Capabilities  3-1  Finding Area: Field reporting processes for APD officers/field personnel lack automated data capture and routing functions, which regularly require manual data entry, often multiple times for a single incident, and are inefficient and create an opportunity for data entry errors. Recommendation: The APD should adopt a philosophy that includes the ability to capture relevant response and involvement data once in the field (whether it is done electronically or manually) and to move that data electronically across all systems where it may be required. Appendix A – Recommendations | 79   Field Technology and Integration  No.  Pursue a Single Vendor CAD/RMS Solution Overall Priority  Section 3.2.3: System Needs 3-2  Finding Area: The APD operates in a technology environment that uses CAD and RMS systems from different vendors and that lacks adequate interfaces across all APD records platforms. These conditions contribute to inefficiency and system errors. Recommendation: The APD should pursue a new CAD/RMS solution that operates with a single vendor. Additionally, the APD should evaluate all of its interfaces as part of a new CAD/RMS selection and take steps to ensure that all interfaces are compatible and functional with the new systems. Field Technology and Integration  No.  Unified Technology Approach Overall Priority  Section 3.3: Technology Approach and Operational Structure  Finding Area: The APD uses a multi-layered approach and hierarchy for managing its technology systems and needs, which includes Central Records, the PTU, and the APD Data and Analytics teams. This structure has not provided a uniform approach to data and technology solutions. 3-3 Recommendation: The APD should develop an IT and data strategy that includes a structure that reports to a single oversight point. BerryDunn acknowledges that those with a vested interest in IT and data may be assigned to different units. This recommendation is not intended to circumvent that structure. However, all such units should report to a single point so that communication, collaboration, and decision-making can be centralized. Essential CFS Evaluation No.  Examine CFS Types for Expanded Alternative Response Overall Priority  Section 4.3: APD Alternative Response Systems  4-1  Finding Area: Analysis indicates the opportunity for the APD to divert additional CFS types to reduce the response burden for patrol. Internal and externally collected data suggests support for this approach. Recommendation: The APD should revisit each potentially divertible CFS type to assess its viability for Alternative Response and pursue Alternative Response methods whenever appropriate. Appendix A – Recommendations | 80     Essential CFS Evaluation No.  Develop a TRU Overall Priority  Section 4.3: APD Alternative Response Systems  Finding Area: The APD does not have a TRU but instead relies on City staff working within the 311 system. There is sufficient volume to support a TRU within the APD, and such a system would improve efficiency outputs. 4-2 Recommendation: The APD should develop a TRU to manage telephonic reports that are routed from the CC or through 311. Essential CFS Evaluation No.  Route 311 and iReports to an Administrative Review Process Overall Priority  Section 4.3: APD Alternative Response Systems  Finding Area: Reports generated through 311 and the iReports processes are routed to the Investigations Bureau for review. Most of these reports do not require review by investigators and could be done more efficiently with administrative personnel. 4-3  Recommendation: The APD should route 311 and iReports to administrative, non-sworn personnel for review to remove this burden from the Investigations Bureau. If the APD establishes a TRU as recommended in this section, TRU personnel may be available to perform this function. Essential CFS Evaluation No.  Conduct an Expanded Workload Analysis Overall Priority  Section 4.3: APD Alternative Response Systems  4-4  Finding Area: Volume within CAD represents an estimated staff demand for approximately 1,200 positions. The level of analysis for this project did not include the workload distribution of that volume across various response personnel, units, and systems. Recommendation: The APD should conduct a thorough review of the CFS workload volume associated with each type of response unit to determine the appropriate personnel demands for each and to aid the department in considering additional Alternative Response processes and systems. Appendix A – Recommendations | 81     Appendix B – Acronyms Table B.1: Terms and Definitions Term Definition ALPR Automated License Plate Reader AFD APD ATM AVL Austin Fire Department Austin Police Department Automated Teller Machine Automatic Vehicle Location BerryDunn Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker, LLC BOR BOV BWC CAD CC City CIT CFS CHP CPS CSO CTN EDP Burglary of Residence Burglary of Vehicle Body Worn Camera Computer-Aided Dispatch Communications Center City of Austin, TX Crisis Intervention Team Call for Service Community Health Paramedic Child Protective Services Community Service Officer Criminal Trespass Notice Emotionally Disturbed Person EMCOT Expanded Mobile Crisis Outreach Team EMS FOIA FTE FV GPS HOA Emergency Medical Services Freedom of Information Act Full Time Equivalent Family Violence Global Positioning System Homeowners Association HOST Homeless Outreach Street Team IB IPD Investigations Bureau Impartial Policing Data Appendix B – Acronyms | 82 Term Definition IT MDT MCOT NIBRS OVP PDL PIR PM PMT PTU RISC RMS SME SOP TBD TRU UCR Information Technology Mobile Data Terminal Mobile Crisis Outreach Team National Incident Based Reporting System Office of Violence Prevention Predetermination Letter Public Information Request Project Manager Project Management Team Police Technology Unit Resource Intensive Service Calls Records Management System Subject Matter Expert Standard Operating Procedure To be Determined Telephone Response Unit Uniform Crime Reporting Appendix B – Acronyms | 83 Appendix C – Supplemental Tables Appendix Table C.1 APD Volume and Supplanting Hours All Units in CAD Patrol/Supplemental Non-APD/Other Units Community Count Community Hours Officer Count Officer Hours Hours Hours (Decimal) FTEs Supplanting Hours FTEs Incident Type Check Welfare Urgent 18120 53560:11:24 Disturbance Other 24013 48622:48:09 Trespass Urgent 30951 43734:37:25 -Disturbance HS 10274 43100:11:34 -Crash HS Disturbance Urgent 6907 7605 30278:17:40 27281:27:07 Suspicious Person 17989 25942:53:22 Alarm Burglar 26686 26066:27:54 Crash Urgent 9072 23112:22:40 188 405 338 71 92 62 192 170 432 378:02:54 45795:32:48 45795.55 89.80 7764:38:36 7764.64 15.22 508:58:44 43236:56:07 43236.94 84.78 5385:52:02 5385.87 10.56 308:01:20 39316:07:36 39316.13 77.09 4418:29:49 4418.50 8.66 216:32:41 38809:05:34 38809.09 76.10 4291:06:00 4291.10 8.41 375:06:30 26559:24:06 26559.40 52.08 3718:53:34 3718.89 7.29 158:11:55 24380:16:31 24380.28 47.80 2901:10:36 2901.18 5.69 187:26:57 22912:12:11 22912.20 44.93 3030:41:11 3030.69 5.94 81:42:08 22324:21:22 22324.36 43.77 3742:06:32 3742.11 7.34 1150:28:03 20811:09:56 20811.17 40.81 2301:12:44 2301.21 4.51 Nature Unknown Urgent Check Welfare Service *Assist Non Emergency Auto Theft Service Service Shots Fired 8014 23557:29:22 59 168:40:14 20685:54:38 20685.91 40.56 2871:34:44 2871.58 5.63 12038 18970:15:41 395 450:22:34 15873:39:30 15873.66 31.12 3096:36:11 3096.60 6.07 6669 8843 9166 4396 15104:50:49 14472:55:54 13395:37:05 169 118 269 220:22:05 13075:54:01 13075.90 25.64 2028:56:48 2028.95 3.98 168:35:57 11665:45:00 11665.75 22.87 2807:10:54 2807.18 5.50 448:21:22 10820:27:28 10820.46 21.22 2575:09:37 2575.16 5.05 11450:13:23 51 55:26:58 9389:19:26 9389.32 18.41 2060:53:57 2060.90 4.04 Appendix C – Supplemental Tables | 84 Incident Type -Traffic Hazard HS Disturbance Service Suspicious Vehicle -Gun HS Traffic Hazard Crash Service -Prowler HS -Burglary HS -Shoot/Stab HS All Units in CAD Patrol/Supplemental Non-APD/Other Units Community Count Community Hours Officer Count Officer Hours Hours Hours (Decimal) FTEs Supplanting Hours FTEs 7385 4145 5182 1039 8415 5159 1986 1232 300 9388:13:39 9113:46:24 8688:30:31 8320:39:49 8156:32:16 7703:01:30 5700:10:38 5891:45:58 7099:01:52 70 58 60 7 500 122 7 1 4 50:59:32 7927:02:38 7927.04 15.54 1461:11:01 1461.18 2.87 73:29:12 7529:53:34 7529.89 14.76 1583:52:50 1583.88 3.11 54:29:58 7393:01:03 7393.02 14.50 1295:29:28 1295.49 2.54 70:06:04 7023:32:46 7023.55 13.77 1297:07:03 1297.12 2.54 363:49:31 6785:07:32 6785.13 13.30 1371:24:44 1371.41 2.69 169:31:20 6761:29:52 6761.50 13.26 941:31:38 941.53 1.85 4:34:59 5292:41:40 5292.69 10.38 407:28:58 407.48 0.80 0:02:57 5151:13:47 5151.23 10.10 740:32:11 740.54 1.45 5:51:49 5120:01:49 5120.03 10.04 1979:00:03 1979.00 3.88 All Others 60017 123569:22:45 66880 124534:51:37 92904:30:35 92904.51 182.17 30664:52:10 30664.87 60.13 Total 295603 612281:44:51 70720 130204:07:21 517544:41:30 517544.69 1014.79 94737:03:21 94737.06 185.76 Appendix C – Supplemental Tables | 85 Incident Type/Sectors Adam Baker Charlie David Edward Frank George Henry Ida Totals Appendix Table C.1 APD Patrol and Supplanting FTEs by Sector Check Welfare Urgent 10.78 10.37 Disturbance Other Trespass Urgent -Disturbance HS -Crash HS Disturbance Urgent Suspicious Person Alarm Burglar Crash Urgent Nature Unknown Urgent Check Welfare Service Auto Theft Service 9.45 7.83 8.70 7.46 5.25 4.34 5.79 5.38 4.90 4.41 2.39 *Assist Non-Emergency 2.41 Service Shots Fired -Traffic Hazard HS Disturbance Service Suspicious Vehicle -Gun HS Traffic Hazard 4.06 1.58 2.46 1.65 1.45 1.40 1.56 6.41 8.49 5.18 6.30 3.40 5.23 6.87 5.38 3.07 3.90 1.85 2.32 3.96 0.68 2.16 1.52 1.26 0.43 2.08 8.55 9.36 6.39 9.43 6.20 5.36 4.53 3.97 4.77 4.25 2.94 3.12 2.43 1.36 3.11 2.02 1.60 1.90 1.98 1.73 11.57 8.41 9.71 7.65 5.98 5.48 5.71 6.17 5.55 3.84 3.76 1.98 2.43 3.77 1.53 1.99 1.51 1.77 1.39 1.76 12.06 14.20 10.71 13.34 6.51 7.61 5.60 5.55 6.29 7.33 4.11 4.19 3.36 2.05 4.49 1.42 2.48 2.25 3.14 1.55 11.81 12.31 6.65 9.92 6.51 6.78 5.03 5.18 4.98 5.94 4.43 2.89 2.58 1.69 2.35 1.23 2.08 2.30 2.00 1.39 5.28 4.35 9.05 3.68 0.60 3.36 3.74 2.11 1.22 1.15 1.79 0.81 1.14 1.11 0.07 0.04 0.76 0.29 0.47 0.87 9.88 10.70 8.27 9.72 6.61 5.70 5.42 3.49 3.64 5.35 2.89 2.96 2.12 1.46 2.21 2.14 1.72 1.76 1.46 1.30 9.17 8.94 9.84 8.39 5.71 4.75 4.97 4.59 3.32 4.60 2.71 2.08 2.39 1.42 2.38 2.05 1.30 1.33 1.43 0.97 89.45 84.12 76.94 76.02 51.89 47.69 44.56 43.73 40.53 40.44 30.93 22.27 21.17 20.88 18.39 15.50 14.62 14.31 13.70 13.21 Appendix C – Supplemental Tables | 86 Incident Type/Sectors Adam Baker Charlie David Edward Frank George Henry Ida Totals Crash Service -Prowler HS -Burglary HS -Shoot/Stab HS All Others Total 1.68 1.33 1.04 0.84 1.72 1.07 0.87 0.81 1.49 1.25 1.37 1.03 1.73 1.16 1.48 0.73 1.96 1.70 1.29 2.12 1.49 1.15 1.29 2.06 0.61 0.14 0.38 0.21 1.26 1.18 1.25 1.27 1.14 1.39 1.12 0.94 13.09 10.38 10.10 10.01 18.90 18.34 18.00 20.17 26.16 19.99 10.54 18.54 18.33 168.97 117.03 103.68 108.17 117.21 151.46 124.04 53.77 112.30 105.22 992.89 | 87 Appendix Table C.3 CAD CFS Types CAD Original CFS Types * 911 TRANSFER TO APD * Cancel This Call * RA FROM AFD-NO EMER * RA FROM PD-EMER * RA FROM PD-NO EMER *Agency Assist HS *Assist Non Emergency *Call From TCSO - Emergency *Call From TCSO - Non Emergenc *Public Safety Assist Code 3 *Public Safety Assist Urgent *SAPD - Actual Threat to Life *SAPD - Non-Emergency *SAPD - Potential Threat *TCSO Emergency *TCSO Non Emergency 911 CELL PHONE HANG UPS A W O L Aircraft Alert 2 Aircraft Alert 3 Aircraft Diversion Airfield Ops Area Viol Airport Assist AISD Alarm Burglar Alarm DV Alarm Glass Break Alarm GPS Violation Alarm Other Alarm Robbery | 88 CAD Original CFS Types Alarm Screening Checkpoint Animal Urgent ASSAULT BY CONTACT ASSIST APD ASSIST COMPLAINANT ASSIST EMS ASSIST TCSO -Attempted Suicide HS Auto Theft Auto Theft Bait Vehicle Auto Theft Service -Bomb HS Bomb Threat Urgent -Burglary HS Burglary Urgent Burglary Vehicle CADET TRAINING CCD / Counselor CCD / Counselor / TCSO CHECK WELFARE Check Welfare Service Check Welfare Urgent Checking Area CMV Inspection COLLISION COLLISION WITH INJURY COVID-19 Face Mask Viol -Crash HS Crash Service Crash Urgent CRIM MISCH/ ARSON | 89 CAD Original CFS Types CRIM MISCH/PROP DAMAGE/FV DANGERS DRUG VIO Deceased Person Decoy Vehicle DELIVER MESSAGE Directed Patrol DIST STAND BY DISTURBANCE - VEHICLE -Disturbance HS Disturbance Other Disturbance Service Disturbance Urgent Disturbance Vehicle Urgent DISTURBANCE W/GUN DOC / C.O. Violation Drugs E D P FALSE ALARM/ BURG FAMILY DISTURBANCE Federal Aviation Violation Flag Down FOLLOW UP CRUELTY TO ANIMALS Follow Up Investigation Found/Abandoned Hazardous Grass Fire -Gun HS Gun Other Gun Urgent Hang-ups HAZARD TRFC VIOL HERO - Traffic Hazard | 90 CAD Original CFS Types Homeland Security-DP ID Property Crimes Illum Aircraft Intense Light Information INFORMATIONAL CALL Intelligence Info-Airport INV/MANSLTR-TRFC -Kidnapping Abduction HS LEO Verify LOOSE LIVESTOCK MAKING FIREARM ACCESS CHILD Manpads Mischief / Vandalism -Missing HS Missing Service MURDER NATURE UNKNOWN Nature Unknown Urgent Obvious Threat-ETD -Officer Needs Assistance HS On Site Incident Panic Alarm-Airport -Pedestrian on HSR Perimeter Check - ARPT Pin Duress Prostitution -Prowler HS REC APPREH/ JUVEN Reckless Driving Info Recovered Runaway -Robbery HS | 91 CAD Original CFS Types Robbery Service Robbery Urgent Safety Alert Secondary Employment Security Breach Security Checkpoint Assign Service -Sex Crime HS Sex Crime Service Sex Crime Urgent -Shoot/Stab HS Shoot/Stab Service Shoot/Stab Urgent Shots Fired Special Assignment Stalled Vehicle Subject Stop SUSP PACKAGE Suspect Bag-ETD Suspicious Package Suspicious Person Suspicious Unknown Suspicious Vehicle TAMPER W/ ID NUMB Theft THEFT/ EMBEZZLE Trace TRACK/MISSING ADULT Traffic Hazard -Traffic Hazard HS Traffic Stop | 92 CAD Original CFS Types Trespass Urgent TRFC HAZD/ DEBRIS TSA Spot Assist Union Pacific Crim Trespass Warrant Service Warrant Service - Airport Weapon Inspect Airport Weather Alert -WMD CBRNE HS Working School Zone Working Traffic WRONG WAY DRIVER -Wrong Way Motorists on HSR x68A INSPECTION xABANDONED REFRIGERATOR xABANDONED VEHICLE xAGG ASLT ENHANC STRANGL/SUFFO xAGG ASLT STRANGLE/SUFFOCATE xAGG ASSAULT xAGG ASSAULT FAM/DATE VIOL xAGG ASSAULT MOTOR VEHICLE xAGG ROBBERY BY ASSAULT xAGG ROBBERY/DEADLY WEAPON xAGG SEX ASLT OF CHILD/OBJECT xAIRPORT - ASSIST FEDERAL AGEN xAIRPORT - FEDERAL VIOL xAIRPORT - FOUND MARIJUANA xAIRPORT - INTELLIGENCE INFO xAIRPORT - SUSPICIOUS PKG/ITEM xAIRPORT - SUSPICIOUS VEH xAIRPORT - TSA ASSIST | 93 CAD Original CFS Types xAIRPORT BREACH OF SECURITY xAIRPORT INFO xAIRPORT UNATTENDED BAG / LUGG xAIRPORT-CRIMINAL TRESPASS xALCOHOL CONTROL TEAM xALTERED DRIVER LICENSE xANIMAL BITE xAPS REFERRAL xARSON xARSON WITH BODILY INJURY xASSAULT BY CONTACT xASSAULT BY CONTACT FAM/DATING xASSAULT BY THREAT xASSAULT BY THREAT FAM/DATE xASSAULT INFO FAM VIOL xASSAULT INFORMATION xASSAULT ON PEACE OFFICER xASSAULT ON PUBLIC SERVANT xASSAULT W/INJURY-FAM/DATE VIO xASSAULT WITH INJURY xASSIST BOAT xASSIST CITY DEPARTMENT xASSIST COMPLAINANT xASSIST EMS xASSIST FIRE DEPARTMENT xASSIST MOTORIST/PUBLIC xASSIST OTHER AGENCY xASSIST OTHER AGENCY - ICE xATT AUTO THEFT xATT THEFT xAUTO THEFT INFORMATION | 94 CAD Original CFS Types xAUTO THEFT RECOVERY xBICYCLIST INJURED xBLOCKED DRIVE/ROADWAY xBOAT STOP xBURG NON RESIDENCE SHEDS xBURGLARY INFORMATION xBURGLARY NON RESIDENCE xBURGLARY OF RESIDENCE xBURGLARY OF VEHICLE xBURGLARY/NON-RESIDENCE xCAMPING IN PARK xCHILD ABUSE INFO xCHILD IN NEED OF SUPERVISION xCO VIOL CAMPING xCOMMUNITY POL - BSN/RES VISIT xCOMMUNITY POLICE xCPS REFERRAL xCRASH AUTO AND MOTORCYCLE XCrash Blue Form xCRASH CR3 xCRASH LEAVING THE SCENE xCRASH WITH AUTO AND BICYCLE xCRASH WITH CITY VEHICLE xCREDIT CARD ABUSE OTHER xCRIM NEG HOMICIDE/NON TRAFFIC xCRIMINAL APPREHENSION TEAM xCRIMINAL MISCHIEF xCRIMINAL MISCHIEF INFORMATION XCRIMINAL SOLICITATION OF MINO xCRIMINAL TRESPASS xCRIMINAL TRESPASS NOTICE | 95 CAD Original CFS Types xCRIMINAL TRESPASS NOTICE - CO xCRIMINAL TRESPASS/IN VEHICLE xCRUELTY TO ANIMALS xCUSTODY ARREST TRAFFIC WARRAN xDAMAGE CITY PROP xDAMAGE CITY VEHICLE xDATING VIOLENCE xDEL SYNTHETIC MARIJUANA xDELIVER C/S OTHER xDELIVER CONTROLLED SUB/SYN NA xDELIVER MESSAGE xDELIVER OF MARIJUANA xDELIVERY C/S NARCOTIC xDIS HARMFUL MATERIAL TO MINOR xDOC DISCHARGE GUN IN PUBLIC xDOC-EXPOSURE xDOC-FIGHTING xDUI - AGE 17-20 xDUI AGE 16 AND UNDER xDWI xDWI .15 BAC OR ABOVE xDWI / FELONY xDWI/2nd OFFENSE xDWI/DRE DRUG RECOGNITION EXP xEDP EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED PER xEDP INTERVENTION xEDP INTERVENTION W/CONTACT xEDP VOLUNTARY xEMERGENCY DETENTION xESCORT OTHER xEVADING / VEHICLE | 96 CAD Original CFS Types xEVADING FOOT xEXPLOITATION OF CHILD/ELDERLY xEXPLOSIVE ORDINANCE DISPOSAL xFAIL REG SEX OFF xFAIL TO REGISTER - MINOR VIC xFAILURE STOP AND RENDER AID xFAILURE TO IDENTIFY xFALSE ALARM OR REPORT xFALSE BURGLAR ALARM xFALSE ROBBERY ALARM xFAMILY DISTURBANCE xFEDERAL VIOL/OTH xFICTITIOUS DL / ID CARD xFICTITIOUS LICENSE PLATE xFICTITIOUS NAME xFIELD OBSERVATION xFIREWORKS ORDINANCE VIOLATION xFLOODED ROADWAY xFO CARD xFORENSICS INFO xFOUND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE xFOUND FIREARM xFOUND LICENSE PLATE xFOUND PROPERTY xFRAUD OTHER xFUNERAL ESCORT xGANG INFO xGLASS CONTAINER VIOLATION xGRAFFITTI xHARASSMENT xHARASSMENT OF PUBLIC SERVANT | 97 CAD Original CFS Types xHARBORING A RUNAWAY xHAZARDOUS TRAFFIC CITATION xHUMAN TRAFFICKING INFO xICY ROADWAY xIDENTITY THEFT xIMPOUND/REPO VEH NON-APD xIMPOUNDED VEHICLE xINCEST-PROHIBITED SEX CONDUCT xINDECENCY W/ A CHILD CONTACT xINDECENT ASSAULT xINDECENT EXPOSUR xINJURY TO A CHILD xINJURY TO ELDERLY PERSON xINTELLEGENCE INFORMATION xINTERFERENCE W/POLICE ANIMAL xINTRFERE WITH CHILD CUSTODY xLIQUOR LAW VIOLATION/OTHER xLITTERING xLOST LICENSE PLATE xLOST PROPERTY xMAIL THEFT xMISREP AGE BY MINOR xNARCOTICS INFORMATION xOBSTRUCTION HIGHWAY PASSAGE xONLINE IMPERSONATION xOOC AUTO THEFT RECOVERY xOPEN DOOR/WINDOW xPAGING NOTIFICATION - DRUG XParking Violation xPEDESTRIAN ON ROAD xPERSON DOWN | 98 CAD Original CFS Types xPICKUP ITEM/EVID xPLACES WEAPONS PROHIBITED AIR xPOSS ALCOHOL AGE 17-20 xPOSS CONTROLLED SUB/NARCOTIC xPOSS CONTROLLED SUB/NARCOTIC1 xPOSS CONTROLLED SUB/OTHER xPOSS CRIMINAL INSTRUMENT xPOSS DRG PARAPHERNALIA xPOSS MARIJUANA xPOSS OF FIREARM BY FELON xPOSS OF PROHIBITED WEAPON xPROVIDE IMPLEMENT FOR ESCAPE xPUBLIC INTOXICATION xPUBLIC INTOX-SOBERING CENTER xRACING ON HIGHWAY xRAPE xRECKLESS CONDUCT xRECOVERED RUNAWAY xRepeat Runaway xREQ APPREH/JUVENILE xREQUEST APPREHEN xREQUEST TO LOCATE xRESISTING ARREST OR SEARCH xRESPONSE TO RESISTANCE REPORT xROAD RAGE xROBBERY BY ASSAULT xROBBERY BY THREAT xROBBERY INFO xRUNAWAY CHILD xS/W STREET RESPONSE xSEX OFFENDER COMPLIANCE CHECK | 99 CAD Original CFS Types xSEXUAL ASSAULT xSEXUAL ASSAULT INFORMATION xSEXUAL ASSAULT OF A CHILD/OBJ xSEXUAL ASSAULT W/OBJECT xSHOPLIFTING xSPEC ASSIGN PARADE xSTALKING xSUSPECTED SEXUAL ASSAULT xSUSPICIOUS VEHICLE xSWAT OPERATION xTAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE xTELECOMM CRIME OTHER xTERRORISTIC THREAT xTEST INCIDENT xTHEFT xTHEFT FROM PERSON xTHEFT INFORMATION xTHEFT OF BICYCLE xTHEFT OF LICENSE PLATE xTHEFT OF SERVICE xTHEFT OF TRAILER xTRANSPORT PRISONER xUCW xUCW ON LICENSED PREMISES xUIPP xUNAUTHORIZED USE OF VEH xVEHICLE FIRE xVIOL CITY ORDINANCE - AIRPORT xVIOL CITY ORDINANCE SOUND xVIOL OCCUPATIONAL DRIV LICENS xVIOL OF EMERG PROTECTIVE ORD | 100 CAD Original CFS Types xVIOL OF PARK CURFEW xWARRANT ARREST NON-TRAFFIC xWEATHER DAMAGE xWRECKER REQUEST yyyyyWeap Inspect Checkpoint 3 zALARM/OTHER-J zASSIST OTHER AGENCY ZBLUE FORM COLLISION zCOLLISION/LEAVING THE SCENE-J zFORGERY/ALTERING-J zLOITER IN PARK-J zVIOL. WATER SAFETY zXFR-PFLUGERVILLE | 101 Appendix Table C.4 CAD CFS Types Compressed CFS Types 911 CFS/Related Airport - Assist Airport - Criminal Incident Alarm Animal - Criminal Animal/Animal Related Arson Assault Assault - Aggravated Assault - Public Official Assist Public/Other Agency Auto Theft AWOL Bomb Threat/Bomb Event Burglary Check Welfare Checking Area Child Abuse Criminal Mischief/Property/Arson Deceased Decoy Vehicle Disturbance/Disorderly Drug Related DUI/DWI Escorts Fire/Fire Related Fleeing/Evading/Obstruction Found Fraud/Forgery Harassing Behavior/Threats/Calls | 102 Compressed CFS Types Hit and Run Motor Vehicle Crash Homicide/Murder Juveniles Kidnapping Lewd/Obscene Liquor/Alcohol-Related Lost Mental Health/Suicidal Miscellaneous Service Missing Motor Vehicle Crash Motor Vehicle Related Other Criminal Pedestrian on Highway Prostitution Roadway Related/Traffic Complaint Robbery Sexual Assault/Rape Shoplifting Subject Stop Suspicion Theft Traffic Stop Trespass Unknown Violate Court Order/Custody Warrant Weapon/Gun/Firearm | 103 Appendix Table C.5: Community Survey Results CSO TRU/Online Alternative CFS Type CRIMINAL SECTION 1-A Assault - Aggravated (delayed report, no injury, no current danger) Auto Theft (delayed report, no known suspect, no evidence to collect) Disturbance/Disorderly Person(s) (delayed report or non-violent) Family Disturbance (non-violent) Drug Related (drug information, found drugs) Prostitution (complaint, not in progress) Theft of Services (e.g., gas drive off, fail to pay at restaurant) Weapon/Gun/Firearm (delayed report, no known suspect, no evidence to collect) SECTION 1-B Burglary/Theft from Vehicle (delayed report, no known suspect, no evidence to collect) Criminal Damage to Property / Arson (no evidence to collect) Identity Theft Theft (delayed report, no known suspect, no evidence to collect) Embezzlement SERVICE SECTION 2-A 911 Call / Non-Emergency Animal - Urgent Loose Livestock CFS Type Check Welfare of Person/Situation (non-dangerous) Request for Area Check (general complaint/request) Mental Health / EDP (Emotionally Disturbed Person) Motor Vehicle Crash (non-injury) Motor Vehicle Crash (minor injury) Reckless Driving Complaint Stalled Vehicle 3 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 3 4 CSO TRU/Online Alternative 4 3 4 4 3 3 4 | 104 CFS Type CSO TRU/Online Alternative Roadway Related / Traffic Hazard / Complaint Suspicious Person/Vehicle/Circumstances (non-dangerous) Grass Fire Suspicious Package (non-dangerous) SECTION 2-B Alarm Burglary/Glass/Other General Recovered Runaway Mental Health / Suicidal SECTION 2-C Alarm Burglary/Glass/Other General Recovered Runaway Mental Health / Suicidal Grass Fire Suspicious Package (non-dangerous) 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 | 105 Appendix D City Eugene, Oregon Appendix Table D.1: Summary Research on Prevalent Alternative CFS Models in Use Model Data/Notes Costs CAHOOTS: Crisis Assistance Helping Out on the Streets Organization: White Bird Clinic. Alternative response, welfare checks, street, and dispatched-based workers. Each CAHOOTS response includes at least an EMT and a crisis response worker, and they may request assistance from police or paramedics as they see fit. High level data suggests that 20%* of the CFS appropriately triaged are resolved without law enforcement intervention. *This percentage may be inaccurate. CAHOOTS has worked with 13 Cities during May/Jun 2021. Pilot programs are currently happening in Denver, Houston, Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon, and Rochester, New York. Common CAHOOTS response categories: Funding source: Contract/appropriation from City of Eugene. Direct funding from police department and City budget. Cost is approximately $1M annually • Check Welfare • Assist Public – Police • Transport • Suicidal Subject • Disorderly Subject • Traffic Hazard • Criminal Trespass • Dispute • Found Syringe • Intoxicated Subject Houston, Texas Mobile Crisis Outreach Limited information and no published data. Funding source: This is a new program that is in development and deployment. Changes proposed/enacted by the Mayor Proposed City funding: • Changed the Houston PD’s policy on Body- Worn Cameras to allow for the release of video within 30 days • Expand crisis case diversion. $272,140 annually to hire four additional counselors. Appendix D | 106 • A ban on “no-knock” warrants for nonviolent • offenses • Appointed a Deputy Inspector General of the new office of Policing Reform and Accountability • Signed an Executive Order to restructure the Independent Police Oversight Board (IPOB) and named a new board chair • Changed how the public can file complaints and access information on a newly designed website with five data dashboards regarding police transparency Invest $25 million in crises intervention over three years. • Increase the number of Mobile Crisis Outreach Teams by 18 teams; hire 36 additional clinicians; local mental health authority will need funding to hire. $4.3 million annually • Add six CIRT Teams, six • additional counselors and six additional MHD at $2.4 million annually Implement Clinician Officer Remote Evaluation (CORE) proposal to provide tele-health technology to 80 HPD CIT Trained Officers on patrol. $847,875 annually. • Fund Citywide Domestic Abuse Response Team with a victim advocate and forensic nurse examiner $800,000 - $1.2 Million annually. Oakland, California MACRO: Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland • Community response program for non-violent 911 calls. • The goal is to reduce responses by police, resulting in fewer arrests and negative interactions, and increased access to community- based services and resources for impacted individuals and families, Limited information and no published data. Funding source: Response Categories City Intoxicated/Drunk in Public • • Panhandling • Disorderly Juveniles – group • Disturbance Auto – noise, revving engine • Disturbance Drinkers • Loud Music – Noise complaint • Drunk – Oakland term Appendix D | 107 and most especially for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) • Evaluation for Community Assessment Treatment and Transport Team (CATT) response Incorrigible Juvenile Indecent Exposure • • Found Senile • • Standby Preserve the Peace • Check Well Being • Sleeper Three teams on two shifts, day and swing, seven days a week with functioning hours of 07:00 – 15:00 and 15:00 – 23:00 18-month pilot program run by the Oakland Fire Dept. (OFD) San Francisco, California CART: Compassionate Alternative Response Team Limited information and no published data. Funding source: Proposed Response Categories City ($6M) Proposed alternative response program • Person attempting suicide • Well-being check • Sit/lie ordinance violations • Aggressive panhandling • Homeless encampment • Trespassing • Suspicious person in a car • Suspicious person Minneapolis, Minnesota Canopy Limited information and no published data. Funding source: Two-member teams respond to 911 calls about behavioral or mental health-related crises to provide crisis intervention, 24hrs coverage Direct budget/contract with City of Minneapolis – ($3M annually) Appendix D | 108 Memphis, Tennessee Denver, Colorado Hennepin County, Minnesota counseling or a connection to support services. CIT Trained Officers Limited information and no published data. Funding source: Officers respond without other individuals Research suggests higher use of force / deadly force with subjects in mental health crisis Direct funding/trainings costs already incorporated into the agency by / and through City budget allocations. S.T.A.R. Limited information and no published data. Funding source: Medical/Social Workers No 24hrs Response Original M-F 8hrs with 1 responder van M-Sunday 16hrs 4 responder vans Provided through a mix of Police / City / County and Health Services Embedded Social Workers Limited information and no published data. Funding source: Embedded in larger agencies as co- responders Day Shift County ballot initiative 2019 Embedded PD/Social Workers Started 2020 Social Workers at dispatch 911 – Staffed 24hrs/day to determine and triage CFS Dakota County, Minnesota Boston, Massachusetts Crisis Responder / Social Worker Limited information and no published data. Funding source: Assigned to 911 center and agencies County budget 911 full coverage BEST Limited information and no published data. Funding source: Co-responder; police w/trained master level degrees No information on shifts – but appears to be only assigned to two districts City funded Appendix D | 109 Victoria Police, Melbourne, Australia Original Response by Police Limited information and no published data. Funding source: Follow up once determined mental health issues/mental health unit responded Shifts and unit assignments are not identified Government/Health System Note: This list is not inclusive of all known models Appendix D | 110