Police Patrol Beat Evaluation Study CITY OF BERKELEY ... · 8/20/2014 · to the economic downturn, staffing levels were reduced with patrol staff covering the same number of beats:

Police Patrol Beat Evaluation Study

CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA

FINAL REPORT

201 San Antonio Circle, Suite 148

Mountain View, CA 94040

August 20, 2014

matrixconsu l t i ng g roup

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

2 RESULTS OF THE COMMUNITY SURVEY 10

3 RESULTS OF THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY 24

4 OVERVIEW OF SERVICE AREA WORKLOADS 38

5 ASSUMPTIONS FOR DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVES 44

6 ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT 18 BEAT STRUCTURE 45

7 ANALYSIS OF THE 16 BEAT ALTERNATIVE 58




Matrix Consulting Group

1. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Matrix Consulting Group was retained by the City of Berkeley to conduct a Police Patrol Beat Evaluation

Study. The following report presents the results of the study. This study, which began at the beginning of 2014, was

designed to provide an assessment of the current beat structure and allocation of existing patrol staffing and evaluate

opportunities to improve that deployment.

The Matrix Consulting Group is a management consulting firm established in 2002 that focuses entirely on public

sector analytical services and specializes in public safety services. The staff of the Matrix Consulting Group have provided

analytical services to public safety agencies for over 30 years and have conducted over 250 individual studies of law

enforcement services during their careers.

Upon reaching the concluding point of the study, the project team has assembled this final report, which

summarizes our findings, conclusions, and recommendations where appropriate. This Introduction and Executive

Summary to the report provide a synopsis of the scope of work and context for the study, project methodology, and a

summary of the alternatives examined.

1. STUDY BACKGROUND AND SCOPE OF WORK.

In 1993, the Berkeley Police Department adopted a system in which the City was divided into 18 beats that

collapse each evening into nine beats into the morning hours. This beat system was based on changes in crime trends,

CITY OF BERKELEY, CALIFORNIA Final Police Patrol Beat Evaluation Study

Matrix Consulting Group Page 2

calls for service (CFS), and staffing levels at that time. There have been many changes over the last 20 years in crime

trends, calls for service, and staffing levels, yet the same beat system from 1993 remains in place. Moreover, in 2013, due

to the economic downturn, staffing levels were reduced with patrol staff covering the same number of beats:

Fiscal Year Authorized Sworn Actual Officers

FY05 186 181 FY06 186 177 FY07 186 176 FY08 186 181 FY09 185 181 FY10 182 172 FY11 176 166 FY12 176 163 FY13 176 168 FY14 176 167 Net Change -10 -14 10YR % Change -5.4% -7.7%

There are several significant issues with the current 18 beat structure in the City of Berkeley. These issues include

the following:

• The number of personnel assigned to patrol cannot cover all current beats every hour of the day. On average, the relationship of available officers to beats falls below 1:1 at least three hours each day.

• Because the City has changed much over the years, workloads vary greatly in beats that were designed two

decades ago. This is shown in the disparity map:





• Berkeley’s current patrol structure is unable to address problems that vary over time or that are citywide rather than beat-specific. Community crime problems such as pedestrian robberies, residential burglaries, and auto burglaries often require a concerted effort of multiple officers to proactively address.

In response to these issues, the Matrix Consulting Group was asked to accomplish the following in this study:

• Assess community perceptions and priorities through the use of surveys and Town Hall style community meetings held in each Council district.

• Solicit employee feedback on current patrol operating tactics. • Examine the current and projected population, geography, current deployments, staffing levels, officer workloads,

calls for service demands on patrol, proactive patrol time, response times, crime data, industry standards/best practices and the need for flexible units to respond to ongoing crime trends or events.

The project team designed alternatives to the current geographic beat areas to meet several defined objectives in

this study, including the following:

• Create a beat structure in which areas can be staffed consistently during most hours of the day and night. • Distribute officer workload levels more consistently across beats.

• Design beat boundaries that utilize efficient routes of travel.

• Minimize natural barriers within each beat.

• Minimize dividing neighborhoods between beats.

Accordingly, the objective of this study was to optimize existing staff across realistic geographic boundaries in order

to best serve the community.



2. STUDY METHODOLOGY.

In this Police Patrol Beat Evaluation study, the Matrix Consulting Group project team utilized a wide variety of data

collection and analytical techniques. The project team conducted the following analytical activities:

• At the outset of the Beat Evaluation study, the project team interviewed the Police Chief and his management team. The project team also met with the City Manager. The purpose of these interviews was to develop an initial understanding of the issues and background that led to this study.

• The project team conducted an intensive process of interviewing staff in Patrol. Members of the project team

interviewed almost 50 staff members in individual interviews, many of which took place during ride-alongs in the field – to provide us with perspectives on field services and current beat structure.

• While on site, the project team collected a wide variety of data designed to document workloads, costs, service

levels and operating practices. The project team developed a descriptive summary (or profile) of the patrol function in the Berkeley Police Department – reflecting deployment and scheduling, workloads, service levels, and programmatic objectives.

• The project team conducted “town hall” style meetings in seven (7) of the City Council Districts, to understand

community views about beat design and service issues which could be addressed through beat restructuring.

Throughout this process, the project team met with command staff to review progress and issues identified. Matrix

Consulting Group staff regularly met with the project steering committee which was composed of Patrol Officers,

Sergeants, and a Police Lieutenant.



3. ASSUMPTIONS UTILIZED IN DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVES The ensuing chapters of this report detail the results of the project team’s assessment of the current patrol beat

structure in Berkeley, as well as several alternatives evaluated. These analyses are based on the following:

• Statistical analysis of call for service workloads and major crime distributed throughout the City. • Geographical information system assessment of the equity of various beat boundaries on call workload and crime. • The results of the input received from employees though interviews and surveys as well as the community through

a series of “town hall” style meetings and a survey. The project team observed the following criteria:

• Developing a beat structure which best utilized and distributed existing patrol staff resources.

• Developing a beat structure in which field workloads were most equally distributed among beats.

• Developing a beat structure which retains neighborhood integrity for purposes of local accountability.

• Developing a beat structure in which major transportation corridors in the City supported response within beats.

• Develop a beat structure which allowed the Police Department to create a flexibly deployed unit to address citywide problems as well as localized beat problems.

The project team evaluated the current 18 beat structure, as well as a range of alternatives to best meet the

organizational alternatives established for this study. These alternatives included: 16 beats, 11 beats, four beats and 14

beats.



4. RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF BEAT ALTERNATIVES

The conclusion of this analysis is that the 14 beat alternative best meets the design criteria established for this

study. Police management originally believed that 11 beats would best meet service goals. However, after working with

and listening to the concerns brought by the project committee which consisted of members from all ranks, they agreed to

that a 14 beat solution is preferred. The community’s input also led to this conclusion.

The assessment of alternatives is summarized in the following table, which depicts how well each alternative meets

each beat design criteria established. This table can be interpreted as follows:

• An empty cell signifies that the criteria has not been fulfilled.

• “ ~ ” indicates partial completion of the criteria. • “ ✔– ” signifies that the item of criteria has been mostly fulfilled. • “ ✔+ ” indicates that the criteria item has been completely fulfilled.

Calls for

Service Equalized

Major Crime Equalized

Workload Equalized

Geographical Accountability

Neighborhood Integrity

Flex Unit

Efficient Travel

18 Beats ✔+ ✔+ ✔+

16 Beats ✔+ ✔+ ✔+

14 Beats ✔+ ✔– ✔– ✔+ ✔+ ✔+ ✔+

11 Beats ~ ~ ~ ✔– ✔+ ✔+

4 Beats ✔+ ✔+ ✔+ ✔+ ✔+



In comparison to the other alternatives, the 14 beat structure for the Berkeley Police Department best meets the

criteria established for use in this study. The 14 beat structure achieves this through the following:

• All beats have consistent workloads which range from only 6.6% of total calls for service (Beat 7) to 8.2% (Beat 2) of total calls for service, with an average of 7.1% of calls for all 14 beats. When the total time associated with all units handling calls for service is factored in similarly narrow variation results.

• The incidence of major crime occurring in each beat is better distributed, with a range of 3.9% of Part 1 crimes

(Beat 10) to 10.0% of Part 1 crimes (Beat 7) compared to the present beat configuration. • The 14 beat structure is similar enough to the current structure of beats so that neighborhood identity and officer

accountability to the community is preserved. • Similarly, the 14 beat structure maintains the association of major thoroughfares to beats. • 14 beats is the smallest beat structure that provides for covering all beats with staff on all shifts while also allowing

the creation of a flexibly-deployed unit to address citywide problems. The structure of the 14 beat alternative is shown in the summary map on the following page. To compensate for the

high volume of calls for service in the downtown area, the 14 beat alternative also includes assigning the downtown

bicycle officers as primary units for calls for service in their area. This subtle change to their responsibilities will assist in

smoothing the workloads for downtown beat officers.





2. RESULTS OF THE COMMUNITY SURVEY

This chapter of the final report describes the project team’s findings and conclusions based on our community

survey.

1. INTRODUCTION As part of our study for the Berkeley Police Department, the project team conducted a community survey, inviting

both those living and working in the city to give input and share their viewpoints on a wide range of topics relating to the

Berkeley Police Department’s services. In particular, the survey focused on the effectiveness of patrol operations with

regards to the current beat deployment structure.

(1) Survey Methodology

Links to the survey, which was hosted at SurveyMonkey.com, were advertised within the community using an

open-invite process through the City and Police websites, a link from Berkeleyside, Area Coordinator email lists, and City

Council member email lists. The open-invite process resulted in a sampling of individuals on a purely voluntary basis.

While the survey was anonymous, respondents were asked to identify the general area of the city, according to the

current beat structure, that they currently live or work in.

After answering a few basic background questions, survey respondents were asked to answer a number of multiple

choice questions. In addition, respondents were offered a free-form answer box to submit any additional comments,



clarification, or open-ended responses. In the interest of preserving the anonymity of the survey, these responses will not

be copied verbatim into this report, and will instead be summarized.

Overall, the survey response rate was excellent, generating well over 1,000 completed forms within the first week,

an eventually totaling 1,491 responses. Not all respondents answered every question, and as a result, the response totals

differ throughout the following summary of the survey results.

(2) Respondent Profile Respondents were asked how long they have either lived or worked in Berkeley, as represented in the table below:

Question AVG TOTAL

How long (in years) have you lived or worked in Berkeley? 26.5 1,354

The results indicate that many of the survey respondents have been in the community of Berkeley for many years,

approximately 26.5 years on average. Only a small minority, however, were relatively new to the city, with about 15.2% of

all respondents indicating that they have been in the city for five years or less.

When asked whether or not they have had contact with Berkeley Police Department officers “in the field” over the

last year, a majority of respondents answered that they had, as displayed in the table on the following page:



In the past year have you had any contact with Police Officers in the field (i.e., not at the Headquarters)? Count %

Yes 754 54.2%

No 638 45.8%

TOTAL 1,392 100.0%

The question does not make any inferences on the extent of the contact made with police officers, the results

should not be inferred to indicate interactions only involving calls for service. These results do, however, include traffic-

related violations, such as simple vehicle stops.

(3) Beat Representation Given that the community survey was conducted through voluntary sampling wherein individual respondents may

freely opt in or out of participating in the survey, there was no expectation that the response pool would comprise an equal

geographical cross-section of Berkeley. For this reason, one of the first questions of the survey asked respondents to

locate the beat in which they live or work in, using a map provided on the webpage. It should be noted that the original

map was replaced approximately one-third through the survey due to clarity issues, although the impact that this would

have had on responses is likely very minor.

The tables located on the following page display the number of respondents identifying themselves within each

geographical beat area, including a corresponding map for reference:



Beat # Count % Beat # Count %

1 351 26.7% 10 24 1.8% 2 278 21.1% 11 24 1.8% 3 90 6.8% 12 24 1.8% 4 41 3.1% 13 37 2.8% 5 43 3.3% 14 55 4.2% 6 13 1.0% 15 27 2.1% 7 31 2.4% 16 42 3.2% 8 114 8.7% 17 27 2.1% 9 38 2.9% 18 57 4.3%



• Nearly half of all survey respondents indicated that they live or work in either Beat 1 or 2. • While Beat 4, which encompasses the main downtown area of Berkeley, is by far the busiest area of the city in

terms of community-generated calls for service, only about 3% of respondents identified as living or working within that area.

According to the results of the survey respondent’s geographical self-identification, the survey appears to have

generated a largely non-representative sample of Berkeley’s population – although this was to be expected. In later

sections of the community survey, certain questions will be broken down by some of these regional groupings.

As a number of factors likely contributed to this result, it should not be assumed that the survey indicates that those

living or working in Beats 1 and 2 have stronger or more enthusiastic concerns. For instance, the channels through which

the survey was advertised could have potentially been more visible in certain areas in the community, or people living in

Berkeley may have been more likely to take the time to complete the survey than those working in Berkeley only.

2. ANALYSIS OF SURVEY RESPONSES The available options for responding to multiple-choice questions were as follows, with the corresponding

abbreviation in each of the tables included in parentheses:

• Strongly Disagree (SD) • Disagree (D) • Neutral (N)



• Agree (A) • Strongly Agree (SA) • No Response (NR) Respondents were also able to select none of these options, and proceed onto the next question instead. These

were not included in the “No Response” column totals. In the following sections, questions have been placed into groups

of three or four according to their subject area. Each section also features a graph corresponding to the response data,

visually representing (by skewing each question’s bar to the left or right) the degree to which the responses were positive

or negative relative to the data for other questions in the group.

(1) Service Levels The first four questions of the survey focus on general assessments and attitudes toward the services provided by

the Berkeley Police Department, as displayed in the following table and graph:

Question SD D N A SA NR TOTAL

4. I feel safe in Berkeley. 4.7% 14.7% 22.7% 52.5% 5.1% 0.2% 1288

5. The Police Department provides a high level of law enforcement service to Berkeley.

2.6% 8.0% 26.2% 48.9% 10.1% 4.3% 1281

6.

Berkeley Police Officers staff are professional in my contacts with them (answer “no response” if you have not had any contacts).

0.8% 3.5% 6.4% 45.2% 28.3% 15.8% 1288



7. I have a high opinion of the Police

Department services in the City. 2.0% 5.8% 24.0% 45.6% 18.9% 3.7% 1278





• Interestingly, a slightly higher number of respondents indicated that they do not feel safe in Berkeley than those who feel that the police department does not provide a high level of service.

• For Question #6, although respondents were directed to select “No Response” if they had not had any contact with

a Berkeley police officer, only about 16% did so – almost one-third the number of respondents that previously indicated this.

Responses were overwhelmingly positive throughout this section, with strong majorities agreeing with each of the

provided statements. The written comments did not feature significant discussion on these topics outside of a small

number of respondents that voiced charged rhetoric against the police department, generally without focusing on specific

or otherwise relevant issues. It is worth noting that the open-ended responses section also included many appreciative

comments that praised the level of service provided by the department, some of which thanked specific officers for their

work in the community.

(2) Community Engagement The survey addressed several issues relating to the role of the Berkeley Police Department in addressing and

responding to the changing needs of the community, including any public interfacing roles and responsibilities:


8. The Police Department staff are responsive to our law enforcement needs.

2.4% 9.7% 23.2% 45.0% 11.7% 7.9% 1279

9. The Department does a good job anticipating service needs. 3.9% 11.1% 38.4% 19.9% 4.0% 22.7% 1277




10. Officers are prompt in responding to problems raised by the community.

3.7% 9.3% 27.0% 37.9% 9.2% 12.9% 1271

• When asked about the ability of the department to anticipate service needs, approximately 61% of respondents

selected either Neutral or No Response– far more than was the in the previous question, despite their close similarity.



• While only 16% of respondents selected either Strongly Disagree or Disagree for Question #9, there was not much support for the statement, either, with only around 23% of respondents selecting either Agree or Strongly Agree.

Despite the high ratings given to the department in this section, police responsiveness to community concerns was

heavily criticized in the written comments and open-ended responses section. Specifically, many respondents did not feel

that crime patterns, such as burglaries or gang activity in particular areas and neighborhoods, are adequately addressed

by the department. A large number of these comments included calls for additional officers to be staffed in their beat area,

while others – although fewer in number – suggested that a greater focus should be placed on targeted enforcement

capabilities, such as the creation and/or strengthening of specialized units.

(3) Patrol Operations Three of the final multiple-choice questions focused on the patrol operations and deployment of the department, as

shown in the table below:


11. I receive regular police patrol in the area where I live. 13.9% 23.8% 26.8% 18.7% 4.5% 12.3% 1277

12. I see regular police patrols in the area where I work in Berkeley.

9.7% 16.3% 17.7% 15.2% 4.7% 36.5% 1260

13. It is important to me to regularly see an officer in my area. 0.8% 4.5% 14.5% 41.5% 37.5% 1.2% 1281



• For Question #12, the 37% of respondents that selected “No Response” should be viewed mainly as those that do

not work in Berkeley, rather than considering them as those who are unsure about the topic. • The vast majority of individuals – about 79% – agree that it is important to regularly see a patrol officer in their area,

with only 5% of respondents disagreeing with the statement.

One of the most common themes throughout the open-ended and written responses section involved residents

living in Beats 1 and 2 claiming that patrol presence was lacking in their neighborhood. Many write that crime has



expanded in the area as a result of this, citing lengthy response times and, in their experience, the frequent absence of

any patrol units in the beat area.

(4) Beat Structure The final multiple-choice question of the survey asked respondents for their input on how they think patrol beats

should be designed, allowing them to choose one of two options, as displayed in the following table:

14. I would be OK with one of the following two choices of patrol beat deployments: Count %

A “A bigger beat that is always staffed” 905 78.3%

B “The smaller beat that is sometimes unstaffed” 251 21.7%

TOTAL 999 1156

Respondents overwhelming indicated their preference for Option A, calling for larger beats that are constantly

staffed by patrol units, rather than having smaller and sometimes unstaffed beats. While the 4:1 margin appears to

indicate highly enthusiastic support for Option A, a large number of the written responses challenged this idea. One of the

most frequent written requests was for additional response options, with many respondents stating that they did not

understand the choice.



Question #14 was also the least responded-to question in the survey – every other question was answered at least

100 more times. It is not immediately clear the degree to which respondents not understanding the question contributed to

the low response rate, or whether dissatisfaction with the options was a more significant factor in this.

3. CONCLUSION The community survey has achieved remarkable success in gathering large levels of community input and

feedback into the process of the study. It is important to note that the results, as well as any trends described in the

survey, should not be considered either as findings or recommendations, but instead as a reflection of the attitudes and

expressed opinions held by a number of voluntarily selected individuals within the community. Additionally, it is vital to

keep any discussion of the results of the survey within the context of the survey itself. The pool of survey respondents do

not represent an even cross-section of the community as a whole, and their views will inherently be tied to their own

experiences. Nonetheless, the community survey did garner a very large response rate, with many respondents taking the

time to enter detailed comments into the written responses section.



3. RESULTS OF THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY

This chapter of the report details the findings and conclusions of the project’s team employee survey.

1. INTRODUCTION As part of this Patrol Beat Study, the project team conducted an employee survey of officers in the department.

While beat design was a primary focus of the survey, respondents were also asked questions on a number of other topics,

including the overall patrol operations and workloads, in order to further our understanding of the issues surrounding the

current beat structure.

(1) Profile of Survey Respondents In all, we received 100 responses to this survey. While the survey is anonymous, respondents were asked about

their current assignment, with the results displayed in the following table:



Assignment # %

Patrol Team 44 44.0%

Operations Division 21 21.0%

Non-Patrol Assignment 7 7.0%

Special Enforcement Unit 7 7.0%

Detectives 6 6.0%

Investigations Division 6 6.0%

Professional Standards Division 5 5.0%

Traffic 3 3.0%

Crime Analysis / Crime Scene 1 1.0%

TOTAL 100 100.0%

Although respondents selecting “Patrol Team” represented about 44% of overall respondents, some of these

options are not mutually exclusive (i.e., the various patrol teams are organized within the Operations Division).



(2) Survey Format

Survey questions were asked in a number of formats, including multiple-choice, ratings, and open-ended response

sections. The available options for responding to multiple-choice questions were as follows, with the corresponding

abbreviation in each of the tables included in parentheses:

• Strongly Disagree (SD) • Disagree (D) • Neutral (N) • Agree (A) • Strongly Agree (SA) An additional set of questions, focusing on various performance areas, asked respondents to rate each item on a

scale from 1 to 10 according to the following labeled ranges:

• Poor (1 – 3)

• Fair (4 – 6)

• Good (7 – 9)

• Excellent (10)

At the end of the survey, respondents were asked to identify three strengths of the department, as well as three

opportunities for improvement. The survey also provided space for respondents to leave any additional comments or



clarifications. Due to the anonymity of the survey, these narrative responses will not be provided in this report. Instead, the

project team has analyzed the responses for general patterns and trends, summarizing our findings.

The following sections will examine survey responses using a topic-centered approach, rather than following the

numerical order of the questions.

2. Results of the Employee Survey (1) Community Service and Operations The following table presents the responses to each question relating to the department’s services, staffing, or

operations:

# Question SD D N A SA NR TOTAL

1 The Berkeley Police Department provides a high level of service to the community. 0 2 5 36 50 0 93

2 The Berkeley Police Department meets the unique needs of this community. 1 6 7 37 42 0 93

8 Patrol sergeants ensure that the workload (i.e., reports & arrests) among officers is fairly balanced over a week/month.

23 27 25 13 4 0 92

9

Most officers help each other out on busy days to ensure that the workload among officers (i.e., reports & arrests) is fairly balanced over a week/month.

4 24 23 33 9 0 93



The next figure displays the results of each question in this section, skewing the questions with more negative

responses to the left, and those with a more positive picture of responses to the right. Following the graph, a series of

points provide a summary analysis of the data.



• In questions relative to overall perceptions of the department’s performance to the community, responses were almost exclusively positive, with at least 85% of respondents in each selecting either “Agree” or “Strongly Agree.”

• However, respondents very strongly disagreed with overall statements about patrol operations – for example that

sergeants effectively balance officer workloads (only about 18% of those completing the survey agreed with the statement).

The open-ended responses and written comments section highlight perceptions of the excellent level of customer

service officers provide, particularly regarding interactions with citizens at the scene of an incident. A large number of

respondents wrote that officers understand the unique aspects of the community. Unlike the forced choice questions,

narrative responses suggested that assistance is available when needed, with officers not hesitating to break from their

current beat in order to support the response to a call elsewhere. Sergeants in particular were identified as generally

available to respond to calls. Some respondents, however, felt that officers are not held accountable when they fail to

assist other officers.

Many officers wrote that too much of their time is typically spent responding to low-priority calls, such as audible

alarms, parking issues, non-injury collisions, and animal-related calls. On a related note, several officers indicated that

citizens do not seem to be aware of the online reporting system currently in place. Additionally, some officers expressed

concerns that they spend an excessive amount of time at the station writing reports and performing administrative tasks.



(2) Beat Structure Six of the ten multiple-choice questions dealt with issues regarding the current beat structure, as well as attitudes

toward the process for a possible restructuring:

# Question SD D N A SA NR TOTAL

3 The current beat structure is adequate and should not be substantially changed. 9 25 29 19 10 0 92

4 The current beats are large enough to provide officers a variety of calls and job tasks in their daily patrol duties.

1 8 29 38 16 0 92

5 When officers are not at the PSB they spend a majority of their time during a shift on their assigned beat.

3 13 22 43 12 0 93

6 The number of beats should be the same 24 hours a day. 9 33 28 16 6 0 92

7

Some beats are much busier than others, resulting in some officers regularly handling more calls and reports and other officers working slower beats regularly having more proactive time.

0 4 8 42 39 0 93

10 It is time for the Department to re-examine our beat boundaries based on current calls for service and workload.

7 6 11 44 25 0 93

The chart below displays the results of each question in this section, skewing the questions with more negative

responses to the left, and those with a more positive picture of responses to the right. The points following the graph

provide a summary analysis of the data.





• With about 37% of respondents disagreeing with the idea that the current beat structure is adequate and just

30.3% of respondents agreeing – attitudes toward the current beat structure are “mixed”. • While responses were largely positive for most questions in this section, only around 25% of respondents agreed

that the beat structure should be the same at all times of the day (with approximately 44% disagreeing or strongly disagreeing).

In the written comments and open-ended response sections responses too were “mixed” – several officers

suggested that smaller beats would be ideal, while others would rather opt for larger beats. Some officers also raised the

idea of reducing the number of beats in order to better reflect the number of officers that are actually on patrol given the

current minimum staffing levels. The current beat structure, a number of officers claimed, causes many beats to go

unstaffed at certain times during the day. One respondent added that the beat boundaries are not logical or intuitive,

which results in officers sometimes having to look at a map or ask others in order to determine in which beat a given

location is. As a result, many comments suggested that beat structure should focus primarily on workload factors, rather

than attempting to achieve equitable response times across each of the different beats.



Respondents were also asked for their input on what factors any restructuring of beats should focus on, the results

of which are displayed in the table below:

# Factor Count %

(1) The number of calls for service and other workload demands. 85 85.0%

(2) Logical geographic dividers such as major streets. 66 66.0%

(3) Maintaining a neighborhood in one beat. 32 32.0%

(4) The number of patrol personnel available each day. 65 65.0%

(5) Other (please specify) 15 15.0%

While only about 32% of respondents believe that patrol beats should be designed around neighborhood

boundaries, more than twice that number would use major streets and other logical geographic dividers in making those

determinations. “Other” responses included ideas such as variable boundaries corresponding to the time of day and day

of week, designing the beats around the number of violent crimes (or by other types of crime), and response time equity.

Several respondents also expressed that they do not believe that the beats should be changed.



(3) Perceptions of Key Patrol Performance Indicators Respondents were also presented with five measures of overall performance, asking them to rate each category on

a scale from 1 to 10, as shown in the table below:

Question Poor (1-3)

Fair (4-6)

Good (7-9)

Excellent (10) TOTAL AVG

A Response times to calls for service. 7.6% 17.4% 60.9% 14.1% 92 7.2

B Availability of backup for officer safety. 6.7% 22.2% 60.0% 11.1% 90 7.2

C Department capabilities for selective enforcement of targeted problems.

25.3% 46.2% 24.2% 4.4% 91 4.8

D Amount of proactive time in the field. 22.0% 47.3% 26.4% 4.4% 91 5.1

E Involvement of patrol personnel in follow-up investigations. 23.9% 39.8% 34.1% 2.3% 88 5.3

As in the multiple-choice sections, the chart on the following page displays the results of each question in this

section, skewing the questions with more negative responses to the left, and those with a more positive picture of

responses to the right. The points following the graph provide a summary analysis of the data.





• Response times to calls for service and the overall availability of backup are rated highly, with each receiving average ratings of about 7.2.

• The Department’s utilization of targeted enforcement strategies and proactive policing received considerably

negative ratings, however, with the vast majority of respondents rating the category either “Poor” or “Fair”. The written responses identified a number of findings that echo the quantitative results:

• Although respondents agreed with the idea that backup units are readily available, a few officers wrote that the responses to calls can be excessive or otherwise disproportionate to the given call.

• Proactivity levels, many respondents wrote, vary extensively by officer, with some spending far more time on

community policing activities than others. • Several respondents also cited the diversity of expertise among officers as being a key strength of the Department,

particularly when responding to calls that warrant a more specialized response. The amount of discretionary authority given to officers is also cited as a contributing factor in their effectiveness at handling these calls.

The responses to operational performance questions were mixed with some issues viewed positively, such as the

end result of calls, and others negatively, such as the time available to address problems.



3. CONCLUSION Overall, responses to the survey were mixed. The results of the employee survey identify a number of different

strengths of the Department as well as possible opportunities for improvement. Overall, respondents believe that service

levels are high but that resources are inconsistently available and are “stretched” to be able to provide the depth needed

to be more effective. It is important to note that the results of the survey should be seen as a direct reflection of the

attitudes and opinions of the Department’s employees, and should not be considered as either findings or

recommendations of the study.



4. OVERVIEW OF SERVICE AREA WORKLOADS

1. INTRODUCTION In order to better facilitate an understanding of the patrol workloads in Berkeley, the project team prepared a series

of maps aiming to visualize the geography of this workload. The background maps contained in the following sections

serve as an important foundation of the beat design process, providing an overview of the major population centers and

calls for service areas of the City, as well as displaying the most significant concentrations of activity contributing to patrol

workload.

2. POPULATION BY CENSUS BLOCK The map on the following page provides a summary overview of population density throughout Berkeley, using

data from the 2010 U.S. Census. The population totals for each census block, which are represented on the map as

shaded cells, have been adjusted according to the area that they cover in order to provide a level comparison.

A number of observations can be made from visualizing the distribution of Berkeley’s population:

• While the map does not differentiate between population totals in excess of 250, a number of census blocks have many times that number of residents.

• As a result, the population of the City can be considered to be more concentrated than the map indicates. • Given that the most densely populated areas of the City exist within a relatively small geographical region, it is

evident that patrol workloads cannot be effectively balanced around population clusters.





3. “HEATMAP” OF MAJOR CRIME The following page presents a “heatmap” of major crime incidents within Berkeley over the last year. The map

focuses on major crime categories, which are defined by the Uniform Crime Reporting Program of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation and represent the most severe offenses, including both violent and property crimes. No additional weighting

has been given to any specific type of crime included. This type of map does not represent the entire scope of crime

activity within an area, given that incidents must be closely concentrated together in order to be represented on the map

as “hotspots”. As a result, heatmaps are most accurately described as maps of crime density.

Located on the following page, the heatmap of major (Part I) crime generates a number of findings:

• The Downtown area, along with a small pocket around the southern part of Shattuck Avenue, has the highest concentration of crime in the City of Berkeley.

• While there are a significant number of major crimes were reported in the Berkeley Hills area in 2013, these

incidents are more spaced out geographically. • The South Campus and South Berkeley areas, as well as the commercial districts around the northwest quarter of

Berkeley, also experience high levels of major crime activity – although these hotspots appear to be more pocketed than those within the Downtown area.





4. HEATMAP OF CALLS FOR SERVICE As with major crime activity, a heatmap has been developed by our project team to illustrate the major hotspots of

calls for service activity within Berkeley. Given that heatmaps function as visualizations of density, as opposed to volume,

the map does not encapsulate the entire portrait of the City’s community-generated activity. As a result, no additional

weight is given to calls requiring a higher level of response than others.

The heatmap located on the following page identifies several key findings – particularly when viewed in comparison

to the earlier heatmap of major crime:

• The areas identified as calls for service hotspots largely mirror the hotspots shown in the heatmap of major crime incidents, although there are key differences between the two.

• Calls for service hotspot areas appear to cover smaller areas; however, they also tend to be more tightly

concentrated than the crime hotspots. • Additionally, the calls for service heatmap reveals additional pockets of high activity in South Berkeley that are not

reflected in the crime heatmap.





5. ASSUMPTIONS UTILIZED IN DEVELOPING ALTERNATIVES

The following chapters of the report provide the results of the project team’s assessment of the current patrol beat

structure in Berkeley, as well as several alternatives the project team evaluated. This analysis is based on the following:

• Statistical analysis of call for service workloads and major crime distributed throughout the city. • Geographical information system assessment of the equity of various beat boundaries on call workload and crime. • The results of the input received from employees though interviews and surveys as well as the community through

a series of “town hall” style meetings and a survey. The criteria utilized by the project team included:

• Developing a beat structure which best utilized and distributed existing patrol staff resources.

• Developing a beat structure in which field workloads were most equally distributed among beats.

• Developing a beat structure which retains neighborhood integrity for purposes of local accountability.

• Developing a beat structure in which major transportation corridors in the city supported response within beats.

• Developing a beat structure which allowed the Berkeley Police Department to create a flexibly deployed unit to address City-wide problems as well as localized beat problems.

The project team evaluated the current 18 beat structure as well as a range of alternatives to best meet the

organizational alternatives established for this study. These alternatives included – 16 beats, 11 beats, four beats and 14

beats.



6. ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT 18 BEAT STRUCTURE

1. INTRODUCTION The project team also examined the strengths and weaknesses of the current 18 beat structure. While the current

beat structure does not represent an alternative configuration, it has been included as a baseline for the comparison of the

various beat structures outlined in this report. The following sections present analysis on calls for service, crime, and

patrol unit workload data, as well as the overall levels of inequity in the calls for service totals within the current beat

configuration. As with the other descriptive sections, each data table will be followed by its corresponding map.

This study was commissioned to address several issues. One of the most important was the inability to assign an

adequate number of patrol personnel to staff the 18 beat structure currently in place. This is shown in the table on the

following page. Note that in the morning hours as calls for service decline the 18 beat structure collapses into a 9 beat

structure.



Current Patrol Officer Deployment by Hour of the Day and Day of Week

Hour Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat AVG AVG – 6 hr

0000 14.7 14.7 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 14.7 17.1

12.3

0100 14.7 14.7 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.6 14.7 14.6 0200 12.5 12.5 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 12.5 11.2 0300 10.3 10.3 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.3 10.3 0400 10.3 10.3 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.3 10.3 0500 10.3 10.3 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.3 10.3 0600 14.6 14.5 19.5 19.5 19.5 19.6 14.6 17.4

12.2

0700 9.4 9.3 14.4 14.4 14.4 14.5 9.4 12.3 0800 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.3 0900 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.3 1000 9.4 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.3 9.4 9.4 9.3 1100 11.9 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 11.9 11.9 15.3 1200 14.4 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 14.4 14.4 16.3

17.9

1300 14.4 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 14.4 14.4 16.3 1400 18.7 17.8 17.8 17.8 17.8 18.7 18.7 18.2 1500 18.7 22.2 22.2 22.2 22.2 18.7 18.7 20.7 1600 18.7 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 18.7 18.7 17.9 1700 18.7 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 18.7 18.7 17.9 1800 24.4 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 24.4 24.4 20.3

19.6

1900 19.7 17.3 17.3 17.3 17.3 19.7 19.7 18.3 2000 19.7 22.4 22.4 22.4 22.4 19.7 19.7 21.2 2100 19.7 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.7 19.7 19.3 2200 19.7 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.7 19.7 19.3 2300 19.7 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.0 19.7 19.7 19.3



The size of the Berkeley Police Department has declined in the past ten years, which accounts for its inability to

staff all of its current beats. This is shown in the table below:

Fiscal Year Authorized Sworn Actual Officers

FY05 186 181 FY06 186 177 FY07 186 176 FY08 186 181 FY09 185 181 FY10 182 172 FY11 176 166 FY12 176 163 FY13 176 168 FY14 176 167 Net Change -10 -14 10YR % Change -5.4% -7.7%

The following sections of this chapter describe other major issues with the current beat design in terms of the ways

in which workloads and community risk are distributed in the city’s patrol beats.

2. CALLS FOR SERVICE The following table displays the total calls for service in 2013, as they are distributed in the current 18 beat

structure:



Calls for Service (Current 18 Beat Structure)

Beat Area # of CFS % of Total CFS 1 3,066 6.6% 2 3,091 6.6% 3 2,900 6.2% 4 4,882 10.4% 5 3,004 6.4% 6 2,237 4.8% 7 3,498 7.5% 8 1,852 4.0% 9 2,398 5.1% 10 2,216 4.7% 11 1,836 3.9% 12 1,613 3.5% 13 2,102 4.5% 14 1,936 4.1% 15 1,790 3.8% 16 3,539 7.6% 17 2,531 5.4% 18 2,037 4.4% City 214 0.5% TOTAL 46,742 100.0% AVG* 2,585 5.5%

*Excluding “City” beat

• Excluding the marina area, calls for service are concentrated – particularly around the Downtown and South Campus areas.

• Call activity levels vary extensively around the city – the beat with the highest activity has over three times the

number of calls for service as the lowest beat. • One-third of the beats have over 3,000 community-generated calls per year – about 400 over the average. • The BPD fields bike units in the downtown areas to assist with handling calls for service in these heavy call

generating areas (709 calls in 2013), shown in all of the maps in this report with hash marks.





3. MAJOR CRIME The following table displays the total number of major crimes that occurred in each beat over the last year,

including both violent and property offenses, as they are currently distributed in the 18 beat structure:

Major Crime (Current 18 Beat Structure)

Beat Area Part I Crimes % of Total Beat Area Part I

Crimes % of Total

1 454 7.6% 11 191 3.2% 2 481 8.1% 12 162 2.7% 3 458 7.7% 13 175 2.9% 4 499 8.4% 14 179 3.0% 5 396 6.6% 15 257 4.3% 6 347 5.8% 16 472 7.9% 7 452 7.6% 17 345 5.8% 8 306 5.1% 18 187 3.1% 9 322 5.4% City N/A N/A 10 289 4.8% TOTAL 5,972 100.0% AVG 332 5.6%


• As demonstrated by the map on the following page, crime is heavily concentrated Downtown, as well as in the

North Berkeley and Marina areas. • The major crime totals for each beat vary extensively, ranging between a low of 162 and a high of 499 – over three

times the lowest number.

– Five of the eighteen beats have experienced under 200 crimes in the last year, while another six beats account for over 450 crimes each.

– The top 50% of beats, in terms of major crime totals, represent approximately 65.4% of all crimes in the City.





4. PATROL UNIT WORKLOAD

The following table presents the distribution of unit workload hours according to the current 18 beat structure,

showing totals for primary (the initial responding officer) and any and all backup units:

Total Unit Workload Hours (Current 18 Beat Structure)

Beat Area

Total Primary Unit Hours

Total Backup Hours

Total Hours

% of Total

Beat Area

Total Primary Unit Hours

Total Backup Hours

Total Hours

% of Total

1 1,606 1,290 2,897 6.4% 11 929 1,087 2,016 4.4% 2 1,735 1,358 3,094 6.8% 12 811 907 1,718 3.8% 3 1,522 1,416 2,938 6.5% 13 1,029 1,161 2,190 4.8% 4 2,292 2,237 4,529 10.0% 14 918 925 1,843 4.1% 5 1,512 1,689 3,201 7.0% 15 851 773 1,623 3.6% 6 1,048 980 2,028 4.5% 16 1,566 1,745 3,311 7.3% 7 1,494 1,548 3,042 6.7% 17 1,276 1,238 2,514 5.5% 8 1,001 758 1,758 3.9% 18 1,034 898 1,933 4.2% 9 1,224 946 2,170 4.8% Unknown 113 453 566 1.2% 10 1,095 1,111 2,206 4.9% TOTAL 23,059 22,421 45,480 100.0%

AVG* 1,275 1,226 2,501 5.5% *Excluding “City” beat

• Workload is concentrated in the beats located in the Downtown area, where two of the beats account for nearly

20% of the city’s total patrol unit workload. • Certain beats – many of them located in the southern half of the city – account for a comparatively small portion of

the city’s total workload.

– Four of these beats each total under 2,000 hours of patrol unit workload. – The three beats with the lowest unit workload totals combine for only 11.2% of the city’s overall workload.





5. CALL INEQUITY AMONG BEATS

The table below restates calls for service totals for each beat, in addition to the percentage by which these totals

differ from that of the average beat– highlighting the level of inequity present in the structure:

CFS Inequity by Beat (Current 18 Beat Structure)

Beat Area # of CFS % from AVG Beat Area # of CFS % from AVG

1 3,066 18.6% 11 1,836 -29.0% 2 3,091 19.6% 12 1,613 -37.6% 3 2,900 12.2% 13 2,102 -18.7% 4 4,882 88.9% 14 1,936 -25.1% 5 3,004 16.2% 15 1,790 -30.8% 6 2,237 -13.5% 16 3,539 36.9% 7 3,498 35.3% 17 2,531 -2.1% 8 1,852 -28.4% 18 2,037 -21.2% 9 2,398 -7.2% City 214 -91.7% 10 2,216 -14.3% TOTAL 46,742 – AVG* 2,585 0.0%


• Calls for service totals are distributed very unevenly – just four of the eighteen beats have totals within plus-or-

minus 10% of the average. • To this point, only half of the beats in the configuration have calls for service totals that are within 20% of the

overall average. • The calls for service totals of the 18 beat structure also display a significantly wide range, falling between 88.9%

above and 91.7% under the average amount.





6. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE CURRENT 18 BEAT ALTERNATIVE Each alternative beat structure, including the current configuration, is evaluated on a number of criteria, including

neighborhood integrity, calls for service and crime equity, and officer travel efficiency. Our project team has reached the

following conclusions with regards to the current 18 beat structure:

• Overall, inequity is the leading concern in the current 18 beat configuration. Calls for service totals display extensive variation among the different beats – more than in any other beat structure outlined in this report.

• Concentrations of calls and workloads are also highly regionalized, presenting potential impacts to the availability

of backup within certain areas of the City. • To this point, crime is about as unequally distributed as calls for service are. The ratios between the highest and

lowest totals for each beat are about 3:1 in both categories. • Many major streets, such as San Pablo Avenue and University Avenue function as the dividing lines between some

beats. • This also creates an issue with calls located in intersections or in the middle of streets that serve as borders

between two or more beats, potentially resulting in confusion or communication issues between officers. • Officers are also very familiar with the current configuration, and the computer aided dispatch system is already set

up for the boundaries. • Due to the high number of beats, some beats will be unstaffed at certain times depending on the availability of

personnel. • The creation of a flex unit is not feasible under the current 18 beat configuration.



The strengths and weaknesses of the 18 beat alternative are summarized in the table below, which uses the

following scale:



Summary of the 18 Beat Alternative

Calls for Service Equalized


Workload Equalized


Neighborhood Integrity Flex Unit Travel Efficiency

✔+ ✔+ ✔+



7. ANALYSIS OF THE 16 BEAT ALTERNATIVE

1. INTRODUCTION The project team examined the feasibility of a 16 beat structure alternative. By reducing the number of beats from

the current configuration by two, the main goal in its development was to significantly reduce the frequency at which beats

were left open due to insufficient staff – an issue with the current 18 beat structure. Additionally, the 16 beat alternative

aimed to largely preserve the current boundaries and features of the current beat structure, reducing the difficulties

associated with the transition. As with the other descriptive sections, each data table will be followed by its corresponding

map.

2. CALLS FOR SERVICE The following table – displays the total calls for service in 2013, as they would be distributed in the alternative 16

beat structure:



Calls for Service (16 Beat Alternative)

• Many of the beats located on the western half of the city feature fewer calls for service than those that are further

east. • Call totals are also fairly centralized – the Downtown and South Campus areas include three of the four highest-

activity beats.

Beat Area # of CFS % of Total 1 2,862 6.1% 2 2,771 5.9% 3 3,050 6.5% 4 5,262 11.2% 5 3,969 8.5% 6 3,672 7.8% 7 2,581 5.5% 8 3,311 7.1% 9 2,765 5.9% 10 2,191 4.7% 11 2,893 6.2% 12 2,088 4.5% 13 1,910 4.1% 14 3,887 8.3% 15 2,022 4.3% 16 1,658 3.5% TOTAL 46,892 100.0% AVG 2,931 6.3%






including both violent and property offenses, as they would be distributed in the 16 beat alternative:

Major Crime (16 Beat Alternative)

Beat Area Part I Crimes % of Total 1 478 8.0% 2 432 7.2% 3 392 6.6% 4 685 11.5% 5 418 7.0% 6 533 8.9% 7 462 7.8% 8 458 7.7% 9 203 3.4% 10 278 4.7% 11 171 2.9% 12 226 3.8% 13 197 3.3% 14 486 8.2% 15 381 6.4% 16 163 2.7% TOTAL 5,963 100.0% AVG 373 6.3%

• One-quarter of the beats account for 36.6% of the total number of major crimes, while some beats experience a

comparatively much smaller number of crimes. • The two Northern Hills beats together account for 15.2% of crime – the majority of which are property-based.






The following table presents the distribution of unit workload hours according to the 16 beat alternative, showing

totals for primary (the initial responding officer) and any and all backup units:

Total Unit Workload Hours (16 Beat Alternative)

Beat Area Total Primary Unit Hours

Total Backup Hours Total Hours % of Total

1 1,286 1,615 2,900 6.4% 2 1,280 1,685 2,965 6.5% 3 1,230 1,402 2,632 5.8% 4 3,061 2,931 5,993 13.2% 5 2,072 1,844 3,916 8.6% 6 1,762 1,701 3,463 7.6% 7 1,130 1,332 2,461 5.4% 8 1,637 1,750 3,387 7.4% 9 1,449 1,112 2,561 5.6% 10 1,153 1,083 2,236 4.9% 11 1,328 1,174 2,502 5.5% 12 982 976 1,959 4.3% 13 774 851 1,625 3.6% 14 1,686 1,681 3,367 7.4% 15 1,003 1,099 2,102 4.6% 16 594 816 1,410 3.1% TOTAL 22,427 23,053 45,480 100.0% AVG 1,402 1,441 2,843 6.3%

• Although a majority of beats contain less than 7% of the workload, five of the 16 beats contain approximately

44.2% of the total workload – far more than their equal share. • As is the case with the current 18 beat structure, the areas with the most significant workload demands are the

Downtown/South Campus and the Marina/West Berkeley areas.







differ from that of the average beat – highlighting the level of inequity present in the structure:

CFS Inequity by Beat (16 Beat Alternative)

Beat Area # of CFS % Difference from AVG

1 2,862 -2.3% 2 2,771 -5.5% 3 3,050 4.1% 4 5,262 79.5% 5 3,969 35.4% 6 3,672 25.3% 7 2,581 -11.9% 8 3,311 13.0% 9 2,765 -5.7% 10 2,191 -25.2% 11 2,893 -1.3% 12 2,088 -28.8% 13 1,910 -34.8% 14 3,887 32.6% 15 2,022 -31.0% 16 1,658 -43.4% TOTAL 46,892 – AVG 2,931 0.0%

• Only five of 16 beats fall within plus-or-minus 10% of the average total number of calls for service. • Many of the areas with the highest activity levels are clustered together, presenting potential impacts to the

availability of backup units.





6. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE 16 BEAT ALTERNATIVE Each alternative beat structure is evaluated on a number of criteria, including neighborhood integrity, calls for

service and crime equity, and officer travel efficiency, among other factors. Our project team has reached the following

conclusions on the 16 beat alternative:

• While the goal of consistently filling each beat with an officer is achieved by the alternative 16 beat structure, there are many areas in which it lacks.

• Perhaps most importantly, neighborhood and district integrity is not preserved, continuing one of the key issues

present in the current 18 beat structure. • Many of the City’s major streets, including San Pablo Avenue, Shattuck Avenue, University Avenue, and

Sacramento Street, serve as the dividing lines between a number of beats. • As a result, one officer would be responsible for working at the community level with one side of the street, while

another would be responsible for these duties on the other side of the street – despite the fact that these are considered to be in the same geographical area.

• Although, from the standpoint of officer travel efficiency, this issue does not present a significant challenge. • However, vast inequity continues to exist between beats in terms of overall calls, crime, and workload totals – to

largely the same degree that this problem exists in the current 18 beat structure. • While these differences appear to be slightly smaller in magnitude than is the case for the current 18 beat structure,

they remain to be serious issues for consideration. • Due to the high number of beats, the creation of a flex unit is not feasible under the alternative 16 beat structure.




following scale:






Workload Equalized


Neighborhood Integrity Flex Unit Efficient Travel

✔+ ✔+ ✔+




1. INTRODUCTION The project team also developed an 11 beat structure alternative. The primary focus in its design was to achieve

call and workload equity across all of the beats, while at the same time improving neighborhood integrity. In order to

facilitate this, the number of beats was reduced to 11 – about 39% less than the current 18 beat configuration.

Additionally, beat boundaries were generally placed away from major streets. As with the other descriptive sections, each

data table will be followed by its corresponding map.

2. CALLS FOR SERVICE The following table displays the total calls for service in 2013, as they would be distributed in the alternative 11 beat

structure:




Beat Area # of CFS % of Total

1 4,327 9.2% 2 4,209 9.0% 3 4,520 9.6% 4 7,808 16.6% 5 4,145 8.8% 6 3,242 6.9% 7 3,866 8.2% 8 3,630 7.7% 9 3,462 7.4% 10 3,854 8.2% 11 3,845 8.2% TOTAL 46,908 100.0% AVG 4,264 9.1%

• The 11 beat alternative equalizes call totals far better than either the 16 or 18 beat alternatives. • Largely due to a downtown beat with almost double the number of calls for service as the group average, the range

between the highest and lowest beats is still very wide.








Beat Area # of Part I Crimes % of Total

1 639 10.7% 2 720 12.1% 3 392 6.6% 4 975 16.3% 5 616 10.3% 6 573 9.6% 7 512 8.6% 8 309 5.2% 9 235 3.9% 10 368 6.2% 11 630 10.6% TOTAL 5,968 100.0% AVG 543 9.1%

• Crime is concentrated away from the southern beats, which comparatively experience a much smaller number of

major crimes in this beat configuration. • While the southeast beat (at the bottom-right corner of the city) was at the lower end of calls for service, it ranks

much further up in terms of major crime totals – highlighting that balancing one category of data does not necessarily balance the others.











1 1,939 2,408 4,347 9.6% 2 2,030 2,524 4,554 10.0% 3 2,066 1,966 4,032 8.9% 4 4,142 4,107 8,249 18.1% 5 1,944 1,921 3,865 8.5% 6 1,436 1,708 3,145 6.9% 7 2,079 2,000 4,078 9.0% 8 1,675 1,612 3,287 7.2% 9 1,713 1,425 3,138 6.9% 10 1,736 1,585 3,321 7.3% 11 1,678 1,817 3,495 7.7% TOTAL 22,438 23,072 45,510 100.0% AVG 2,040 2,097 4,137 9.1%

• As with calls for service totals, workload is fairly even; although the variation among the different beats is

marginally greater than it was for call totals. • The main Downtown beat has a significantly higher total number of workload hours – about double the average of

the group.









Beat Area # of CFS % from AVG

1 4,327 1.5% 2 4,209 -1.3% 3 4,520 6.0% 4 7,808 83.1% 5 4,145 -2.8% 6 3,242 -24.0% 7 3,866 -9.3% 8 3,630 -14.9% 9 3,462 -18.8% 10 3,854 -9.6% 11 3,845 -9.8% TOTAL 46,908 – AVG 4,264 0.0%

• The 11 beat alternative equalizes call totals far better than either the 16 or 18 beat alternatives, with comparatively

minor variation existing among most of the beats in the configuration. • Largely due to a downtown beat with almost double the number of calls for service as the group average, the range

between the highest and lowest beats is still very wide.





6. CONCLUSIONS REGARDING THE 11 BEAT ALTERNATIVE Each beat structure alternative is evaluated across a range of criteria, including neighborhood integrity, calls for

service and crime equity, and efficient officer travel, among other factors. Our project team has reached the following


• While calls for service are far more evenly distributed than in the 16 and 18 beat alternatives, a few areas – particularly the Downtown beat – remain significant outliers.

• Crime is not distributed evenly among the beats, ranging from as low as 235 to a maximum of 975 – well over four

times the lowest total. • However, workload is well-distributed in this beat configuration, without significant variation existing between most

beats. • Neighborhood integrity is also preserved effectively, without splitting up many key business or residential districts. • Officer travel efficiency is not a significant concern in the 11 beat alternative, as major roads run through the middle

of most beats. • One issue, however, is the reduction in the total number of beats – at only 11 beats, the beat structure represents a

major shift in the Department’s patrol deployment strategy. • By reducing the number of beats down to 11, it is possible to create a flexible patrol unit. The strengths and weaknesses of the 11 beat alternative are summarized in the table below, which uses the

following scale:








Workload Equalized



~ ~ ~ ✔+ ✔+ ✔+



9. ANALYSIS OF THE FOUR BEAT ALTERNATIVE

1. INTRODUCTION The project team also examined the feasibility of a four beat structure alternative. Radically different from the other

beat configurations, the four beat alternative represents a shift in patrol strategy. Rather than focusing on community

policing and accountability at a small geographical level, the beat structure allows for more flexible deployment of patrol

personnel. Partly because each beat in this configuration covers an expansive area, equalization of calls, workload, and

crime is far more attainable than in structures featuring additional beats. As with the other descriptive sections, each data

table will be followed by its corresponding map.

2. CALLS FOR SERVICE The following table displays the total calls for service in 2013, as they would be distributed in the alternative four

beat structure:




Beat Area # of CFS % of Total

West 11,197 23.8% North 11,215 23.9% Central 12,023 25.6% South 12,516 26.7% TOTAL 46,951 100.0% AVG 11,738 25.0%

• Each beat covers close to a quarter of the community-generated calls for service handled by the Berkeley Police

Department. • Calls are very evenly distributed – the difference between the beat with the highest total (12,516) and the lowest

(11,197) is only about 11.2% of the group average. • Notably, the four beat alternative is the only configuration where the Downtown area does not have the highest

community-generated workload.






including both violent and property offenses, as they would be distributed in the four beat alternative:


Beat Area # of Part I Crimes % of Total

Central 1,584 26.5% North 1,552 26.0% West 1,397 23.4% South 1,447 24.2% TOTAL 5,979 100.0% AVG 1,495 25.0%

• Crime has been equalized in this beat configuration nearly as well as calls for service – the range between the

highest and lowest beats is only 187, or approximately 12.5% of the overall average. • The West and South beats have slightly lower major crime totals, while the North and Central beats are marginally

higher.











West 6,288 5,984 12,272 27.0% North 5,035 6,026 11,061 24.3% Central 6,070 5,937 12,007 26.4% South 5,048 5,138 10,186 22.4% TOTAL 22,441 23,085 45,526 100.0% AVG 5,610 5,771 11,382 25.0%

• Total workload is not quite as evenly distributed as major crime and calls for service, although variation among the

beats continues to be relatively minor.

– Each beat has within 22.4% and 27.0% of the total workload. – The difference between the highest beat (12,272 total hours) and lowest beat (10,186 hours) is about 18.3%

of the total for the average beat. • Primary unit workload hours vary slightly more than backup hours, narrowing the difference between the highest

beat and the lowest when the two categories are combined.








CFS Inequity by Beat (Four Beat Alternative)

Beat Area # of CFS % of Total % from AVG

West 11,197 23.8% -4.6% North 11,215 23.9% -4.5% Central 12,023 25.6% 2.4% South 12,516 26.7% 6.6% TOTAL 46,951 100.0% – AVG 11,738 25.0% 0.0%

• Again, calls for service are very evenly distributed, with all four beats having between 23.8% and 26.7% of the total

number. • Community-generated calls for service totals for each beat fall within less than 4.6% and more than 6.6% of the

group average.







conclusions on the four beat alternative:

• Community-generated calls for service are effectively equalized among the four beats, as are major crime and total unit workload.

• Efficient officer travel is not seen as an issue in this beat structure, with major roads integrated within the

boundaries of each beat. • Neighborhood and business districts are generally not split up – the four patrol areas largely represent distinctive

regions of the city. • The reduction in the total number of beats would allow the Berkeley Police Department to implement new

deployment strategies, such as flex units. • A significant concern, however, is the impact of a four beat structure on the community policing and geographical

accountability of patrol units. The strengths and weaknesses of the four beat alternative are summarized in the table below, which uses the

following scale:


• “ ~ ” indicates partial completion of the criteria. • “ ✔– ” signifies that the item of criteria has been mostly fulfilled.



• “ ✔+ ” indicates that the criteria item has been completely fulfilled.

Summary of the Four Beat Alternative



Workload Equalized



✔+ ✔+ ✔+ ✔+ ✔+




1. INTRODUCTION The project team also examined the feasibility of a 14 beat structure alternative. The beat configuration was

developed as a middle ground between the alternatives featuring a smaller number of beats covering a greater area – the

four and 11 beat structures – and those that either maintained or modified the current structure. In doing so, the 14 beat

alternative seeks to preserve and enhance the community interaction and regional accountability of patrol units, while still

equalizing crime, calls for service, and overall workload. To accomplish this, a key focus in the design of the configuration

was to integrate neighborhoods and business districts entirely within beat areas, without dividing them unnecessarily. It

should be noted that Police management originally believed that 11 beats would best meet service goals. However, after

working with and listening to the concerns brought by the project committee which consisted of members from all ranks,

they agreed to that a 14 beat solution is preferred. The community’s input also led to this conclusion.

As with the other descriptive sections, each data table will be followed by its corresponding map.

2. CALLS FOR SERVICE The following table displays the total calls for service in 2013, as they would be distributed in the alternative 14 beat

structure:




Beat Area # of CFS % of Total 1 3,274 7.0% 2 3,867 8.2% 3 3,469 7.4% 4 3,265 7.0% 5 3,309 7.0% 6 3,137 6.7% 7 3,114 6.6% 8 3,349 7.1% 9 3,170 6.8% 10 3,216 6.9% 11 3,462 7.4% 12 3,362 7.2% 13 3,470 7.4% 14 3,480 7.4% TOTAL 46,944 100.0% AVG 3,353.1 7.1%

• Calls for service are spread very evenly across the fourteen beats, with only one having above 3,500 calls in a

single year. • The range between the beat with the lowest total number of calls (3,137) to the beat with the highest total (3,867) is

relatively minor – a different of 730, or about 21.8% of the average beat.








Beat Area Part I Crimes % of Total 1 438 7.3% 2 526 8.8% 3 358 6.0% 4 525 8.8% 5 587 9.8% 6 440 7.4% 7 597 10.0% 8 440 7.4% 9 426 7.1% 10 235 3.9% 11 320 5.4% 12 285 4.8% 13 299 5.0% 14 488 8.2% TOTAL 5,965 100.0% AVG 426 7.1%

• Although crime is spread somewhat evenly throughout the city, the variation in crime totals among different beats is

greater than that of calls for service. • Compared with the current 18 beat structure, most areas have crime levels that are relatively closer to the group

average. • As has been the case in some of the other beat configurations, many of the southernmost beats experience some

of the lowest crime totals in the city.






The following table provides the total workload of patrol units in 2013 involving responses to community-generated

calls for service, according to how those calls would have been located in the 14 beat alternative – including totals for

primary (the initial responding officer) and any and all backup units:



Total Backup Hours Total Hours % Total

1 1,656.5 1,786.8 3,443.4 7.57% 2 1,982.8 1,987.7 3,970.5 8.73% 3 1,550.9 1,585.4 3,136.3 6.89% 4 1,520.1 1,836.1 3,356.2 7.38% 5 1,514.2 1,982.9 3,497.1 7.68% 6 1,406.1 1,661.5 3,067.6 6.74% 7 1,738.4 1,520.3 3,258.7 7.16% 8 1,559.5 1,760.5 3,320.0 7.30% 9 1,381.6 1,372.6 2,754.2 6.05% 10 1,695.4 1,684.1 3,379.6 7.43% 11 1,712.6 1,425.5 3,138.1 6.90% 12 1,552.3 1,464.0 3,016.3 6.63% 13 1,608.4 1,469.2 3,077.5 6.76% 14 1,557.7 1,533.8 3,091.5 6.79% TOTAL 22,436.6 23,070.3 45,506.8 100.00% AVG 1,602.6 1,647.9 3,250.5 7.14%

• The total hours of workload for units in each beat ranges from 2,754 to 3,971 – within approximately 37.4% of the

average. • While the variation in total unit workload hours is significantly greater than it is for calls for service numbers, the

differences between each beat are not relatively major.









Beat Area # of CFS % from AVG 1 3,274 -2.4% 2 3,867 15.3% 3 3,469 3.5% 4 3,265 -2.6% 5 3,309 -1.3% 6 3,137 -6.4% 7 3,114 -7.1% 8 3,349 -0.1% 9 3,170 -5.5% 10 3,216 -4.1% 11 3,462 3.2% 12 3,362 0.3% 13 3,470 3.5% 14 3,480 3.8% TOTAL 46,944 – AVG 3,353.1 0.0000

• Calls for service totals fall along a very narrow range– ten of the fourteen beats are within plus-or-minus 5% of the

group average. • The only beat with over 10% of the average number of calls for service is located in the Downtown area, despite

also being the smallest beat by area in the entire city.








• Calls for service have been equalized very closely, with only one beat having above 10% of the average total for the group.

• Major crime and workload have also been fairly equalized across the beats, although not to the same degree as

calls for service. • The high workload of Beat 4 is significantly mitigated by the bike units of the Department, whose patrol area covers

much of the beat. • Neighborhood integrity has been effectively preserved in this alternative. • Geographic accountability at a very local level is maintained in the 14 beat configuration, especially in comparison

to the 4 and 11 beat structures. • Furthermore, the total beat count has been reduced enough to allow for the creation of a flex unit. • Efficient officer travel is not a key concern in this configuration. • Another advantage of the 14 beat alternative is that, being an even number of beats, it collapses down to combine

beats during the morning hours when call for service workloads decline as the 18 beat structure does today. This is shown in the map on the following page.






following scale:






Workload Equalized



✔+ ✔– ✔– ✔+ ✔+ ✔+ ✔+

In comparison to the other alternatives examined, the 14 Beat structure for the Berkeley Police Department best

meets the criteria established for use in this study. In many ways, the 14 beat configuration serves as a midpoint between

the various other alternatives, balancing geographic accountability with equalization of workload and the ability to create a

flexible patrol unit.

Documents

Police Patrol Beat Evaluation Study CITY OF BERKELEY ... · 8/20/2014 · to the economic downturn, staffing levels were reduced with patrol staff covering the same number of beats: