By Emily Dill
DAVIS — Tuesday’s City Council meeting was overwhelmed by a surge in public comment surrounding the Temporary Joint Subcommittee’s recommendations on public safety. There were 162 commenters who called in for this item of the agenda.
The meeting adjourned around 1:00 a.m. as council members listened to each public comment and saved their own discussion of the subcommittee’s recommendation report for their Dec. 15 meeting.
This agenda item began with a presentation of the report by four members of the subcommittee – Bapu Vaitla, Judith MacBrine, Emma O’Rourke-Powell and Dillan Horton. After which, councilmembers Will Arnold and Brett Lee shared their gratitude with the subcommittee for the report. Arnold stated, “It didn’t strike me as unachievable, and that’s important.”
The majority of commenters echoed the council members in support of the recommendations, many feeling that this is a step in the right direction. There were 137 members of the public who voiced their support of the recommendations, 22 that disagreed and three that varied.
“I support a new independent public safety department that handles non-violent calls and social services,” said one public commenter, encapsulating the feelings of most who voiced their support Tuesday night. Recommendation number nine of the report, to change the structure or department set up that the city currently has with the Davis Police Department and
their influence on the social services of the town, was a popular topic.
Several commenters voiced a need to have “an investigation and elimination” of the alarming racial disparities that data has brought forth. Recommendation one on the report focused on this and was another highlight for the public.
The recommendations report was crafted from evidence-based reforms, offering solutions to the public who feel “we really need a data driven approach to evaluate racism in our police departments and in our city.” Another member of the public emphasized the issues with our criminal justice system and its focus on punishment, stating, “the punitive system that we have right now only further ostracized and leads to further crime.”
Many shared personal experiences of issues with police in Davis. Rachel Schroeder discussed two different encounters they witnessed within the year. Schroeder said, “Both these encounters were with community members of racial minorities.” They were non-emergency calls in which the DPD “dispatched multiple armed officers.”
Schroeder went on to emphasize that lived experience of community members, alongside the racial disparities observed in the data highlight, calling it “a system of harassment and terror on Black and indigenous people of color.”
Some voiced their support for the recommendations with an emphasis on the fear.
“I have a sister who is schizophrenic,” one commenter shared. “I could get a call any minute telling me the Oakland police were justified in shooting her because she was acting uncontrollably.”
An individual who “lives down the street from where Christopher Gray was shot” voiced his support for these recommendations on re-envisioning public safety. Gray was fatally shot by police during a mental health crisis in December 2019.
The CAHOOTS model (Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets) used in Eugene, Oregon was commonly referred to in public comment Tuesday night. This model mobilizes two-person teams that consist of a crisis worker and a medic who respond to a wide-range of mental health crises.
Commenter Emma Carney stated that the unarmed mobile crisis team responds to “24,000 calls in one year and only 150 of those calls required police backup,” proving that “less than one percent” of these calls turn violent.
Individuals from various organizations like the Yolo County ACLU, ASUCD, Davis College Democrats and HOPE at Davis called in to voice their support on this change.
While the majority of commenters felt that these recommendations were a step in the right direction, some called in with their concerns of increased crime in the area and the need for more police presence, rather than less.
One commenter felt that “the country is going in the wrong direction.”
“Instead of looking to reimagine or defund police, you should look at the increasing police resources to address the problems of the city,” another commenter voiced. “There are not enough officers patrolling the streets. Crime is increasing.”
Some felt that “this [decreased police involvement] is victimizing our city and the people that live here who pay all the taxes.”
Putting the differing opinions on police reform in perspective, one commenter stated that “those of us who advocate a tough on crime stance and those who support the recommendations do agree that we want to avert harm.” They went on to emphasize that “a main difference is that the former is basing their plea on a natural human wish to make the bad guy go away, while the latter is coming from the social science of what is effective.”
The City Council’s discussion of the recommendation’s report will take place at the Dec. 15 meeting.
Emily Dill is a fourth year Political Science major at UC Davis, also minoring in Professional Writing and Environmental Policy.
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
I’m going to state the obvious…
With calls for increased police presence, and calls for a different model, using SW’s and medics for reponse to non-violent, and/or MH responses, no matter how ‘configured’, the “new normal” will result in increased personnel, and therefore costs… except perhaps for ‘attrition’, there will be no layoffs of existing staff… some might be ‘re-purposed’, but I doubt it.
Just so everyone “owns it”, we are talking about increased City staffing and resulting costs… if that’s the right thing, let’s do it… but with eyes wide open…
It depends on how they do it. The CAHOOTS model involves a public-private partnership.
Did the CAHOOTS model reduce total personnel, total costs, or was only a portion of increased costs ‘mitigated’ to some extent by the private contibutions? Who in Davis would step up to the plate, now, from the private side? Am thinking that’s a nice, feel good, poly sci concept, but I’m talking reality, “boots on the ground” financial backing from the private sector…
Meant as honest, fair questions…
Meaning what exactly? Public-private partnership is often a sound-good term that is used to funnel government money into a private company or non-profit. It doesn’t necessarily mean there is net savings to the taxpayer.
Alan
“It doesn’t necessarily mean there is net savings to the taxpayer.”
Agreed. But a “net savings to the taxpayer” may not be the overriding goal. A significant improvement in services may be the overarching consideration.
It may not be a goal, but may be a ‘consideration’ if there are no funding sources.
How to pay for that, possibly a “defund the police” parcel tax?
Wouldn’t that be paradoxical.
Eugene, Oregon calculated they save between $8 and $9 million a year on the CAHOOTS model.
Actually may be underselling it:
Link: NPR interview
And yes, Eugene is larger than Davis, but one possibility is a countywide model of shared pool.
Compared to alternatives (increased police expenditures, other public costs), or actual savings from previous costs? Did they do a RIF to achieve that? If the CAHOOTS cost is “X”, then to save $$$, they would have had to reduce existing costs by $8-9 Million, + “X”… by what you cite… yet, then you cite a $15 million reduction out of $90 million (two cities)… does that include just current costs (salary only?), or LT obligations, like pensions, etc.?
Bill
If you have questions about the Eugene CAHOOTS savings, you have the links to the information you need to find out more. My reading is that the savings are in overall system costs including reduced incarceration and hospitalization costs.
This initiative is like spending more on the IRS for audits. Sure the line item expense increases, but the increased revenues and savings more than offset those costs. Think systemically.
That would also be “public funding”, not “public/private”… and, I think the proper adjective is “ironic”, not “paradoxical”…
Paradoxical
Definition……having the nature of aparadox; self-contradictory.
I think paradoxical fits, so I’ll go with it.
Cool… but the concept of “de-funding police” was not about saving tax dollars (no change in taxes), it was about re-allocation of where those existing tax dollars go… my take-away from the discussion in the article was some folk wanted more police presence, but some folk want even more, less armed public safety presence… not just a re-allocation, but new services…
I see a net increase in costs (I sincerely doubt the ‘private side’ will come to bat… except for private charities, the private side is ‘conservative’, “tight with the buck”), and I just want to have folks “eyes open”… you brought up the parcel tax thing… you characterized it with one adjective, I another… no biggie… but please do not engage on definitions… I only opined, as did you… don’t try to “correct” my opinion… you don’t want to go there… I did NOT say you were wrong, I suggested an alternative, and you were prompted to ‘strike back’ … humbly suggest you be an adult.
Ironically, you lend credence to my point… it is not a ‘paradox’, in that no one seems to be looking for tax relief (or increasing taxes) by re-allocating resources, or de-funding police… it’s “about reallocation” for most… but I opine that total costs will increase, and that either means reallocation from other sources, other services, or increased revenues… I just don’t see the private sector moving up to the plate. Not in Davis, anyhow… too many private wallets are too close to a private orifice… pretty sure you can relate…
“Eugene is larger than Davis”
There are other significant differences as well. Eugene isn’t a short drive from so many high poverty areas. Therefore, it isn’t as susceptible to people driving here to commit property crimes or worse, the way we are.
Careful – I generated some “responses” by comparing Davis to surrounding/nearby communities in another article. 😉
I’m laughing about it now, as I type this. I had trouble taking any of it seriously.
CAHOOTs responds to mental health crisis calls not property crimes.
What percentage of calls are for “mental health crises”?
What percentage of those have a potential for violence (by those suffering from mental health crises)?
A police officer was killed in Davis not too long ago (totally unprovoked), by someone suffering from a mental health crisis.
“A police officer was killed in Davis not too long ago (totally unprovoked), by someone suffering from a mental health crisis.”
Which brings me to the importance of prevention. Could Natalies’s death have been prevented if there had been some type of intervention prior to the shooter’s mental deterioration to this point? The cost is not just in dollars but is frequently measured in lives lost, or at least unnecessary medical harm.
I don’t know, Tia. But, I do know that these types of debates have been going on for decades.
In any case, I doubt that most calls to the police are due to a concern regarding someone’s mental health. Or, even the “result of” mental health. (Unless we view all of those committing crimes as being “mentally ill”.)
Crimes are not limited to property, either.
” I doubt that most calls to the police are due to a concern regarding someone’s mental health. Or, even the “result of” mental health.”
Why is that an important point? All the CAHOOTS model does is say that when a call is primarily a mental health call, that the first responder is a trained social worker rather than an armed police officer. Nothing prevents a back up to the police, although CAHOOTS cites a low percentage of such calls.
Exploring that may lead to a other questions.
On its face, that sounds fine. Probably goes to decisions regarding how/when that occurs. You know more about the program than I do.
But again, if there’s few calls that are actually determined to be mental health calls, this may not be an impactful program.
In Eugene, CAHOOTS responded to 20 percent of all mental health calls. Obviously that probably would vary community to community, but that gives you a start.
20% of all “mental health” calls? Not 20% of all calls, I assume.
Sounds like a small number. Maybe not even enough to have dedicated staff, in an efficient and timely manner?
I read it to be 20 percent of all call, “Last year, the program’s crisis workers responded to about 20% of the 911 calls the city received, which is a total of about 24,000 calls. Only 150 of those needed backup from police.” Link
What are your criteria? How many people diverted from the criminal justice system to the mental health system, and how many individuals prevented from being seriously or fatally wounded by armed police would it take to make the program impactful?
I see that.
A lot of this might go back to having mentally-ill, de-institutionalized people living on the street. Throughout West coast cities, in particular.
Which then goes to the question of “what happens next”, after Cahoots gets involved.
Back on the street?
Then again, there seems to be some movement toward permanent “hotel” housing, throughout the state. I believe that one of these hotels might be near Mace (on the south side of the freeway), but I’m not sure of that.
I wonder how many calls originate from those type of hotels. Maybe that’s where Cahoots should be stationed. 😉
Between 2.9 – 3.2 calls per year. I try to be flexible. 😉
Do the police shoot everyone they encounter? The paperwork alone would be a nightmare. 😉
No they don’t shoot most people they encounter, but they are also not particularly equipped to handle it. An example that I am familiar with, a teen was suicidal on a roof, the police come and they had no way to talk him down, he ended up jumping. Fortunately, he wasn’t up high enough to do real damage. But a trained social worker, should have been able to get him off the roof without the jump.
I can tell you a lot of homes with people suffering from mental illness are soaking up 10, 20, 30 maybe more calls by themselves. I know one house on the street where the police have come at least 10 times this year and the kid has been in the hospital more than he has been home. One time, the kid was holding a saw trying to hurt himself, the father was restraining him, and an officer came, couldn’t talk to him, so he just put cuffs on. It worked. But you would think you want someone who might be able to talk someone down, not just resort to force (this time very minimal thankfully).
Seems to me that the calls need to be analyzed (in terms of possible improvements), before concluding what might help (given always-limited resources).
But I would think that all emergency response centers should have the ability to include mental health professionals as part of a team.
In response to David’s 12:46 p.m. comment, one difference I might have with some of those on here could relate to the possibility of involuntary confinements. I also might have less faith in “de-escalation” as a total/complete solution, in general.
It seems to me that CAHOOTS has been successfully operating in Eugene for 30 years and you just thought about this for the first time today. I think I would go with what they have been doing and modify it to our situation.
Maybe so.
Perhaps there’s ultimately an opportunity for regional cooperation, as well.
(Like there is for MRAP – just kidding, sort of.) Can that thing be requested by Davis police, if needed?
Before I say this, let me say I agree with trying out something similar to the Eugene model of response. However, the above is a bit over-the-top. Having police respond doesn’t mean they are completely untrained in this and it will result in a jump; and having social workers respond doesn’t mean they will talk the person down without a jump. Social workers are still human, not angels – and some people are gonna jump no matter who responds. I just don’t think this kind of argument helps the conversation.
I just saw first hand, what police do well, what they don’t. Within you know a range. Social workers aren’t saints, but the CAHOOTS model has a long track record.
Apparently so (answered my own question). Just yankin the chain on here. 😉
https://www.davisenterprise.com/local-news/davis-mrap-didnt-go-far-woodland/
Maybe they can include a mental-health professional on board (e.g., for the school shooting example that’s mentioned).
Hey – not too many of those, lately. (An unintended “benefit” from the pandemic?)
Clearly, I’m going down too dark of a path, at this point.
Oh, wait – Davis relies upon West Sacramento’s MRAP, according to that article. Really?
What if I-80 is backed-up?
Yes. That thing (glorified Amazon delivery van) showed up in front of my house to deliver a SWAT team when that guy tried to steal drugs from the Pine Tree Garden offices at the arse end of I Street a few months back. I had a glorious front row seat to the show off my front porch. The “acceptable pretty MRAP” did not deliver my case of toilet paper, however.
???
Read my previous comments where I explain what I saw.
Ahh… but MH crisises can often lead to, be a part of, property crimes and personal assault/murder crimes… we have seen the latter two in Davis, many times (personal assault/murder)… the article even cites one… Christopher Gray… is it suggested, in a deja vu of that case, only an unarmed MH worker and a medic respond?
Guy who killed his roommate on Olympic? Elderly couple murdered in their home on Cowell? Natalie Corona? All were clearly MH issue related…
They can lead to other kinds of crimes, but that’s not what Ron Glick was referencing and not what CAHOOTS is designed to deal with. This doesn’t replace the police, it takes a chunk of their calls and transfers them.
“Guy who killed his roommate on Olympic? Elderly couple murdered in their home on Cowell? Natalie Corona? All were clearly MH issue related…”
None of that would be handled by something like CAHOOTS.
Eugene has a property crime rate of 32/1,000 and one of the highest rates of motor vehicle theft in the nation according to FBI crime data. Davis has a much lower property crime rate of 24.3 per 1,000 people.
“some called in with their concerns of increased crime in the area and the need for more police presence, rather than less.”
This concern neglects the point that if armed police officers were not being called out for mental health issues, they would be freed up and have more time to address actual crimes. It also neglects the concept that prevention of crime would lessen the need for officers to try to apprehend criminals.
“Defunding the police” was a terrible framing of the issue. I have seen many different suggestions. One of the best I have seen comes the closest to intent: “Reinforcing the Police”. This concept of funding other professionals to do what we currently assign to undertrained and underqualified police officers who often admit they are being stretched too thin by duties for which they are ill-prepared would seem to represent a best practices way forward.
AMEN to that!
And yet . . . when I bring this up with people I know who believe, they defend the slogan and then try to explain what it really means, and each explanation is different. Worse, google it and you’ll find those who originated the slogan actually believe police should be eliminated – even though I’m sure that group is tiny. The problem is, those who want major reform of our system (and I agree that’s needed) don’t distance themselves from the slogan. Progressives are often incredibly self-destructive to the positive aspects of their own movement, by being far too lenient on the extremists within.
I think re-imagining police is perhaps better or focusing on specific proposals. Defunding police is too similar to abolishing the police and often gets conflated with it.
I tend to agree those who want major reform need to distance themselves from the slogan.
Or better yet, “Re-imagine Public Safety”
“those who want major reform of our system (and I agree that’s needed) don’t distance themselves from the slogan.”
I agree with this point. Recently I encouraged a local activist group to back away from this slogan, to no avail. I think every minute we waste explaining to someone the fine points of what we mean when we use those words is a minute wasted that could have been used discussing actual systems improvement.
I 98+% agree with Alan, and you, Tia… bad ‘slogan’…
MH issues are often ‘latent’, undiscernable, until the short fuse is lit… to think otherwise is to deny reality… a MH issue in and of itself…
I have a question . . . I’ve heard a lot of anecdotal reference to a large increase in crime in Davis – but I’ve not seen (perhaps I don’t pay attention) any actual stats on this. Is crime really way up, or does it just “seem” that way? I can understand some break-ins with less people in downtown, but I’d think with everyone at home, home burglaries would be way down, because as a rule most criminals aren’t brazen enough to purposefully go in to an occupied home.
There were numerous commenters on this item who were calling for more police and more patrols and saying that the coddling of criminals had to end. I believe one person said criminals were being given a ‘free pass’ in Davis or something like that. These comments were highly downplayed in this article.
Alan
I think it would be useful for those who see Davis as having a “high crime rate” to specify what crimes they are considering. Davis for instance is known for a high rate of bicycle theft. My son was a victim of this several times from leaving his bicycle unsecured, in an open garage, or from the racks where he “briefly” left it unlocked. If commenters are referring to this I agree. However, it is not clear to me that we have a statistically higher rate of other types of crime than similar or nearby communities.
Bicycle theft was an major issue in Davis in 1968 when my sister started college here. I helped apprehend and convict bike thieves from West Sac in 1990. In April I called in when one of the meth-opiod addicts (so-called homeless) who took over the railroad wye in April-May when one individual walked into our neighborhood three times in two hours and came back with new bicycles. The police did not respond.
But I don’t know if that’s an uptick. People who called in to the council-meeting were talking about downtown break-ins and thefts from their homes or neighbors homes.
So this seems to be pretty aggressive property crimes. My question is: what are the stats? Has there been an increase?