City Set To Remove Key Functions from Police Department to New Department of Social Services and Housing
By David M. Greenwald
Executive Editor
Davis, CA – A council subcommittee of Mayor Gloria Partida and Councilmember Will Arnold are recommending the city council approve a new department of Social Services and Housing and begin recruitment of a department director as part of the nine recommendations for reimaging policing in Davis.
“The overarching recommendation for this report is the creation of a new department to focus on social services, housing and homelessness,” the subcommittee wrote. “In addition, the department would have staff to analyze data relevant to community health and safety, which includes data from the police and fire departments.”
The new organization would include the following core areas: early intervention and prevention, mental health and crisis intervention, affordable housing, homeless services, code enforcement, data analysis and administration.
The proposed new department would have seven full time positions and come at a cost of roughly $434,000 in et new recurring costs. In current budget process, the council reserved about $790,000 in funds from the city’s American Rescue Plan Act allocation.
Positions would include three positions that are net new costs—Department Director, Affordable Housing Manager and Homeless Services Manager which transitions from the current Police Services Specialist. They will also add positions with no new costs: Homeless Outreach Coordinator, Data Analyst and Management Analyst.
Three commissions—Social Services, Police Accountability, and Human Relations—provided the original report and recommendations for reimagining 
public safety to the City Council in December 2020.
The group met over the course of several months and ultimately made nine recommendations to council.
In addition, a council subcommittee evaluated the Crisis Now model and in September, the council voted to allocate $1.17 million to partner with Yolo County on the Crisis Now effort.
A separate subcommittee met to determine whether and which city services currently assigned to the police department should be assigned to other departments.
“The key conclusions were that changes made should go beyond optics, lead to real improvement for all citizens in service provision in areas of community need, provide safety and ensure they make operational sense, and stay within legal boundaries,” the subcommittee writes.
Homeless services: “Building off public sentiment that the police department was not the best equipped to address needs of unsheltered individuals and the initial changes in June to move existing homeless services staff out of the police department, staff and the subcommittee looked at the services provided and needed under the homeless services umbrella.”
Staff notes: “Homeless Services is part of a broader continuum that includes shelter, mental health services, social services, and affordable housing.”
Affordable housing: “While the police department is not actively engaged in affordable housing issues outside of homelessness, the continuum of services for the unhoused also begs for the re-introduction of a City Affordable Housing Manager (a position formally funded until 2016) to oversee the myriad functional responsibilities and policy development for affordable housing needs in Davis.”
They add, “Currently, this function is not given full attention and is currently accomplished, and only partially so, via multiple staff spanning two departments (city manager’s office and community development with contract assistance from Yolo County Housing) resulting in inefficiencies and challenges with prioritization of limited staff resources.”
Code enforcement: “Similar to homelessness services, code enforcement can exist (and has been) in many different departments over the years.”
Staff noted: “The proposed department will provide this coordinating role, led by the department director.”
Mental Health and Crisis Intervention: “One of the original recommendations from the commission subcommittee report was to work with County partners to build an integrated ‘Crisis Now’-type model for behavioral health emergencies. In September, the City Council unanimously supported the request to join Yolo County in a Crisis Now model and dedicated $1.17 million to the effort.
“With pursuit of Crisis Now there will be a need for City leadership to assist with program implementation with Yolo County. Charging the new department with this responsibility will ensure that City resources are coordinated and maximized and that feedback loops of program analysis, and evaluation of effectiveness are integrated.”
Early Intervention and Prevention: “As with mental health and crisis intervention, there are many existing and potential community partners involved in early intervention and prevention activities for youth, seniors, and vulnerable populations. Having a central location with the City government to assist with coordination among these various community navigator providers will improve the city’s positioning for community health and safety.”
Data analysis: “A unique feature of this organizational structure is the use of a data analyst to dig into information related to community health and safety. The information that this position is anticipated to review cuts across the City’s housing, homelessness, social services, police and fire department functions, all of which will benefit from centralized data analysis to inform data-supported policy directions.”
Parking and Traffic enforcement: “After careful review, it is not recommended to move parking enforcement or traffic enforcement from the police department. Both present legal and logistical challenges to moving them from the police department. Due to legal logistics, parking enforcement does not seem to be a better fit in any other department at this time and also faces both practical and legal challenges.”
Wasn’t this being sold as a cost savings for the city? Remember, defund the police? Was that just a ruse in order to get the program through?
I had to sign in as Barack because a popup said a new app wasn’t finished yet in order for me to sign in using Facebook.
(Moderator: fixed your name for you to keep the comment up)
Fair criticism.
In the newsletter I wrote:
The other issue that will be raised by critics is cost. I agree. $400,000-plus in annual recurring costs is a lot. The critics will say so much for cost-savings.
They have a point. I think the city would argue that the structures in place have costs, eventually, reduction in calls for service and the Crisis Now model will be a cost savings for the city – but that may take some time.
Frankly, this is why I don’t think we should ever be talking about cost savings with programs of this sort. It’s not realistic. We need to do this because it will provide better services to the city – and perhaps they will reduce the growth of police which will save costs in the long run – but not today.
Funny but those pushing for this often cited the CAHOOTS model and the $8.5 million of savings that it supposedly created in Eugene. Then why didn’t Davis do the CAHOOTS model instead of this one which is already going to cost the city an additional $434,000 yearly and one can pretty much surmise that these costs will just get steeper and steeper as the program balloons?
CAHOOTS just dealt with mental health calls. This goes way beyond that.
I think the basic problem here – they added program without subtracting anything. So CAHOOTS meant they needed fewer cops and that’s where the cost savings came from. That’s one point I would make – this is year 0. Do you realize cost savings at some point in say year 2 or 3? We don’t know yet, but until it reduces the need for cops, do you want the city to cut police officers? I’m going to go with a no on that one. So that’s the issue in part.
Wanna bet?
What’s going to be interesting is seeing who ends up being employed in these seven new positions.
Just making the point that in order to save money, you have to cut police positions and that’s probably not something you are going to want to do unless you see results to justify that.
What newsletter?
I’m guessing not so many Republicans.
For a city that claims to be experiencing fiscal challenges.
How would they know if the $434,000 would actually solve any of the claimed problems? How much would costs rise in the future? Are pensions and future medical costs for these positions accounted for, as well?
There seems to be a myriad of claimed problems that this money would supposedly solve – some perhaps more real than others. Some seem to be driven more by ideology, than anything else.
Would they subsequently measure how effectively these new positions are solving the claimed problems? Has an existing baseline regarding these claimed problems been established to measure against?
Is this a legal use of this money? Are these one-time funds? What else could this money be used for (e.g., fixing roads)?
Good questions.
‘ How would they know if the $434,000 would actually solve any of the claimed problems? “
How do you ever know that any policy will work?
Not what I asked. I asked how will they subsequently know whether or not it worked.
To know that, one has to establish a baseline which can subsequently be measured against. In other words, existing data regarding these claimed problems.
Given that there’s a myriad of claimed problems (and apparently, no plans to subsequently measure effectiveness), this sounds more like an ideological pursuit.
Sort of like a “throwing of spaghetti” against a wall approach. Or more accurately, multiple plates of spaghetti thrown at multiple walls. This is what happens when local governments get temporary “free money”, it seems. At least, I assume it’s temporary.
So what you are asking is what are the metrics of success?
Certainly they will have the crisis now stats. Beyond that I think it’s going to be hard to have a definite pulse on that. Some of it is simply philosophical – which department should be handling a given issue. but I do think it’s a good question to ask what does success look like.
I believe there would be a problem defining the correct categories for “crisis”. For example, not all mental health “crises” result in law enforcement problems. Nor do all require assistance from public agencies.
That’s actually a type of health care issue that insurance generally covers. Perhaps not all that well, but most plans have some form of coverage for it.
I certainly would not recommend calling 9-1-1 for any type of mental health care crisis, short of an immediate threat to harm oneself or others. Honestly, what “help” would anyone expect to receive from that?
Nor would I categorize those living on the street as necessarily being in “crisis”.
And if anyone wants to talk about where someone personally lives, maybe they should ask all of the homeless people if they’re originally (fill-in-the-name-of-the-town) residents.
Also, when a homeless person moves into a particular town, are they then a “resident”?
They are a resident, in that they reside, but they are not a citizen, in that they do not citiz.
Given that they are not cutting any of the budget, positions, or duties from the police department, might it be more accurate to state that the city is adding a new department and services? Rather than removing them from the police department?
Right now there are five or six functions that are performed by the police department that are being removed from that department and placed under this new department
Which of these “five or six functions” are currently handled by the police department? I only see one possibility (code enforcement), and I’m not even sure what codes are being referred to.
Or, are you referring to “five or six” other functions which aren’t described above?
Everything but affordable housing is currently handled by police
I don’t believe that any of these are handled by police:.
Early intervention and prevention. (To intervene and prevent “what”, by the way?) Do the police run youth facilities to prevent crime, for example? What programs are they currently involved with, if any?
Mental health and crisis intervention (in that police are not mental health care providers). I understand that police may take someone to a facility for treatment at times, and that they may be summoned if someone is threatening to hurt themselves or others (essentially, “code violation”). But they are not involved beyond that.
There are mental health care provides which exist outside of city services departments.
Affordable housing.
Data analysis and administration (not sure what this even refers to).
So, the only one I can see is code enforcement (and there’s plenty of codes that the police already don’t enforce).
You are incorrect.
Makes one wonder if the Public Safety charge on Davis utility bills will see a hike in the future to cover this new program?
The $434 k figure seems unrealistically low… even the $790 k #… Ron O is on the right track,
Not to mention, office space, equipment (computers, etc.), support services (incremental costs in Finance, HR, IT resources), vacation, sick leave, etc., etc. 3 of the positions appear to be “management”.
David may be correct in asserting, “what price for better services?”, but the ‘price’ does not begin to realistic as currently stated. The $790 k # is ~$113 k per position… the reliance on ‘volunteers’ to effectively, consistently provide services is questionable.
To have a realistic discussion, we need realistic #’s.
I am neither for or against the proposal… too little reliable #’s to make a rational judgement, either way.
How is defunding the police going?
How about abolishing the police – is that on track?
How about creating an atmosphere in Davis between police and the citizenry that’s toxic enough that many cops including the police chief decide to live somewhere else, how’s that program going?
I would say since they have implemented crisis now, moving mental health responses, code enforcement, and homeless services out of the police department, defunding police is going pretty well.
Alan M… it might be part of a movement to fund and/or ‘super fund’ social workers (they need to have at least $130k /year salary + all benefits… currently, grossly undercompensated compared to other ‘professionals’) … can just see a social worker approaching me and saying “I am sympathetic to your loss (property, loved one due to assault or murder, etc.)… “how do you feel about that?” And /or, “Oh, you shouldn’t feel that way, as the ones who did this are probably victims themselves! You need to get over that… we have resources…”
We’ll have to see how this actually plays out… the die is cast… no asking for a re-deal… the cards have to be played out.
The comments by Ron, Keith, Alan, and Bill are so unhelpful. So kneejerk
Ron, for someone who apparently doesn’t live in Davis I cannot figure out what your actual motive is for questioning what the city does with its money. If you want to know if the use of ARP money for the establishment of this department, why don’t you write to the City Manager and/or file a FOI request for documents instead of just carping in the Vanguard.
There is more than one way for someone to have connections to Davis, and/or the impact of its decisions. For that matter, I’ve never personally disclosed where I live, nor have I discussed all of the ways that someone may have a connection. It’s really none of anyone’s business on a political, public blog.
Nor does it actually have anything to do with the substance of comments put forth. As such, comments such as yours are essentially a personal attack, intended to undermine the substance of comments. Unfortunately, you’re not the only one who does so.
Let me know when it’s a requirement on the Vanguard to disclose everything about oneself. For that matter, it’s not even a requirement when speaking directly to officials.
By the way, I haven’t looked up where you live, nor do I actually care. Though I believe I do know the general area.
Yeah, your reason for that conclusion is so “kneejerk”.
I second that. Why are our comments unhelpful? Because you don’t agree with the points that were made?
I know when to take a knee… so I guess the first part of your “so helpful the the conversation” term does not apply to you… just the last 4 letters…
I question the math… I clearly said, nothing more, nothing less… it appears you have an interesting belief system… anyone who disagrees with you paradigms, beliefs are “so unhelpful” … you’re entitled to your paradigms, beliefs… you also seem bent (double entendre) to discount those who do not share them.
Even when they only ask for more information.
So, Mr Canning, all wise and perfect, enjoy the evening. You’re entitled… (pun unintended)
I wasn’t trying to be helpful 😐
This whole thread is uninformed and doesn’t recognize the history of policing and social services over the last forty years. We (as in the public, the citizenry, and their leaders) never full funded social services enough and ended up delegating many of the tasks to the police. This effort to start a new department is a way to help the police so they are not distracted by some of these tasks and can do a better job of what they are supposed to do. Our society has unfortunately decided that we can solve too many problems by making activities criminal, thus forcing the tasks onto the police.
There’s valid reasons that most laws were enacted. For the most part, they were enacted to prevent someone from doing harm to someone else. Most people are able to follow those laws, for the most part.
And it usually takes a lot more than “not wearing a mask” to come to the attention of police. (Not so long ago, masks were part of the “costume” for criminals, for that matter.)
(I’m still hoping that someone dresses up like the Shaman guy, for Halloween.)
In general – if you come to the attention of police, you are creating a problem for someone else (e.g., society at large).
Ron says: “if you come to the attention of police, you are creating a problem for someone else (e.g. society at large).” This is a good example of post-hoc reasoning: If the police take notice, it must be wrong.
He also says: “There’s valid reasons that most laws were enacted. For the most part, they were enacted to prevent someone from doing harm to someone else.”
Laws are social constructions. As goes society, so goes the law. Laws come and go as attitudes, knowledge, and morals change. In part, that’s why we don’t punish consumption of marijuana any longer, or consensual sex between non-married adults, etc. etc. In some places in this country it was illegal for people of a certain skin color to swim with those of another skin color, or drink from the same water fountains. Were those “valid reasons”?
Point noted.
Are there any laws you disagree with, now? I suspect that everyone can list some.
I disagree with this, for example:
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/reports/2019/09/10/474256/vast-liquidation-public-lands-underway-alaska/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1977/09/11/the-great-alaskan-land-grab/26b36c33-0de6-4065-9292-9e606c80d045/
But for sure, I don’t support changes in law simply because one arbitrary group might be committing more offenses than another arbitrary group. And yet, some would actually use that as the primary basis for creating or eliminating laws.
If they’re going to take that position, they should (also) be concerned about any law that impacts one gender (or age group) more than another such grouping. But, they never are.
Funny… in a sense…
Your 2019 cite… who was prez, and who had control of the Senate…
116th United States Congress – Wikipedia
Equally interesting, your 1977 cite… Carter was prez, and both houses were controlled by Demos…
95th United States Congress – Wikipedia
So, if you disagree with both, who do you trust? Demos, Reps, or none of the above? I am in the latter category…
Mo Udall (Dem-AZ) was shunned by fellow Dems… first time, recently, an AZ Rep Senator bucked the ideology of the Reps was a guy named John McCain… I voted for each when I could.
I also voted for John Anderson.
Pretty much, all Dems and Reps hate folk like me. Which is cool by me…
Who do YOU trust to make the laws?
As they say, the problem is “systemic” in nature. Mostly having to do with various corruptive influences.
Usually related to money.
But also, it would probably be unusual to find any politician or group that any individual agrees with 100% of the time. And sometimes, legitimate compromises must be made to gain agreement.
“There’s valid reasons that most laws were enacted. For the most part, they were enacted to prevent someone from doing harm to someone else.”
This is an extraordinarily superficial comment. Valid is of course in the eye of the beholder.
But observe:
1. There is a class of laws is designed to prevent harm but that’s hardly the majority
2. There is a class of laws that were designed to subjugate one groups or groups and keep the dominant group in power
3. There is a class of laws that were designed to enforce the dominant group’s morality
4. There is a class of laws that were designed to protect the property rights of the dominant group
5. There is a class of laws that are administrative in nature and thus designed to bring in government revenue
There is some harm prevention here, but that probably is a small and minority class of laws.
Finally and this specifically pertains to the issue at hand – there is a belief that we have expanded the role of policing far outside of their expertise that we needed to fundamentally shift them back to class one and to some extent class four. If you look at a lot of reform efforts – a lot of it is aimed away from police as administrative enforcers and away from police as mental health enforcers and away from police as morality enforcers.
I agree that some laws shouldn’t exist. And that your class 1 law should be enforced.
For my understanding, what class of law would parking enforcement be? For example, parking at a green parking space longer than the allowed time?
I know you could say that parking at Red, blue, or white qualifies as class 1 violation to more extend. But what about green spaces? Should the law remain? Who may enforce that kind of law?
5 – administrative, seeking revenue
Is class 5 law a class of laws you want to get rid of? Or are you saying they should exist but could be self-enforced, or enforced by something that is not called the police?
For my understanding of your classification:
What about the class of law that protect property rights and equal opportunities for everyone, but do not involve any physical threat?
Does that qualify as harm in your Class 1? (when you say harm, do you only mean physical harm or also property and opportunity injuries?)
Unless you want to engage in (let’s just say more than one article), which laws off the top of your head are not designed to prevent that – in one way or another?
Let’s take one example from your list (administrative). If there was no law requiring people to pay taxes to offset their impacts, would that not harm others? (Of course, those laws go much further than that, and are usually designed to ensure that one group is legally bound to help another group via the additional taxes they are required to pay. Income taxes are an example of this, as the percentage that one must pay rises as income rises.
In regard to the other categories you’ve “observed”, much of what you listed are political arguments, not necessarily reality.
To put it more simply, which laws do you disagree with, off the top of your head? In relation to what you’ve “observed”, perhaps?
Is this where it’s all heading?
Exactly we’ll see that in Davis in two years if these changes go through… guaranteed.
What happens when the temporary money that the city received from the federal government runs out?
And is anyone actually looking at how those funds are supposed to be spent in accordance with law (and the controls in place to ensure that)? In other words, the intent of that money, the strings attached, the accounting records, etc.?
(The questions in my second paragraph reminds me of a particular game show, in which the answer would be “Things that an auditor looks at”.)
An increase in the Public Safety charge on Davis utility bills?
Yet another parcel tax?
That would require a vote
As was explained to me, the one time money will go to fixed costs, not ongoing ones.
Is that right?
If those are the one-time costs, what (how much) are the ongoing costs? And, where is that money coming from?
$434K is the ongoing – two new positions and four positions transferred from the department.
From the staff report: “No additional budget allocation is needed at this time to initiate the formation of the department. Staff expects that adjustments for future fiscal years will be brought forward as part of the FY23-25 budget process, including revenue/expenditure strategies to ensure long term funding sustainability.”
How about if they figure out “strategies to ensure long term funding sustainability” in regard to the costs that the city is already incurring without this expansion of services?
By the way, were the four positions that are being transferred vacant/unfilled positions? (No existing personnel, and no existing costs?)
Link to the staff report
From those with a point of view like David’s, the answer has nothing to do with the color of the parking space.
Instead, David would look at the color of the recipients of enforcement, to determine his support (or lack thereof), for the law. And if one color engages in these infractions more often than another color, he would likely support elimination of said law.
(A simplification of the underlying viewpoint, to be sure.)
The issue here is whether an armed police officer needs to be responsible for such fees or whether it can be handled administratively from another entity. Trying to keep this conversation on topic at least a little bit.
Doesn’t Davis already have “meter maids” (or more politely, “unarmed parking enforcement personnel”)?
Aren’t they, in fact responsible for almost all enforcement of such infractions?
It’s all in the police department. They would shift it to the Social Services Department.
A separate subcommittee consisting of WHOM exactly?