We don't know how crisis intervention will work. Is this really the time to cut OPD's budget? By Steve Heimoff

The subject of police overtime has become a hot topic in Oakland. Reformer-defunders argue that it’s the result of greedy cops and could easily be reduced by farming out services to mental health professionals. Meanwhile, OPD itself says overtime is the result of (a) too-low staffing levels and (b) events that require a large police presence, especially sideshows but also, occasionally, downtown riots.

That OPD overtime is high is beyond question. Last year OPD’s budget was $338 million, about 22% of Oakland’s overall budget. Meanwhile, overtime accounted for a little more than $35 million. (To put $35 million into perspective, that’s about 20% of the Fire Department’s annual budget.)

The reformer-defunders have a point when they argue that OPD could farm out cases involving mentally ill people to social workers and other crisis-intervention civilians, including EMTs and fire department personnel. This happens to be something OPD itself would like to see; officers hate responding to people wandering the streets shouting out obscenities. Such outsourcing of mental health cases has been proposed under Oakland’s MACRO (Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland) program, which the Coalition for a Better Oakland supports, with certain exceptions.

It’s not clear how much money OPD’s budget could be reduced by instituting MACRO. There are simply too many unknowns in the program, which was approved only two months ago and hasn’t even been formally launched. For instance, how much will it cost Oakland to pay for additional crisis interveners? Any money saved by reducing OPD’s staff would be offset by having to hire more EMTs, firefighters and social workers to respond to mental health emergencies.

The reformer-defunders are a little inconsistent here. On the one hand, they’re outraged that overtime is so high. But on the other hand, they also argue that farming out mental cases to social workers and EMTs would mean “a less-violent Oakland,” according to one of the city’s leading reformer-defunders, Cat Brooks. Her theory is that an EMT or social worker responding to a mentally ill person would be less likely to shoot that person. So for people like Brooks, saving money doesn’t seem to be her objective.

Another question about MACRO is what happens when the mentally ill person being engaged by an EMT or social worker becomes violent? The East Bay Times reported in March that when Treva Reid, the City Council member from District 7, asked “what would warrant calling police if the person in crisis picks up a weapon, even if a response team has been sent…No one at the council meeting provided a specific answer.”

In other words, if the person became violent, the cops would have to come anyway. And who knows how many mentally ill people become violent? It could be none, it could be a lot. It’s clear that the ambiguities of MACRO will remain, until we see how the one-year pilot program actually works.

At the same time, overtime does not seem to be due to “police officer greed.” It’s true that dozens of OPD cops earn more than Mayor Libby Schaaf due to overtime, but they’re volunteering in response to calls from senior management to respond to a sideshow, riot or some similar emergency. With OPD staffing at near-record lows (full staffing is about 792 officers; the current number is under 710, with more cops quitting every week), someone has to fill in the void. These volunteers are not manipulating the system in some illegal or unethical way; they’re working a lot because the need is there, and they like the extra income. In fact, Oakland City Manager Ed Reiskin, asked about overtime, has said that short staffing, not abuse of the overtime system, is driving overtime spending. “My concern isn’t one officer making a lot of money,” he said. “That’s not inherently problematic.” His concern, he added, is “If people are working so much that they can’t be effective and work safely…”.

It’s clear, then, that we have a lot more to understand about overtime and about police funding in general before leaping to hasty conclusions. Is this really the time for the City Council to be voting on a defunding budget for the next two years, before they’ve had time to understand the implications of their OPD cuts? I think the reformer-defunders tend to arrive at ideological quick fixes and then hope that things turn out okay. But when we’re in the midst of one of the worst crime waves in memory, “hoping that things turn out okay” doesn’t seem like a very satisfactory policy.