Public Safety and Justice 200 W. Jefferson St. Subcommittee

Public Safety and Justice

Subcommittee

Agenda Meeting Location:

City Council Chambers

200 W. Jefferson St.

Phoenix, Arizona 85003

phoenix.gov9:30 AMWednesday, September 8, 2021

OPTIONS TO ACCESS THIS MEETING

Request to speak at a meeting:

- Register online by visiting the City Council Meetings page on phoenix.gov at least 1

hour prior to the start of this meeting. Then, click on this link at the time of the meeting

and join the Webex to speak:

https://phoenixcitycouncil.webex.com/phoenixcitycouncil/onstage/g.php?MTID=e8f8f89e853702b2e55e11a51363edc0a

- Register via telephone at 602-262-6001 at least 1 hour prior to the start of this

meeting, noting the item number. Then, use the Call-in phone number and Meeting ID

listed below at the time of the meeting to call-in and speak.

At the time of the meeting:

- Watch the meeting live streamed on phoenix.gov or Phoenix Channel 11 on Cox Cable,

or using the Webex link provided above.

- Call-in to listen to the meeting. Dial 602-666-0783 and Enter Meeting ID 2559 1376605# (for English) or 2553 868 1174# (for Spanish). Press # again when

prompted for attendee ID.

Para nuestros residentes de habla hispana:

- Para registrarse para hablar en español, llame al 602-262-6001 al menos 1 hora

antes del inicio de esta reunión e indique el número del tema. El día de la reunión,

llame al 602-666-0783 e ingrese el número de identificación de la reunión 2553 8681174#. El intérprete le indicará cuando sea su turno de hablar.

- Para solamente escuchar la reunión en español, llame a este mismo número el día

de la reunión (602-666-0783; ingrese el número de identificación de la reunión 2553868 1174 #). Se proporciona interpretación simultánea para nuestros residentes

durante todas las reuniones.

https://phoenixcitycouncil.webex.com/phoenixcitycouncil/onstage/g.php?MTID=e8f8f89e853702b2e55e11a51363edc0a

September 8, 2021Public Safety and Justice

Subcommittee

Agenda

CALL TO ORDER

000 CALL TO THE PUBLIC

MINUTES OF MEETINGS

1 Minutes of the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee Meeting

This item transmits the minutes of the Public Safety and Justice

Subcommittee Meeting on March 10, 2021, for review, correction or

approval by the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee.

THIS ITEM IS FOR POSSIBLE ACTION.

Responsible Department

This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the

City Manager's Office.

CONSENT ACTION (ITEMS 2-3)

2 FY 2021 Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program

This report requests the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee

recommend retroactive City Council approval to allow the Police

Department to apply for, accept and enter into an agreement with the

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention for the 2021

Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program for an

amount not to exceed $469,451.

THIS ITEM IS FOR CONSENT ACTION.

Page 7

Page 19


Subcommittee

Agenda

3

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the

Police Department.

Donation from Phoenix Police Foundation

This report requests the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee

recommend City Council approval for the Police Department to accept a

donation from the Phoenix Police Foundation of $24,750 for the

purchase of new scheduling software for the Communications Bureau.




Police Department.

INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION (ITEMS 4-5)

4 Navigating Traumatic Incidents

This report provides the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee with an

update on the reallocation of civilian positions from the Phoenix Police

Department to the Human Services Department to assist community

members directly impacted by a Police Department related traumatic

incident.

THIS ITEM IS FOR INFORMATION AND DISCUSSION.


This item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeffrey Barton, Deputy

City Manager Gina Montes and the Human Services and Phoenix Police

departments.

5 Phoenix Police Department Recruitment, Hiring and Retention

This report provides the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee with

information regarding the recruitment, hiring and retention programs of

Page 21

Page 22

Page 23


Subcommittee

Agenda

sworn personnel within the Phoenix Police Department. It also provides

information on civilian vacancies within the department. The Department

currently has a total of 459 vacant positions. This total includes 247 sworn

and 212 civilian vacancies. Police departments across the country are

experiencing significant reductions in police recruit applications and new

hires, as well as increasing attrition levels among existing officers. The

City is investing in several new recruiting efforts and introducing hiring

bonuses and referral incentives.




Police Department.

000 CALL TO THE PUBLIC

FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURN

For further information or reasonable accommodations, please call the City Council Meeting Request line at 602-262-6001. 7-1-1 Friendly.

Persons paid to lobby on behalf of persons or organizations other than themselves must register with the City Clerk prior to lobbying or within five business days thereafter, and must register annually to continue lobbying. If you have any questions about registration or whether or not you must register, please contact the City Clerk's Office at 602-534-0490.

Members:

Councilwoman Ann O'Brien, ChairCouncilwoman Yassamin Ansari

Councilman Jim WaringVice Mayor Carlos Garcia

Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee

Report

Agenda Date: 9/8/2021, Item No. 1

Minutes of the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee Meeting

This item transmits the minutes of the Public Safety and Justice SubcommitteeMeeting on March 10, 2021, for review, correction or approval by the Public Safety andJustice Subcommittee.

THIS ITEM IS FOR POSSIBLE ACTION.

The minutes are included for review as Attachment A.

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the CityManager's Office.

Phoenix City Council Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee

Summary Minutes Wednesday, March 10, 2021

City Council Chambers 200 West Washington Street Phoenix, Arizona

Subcommittee Members Present Subcommittee Members Absent Councilman Michael Nowakowski, Chair Vice Mayor Thelda Williams Councilwoman Betty Guardado Councilmember Carlos Garcia

Call to Order Chairman Nowakowski called the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee to order at 9:01 a.m. with Councilwoman Guardado, Councilmember Garcia, and Vice Mayor Williams present via WebEx.

Call to the Public Assistant City Manager Jeff Barton introduced Julie Kriegh from the Law Department.

Ms. Kreigh stated that, during public comment, residents are expected to be civil and respectful. Any resident using profane language or expressing personal attacks or threats could lose their opportunity to speak.

Laurel Langmade encouraged the City of Phoenix to update the public on their progress around the Human Services campus and expressed concern about community safety.

Minutes of the Meetings 1. For Approval or Correction, the Minutes of the Public Safety and JusticeSubcommittee meeting on February 10, 2021Chairman Nowakowski asked why the Challenge Coin item was not on the agenda.

Ms. Kriegh stated the Challenge Coin incident was being independently investigated and all findings would be made available to the public once the investigation completed.

Vice Mayor Williams motioned to approve the minutes of the February 10, 2021 Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee. Councilwoman Guardado seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously, 4-0.

Consent Action (Item 2) Item 2 was for consent action. No presentations were planned, but staff was available to answer questions.

Attachment A

2. Authorization to Apply for FY 2021 Homeland Security Grant Program FundsVice Mayor moved for approval.

Assistant City Manager Barton stated 38 e-comments were submitted.

The chair opened the floor for public comment.

Hava Derby expressed concern about the transparency of this item and the amount of money given to Police.

Anesia Groves expressed concern about the amount of funds allocated to the Police Department.

Hana Hehman expressed concern about police transparency and the amount of funds allocated to the Police Department.

Kelly Kwok expressed concern about accountability in the Police Department.

Karen Olson expressed concern about the funds given to the Police Department through the Homeland Security Grant.

Mr. Barton asked all public comments stay on topic per the agenized item.

Patricia Pagliuca expressed concern about funds given to the Police Department and asked all residents who were silenced or skipped over be given permission to speak.

Brandon Valentin expressed concern about residents not having the chance to speak.

April McCue expressed concern about police transparency and the funds given to the Police Department via the Homeland Security Grant.

Councilmember Garcia asked that all residents be given the opportunity to provide public comments.

Lola N’sangou expressed concern about increased funds going to the Police Department and the ability to provide public comment.

Vanessa DiCarlo expressed concern about the funds from the Homeland Security Grant going to the Police Department.

Vice Mayor Williams motioned to approve consent item 2. Councilwoman Guardado seconded the motion, which passed, 3-1.

Information Only (Item 3)

3. Domestic Violence Policy Terms and Conditions in City ContractsInformation only. No Councilmember requested additional information.

Mr. Barton noted three e-comments were submitted.

Information and Discussion (Items 4-5) 4. Rule 15 Disclosure Process (Brady)City Attorney Cris Meyer introduced the item and presenters City Prosecutor Bob Smithand Elizabeth Ortiz from Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council (APAAC).

Mr. Smith gave an overview of the Rule 15 (Brady) Disclosure Process. He noted through the rule, the City was required to disclose defense but not act as an oversight for Police. Mr. Smith noted the origin and evolution of Rule 15.

Mr. Smith gave an overview of the Rule of Evidence and Rules of Criminal Procedure for Rule 15. He then went over inquiry procedures and reviewed the Rule 15 (Brady) process. He noted the City Prosecutor’s Office did not maintain a list but rather a database and highlighted the range of criteria that would get an on officer on the Rule 15 (Brady) database.

Mr. Smith stated the City has an internal committee to review the allegations and highlighted the committee review process. He noted a range of criteria that would get an officer on the database and the overall intent of fairness and due process. He reiterated the database does not allow the City or the prosecutors oversight or discipline.

Mr. Smith stated an officer remains in the Rule 15 (Brady) database if there was any chance the officer may be called as a witness to testify. He noted any case with a warrant would remain in the database until the case was resolved or if new evidence where the witness lied about a Police Officer could be grounds for removal from the Rule 15 (Brady) database.

Chairman Nowakaski asked Ms. Kriegh to read the rules for public comment.

Ms. Kriegh read the public comment rules.

Mr. Barton asked Ms. Ortiz to present her presentation.

Ms. Ortiz gave an overview of Arizona Prosecuting Attorneys’ Advisory Council (APAAC) and the organization’s makeup. She noted APAAC’s primary focus was to train and assist prosecutors to develop the skills to do their jobs. She stated APAAC used best practices to assist prosecution agencies on how to gather and report information. Ms. Ortiz noted APAAC was unable to mandate best practices but instead made the best practices available on the public APAAC website. She highlighted the APAAC’s role to provide a database for Arizona and promote transparency. She stated the database was hosted on APAAC website and the data from prosecution offices could be added or deleted as needed.

Chairman Nowakaski asked Vice Mayor Williams to take over as Chair at 9:59 a.m.

Ms. Ortiz stated anyone could access the APAAC database. She provided an overview of APAAC’s rollout plan using the best practices and noted the database went live on Oct. 1, 2020.

Councilmember Garcia asked for clarification on the term “Brady List”.

Mr. Smith stated the term “Brady List” had been used for a long time but the information was not on a list but stored and maintained on a database.

Councilmember Garcia asked if other jurisdictions have lists and if the City of Phoenix would be opposed to maintaining a list.

Mr. Smith stated he was unsure of what other jurisdictions utilize and further research would be needed if a list could be used in the future.

Councilmember Garcia asked if the City of Phoenix was abiding by the rules and fully disclosing all information.

Mr. Smith stated all prosecutors must obey due to duty, ethical obligations, and law requirements. He stated the City of Phoenix was in the process of transitioning to a new case management system, and the prosecutors were abiding by the rules and fully disclosing all information.

Councilmember Garcia asked about the process of disclosing information and who makes up the internal committee.

Mr. Smith stated three prosecutors were on the internal committee and reviewed reports to determine whether an officer’s behavior warranted being placed on the Rule 15 (Brady) database. He noted three separate committee members review the decision. Mr. Smith highlighted an independent appeal process if an officer desired to appeal being on the Rule 15 (Brady) database.

Councilmember Garcia asked who determined the witnesses on the list and asked if there was a conflict of interest.

Mr. Smith stated if an outside or independent agency handled the information the City of Phoenix prosecutors would not be abiding by their ethical obligation. He noted no concerns for bias or failure to meet the obligation.

Councilmember Garcia asked why the prosecutors did not disclose all information and about the difference between City of Phoenix prosecutors deciding what was appropriate versus a judge.

Mr. Smith stated the judge would not be able to meet ethical obligation. He noted the judge’s role was to determine if a case was probative or relevant to a case. He stated

the prosecutor’s role was to determine whether the information met the categories or qualified for conduct or behavior for the Rule 15 (Brady) database.

Councilmember Garcia noted perception issues related to prosecutors determining what information a judge and others could see and how that could be perceived as a conflict of interest. He followed by asking when a defense attorney would have access to the Brady List.

Mr. Smith stated Rule 15 (Brady) provided a timeline when a case would be disclosed. He stated Rule 15 (Brady) information was disclosed as part of the discovery process when a case was set to pre-trial conference.

Councilmember Garcia asked if there was a problem with over-disclosing information or having a list of names.

Mr. Smith noted the list was public with the statewide database. He stated a list would not help if it did not provide underlying conduct. He noted the Prosecutor’s Office disclosed items on the database and those items were reviewed intently. He noted no issue from the defense bar indicating lack of shared information.

Councilmember Garcia asked who was on the internal committee reviewing information and how members of the committee were held accountable.

Mr. Smith stated any concerns about discourse would go to him as he was on the appellate side. He noted the committee uses an odd number to ensure a balance.

Garcia asked if a database or list could be developed to limit officers with credibility issues from being called in.

Mr. Smith stated a database or list could be explored. He highlighted special cases where the officer on the Brady database was the sole witnesses on a case and without a witness the case may not be able to proceed. He stated the cases need to be evaluated by a prosecutor. Mr. Smith many individuals on the Brady database had severe charges and were not typically called upon unless necessary. He stated no functional use of a “do not call” list of officers in the Brady database.

Councilmember Garcia asked how a defendant or defense attorney would check the database.

Mr. Smith stated per Rule 15 disclosure, the City Prosecutors proactively provided information from the Brady Database. He stated the defense attorney was able to ask the City Prosecutors for additional information.

Councilmember Garcia asked if communication between City Prosecutor’s Office and police communications were sufficient and if the City was being accountable and transparent in disclosing information about City employees.

Mr. Smith clarified Rule 15 was not a vehicle of oversight or discipline. He stated the City was participating in the APAAC database to be more accountable and transparent to effectively produce a list of names. He stated if the County Attorney notified the City of Phoenix with an officer who had charges on the Brady database, the City of Phoenix would disclose the information and the same in reverse. Mr. Smith stated the County Attorney had their own Brady obligations and maintained their database. He stated a public records request could be submitted to obtain information from the City of Phoenix Police Department.

Councilmember Garcia asked about best practices used in Arizona to compile the APAAC statewide database.

Ms. Ortiz stated APAAC had no jurisdiction to mandate or require information. She noted the APAAC did not reach out to prosecuting agencies for information on their processes, rather the agencies provided information to APAC.

Councilmember Garcia asked if the participating jurisdictions provided general information or followed regulations to share with APAAC.

Ms. Ortiz stated she called prosecutors’ offices to gain information and asked if APAC could assist and share information.

Councilmember Garcia asked since no qualifying information was requested, if equal information was provided by various jurisdictions.

Mrs. Ortiz stated a spreadsheet was given to a database manager and they submitted information. The provided information that was standardized by APAAC. She noted the database manager shared precise but limited information.

Councilmember Garcia asked if public defenders were included and could acquire or access the information from APAAC.

Ms. Ortiz stated she could not recall any members of the defense bar. She noted the process was implemented to share the integrity database information and the information would be given to the defense, but the information provided did not have ethical obligation for disclosure.

Councilmember Garcia asked why information might be deleted.

Ms. Ortiz stated circumstances where the underlying information for a case may have changed, such as if an officer was cleared from the alleged conduct. She noted another circumstance could be if a person was placed on the integrity database due to medical issues that impacted memory and was subsequently resolved. Ms. Ortiz stated circumstances could change and stressed the importance of current and accurate information.

Councilmember Garcia asked who had the responsibility to release information.

Ms. Ortiz stated disclosure was on each individual prosecutor and agency.

Mr. Meyer noted cases were handled on a case by case basis with the defense attorney and the court regarding the disclosed information. He stated the prosecuting offices were subject to court and bar licenses and the prosecutor’s ability to practice to law could be impacted if they failed to meet their disclosure obligations.

Councilwoman Guardado asked how many years it took for police disciplinary records to be purged for the hiring process.

Executive Assistant Police Chief Michael Kurtenbach noted the records were never purged from the City of Phoenix Human Resource files and the records would remain with Human Resources for the entirety of an officer’s career. He stated the files would remain for five years beyond their separation from the Police Department. He noted the department files have language to purge in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), but the file never goes away.

Councilwoman Guardado asked what information comes with a police officer from another jurisdiction and if the City of Phoenix would know if the officer was on the Brady List.

Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stated the hiring review process explicitly asked candidates whether they were on the Brady List. He stated officers must be certificated through Arizona and each employee undergoes a comprehensive background check, including a check on the Brady List to ensure the employee was in good standing.

Councilwoman Guardado asked what happens if an officer lies about their status on the Brady List.

Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stated the Police Department would not hire the individual.

Councilwoman Guardado asked how the Brady List was used in the Human Resources Department.

Mr. Smith stated the Brady database was information generated for the Rule 15 Disclosure process and noted the lack of a list. He stated the Rule 15 information was provided to Prosecutor’s Office as an obligation to the court process. He stated the Brady List was not shared between departments; the intent for Rule 15 (Brady) was for court cases disclosure to the defense.

Councilwoman Guardado asked for a database or list to be used in the hiring process as a preventative measure to avoid hiring problematic officers and build community

trust. She thanked everyone for their presentation and highlighted the need to continue working on these issues.

Mr. Smith responded that the Phoenix Police Department considered other agencies’ Rule 15 (Brady) database when hiring. He noted the importance of assessing the underlying conduct on the disclosure information when hiring.

Councilmember Garcia asked if the Brady List information could be considered for officer assignments.

Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stressed the importance of understanding behavior and underlying conduct when determining assignments.

Councilmember Garcia asked when an officer becomes a liability to the department and prosecutors and needs to be reassigned or let go.

Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stated of the 1,400 Police Recruits hired since March 2015 not one of the officers was on the Brady database. He stated the Brady database information was included as part of the Human Resources hiring practices. He reiterated the Department assessed the underlying conduct of each officer on the Brady database.

Councilmember Garcia asked how information was accessed to determine if an officer was on the Brady List.

Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stated candidates were asked if they are on the Brady List, and if the officer lied that would be an automatic disqualifier. He stated the City of Phoenix Police Department would reach out to the applicant’s jurisdiction to determine whether applicants were included in the Brady database.

Councilmember Garcia asked if the names on Brady List were shared with other Police Departments.

Mr. Smith stated all information was disclosed and information could be requested via Public Record.

Councilmember Garcia asked what system was used to disclose information about Phoenix officers and how the information was shared with other jurisdictions.

Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stated all information would be disclosed with the agency requesting information.

Councilmember Garcia asked what list would be used to share information with other jurisdictions.

Mr. Meyer stated the APAAC database could be used to share information with other jurisdictions along with the employee personnel file.

Councilmember Garcia asked if it was easy to determine if an officer was on the Brady List.

Mr. Barton stated just being on the Brady List does not mean an officer cannot be hired. He reiterated the importance of assessing the reason an officer was on the Brady List. He noted the Police Department would conduct a thorough background check. Mr. Barton stated the Brady List was a tool used by prosecutor’s offices, not a sharable database.

Mr. Smith stated the Brady database was for limited purpose of the court case and was not used for oversight or discipline. He stated if any jurisdiction requested information regarding an officer, they would assess the underlying conduct and corresponding personnel files.

Councilmember Garcia asked if the information from the Brady List was automatically shared with other jurisdictions.

Mr. Smith stated the requesting jurisdiction would know based on the information shared in the Rule 15 (Brady) database.

Executive Assistant Chief Kurtenbach stated the Phoenix Police Department reaches out to the officer’s former employer to acquire their professional standards file as well as the prosecutor’s county and city to gain information from the Rule 15 database.

Chairwoman Williams asked if information from the personnel file or Rule 15 database would be provided to jurisdictions when hiring an officer.

Mr. Meyer stated information from the personnel file would be provided. He noted the Brady list outlines witness credibility and was a small subset of what an employer would want to know about an employee.

Chairwoman Williams asked if information from the Rule 15 (Brady) database would be in the personnel file.

Mr. Meyer stated to his knowledge the Rule 15 (Brady) information was included in the personnel file.

Matt Heil stated 36 e-comments were submitted.

The chair opened the floor for public comment.

Hava Derby expressed concerns about the how the Brady List was used and asked for police accountability and transparency.

Vanessa DiCarlo asked all charges against protestors be dropped and expressed concerns about the members of the Tactical Response Unit being on the Brady List and asked for police accountability and transparency.

Anesia Groves expressed concerns about the Brady List presentation and asked for police accountability and transparency and all charges on protestors be dropped.

Hana Hehman expressed concerns about how the Brady List was utilized and asked for police accountability and transparency.

Chairman Nowakowski re-joined the meeting at 11 a.m.

Patricia Pagliuca shared concerns about the long presentations and expressed apprehensions about the Brady List and police accountability and transparency.

Jamarr Williams expressed concerns about the prosecutor’s diligence when disclosing information on the Brady List.

Councilwoman Guardado left the meeting at 11:02 a.m.

Councilmember Garcia asked Mr. Williams to explain his interactions with the Brady List.

Mr. Williams stated prosecutors were not being transparent when using the Brady List.

Councilwoman Guardado re-joined the meeting at 11:05 a.m.

Councilmember Garcia asked who holds prosecutors accountable for not disclosing information.

Jamarr Williams stated prosecutors were not disciplined when they did not disclose information, and no one was double checking the information.

Councilmember Garcia asked what work was done as a defense attorney to find out who was on the Brady List.

Jamarr Williams stated he had submitted public record requests on specific officers and in some cases the judges ordered the prosecutor to release information.

Councilmember Garcia asked what would happen to prosecutors who did not disclose information

Mr. Smith stated there was accountability from the court and state bar. He noted other reviews and appeals for cases could be reopened.

5. Land Acquisition Strategy for Future and Replacement Fire Stations

Mr. Barton introduced Assistant Chief Scott Walker for the planned presentation.

Assistant Chief Walker gave an overview of the services the Fire Department provides. He noted demand for services were increasing and capacity had lagged. He suggested a strategic and proactive approach to assess current and future needs. He gave an overview of the strategic station planning list and noted future fire station sites. He finished by highlighting the importance of planning fire stations to meet future demands to prevent increases in responses times.

Chairman Nowakowski thanked Assistant Chief Walker for the presentation.

Discussion and Possible Action (Item 6) 6. Fire Department Self- Contained Breathing Apparatus ReplacementMr. Barton stated the importance of planned replacements and noted the need to beproactive for the upcoming trial budget and five-year forecast.

Assistant Chief Walker gave an overview of the Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) inventory replacement. He gave an overview the SCBA equipment that allows firefighters to go into various environments. Assistant Chief Walker stated the current SCBA inventory was dated and built to 2007 National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards. He noted the replacement of the current SCBAs inventory was deferred for two years and requested to replace the entire inventory with an estimated cost of $10 million.

Chairman Nowakowski thanked Assistant Chief Walker for the presentation.

Vice Mayor Williams motioned to approve item 6. Councilwoman Guardado seconded the motion, which passed unanimously, 4-0.

Call to the Public None.

Future Agenda Items Councilwoman Guardado asked for an update on legislation regarding consular cards.

Adjournment Chairman Nowakowski adjourned the meeting at 11:42 a.m.


Report


FY 2021 Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force Program

This report requests the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee recommend retroactive City Council approval to allow the Police Department to apply for, accept and enter into an agreement with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention for the 2021 Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) Task Force Program for an amount not to exceed $469,451.


SummaryThe Police Department commands the Arizona ICAC Task Force and has received funding through this source annually for the past several years. The goal of the task force is to improve effectiveness to prevent, interdict, investigate, and prosecute internet crimes against children and child exploitation. The Arizona ICAC Task Force is partnered with 64 law enforcement agencies statewide. Since 2006, the Arizona ICAC Task Force has conducted more than 35,145 investigations resulting in the incarceration of hundreds of offenders and provided preventative training presentations to children, parents, and community groups to educate them on how to protect children from internet crimes.

If awarded, grant funds will be used to continue reimbursing the City for the salary and fringe benefits for one sergeant position, overtime and related fringe benefits for various task force personnel, supplies, travel, training, equipment, andcontracts/consultants to support the task force investigations. Funds are also shared statewide through a program that assists agencies throughout Arizona to purchase equipment and attend training.

The grant application was due on Aug. 31, 2021. If authorization is denied, the grant application will be rescinded.

Contract TermThe contract term is from Oct. 1, 2021 through Sept. 30, 2022.


Financial ImpactNo matching funds are required. Cost to the City would be in-kind resources only.

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the Police Department.


Report


Donation from Phoenix Police Foundation

This report requests the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee recommend CityCouncil approval for the Police Department to accept a donation from the PhoenixPolice Foundation of $24,750 for the purchase of new scheduling software for theCommunications Bureau.


SummaryThe purchase of a new scheduling software, would allow the Communications Bureauto be more efficient with scheduling and overtime spending. The software allows forautomated staffing to reduce human error, overtime expenditures, and the amount oftime supervisors spend on staffing assignments, so more time is focused onoperational oversight. The software allows for analyzing staffing trends and betterprojection of future staffing allocation needs. If this grant is approved, the fundingwould pay the first-year subscription fee and the Communications Bureau wouldbudget for future years.

The Phoenix Police Foundation is a 501(c)(3) charitable organization. The Foundationis committed to addressing unmet needs of the Phoenix Police Department, providingfinancial assistance in crisis situations and recognizing those who protect ourcommunity.

Financial ImpactThe cost for the first year is $24,750 and $19,200 each year after that. The donationfrom the Police Foundation will pay for the first year and the Communications Bureauwill budget for future years.

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the PoliceDepartment.


Report


Navigating Traumatic Incidents

This report provides the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee with an update onthe reallocation of civilian positions from the Phoenix Police Department to the HumanServices Department to assist community members directly impacted by a PoliceDepartment related traumatic incident.


SummaryIn a continuing effort to enhance the support provided to community members directlyimpacted by a Police Department traumatic incident, five civilian positions from thePolice Department have been reallocated to the Human Services Department. Thesepositions will comprise a unit titled the Family Advocacy Team. Based at the FamilyAdvocacy Center, this team will provide comprehensive, trauma-informed care andreferral services for families, witnesses and other persons directly impacted bytraumatic incidents.

Initially, the Family Advocacy Team will focus on providing support for next of kin/familymembers after police critical incidents defined as: an officer involved shooting resultingin the death or serious injury of a community member, a use of force resulting in deathor serious bodily injury requiring hospitalization, all in-custody deaths of those arrestedor detained, and any other police encounter at the direction of the Police Chief.Support services include assistance with obtaining mental health services; navigatingthe investigative process, including obtaining public records; and facilitatingcommunication between families and the Police Department, Maricopa CountyAttorney's Office, Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office and other governmentagencies. Within the next six months, the Family Advocacy Team will add support forthe next of kin/family members of vehicular deaths and homicides.

Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeffrey Barton, Deputy City ManagerGina Montes and the Human Services and Phoenix Police departments.


Report


Phoenix Police Department Recruitment, Hiring and Retention

This report provides the Public Safety and Justice Subcommittee with informationregarding the recruitment, hiring and retention programs of sworn personnel within thePhoenix Police Department. It also provides information on civilian vacancies withinthe department. The Department currently has a total of 459 vacant positions. Thistotal includes 247 sworn and 212 civilian vacancies. Police departments across thecountry are experiencing significant reductions in police recruit applications and newhires, as well as increasing attrition levels among existing officers. The City is investingin several new recruiting efforts and introducing hiring bonuses and referral incentives.


SummaryCurrent Department staffing numbers are listed below, based on the most recentMonthly Authorized Position Report provided by Budget and Research Department onAug. 23, 2021:

· Number of total filled sworn positions: 2,878 (includes 41 current recruits)

· Sworn hiring target: 3,125

· Number of authorized civilian positions: 1,151

· Vacant sworn positions: 247

· Vacant civilian positions: 212

· Total vacant positions: 459

The Employment Services Bureau of the Phoenix Police Department is responsible forthe recruitment and hiring of both sworn and civilian personnel for the department. Inthe last three fiscal years, police departments across the country including Phoenixhave seen significant reductions in police recruit applications and new hires. Based on

Phoenix Police Department data from the last three fiscal years:

· Hiring for FY 18-19: 315 total officers (301 recruits, 14 laterals)




One trend to monitor is total attrition, which has continued to climb during the last threefiscal years. As part of this trend, more officers are leaving the Department for reasonsother than finishing their Deferred Retirement Option Plan (DROP). Based on PhoenixPolice Department data from the last three fiscal years:

· Total Sworn Attrition for FY 18-19: 177 (66 percent due to DROP)



This trend is projected to continue over the next five years:

· Projected retirements through DROP for the next five years: 447 (assumingemployee does the full five years of DROP)

· Currently eligible for 20-year retirement: 810 (approximately 30 percent ofdepartment)

Civilian VacanciesThere are currently 212 civilian vacancies. Of these, 75 are new positions approved by Council in the FY 2021-22 budget. A concentrated focus has been placed on filling critical needs of the department in relation to civilian positions. Communications/9-1-1 vacancies are being addressed and all Academy classes for operators are filled through the beginning of November 2021.

Hiring IncentivesCity management has authorized a hiring bonus for police recruits and lateral police officer applicants up to $7,500. Additionally, all City employees that refer candidates to join the Phoenix Police Department may be eligible to receive an incentive of up to$2,500 for referring a police recruit or lateral police officer.

The $7,500 incentive publicity campaign began Thursday, Aug. 19, to include social media, digital advertising, billboards, banners, radio, television, and virtual presentations. The $2,500 employee referral bonus campaign also begins Thursday, Aug. 19, and a Citywide employee notification was also sent out to all employees with follow-up through weekly newsletters.


RecruitmentThe Employment Services Bureau is committed to aggressively marketing and recruiting new police hires as well as lateral police officers. The Recruitment Team is currently made up of four officers and one sergeant. In the last 14 months, the recruiting team has created and marketed the following events:

· 131 in-person events

· 75 digital advertisements throughout the country

· 77 virtual events throughout the country

· Radio and television advertisements - KTAR, FOX 10, NBC Channel 12, Telemundo

· Gave virtual presentations at university and college career fairs and classrooms

· Digital advertisement flyers for universities and colleges

· Banners and billboards

In the last 11 months, the Employment Services Bureau has heavily invested in socialmedia resulting in an increased amount of traffic to the City's websites. The recruitingwebsite, JoinPHXPD.com, has experienced 91,762 new users and received over131,227 page views. Staff purchased nine Facebook ads, resulting in 1.864 millionpeople reached (people who saw the advertisement) and 84,100 link clicks (peoplethat clicked the link on Facebook or the JoinPHXPD website).

RetentionThe Department realizes that our employees are our most valuable asset. TheDepartment also recognizes that efforts must be taken to ensure staff is retained andcommitted to the City and Department for years to come. To assist with retentionefforts, the Department has identified a dedicated sergeant to focus solely onretention, as well as introduced new programs such as:

· Mentoring Program

· Revamped PMG process

· Career Development discussions

· Exit interviews

· Career expansion opportunities

· Sworn Employee Retention Survey

ConclusionThe Phoenix Police Department is not unique in facing increased challenges in recentyears related to the hiring and retention of both sworn and civilian police positions.Many agencies around the country are experiencing the same challenges. We arecommitted to continuing to expand efforts to recruit, hire and retain employees.


Responsible DepartmentThis item is submitted by Assistant City Manager Jeffrey Barton and the PoliceDepartment.

Public Safety and Justice 200 W. Jefferson St. Subcommittee

Documents

Transcript of Public Safety and Justice 200 W. Jefferson St. Subcommittee