The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCEPF 8.21.23 Agenda PacketMonday, August 21, 2023 6:00 PM City of South San Francisco P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA City Manager's Conference Room Commission on Equity and Public Safety Krystle Cansino, Chair Arnel Junio, Vice Chair Salvador Delgadillo, Commissioner PaulaClaudine Hobson-Coard, Commissioner Alan Perez, Commissioner Carol Sanders, Commissioner Steven Yee, Commissioner Regular Meeting Agenda 1 August 21, 2023Commission on Equity and Public Safety Regular Meeting Agenda How to submit written Public Comment before the Meeting: Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting by emailing: [email protected] Members of the public are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting by emailing: [email protected]. How to provide Public Comment during the Meeting: COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES PER SPEAKER Under the Public Comment section of the agenda, members of the public may speak on any item not listed on the Agenda. Pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act, no action may be taken on a matter unless it is listed on the agenda, or unless certain emergency or special circumstances exist. The Chair may direct staff to investigate and/or schedule certain matters for consideration at a future meeting. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, the Chair may reduce speaking time to limit the total amount of time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3(b)(1).). American Disability Act: The City Clerk will provide materials in appropriate alternative formats to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please send a written request to City Clerk Rosa Govea Acosta at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080, or email at [email protected]. Include your name, address, phone number, a brief description of the requested materials, and preferred alternative format service at least 24-hours before the meeting. Accommodations: Individuals who require special assistance of a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in the meeting, including Interpretation Services, should contact the Office of the City Clerk by email at [email protected], 24-hours before the meeting. Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/17/2023 2 August 21, 2023Commission on Equity and Public Safety Regular Meeting Agenda CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL AGENDA REVIEW ITEMS FROM STAFF MEMBERS PUBLIC COMMENT MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION Motion to approve the Minutes from July 17, 20231 Presentation from Seniors Program Supervisor, Kasey Jo Cullinan, regarding the history and current state of the Recreation Division’s Full of Fun Program 2 Discussion on whether to present an update to city council regarding various jurisdictions practicing mental health crisis response models 3 ITEMS FROM BOARD MEMBERS, COMMISSIONERS, COMMITTEE MEMBERS ADJOURNMENT Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/17/2023 3 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-660 Agenda Date:8/21/2023 Version:1 Item #:1 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/17/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™4 City of South San Francisco Minutes of the Commission on Equity and Public Safety Monday, July 17, 2023 City Manager’s Conference Room, City Hall 400 Grand Ave, SSF, CA 94080 6:00 pm Committee Members: Present: Salvador Delgadillo, Krystle Cansino, Carol Sanders, Steven Yee, PaulaClaudine Hobson-Coard Absent: Alan Perez, Arnel Junio Staff Members: Present: Devin Stenhouse, Diversity, Equity, Inclusion Officer ____________________________________________________________________________________ CALL TO ORDER Meeting called to order at 6:15pm. AGENDA REVIEW No changes to the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Minutes from the June 20th meeting were approved. ITEMS FROM STAFF MEMBERS Devin shared that Maryjo’s last day in the office is July 21st and that there will be a going-away party on Wednesday, July 19th at 4:30pm. Devin also shared that there is a “Know your Rights” training hosted by Community Legal Services from East Palo Alto next Thursday, primarily for renters in South San Francisco. Keanna and Paola come by to discuss more about their event. They are a housing advocacy organiza�on serving the whole county of San Mateo but just ge�ng started in SSF. They are more focused in south county but are trying to change that. There will be an atorney present, and it will be in English and Spanish. Commissioner Yee asked given the work primarily in south county, why now and specifically why South City. They answered it’s due to how the City had created an an�-displacement plan. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Approval of Minutes from June 20th. Commissioner Sanders mo�oned, seconded by Commissioner Hobson-Coard, and the minutes were approved. 5 2. Presenta�on from Planning: Lindenville Specific/General Plan. (Billy Gross, Principal Planner). - Background Informa�on Building on the Industrial Legacy Cul�va�ng Arts and Cultural Iden�ty Arts and Makers District Building Climate Resilience Enhancing Open Spaces Linear Green Park: requirement that they must give a por�on of their rear parcel to be given over for green spaces and connect Colma creek to the centennial trail Promo�ng Health and Environmental Jus�ce -bc region is an industrial area, has close proximity to 101, airport, Caltrain, etc. exposed to pollu�on Connec�ng Communi�es -rethink our rela�onships with autos; need to redesign key por�ons of the area to accommodate people, not cars Next steps Dra� Specific Plan Engagement Ac�vi�es Community Open House Events, Pop-Up Events, Boards and Commissions Mee�ngs Specific Plan Feedback in writen plan via the General Plan Execu�ve Summaries in English, Spanish, Tagalog, and Mandarin Will compile public comments and recommend Specific Plan changes through the Summer: August The General Plan was developed simultaneously alongside the Commission on Racial and Social Equity, and due to this �ming, the General Plan was able to take inspira�on from the Commission and the consultants were able to look to the Commission for that equity lens. For the Lindenville Plan, it would be great if an equity lens could be applied. There are approximately 175 policies and ac�ons—sounds overwhelming, but this is a long term plan (for 20 years!). Ques�ons and Answers Chair Cansino asked, “how are you guys measuring this?” She sees that the performance metric is housing-cost burden. Billy: we are looking for data that is easy to get; primarily County-level like the Dept. of Public Health. For others that get more specific, we’d have to gather data ourselves. But generally, it’s easier to find so that it’s easier to track over �me. 6 Billy: as part of the General Plan vision—on a high level overview—we’ve seen the employment growth in life sciences sector… There has been growing pains on this end and a need for the City to provide more housing. The County was adding 15 housing units for every job. We realized we could not do perfect 1:1 but overall, we realized that we need to do more for housing. Using 2018 numbers, we looked at 14-18,000 housing units. Commissioner Sanders: so, are these numbers reflected through Oyster Point? Billy: It’s citywide, but it’s predominantly Oyster Point. Commissioner Sanders: are you accoun�ng for the phenomenon of people working remotely? Billy: it depends on if it’s office use and what type of work it is—for life science, you need to come in person. We are coun�ng on the flexible work hours in terms of traffic, etc. Out of those 14-18k housing units, where does this go? Obviously downtown and around El Camino, but we have looked at Lindenville and east of 101. With Lindenville, we are proposing 5500 housing units. Lots are much smaller and there are a lot of industrial areas east of 101 compared elsewhere in SSF. We just realized a public dra� for this specific plan. Commissioner Yee: before we dive in, lots of the job growth is in the life sciences… so is the development in that area called Oyster Point? East of 101? Billy: yes, we primarily go with East of 101—it encompasses more Commissioner Yee: so if there’s a lot of job growth, how much will be commuters vs. residents? Billy: ul�mately, we have no way to dictate if someone who is a South City resident would like to live here and restrict access to SSF-only. One of the things that surprised Billy is that 90% of the employees in SSF live elsewhere and 90% of the residents in SSF work elsewhere. So, a big part of our job is to make sure that SSF residents remain aware, so that they can get in. Commissioner Delgadillo asked Billy if he could clarify what is meant by “mixed-use”… if it was businesses and housing together. Billy confirmed that it is what mixed-use is. Commissioner Sanders: when you are talking about complete neighborhoods, is there a defini�on for what this is? Billy: An example would be an arts and makers area, where it would be easier for ar�sts and makers to locate and create efficiencies and grow upon itself, but there are also other employment opportuni�es like life sciences. The complete part comes from your 5-min bike ride, 15-min walk away from arts spaces, grocery stores, public transit, etc. One of the nice things about Lindenville is that it’s crea�ng a new neighborhood from scratch. Chair Cansino: so, you’re saying around 14k jobs is added? Billy: currently, SSF has 60k employees with all of the growth citywide by 2040, you’re ge�ng up to 90k employees. 7 Chair Cansino: it seems like there’s a lot of services missing—schools, hospitals, daycares etc. If folks are single, this seems fine, but what about families? Billy: there are policies related to specific things listed, like there is a childcare master plan, but that isn’t necessarily listed out here in the Lindenville Plan. Commissioner Yee: to reassure you, maybe it’s not specified, but it’s s�ll a priority. Chair Cansino: one of the perks about living in SSF is how family-oriented SSF is. This is a good place to raise a family, so it needs to be listed somewhere here about an emphasis on family services. Commissioner Hobson-Coard: speaking of childcare, we should also include eldercare. We do have the Magnolia Center, but there will be a lot more again adults in the future. Let’s also think about how are seniors going to get around in Lindenville. Commissioner Sanders: no�ced that there are details about aging in place here… Commissioner Yee reminded the Commissioners to read the General Plan. Commissioner Hobson-Coard shared how her father asked her to bring up the topic of senior veterans, par�cularly when it comes to issues of mobility. Her father is a 47 year veteran now, and he needs the services and is wheelchair bound. Chair Cansino men�oned that the closest VA is in San Bruno, followed by San Francisco. Commissioner Hobson-Coard stressed that SSF should have veterans services here, maybe not a VA but something for immobile veterans, especially. Billy: the City is trying to collaborate with the County to bring more resources, but they might be having the same conversa�ons in regard to healthcare. Chair Cansino: feels like that we rely a lot on County assistance, but it would be helpful to have resources here but if there’s nothing here, it might cause trouble. Commissioner Sanders: how does the public lose part of the bay trail to the industrial or the life sciences? Billy: there are the same number of parking spaces overall… It might be differently configured but it’s the same. Devin asked the Commissioners if they have received a presenta�on on the Centennial Trail Masterplan yet to which they confirmed that they have yet to receive it. Devin will see if the Commissioners could receive this presenta�on some�me and is excited for the upcoming plans for the trail. Billy: there is some feedback from PG&E regarding electrifica�on—par�cularly if the grid can handle more to meet the 2045 neutral. Billy: this would be the first �me for transfer of development rights. Chair Cansino then asked a follow- up ques�on, would this delay the adop�on? Billy: there are mechanisms in place that the city could u�lize, but he has not heard of it being done before. 8 Billy men�oned that if the Commissioners have more ques�ons, they can reach out to him. 3. Review and Finalize Bylaws. -Devin shared that the bylaws were discussed last month in June, by 4 Commissioners. The items in red are proposed changes/things that were brought up or discussed from June. He also shared that Councilmember Coleman men�oned that a resident would like to include language on seniors and veterans in the bylaws. If there is a final version approved, we would then send that to the City Atorney’s office for final review and approval. Chair Cansino asked how would they include language on these topics. Devin shared that it would ul�mately be up to the Commissioners. Chair Cansino said that in Ar�cle V, since no groups are men�oned, we could list off services, like public safety services, “providing services and considering groups like our elders, as well as our veterans, etc.” Devin: that’s baked within the pre-exis�ng ordinance but it wouldn’t hurt to ask, but that might be harder to add/adjust. Commissioner Yee appreciates Chair Cansino’s comments and men�oned that what he was struggling with was Ar�cle V, commission roles. He is concerned that if we men�on some groups, then others will wonder about other groups. Devin: if we are to include this kind of verbiage, then he recommends that it is under as another line, perhaps under Ar�cle VI. Chair Cansino: is there a way to say that in Ar�cle VI – Vision? Devin: maybe through “targeted demographics” or through we are represen�ng, but we run the risk of not including folks. Commissioner Yee: assumes that the City Atorney can lead the Commission to the proper way to state things in a legal way. Chair Cansino asked for Devin’s recommenda�on. Devin men�oned that he thinks that it’s covered under vision. He thinks that the vision is prety succinct, and the line of “other oppressions to promote inequality…” in his opinion, in an effort to not sound redundant, is covered. Commissioner Yee: we parallel the federal protec�ons like race, religion, etc. Devin: yes, religion is not explicitly men�oned, but depending on the context, could be covered by the “other oppressions” line. This is ul�mately up to the Commission. It could be the very next line like “underrepresented groups” or targeted groups” but we need to be sure to be as thorough as possible. Devin reminded the Commission that the bylaws could always be updated at a later date—even if the bylaws were finalized, there will be an opportunity to update. Commissioner Yee: men�oned how are we going to focus on the oppressions or the groups of people. 9 Devin again reminded the Commissioners that this could change. This commission will address ageism, etc. anyway. Devin: Key results, objec�ves, key performances, etc. there weren’t a lot of succinct responses here. Commissioner Sanders mo�oned to approve the bylaws as of now and will con�nue to update the bylaws as seen fit, seconded by Commissioner Hobson-Coard. 4. Review of mental health crisis response models and iden�ty priori�es for future Council presenta�on. Devin: if you jump to the back of the slides, there is a table. The recommenda�on was that this matrix/table includes other models, star�ng with the San Mateo County responses. Pu�ng this on one page to see all the comparisons and contrasts would be helpful. For Alameda, we are missing crisis and services, but because there are so many teams, there is a lot. Commissioner Sanders men�oned that we could list service from them and recommend to residents where to find more details. Devin: this is a comparison to be reported to Council, correct? Chair Cansino: this was a slide deck more so like a running tab for us to keep track of the presenta�ons we heard, not necessarily something we started out with presen�ng to Council first and foremost in mind. The part we present to Council is “here are our recommenda�ons.” Commissioner Yee said that he thought this presenta�on was a dra� to Council… Chair Cansino: clarified that this is a path for us, a way to keep things straight. She shared how she spoke with a Supervisor and asked them what the County’s mental health board is doing because they are looking at this—they are in the beginning parts of this, and they were interested to see how people were coming to present to them. She also wants to know when is the Commission slated to present and offer recommenda�ons to Council? Devin: A�er the pilot program is complete—once we have a final report, that’s when the recommenda�ons would come. He men�oned that perhaps Council would like to have an update on everything thus far to keep them in the loop. Chief Campbell shared that Star Vista is looking to have another staff person our way given that Mika has requested another extension. He also shared the program has been expanded to Pacifica, San Bruno, Foster City, Menlo Park, and Belmont. Chair Cansino: when do you recommend that we give our recommenda�ons to the City Council? Devin: that would come when the program is complete. He also suggested that this presenta�on also include feedback from PD. Chair Cansino shared that she thinks that Chief Campbell and Mika have done a great job, and that needs to go out there. Even problem solving how to cover Mika is brilliant and wants the greater community to be involved in these conversa�ons. 10 Commissioner Yee asked: is this helpful or hur�ul to go to Council? Devin: have there been concerted dialogues/efforts between the ini�al four ci�es like quarterly check- ins? Chief: Yes, there are working groups. It sounds like some ci�es are si�ng back wai�ng to see what happens. Devin: if looking to give feedback, it would be helpful to go through PD, correct? The Chief answered yes, and the Chair asked a follow-up ques�on: who is si�ng in these mental health mee�ngs for us? Chief: the working group is the police chiefs, the captains managing the programs, county health, county board supervisors, and the city managers. Devin: so, we have good representa�on, and given that we are one of the 4 pilot ci�es, we are not going to be looked over. Devin asked Chief Campbell if there were any stats relevant to South San Francisco? Chief: there are graphs, etc. that are updated around every 3 months. Commissioner suggested that any update presenta�on or a Thursday Memo to Council could be a “tag- team” effort between the Commission and SSFPD. Devin: Thursday Memos are not necessarily for the public, but a formal presenta�on would be beter for the public, and that the recommenda�ons would be to move forward. Commissioner Hobson-Coard asked for clarifica�on on “moving forward.” Devin answered that it is based on the data and insights from the Gardner Center. ITEMS FROM COMMISSION There were no items from the Commission. ADJOURNMENT The mee�ng was adjourned at 8:43pm. 11 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-721 Agenda Date:8/21/2023 Version:1 Item #:2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/17/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™12 South San Francisco Full of Fun Program 2007-NOW 16 YEARS OF FUN! 13 How did the Full of Fun Program start? Began in 2007 when a group of parents reached out for additional programming 10 campers, 3 volunteers 2 staff Started small absorbed into childcare budget-limited time, space, and volunteers Simple Goal: offer a camp for special needs teens that allows them to just “hang out” with their non-disabled peers. High school volunteers piloted  Recreation activities Eligibility was 14 - 22 years old 14 Where are we now? Social Club for our participants 14 years old and up… since past 22 they are still enjoying camp. Take up to 30 per session. Goals High school volunteers are vital Average day in camp Activities Camper success stories Nights of Fun 15 Nights of Fun September-May One Night per Month Time and Location Vary Activities/Themes Volunteers 16 City of South San Francisco Legislation Text P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue) South San Francisco, CA File #:23-720 Agenda Date:8/21/2023 Version:1 Item #:3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 8/17/2023Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™17 Staff report on Commissioner feedback on Mental Health Clinician program. Title Recommendations from the Commission on Equity and Public Safety to inform the possible continuation of the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team in South San Francisco. Recommendation It is recommended that the Commission on Equity and Public Safety continue to review their feedback on other Bay Area mental health crisis response models. As recommended during the June commission meeting, the “Other Models” pages have been condensed into a single matrix. Additionally, commissioners should consider incorporating the September 2022 and March 2023 Gardener Center Interim reports into their report. This review can be used to help the Commission prepare to present to the South San Francisco City Council with their recommendations on how to expand the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team (CWCRT) program in South San Francisco. Background/Discussion Since October 2022, the Commission on Equity and Public Safety has been receiving presentations from nearby jurisdictions on their alternative mental health crisis response models. They have met South San Francisco’s mental health clinician, Mika Celli, and received presentations from Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services Crisis System of Care, San Francisco Department of Public Health Comprehensive Crisis Services, Berkeley Mental Health Crisis Services Program, and Half Moon Bay Crisis Assistance Response & Evaluation Services. The Commission has also reviewed data and received a data presentation from SSF Captain Adam Plank and James Pyne of the Stanford Gardner Center, the latter of which are evaluating the Community Wellness and Crisis Response Team to determine whether the program is meeting its intended objectives. In the April 2023 meeting, the Commission discussed their takeaways from presentations from nearby jurisdictions. The following summary captures these takeaways. It is recommended that the Commission use this staff report to inform their presentation to City Council with interim recommendations on how to expand the program. The current program is slated to run until the end of the 2023 – 2024 fiscal year. The Gardner Center evaluation will be released after the end of the program. It is therefore recommended for the Commission’s recommendations to be received as interim recommendations for further investigation, before the actual program concludes, is evaluated, and is determined whether to continue or not. Working with Police The Commission learned that different jurisdictions have differing methods of responding to a crisis, with or without police. Some models involve a co-response with police, such as the City of Berkeley, where the mental health responder arrives separately from a police officer during the day, and together at night. In Berkeley, mental health responders also have access to police radios. The San Francisco team found that sometimes community members respond better to a civilian, and sometimes they respond better to a police officer. They noted that police can also stage nearby, and join the scene if it becomes necessary. 18 In Half Moon Bay, the team responds separately from police, as long as there are no weapons, medical emergencies, or crimes. They found that most mental health calls do not require an armed response. However, the team can call the police if needed. The Commission preferred this model. It was also noted that the responding team should wear a non-threatening uniform. Team Makeup and Expertise Especially if police are not always co-responding, the Commission preferred two-person teams, for safety and to have a peer with whom to problem solve. Staff would have to examine costs to see the feasibility of this approach. The Commission also noted a preference for supervisors to have relevant knowledge and experience, as the current supervisors for CWCRT do not have as much field experience. In Half Moon Bay, a Clinical Director who is a licensed LCSW supervises. Some other programs make use of interns, who could potentially help with paperwork, follow-ups, or other tasks. Half Moon Bay found that they did not always need a licensed clinician to respond. They found that crisis specialists, civilian peers, were effective and provided cost savings. Their two-person responding teams have either one or both bilingual in Spanish, one or both with training as Emergency Medical Technicians or in Basic Life Support certification, and one or both having lived experience. As it was difficult to obtain clinicians to work on the CWCRT, scaling back the desired qualifications could make hiring more feasible, and there would be less competition among Bay Area jurisdictions for the same pool of clinicians. However, this approach also has tradeoffs, as peer specialists cannot write involuntary 5150 holds, to force someone in need of mental health to be placed on a hold. Only doctors, clinicians, and police officers can write involuntary 5150s. In Half Moon Bay, their responders can do voluntary 5150 holds only. The Commission appreciated models with diverse teams who were multi-disciplinary. They preferred to have some team members who are bilingual (if not only hiring clinicians, this would expand the pool of eligible bilingual crisis specialists). They appreciated teams that get cultural humility training. They also appreciated that Half Moon Bay’s program hires people with lived experience, such as experience with mental health issues or substance use. The Commission liked that some of Alameda County’s programs are specialized to populations like repeat clients, seniors, and/or youth. Some training in these areas would be beneficial in South San Francisco’s program. Lastly, Half Moon Bay’s program reported decreased costs by hiring peer specialists, however, the Commission noted the importance of adequate pay. The role is challenging and at times, potentially dangerous. They also recommended sufficient benefits and hazard pay. Jurisdiction The Commission discussed that South San Francisco could save on costs by partnering with other local cities to share a program that can respond regionally. Half Moon Bay’s program is able to respond along the mid-coast area. Alameda County’s program also responds to multiple cities. These cities do not pay into the program but do assist with the cost of vehicles and gas. It may be beneficial to partner with non-profit organizations as well. South San Francisco’s program currently partners with StarVista. Half Moon Bay’s program is run by El Centro de Libertad, a non-profit 19 organization with a real footprint in the community. Commissioners appreciated that the organization has deep and direct engagement with the community, and an authentic community awareness. Funding will be a challenge for the South San Francisco program. Staff should seek funding from the County, from grants, and from any other sources. One potential method is to use insurance to reimburse costs. Ecosystem The Alameda County team noted the importance of mapping the ecosystem of resources, including detox centers, diversion centers, and others. In South San Francisco, this network could include the Homeless Outreach Team and StarVista. Clinician Celli has also noted that through StarVista, the partner non-profit to CWCRT, she can access county health records that can provide useful background information on clients. Another question is whether the responding team can transport clients to services. Crisis team transports can cut down on fuel, time, and labor costs associated with calling an ambulance to take a client to the emergency room. South San Francisco’s current model does not allow the clinician to transport clients. Timing Commissioners agreed that the current model of Monday through Friday, 9 am to 5 pm is not sufficient for the community. Commissioners noted that weekend and evening service are needed. Using the data on times of calls, staff may recommend the program extend somewhat, if not 24/7. For example, the program could run until 9 pm, 11 pm, or even 5 am, depending on the need and tradeoff with cost. One of Alameda County’s programs runs from 7 am to 11 pm. South San Francisco’s data shows that the times with the fewest calls are from 5 am to 9 am. As the cost for 24/7 service may not be justifiable, an overnight phone line may be a useful tool. San Francisco has a 24/7 phone line. Next Steps Commissioners noted the importance of receiving the Gardner Center report on effectiveness of the program. The evaluation seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What are the key elements, activities, and intended outcomes of the CWCRT program? 2. How do the individuals involved in program implementation (e.g., those designing and leading the work as well as clinicians and officers) experience the co-response model? 3. What factors appear to facilitate and/or complicate implementation of the CWCRT program? 4. What outcomes (e.g., arrest rates, officer time-on-scene, emergency hold rates) are associated with or attributed to the CWCRT program? Commissioners were interested in the impact of the program on arrests, use of force, take-up of social services, and other indicators. They hoped to see in the evaluation public safety outcomes, feasibility/efficiency, individual outcomes, and public perception and trust. They wanted to know whether some clients are repeat utilizers. The Commissioners also wanted staff to look at data including 20 locations and times of calls as whether the top reasons for calls. For an example of the importance here, a call for danger to self could require a very different response from a call for danger to others. Lastly, the Commission requested a method for the community to weigh in. This includes surveys or other methods. On a recent community survey, 46.4% of South San Francisco residents selected that “Adding mental health and substance emergency professionals to the first responder teams” would help ensure that the South San Francisco Police Department treated residents fairly. This was the top answer for this question. One-third of residents selected “Shifting mental health and substance emergency calls to other agencies” (residents could check more than one answer). Conclusion It is recommended that the Commission use this staff report to complete their design of a presentation to City Council on recommendations for the CWCRT possible expansion. 21 MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS SERVICE COMPARISON 22 Table of contents Problem Pilot Program Other Models Expansion 01 02 03 04 23 Problem 01 24 Data Overuse of 911/EMS Police responding to non-violent MH calls, full emergency rooms Unnecessary Interventions Triage, Referral, Linkage Appropriate follow-up care Appropriate level of care for acuity 25 02 Pilot Program 26 Community Wellness & Crisis Response Pilot Project •Launched December 6, 2021 •Mental health professionals' team with law enforcement in San Mateo County’s four largest cities DALY CITY SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO REDWOOD CITY SAN MATEO 27 GOALS •Twin goals: •Provide an alternative to jail and overburdened hospital emergency rooms for non-violent individuals undergoing a behavioral health crisis •De-escalate 9-1-1 calls and providing appropriate, compassionate care for non-violent individuals 28 County Contribution $468,388x2 Years City Contribution $408,388x2 Years Total for the 2 year Pilot $1.5 Million BUDGET 29 Contracted Clinicians Catherine Maguire, LCSW Redwood City Patricia Baker, LMFT Briana Fair, ASW San Mateo Mika Celli, LCSW Daly City South San Francisco 30 Current Services Mental Health/Substance Use Triage an effective response for individuals having an acute MH crisis, safety risk assessment (5150/5585) Conflict Management/De- escalation Reduce contact between individuals with a behavioral health issue and the criminal justice system Training Increase and improve training and collaboration between BHRS and law enforcement Linkage/Resources Increase access to appropriate resources 31 COMMUNITY WELLNESS & CRISIS RESPONSE PILOT PROGRAM San Mateo County, California Team Mental Health Clinician & SSF Police Officer Response Child & Adult: Non-criminal crisis, behavioral & mental health related problems, critical incidents, natural disasters, community violence, Services Crisis intervention, de-escalation, support services, 5150 evaluation, follow-up, resources, and safety plan. 32 Other Models 03 33 CAHOOTS Eugene, Oregon Team Certified medic and a trained mental health crisis worker. Response Non-criminal crisis, homelessness, intoxication, disorientation, substance abuse and mental health related problems, dispute resolution. Services Non-emergency medical assessment/care, first aid, transportation to social services, crisis intervention, counseling services, and mediation. 34 SCRT San Francisco, California Team Certified medic, Mental Health clinician, Peer support specialist Response Adult Only: Non-criminal crisis, homelessness, intoxication, disorientation, substance abuse and mental health related problems, dispute resolution. Services Non-emergency medical assessment/care, first aid, transportation to social services, crisis intervention, counseling services, and mediation. 35 ALAMEDA CRISIS Alameda County, California Team MCT (Mobile Crisis Team), MET (Mobile Evaluation Team), CATT (Community Assessment & Tx Team, Mobile Crisis/Outreach & Engagement, Crisis Connect (Post-crisis follow-up team), Familiar Faces Team, Community Connections Team, GART (Geriatric Assessment & Response Team), CARE Team (City of Alameda Community Assessment Response & Engagement Team, MACRO (City of Oakland Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland, BART Police Department Progressive Policing Bureau, HEART (Hayward Evaluation & Response Team), MIHU (Mobile Integrated Health Unit) Response Services 36 COMPREHENSIVE CRISIS SERVICES San Francisco, California Team 2 Crisis Clinicians & AOD, SFPD PRN Response Non-criminal crisis, substance abuse and mental health related problems, dispute resolution. Services Crisis intervention, de-escalation, support services, 5150 evaluation, follow-up, resources, and safety plan. 37 ADVANTAGES & DISADVANTAGES 38 Community Wellness & Crisis Response Pilot Program Agency Team Response Services Hours of Operation San Mateo County, CA •Mental Health Clinician •SSF Police Officer Child & Adult: Non-criminal crisis, behavioral & mental health related problems, critical incidents, natural disasters, community violence. Crisis intervention, de-escalation, support services, 5150 evaluation, follow up, resources, and safety plan. M - F: 9:00 am – 5:00 pm CAHOOTS (Eugene, OR) •Certified Medic •Trained Mental Health Crisis Worker Non-criminal crisis, homelessness, intoxication, disorientation, substance abuse and mental health related problems, dispute resolution. Non-emergency medical assessment/care, first aid, transportation to social services, crisis intervention, counseling services, and mediation. Every day: 24 hours/day SCRT (San Francisco, CA) •Certified medic •Mental Health Clinician •Peer Support Specialist Adult Only: Non-criminal crisis, homelessness, intoxication, disorientation, substance abuse and mental health related problems, dispute resolution. Non-emergency medical assessment/care, first aid, transportation to social services, crisis intervention, counseling services, and mediation. Every day: 24 hours/day ALAMEDA CRISIS (Alameda County, CA) •MCT (Mobile Crisis Team) •MET (Mobile Evaluation Team) •CATT (Community Assessment & Tx Team) •Mobile Crisis/Outreach & Engagement •Crisis Connect (Post crisis follow up team) •Familiar Faces Team •Community Connections Team •GART (Geriatric Assessment & Response Team) •CARE Team (City of Alameda Community Assessment Response & Engagement Team) •MACRO (City of Oakland Mobile Assistance Community Responders of Oakland) •BART Police Department Progressive Policing Bureau •HEART (Hayward Evaluation &Response Team) •MIHU (Mobile Integrated Health Unit) COMPREHENSIVE CRISIS SERVICES (San Francisco, CA) •2 Crisis Clinicians •AOD (Alcohol and Other Drug) Clinician •SFPD PRN (or as needed) Noncriminal crisis, substance abuse and mental health related problems, dispute resolution. Crisis intervention, de-escalation, support services, 5150 evaluation, follow up, resources, and safety plan. 39