Oakland is withholding a 2024 police staffing study that cost residents $310,000
The 300-page study says Oakland needs 805 sworn police officers, but the city won’t release it, claiming exemption under the California Public Records Act
In November 2023, Oakland City Council awarded PFM Financial LLC a $285,000 contract to perform a staffing study of Oakland Police Department. It aimed to establish the baseline number of officers needed in the department, and how they should be allocated geographically. The contract was subsequently expanded to $310,000—at the request of council president Nikki Bas—to recommend non-police responses to calls for service.
The city noted:
“Time is of the essence, and the City of Oakland would like this study completed as soon as possible. PFM Financial LLC will provide the first report no later than July 2024. The final report should be available by December 2024.”1
PFM’s report was delivered in November 2024 to Oakland Inspector General, Zurvohn Maloof, who is serving as the project manager on the contract. He explained to the Oakland Police Commission,2 that PFM finalized the report this February, after incorporating revisions from himself and the Oakland Police Department (OPD). Maloof then sent the final report to the city council’s Public Safety Committee with unspecified “concerns.”
But the city has not released the report publicly, and denied Oakland Report’s public record request by citing exemption under California Government Code sections 7927.500 and 7922.000. These exemptions allow withholding of a document “if the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.”
Monica Pelayo Lock, Director of Communications for the OIG, told Oakland Report:
“Although the OIG indicated that the report was “final,” after review, it was determined the provided report is still a draft. PFM has until June 30, 2025, to submit a final copy. Based on this fact, and in consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, records are being withheld pursuant to Gov Code sections 7927.500 and 7922.000".”
But this argument is insufficient for exemption because it did not explain how public interest is clearly served by withholding the “draft.”
We contacted Noel Gallo, chair of the Public Safety Committee. He confirmed that the four members of the Public Safety Committee had received the report, but the full city council did not get access. Gallo felt that the entire council should see the report immediately because the information is highly relevant to the budget process currently underway.
The 300-page report found that Oakland needs 805 officers, according to Gallo. It means Oakland is 205 officers short of the study’s recommendations. The city currently has 600 authorized officers, the lowest in 25 years.
This staffing study was commissioned by Oakland’s city council, with urgency, to help inform the city budget and guide solutions to its public safety problems. But now, at this moment of acute need—when the FY2025-27 budget is being written and the city continues to suffer excessive crime—the city administration and city attorney are choosing to withhold its vital findings from city council and public view.
Why hasn’t the city released the staffing report?
Based on information provided by Gallo, the inspector general and/or the city believe the report should have included an analysis of civilian staffing at OPD. Gallo said that the inspector general and the city administration are attempting to negotiate with PFM for an amendment to include this additional scope.
But why does this contractual dispute justify withholding the already-received report?
According to the inspector general’s comments at a recent Oakland Police Commission meeting, the city is withholding its final payment to PFM until the Public Safety Committee is satisfied with the report:
“I … asked [the Public Safety Committee for] their consideration by April 4th … whether or not they approve of the staffing study, and that it meets all the qualifications and [their] satisfaction. Per the contract, it has to be satisfied in order for them to get final payment.”
Maloof noted that when the report is finally accepted, it will be presented to the full council and the public by PFM financial in a future council meeting.
Perhaps the city fears that a public release will constitute tacit acceptance of the report, thereby ending the dispute and leaving them with no leverage to negotiate a contract amendment. But if the city withholds the report until June 30, as they implied in Pelayo Lock’s response, they will have withheld its findings from the entire two-year budgeting process.
It is certainly not in the public’s interest to have such relevant data withheld from critical budgetary decisions while the city is fiscal crisis.
Is the city justified in withholding public documents?
After half a dozen inquires by Oakland Report to city staff, it remains unclear what is the basis for the city’s claim that the PFM report is incomplete.
The city’s own 2023 and 2024 memos called for (1) an analysis of officer staffing levels, (2) a study of calls for service, (3) analysis of police overtime, and (4) a specific request to determine what sworn positions could be civilianized.3
Nowhere in the documents does it mention that OPD’s civilian staff needs should be analyzed. But because the actual contract scope of work was omitted from documents posted by the city, we cannot yet independently assess the city’s claims unless our public request for that document is fulfilled.
Nonetheless, from the perspective of public interest, it does not matter at this moment what was the specific scope, or whether that scope was fully satisfied. The city and public could be benefitting from the information that was provided, regardless of what was not yet provided.
There are 300 pages of analysis completed by PFM which could greatly inform the public, the council, and the present budget process. This information is being deliberately withheld from public view and council consideration based on a dispute over what appears to be 10% of the contract value ($31,000).
Even if the report lacks an analysis of OPD’s civilian staff, it does not invalidate the value of a full year of research and 300 pages of information that has already has been reviewed and revised according to the OIG’s requests.
This city and its residents do not have the time to squabble over a few thousand dollars when the city is staring at a $140 million-per-year fiscal crisis, a public safety crisis, and a growth crisis all at the same time. The information in the OPD staffing study was commissioned by elected representatives of the public, paid for by the public, is overdue to the public, and should be delivered to the public without delay.
Tags: Police, Policing, City Council, Budget
Appendix
Timeline
Oakland’s Office of Inspector General was created in 2020 by Measure S1. First item of business was to audit the department and issue a report on its findings by 12/2022.
Based on that audit work, the OIG recommended that the city establish a baseline for the number of officers and resources needed to properly respond to calls for service, and that the consultant identify options for civilianization of some sworn positions.
In the 2021-23 budget, as an outcome of the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, the city council included a directive to remove low-level and non-violent calls for service from the police department. This was the driver for the creation of the MACRO pilot program.
In the 2023-2025 budget, the city council budget team (Bas, Fife, Jenkins, Kaplan) issued a new directive:
“Direct the City Administrator or their designee (Office of the Inspector General) to conduct a staffing study and resource analysis of the Oakland Police Department (OPD). This study would help to:
a. Identify current resources
b. Determine the number of officers needed in a particular geographic area
c. Decide how staffing and operational resources should be allocated
Calls for service audits and resource allocation reviews are best when tied to a staffing study. If the City of Oakland’s objective is to determine if police are responding to calls for service in an efficient timeframe, it is critical to first know the number of available officers, target timeframes, and how alternate resources can be used to supplement services. $200,000 shall be allocated for this study ($100,000 designated in the FY 2021-2023 budget and $100,000 designated in the proposed budget amendments).”
Responding to the budget directive, IG, Michelle Phillips, recommended the study in her October 2023 report to city administrator Jestin Johnson which questioned whether OPD was using resources effectively: “The City Council, Mayor, and members of the Oakland community have questioned the effectiveness and efficiency of OPD’s use of staffing resources. The examination of OPD staffing, alternative responses to calls for service, and possible civilization of some OPD functions is critical to effective, efficient, and sustainable police reforms in the City of Oakland.”
Prior to commissioning the study, councilmember Nikki Bas implored the study consultants to reach specific conclusions that would require removal of certain functions from police and civilianization of police positions.
“Critical outcomes of this study must include:
1. Further calls for service analysis and recommendations for transferring or deprioritizing certain low level calls
2. Recommendations for further civilianization of sworn positions
3. Recommendations to address comp time as described in audits by the Oakland City Auditor in 2015 and 2019”
Bas specifically notes this is a continuation of a program of de-policing of Oakland that began with “creating an alternative response program (MACRO) to manage certain non-violent calls for service. We have also civilianized several police functions including: Neighborhood Services, Special Events, certain Traffic Enforcement, while Internal Affairs will be civilized in the future.”
On November 7, 2003, the council issued a resolution commissioning the study and overriding contracting rules to hire PFM. They cited PFM’s unique experience and prior service to Oakland as part of the justification: “The City of Oakland currently has a contract with PFM Financial Advisors LLC for a different service. The consultants identified are subject matter experts in this field with a portfolio that highlights an expertise in this work.”
The City Inspector General, Michelle Phillips—who since left and was replaced by Zurvohn Maloof—was designated as the project manager for the work.
The study was delivered in November 2024 to the City Inspector General Zurvohn Maloof, who is now serving as the project manager for the contract with PFM. PFM delivered the final copy of the report in February 2025, after making revisions requested by Mr. Maloof.
In light of this urgency and a preference for the chosen firm, the council suspended the city’s competitive bidding and local business requirements, noting the city “currently has a contract with PFM Financial Advisors LLC for a different service. The consultants identified are subject matter experts in this field with a portfolio that highlights an expertise in this work.”
The city memos were included with the resolutions that commissioned and expanded the study. They defined the following scope for the study:
Budget Policy Directives from council members Bas, Fife, Jenkins and Kaplan, June 26, 2023:
“Direct the City Administrator or their designee (Office of the Inspector General) to conduct a staffing study and resource analysis of the Oakland Police Department (OPD). This study would help to:
Identify current resources
Determine the number of officers needed in a particular geographic area
Decide how staffing and operational resources should be allocated
Calls for service audits and resource allocation reviews are best when tied to a staffing study. If the City of Oakland’s objective is to determine if police are responding to calls for service in an efficient timeframe, it is critical to first know the number of available officers, target timeframes, and how alternate resources can be used to supplement services. $200,000 shall be allocated for this study ($100,000 designated in the FY 2021-2023 budget and $100,000 designated in the proposed budget amendments).”
Original memo from former inspector general, Michelle Phillips, justifying the report:
“The OIG determined that the City of Oakland should establish a baseline for the number of officers and resources needed to properly respond to calls for service within each geographic location in Oakland. The OIG is recommending that the consultant explore options of civilianization of some sworn positions. Further, the consultant should identify and document outcomes of OPD activity and key performance indicators, which includes some of the following:
OPD response to resident-generated calls for service
OPD self-initiated interactions
Case closures-Clearance rate by type
OPD Overtime-Focus on Patrol and Investigations
Review and document direct partnerships with City agencies and community partners”
Memo from Michelle Phillips on February 20, 2024 amending the study scope:
“While the original contract was not to exceed two hundred eighty-five thousand dollars ($285,000), during that same meeting, the City Council also expressed their desire to broaden PFM Financials scope of service to include a high-level overview of OPD’s call for service data. This important data would help identify incoming call trends, quantify resources dispersed per call, optimize staffing levels for dispatch communications centers, and develop strategies to delegate non-emergency calls to other agencies.”
For $50,000, I could have told them they need more officers.
So frustrating. Forget 800 officers, I thought parity per population + crime rate was something like 1,200.