Minneapolis budget committee advances $2.5 million grant for non‑police 911 response pilots

The Minneapolis City Budget Committee on July 13 advanced a $2.5 million discretionary community project grant to fund pilots and research intended to divert certain 911 calls from police to civilian responders.

Will Christiansen, director of design and implementation for the Office of Community Safety, told the committee the grant is aimed at "expanding alternative response, that keep residents safe and ensure that each 911 call gets the appropriate response," and that the effort seeks faster, service‑oriented responses while reducing MPD workload.

Why it matters: The grant funds two pilot programs — a citywide civilian non‑injury traffic‑collision response modeled on Wilmington, N.C.'s crash investigator program, and a juvenile deflection pilot that would connect at‑risk youth to upstream services such as restorative justice and behavioral health supports. The award also underwrites research and data analysis by the NYU Policing Project and the City University of New York and funds a project coordinator to evaluate pilot results over roughly a 12‑month pilot period.

What the funding covers: Christiansen outlined the budget breakdown the committee was given: roughly $900,000 for the traffic collision response pilot, about $500,000 for the juvenile deflection pilot, $128,000 for a project coordinator, and approximately $1,000,000 for the academic research partners (NYU $579,000; CUNY $404,000). Christiansen said the pilots plus coordinator total just over $1.5 million, with the remainder supporting research and analysis.

Council questions and follow‑up: Council member Wansley, who praised the city's prior work expanding non‑armed safety services, asked for an accounting of a prior $500,000 council appropriation from 2025 that paid for planning. "I would love to know what was or what has been the status with the $500,000 that went towards developing and supporting initiatives," Wansley said, and asked why the grant modification and DOJ approvals took two years. Christiansen said the funds were likely used for planning and design work and pointed to departmental reorganizations, staff changes and extensive DOJ administrative processes — including potential research‑integrity and conflict‑of‑interest reviews — as reasons for the delay. He agreed to provide a staff follow‑up memo with details on how the earlier appropriation was spent.

Implementation details: Kira Haspart, director of Performance Management & Innovation, described partner roles and operational needs. She said PMI expects to work with county social workers, schools and community partners on juvenile deflection and that the traffic pilot will require hiring, vehicle procurement and retrofitting (the team said it plans for electric vehicles), and training civilian traffic control agents. Haspart said DOJ requirements — potentially including an institutional review board review because the work may collect juvenile data — added complexity to the approval process.

Legal and timing questions: Council member Rainville asked whether state law changes would be needed to implement a non‑police traffic‑reporting model. Christiansen said the office is "looking into some of that right now" and will consult the city attorney and follow up with the committee if statutory changes are necessary. Christiansen did not provide a definitive start date for the pilots at the meeting and said staff will return with more detailed timelines once administrative steps are complete.

Committee action and next steps: Vice Chair Elizabeth Schafer moved to advance the discretionary grant program; the motion was seconded and approved by voice vote and the committee moved the item forward. Christiansen and PMI staff said the project coordinator will evaluate pilot outcomes and return recommendations to council about which alternative responses to continue or modify.

The committee requested a written staff memo clarifying how prior planning funds were spent and asked staff to follow up on any legal or statutory barriers before implementation.