You are on page 1of 206

DISTRIBUTION DATE: ______6/27/12______

MEMORANDUM
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: Chief Howard A. Jordan

SUBJECT: Clarification from the Office of Chief DATE: June 27, 2012 of Police Regarding Crime Reduction Strategies and the Crime Data and Findings on which they are Based

________________
City Administrator Approval Date

/s/ Deanna J. Santana INFORMATION

6/27/12

_____

Due to recent questions regarding crime rates within specific neighborhoods, this memorandum provides information on the Oakland Police Departments (OPD) overall use of crime data reporting and analysis to develop violence reduction strategies.

Problem Defined
The City of Oakland and its citizens continue to suffer from high rates of crime. Using annual Uniform Crime Report (UCR) statistics, CQ Press listed Oakland 5th in a 2012 ranking of national crime rates. As a result, Oakland was labeled the 5th Most Dangerous City. The prevalence of high crime is further aggravated by the lack of law enforcement resources and personnel. In 2009, sworn police officer strength was at its peak of 830 officers. Today, 642 police officers remain a sworn staffing level at its lowest point in memory. In 2011, OPD handled a volume of service that has not decreased in comparison to available staff units were dispatched to more than 242,000 calls for service in addition to handling more than 75,000 proactive enforcement and self-initiated incidents1.

Strategy
With these challenges in mind, providing public safety service to our community requires the planning and implementation of strategies consistent with national best practices. These strategies are fundamentally based on key points: violent crime is historically and comparatively centered in certain areas of our city; ongoing crime reduction strategies require constant data analysis, measurements for effectiveness, and continuing use of intelligence-led policing approaches; plans require short, mid, and long-term efforts; violence suppression efforts require coordinated focus among OPD, partnering organizations, law enforcement agencies, and the community.
1

SpeedTrack Inc., Oakland PD CAD Client, 2011 dispatched and on-view calls excluding medical and administrative

To: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL Subject: Clarification from the Office of Chief of Police Regarding Crime Reduction Strategies and the Crime Data and Findings on which they are Based Date: June 27, 2012

Page 2

Crime Location Methodologies and mapping conducted in the past and present demonstrably indicate that violent crime is located in certain geographical areas of Oakland. The recurring placement of violent crime has been the core basis for past hotspot policing models of violence reduction. This conclusion has been made, and is repeatedly observed, across a variety of past mapping resources, studies, and analyses: Analysis of Oakland Homicides and Shootings, 2008 2010 City of Oakland Department of Human Services (Attachment A) Community Police Beats Ranked by 2011 Stressor Index Map and Table City of Oakland, Urban Strategies Council (Attachments B and B1) Shootings and Homicides Hot Spots, January 1, 2006 June 30, 2011 City of Oakland Department of Human Services (Attachment C) Shootings and Homicides Hot Spots, July 1, 2009 June 30, 2011 City of Oakland Department of Human Services (Attachment D) Crime in Oakland, California 2005 2009 Rethinking Greater Long Beach, William J. Crampon, Ph.D., Alex J. Norman, D.S.W., & John W. (Jack) Humphrey, Ph.D. (Attachment E)

Data Analysis Ongoing crime reduction strategies are dependent on accurate crime data collection, reporting, and analysis; without accurate information, measurements of conditions and effectiveness before and after employed strategies are not possible. Questions pertaining to the reliability of data may undermine a strategys credibility with our community. For this reason, OPD utilizes Forensic Logic, Inc. a Bay Area based company whose mission is to deliver timely information and analysis using a software system that collects data, aggregates that data into a centralized data cache, applies analytical formulas to the cached data, and returns both information and analysis to the Department. In addition to simplifying system-wide searches over a number of database silos to further the Departments investigative and intelligence abilities, Forensic Logic, Inc. provides constant, vital, and reliable crime mapping, reporting, and analytical tools. Attachment F, Offense Codes 187 (Murder), 245 (Assault with Deadly Weapon), 246 (Shooting at Inhabited Dwelling or Occupied Vehicle), and 247 (Shooting at Uninhabited Dwelling or Unoccupied Vehicle) August 1, 2009 July 31, 2011, not only demonstrates past findings of city-wide hotspots, but provides individual breakdowns, or clusters, of proximate incident activity. Crime mapping and measurement tools are essential to the Departments CompStat process - a bi-monthly accounting of crime data collection and inspection for the purpose of measuring the effectiveness of deployed tactics. Crime trends and categories are measured through a variety of methods. Year-to-date comparisons provide ongoing snapshots of results in a format most similar to annual UCR measurements, while comparisons made on a month to month basis may demonstrate a particular strategys or operations immediate impact on crime trends.

To: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL Subject: Clarification from the Office of Chief of Police Regarding Crime Reduction Strategies and the Crime Data and Findings on which they are Based Date: June 27, 2012

Page 3

Through the Departments use of crime mapping, reporting, and comparisons, continued examination and monitoring of broadly based city-wide crime or hotspot cluster activity can be made. Although we are compiling and assessing more information than ever before, here too is an area in need of improved resources. OPDs Computer Aided Dispatch, Field Based Reporting, Records Management, and other individual systems are either substandard or lack integration; therefore, methodologies for crime data reporting and tabulation often require sorting by hand or necessitate verification of statistics through several sources to compile a complete report. Short, Mid, and Long-Term Planning In August of 2010, the Department implemented a Strategic Plan containing short, mid, and long-term actions (Attachment G). The plan was developed with the combined understanding that Oakland experiences a disproportionately high amount of violent crime when compared to other large California municipalities and service demand and incidents of crime outpaced available staffing when compared to other agencies. The plan, in part, contained short, mid, and long-term action items with the objective of focusing proactive violence suppression and enforcement efforts. OPD continues to follow this framework despite the plans recommendation that staffing levels in the Department be greatly improved. To compensate for this detriment, expanding and strengthening partnerships and coordinating efforts with local, state, and federal law enforcement partners has become increasingly important. Using the framework provided by Strategic Plan action items, OPD most recently implemented a 90-day violence reduction plan on January 17, 2012, contemporaneously with the 100-Block Initiative kickoff. The violence reduction plan was not restricted by boundaries, but was focused in areas of the city which continue to be afflicted by a disproportionate and unacceptable amount of violence. Given the challenges of resources and personnel, effort was concentrated in areas and on activities most likely to result in maximum effectiveness and efficiency, and constant analysis was applied throughout the plan to ensure enforcement and cooperative efforts remained in effective locations. An Agenda Report discussing results of the January 17 April 17, 2012 violence reduction plan is forthcoming. Coordination and Collaboration OPD coordinates crime enforcement strategies with the Alameda County District Attorneys Office, Alameda County Sherriffs Office, US Marshals Service, ATF, DEA, FBI, United States Attorneys Office, CHP, and other law enforcement agencies. Oakland City Departments such as OFD, PWA, and the Department of Human Services also partnered to strategically focus their efforts to reduce blight and crime related issues. These partnerships continue to remain strong. Two examples are city-wide fugitive apprehension operations coordinated with the United States Marshals Service and a long term, complex operation to identify arrest gun related offenders coordinated with the United States Department of Justice/ Department of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. The outcome of this first phase of the operation included the arrests of the most dangerous criminals in the City and the recovery of 90 firearms. The work of these agencies continues in the City of Oakland.

To: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL Subject: Clarification from the Office of Chief of Police Regarding Crime Reduction Strategies and the Crime Data and Findings on which they are Based Date: June 27, 2012

Page 4

OPD constantly involves the community in identifying crime problems and solutions through various channels including Neighborhood Crime Prevention Councils, Home Alert Groups, faith based organizations, merchants associations, and schools. Measure Y funded service providers are also included in crime fighting and public education efforts to inform the public about crime trends and crime prevention tips. Members of the public engage in public safety strategies through participation in their NCPCs, attending the Citizen Police Academy, Home Alert meetings, and information sharing particularly with their Problem Solving Officers. Community members also assist OPD with crime tips sent to the drug hotline and Oakland Crime Stoppers. Measure Y funded Problem Solving Officers (PSOs) also play an important role in our overall efforts to curtail the identified crime issues. PSOs are the liaisons between their respective NCPCs, merchant groups, Home Alert groups, and other City agencies, and they address identified hotspots using the S.A.R.A model (Scanning, Analysis, Response and Assessment) with the goal of permanently eliminating these crime and crime related issues. PSOs share intelligence with the Criminal Investigation Division as well as with their counterparts in Patrol. Progress and results of projects are in turn shared with community stakeholders. We also seek out opportunities to work with the Neighborhood Services Coordinators on prevention and education efforts such as crime bulletins and personal safety workshops. Finally, patrol officers patrol on foot in hotspots, maintaining high visibility and corresponding with members of the community.

Conclusion
Violence reduction plans, and my commitment to public safety as a whole, are based on thoughtful and thorough strategies that make the most of our partnerships in light of our limited resources. Our data and analyses are evidence based, and the strategies built upon them are founded on best practices which have proven successful in other cities. The Oakland Police Department is committed to fighting crime in the most effective manner possible in order to relieve our community of the burden, fear, and tragedy of crime; however, we require the resources to yield results. For questions regarding this report, please contact Assistant Chief Anthony Toribio at (510) 2383958. Respectfully submitted,

__________/s/_________ HOWARD A. JORDAN Chief of Police Oakland Police Department

To: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL Subject: Clarification from the Office of Chief of Police Regarding Crime Reduction Strategies and the Crime Data and Findings on which they are Based Date: June 27, 2012

Page 5

Prepared by: Sgt. Christopher C. Bolton Chief of Staff to Chief Howard A. Jordan Office of Chief of Police

Attachments (7)

Analysis of Oakland Homicides and Shootings


2008-2010
James Baird, Intern City of Oakland, Department of Human Services

Homicides

*Data from OPD

Shootings and Homicides

*Data from OPD

Homicides and Shootings by Day of the Week 2008-2010

*Data from OPD

Homicides and Shootings by Time of Day 2008-2010

*Data from OPD

Number of Homicides and Shootings by Day and Time 2008-2010


Sunday 1AM

12PM

12PM

12PM

12PM

12PM

12PM

12PM

6AM

6AM

6PM

6PM

6AM

6AM

6AM

6AM

6AM

6PM

6PM

Sunday

Monday

Tuesday

6PM

6PM

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Saturday
*Data from OPD

6PM

Beats with the Most Shootings and Homicides


2008 27Y (70) 06X (69) 34X (66) 20X (57) 26Y (56) 35X (56) 02X (48) 29X (40) 30X (40) 27X (39)
Area 1 (West Oakland)

2009 34X (58) 27Y (53) 29X (45) 35X (42) 06X (39) 02X (36) 30X (32) 02Y (31) 33X (31) 26Y / 07X (30)
Area 2 (Central Oakland)

2010 27Y (80) 30X (77) 34X (73) 26Y (71) 29X (46) 30Y (45) 33X (45) 07X (44) 35X (40) 02Y (38)
Area 3 (East Oakland)

*These numbers include PC 187, 245, 246, 247 (parenthesis is the number of events)

*Violent is defined by the number of homicides and shootings

Populations Beat Rank by ZScore (1 = most stressed) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 Z-Scores* # of Indicators scoring in top 10 Total 34X 30X 29X 35X 26Y 06X 04X 27Y 30Y 27X 07X 02Y 33X 02X 05X 19X 20X 10X 23X 10Y 32X 32Y 05Y 31Y 08X 21Y 25X 21X 26X 24Y 18Y 31Z 17Y 28X 11X 24X 17X 15X 12X 18X 35Y 31X 22Y 03Y 22X 25Y 03X 14X 01X 09X 12Y 13Z 16Y 14Y 13Y 16X 13X 1.33 1.32 1.25 1.18 1.07 1.05 0.88 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.78 0.67 0.63 0.63 0.56 0.56 0.40 0.32 0.30 0.25 0.23 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.06 0.02 -0.06 -0.09 -0.14 -0.16 -0.17 -0.18 -0.23 -0.23 -0.28 -0.38 -0.40 -0.44 -0.55 -0.57 -0.63 -0.66 -0.68 -0.71 -0.73 -0.74 -0.79 -0.80 -0.83 -0.93 -1.00 -1.03 -1.16 -1.22 -1.22 9 7 8 8 5 10 6 4 6 5 4 6 3 5 5 3 3 5 3 2 0 1 4 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 8878 10385 9124 7316 9108 6748 9076 10474 6802 7314 5895 4672 7990 4399 3770 9576 9024 6803 8442 6026 7279 6156 1073 4748 10456 10439 9656 7024 1892 7188 6173 4866 7780 5658 6465 8180 7074 7478 4285 3078 6045 24 9014 2754 8363 5152 5088 9915 2484 8741 10252 10970 6896 6836 8401 4612 6486 390,779 6,978 2,365 2010 Census Age 0-17 2955 3068 2156 2048 2913 1348 829 3176 1702 1979 1185 1149 2540 1202 844 1736 2481 1140 2262 1113 2065 1637 225 1425 1061 2560 1959 1814 497 1817 1534 1569 1459 967 885 2274 1371 837 581 849 1055 5 1718 177 1661 899 540 895 141 810 1627 2258 1317 716 1528 1119 1412 83,085 1,484 734 Age 18-30 1796 1987 1545 1273 1934 1489 1955 2142 1137 1469 1266 1077 1686 864 760 1948 1885 1384 1846 1227 1485 1036 206 937 2342 1988 1249 1461 484 1328 1250 917 1518 1290 1543 1651 1559 1362 969 584 602 5 1237 698 811 609 557 2024 632 1556 1736 638 532 1128 682 307 597 70,175 1,253 523 2010-11 OUSD Enrolled Students 1355 1579 866 825 1521 606 386 1638 796 850 480 447 1338 586 413 958 1042 239 1066 373 828 565 70 639 404 1240 886 888 302 930 811 752 807 405 325 1084 746 381 179 506 336 2 695 103 684 282 454 285 26 146 504 872 451 152 397 318 471 36,288 648 389

APPENDIX C -2011 Oakland StressorRate Model Incarceration & Probation


Crime incidence Per 1,000 People 2010 Incarceration Rate Probation Rate (Age 0-17) (Age 0-17) 19 17 22 19 14 27 6 13 8 19 33 23 11 22 23 3 7 25 11 19 12 11 22 8 3 6 7 15 16 8 10 9 14 12 8 6 7 16 3 9 10 NA 3 0 2 4 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 10 8 16 13 19 15 10 20 7 8 4 15 22 22 10 17 15 2 7 16 7 14 7 7 18 5 1 4 6 10 14 6 5 7 8 11 6 5 7 14 3 8 6 NA 2 0 2 2 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 8 6 July 2010 - June 2011 Arrests Arrests (Age 0-17) (Age 18-30) 29 30 22 28 23 8 16 17 17 24 1 8 19 8 8 30 27 5 19 9 12 7 1 11 5 13 12 8 7 8 6 10 10 3 4 6 6 11 15 5 4 5 6 7 6 12 3 2 3 4 4 2 3 0 0 1 3 573 10 8 225 158 144 128 166 192 187 184 125 136 124 84 140 92 58 366 196 41 171 38 81 68 22 84 100 102 55 69 92 57 48 34 55 33 36 56 100 39 23 52 11 144 26 56 39 12 80 25 34 37 19 5 9 15 6 8 2 4,689 82 70 Domestic Violence 43 66 65 57 59 20 40 55 41 37 16 17 29 18 19 20 36 15 21 10 34 38 3 9 18 28 34 14 7 28 31 14 15 26 11 28 9 13 8 7 11 4 7 29 8 4 4 20 6 8 8 6 5 14 3 0 3 1,199 21 17 Shootings & Homicides 69 84 45 41 74 38 20 88 39 31 30 33 49 25 23 32 31 15 21 21 27 22 7 23 9 18 10 12 16 20 10 14 24 9 11 24 11 1 4 7 1 3 13 0 6 1 7 1 7 2 3 0 0 1 0 3 1 1,137 20 21 Other Violent Crime 124 140 99 69 115 137 137 121 104 128 81 76 102 88 59 214 126 45 209 66 84 71 12 84 143 90 104 88 62 68 77 27 109 35 53 70 81 60 73 38 14 9 49 27 54 9 85 62 26 48 46 12 28 26 4 10 1 4,179 73 47 Probation Rate (Age 18+) 142 121 99 134 116 130 47 114 160 102 117 121 102 141 150 53 56 82 49 75 96 113 83 121 44 51 47 56 66 64 62 108 44 43 47 59 53 22 28 55 58 NA 32 32 33 26 34 14 5 8 12 11 36 10 6 23 5 66 44 Food Stamp Recipients Per 1,000 People 2010 274 258 228 281 316 261 383 247 495 210 254 278 266 381 256 180 211 144 184 174 213 203 162 277 111 183 81 213 215 200 249 260 169 100 107 185 229 61 86 223 52 NA 47 80 63 30 103 52 26 33 22 4 33 29 5 15 3 171 110

OUSD Students' Behavioral Indicators 2010-11 Chronic Violent Suspension Absence Rate Rate 17% 13% 17% 19% 15% 18% 16% 12% 18% 17% 17% 19% 16% 18% 18% 8% 10% 18% 9% 17% 14% 14% 26% 12% 14% 15% 11% 15% 12% 13% 11% 13% 8% 14% 17% 10% 8% 7% 15% 10% 12% 0% 7% 9% 7% 14% 4% 7% 12% 9% 5% 3% 4% 5% 4% 1% 2% 120 52 5% 6% 6% 8% 5% 6% 6% 4% 4% 5% 7% 5% 4% 5% 9% 2% 3% 6% 2% 7% 4% 4% 10% 4% 4% 4% 3% 4% 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 5% 5% 2% 3% 2% 3% 3% 3% 0% 1% 4% 1% 3% 1% 3% 4% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1% 0% 36 22

Age 18+ 5923 7317 6968 5268 6195 5400 8247 7298 5100 5335 4710 3523 5450 3197 2926 7840 6543 5663 6180 4913 5214 4519 848 3323 9395 7879 7697 5210 1395 5371 4639 3297 6321 4691 5580 5906 5703 6641 3704 2229 4990 19 7296 2577 6702 4253 4548 9020 2343 7931 8625 8712 5579 6120 6873 3493 5074 307,694 5,495 1,927

Burglaries 156 159 246 147 129 175 319 119 165 147 136 116 138 78 48 142 101 187 138 125 87 139 29 165 324 144 287 102 101 124 84 70 92 125 145 97 107 128 133 38 125 107 197 63 164 79 96 137 116 139 230 277 119 104 157 63 115 7,780 136 62

Total Average Standard Deviation

Note: Dark grey highlighting indicates top ten ranking per indicator.

This number represents a count of all indicators for each beat that were among the 10 highest values in the city.

This beat consists of the Airport and Coliseum areas, therefore no population-based information was generated.

Prepared by Urban Strategies Council

APPENDIX C -2011 Oakland Stressor Model


STRESSOR BEATS RANKED BY Z SCORE Rank by ZBeat Z-Scores* Score 34X 1 1.33 30X 2 1.32 29X 3 1.25 35X 4 1.18 26Y 5 1.07 06X 6 1.05 27Y 8 0.86 27X 10 0.84 04X 30Y 07X 33X 02Y 02X 19X 05X 20X 23X 10X 32X 10Y 32Y 05Y 31Y 08X 21Y 21X 25X 26X 24Y 18Y 31Z 17Y 28X 24X 11X 17X 15X 18X 12X 35Y 31X 03X 22Y 03Y 22X 25Y 14X 01X 09X 12Y 13Z 16Y 14Y 13Y 13X 16X 7 9 11 13 12 14 16 15 17 19 18 21 20 22 23 24 25 26 28 27 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 35 37 38 40 39 41 42 47 43 44 45 46 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 57 56 0.88 0.85 0.78 0.63 0.67 0.63 0.56 0.56 0.40 0.30 0.32 0.23 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.02 0.06 -0.06 -0.09 -0.14 -0.16 -0.17 -0.18 -0.23 -0.23 -0.28 -0.38 -0.44 -0.40 -0.55 -0.57 -0.73 -0.63 -0.66 -0.68 -0.71 -0.74 -0.79 -0.80 -0.83 -0.93 -1.00 -1.03 -1.16 -1.22 -1.22 # of Indicators scoring in top 9 7 8 8 5 10 4 5 6 6 4 3 6 5 3 5 3 3 5 0 2 1 4 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Prepared by Urban Strategies Council

10X (18) 10Y (20) 07X (11) 05X (15) 02X (14) 03Y (44) 01X (49) 06X (6)

11X (35) 12X (39) 08X (25) 04X (7) 03X (47)

12Y (51)

| }
24

13Y (55)

13X (57) 13Z (52)

Community Police Beats Ranked by 2011 Stressor Index

City of Oakland

09X (50)

$ # " !
80

| }
13

05Y (23)

14X (48)

14Y (54) 15X (38) 17X (37)

16X (56) 17Y (33)

02Y (12)

16Y (53) 21Y (26) 24X (36)

22X (45)

22Y (43)

19X (16)

18Y 21X 18X (31) (28) (40) 20X (17)

Stressor Index by Community Police Beat (with Ranking)


#1 - 10 #11 - 20

24Y (30) 27X (10) 27Y (8) 26Y (5)


880

25X (27) 28X (34)

25Y (46) 29X (3)

23X (19)

$ # " !
580

#21 - 30 #31 - 39 #40 - 48


*Note: Rankings range from 1 - 57 with 1 being the most stressed.
Creative Commons

26X (29)

30X (2)

30Y (9) 35X (4) 35Y (41)

#49 - 57

$ # " !
31Y (24)

33X (13)

34X (1) 32X (21)

32Y (22)

Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike 3.0

0 0.5 1 Miles

31X (42)

31Z (32)

Prepared by: Urban Strategies Council, January 9, 2012

Sources: City of Oakland, Urban Strategies Council

LEG COL

MO N

AS

Y HB

ATR ALC

AZ

AV

TA V

AV

13Y 13X
M O R AG
E AK SN

C LA

11X
IS LL HO ST

RE

12Y

RD

E AV

10X 10Y
N SA

51ST ST

13Z
A AV

WAY

MARKET ST

BRO AD

40TH ST

TELEGRAPH AV

ND LA AK

AV

PA RK

09X

PDT2

BL VD

PO

ST LL WE

12X
AV LO

City of Oakland Shootings and Homicides Hot Spots January 1, 2006- June 30, 2011 SK YL Created by City of Oakland, DHS IN E BL www.measurey.org VD
RED WO OD R

C TTU SHA

ND LA GH HI

K AV

AV

B PA

ADELINE ST

06X

D MAN ELA

N ST

WG

07X
RA N

08X
HAR RISO

14Y 14X
SH KE

14TH AV

05Y

05X
12TH ST

20TH S

20TH ST

MARKET ST

23RD AV

7TH ST

AV

02Y

ST

02X

ST 6TH ST

OA K

27X 20X
V VISTA A BUENA
GRA ND ST

SE M IN AR Y

FOOTHILL BLVD
73 RD

30Y
AV

AV

E 7TH ST E 7T H ST

23X

GOLF LIN

KE L

AV

ST

29X

LE R

01X

14 TH

18X
E1 2T H

03X

7T HS T

ST

21X

IG H

15 17X TH ST

20 TH

18Y

DA VIS

24Y

ST

7TH ST

03Y 8TH

H 14T

ST

TH 14

21Y
ST

35 TH

8TH ST

LKM1

FRUITVALE

14TH ST 11TH ST 12TH ST

AV

AV

17Y

AV

04X

15X

BLV D

LIN C

ST

LA

MA CA

RTH UR

16Y

OL N

DA V 20T H

R O

AV

AV

16X

22X

22Y

19X

24X

AV

OAK ST

AV

77 TH

Legend
Police Beats Major Streets

PAR KS

BL VD

CO LLE GE AV

IDE

FE R

NS

Cool - few shootings


ISLAND DR

Hot - high level of shotings

Y PKW

25Y 25X
AV RY INA EM S

28X

12 TH

ST

INT 27Y ERN ATIO NA

KS R

35Y

T TER S WEBS

S MAIN T

LN AV LINCO

L BL VD

30X

D N 82

35X
N BA O CR
LE AN ST

CENT

T 8TH S

V RAL A

ENC INAL AV
OTIS DR

26X

SA N

26Y
LE AN D RO ST

FT AV AV

34X 33X
TH 98

V YA

32Y

ER BERG HEGEN

32X
EDES AV

D O

LI 31X TT LE DR

V NA TO UT D
ST

RD

T 14

31Y 31Z

PA R

ST
S VI DA ST

MECARTNEY RD

LEG COL

MO N

AS

Y HB

ATR ALC

AZ

AV

TA V

AV

13Y 13X
M O R AG
E AK SN

C LA

11X
IS LL HO ST

RE

12Y

RD

E AV

10X 10Y
N SA

51ST ST

13Z
A AV

WAY

MARKET ST

BRO AD

40TH ST

TELEGRAPH AV

ND LA AK

AV

PA RK

09X

PDT2

BL VD

PO

ST LL WE

12X
AV LO

City of Oakland Shootings and Homicides Hot Spots July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2011 SK YL Created by City of Oakland, DHS IN E BL www.measurey.org VD
RED WO OD R

C TTU SHA

ND LA GH HI

K AV

AV

B PA

ADELINE ST

06X

D MAN ELA

N ST

WG

07X
RA N

08X
HAR RISO

14Y 14X
SH KE

14TH AV

05Y

05X
12TH ST

20TH S

20TH ST

MARKET ST

23RD AV

7TH ST

AV

02Y

ST

02X

ST 6TH ST

OA K

27X 20X
V VISTA A BUENA
GRA ND ST

SE M IN AR Y

FOOTHILL BLVD
73 RD

30Y
AV

AV

E 7TH ST E 7T H ST

23X

GOLF LIN

KE L

AV

ST

29X

LE R

01X

14 TH

18X
E1 2T H

03X

7T HS T

ST

21X

IG H

15 17X TH ST

20 TH

18Y

DA VIS

24Y

ST

7TH ST

03Y 8TH

H 14T

ST

TH 14

21Y
ST

35 TH

8TH ST

LKM1

FRUITVALE

14TH ST 11TH ST 12TH ST

AV

AV

17Y

AV

04X

15X

BLV D

LIN C

ST

LA

MA CA

RTH UR

16Y

OL N

DA V 20T H

R O

AV

AV

16X

22X

22Y

19X

24X

AV

OAK ST

AV

77 TH

Legend
Police Beats Major Streets

PAR KS

BL VD

CO LLE GE AV

IDE

FE R

Density of Shootings and Homicides


Cool -Few shootings

NS

ISLAND DR

Hot - high level of shootings

Y PKW

25Y 25X
AV RY INA EM S

28X

12 TH

ST

INT 27Y ERN ATIO NA

KS R

35Y

T TER S WEBS

S MAIN T

LN AV LINCO

L BL VD

30X

D N 82

35X
N BA O CR
LE AN ST

CENT

T 8TH S

V RAL A

ENC INAL AV
OTIS DR

26X

SA N

26Y
LE AN D RO ST

FT AV AV

34X 33X
TH 98

V YA

32Y

ER BERG HEGEN

32X
EDES AV

D O

LI 31X TT LE DR

V NA TO UT D
ST

RD

T 14

31Y 31Z

PA R

ST
S VI DA ST

MECARTNEY RD

Oakland Crime Statistics 2005-2009 Statistical Appendix Page Criminal Incidents Figure 1 All Criminal Incidents Map 1 Part I Violent Criminal Incidents Map 2 Part I Property Criminal Incidents Map 3 Part II Selected Criminal Incidents Table 1 Total - All Table 2 Total - Oakland Table 3 Total - Oakland Address Criminal Victims Figure 2 All Criminal Victims Map 4 Part I Violent Criminal Victims Map 5 Part I Property Criminal Victims Map 6 Part II Selected Criminal Victims Table 4 Total - All Table 5 Total - Oakland Table 6 Total - Oakland Address Figure 3 All Human Victims Table 7 Total Human Victims - Oakland Figure 4 Victims by Gender Table 8 Females - Oakland Table 9 Males - Oakland Figure 5 Victims by Ethnicity Table 10 African Am. - Oakland Table 11 Asian - Oakland Table 12 Latino - Oakland Table 13 White - Oakland Figure 6 Victims by Age Table 14 Under 18 Yr - Oakland Table 15 18 to 29 Yr - Oakland Table 16 30 to 49 Yr - Oakland Table 17 50 Yr & Over - Oakland Criminal Arrestees Figure 7 All Arrestees Map 7 Part I Violent Criminal Arrestees Map 8 Part I Property Criminal Arrestees Map 9 Part II Selected Criminal Arrestees Table 18 Total - All Table 19 Total - Oakland Table 20 Total - Oakland Address Figure 8 Arrestees by Gender Table 21 Females - Oakland Table 22 Males - Oakland Figure 9 Arrestees by Ethnicity Table 23 African Am. - Oakland
13

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55

Oakland Crime Statistics 2005-2009 Statistical Appendix Table 24 Asian - Oakland Table 25 Latino - Oakland Table 26 White - Oakland Figure 10 Arrestees by Age Table 27 Under 18 Yr - Oakland Table 28 18 to 29 Yr - Oakland Table 29 30 to 49 Yr - Oakland Table 30 50 Yr & Over - Oakland Victims and Arrestees Figure 11 Victim and Arrestee Same Ethnicity Table 31 All - Same Ethnicity Table 32 African Americans - Same Ethnicity Table 33 Asians - Same Ethnicity Table 34 Latinos - Same Ethnicity Table 35 Whites - Same Ethnicity Figure 12 Victim and Arrestee Same Age Group Table 36 All - Same Age Group Table 37 18 to 29 Years Old - Same Age Group Table 38 30 to 49 Years Old - Same Age Group Table 39 50 and Over Years Old - Same Age Group Table 40 All - Located in Same Block Group Socio-Economic Index Table 41 Socio-Economic Index - Variables Table 42 Socio-Economic Index - Summary Incidents Table 43 Socio-Economic Index - Summary Victims Table 44 Socio-Economic Index - Summary Arrestees Table 45 Socio-Economic Index - 2009 Detailed Incidents Table 46 Socio-Economic Index - 2009 Detailed Victims Table 47 Socio-Economic Index - 2009 Detailed Arrestees Others Table 48 Percentage of Cases in Oakland and With Valid Addresses Table 49 Record Count Page 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84

14

Figure 1A Oakland Incidents - Part I Violent


8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 6,177 10 7,599 7,203 7,200 6,401

Figure 1B Oakland Incidents - Part I Property


30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 24,357 25,025 24,346 22,459

21,628

Figure 1C Oakland Incidents - Part II Selected


20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 16,383 17,237 16,889 17,514 17,566

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

15

Map 1 Part I Violent Criminal Incidents


L afaye tte

Re se rvoir City of Oakland


U .C . B e r k e l e y

LAFA YE TTE

BE RKE LE Y

ORI NDA

PART I VIOLENT CRIME INCIDENTS


(By Quintiles)

. , San Francisco Bay

80

y 24 h wa Hig ate St

MO RAG A

EME RY VIL LE

. , -580 . , 80

PIE DMO NT

wy nF re ar W

. , -980 . , -880
Lake Merritt

.580 , .880 , ALA ME DA


Uppe r San Leandro Reservoir

RATE/1,000 PERSONS HIGH MEDIUM-HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM-LOW LOW

San Francisco Bay

.880 , `

. , -580
L ake Chabot

SA N LE AND RO

CAS TRO VA LLE Y

Source: Oakland Police Department

16

Map 2 Part I Proporty Criminal Incidents


L afaye tte

Re se rvoir City of Oakland


U .C . B e r k e l e y

LAFA YE TTE

BE RKE LE Y

ORI NDA

PART I PROPERTY CRIME INCIDENTS


(By Quintiles)

. , San Francisco Bay

80

4 ay 2 i gh w te H Sta

MO RAG A

EME RY VIL LE

. , -580 . 80 , .980 , .880 , Lake Merritt

PIE DMO NT

. , -580 .880 , ALA ME DA


Uppe r San Leandro Reservoir

wy nF re ar W

RATE/1,000 PERSONS HIGH MEDIUM-HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM-LOW LOW

San Francisco Bay

.880 , `

. , -580
L ake Chabot

SA N LE AND RO

CAS TRO VA LLE Y

Source: Oakland Police Department

17

Map 3 Part II Selected Criminal Incidents

Re se rvoir City of Oakland


U .C . B e r k e l e y

L afaye tte

LAFA YE TTE

BE RKE LE Y

ORI NDA

PART II SELECTED CRIME INCIDENTS


(By Quintiles)

. , San Francisco Bay

80

te Sta

y 24 h wa Hig

MO RAG A

EME RY VIL LE

.580 , . , 80

PIE DMO NT

wy nF re ar W

. , -980 . , -880
Lake Merritt

.580 , . , -880
ALA ME DA
Uppe r San Leandro Reservoir

RATE/1,000 PERSONS HIGH MEDIUM-HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM-LOW LOW

San Francisco Bay

. , `

880

.580 , L ake Chabot

SA N LE AND RO

CAS TRO VA LLE Y

Source: Oakland Police Department

18

`
Source: Oakland Police Department

SA N LE AND RO

CAS TRO VA LLE Y

19

Table 1 Incident Rate per 50,000 - Incidents Total - All Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 88 11 302 38 3,207 401 2,648 331 6,245 782 5,797 726 9,697 1,214 9,043 1,132 236 30 24,773 3,101 5,337 668 1,140 143 866 108 93 12 2,810 352 584 73 657 82 569 71 779 98 2,899 363 1,026 128 16,760 2,098 47,778 5,980 2006 Numb. Rate 136 17 318 40 3,938 493 3,252 407 7,644 957 5,052 632 9,553 1,196 10,454 1,308 260 33 25,319 3,169 6,000 751 1,056 132 903 113 85 11 3,081 386 565 71 854 107 655 82 584 73 2,687 336 1,042 130 17,512 2,192 50,475 6,318 2007 Numb. Rate 117 15 294 37 3,798 475 3,039 380 7,248 907 4,733 592 9,788 1,225 9,841 1,232 221 28 24,583 3,077 5,975 748 1,067 134 1,011 127 104 13 2,728 341 617 77 617 77 610 76 456 57 3,062 383 910 114 17,157 2,147 48,988 6,132 2008 Numb. Rate 116 15 280 35 3,728 467 3,117 390 7,241 906 4,503 564 9,990 1,250 7,972 998 230 29 22,695 2,841 6,244 782 930 116 1,197 150 167 21 2,590 324 663 83 489 61 574 72 457 57 3,610 452 887 111 17,808 2,229 47,744 5,976 2009 Numb. Rate 104 13 268 34 3,403 426 2,659 333 6,434 805 4,856 608 10,548 1,320 6,238 781 175 22 21,817 2,731 6,413 803 723 90 1,148 144 140 18 3,283 411 634 79 783 98 484 61 432 54 3,143 393 709 89 17,892 2,239 46,143 5,775

20

Table 2 Incident Rate per 50,000 - Incidents Total - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 87 11 282 35 3,193 400 2,615 327 6,177 773 5,752 720 9,378 1,174 8,991 1,125 236 30 24,357 3,049 5,274 660 1,069 134 764 96 90 11 2,776 347 577 72 647 81 544 68 775 97 2,855 357 1,012 127 16,383 2,051 46,917 5,872 2006 Numb. Rate 135 17 310 39 3,926 491 3,228 404 7,599 951 5,030 630 9,340 1,169 10,396 1,301 259 32 25,025 3,132 5,960 746 993 124 821 103 84 11 3,065 384 560 70 845 106 630 79 582 73 2,678 335 1,019 128 17,237 2,157 49,861 6,241 2007 Numb. Rate 117 15 280 35 3,789 474 3,017 378 7,203 902 4,712 590 9,614 1,203 9,799 1,226 221 28 24,346 3,047 5,932 742 1,006 126 920 115 103 13 2,717 340 613 77 610 76 585 73 455 57 3,050 382 898 112 16,889 2,114 48,438 6,063 2008 Numb. Rate 116 15 269 34 3,721 466 3,094 387 7,200 901 4,481 561 9,804 1,227 7,944 994 230 29 22,459 2,811 6,207 777 883 111 1,068 134 167 21 2,574 322 657 82 487 61 552 69 454 57 3,596 450 869 109 17,514 2,192 47,173 5,904 2009 Numb. Rate 104 13 264 33 3,398 425 2,635 330 6,401 801 4,844 606 10,393 1,301 6,216 778 175 22 21,628 2,707 6,371 797 683 85 999 125 140 18 3,254 407 629 79 780 98 464 58 428 54 3,125 391 693 87 17,566 2,199 45,595 5,707

21

Table 3 Incident Rate per 50,000 - Incidents Total - Oakland Address Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 87 11 250 31 3,103 388 2,548 319 5,988 749 5,631 705 8,343 1,044 8,877 1,111 230 29 23,081 2,889 5,078 636 872 109 552 69 85 11 2,663 333 569 71 637 80 467 58 769 96 2,794 350 973 122 15,459 1,935 44,528 5,573 2006 Numb. Rate 131 16 237 30 3,833 480 3,106 389 7,307 915 4,918 616 8,129 1,017 10,189 1,275 252 32 23,488 2,940 5,692 712 746 93 493 62 80 10 2,911 364 552 69 832 104 446 56 572 72 2,639 330 951 119 15,914 1,992 46,709 5,846 2007 Numb. Rate 116 15 230 29 3,650 457 2,884 361 6,880 861 4,617 578 8,570 1,073 9,582 1,199 213 27 22,982 2,877 5,720 716 740 93 604 76 99 12 2,596 325 604 76 600 75 436 55 449 56 3,004 376 849 106 15,701 1,965 45,563 5,703 2008 Numb. Rate 114 14 222 28 3,628 454 2,987 374 6,951 870 4,403 551 8,909 1,115 7,810 978 225 28 21,347 2,672 6,021 754 661 83 646 81 165 21 2,455 307 650 81 484 61 455 57 449 56 3,542 443 817 102 16,345 2,046 44,643 5,588 2009 Numb. Rate 104 13 227 28 3,291 412 2,543 318 6,165 772 4,773 597 9,483 1,187 6,072 760 170 21 20,498 2,566 6,152 770 527 66 597 75 139 17 3,113 390 622 78 768 96 416 52 420 53 3,082 386 658 82 16,494 2,064 43,157 5,402

22

Figure 2A Oakland Victims - Part I Violent


8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 5,805 6,776 7,014 7,328 6,472

Figure 2B Oakland Victims - Part I Property


20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 18,811 16,651 18,320 17,545 17,575

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 2C Oakland Victims - Part II Selected


14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 10,240 10,341 10,752 11,149 11,497

23

Map 4 Part I Violent Criminal Victims

Re se rvoir City of Oakland


U .C . B e r k e l e y

L afaye tte

LAFA YE TTE

BE RKE LE Y

ORI NDA

PART I VIOLENT CRIME VICTIMS


(By Quintiles)

. , San Francisco Bay

80

4 ay 2 i gh w te H Sta

MO RAG A

EME RY VIL LE

. , -580 . 80 , .980 , .880 , Lake Merritt

PIE DMO NT

. , -580 . , -880
ALA ME DA
Uppe r San Leandro Reservoir

wy nF re ar W

RATE/1,000 PERSONS HIGH MEDIUM-HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM-LOW LOW

San Francisco Bay

.880 , `

.580 , L ake Chabot

SA N LE AND RO

CAS TRO VA LLE Y

Source: Oakland Police Department

24

Map 5 Part I Proporty Criminal Victims


L afaye tte

Re se rvoir City of OaklandLAFA YE TTE


U .C . B e r k e l e y

BE RKE LE Y

ORI NDA

PART I PROPERTY CRIME VICTIMS


(By Quintiles)

. , San Francisco Bay

80

te Sta

y 24 h wa Hig

MO RAG A

EME RY VIL LE

.580 , . , 80

PIE DMO NT

wy nF re ar W

. , -980 . , -880
Lake Merritt

.580 , . , -880
ALA ME DA
Uppe r San Leandro Reservoir

RATE/1,000 PERSONS HIGH MEDIUM-HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM-LOW LOW

San Francisco Bay

. , `

880

.580 , L ake Chabot

SA N LE AND RO

CAS TRO VA LLE Y

Source: Oakland Police Department

25

Map 6 Part II Selected Criminal Victims


L afaye tte

Re se rvoir City of OaklandLAFA YE TTE


U .C . B e r k e l e y

BE RKE LE Y

ORI NDA

PART II SELECTED CRIME VICTIMS


(By Quintiles)

. 80 , San Francisco Bay


4 ay 2 i gh w te H Sta

MO RAG A

EME RY VIL LE

.580 , . 80 , .980 , .880 , Lake Merritt

PIE DMO NT

. , -580 . , -880
ALA ME DA
Uppe r San Leandro Reservoir

wy nF re ar W

RATE/1,000 PERSONS HIGH MEDIUM-HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM-LOW LOW

San Francisco Bay

.880 , `

.580 , L ake Chabot

SA N LE AND RO

CAS TRO VA LLE Y

Source: Oakland Police Department

26

Table 4 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - All Victims Total - All Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 128 16 317 40 3,600 451 2,926 366 6,971 873 5,905 739 9,758 1,221 8,945 1,120 230 29 24,838 3,109 5,574 698 1,085 136 859 108 81 10 2,716 340 555 69 1,072 134 11,942 1,495 43,751 5,476 2006 Numb. Rate 203 25 329 41 4,137 518 3,641 456 8,310 1,040 4,265 534 8,720 1,091 10,117 1,266 212 27 23,314 2,918 6,244 782 693 87 874 109 24 3 2,572 322 654 82 1,094 137 12,155 1,521 43,779 5,480 2007 Numb. Rate 144 18 303 38 4,568 572 3,503 438 8,518 1,066 5,198 651 9,878 1,236 9,962 1,247 201 25 25,239 3,159 6,283 786 1,042 130 1,005 126 82 10 2,635 330 613 77 947 119 12,607 1,578 46,364 5,803 2008 Numb. Rate 177 22 278 35 4,590 575 3,707 464 8,752 1,095 4,965 621 10,248 1,283 7,957 996 217 27 23,387 2,927 6,631 830 997 125 1,174 147 132 17 2,584 323 505 63 918 115 12,941 1,620 45,080 5,642 2009 Numb. Rate 156 20 283 35 4,175 523 3,250 407 7,864 984 5,477 686 10,782 1,350 6,269 785 168 21 22,696 2,841 6,867 859 734 92 1,114 139 154 19 3,308 414 444 56 718 90 13,339 1,670 43,899 5,495

27

Table 5 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - All Victims Total - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 106 13 236 30 2,914 365 2,549 319 5,805 727 5,452 682 7,655 958 5,527 692 177 22 18,811 2,354 4,888 612 855 107 653 82 71 9 2,349 294 447 56 977 122 10,240 1,282 34,856 4,363 2006 Numb. Rate 162 20 232 29 3,250 407 3,132 392 6,776 848 3,806 476 6,461 809 6,239 781 145 18 16,651 2,084 5,367 672 540 68 716 90 19 2 2,168 271 548 69 983 123 10,341 1,294 33,768 4,227 2007 Numb. Rate 119 15 196 25 3,706 464 2,993 375 7,014 878 4,777 598 7,262 909 6,140 769 141 18 18,320 2,293 5,414 678 815 102 836 105 65 8 2,284 286 489 61 849 106 10,752 1,346 36,086 4,517 2008 Numb. Rate 145 18 195 24 3,771 472 3,217 403 7,328 917 4,633 580 7,759 971 5,010 627 143 18 17,545 2,196 5,758 721 825 103 991 124 112 14 2,216 277 419 52 828 104 11,149 1,395 36,022 4,509 2009 Numb. Rate 123 15 201 25 3,322 416 2,826 354 6,472 810 5,179 648 8,103 1,014 4,177 523 116 15 17,575 2,200 6,000 751 618 77 933 117 147 18 2,814 352 350 44 635 79 11,497 1,439 35,544 4,449

28

Table 6 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - All Victims Total - Oakland Address Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 78 10 212 27 2,527 316 2,304 288 5,121 641 4,955 620 6,547 819 5,120 641 155 19 16,777 2,100 4,520 566 757 95 555 69 67 8 2,121 265 408 51 906 113 9,334 1,168 31,232 3,909 2006 Numb. Rate 131 16 208 26 2,846 356 2,778 348 5,963 746 3,570 447 5,842 731 5,895 738 126 16 15,433 1,932 4,912 615 475 59 654 82 18 2 1,963 246 476 60 914 114 9,412 1,178 30,808 3,856 2007 Numb. Rate 86 11 176 22 3,449 432 2,675 335 6,386 799 4,581 573 6,767 847 5,873 735 130 16 17,351 2,172 5,018 628 734 92 756 95 60 8 2,139 268 416 52 792 99 9,915 1,241 33,652 4,212 2008 Numb. Rate 107 13 175 22 3,559 445 2,864 358 6,705 839 4,492 562 7,203 902 4,766 597 130 16 16,591 2,077 5,327 667 741 93 906 113 82 10 2,097 262 367 46 774 97 10,294 1,288 33,590 4,204 2009 Numb. Rate 97 12 175 22 3,113 390 2,505 314 5,890 737 5,021 628 7,611 953 3,997 500 110 14 16,739 2,095 5,535 693 525 66 781 98 95 12 2,629 329 279 35 586 73 10,430 1,305 33,059 4,138

29

Figure 3A Oakland Human Victims - Part I Violent


Rate per 50,000 Population 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2006 2007 Total 2008 2009 829 1,039 1,000 1,015 929

Figure 3B Oakland Human Victims - Part I Property


Rate per 50,000 Population 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2005 2006 2007 Total 2008 2009 2,796 2,904 2,836 2,612 2,569

Figure 3C Oakland Human Victims - Part II Selected


Rate per 50,000 Population 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2005 2006 2007 Total 2008 2009 1,393 1,517 1,476 1,504 1,553

30

Table 7 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - Human Victims Total - All Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 127 16 317 40 3,293 412 2,888 361 6,625 829 4,760 596 8,905 1,115 8,487 1,062 186 23 22,338 2,796 5,541 694 778 97 853 107 29 4 2,315 290 551 69 1,066 133 11,133 1,393 40,096 5,019 2006 Numb. Rate 203 25 329 41 4,129 517 3,639 455 8,300 1,039 4,233 530 8,676 1,086 10,084 1,262 211 26 23,204 2,904 6,240 781 678 85 874 109 22 3 2,561 321 653 82 1,094 137 12,122 1,517 43,626 5,460 2007 Numb. Rate 141 18 303 38 4,127 517 3,415 427 7,986 1,000 3,965 496 8,936 1,118 9,588 1,200 168 21 22,657 2,836 6,171 772 791 99 997 125 35 4 2,253 282 609 76 938 117 11,794 1,476 42,437 5,312 2008 Numb. Rate 177 22 277 35 4,060 508 3,593 450 8,107 1,015 4,003 501 9,012 1,128 7,666 960 191 24 20,872 2,612 6,486 812 690 86 1,167 146 51 6 2,222 278 494 62 906 113 12,016 1,504 40,995 5,131 2009 Numb. Rate 155 19 281 35 3,871 485 3,113 390 7,420 929 4,668 584 9,607 1,202 6,103 764 147 18 20,525 2,569 6,663 834 551 69 1,101 138 69 9 2,889 362 424 53 711 89 12,408 1,553 40,353 5,051

31

Figure 4A Victims by Gender - Part I Violent


Rate per 50,000 Population 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2006 Female 2007 Male 2008 2009 808 530 627 615 632 1,043 978 997 863 607

Figure 4B Victims by Gender - Part I Property


Rate per 50,000 Population 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2005 2006 Female 2007 Male 2008 2009 2,111 1,837 2,148 1,835 2,165 1,751 2,002 1,702 1,992 1,719

Figure 4C Victims by Gender - Part II Selected


Rate per 50,000 Population 2,000 1,500 1,000 811 500 0 2005 2006 Female 2007 Male 2008 2009 1,487 1,613 1,569 1,579 1,576

904

854

890

939

32

Table 8 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - Human Victims Females - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 10 2 230 56 852 206 1,100 266 2,192 530 2,201 532 3,506 848 1,846 446 44 11 7,597 1,837 3,343 809 336 81 329 80 9 2 1,082 262 332 80 715 173 6,146 1,487 15,935 3,854 2006 Numb. Rate 28 7 227 55 1,069 259 1,268 307 2,592 627 1,934 468 3,385 819 2,212 535 57 14 7,588 1,835 3,630 878 277 67 437 106 9 2 1,207 292 432 104 675 163 6,667 1,613 16,847 4,075 2007 Numb. Rate 16 4 188 45 1,083 262 1,255 304 2,542 615 1,785 432 3,263 789 2,141 518 49 12 7,238 1,751 3,600 871 337 82 503 122 9 2 1,105 267 378 91 553 134 6,485 1,569 16,265 3,934 2008 Numb. Rate 21 5 191 46 1,115 270 1,285 311 2,612 632 1,907 461 3,340 808 1,741 421 47 11 7,035 1,702 3,742 905 331 80 593 143 6 1 995 241 312 75 548 133 6,527 1,579 16,174 3,912 2009 Numb. Rate 25 6 189 46 1,074 260 1,222 296 2,510 607 2,251 544 3,325 804 1,491 361 41 10 7,108 1,719 3,869 936 228 55 512 124 4 1 1,231 298 245 59 428 104 6,517 1,576 16,135 3,903

33

Table 9 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - Human Victims Males - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 95 25 2 1 1,686 437 1,333 346 3,116 808 2,020 524 3,009 781 3,039 788 69 18 8,137 2,111 1,451 376 216 56 282 73 11 3 824 214 103 27 238 62 3,125 811 14,378 3,730 2006 Numb. Rate 133 35 3 1 2,138 555 1,748 453 4,022 1,043 1,765 458 2,861 742 3,583 929 72 19 8,281 2,148 1,682 436 231 60 265 69 8 2 896 232 109 28 294 76 3,485 904 15,788 4,095 2007 Numb. Rate 98 25 7 2 2,146 557 1,521 395 3,772 978 1,755 455 2,990 776 3,558 923 42 11 8,345 2,165 1,602 416 256 66 304 79 6 2 746 194 96 25 281 73 3,291 854 15,408 3,997 2008 Numb. Rate 116 30 2 1 2,091 542 1,635 424 3,844 997 1,725 447 3,010 781 2,932 761 51 13 7,718 2,002 1,716 445 209 54 374 97 7 2 794 206 77 20 255 66 3,432 890 14,994 3,889 2009 Numb. Rate 96 25 7 2 1,910 495 1,314 341 3,327 863 2,037 528 3,114 808 2,486 645 44 11 7,681 1,992 1,749 454 197 51 374 97 7 2 1,032 268 69 18 190 49 3,618 939 14,626 3,794

34

Figure 5A Victims By Ethnicity - Part I Violent


Rate per 50,000 Population 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2006 African Am. Asian 2007 Latino 2008 White 2009 389 371 862 793 555 479 1,054 993 953 950 610 478 1,016 968 599 447 887 847 604 427

Figure 5B Victims By Ethnicity - Part I Property


Rate per 50,000 Population 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2005 2006 African Am. Asian 2007 Latino 2008 White 2009 2,032 1,958 1,657 1,287 1,995 1,933 1,891 1,244 1,911 1,762 1,717 1,455 2,127 1,852 1,639 1,597 1,264 1,658 1,610 1,440

Figure 5C Victims By Ethnicity - Part II Selected


Rate per 50,000 Population 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2005 2006 African Am. Asian 2007 Latino 2008 White 2009 893 693 387 951 730 450 915 747 508 1,032 761 481 1,070 761 477 1,906 2,085 1,966 1,973 1,967

35

Table 10 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - Human Victims African Am. - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 69 25 145 52 709 253 1,494 533 2,417 862 1,350 482 2,359 842 1,723 615 56 20 5,488 1,958 3,036 1,083 267 95 257 92 7 2 921 329 227 81 628 224 5,343 1,906 13,248 4,727 2006 Numb. Rate 103 37 156 56 743 265 1,782 636 2,784 993 1,219 435 2,203 786 1,936 691 60 21 5,418 1,933 3,385 1,208 220 78 332 118 8 3 1,035 369 280 100 585 209 5,845 2,085 14,047 5,012 2007 Numb. Rate 75 27 123 44 794 283 1,671 596 2,663 950 1,049 374 1,939 692 1,775 633 50 18 4,813 1,717 3,169 1,131 269 96 353 126 7 2 905 323 267 95 541 193 5,511 1,966 12,987 4,634 2008 Numb. Rate 103 37 126 45 943 336 1,677 598 2,849 1,016 1,187 424 1,956 698 1,409 503 42 15 4,594 1,639 3,332 1,189 264 94 428 153 5 2 802 286 206 73 493 176 5,530 1,973 12,973 4,629 2009 Numb. Rate 72 26 123 44 790 282 1,502 536 2,487 887 1,410 503 1,964 701 1,225 437 48 17 4,647 1,658 3,426 1,222 196 70 395 141 4 1 952 340 158 56 383 137 5,514 1,967 12,648 4,513

36

Table 11 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - Human Victims Asian - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate 4 3 5 4 1 1 1 1 9 7 11 9 10 8 13 11 3 2 4 3 370 306 530 439 625 517 578 479 620 513 85 70 125 103 98 81 142 118 96 79 470 389 670 555 737 610 724 599 729 604 507 420 387 320 576 477 482 399 652 540 621 514 640 530 620 513 564 467 671 556 421 349 474 392 555 459 478 396 415 344 6 5 2 2 6 5 3 2 1 1 1,555 1,287 1,503 1,244 1,757 1,455 1,527 1,264 1,739 1,440 169 140 188 156 236 195 217 180 229 190 44 36 46 38 47 39 47 39 25 21 63 52 76 63 112 93 113 94 90 75 1 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 0 0 156 129 188 156 168 139 162 134 197 163 13 11 17 14 22 18 12 10 12 10 22 18 25 21 27 22 28 23 23 19 468 387 543 450 613 508 581 481 576 477 2,493 2,064 2,716 2,249 3,107 2,572 2,832 2,345 3,044 2,520

37

Table 12 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - Human Victims Latino - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 27 15 44 25 785 449 532 304 1,388 793 722 413 853 488 1,304 745 20 11 2,899 1,657 888 508 42 24 93 53 3 2 267 153 127 73 142 81 1,562 893 5,849 3,344 2006 Numb. Rate 45 26 32 18 1,038 593 728 416 1,843 1,054 620 354 878 502 1,787 1,022 23 13 3,308 1,891 966 552 43 25 81 46 1 1 262 150 155 89 156 89 1,664 951 6,815 3,896 2007 Numb. Rate 26 15 26 15 989 565 626 358 1,667 953 549 314 741 424 1,776 1,015 16 9 3,082 1,762 965 552 59 34 82 47 1 1 242 138 124 71 128 73 1,601 915 6,350 3,630 2008 Numb. Rate 26 15 30 17 927 530 711 406 1,694 968 556 318 754 431 1,469 840 15 9 2,794 1,597 1,103 631 49 28 124 71 2 1 260 149 118 67 150 86 1,806 1,032 6,294 3,598 2009 Numb. Rate 19 11 34 19 852 487 577 330 1,482 847 648 370 839 480 1,313 751 16 9 2,816 1,610 1,158 662 56 32 114 65 3 2 353 202 85 49 102 58 1,871 1,070 6,169 3,526

38

Table 13 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - Human Victims White - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 1 1 26 14 484 258 186 99 697 371 1,225 652 1,574 838 1,007 536 12 6 3,818 2,032 470 250 140 75 134 71 8 4 381 203 45 24 125 67 1,303 693 5,818 3,096 2006 Numb. Rate 3 2 24 13 634 337 239 127 900 479 1,062 565 1,527 813 1,139 606 21 11 3,749 1,995 517 275 127 68 121 64 3 2 412 219 45 24 146 78 1,371 730 6,020 3,204 2007 Numb. Rate 5 3 26 14 628 334 240 128 899 478 1,052 560 1,378 733 1,152 613 8 4 3,590 1,911 590 314 144 77 181 96 2 1 356 189 33 18 98 52 1,404 747 5,893 3,136 2008 Numb. Rate 4 2 26 14 584 311 225 120 839 447 1,032 549 1,469 782 964 513 14 7 3,479 1,852 554 295 123 65 223 119 3 2 407 217 30 16 90 48 1,430 761 5,748 3,059 2009 Numb. Rate 10 5 28 15 559 298 206 110 803 427 1,287 685 1,937 1,031 765 407 7 4 3,996 2,127 533 284 102 54 209 111 3 2 458 244 37 20 87 46 1,429 761 6,228 3,315

39

Figure 6A Victims By Age - Part I Violent


1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Rate per 50,000 Population 1,433 1,177 936 765 451 345 572 439 866 541 463 855 531 512 1,347 1,403 1,303

779 512 395

2005 Under 18 Yr

2006 18-29 Yr

2007 30-49 Yr

2008 Over 50 Yr

2009

Figure 6B Victims By Age - Part I Property


Rate per 50,000 Population 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 75 2005 Under 18 Yr 95 2006 18-29 Yr 95 2007 30-49 Yr 95 2008 Over 50 Yr 96 2009 2,913 2,422 2,186 2,844 2,485 2,202 2,691 2,464 2,223 2,531 2,301 2,170 2,674 2,400 2,159

Figure 6C Victims By Age - Part II Selected


Rate per 50,000 Population 2,500 2,000 1,500 1,000 500 0 2005 Under 18 Yr 2006 18-29 Yr 2007 30-49 Yr 2008 Over 50 Yr 2009 1,710 1,454 895 586 1,798 1,499 1,026 735 1,756 1,479 986 645 1,765 1,512 1,072 609 1,922 1,572 1,111 540

40

Table 14 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - Human Victims Under 18 Yr - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 2006 2007 Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate 11 6 22 11 10 5 74 37 85 43 81 41 212 106 223 112 275 138 391 196 545 273 558 280 688 345 875 439 924 463 19 10 31 16 36 18 111 56 129 65 136 68 17 9 28 14 16 8 2 1 1 1 1 1 149 75 189 95 189 95 681 341 825 413 673 337 0 0 1 1 6 3 11 6 8 4 6 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 11 6 15 8 14 7 340 170 409 205 377 189 125 63 208 104 210 105 1,170 586 1,466 735 1,286 645 2,007 1,006 2,530 1,268 2,399 1,202 2008 2009 Numb. Rate Numb. Rate 11 6 15 8 57 29 56 28 341 171 287 144 612 307 431 216 1,021 512 789 395 43 22 34 17 135 68 150 75 11 6 7 4 0 0 0 0 189 95 191 96 686 344 686 344 3 2 3 2 18 9 9 5 1 1 0 0 8 4 22 11 287 144 238 119 212 106 120 60 1,215 609 1,078 540 2,425 1,215 2,058 1,031

41

Table 15 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - Human Victims 18 to 29 Yr - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 45 30 90 60 862 573 774 515 1,771 1,177 804 534 1,548 1,029 1,274 847 18 12 3,644 2,422 1,631 1,084 110 73 134 89 2 1 428 285 43 29 224 149 2,572 1,710 7,987 5,309 2006 Numb. Rate 87 58 62 41 1,016 675 990 658 2,155 1,433 745 495 1,403 933 1,565 1,040 26 17 3,739 2,485 1,765 1,173 83 55 183 122 1 1 421 280 51 34 201 134 2,705 1,798 8,599 5,716 2007 Numb. Rate 55 37 63 42 1,035 688 873 580 2,026 1,347 684 455 1,465 974 1,537 1,022 20 13 3,706 2,464 1,730 1,150 123 82 180 120 1 1 409 272 42 28 157 104 2,642 1,756 8,374 5,566 2008 Numb. Rate 73 49 60 40 1,028 683 950 631 2,111 1,403 687 457 1,451 965 1,304 867 19 13 3,461 2,301 1,792 1,191 111 74 202 134 1 1 384 255 39 26 126 84 2,655 1,765 8,227 5,469 2009 Numb. Rate 54 36 72 48 986 655 848 564 1,960 1,303 807 536 1,671 1,111 1,114 741 19 13 3,611 2,400 1,936 1,287 91 60 196 130 1 1 515 342 29 19 124 82 2,892 1,922 8,463 5,626

42

Table 16 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - Human Victims 30 to 49 Yr - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 41 16 59 23 934 366 919 360 1,953 765 2,179 853 3,002 1,175 2,216 868 44 17 7,441 2,913 1,864 730 235 92 303 119 10 4 853 334 39 15 410 161 3,714 1,454 13,108 5,132 2006 Numb. Rate 37 14 66 26 1,261 494 1,027 402 2,391 936 1,777 696 2,782 1,089 2,654 1,039 51 20 7,264 2,844 1,970 771 218 85 302 118 7 3 936 366 41 16 355 139 3,829 1,499 13,484 5,279 2007 Numb. Rate 33 13 32 13 1,225 480 921 361 2,211 866 1,705 668 2,654 1,039 2,486 973 27 11 6,872 2,691 2,029 794 229 90 363 142 6 2 839 328 28 11 284 111 3,778 1,479 12,861 5,035 2008 Numb. Rate 34 13 54 21 1,198 469 897 351 2,183 855 1,712 670 2,673 1,047 2,045 801 35 14 6,465 2,531 2,155 844 227 89 416 163 5 2 738 289 43 17 279 109 3,863 1,512 12,511 4,898 2009 Numb. Rate 37 14 53 21 1,072 420 827 324 1,989 779 2,041 799 2,991 1,171 1,764 691 33 13 6,829 2,674 2,132 835 172 67 384 150 5 2 1,030 403 33 13 260 102 4,016 1,572 12,834 5,025

43

Table 17 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - Human Victims 50 Yr & Over - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 8 4 11 6 549 284 306 158 874 451 1,198 619 1,885 974 1,117 577 31 16 4,231 2,186 569 294 204 105 178 92 7 4 571 295 11 6 193 100 1,733 895 6,838 3,532 2006 Numb. Rate 15 8 13 7 677 350 402 208 1,107 572 1,063 549 1,876 969 1,302 673 22 11 4,263 2,202 687 355 194 100 207 107 9 5 676 349 19 10 195 101 1,987 1,026 7,357 3,800 2007 Numb. Rate 13 7 14 7 661 341 359 185 1,047 541 1,032 533 1,913 988 1,334 689 25 13 4,304 2,223 718 371 219 113 254 131 5 3 539 278 10 5 163 84 1,908 986 7,259 3,750 2008 Numb. Rate 13 7 18 9 623 322 373 193 1,027 531 1,101 569 1,997 1,032 1,082 559 20 10 4,200 2,170 760 393 188 97 312 161 6 3 634 328 11 6 165 85 2,076 1,072 7,303 3,772 2009 Numb. Rate 14 7 15 8 604 312 358 185 991 512 1,314 679 1,911 987 934 482 20 10 4,179 2,159 818 423 154 80 303 157 4 2 751 388 12 6 108 56 2,150 1,111 7,320 3,781

44

Figure 7A Oakland Arrestees - Part I Violent


1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 891 809 1,163 1,415 1,526

Figure 7B Oakland Arrestees - Part I Property


1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 1,166 925 1,191 1,383 1,274

Figure 7C Oakland Arrestees - Part II Selected


7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 5,422 4,753 3,998 6,110 6,062

45

Map 7 Part I Violent Criminal Arrestees

Re se rvoir City of OaklandLAFA YE TTE


U .C . B e r k e l e y

L afaye tte

BE RKE LE Y

ORI NDA

PART I VIOLENT CRIME ARRESTEES


(By Quintiles)

. , San Francisco Bay

80

y 24 h wa Hig ate St

MO RAG A

EME RY VIL LE

. , -580 . , -80 . , -980 .880 , Lake Merritt

PIE DMO NT

. , -580 .880 , ALA ME DA


Uppe r San Leandro Reservoir

wy nF re ar W

RATE/1,000 PERSONS HIGH MEDIUM-HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM-LOW LOW

San Francisco Bay

.880 , `

. , -580
L ake Chabot

SA N LE AND RO

CAS TRO VA LLE Y

Source: Oakland Police Department

46

Map 8 Part I Proporty Criminal Arrestees


BER KELEY

OR IN D A

City of Oakland

.80 , San Francisco Bay


Sta te hw Hig ay 2 4

PART I PROPERTY CRIME ARRESTEES


(By Quintiles)
M OR AGA

EM ERYVILL E

.580 , .980 , . , -880


La ke Merr itt

PIED M O NT

.580 , .880 , AL AM ED A
Up per San Leandro Re se rvoir

ar W re nF wy

RATE/1,000 PERSONS HIGH MEDIUM-HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM-LOW San Francisco LOW

Bay

. , Source: Oakland Police Department

880

. , -580

SAN LEAN D RO

47

Map 9 Part II Selected Criminal Arrestees


BER KELEY OR IN D A

City of Oakland

.80 , San Francisco Bay


Sta ig te H y hw a 24

PART II SELECTED CRIME ARRESTEES


(By Quintiles)
M OR AGA

EM ERYVILL E

. , -580 .980 , .880 , La ke Merr itt

PIED M O NT

.580 , . , -880
AL AM ED A
Up per San Leandro Re se rvoir

ar W re nF wy

RATE/1,000 PERSONS HIGH MEDIUM-HIGH MEDIUM MEDIUM-LOW San Francisco LOW

Bay

. , Source: Oakland Police Department

880

.580 , -

SAN LEAN D RO

48

Table 18 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees Total - All Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 35 4 38 5 333 42 671 84 1,077 135 228 29 638 80 654 82 4 1 1,524 191 1,336 167 184 23 21 3 12 2 108 14 337 42 523 65 77 10 865 108 2,329 292 181 23 5,973 748 8,574 1,073 2006 Numb. Rate 43 5 35 4 340 43 555 69 973 122 156 20 545 68 497 62 9 1 1,207 151 1,250 156 142 18 15 2 15 2 134 17 365 46 556 70 81 10 503 63 1,909 239 121 15 5,091 637 7,271 910 2007 Numb. Rate 33 4 41 5 524 66 814 102 1,412 177 270 34 772 97 510 64 15 2 1,567 196 1,830 229 164 21 14 2 12 2 152 19 539 67 567 71 76 10 570 71 2,715 340 147 18 6,786 849 9,765 1,222 2008 Numb. Rate 32 4 53 7 639 80 968 121 1,692 212 271 34 1,107 139 358 45 20 3 1,756 220 2,147 269 169 21 10 1 18 2 168 21 632 79 452 57 132 17 605 76 3,182 398 163 20 7,678 961 11,126 1,393 2009 Numb. Rate 52 7 64 8 663 83 1,076 135 1,855 232 416 52 918 115 299 37 17 2 1,650 207 2,318 290 101 13 7 1 13 2 188 24 646 81 756 95 119 15 558 70 2,854 357 143 18 7,703 964 11,208 1,403

49

Table 19 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees Total - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 23 3 33 4 269 34 566 71 891 112 188 24 479 60 495 62 4 1 1,166 146 1,150 144 133 17 18 2 6 1 88 11 262 33 333 42 55 7 698 87 1,862 233 148 19 4,753 595 6,810 852 2006 Numb. Rate 31 4 30 4 279 35 469 59 809 101 127 16 407 51 383 48 8 1 925 116 1,094 137 96 12 9 1 10 1 103 13 277 35 300 38 71 9 404 51 1,526 191 108 14 3,998 500 5,732 717 2007 Numb. Rate 21 3 32 4 416 52 694 87 1,163 146 221 28 573 72 386 48 11 1 1,191 149 1,589 199 110 14 9 1 10 1 131 16 422 53 317 40 62 8 447 56 2,200 275 125 16 5,422 679 7,776 973 2008 Numb. Rate 23 3 44 6 523 65 825 103 1,415 177 221 28 876 110 266 33 20 3 1,383 173 1,876 235 123 15 8 1 8 1 134 17 498 62 247 31 100 13 461 58 2,513 315 142 18 6,110 765 8,908 1,115 2009 Numb. Rate 35 4 49 6 527 66 915 115 1,526 191 347 43 673 84 240 30 14 2 1,274 159 2,001 250 78 10 4 1 10 1 148 19 513 64 390 49 98 12 435 54 2,270 284 115 14 6,062 759 8,862 1,109

50

Table 20 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees Total - Oakland Address Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 19 2 30 4 235 29 513 64 797 100 163 20 400 50 424 53 4 1 991 124 1,065 133 115 14 15 2 4 1 77 10 240 30 266 33 47 6 620 78 1,578 198 127 16 4,154 520 5,942 744 2006 Numb. Rate 25 3 23 3 249 31 424 53 721 90 104 13 323 40 341 43 8 1 776 97 1,003 126 88 11 8 1 9 1 90 11 251 31 263 33 60 8 375 47 1,320 165 93 12 3,560 446 5,057 633 2007 Numb. Rate 20 3 32 4 360 45 631 79 1,043 131 192 24 455 57 338 42 7 1 992 124 1,469 184 97 12 8 1 9 1 124 16 392 49 278 35 55 7 409 51 1,880 235 102 13 4,823 604 6,858 858 2008 Numb. Rate 23 3 43 5 475 59 783 98 1,324 166 191 24 743 93 239 30 16 2 1,189 149 1,794 225 113 14 8 1 7 1 119 15 469 59 223 28 92 12 422 53 2,203 276 125 16 5,575 698 8,088 1,012 2009 Numb. Rate 32 4 43 5 480 60 860 108 1,415 177 309 39 593 74 215 27 12 2 1,129 141 1,884 236 73 9 3 0 9 1 138 17 490 61 328 41 89 11 403 50 1,951 244 104 13 5,472 685 8,016 1,003

51

Figure 8A Arrestees by Gender - Part I Violent


Rate per 50,000 Population 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2005 2006 Female 2007 Male 2008 2009 41 41 56 69 187 166 82 242 293 308

Figure 8B Arrestees by Gender - Part I Property


Rate per 50,000 Population 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2005 2006 Female 2007 Male 2008 2009 47 40 46 63 50 252 196 259 291 276

Figure 8C Arrestees by Gender - Part II Selected


Rate per 50,000 Population 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 2005 2006 Female 2007 Male 2008 2009 243 215 277 301 316 970 803 1,260 1,106 1,232

52

Table 21 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees Females - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate 1 0 2 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 3 1 2 0 30 7 38 9 57 14 67 16 81 20 139 34 125 30 170 41 213 52 254 61 171 41 168 41 230 56 284 69 339 82 17 4 10 2 24 6 23 6 32 8 101 24 94 23 99 24 190 46 137 33 74 18 58 14 65 16 44 11 34 8 1 0 2 0 4 1 3 1 3 1 193 47 164 40 192 46 260 63 206 50 213 52 209 51 309 75 387 94 415 100 64 15 37 9 33 8 37 9 21 5 6 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 3 1 7 2 2 0 2 0 2 0 22 5 25 6 39 9 29 7 32 8 15 4 34 8 41 10 41 10 29 7 254 61 249 60 271 66 220 53 358 87 3 1 7 2 5 1 5 1 19 5 107 26 32 8 68 16 66 16 67 16 295 71 268 65 346 84 425 103 337 82 24 6 19 5 28 7 33 8 27 7 1,006 243 889 215 1,144 277 1,246 301 1,308 316 1,370 331 1,221 295 1,566 379 1,790 433 1,853 448

53

Table 22 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees Males - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 22 6 32 8 239 62 426 111 719 187 171 44 378 98 421 109 3 1 973 252 936 243 69 18 12 3 3 1 66 17 244 63 79 20 52 13 591 153 1,565 406 124 32 3,741 970 5,433 1,409 2006 Numb. Rate 29 8 26 7 241 63 343 89 639 166 116 30 308 80 325 84 6 2 755 196 882 229 59 15 7 2 3 1 78 20 243 63 51 13 64 17 370 96 1,252 325 88 23 3,097 803 4,491 1,165 2007 Numb. Rate 18 5 32 8 359 93 523 136 932 242 197 51 473 123 321 83 7 2 998 259 1,277 331 77 20 7 2 8 2 92 24 381 99 46 12 57 15 379 98 1,842 478 97 25 4,263 1,106 6,193 1,606 2008 Numb. Rate 22 6 41 11 454 118 611 158 1,128 293 198 51 686 178 220 57 17 4 1,121 291 1,486 385 86 22 7 2 6 2 104 27 457 119 26 7 95 25 395 102 2,085 541 109 28 4,856 1,260 7,105 1,843 2009 Numb. Rate 33 9 47 12 446 116 661 171 1,187 308 314 81 535 139 204 53 11 3 1,064 276 1,584 411 57 15 3 1 8 2 116 30 484 126 31 8 79 20 368 95 1,932 501 88 23 4,750 1,232 7,001 1,816

54

Figure 9A Arrestees By Ethnicity - Part I Violent


Rate per 50,000 Population 500 400 300 200 100 0 238 87 16 15 2005 215 77 18 16 2006 African Am. Asian 106 37 30 2007 Latino 128 42 27 2008 White 161 34 32 2009 301 376 395

Figure 9B Arrestees By Ethnicity - Part I Property


400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Rate per 50,000 Population 343 288 231 119 41 2005 123 39 35 2007 Asian Latino 147 47 42 2008 White 127 37 36 2009 296 323

94 29 26 2006 African Am.

Figure 9C Arrestees By Ethnicity - Part II Selected


Rate per 50,000 Population 2,000 1,500 1,313 1,000 500 0 1,090 502 161 118 2008 Latino White 478 167 123 2009 1,671 1,445 1,660

358 127 78 2005

330 103 65 2006 African Am. Asian

451 175 115 2007

55

Table 23 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees African Am. - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 Numb. Rate 18 6 21 7 233 83 395 141 667 238 144 51 346 123 313 112 3 1 806 288 779 278 112 40 15 5 4 1 62 22 200 71 234 83 35 12 615 219 1,516 541 108 39 3,680 1,313 5,153 1,839 2006 Numb. Rate 25 9 23 8 229 82 325 116 602 215 91 32 297 106 256 91 4 1 648 231 743 265 75 27 6 2 8 3 73 26 224 80 210 75 32 11 336 120 1,265 451 83 30 3,055 1,090 4,305 1,536 2007 Numb. Rate 17 6 27 10 319 114 481 172 844 301 166 59 390 139 266 95 7 2 829 296 1,079 385 77 27 7 2 6 2 82 29 310 111 234 83 43 15 347 124 1,781 635 83 30 4,049 1,445 5,722 2,042 2008 Numb. Rate 20 7 30 11 431 154 572 204 1,053 376 167 60 614 219 169 60 12 4 962 343 1,314 469 89 32 6 2 6 2 82 29 367 131 201 72 59 21 359 128 2,101 750 100 36 4,684 1,671 6,699 2,390 2009 Numb. Rate 24 9 33 12 445 159 606 216 1,108 395 257 92 479 171 159 57 9 3 904 323 1,408 502 54 19 2 1 6 2 95 34 361 129 296 106 64 23 366 131 1,918 684 84 30 4,654 1,660 6,666 2,378

56

Table 24 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees Asian - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate 2 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 6 5 16 13 16 13 6 5 15 12 13 11 26 22 33 27 32 26 19 16 19 16 45 37 51 42 41 34 10 8 8 7 14 12 11 9 15 12 18 15 15 12 24 20 35 29 18 15 22 18 7 6 9 7 9 7 11 9 0 0 2 2 0 0 2 2 1 1 50 41 32 26 47 39 57 47 45 37 33 27 31 26 62 51 52 43 61 51 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 5 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 3 6 5 9 7 5 4 16 13 18 15 20 17 7 6 12 10 13 11 10 8 8 7 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 2 3 2 12 10 6 5 11 9 13 11 13 11 23 19 18 15 27 22 39 32 29 24 2 2 2 2 7 6 2 2 3 2 94 78 78 65 139 115 143 118 149 123 163 135 129 107 231 191 251 208 235 195

57

Table 25 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees Latino - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 4 2 10 6 4 2 3 2 10 6 12 7 23 13 33 19 51 29 59 34 59 34 117 67 95 54 130 74 153 87 206 118 153 87 135 77 186 106 224 128 281 161 17 10 13 7 27 15 29 17 45 26 72 41 56 32 116 66 153 87 121 69 119 68 94 54 72 41 72 41 56 32 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 2 0 0 209 119 164 94 215 123 258 147 222 127 228 130 207 118 276 158 352 201 350 200 13 7 10 6 22 13 25 14 11 6 0 0 3 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 13 7 17 10 37 21 34 19 34 19 41 23 35 20 77 44 91 52 110 63 54 31 41 23 35 20 15 9 37 21 13 7 28 16 13 7 27 15 24 14 43 25 54 31 62 35 57 33 44 25 198 113 168 96 251 143 253 145 210 120 22 13 14 8 14 8 23 13 15 9 627 358 577 330 789 451 878 502 837 478 989 565 876 501 1,190 680 1,360 777 1,340 766

58

Table 26 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees White - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 6 3 6 3 13 7 8 4 10 5 23 12 23 12 43 23 40 21 48 26 29 15 33 18 56 30 50 27 60 32 13 7 12 6 9 5 9 5 16 9 33 18 23 12 28 15 58 31 37 20 31 16 18 10 24 13 10 5 10 5 0 0 1 1 4 2 2 1 4 2 77 41 54 29 65 35 79 42 67 36 72 38 77 41 119 63 116 62 134 71 4 2 6 3 8 4 6 3 5 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 7 4 7 4 10 5 13 7 6 3 5 3 10 5 12 6 14 7 12 6 31 16 26 14 31 16 18 10 42 22 3 2 8 4 3 2 9 5 6 3 18 10 3 2 20 11 21 11 6 3 88 47 52 28 107 57 89 47 92 49 11 6 4 2 16 9 15 8 9 5 239 127 194 103 328 175 302 161 314 167 345 184 281 150 449 239 431 229 441 235

59

Figure 10A Arrestees By Age - Part I Violent


Rate per 50,000 Population 500 400 300 200 100 0 138 44 33 2005 122 30 2006 Under 18 Yr 18-29 Yr 152 95 52 2007 30-49 Yr 322 259 251 183 165 55 2008 Over 50 Yr 176 173 66 2009 339 401

Figure 10B Arrestees By Age - Part I Property


Rate per 50,000 Population 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 2005 2006 Under 18 Yr 18-29 Yr 2007 30-49 Yr 2008 Over 50 Yr 2009 83 40 189 293 233 164 177 124 40 37 48 196 152 80 265 282 263 180 152 67

Figure 10C Arrestees By Age - Part II Selected


1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 Rate per 50,000 Population 1,244 1,040 843 707 252 64 2006 Under 18 Yr 18-29 Yr 348 158 2007 30-49 Yr 425 259 2008 Over 50 Yr 453 270 2009 1,322 952 1,439 1,018 1,413 984

263 109 2005

60

Table 27 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees Under 18 Yr - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate 0 0 1 1 2 1 6 3 12 6 0 0 1 1 9 5 8 4 3 2 56 28 35 18 131 66 223 112 239 120 31 16 23 12 47 24 93 47 97 49 87 44 60 30 189 95 330 165 351 176 32 16 9 5 71 36 62 31 124 62 48 24 31 16 82 41 163 82 144 72 84 42 33 17 92 46 73 37 89 45 1 1 0 0 3 2 5 3 2 1 165 83 73 37 248 124 303 152 359 180 41 21 41 21 70 35 179 90 150 75 1 1 2 1 5 3 3 2 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 7 6 3 45 23 45 23 48 24 21 11 19 10 47 24 75 38 99 50 21 11 12 6 25 13 33 17 46 23 3 2 9 5 7 4 7 4 17 9 39 20 9 5 18 9 26 13 33 17 75 38 26 13 93 47 124 62 120 60 4 2 2 1 6 3 25 13 21 11 218 109 128 64 316 158 517 259 539 270 470 236 261 131 753 377 1,150 576 1,249 626

61

Table 28 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees 18 to 29 Yr - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate 15 10 18 12 10 7 14 9 16 11 17 11 14 9 11 7 15 10 15 10 144 96 155 103 192 128 186 124 184 122 213 142 191 127 272 181 295 196 389 259 389 259 378 251 485 322 510 339 604 401 58 39 46 31 75 50 59 39 117 78 147 98 135 90 174 116 256 170 187 124 234 156 166 110 148 98 100 66 89 59 2 1 4 3 1 1 9 6 2 1 441 293 351 233 398 265 424 282 395 263 427 284 410 273 548 364 626 416 702 467 74 49 37 25 50 33 58 39 24 16 7 5 4 3 5 3 4 3 2 1 5 3 2 1 3 2 3 2 4 3 34 23 45 30 42 28 40 27 53 35 165 110 151 100 238 158 248 165 255 170 153 102 150 100 149 99 126 84 191 127 14 9 15 10 18 12 25 17 32 21 291 193 189 126 200 133 188 125 154 102 662 440 529 352 714 475 825 548 671 446 39 26 33 22 22 15 22 15 38 25 1,871 1,244 1,565 1,040 1,989 1,322 2,165 1,439 2,126 1,413 2,701 1,795 2,294 1,525 2,872 1,909 3,099 2,060 3,125 2,077

62

Table 29 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees 30 to 49 Yr - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 2006 Numb. Rate Numb. Rate 6 2 11 4 12 5 12 5 58 23 85 33 276 108 204 80 352 138 312 122 82 32 59 23 228 89 188 74 171 67 169 66 1 0 3 1 482 189 419 164 555 217 501 196 47 18 44 17 9 4 5 2 1 0 5 2 33 13 34 13 64 25 86 34 146 57 122 48 32 13 35 14 297 116 150 59 884 346 760 298 86 34 64 25 2,154 843 1,806 707 2,988 1,170 2,537 993 2007 Numb. Rate 7 3 8 3 88 34 284 111 387 152 64 25 248 97 134 52 5 2 451 177 735 288 41 16 4 2 7 3 40 16 124 49 129 51 28 11 182 71 1,063 416 78 31 2,431 952 3,269 1,280 2008 Numb. Rate 3 1 17 7 101 40 347 136 468 183 69 27 349 137 80 31 2 1 500 196 828 324 44 17 4 2 3 1 43 17 142 56 78 31 47 18 192 75 1,144 448 76 30 2,601 1,018 3,569 1,397 2009 Numb. Rate 5 2 26 10 92 36 318 125 441 173 82 32 243 95 56 22 8 3 389 152 854 334 42 16 1 0 4 2 32 13 126 49 135 53 35 14 177 69 1,069 419 39 15 2,514 984 3,344 1,309

63

Table 30 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - Arrestees 50 Yr & Over - Oakland Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Total 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate 2 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 2 1 4 2 3 2 4 2 4 2 5 3 11 6 4 2 4 2 13 7 11 6 46 24 51 26 91 47 90 46 109 56 63 33 59 30 101 52 107 55 127 66 16 8 13 7 11 6 31 16 24 12 56 29 49 25 68 35 108 56 98 51 6 3 15 8 11 6 12 6 6 3 0 0 1 1 2 1 4 2 2 1 78 40 78 40 92 48 155 80 130 67 126 65 139 72 234 121 242 125 292 151 11 6 13 7 14 7 18 9 7 4 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 2 1 8 4 17 9 4 2 6 3 15 8 12 6 21 11 13 7 33 17 33 17 13 7 16 8 14 7 10 5 18 9 6 3 12 6 9 5 20 10 14 7 71 37 54 28 47 24 55 28 70 36 241 124 205 106 319 165 418 216 408 211 19 10 9 5 19 10 19 10 16 8 509 263 487 252 673 348 823 425 876 453 650 336 624 322 866 447 1,085 560 1,133 585

64

Figure 11A Percentage Victim & Arrestee Same Ethnicity - 2009 Part I Violent
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Victim African Am. Victim Asian Victim Latino Victim White Arrestee African Am. Arrestee Asian Arrestee Latino Arrestee White 10% 38% 20% 10% 53% 49% 44% 94%

Figure 11B Percentage Victim & Arrestee Same Ethnicity - 2009 Part I Property
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 37% 27% 24% 11% 7% 6% 33% 35%

Victim Victim Asian African Am.

Victim Latino

Victim White

Arrestee African Am.

Arrestee Asian

Arrestee Latino

Arrestee White

Figure 11C Percentage Victim & Arrestee Same Ethnicity - 2009 Part II Selected
100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Victim African Am. Victim Asian Victim Latino Victim White Arrestee African Am. Arrestee Asian Arrestee Latino Arrestee White 95% 81% 67% 46% 88% 74% 81% 71%

65

Table 31 Vic Victim & Arrestee Same Ethnicity All Victims Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 20 95% 29 73% 14 56% 24 96% 36 80% 15 71% 21 91% 22 88% 18 69% 37 86% 70 32% 95 38% 150 41% 157 37% 162 30% 424 78% 360 80% 501 83% 686 84% 763 67% 529 66% 505 66% 687 67% 885 68% 998 56% 59 57% 31 41% 56 35% 49 31% 93 38% 61 50% 70 57% 59 35% 95 44% 68 40% 98 47% 80 47% 81 40% 65 47% 55 45% 2 100% 2 50% 5 63% 5 63% 4 100% 220 51% 183 49% 201 38% 214 41% 220 41% 854 81% 857 85% 1,150 83% 1,393 84% 1,422 85% 37 66% 63 83% 55 77% 41 61% 74 79% 21 60% 40 71% 29 73% 40 82% 39 83% 117 87% 81 83% 83 80% 91 90% 78 85% 1,029 81% 1,041 84% 1,317 82% 1,565 84% 1,613 84% Table 31 Arr Victim & Arrestee Same Ethnicity All Arrestees 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 20 95% 29 73% 14 56% 24 96% 36 80% 15 71% 21 91% 22 88% 18 69% 37 86% 70 32% 95 38% 150 41% 157 37% 162 30% 424 78% 360 80% 501 83% 686 84% 763 67% 529 66% 505 66% 687 67% 885 68% 998 56% 59 57% 31 41% 56 35% 49 31% 93 38% 61 50% 70 57% 59 35% 95 44% 68 40% 98 47% 80 47% 81 40% 65 47% 55 45% 2 100% 2 50% 5 63% 5 63% 4 100% 220 51% 183 49% 201 38% 214 41% 220 41% 854 81% 857 85% 1,150 83% 1,393 84% 1,422 85% 37 66% 63 83% 55 77% 41 61% 74 79% 21 60% 40 71% 29 73% 40 82% 39 83% 117 87% 81 83% 83 80% 91 90% 78 85% 1,029 81% 1,041 84% 1,317 82% 1,565 84% 1,613 84%

Part Part I Violent Crimes

Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II

66

Table 32 Vic Victim & Arrestee Same Ethnicity African American Victims Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 15 100% 22 96% 13 81% 24 100% 29 97% 8 73% 17 100% 18 100% 17 89% 27 96% 59 94% 62 94% 83 86% 109 89% 112 94% 314 93% 253 94% 351 92% 483 95% 506 94% 396 93% 354 95% 465 91% 633 94% 674 94% 43 93% 21 88% 36 92% 42 89% 77 82% 41 85% 56 88% 45 79% 67 87% 41 77% 62 79% 48 77% 58 79% 44 81% 41 73% 2 100% 1 100% 5 83% 3 75% 4 100% 148 85% 126 83% 144 82% 156 86% 163 79% 595 93% 605 95% 797 95% 963 95% 981 95% 25 81% 47 94% 49 94% 29 94% 55 90% 13 76% 15 79% 20 87% 21 88% 20 91% 91 94% 64 97% 59 94% 64 98% 59 95% 724 92% 731 95% 925 95% 1,077 95% 1,115 95% Table 32 Arr Victim & Arrestee Same Ethnicity African American Arrestees 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 15 94% 22 73% 13 68% 24 100% 29 83% 8 73% 17 89% 18 95% 17 77% 27 87% 59 30% 62 30% 83 31% 109 32% 112 25% 314 81% 253 80% 351 87% 483 87% 506 68% 396 65% 354 62% 465 66% 633 67% 674 53% 43 57% 21 39% 36 30% 42 37% 77 42% 41 45% 56 61% 45 39% 67 45% 41 36% 62 47% 48 51% 58 41% 44 51% 41 51% 2 100% 1 33% 5 71% 3 75% 4 100% 148 49% 126 52% 144 37% 156 44% 163 42% 595 86% 605 90% 797 87% 963 87% 981 88% 25 76% 47 89% 49 88% 29 64% 55 85% 13 68% 15 83% 20 80% 21 91% 20 91% 91 95% 64 85% 59 87% 64 91% 59 89% 724 86% 731 89% 925 87% 1,077 86% 1,115 88%

Part Part I Violent Crimes

Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II

67

Table 33 Vic Victim & Arrestee Same Ethnicity Asian Victims Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 2 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 n/a 3 100% 1 100% 0 n/a 2 100% 0 n/a 0 0% 0 0% 7 27% 12 34% 9 19% 3 3% 5 63% 8 47% 14 50% 23 85% 17 15% 8 21% 15 33% 28 42% 32 43% 23 10% 11 65% 2 22% 9 29% 3 27% 3 9% 3 27% 0 0% 3 13% 6 21% 1 4% 1 8% 2 15% 0 0% 1 8% 2 33% 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 15 38% 4 13% 12 17% 10 19% 6 9% 20 57% 23 68% 43 59% 40 69% 41 71% 4 80% 0 0% 0 n/a 0 0% 2 50% 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0% 2 100% 4 67% 1 50% 1 50% 4 50% 1 100% 1 25% 25 60% 24 65% 47 57% 43 63% 48 67% Table 33 Arr Victim & Arrestee Same Ethnicity Asian Arrestees 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 2 100% 0 n/a 0 0% 0 0% 3 100% 1 100% 0 n/a 2 67% 0 0% 0 n/a 0 0% 7 78% 12 80% 9 56% 3 60% 5 50% 8 67% 14 56% 23 77% 17 44% 8 57% 15 71% 28 62% 32 67% 23 49% 11 92% 2 33% 9 100% 3 20% 3 27% 3 60% 0 0% 3 38% 6 50% 1 17% 1 10% 2 25% 0 0% 1 13% 2 40% 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 15 56% 4 24% 12 60% 10 29% 6 27% 20 61% 23 82% 43 77% 40 74% 41 77% 4 44% 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0% 2 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 n/a 2 100% 4 80% 1 50% 1 100% 4 57% 1 100% 1 33% 25 51% 24 80% 47 75% 43 74% 48 74%

Part Part I Violent Crimes

Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II

68

Table 34 Vic Victims & Arrestee Same Ethnicity Latino Victim Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 3 100% 6 60% 1 25% 0 n/a 4 100% 6 86% 4 80% 2 100% 1 33% 8 80% 9 10% 22 23% 47 31% 36 21% 44 21% 87 81% 80 75% 104 79% 144 72% 190 68% 90 44% 86 40% 105 36% 144 39% 194 38% 2 13% 5 38% 8 22% 4 8% 8 26% 11 32% 11 44% 9 23% 15 29% 23 43% 31 51% 27 47% 17 27% 20 39% 10 33% 0 n/a 1 50% 0 0% 2 67% 0 n/a 44 40% 44 45% 34 24% 41 26% 41 36% 181 82% 163 82% 213 83% 292 80% 300 80% 7 50% 9 82% 6 60% 9 50% 15 75% 7 64% 25 81% 8 62% 15 83% 13 93% 16 84% 11 79% 13 76% 14 82% 13 87% 211 80% 208 82% 240 81% 330 79% 341 81% Table 34 Arr Victims & Arrestee Same Ethnicity Latino Arrestee 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 3 100% 6 86% 1 33% 0 n/a 4 100% 6 67% 4 100% 2 67% 1 33% 8 89% 9 64% 22 79% 47 75% 36 68% 44 73% 87 74% 80 89% 104 81% 144 85% 190 79% 90 4% 86 4% 105 5% 144 7% 194 10% 2 20% 5 63% 8 50% 4 31% 8 25% 11 65% 11 48% 9 26% 15 41% 23 66% 31 61% 27 55% 17 43% 20 53% 10 33% 0 n/a 1 100% 0 n/a 2 100% 0 n/a 44 29% 44 34% 34 16% 41 17% 41 12% 181 82% 163 81% 213 80% 292 85% 300 85% 7 78% 9 69% 6 67% 9 53% 15 75% 7 70% 25 86% 8 67% 15 75% 13 76% 16 80% 11 79% 13 93% 14 88% 13 87% 211 73% 208 76% 240 71% 330 79% 341 81%

Part Part I Violent Crimes

Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II

69

Table 35 Vic Victim & Arrestee Same Ethnicity White Victims Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 0 0% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 3% 3 8% 3 4% 3 4% 3 4% 11 18% 15 38% 31 61% 24 41% 45 27% 12 12% 19 24% 34 27% 27 20% 48 20% 2 12% 3 11% 3 6% 0 0% 4 5% 6 21% 3 14% 2 5% 6 13% 2 6% 4 9% 3 10% 6 13% 0 0% 2 7% 0 n/a 0 0% 0 n/a 0 0% 0 n/a 12 14% 9 11% 11 8% 6 6% 8 6% 38 38% 50 57% 79 49% 77 48% 78 46% 1 33% 7 78% 0 0% 3 27% 2 25% 1 20% 0 0% 1 50% 2 100% 2 50% 5 50% 3 30% 5 42% 12 75% 5 45% 45 38% 60 55% 85 47% 94 49% 87 46% Table 35 Arr Victim & Arrestee Same Ethnicity White Arrestees 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 0 n/a 1 100% 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0% 1 20% 3 60% 3 33% 3 50% 3 38% 11 65% 15 68% 31 79% 24 55% 45 45% 12 55% 19 68% 34 71% 27 54% 48 44% 2 50% 3 60% 3 60% 0 0% 4 31% 6 75% 3 60% 2 40% 6 43% 2 40% 4 40% 3 27% 6 46% 0 0% 2 40% 0 n/a 0 n/a 0 0% 0 0% 0 n/a 12 55% 9 43% 11 46% 6 20% 8 35% 38 56% 50 66% 79 71% 77 69% 78 70% 1 50% 7 100% 0 0% 3 75% 2 67% 1 100% 0 0% 1 50% 2 67% 2 100% 5 50% 3 75% 5 42% 12 86% 5 83% 45 56% 60 64% 85 65% 94 71% 87 71%

Part Part I Violent Crimes

Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II

70

Figure 12A Percentage Victim & Arrestee Same Age Group - 2009 Part I Violent
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 59% 43% 31% 16% 9% 40%

Victim 18 to 29 Yr Victim 30 to 49 Yr Victim Over 50 Yr Arrestee 18 to 29 Arrestee 30 to 49 Arrestee Over 50 Yr Yr Yr

Figure 12B Percentage Victim & Arrestee Same Age Group - 2009 Part I Property
40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 37% 27% 24% 11% 7% 33%

Victim 18 to 29 Yr Victim 30 to 49 Yr Victim Over 50 Yr Arrestee 18 to 29 Arrestee 30 to 49 Arrestee Over 50 Yr Yr Yr

Figure 12C Percentage Victim & Arrestee Same Age Group - 2009 Part II Selected
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 67% 63% 48% 66% 63% 48%

Victim 18 to 29 Yr Victim 30 to 49 Yr Victim Over 50 Yr Arrestee 18 to 29 Arrestee 30 to 49 Arrestee Over 50 Yr Yr Yr

71

Table 36 Vic Victim & Arrestee Same Age Group All Victims Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 13 62% 25 63% 11 44% 12 48% 21 47% 9 43% 12 52% 20 80% 11 42% 24 56% 89 41% 98 39% 122 33% 171 40% 178 33% 283 52% 239 53% 331 55% 422 51% 475 42% 394 49% 374 49% 484 47% 616 47% 698 39% 25 24% 26 35% 26 16% 37 24% 46 19% 47 38% 48 39% 52 31% 62 29% 56 33% 57 28% 57 34% 48 24% 42 30% 21 17% 1 50% 3 75% 3 38% 2 25% 0 0% 130 30% 134 36% 129 24% 143 28% 123 23% 659 63% 636 63% 884 64% 1,008 61% 1,051 63% 28 50% 31 41% 28 39% 28 42% 26 28% 12 34% 25 45% 9 23% 15 31% 19 40% 70 52% 48 49% 51 49% 54 53% 57 62% 769 60% 740 60% 972 61% 1,105 59% 1,153 60% Table 36 Arr Victim & Arrestee Same Age Group All Arrestees 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 13 62% 25 63% 11 44% 12 48% 21 47% 9 43% 12 52% 20 80% 11 42% 24 56% 89 41% 98 39% 122 33% 171 40% 178 33% 283 52% 239 53% 331 55% 422 51% 475 42% 394 49% 374 49% 484 47% 616 47% 698 39% 25 24% 26 35% 26 16% 37 24% 46 19% 47 38% 48 39% 52 31% 62 29% 56 33% 57 28% 57 34% 48 24% 42 30% 21 17% 1 50% 3 75% 3 38% 2 25% 0 0% 130 30% 134 36% 129 24% 143 28% 123 23% 659 63% 636 63% 884 64% 1,008 61% 1,051 63% 28 50% 31 41% 28 39% 28 42% 26 28% 12 34% 25 45% 9 23% 15 31% 19 40% 70 52% 48 49% 51 49% 54 53% 57 62% 769 60% 740 60% 972 61% 1,105 59% 1,153 60%

Part Part I Violent Crimes

Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II

72

Table 37 Vic Victim & Arrestee Same Age Group 18 to 29 Year Old Victims Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 7 88% 20 80% 8 62% 10 83% 15 63% 4 67% 6 86% 3 100% 2 50% 6 40% 45 68% 58 71% 77 55% 55 47% 74 47% 94 62% 94 65% 136 70% 152 61% 219 65% 150 65% 178 69% 224 64% 219 57% 314 59% 3 21% 8 57% 8 36% 8 24% 20 40% 18 62% 19 56% 12 31% 20 27% 18 39% 21 40% 25 46% 22 39% 17 40% 10 30% 1 100% 2 100% 1 100% 0 n/a 0 0% 43 44% 54 52% 43 36% 45 30% 48 37% 238 67% 252 68% 323 71% 342 64% 379 68% 9 53% 10 77% 10 67% 8 57% 14 54% 2 50% 4 67% 2 29% 2 40% 0 0% 13 76% 13 62% 7 50% 7 50% 13 72% 262 67% 279 68% 342 69% 359 63% 406 67% Table 37 Arr Victim & Arrestee Same Age Group 18 to 29 Year Old Arrestees 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 7 54% 20 71% 8 67% 10 63% 15 79% 4 44% 6 55% 3 50% 2 25% 6 86% 45 40% 58 37% 77 43% 55 37% 74 35% 94 43% 94 56% 136 57% 152 52% 219 44% 150 42% 178 49% 224 51% 219 47% 314 43% 3 8% 8 23% 8 13% 8 21% 20 21% 18 38% 19 48% 12 24% 20 33% 18 35% 21 23% 25 31% 22 31% 17 41% 10 21% 1 50% 2 67% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0% 43 25% 54 34% 43 23% 45 31% 48 24% 238 66% 252 69% 323 70% 342 69% 379 70% 9 50% 10 30% 10 40% 8 38% 14 54% 2 17% 4 33% 2 15% 2 15% 0 0% 13 39% 13 41% 7 37% 7 50% 13 45% 262 62% 279 63% 342 66% 359 66% 406 66%

Part Part I Violent Crimes

Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II

73

Table 38 Vic Victims & Arrestee Same Age 30 to 49 Years Old Victim Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 4 50% 5 50% 2 33% 1 20% 2 22% 4 57% 6 75% 7 88% 5 63% 13 87% 22 27% 36 33% 24 19% 40 28% 36 21% 159 63% 117 61% 142 57% 189 60% 181 44% 163 47% 122 38% 144 37% 190 40% 183 31% 18 46% 13 38% 17 20% 8 12% 21 22% 26 45% 24 49% 32 42% 30 43% 28 41% 34 44% 31 42% 26 33% 18 31% 10 21% 0 0% 1 50% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 78 44% 69 44% 75 30% 56 29% 59 27% 352 71% 296 68% 444 68% 489 65% 477 65% 10 45% 16 43% 16 47% 18 55% 7 17% 7 88% 3 60% 1 100% 4 80% 5 100% 44 79% 31 66% 32 68% 26 74% 23 66% 413 71% 346 66% 493 67% 537 65% 512 63% Table 38 Arr Victims & Arrestee Same Age 30 to 49 Years Old Arrestee 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 4 67% 5 45% 2 29% 1 33% 2 67% 4 50% 6 60% 7 88% 5 50% 13 46% 22 51% 36 59% 24 44% 40 49% 36 47% 159 60% 117 55% 142 56% 189 55% 181 48% 163 8% 122 6% 144 7% 190 9% 183 9% 18 41% 13 52% 17 53% 8 25% 21 45% 26 51% 24 48% 32 48% 30 41% 28 52% 34 48% 31 46% 26 38% 18 45% 10 34% 0 n/a 1 100% 0 0% 0 n/a 0 0% 78 22% 69 22% 75 22% 56 12% 59 11% 352 67% 296 64% 444 67% 489 65% 477 65% 10 56% 16 59% 16 53% 18 75% 7 27% 7 39% 3 14% 1 7% 4 20% 5 29% 44 54% 31 53% 32 50% 26 45% 23 64% 413 63% 346 59% 493 61% 537 62% 512 63%

Part Part I Violent Crimes

Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II

74

Table 39 Vic Victim & Arrestee Same Age Group 50 Years and Older Victims Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 2 50% 0 0% 1 33% 0 0% 1 13% 1 50% 0 0% 1 33% 2 100% 2 67% 3 8% 1 3% 0 0% 6 8% 5 5% 19 25% 16 31% 36 52% 31 30% 46 22% 25 21% 17 18% 38 28% 39 22% 54 16% 3 9% 5 19% 1 2% 3 10% 3 4% 2 7% 5 14% 6 18% 7 15% 8 22% 2 3% 1 3% 0 0% 4 14% 0 0% 0 n/a 0 n/a 2 50% 2 40% 0 0% 7 6% 11 11% 9 7% 16 14% 11 7% 48 40% 63 47% 97 47% 101 48% 129 51% 9 60% 5 21% 2 11% 2 12% 4 19% 1 33% 2 100% 0 0% 2 67% 0 0% 12 24% 4 15% 9 27% 11 30% 10 43% 70 37% 74 40% 108 42% 116 43% 143 48% Table 39 Arr Victim & Arrestee Same Age Group 50 Years and Older Arrestees 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 2 100% 0 0% 1 25% 0 n/a 1 50% 1 25% 0 0% 1 50% 2 67% 2 40% 3 50% 1 33% 0 0% 6 60% 5 63% 19 49% 16 33% 36 47% 31 36% 46 38% 25 49% 17 31% 38 45% 39 40% 54 40% 3 60% 5 56% 1 33% 3 25% 3 30% 2 22% 5 31% 6 35% 7 33% 8 42% 2 50% 1 50% 0 0% 4 36% 0 0% 0 n/a 0 n/a 2 67% 2 100% 0 0% 7 39% 11 41% 9 32% 16 35% 11 33% 48 40% 63 46% 97 47% 101 43% 129 47% 9 64% 5 38% 2 67% 2 40% 4 50% 1 33% 2 33% 0 0% 2 25% 0 0% 12 63% 4 67% 9 50% 11 61% 10 67% 70 45% 74 46% 108 46% 116 44% 143 48%

Part Part I Violent Crimes

Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II

75

Table 40 A Located in Same Block Group Victim and Arrestee Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 3 14% 4 10% 6 24% 1 4% 6 13% 5 24% 3 13% 11 44% 9 35% 14 33% 10 5% 22 9% 33 9% 21 5% 36 7% 240 44% 207 46% 296 49% 470 57% 471 41% 258 32% 236 31% 346 34% 501 39% 527 30% 15 15% 8 11% 35 22% 33 21% 33 13% 9 7% 16 13% 12 7% 25 12% 18 11% 18 9% 11 7% 13 6% 15 11% 6 5% 0 0% 2 50% 1 13% 5 63% 2 50% 42 10% 37 10% 61 11% 78 15% 59 11% 617 59% 620 61% 905 65% 1,108 67% 1,109 66% 20 36% 23 30% 31 44% 26 39% 32 34% 15 43% 25 45% 12 30% 23 47% 22 47% 65 49% 53 54% 50 48% 54 53% 63 68% 717 56% 721 58% 998 62% 1,211 65% 1,226 64% Table 40 B Located in Same Block Group Incident, Victim, and Arrestee 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All Numb. % All 2 10% 3 8% 6 24% 1 4% 3 7% 4 19% 3 13% 11 44% 8 31% 12 28% 9 4% 16 6% 28 8% 13 3% 27 5% 220 40% 184 41% 259 43% 416 51% 410 36% 235 29% 206 27% 304 30% 438 34% 452 26% 14 14% 7 9% 35 22% 32 21% 32 13% 7 6% 14 11% 10 6% 16 7% 16 9% 14 7% 6 4% 8 4% 10 7% 6 5% 0 0% 2 50% 1 13% 5 63% 2 50% 35 8% 29 8% 54 10% 63 12% 56 10% 565 54% 568 56% 840 60% 1,012 61% 1,007 60% 16 29% 21 28% 30 42% 23 34% 31 33% 13 37% 23 41% 10 25% 20 41% 18 38% 61 46% 49 50% 45 43% 46 46% 55 60% 655 51% 661 53% 925 58% 1,101 59% 1,111 58%

Part Part I Violent Crimes

Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Vandalism Part II Other Sex Crimes Against Family Total Selected Part II

76

Table 41 Variables used for Socio-Economic Index

High

MedianHigh

Median

MedianLow

Low

Median Household Income $81,950 $43,293 $33,765 $28,525 $27,154 Per Captia Income $43,387 $23,994 $15,677 $12,385 $10,530 Percentage Receiving Public Assistance 1% 5% 10% 14% 18% Percentage Below Poverty Line: Total 5% 12% 21% 26% 34% Percentage Below Poverty Line: Under 18 4% 15% 29% 34% 44% Percentage Employed 97% 94% 89% 85% 86% Percentage Families Married 80% 59% 50% 52% 50% Percentage Families Female Child < 18 15% 34% 42% 38% 40% Percentage English Only 81% 72% 66% 59% 49% Percentage Non English: Linguistically Isolated10% 23% 32% 38% 44% Percentage Native Citizens 88% 80% 74% 67% 61% Percentage Non Natives: US Citizens 60% 52% 36% 31% 24% Percentage Less Than High School 6% 16% 31% 42% 50% Percentage College Graduates 61% 37% 17% 9% 7% Percentage White 60% 30% 12% 6% 4% Average Household Size 2.3 2.3 2.8 3.1 3.6 Percentage Owner Occupied Housing Units 69% 32% 32% 28% 25% Percentage Paying over 35% Income for Housing 24% 31% 37% 40% 44% Percentage Housing Units over 1.5 per Room 1% 7% 15% 21% 28% Housing Units per Square Mile 3,284 7,930 6,070 5,841 6,835 Population per Square Mile 7,066 15,795 14,936 16,757 23,518 Number of Block Groups in Area 76 67 65 63 59 Population in Area 81,839 79,569 79,620 78,919 79,321 High: Block Groups containing 20% of the population with the highest values on the Variables Median-High: Block Groups containing 20% of the population with the next highest values on the Variables Median: Block Groups containing 20% of the population with the middle values on the Variables Median-Low: Block Groups containing 20% of the population with the next to the lowest values on the Variables. Low: Block Groups containing 20% of the population with the next to the lowest on the Variables

77

Table 42 Block Groups in Okland based on Socio-Economic Index Criminal Incidents Part I Violent Crimes per 50,000 Population Class High Median-High Median Median-Low Low Oakland 2005 197 579 862 1,067 1,004 738 2006 243 728 1,078 1,311 1,193 906 2007 263 676 1,029 1,216 1,111 855 2008 239 670 1,048 1,211 1,154 860 2009 207 578 949 1,078 1,023 763

Part I Property Crimes per 50,000 Population Class High Median-High Median Median-Low Low Oakland 2005 1,947 2,702 3,664 3,305 2,489 2,816 2006 1,900 2,717 3,601 3,499 2,615 2,860 2007 2,049 2,620 3,542 3,337 2,415 2,788 2008 1,968 2,617 3,260 2,942 2,223 2,598 2009 2,027 2,483 3,065 2,859 2,029 2,490

Part II Selected Crimes per 50,000 Population Class High Median-High Median Median-Low Low Oakland 2005
643 1438 2380 2420 2679 1903

2006
609 1409 2430 2619 2770 1958

2007
603 1366 2349 2646 2762 1936

2008
651 1416 2410 2778 2892 2020

2009
601 1409 2497 2846 2856 2032

78

Table 43 Block Groups in Okland based on Socio-Economic Index Criminal Victims Part I Violent Crimes per 50,000 Population Class High Median-High Median Median-Low Low Oakland 2005 115 280 376 430 440 334 2006 129 310 426 511 542 391 2007 168 348 475 531 533 418 2008 159 363 520 538 573 438 2009 123 313 462 499 491 385

Part I Property Crimes per 50,000 Population Class High Median-High Median Median-Low Low Oakland 2005 992 1,137 1,257 1,111 934 1,088 2006 932 1,065 1,088 1,005 947 1,009 2007 1,118 1,179 1,195 1,120 995 1,121 2008 1,064 1,183 1,173 1,038 900 1,071 2009 1,106 1,216 1,193 1,018 900 1,086

Part II Selected Crimes per 50,000 Population Class High Median-High Median Median-Low Low Oakland 2005
315 542 826 692 696 622

2006
325 526 757 737 721 621

2007
344 577 803 848 805 684

2008
368 624 899 970 920 767

2009
351 615 959 1015 965 793

79

Table 44 Block Groups in Okland based on Socio-Economic Index Criminal Arrestees Part I Violent Crimes per 50,000 Population Class High Median-High Median Median-Low Low Oakland 2005 22 65 130 142 145 102 2006 20 49 112 141 135 93 2007 29 84 183 172 192 134 2008 32 111 212 238 244 170 2009 27 108 230 276 252 182

Part I Property Crimes per 50,000 Population Class High Median-High Median Median-Low Low Oakland 2005 24 71 173 174 183 127 2006 21 65 126 135 144 100 2007 29 70 151 189 188 128 2008 26 103 195 207 216 152 2009 25 94 168 221 204 145

Part II Selected Crimes per 50,000 Population Class High Median-High Median Median-Low Low Oakland 2005
111 362 680 699 779 535

2006
108 283 567 629 666 458

2007
126 400 757 874 896 621

2008
142 420 908 1016 1036 716

2009
147 424 887 985 1012 702

80

Table 45 Incident Rate per 50,000 - 2009 Incidents By Socio-Economic Quintiles Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II High Numb. Rate 4 3 213 149 107 75 338 236 851 595 1,641 1,148 811 567 14 10 3,317 2,321 14 10 303 212 69 48 102 71 9 6 371 260 17 12 1 1 21 15 2 1 52 36 37 26 984 688 Median-High Numb. Rate 16 10 557 352 314 199 920 582 1,019 645 1,852 1,172 1,063 672 18 11 3,952 2,500 33 21 872 552 115 73 107 68 12 8 511 323 70 44 87 55 63 40 35 22 270 171 100 63 2,242 1,418 Median Numb. Rate 22 14 753 473 664 417 1,511 949 1,098 690 2,236 1,404 1,488 934 59 37 4,881 3,065 72 45 1,561 980 124 78 138 87 46 29 751 472 142 89 148 93 95 60 85 53 702 441 185 116 3,977 2,497 Median-Low Numb. Rate 25 16 873 553 745 472 1,701 1,078 923 585 2,092 1,325 1,458 924 39 25 4,512 2,859 58 37 1,771 1,122 96 61 141 89 37 23 804 509 181 115 141 89 121 77 137 87 856 542 207 131 4,492 2,846 Low Numb. Rate 37 23 859 541 678 427 1,623 1,023 817 515 1,205 760 1,158 730 39 25 3,219 2,029 49 31 1,540 971 94 59 107 67 7 4 616 388 208 131 386 243 109 69 161 101 1,183 746 120 76 4,531 2,856

81

Table 46 Victimization Rate per 50,000 - 2009 Victims By Socio-Economic Quintiles Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Other Sex Against Family Total Selected Part II High Numb. Rate 4 3 232 162 89 62 340 238 907 635 1,541 1,078 596 417 6 4 3,050 2,134 15 10 273 191 84 59 154 108 8 6 364 255 17 12 39 27 939 657 Median-High Numb. Rate 13 8 600 380 312 197 959 607 1,118 707 1,803 1,141 782 495 18 11 3,721 2,354 34 22 790 500 121 77 180 114 10 6 479 303 38 24 105 66 1,723 1,090 Median Numb. Rate 22 14 741 465 639 401 1,445 907 1,156 726 1,678 1,054 860 540 38 24 3,732 2,344 43 27 1,438 903 123 77 167 105 30 19 641 403 75 47 154 97 2,628 1,650 Median-Low Numb. Rate 26 16 718 455 784 497 1,576 998 935 592 1,392 882 869 551 19 12 3,215 2,037 48 30 1,515 960 95 60 143 91 19 12 617 391 68 43 148 94 2,605 1,650 Low Numb. Rate 32 20 804 507 674 425 1,545 974 851 536 1,091 688 863 544 29 18 2,834 1,786 35 22 1,495 942 82 52 136 86 6 4 491 310 78 49 140 88 2,428 1,530

82

Table 47 Arrest Rate per 50,000 - 2009 Arrestees By Socio-Economic Quintiles Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Murder Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II High Median-High Median Median-Low Low Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate Numb. Rate 0 0 4 3 13 8 6 4 9 6 15 10 59 37 121 76 145 92 137 86 22 15 101 64 223 140 269 170 244 154 38 27 171 108 367 230 435 276 400 252 13 9 50 32 69 43 91 58 86 54 16 11 72 46 144 90 183 116 175 110 4 3 27 17 50 31 70 44 63 40 3 2 0 0 4 3 5 3 0 0 36 25 149 94 267 168 349 221 324 204 1 1 7 4 10 6 15 10 10 6 98 69 266 168 488 306 508 322 518 327 4 3 15 9 17 11 20 13 16 10 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 2 3 2 2 1 2 1 22 14 36 23 33 21 45 28 9 6 53 34 133 84 136 86 157 99 7 5 37 23 77 48 99 63 107 67 3 2 11 7 21 13 26 16 28 18 11 8 38 24 110 69 124 79 120 76 67 47 216 137 498 313 580 367 582 367 8 6 13 8 28 18 23 15 31 20 210 147 671 424 1,412 887 1,554 985 1,606 1,012

83

Table 48 Percentage of Cases in Oakland (Oak) and With Valid Addresses (Add) All Cases - 2005-2009 Part Part I Violent Crimes Class Homicide Rape Robbery Assault Total Part I Violent Burglary Part I Property Larceny Auto Theft Crimes Arson Total Part I Property Selected Battery Forgery Part II Fraud Crimes Embezzlement Vandalism Weapons Prostitution Other Sex Drug - Sell Drug - Possession Against Family Total Selected Part II Gambling Other D.U.I. Part II Liquor Crimes Drunkenness Disorderly Cond. Stolen Property Others Total Other Part II Total Total
561 1,462 18,074 14,715 34,812 24,941 49,576 43,548 1,122 29,969 4,916 5,125 589 14,492 3,063 3,400 2,892 2,708 15,401 4,574 87,129 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Incidents Oak % Add


559 1,405 18,027 14,589 34,580 24,819 48,529 43,346 1,121 29,744 4,634 4,572 584 14,386 3,036 3,369 2,775 2,694 15,304 4,491 85,589 100% 96% 100% 99% 99% 100% 98% 100% 100% 99% 94% 89% 99% 99% 99% 99% 96% 99% 99% 98% 98% 552 1,166 17,505 14,068 33,291 24,342 43,434 42,530 1,090 28,663 3,546 2,892 568 13,738 2,997 3,321 2,220 2,659 15,061 4,248 79,913

%
98% 80% 97% 96% 96% 98% 88% 98% 97% 96% 72% 56% 96% 95% 98% 98% 77% 98% 93% 92% 93%

Total
808 1,510 21,070 17,027 40,415 25,810 49,386 43,250 1,028 31,599 4,551 5,026 473 13,815 2,771 4,749 62,984 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Victims Oak % Add


655 1,060 16,963 14,717 33,395 23,847 37,240 27,093 722 88,902 27,427 3,653 4,129 414 11,831 2,253 4,272 53,979 81% 70% 81% 86% 83% 92% 75% 63% 70% 74% 87% 80% 82% 88% 86% 81% 90% 86% 499 946 15,494 13,126 30,065 22,619 33,970 25,651 651 82,891 25,312 3,232 3,652 322 10,949 1,946 3,972 49,385

%
62% 63% 74% 77% 74% 88% 69% 59% 63% 69% 80% 71% 73% 68% 79% 70% 84% 78% 73%

Total
195 231 2,499 4,084 7,009 1,341 3,980 2,318 65 7,704 8,881 760 67 70 750 2,519 2,854 485 3,101 12,989 755 33,231 47,944 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arrestees Oak % Add


133 188 2,014 3,469 5,804 1,104 3,008 1,770 57 5,939 7,710 540 48 44 604 1,972 1,587 386 2,445 10,371 638 26,345 38,088 68% 81% 81% 85% 83% 82% 76% 76% 88% 77% 87% 71% 72% 63% 81% 78% 56% 80% 79% 80% 85% 79% 79% 119 171 1,799 3,211 5,300 959 2,514 1,557 47 5,077 7,215 486 42 38 548 1,842 1,358 343 2,229 8,932 551 23,584 33,961

%
61% 74% 72% 79% 76% 72% 63% 67% 72% 66% 81% 64% 63% 54% 73% 73% 48% 71% 72% 69% 73% 71% 71%

119,187 117,815

99% 111,396

93% 119,474

98% 222,873 176,276

79% 162,341

0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0!

241,128 237,984

99% 224,600

0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0!

0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0! 0 #DIV/0!

84

Table 49 OPD 2005-2010 Record Count All Records Victims Human NonHuman Numb. Pct. Numb. Pct. 167,288 71% 16,461 78% 4,545 2% 1,633 8% 80 0% 962 5% 16 0% 16 0% 555 0% 0% 15,862 7% 186 1% 12,817 5% 334 2% 33,653 14% 1,195 6% 1,608 1% 296 1% 437 0% 7 0% 236,861 100% 21,090 100% OPD 2005-2010 Record Count Records with Oakland Addresses Victims Human NonHuman Numb. Pct. Numb. Pct. 167,288 97% 16,461 86% 4,545 3% 1,633 9% 80 0% 962 5% 16 0% 16 0% 171,929 100% 19,072 100%

Incidents Numb. Pct. Address with BlkGrp 251,925 87% Address w/o BlkGrp 2,800 1% Intersection with BlkGrp 18,396 6% Intersection w/o BlkGrp 1,486 1% Homeless 5 0% No Address 11,631 4% Boarder 1,416 0% Califronia 1,568 1% Out of State 1 0% Unknown 985 0% Total 290,213 100%

Arrestees Numb. Pct. 43,284 69% 1,633 3% 98 0% 15 0% 2,357 4% 1,779 3% 3,607 6% 9,453 15% 303 0% 181 0% 62,710 100%

Total Numb. Pct. 478,958 78% 10,611 2% 19,536 3% 1,533 0% 2,917 0% 29,458 5% 18,174 3% 45,869 8% 2,208 0% 1,610 0% 610,874 100%

Incidents Numb. Pct. Address with BlkGrp 251,925 92% Address w/o BlkGrp 2,800 1% Intersection with BlkGrp 18,396 7% Intersection w/o BlkGrp 1,486 1% Total 274,607 100%

Arrestees Numb. Pct. 43,284 96% 1,633 4% 98 0% 15 0% 45,030 100%

Total Numb. Pct. 478,958 94% 10,611 2% 19,536 4% 1,533 0% 510,638 100%

85

OAKLANDPOLICEDEPARTMENT

STRATEGICPLAN
Wewillbetherewhenyouneedus
(NEWOPDMotto)

WorkingDraft
August2010

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment

TABLEOFCONTENTS

MessagefromChiefBatts Mission,VisionandValues...................................................................................................................1 Vision1: Oakland is One of the Safest Large Cities in California Both in Reality and Perception...........................................................................................................................3 StrategicObjective1.1:FocusProactiveViolenceSuppressionandEnforcement UnitsandEffortsonGangs,Drugs,andGuns...............................................................7 StrategicObjective1.2:ExpandandStrengthenPartnershipsandCoordination EffortswithLawEnforcementAgenciesintheRegionWorkingtoSuppress ViolenceandReduceCrime..........................................................................................9 StrategicObjective1.3:StrengthenOPDsIntelligenceCollectionandAnalysis CapabilitytoTargetViolentCrimeinOakland...........................................................10 StrategicObjective1.4:ExpandandStrengthenPartnershipsandCoordination EffortswithPolicyDecisionMakersandOrganizationsWorkingtoPreventand ReduceViolenceandCrimeInOakland......................................................................11 StrategicObjective1.5:DevelopandImplementInnovativeandEffective ApproachestoReducingViolenceandCrimeinOaklandWorkingwiththe AcademicandResearchCommunity..........................................................................12 Vision2: The Oakland Police Department Provides High Quality Services in a Community DrivenandCustomerFriendlyManner............................................................................14 StrategicObjective2.1:ImprovetheOPDsCallTakingandDispatchCapability andPerformance........................................................................................................15 StrategicObjective2.2:ProvideTimelyResponsetoCallsforServiceand EffectivePolicePresenceinNeighborhoods..............................................................18 StrategicObjective2.3:ImprovetheQualityandEffectivenessofCriminal Investigations..............................................................................................................21 Vision3: TheOaklandPoliceDepartmentisTrusted,Respected,andValuedByThoseitServes.25 StrategicObjective3.1:AcceleratethePaceofAccomplishmentofthe RequirementsoftheNegotiatedSettlementAgreement/MOU..............................26 StrategicObjective3.2:IncreasetheLevelofOpennessandAccessibilityofthe OPDandOPDPersonnel.............................................................................................27 StrategicObjective3.3:IncreasetheLevelofPositiveInteractionBetweenthe OaklandPoliceDepartmentandtheCommunity ......................................................29 .

WorkingDraftAugust2010

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment

TABLEOFCONTENTS Continued
Vision4: The Oakland Community and the Oakland Police Department Work Together to SolveCommunityandNeighborhoodConcernsandIssues.............................................31 StrategicObjective4.1:EffectivelyImplementCommunityPolicinginOaklandas DefinedbyCurrentPoliciesandRequirements..........................................................31 StrategicObjective4.2:WorkwithMembersoftheCommunitytoDevelopand ImplementanExpandedCommunityPolicingModelinOaklandBasedonBest Practices......................................................................................................................32 Vision 5: The Oakland Police Department is an Effective Organization, Providing a Supportive andPositiveWorkEnvironmentforitsEmployees..........................................................34 StrategicObjective5.1:ProvideClearDirectionandOpenCommunicationWithin theOPD,andEncourageTeamworkandSharedAccomplishment...........................35 StrategicObjective5.2:EnhancetheSkills,Capabilities,andProfessional DevelopmentofOPDEmployees................................................................................36 StrategicObjective5.3:EnhanceTacticalPolicies,Procedures,Skills,Capabilities, andPractices...............................................................................................................38 StrategicObjective5.4:EffectivelyUseInformationandTechnologytoImprove OPDManagement,Operations,andPerformance ....................................................39 . StrategicObjective5.5:EffectivelyPlanandManageEssentialOPDFacilitiesand Equipment...................................................................................................................40

StrategicPlanAppendixStrategicObjectivesandPriorityActions.............................................A1

WorkingDraftAugust2010

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment

MessagefromChiefBatts
The day after Thanksgiving, fiveyearold Azaria was struck in the back by a stray bullet. The bulletwasfiredduringarunninggunbattle,presumablybetweenrivalgangmembers.Little AzariawasvisitinghergrandmotherinOakland.Thankfully,herinjurieswererelativelyminor. AfewdayslaterIvisitedAzaria,lookedintoheryoungeyesandapologizedtoher.Itoldher thatwhenIbecameChiefoftheOaklandPoliceDepartment,Iacceptedtheresponsibilityfor keepingherandothersinOaklandsafe.Iwassorrytohavefailedher. Unfortunately,AzariasstoryisnotunusualinOakland.SincebecomingChief,Ihavelearnedof innumerable similar tragedies, many with more devastating outcomes. My mission, and the missionoftheOaklandPoliceDepartment,istoeliminatethesetragedies.ThisStrategicPlan outlinesmyvisionandstrategiestoaccomplishthismission. WhenIwasappointedChiefoftheOaklandPoliceIwasdirectedtodevelopthisstrategicplan toimprovehowOPDservestheCityofOakland.ToaccomplishthisIconductedanassessment ofthepolicingneedsoftheCityandtheeffectivenessofthePoliceDepartment.Thisincluded meeting with and listening to members of the Community and members of the Police Department,aswellascomparingOaklandandOPDwithotherlargeCaliforniacities.Thisplan istheresultofthatassessment,andiswhatIbelieveneedstooccurforOPDtoeffectivelymeet theneedsoftheCityofOakland. SincedevelopmentofthisplantherehasbeenasubstantialreductioninOPDsswornstaffing, withthepotentialforadditionalreductionsinthenearfuture.Thesereductionsdonotchange what I believe needs to occur for OPD to effectively meet the policing needs of the City of Oakland. Staff reductions will require further reductions in services provided to the Community,andwilllikelymovetheCityofOaklandandOPDintheoppositedirectiontothat establishedbythisplan.Muchofthepositiveprogressachievedoverthepastseveralyearsis alsoatrisk. The Strategic Plan establishes a vision for the Community of Oakland and the Oakland Police Department.ThisvisionisbasedonwhatIhaveheardoverthepastfewmonthsfrommembers of the Oakland Community and members of the Oakland Police Department. I have heard parentssaytheywouldliketheirchildrentobeabletoplayoutsidewithoutfearingtheywillbe hurt or killed. Members of the business community have said they would like to open and operate their businesses without the fear of being harassed or robbed. Many people have expressedadesireforpolicetobetherewhentheyneedthem,andtotreatthemwithrespect anddignity.OtherswouldlikeamoreeffectivepartnershipbetweentheCommunityandthe Police.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
FromthemenandwomenoftheOaklandPoliceDepartment,Ihaveheardadesireforclear andconsistentdirection,forfairtreatment,andtobedevelopedratherthanjustdisciplined.I havealsoheardtheirneedtohavethetoolsandsupporttheyneedtoeffectivelydotheirjobs. Theywouldliketobeseenasaninnovative,professional,andeffectivepoliceagency.Perhaps mostimportantly,IhaveheardtheirdesiretoberespectedandvaluedbytheCommunityof Oakland. As with any plan, it is important to define the current reality or starting point as well as the destination.Unfortunately,thecurrentrealityisnotverypositive;Oaklandisamongtheleast safeandmostviolentcitiesintheUnitedStates.ServicesprovidedtotheCommunitybythe Police Department are nowhere near the standards that should be expected. Many good peopleintheCommunitydonottrustthePoliceDepartmentandliveinfearofthepoliceas wellasofcriminals.CollaborationbetweenthePoliceDepartmentandtheCommunityhasnot mettheexpectationsofsomeCommunitymembers. TheDepartmentisclearlyunderstaffedgiventhelevelofcrimeinOaklandandthedemandfor police services. Basic equipment needed for Department personnel to do their jobs, such as police vehicles, is inadequate. The Department lacks basic police management tools and processesthatwouldallowitslimitedresourcestobefocusedmosteffectively.Thefactthat employees are still able and willing to provide services given the lack of support is commendable. RealizingthevisionoutlinedinthisstrategicplanwillrequiresubstantialchangeintheOakland Police Department, including change in direction and priorities, change in organization, and change in operations. Most importantly, change in the culture and focus of the Police Departmentwillberequired. RealizingthevisionwillalsorequirepatienceandsupportfromtheCommunityofOakland.I askyoutoputasidethepastandfindwaysyoucanhelpworktowardthevisionoutlinedinthis plan. Some will say the vision and strategies outlined are idealistic and unrealistic, especially given the current economy and the Citys budget. I disagree. I believe they provide Oakland with muchneededvision,leadership,andhope.Ialsoknowtheonlycertainwaytonotreachagoal is to not try. This plan describes a vision for Oakland and the Oakland Police Department workingtowardthatvisionisanimperative. ThestrategicplanistitledasaWorkingDraftbecauseitmustbealivingdocumentthatwill continue to evolve and be refined. Strategic planning is a dynamic and flexible way of managingtheservicesandoperationsofthePoliceDepartment,notastaticdocument. AnthonyBatts ChiefofPolice
WorkingDraftAugust2010 OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment

Mission,VisionandValues
MissionStatement

TheMissionoftheOaklandPoliceDepartmentistoprovidethepeople ofOaklandanenvironmentwheretheycanlive,work,play,andthrive freefromcrimeandthefearofcrime

VisionforOaklandandtheOaklandPoliceDepartment

OaklandisoneofthesafestlargecitiesinCaliforniabothin realityandperception The Oakland Police Department provides high quality services inaCommunitydrivenandcustomerfriendlymanner The Oakland Police Department is trusted, respected, and valuedbythoseitserves The Oakland Community and the Oakland Police Department worktogethertosolveCommunityandneighborhoodconcerns andissues The Oakland Police Department is an effective organization, providing a supportive and positive work environment for its employees

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page1

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment

ValuesoftheOaklandPoliceDepartment IndealingwithourCommunityandcustomers,we: RecognizethatweareheretoservetheneedsoftheCommunity Strive to provide the best service possible, in a professional and positivemanner Operatewithethics,honesty,andintegrity Treatourcustomerswithrespect,dignity,andfairness Are responsive to the changing needs of our Community and individualsweserve Indealingwitheachother,we: Treateachotherwithrespectbasedonmutualtrustandcommon purpose Dotherightthings,ethicallyandhonestly Communicateopenlyandpositivelyaboutplansanddecisions SetprioritiestoensureservicesaredeliveredtotheCommunityby personnelwhoareproperlytrained,equipped,andsupported Areaccountableforthequalityofourworkandthequalityofthe servicetheDepartmentprovides Areinnovativeandcreative,acknowledgingmistakeswillbemade fromwhichwewilllearn GobeyondbasicdutiestohelpothersandimproveourCommunity Take responsibility for developing and training each other and ourselves

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page2

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment

Vision1:OaklandisOneoftheSafestLargeCitiesin CaliforniaBothinRealityandPerception
SafetyfromcrimeandthefearofcrimeiscriticaltothefutureofOakland.Asafeenvironment is the foundation for any community to thrive. Often, communities that are seen as unsafe begintodeclineinpopulationasfamiliesandindividualsmovetosaferareas.Itbecomesmore difficulttoattractnewbusinessandjobs,andforexistingbusinessestoexpand.Communities thatareseenasunsafedevelopanegativereputationandperception,andOaklandiscertainly noexception. Exhibit1 ComparisonofPoliceWorkload,Staffingand Addressing Oaklands crime issues, and the Performance related perceptions, is critical to the future ReportedViolentCrime economic viability and health of the City. Per100,000Populationin2009 Given this, the Police Department (in Average 659 addressingcrime)isamajoreconomicdriver Anaheim 340 SanJose 342 orenginefortheCity. SanDiego 438 SantaAna 485 Fresno 591 CrimeinOakland LosAngeles 592 LongBeach 642 SanFrancisco 705 Recently released City Crime Rankings, Sacramento 866 publishedbyCQPress,rankedOaklandasthe Oakland 1,592 3rd most dangerous city out of nearly 400 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800 citiesnationwide. Source: Oakland Police Department Comparison Survey of CaliforniaPoliceDepartments,May2010 The violent crime rate in Oakland is much Exhibit2 higher than that of other large cities in ComparisonofPoliceWorkload,Staffingand California. It is nearly double that of Performance Sacramento, the city with the next highest ReportedHomicides violentcrimerate.Itisoverfourtimesthat Per100,000Populationin2009 ofSanJoseandAnaheim,theCitieswiththe Average 7.5 lowest violent crime rate. It is nearly two 2.6 Anaheim SanJose 2.8 and onehalf that of Long Beach, a city with SanDiego 3.0 verysimilardemographicstoOakland. SanFrancisco 5.3 Sacramento 6.2 SantaAna 6.5 The homicide rate in Oakland is even more LosAngeles 7.7 LongBeach 8.1 out of line with the other large cities in Fresno 8.5 Oakland 24.5 California. Oakland had 24.5 homicides 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 reported per 100,000 population in 2009. Source: Oakland Police Department Comparison Survey of This is nearly three times the homicide rate CaliforniaPoliceDepartments,May2010 inFresno,whichreported8.5homicidesper
WorkingDraftAugust2010 Page3 OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
100,000populationin2009.ThehomiciderateinOaklandwasabout9timestherateinthe largecitieswiththelowesthomicideratesAnaheimandSanJose. Notsurprisingly,thenumberofreportedshootingsinOaklandisalsomuchhigherthaninother largecitiesinCalifornia.Oaklandhad252reportedshootingsper100,000populationin2009. The next highest was Sacramento, with about 77 reported shootings per 100,000 Exhibit3 ComparisonofPoliceWorkload,Staffingand population about onethird the number in Performance Oakland. San Jose had the fewest reported shootings in 2009 with 8.4 per 100,000 population. Oaklands reported shootings were30timesthatofSanJose. There is obviously a direct connection between the high number of shootings that occur in Oakland and the high level of homicides. There is also a higher likelihood forinnocentbystanderstobecomevictimsof shootings given the comparatively high incidenceinOakland.
ReportedShootings Per100,000Populationin2009
68.3 8.4 14.6 28.9 38.0 54.0 73.9 76.9 252.0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Average SanJose Anaheim SanFrancisco LongBeach SantaAna LosAngeles Sacramento Oakland

Source: Oakland Police Department Comparison Survey of CaliforniaPoliceDepartments,May2010

Eachyearthelistofheartbreakingexamples ofinnocentbystandersinjuredorkilledbystraybulletscontinuestomount.Reducingthelevel ofshootingsinOakland,andthedestroyedlivesthatmostoftenresult,mustbeapriorityofthe OaklandPoliceDepartmentandtheCommunityitserves. CrimeVictimsinOakland Violent Crime affectseveryone in Oakland; however, it is more severe incertain areas of the City as the following map shows. The map below demonstrates thata substantial portion of theCityofOaklandexperienceshighormediumhighratesofviolentcrime.Thelikelihoodof being a victim of violent crime, or being an innocent bystander hit by a stray bullet is much higherintheseareasoftheCity.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page4

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment

Exhibit4

ViolentcrimenotonlyimpactseveryareaoftheCityofOakland,italsoimpactseveryethnic group and every age group. Some may believethattheviolentcrimeinOaklandis Exhibit5 ViolentCrimeinOakland limited to certain ethnic groups. Although ReportedViolentCrimesPer100,000Population the African American and Hispanic ByEthnicGroup communities are more severely impacted by violent crime all ethnic groups are AfricanAmerican 1,774 impacted. The following exhibit shows the Asian 1,208 victims of violent crime in 2009 by ethnic group. Latino 1,694 AfricanAmericansandLatinoshaveamuch higher likelihood to be victims of violent crime thanother ethnic groups. While the
White 0 500 854 1,000 1,500 2,000

Source:OaklandPoliceDepartmentCrimeReports,May2010

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page5

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
violentcrimerateforAsiansandWhitesislower,itisstillmuchhigherthanreportedviolent crimeratesinotherlargecitiesinCalifornia. The average violent crime rate for large cities in California (including Oakland) was 759 per 100,000 population. Sacramento had the next highest rate of violent crime, with 866 per 100,000population.Oaklandsoverallviolentcrimeratewas1,592per100,000population. Being a young person in Oakland poses a substantialriskforbeingavictimofviolent crime. Young people between the ages of 18and29haveahighlikelihoodofbeinga victim of violent crime. Young people in this age group have a 64 percent greater likelihood to be a victim of violent crime. The rate of violent crime for individuals in this age group is about two and onehalf timesthatofpeopleover50yearsofage. Community Perception of Crime in Oakland While the violent crime rate in Oakland is very high, many in Oakland feel that crime ismovinginthewrongdirection.Overhalf of the Community members surveyed feel crime has increased. Only 13 percent feel crime has decreased. The remaining 29 percentseenochangeincrimeinOakland. Members of the Community have shared their concerns about crime in Oakland at thenumerousstrategicplaninputmeetings held. Mothers and fathers who are afraid to let their children play outside because theymaybehurtorkilled,businesspeople who are afraid to open and operate their business for fear of being harassed or robbed shared their concerns during the strategicplanmeetings.

Exhibit6

ViolentCrimeinOakland
ReportedViolentCrimesPer100,000Population ByAgeGroup
Over50Years 30to49Years 18to29Years Under18Years 0 500 790 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 1,024 1,558 2,616

Source:OaklandPoliceDepartmentCrimeReports,May2010

Exhibit7

CommunityPerceptionsof CrimeinOakland
70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

58%

29% 13%

Decreased

StayedtheSame

Increased

Source: San Jose State University OPD Community Opinion Survey,January2010(N=868)

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page6

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
Many members of the Oakland Community Exhibit8 frequently observe crime in Oakland. In CommunityPerceptionsof each category of crime gang, drug, and CrimeinOakland prostitution a majority of those surveyed PercentAgreeingTheyFrequently agreed they frequently see these crimes in ObserveinOakland 70% Oakland. This open and apparent crime 62% 61% 56% 60% activityaddstotheperceptionofOaklandas 50% 40% ahighcrimeCommunity. 30% 20% MakingOaklandoneofthesafestlargecities 10% 0% inCaliforniabytheYear2015isdefinitelya GangCrime DrugCrime Prostitution/Lewd stretch goal for the Oakland Police Behavior Department. However, making this goal a Source: San Jose State University OPD Community Opinion reality is critical to the future health and Survey,January2010(N=868) wellbeingoftheCommunityofOakland. The OPD is committed to achieving this vision, in partnership with the Community. The followingstrategicobjectiveswillcontributetoaccomplishingthisvision. StrategicObjective1.1:FocusProactiveViolenceSuppressionandEnforcementUnits andEffortsonGangs,Drugs,andGuns OPDscurrentproactiveviolencesuppressionandenforcementeffortsarefragmentedamong numerousspecializedunits.Theindividualfocusandeffortsofeachoftheseunitshavebeen valuable and productive; however, these efforts have been largely uncoordinated and have lackedacommonfocus. Recently, these units have been provided a common focus gangs, drugs, and guns. Additionally,90violencereductionplanshavebeendevelopedandimplementedtostrengthen thisfocusandcoordination.Inthelongerterm,theseunitsmaybemoreproductiveiftheyare consolidatedintoaproactiveviolencesuppressionandenforcementunit. Itisessentialthatproactiveviolencesuppressionandenforcementresourcesbehighlyfocused giventhelimitedresourcesoftheDepartment,andthehighlevelofviolentcrimeintheCity. The occurrence of violent crime throughout the City, by area, by time of day, and by day of week should be reviewed and analyzed to determine an optimal deployment schedule and assignmentareasforproactiveviolencesuppressionandenforcementunits. Whilemuchcanbeaccomplishedbyrefocusingandredeployingexistingproactiveresources,it is clear that additional resources will be required in the longer term. Identifying the staffing requirements for these proactive units and requesting these additional resources will be pursuedwhensuchresourcesareavailable.
WorkingDraftAugust2010 Page7 OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
Developing and implementing clear and consistent direction for these units, making sure activities are well coordinated, and clear policies, protocols, and operational standards are in placearealsoessentialtoaccomplishingthisobjective.Inaddition,supplementarytoolssuch as gang injunctions or antiloitering ordinances may be effective. The Department will work withpolicydecisionmakerstodevelopandimplementtheseresources. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. Developandimplement90dayviolencereductiontacticalplansusingcurrentviolence suppressionandenforcementunits. ReviewthecurrentallocationofpersonnelamongspecializedunitsDepartmentwide, anddeterminewhichunitstocombinetoestablishaconsolidatedproactiveviolence suppressionandenforcementunit. Reviewandanalyzetheoccurrenceofviolentcrimebytimeofday,dayofweek,and locationtodeterminetheoptimaldeploymentscheduleandassignmentareasforthe consolidatedproactiveviolencesuppressionandenforcementunit. Identifythestaffingrequirementsfortheproactiveviolencesuppressionand enforcementunitbasedondeploymentanalysisandrequestadditionalpersonnelto fullystafftheunit. Establishclearandconsistentdirectionfortheproactiveviolencesuppressionand enforcementunitincludingwelldefinedandspecificoperationalgoalsandobjectives. Conductweeklycoordinationmeetingswithareacommandersandproactiveunit commanderstoestablishweeklyprioritiesandtactics.Communicatetheseprioritiesto proactiveunitandpatrolpersonnel. Developandimplementpoliciesandprotocolsfortheproactiveviolencesuppression andenforcementunitthatdefineoperationalstandardsincludinganintelligenceled policingapproach. Developperformancestandards,monitorandreportweeklyperformanceforthe proactiveviolencesuppressionandenforcementunit.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page8

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
Strategic Objective 1.2: Expand and Strengthen Partnerships and Coordination EffortswithLawEnforcementAgenciesintheRegionWorkingtoSuppressViolence andReduceCrime OPDisoneofmanylawenforcementagenciesworkinginOaklandandtheBayAreatosuppress violenceandreducecrime.Eachoftheseagenciescollectsandanalyzescriminalintelligence and have ongoing enforcement operations. Partnering and coordinating with these agencies cancontributetomakingOaklandasafeCity. Additionalassistancewillberequestedfromeachoftheseagenciestoexpandandenhancethe Departments efforts. Planning and coordination will also be expanded, and the Department will take a more active role in regional planning and implementation of changes impacting regionallawenforcementservices. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. RequestincreasedassistanceandresourcesfromFederallawenforcementagencies includingtheFBI,DEA,ATF,IRS,USSSandtheU.S.Marshalstofocusonsuppressing violenceandreducingcrime. Conductmonthlyplanningandcoordinationmeetingswithregionalmunicipallaw enforcementagenciestodeveloptargetedcooperativeoperationsandleverageexisting partnerships. ConductmonthlyplanningandcoordinationmeetingswiththeDistrictAttorneysOffice andotherelementsofthecriminaljusticesystemtodevelopandimplementnearterm objectivesandtacticstosuppressviolenceandreducecrime. Takeanactiveroleintheongoingplanningandimplementationofchangesinregional lawenforcementservicesincludingcommunications,laboratoryservices,detention services,airsupport,etctoimproveservicesandreducecostsorcontractinservices withotheragencies. Identifypotentialservicesotherregionallawenforcementagenciescouldprovideto OPDtoenhanceitsabilitytoservetheCommunityandreducecosts. ActivelyusetheCitysStateandFederallobbyiststoadvocateforresourcesand legislationbeneficialtoOaklandandtheOPDsmission.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page9

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
Strategic Objective 1.3: Strengthen OPDs Intelligence Collection and Analysis CapabilitytoTargetViolentCrimeinOakland One of the most effective tools for reducing violence and crime in Oakland is the effective collection,analysis,anduseofintelligence.MuchoftheviolentcrimethatoccursinOaklandis the result of ongoing disputes between rival gangs or ongoing disputes between individuals. Collectingandusinginformationonthesedisputescanhelppreventandreducehomicidesin Oakland. Exhibit9 About 39 percent of the homicides OaklandHomicideCircumstancesin2008 Circumstance Number Percent committed in Oakland in 2008 were the Gang/criminallyactivegrouprelated 49 39.2% resultoftheactivitiesofgangsorcriminally Ongoingdisputebetweentwogangs/groups 25 20.0% active groups. Nearly 25 percent of the Personaldisputewithgang/groupdynamics 16 12.8% Drugdisputewithgang/groupdynamics 6 4.8% remaining homicides were the results of Robberywithgang/groupdynamics 2 1.6% personaldisputesbetweenindividuals,with Personaldispute 31 24.8% Ongoingdisputebetweenindividuals 20 16.0% most of these being ongoing disputes. Suddendisputebetweenindividuals 11 8.8% Anothernearly10percentofthehomicides Drugrelated 12 9.6% were related to drugs. Taken together, Drugbusinessdispute 8 6.4% 4 3.2% Drugrobbery nearly threequarters of the homicides in Robbery 8 6.4% Oakland were related to gang or criminal Domestic/familyviolence 6 4.8% Other 7 5.6% activegroups,personaldisputes,ordrugs. Unknown 12 9.6% 100% Totals 125 Having the right information at the right Source: Understanding Serious Violence in Oakland: time and using this information to target Preliminary Findings, Anthony A. Braga, Ph.D., HarvardUniversity,January2010 violence suppression and enforcement efforts can potentially reduce the level of violence. To improve the Departments intelligence collection and analysis capabilities the existing crime analysis function will be centralized. A Departmentwide approach to intelligenceled policing will be developed, alongwithnewpolicies,procedures,training,andtechnology.Inthelongerterm,aCounter TerrorismUnitwillbedeveloped,staffed,andtrained. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. CentralizeexistingcrimeanalysisfunctionwithinInvestigationstoprovidemore coordinatedanalysisandresults. DevelopaDepartmentwidephilosophyofintelligenceledpolicingandoperationally integrateIntelligenceLedPolicingintotheOPD.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page10

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
Developpoliciesandproceduresforthecollection,development,analysis,sharingand useofintelligenceamongOPDandexternalpartners.Ensureprivacyissuesare protectedinpolicyandpractice. Providetrainingtofieldandinvestigativepersonneloncollectingusableinformation andintelligence. Acquiretechnologytoolsthatfacilitatethedevelopmentandanalysisofinformation andintelligenceusingexistinginformationoncrime,callsforservice,fieldinterviews, witnessandvictiminformation,andothersources. ConnecttotheCaliforniacriminaljusticenetworkandregionalintelligencedatabases, andparticipateininformationsharinginitiatives. Routinelyuseintelligencetoimprovetacticalandstrategicdecisionmaking. EstablishawelltrainedandresponsiveCounterTerrorismUnit. TrainDepartmentemployeesasTerrorismLiaisonOfficers(TLOs). TrainallDepartmentemployeesinHomelandSecuritymandatesandcriticalfacility protectionandresponse.

Strategic Objective 1.4: Expand and Strengthen Partnerships and Coordination Efforts with Policy Decision Makers and Organizations Working to Prevent and ReduceViolenceandCrimeInOakland The level of violence and crime in Oakland is largely due to underlying economic and social issues. These include poverty, a lack of jobs and other opportunities, and for many, limited futureoptionsandhope.Clearly,thelongtermsolutionistoaddresstheseunderlyingissues. Violencesuppressionandenforcementalonecannotprovidelongtermsolutions. Numerous organizations in Oakland are working to prevent and reduce violence and crime, includingCityofOaklandandAlamedaCountyprograms.Italsoincludesprogramsandefforts of community and faith based organizations. The longterm success in reducing crime and violenceandmakingOaklandasafecityrequiresOPDtohavestrongpartnerships,andworkin coordinationwiththeseagenciesandprograms. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page11

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
Developandworkwithpolicydecisionmakerstoimplementadditionalviolence suppressionandenforcementmechanismstostrengthenOPDsabilitytoaddress violenceandrecklessbehavior(e.g.,ganginjunctions,antiloiteringordinances,etc.) WorkwiththeOaklandUnifiedSchoolDistricttoreducetheleveloftruancy,andto provideganganddrugresistanceeducationandtrainingtoelementaryandmiddle schoolstudents. ExpandinteractionwithOaklandsyouthandyouthdevelopmentprogramsincluding theExplorerProgram,PoliceCadetProgram,PoliceAthleticLeague(PAL),YouthCourt, Code33,andOurKids(O.K.)MentoringProgram. Fullyandactivelyparticipateinexistingeffortstoplanandcoordinateeffortsamong City,County,andCommunityBasedOrganizationstopreventandreduceviolenceand crimeinOakland. Advocateforandsupporteffortstodevelopbroadbasedviolenceandcrimeprevention planningandcoordinationamongallpublicandcommunityorganizations. Identifyviolenceandcrimepreventionservicesprovidedbyothergovernmentand Communityserviceorganizationsandprovideittoenforcementpersonnelasreferral opportunitiesforindividualsatrisk. Developoperationalpartnershipstodevelopmultiagencyapproachestopermanently transformviolenceandcrimehotspotsthroughouttheCity.

StrategicObjective1.5:DevelopandImplementInnovativeandEffectiveApproaches to Reducing Violence and Crime in Oakland Working with the Academic and ResearchCommunity Making Oakland one of the safest large cities in California (given the likelihood of ongoing severely limited resources) will require innovation. The Department will develop strong partnerships with the academic and research community to assist in developing these innovativeandeffectiveapproaches. Anadvisorygroupofregionalacademicleadersinthefieldsoflawenforcementandcriminal justice has already been established to provide assistance and guidance. Research partners willbeidentifiedtoassisttheDepartmentandcommunitywithpursuinggrantfundingwhere available. Ongoing efforts to work with the academic and research community will continue andbeexpandedwhenopportunitiesarepresent.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page12

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. Establishanadvisorygroupofregionalacademicleadersinthefieldsoflaw enforcementandcriminaljusticetoprovideassistanceandguidancetotheChiefand Department. Identifyspecificissuesandareasofresearchinwhichtorequestassistancefromthe academicandresearchcommunities. Identifygrantfundsavailabletoconductresearchanddevelopandimplement innovativeandeffectiveapproachestoreducingviolenceandcrimeinOaklandand pursuefundinginpartnershipwiththeacademicandresearchcommunities. Continuetoworkwiththeacademicandresearchcommunitiestoimplementinnovative approachesincluding,OperationCeasefireandtheCallInProgram.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page13

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment

Vision2:TheOaklandPoliceDepartmentProvidesHigh QualityServicesinaCommunityDrivenandCustomer FriendlyManner


Likemostpublicorganizations,theOaklandPoliceDepartmentisaserviceprovidingagency.It wascreated,andcontinuestoexist,toservetheCommunityofOaklandandtomeettheneeds of its members. The future success of the Police Department is directly tied to how well it serves the needs and priorities of the Community. The quality and effectiveness of these serviceshasamajorimpactonthelevelofcrimeandthefeelingsofsafetyinanycommunity FocusingontheprioritiesoftheCommunityisalsoabasicprincipleofcommunitypolicing.To successfully implement community policing the Departments foundation must contain a comprehensive understanding of the community and its priorities, as well as an ongoing commitmenttofocusonthosepriorities. The following exhibit shows how Community members rated the importance of services providedbytheOPD.ThemajorityofCommunitymembersratedalloftheservicesprovided by the OPD as either extremely or very important. The most important services to the communitywereaddressingviolentcrimeandrespondingtoemergency911callsforservice. For each of these services 97 percent rated them as either extremely or very important. Addressingillegaldrugactivityanddomesticviolencealsohadahighpercentage,ratingthem asextremelyorveryimportant.
Exhibit10 PercentRatingServiceImportantand SatisfiedwithCurrentOPDService
100% 97% 97% 91% 86% 84% 79% 75% 62% 60% 53% 48% 63% 47% 50% 65% 74% 66% 69% 61% 61% 61%

80%

40%

20%

0%
ViolentCrime Emergency IllegalGang 911Response Activity Domestic Violence Property Crimes IllegalDrug Activity Community Neighborhood Reducing Prostitution/ Policing Patrol Traffic LewdBahavior Accidents

Importance

Satisfaction

Source: San Jose State University OPD Oakland Community Opinion Survey, January 2010 (N=868)

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page14

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
This exhibit also shows the level of Exhibit11 satisfactionwitheachoftheservicesprovided CommunityMemberPerceptions bythePoliceDepartment.Thepercentageof ofOPDServices Community members that are either very or PercentAgreeingOPDis somewhat satisfied with these OPD services EffectiveatControlling ranged from 47 percent for property crimes, 100% to a high of 66 percent for neighborhood 80% patrol. 60% Less than half of Oakland Community 40% members agreed the OPD was effective in 26% 24% 23% 20% 19% controllingviolentcrime,gangviolence,drug 20% crime,gunviolence,orburglary. 0% ViolentCrime GangViolence DrugCrime GunViolence Burglary The OPD is committed to improving its Source:SanJoseStateUniversityOaklandCrime,Justice,and services and providing high quality services PoliceSurvey,2008(N=810) basedontheCommunityspriorities. Thefollowingstrategicobjectiveswillcontributetoaccomplishingthisvision. Strategic Objective 2.1: Improve the OPDs Call Taking and Dispatch Capability and Performance. WhenamemberoftheCommunitydials911thereismostlikelyanurgentneedforsometype of police service. There may be a robbery in progress, or a personal assault occurring. A Community member may have just returned home to discover their home had been broken intoandburglarizedintheirabsence,orcarmayhavebeenstolen. 911callsreceivedbythePoliceDepartmentmayalsobeformedicalemergenciesortoreport fires.SincethePoliceDepartmentisthePublicSafetyAnsweringPoint(PSAP)forOakland,all callsto911areinitiallyansweredbythePoliceDepartment.ThePolicecommunicationsstaff answeringthecallwillgetenoughinformationtodeterminethetypeofemergency.Ifthecall is for a medical emergency or fire the call will be transferred to the Fire Department for processing. Regardless of the specific situation, members of the Community should have a reasonable expectationthatsuchcallswillbeansweredquickly,informationtransferredefficiently,andthe appropriateresponsemade;unfortunatelythisisnotalwaysthecase.Onaverage,ittook17 secondsfortheOaklandPoliceDepartmenttoanswer911emergencycallsin2009.Itwasnot unusualforcallstobeonholdforfiveormoreminutesonthe911linepriortogettingthrough toanemergencycalltaker.Thelongestholdtimefor2009onthe911linewas9.7minutes.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page15

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
The answering and hold times are even longer on the Police Departments non emergency lines, with an average of 29 seconds for the two nonemergency numbers.Thelongestholdtimeonthetwo nonemergencylineswas43.2minutes.
Exhibit12

ComparisonofPoliceWorkload,Staffingand Performance
AverageTimeRequiredtoAnswer EmergencyCallsin2009
Average LosAngeles SanJose SanFrancisco Fresno Anaheim SanDiego Sacramento Oakland 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 1.0 2.5 3.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 17.0 20.0 6.4

The call answering speed for Oakland was much longer than for other police departments serving Californias largest cities. The average for the cities we were able to compare was 6.4 seconds, close to onethirdaslongasOakland. Not surprisingly, the percentage of emergency calls that are abandoned, or where the caller hangs up prior to the call beinganswered,ismuchhigherinOakland. Over14percentofthecallstotheOakland Police Department were abandoned in 2009. This is more than twice the average of 6.4 percent for the other large cities in California, and well above the next highest percentageinSanDiegoat8.2percent. One of the primary reasons for the longer answering time and higher abandoned call rate in Oakland is the level of workload required of each dispatcher answering and dispatchingcallsforservice.Astheexhibit shows, the average number of dispatched calls per communications staff was higher for the Oakland Police Department than other departments. The average communications staff in Oakland handled 4,518 dispatched calls in 2009, which is about 56 percent more calls each than the averageoftheothercities. The Oakland Police Department must clearly improve its call answering and handling speed to provide a better quality

InSeconds

PercentofEmergencyCalls Abandoned(HangUps)in2009
Average LongBeach SanJose Sacramento Fresno SanFrancisco Anaheim LosAngeles SantaAna SanDiego Oakland 0% 6.4% 0.7% 1.8% 3.8% 5.2% 6.3% 7.2% 7.9% 8.2% 8.2% 14.4% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16%

Source: Oakland Police Department Comparison Survey of CaliforniaPoliceDepartments,May2010

Exhibit13

ComparisonofPoliceWorkload,Staffingand Performance
AverageDispatchedCallsforService PerCommunicationsStaffin2009
Average LosAngeles Anaheim Fresno LongBeach SanJose SantaAna SanDiego Oakland 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 1,220 1,562 1,662 2,687 3,512 3,906 4,137 4,518 5,000 2,901

Source: Oakland Police Department Comparison Survey of CaliforniaPoliceDepartments,May2010

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page16

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
service to the Community. Accomplishing this will clearly involve enhanced staffing, filling vacantpositions,andrevisingthestaffpositionsforcalltakeranddispatcher.Otherchanges will be required to improve this service which includes reviewing and revising policies and procedures,callpriorityrankings,andthemethodofcalldispatch. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. ReassignswornstafffromRadioRoomtootherswornfunctionsandfullycivilianize communicationsstafftoreducecosts. Recruitandfillvacantdispatcherpositionsandmaintainfullstaffingtotheextent practical. Reviewthepotentialtodevelopseparatecalltakeranddispatcherpositionstoprovidea moreeffectivecareerladderandreducethelossofeffectivecalltakersthatarenotable tomakethetransitiontodispatching. Reviewandrevisetheshiftsandscheduleforcalltakersanddispatcherstoreflectthe distributionofcallworkloadbydayofweekandtimeofdaytotheextentpractical. Developandimplementpolicyandproceduresforansweringandhandling911callson holdtoreducethetimerequiredfora911calltoinitiallybeanswered. Reviewandrevisethecallpriorityrankingtoclarifyhoweachcalltypeshouldbe handledanddispatched,includingdevelopingalternatemethodsofresponse(other thanaphysicalresponse),andincreaseonlinecrimereports. Reviewandrevisetheprocessfordispatchingcallssocallsaredispatchedregardlessof unitavailability,allowingfieldunitstoknowofcallsrequiringaresponse. Explorethepotentialfordispatchingcallsviathedatasystemratherthanbyvoice,to reducethetimerequiredfordispatch. PlanfortheimplementationofEnhanced911(accepting911callsfromcellandmobile phonesdirectlybasedonlocationofthecaller)andthepotentialexpandedcallvolume fromitsimplementation. Developperformancestandards,monitorandreportmonthlyperformanceforcall answering,handling,anddispatch.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page17

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
Strategic Objective 2.2: Provide Timely Response to Calls for Service and Effective PolicePresenceinNeighborhoods Responding to emergency calls and effectively addressing emergency situations is a high priority to the members of the Oakland Exhibit14 Community. Ninetyseven percent of Oakland ComparisonofPoliceWorkload,Staffingand Community Members rated this service as Performance either extremely or very important. Only 62 AverageTimeRequiredtoRespondtoPriority1 CallsForServicein2009 percentweresatisfiedwiththecurrentlevelof serviceprovidedbytheDepartment. Average 7.0 LongBeach 4.0 SanJose 4.8 InMinutes Calls for service that require a physical police LosAngeles 5.6 response are categorized and dispatched by SantaAna 6.1 Fresno 6.5 OaklandPoliceinthreepriorities: SanFrancisco 6.5 Sacramento 7.3 Priority 1 Calls: Are the highest priority and Anaheim 7.9 Oakland 14.8 include situations where life or property is in 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 imminent danger. These include crimes in progress such as robberies, rapes, assaults, or AverageTimeRequiredtoRespondtoPriority2Calls ForServicein2009 burglaries.Thesealsoincludeviolentdomestic disturbances, reports of individuals with guns Average 20.1 orshotsfired.Areasonablestandardisforno SanJose 10.5 LongBeach 10.6 more than 5 minutes to elapse from the time InMinutes Fresno 13.3 someone dials 911 until a police officer is on SantaAna 13.4 sceneforapriority1call.InOakland,ittakes Sacramento 13.9 LosAngeles 14.8 an average of 14.8 minutes to respond to a SanFrancisco 16.7 priority1call.Thisissubstantiallyhigherthan Anaheim 16.9 the average of 7 minutes for all the cities Oakland 71.0 compared. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 AverageTimeRequiredtoRespondtoPriority3Calls Priority2Calls:Includesituationsthatrequire ForServicein2009 a fairly immediate police response, with no Average 52.4 immediate threat to life or property. These LongBeach 20.4 could include family disputes, disturbances of SantaAna 24.2 InMinutes LosAngeles 27.3 the peace, and suspicious activities. Ideally, SanFrancisco 41.4 thesecallsshouldberespondedtoinbetween Anaheim 42.5 10 and 15 minutes. In Oakland, it takes an Sacramento 50.7 averageof71minutestorespondtoapriority Fresno 64.5 148.3 Oakland 2 call. This is substantially higher than the average of 20.1 minutes for all the cities 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 compared and over four times as long as the Source:OaklandPoliceDepartmentComparison nexthighestcity. SurveyofCaliforniaPoliceDepartments,May2010
WorkingDraftAugust2010 Page18 OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
Priority3Calls:Includecallswherethereisnosubstantialthreattolifeorproperty,butapolice responseisneeded.Theseincludetakingreportsoncrimeswhereasignificantamountoftime haselapsedsincetheoccurrenceofthecrime.Forexample,someonecomeshomefromwork to find their home had been broken into several hours earlier. Ideally, these calls should be respondedtowithinabout30minutes.Whiletheremaybenoimmediatethreat,beingacrime victimcanbetraumaticandwaitingforapoliceresponseforalongtimeaddstothattrauma. In Oakland, it takes an average of 148 minutes to respond to a priority 3 call. This is substantiallyhigherthantheaverageofallthecitiescompared,andovertwiceaslongasthe nexthighestcity. Exhibit15 These delays are primarily due to a lack of ComparisonofPoliceWorkload, patrol units available to be dispatched to StaffingandPerformance thesecalls.Thenumberofdispatchedcalls AverageDispatchedCallsforService for service for each sworn officer assigned PerPatrolStaffin2009 to respond to these calls was much higher Average 503 than for most other police departments in SanFrancisco 234 Californias large cities. Oakland Police Anaheim 395 LongBeach 406 responded to an average of 787 calls for Sacramento 407 service per patrol staff in 2009. This is Fresno 456 nearly 50 percent more calls than the SanDiego 559 average of 517 calls for all departments SantaAna 781 Oakland 787 compared. The result of this high level of workload is that patrol units are often not 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 availabletorespondquicklytocalls. Source: Oakland Police Department Comparison Survey of CaliforniaPoliceDepartments,May2010 Providing a police presence in neighborhoods to deter crime and provide a sense of security is another basic police service. ManymembersoftheOaklandCommunityhavesaidthatformanyneighborhoodsinOakland thereisnopolicepresenceuntilthereisan Exhibit16 incident. Providing a police presence in ComparisonofCurrentPatrolStaffingwith neighborhoods requires that patrol officers RecommendedStaffingLevels have time available for directed patrol and ActualPatrolOfficersin2009 334 Shortage for initiating enforcement activities when MinimumRecommendedStaffing 420 86 required. It is generally accepted among (33%OfficerInitiatedTime) police professionals that (to be effective) IACPRecommendedStaffing 517 183 patrol officers should spend at least one (40%OfficerInitiatedTime) Source: Evaluation of Actual Calls for Service and Staffing third of their time in these directed patrol Requirements,AnalysisCentralSystems,August2010 and officer initiated activities. The InternationalAssociationofChiefsofPolice(IACP)hasrecommendedthattheamountofpatrol officertimeavailablefortheseactivitiesbe40percent.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page19

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
AnanalysisofactualcallsforservicerespondedtobyOaklandPolicepatrolofficersshowsthat thecurrentpatrolstaffingisnotadequatetomeeteitherthe33percentor40percenttargets. An additional 70 patrol officers would be required to provide 33 percent of officer initiated time,andanadditional159officerswouldberequiredtomeetthe40percenttarget. The Department has already begun moving sworn personnel from other functions into the patrolfunctiontoprovidebetterpatrolpresenceinneighborhoodsandimprovetheresponse toCommunitycallsforservice.Thecurrentdeploymentofpatrolofficersbytimeofdayand dayofweekwillalsobemodifiedtobettermatchdemandforpatrolservices.Approachesto increasing the amount of time patrol units are available to respond to calls and patrol neighborhoodswillbedeveloped.Inaddition,thecurrentbeatstructureandassignmentswill berevisedtoprovidemoreeffectivedeploymentandbettermaintainbeatintegrity.Improved technologywillalsobeusedtobettermatchresourcesandresponserequirements. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. AcquireandimplementthePoliceResourceOptimizationSystem(PROS)toanalyze Communitycallforserviceworkloadbybeat,dayofweek,andtimeofday,to determinetheoptimaldeploymentapproachforpatrolresourcesbasedoncallfor serviceworkload. Revisethedeploymentschedulesandbeatassignmentsforpatrolresourcesbasedon theresultsofthePROSanalysis,includingbeatsthatshouldbestaffedwithtwoofficer units(stresserbeats),andthoserequiringoneofficerunits. Developandimplementpoliciesandmonitoringproceduresforensuringpatrolunitsare deployedasassigned. MovepoliceresourcesfromotherOPDfunctionsintopatrolfunctionstotheextent practical. Reviewandrevisethecurrentbeatstructureandboundariesbasedondemandfor serviceandworkloadcombiningsomebeatswithlowdemandforserviceandsplitting otherbeatswithhighdemandforservice. Acquireandmaintainadequatepatrolvehiclesandequipmenttoensurepatrolofficers andunitscanbedeployed. Exploreoptionsformaximizingtheamountoftimepatrolunitsspendinthefieldand availabilitytohandlecallsincluding: o Expeditingthepatrollineupprocessandtimetotheextentpossible;

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page20

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
o Developingafieldtransportsystemforbookingsuspectsinthefieldand transportingthemtojail;and o Streamliningtheadministrativeandreportingprocessesrequiredofpatrol personnel. Improvefieldsupervisiononunitsrespondingtocallstoexpeditethereturntoservice ofunitsnolongerneededasquicklyaspossible. Developandimplementpoliciesandproceduresformaintainingbeatintegrityforpatrol unitsassigningpatrolunitstospecificbeatsandrequiringunitstoremainonthetheir designatedbeatstotheextentpractical. AcquireandimplementGPS/AVLTechnologytoprovidetheabilitytocentrallymonitor andsupervisepatrolresourcesanddispatchbasedonlocation. Developperformancestandards,monitor,andreportmonthlyperformancefor respondingtocallsforservicebypriority.

Strategic Objective 2.3: Improve the Quality and Effectiveness of Criminal Investigations Effectively investigating and solving crimes that have occurred is a key basic police service. Whenacrimedoesoccuritisimportantthattheybeinvestigatedandprosecutedthisiskey to preventing future crime as well as providing justice for victims. The OPDs investigative resourcesarespreadverythinandmanycrimesinOaklandarenotinvestigatedatall. Investigators collect physical evidence, Exhibit17 interviewwitnessesandsuspects,develop ComparisonofPoliceWorkload, the criminal case, and file the case with StaffingandPerformance the District Attorney or City Prosecutor. Violent Crime Investigators support the prosecution of CaseClearanceRate suspects, and often testify during criminal Average 39% LongBeach 49% trials. SanDiego 48% Fresno 47% Violent crimes include homicides, Anaheim 42% SantaAna 37% robberies,assaults,andrapes.Addressing SanFrancisco 35% violent crime was the top priority of the SanJose 34% LosAngeles members of the Oakland Community. 31% Oakland 29% Ninetyseven percent of Oakland 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% CommunityMembersratedthisserviceas either extremely or very important. Only Source: Oakland Police Department Comparison Survey of CaliforniaPoliceDepartments,May2010 fiftythree percent were satisfied with the

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page21

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
currentlevelofserviceprovidedbytheDepartment The percentage of violent crimes that are Exhibit18 solved,orcleared,inOaklandislowerthan ComparisonofPoliceWorkload, in any of the other large California cities. StaffingandPerformance Only 29 percent are cleared, compared to HomicidesPerHomicideInvestigatorin2009 an average of 39 percent for all the cities Average 2.5 Anaheim 0.8 compared. SanDiego 1.3 SanFrancisco 1.5 A key reason for the relatively low SanJose 1.5 LosAngeles 1.8 percentageofcasessolvedorclearedisthe Sacramento 2.0 number of these crimes that must be LongBeach 2.5 Fresno 3.0 investigated by each investigator assigned SantaAna 3.3 totheseinvestigations.InOakland,in2009 Oakland 6.9 there were about 7 homicides for each 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 homicide investigator assigned to ViolentCrimesPerViolentCrimeInvestigatorin2009 investigate homicides. This is almost four Average 76.9 and onehalf times as many as the average SantaAna 22.0 Anaheim 34.8 of2.5fortheotherlargeCaliforniacities. Fresno 58.7 LongBeach 79.1 Similarly,therearemoreviolentcrimesthat SanJose 89.0 Sacramento 92.6 occur in Oakland for each investigator SanDiego 92.7 assignedtothesecasesthaninothercities. SanFrancisco 102.7 In Oakland in 2009 there were about 121 Oakland 120.8 violentcrimesforeachinvestigatorassigned 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 to these cases. This is nearly 60 percent Source: Oakland Police Department Comparison Survey of morecasesthantheaverageofabout77for CaliforniaPoliceDepartments,May2010 theotherlargecitiesinCalifornia. Exhibit19 Property crimes include burglaries, auto ComparisonofPoliceWorkload, thefts, larceny, and forgery or fraud cases. StaffingandPerformance PropertyCrime Addressing property crime was a lower CaseClearanceRatein2009 priority of the members of the Oakland Average Community. However, eightyfour percent 11% SantaAna 15% of Oakland Community Members rated this LongBeach 15% Fresno 15% service as either extremely or very Sacramento 14% important. Only fortyseven percent were SanDiego 13% Anaheim 12% satisfied with the current level of service SanFrancisco 11% providedbytheDepartment. LosAngeles 9% SanJose 5% Oakland 4% As with violent crime, the percentage of 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% propertycrimesthataresolvedorclearedin Source: Oakland Police Department Comparison Survey of Oakland is lower than in any of the other
CaliforniaPoliceDepartments,May2010

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page22

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
largeCaliforniacities.Only29percentarecleared,comparedtoanaverageof39percentfor allthecitiescompared. Likeviolentcrime,therearemorepropertycrimesthatoccurinOaklandforeachinvestigator assignedtothesecasesthaninothercities. In Oakland in 2009 there were about 1,500 Exhibit20 property crimes for each investigator ComparisonofPoliceWorkload, assigned to these cases. This is over twice StaffingandPerformance thenumberofcasesthantheaverageof715 PropertyCrimesPerPropertyCrime Investigatorin2009 fortheotherlargecitiesinCalifornia. Average 715 SanJose 347 It is important to note that the number of LongBeach 365 investigators assigned to these crimes in 421 Anaheim Oakland is proportional to the other cities Sacramento 447 based on the size of each city. The SantaAna 756 differenceisthattheviolentcrimerateand Fresno 1,168 Oakland 1,502 the number of violent crimes committed in Oakland is substantially higher than in the 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 other cities. This high rate of violent crime createsatremendousdemandforserviceor Source: Oakland Police Department Comparison Survey of CaliforniaPoliceDepartments,May2010 workload for the Oakland Police Departmentsinvestigators. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. Reviewthecaseloadandstaffingofcriminalinvestigationsandenhancethestaffing leveltomatchcaseload. Deployinvestigativepersonneltomatchworkload,includingincreasedevening,night, andweekendshifts. Increasetheleveloffielddeploymentofinvestigativepersonneltoconduct investigations,interviewvictimsandwitnesses,andcollectevidence. DevelopaworkinggroupininvestigatorsandprosecutorsfromtheDistrictAttorneys Officetodevelopaworkingagreementoncasefilingandprosecutionpolicies. Developaplantousecivilianpersonneltoperformroutinetasksrelatedto investigationsandcasefilingtoexpandtheavailabletimeforsworninvestigatorsto conductinvestigationsandreducecosts.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page23

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
Reviewthecurrentstructure,assignment,andstaffcompositionofthecrimescene responseunitsandrevisetomaketheirfunctionmoreconsistentandalignedwiththe CrimeLaboratory. Expandthecapabilityofcrimesceneresponseunitstocollectevidenceatthesceneof crimes. Expandthecapabilityofthecrimelabtoprocessevidenceinatimelymanner. Explorethepotentialforforensiclaboratoryservicesfromotherregionallaw enforcementagencylaboratories. Developperformancestandardsandmonitorandreportmonthlyperformancefor criminalinvestigations,crimesceneinvestigations,andcrimelabservices.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page24

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment

Vision3:TheOaklandPoliceDepartmentisTrusted, Respected,andValuedByThoseitServes
ForanypoliceorganizationtobeeffectiveitmusthavethetrustandrespectoftheCommunity it serves. The Police Department needs public support and cooperation to be effective in its ordermaintenance role, and particularly benefitS when they have the voluntary support and cooperationofmostmembersofthepublic,mostofthetime. Voluntary support and cooperation of the Exhibit21 Police Department is linked to judgments CommunityPerceptionoftheOPD about the legitimacy of the police. A central ImpressionofOPD reason people cooperate with the police is 100% that they view them as legitimate legal 80% authorities, entitled to be obeyed. These publicjudgmentsaboutthelegitimacyofthe 54% 60% policeandofpolicingactivitiesarebasedon 40% the publics assessments of the manner in 23% 15% 20% which the police exercise their authority. 8% 0% Enhancing the Communitys views about the VeryUnfavorable Somewhat Somewhat VeryFavorable legitimacy of the Police Department is Unfavorable Favorable essentialtotheirsuccess. Source:SanJoseStateUniversityOPDOaklandResident OpinionSurvey,January2010(N=868) Atotalof69percentoftheCommunityhave a somewhat or very favorable impression of the Police Department. That leaves 31 percent of the Community members with a Exhibit22 somewhat or very unfavorable impression of CommunityPerceptionoftheOPD PercentRatingOPDServiceasExcellentorGood theOPD. Followup 33% The level and quality of service provided by ProblemSolving 40% thePoliceDepartmenthasamajorimpacton ResponseTime 45% the impression members of the Community haveoftheDepartment.Whenaskedtorate ServiceQuality 49% thequalityofserviceprovidedbyOPDfewer Fairness 50% thanhalfratedthoseservicesasexcellentor Helpfulness 55% good.AbouthalfviewedOPDashelpfuland 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% fair. Fewer than half rated OPDs service quality, response time, problem solving, and Source:SanJoseStateUniversityOPDOaklandResident OpinionSurvey,January2010(N=868) followup as excellent or good. Making improvements in the quality of services provided,asoutlinedintheearliersectionsof
WorkingDraftAugust2010 Page25 OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
thisstrategicplan,willcontributetoimprovingtheCommunitysimpressionoftheDepartment. TheOPDiscommittedtoimprovingtheCommunitysleveloftrust,respect,andvalueforthe Department.Thefollowingstrategicobjectiveswillcontributetoaccomplishingthisvision. StrategicObjective3.1:AcceleratethePaceofAccomplishmentoftheRequirements oftheNegotiatedSettlementAgreement/MOU In January 2003, the City of Oakland entered into a Negotiated Settlement Agreement as a resultofacaseofmisconductagainstfourOaklandPoliceOfficers.TheAgreementsetupan effectivesystemtoidentifyproblemofficers,investigatecomplaintsrelatedtoofficerconduct andensurethatofficerswhotrainothersarethebestintheDepartment. The reforms and standards required by the Agreement aimed to make the Oakland Police Departmentoneofthebestinthenationbypromotingeffectiveandrespectfulpolicing.The DepartmentconsiderscompliancewiththeAgreementtobepartofitscommitmenttoprovide competent and effective law enforcement to the citizens of Oakland. The goals of the Agreement are to use the best available practices for police supervision, training and accountability,andtoenhanceOPDsabilitytoprotectthelives,rights,dignityandpropertyof thecommunity. TheoriginaltimelineforreachingcompliancewiththeNSAwasJanuary2008.TheDepartment was not in compliance at that point and the NSA was extended for two additional years, throughJanuary2010.InJanuaryofthisyearanumberofrequirementsoftheNSAhadstillnot been completed. Rather than further extend the NSA the parties agreed to continue efforts toward compliance and documented this agreement in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. Reviewpolicyandproceduresanddevelopmechanismstogaincompliancein outstandingsettlementagreementtasksincluding: o Task3:IADIntegrityTests 3.2Proactive/reactiveintegritytests o Task5:ComplaintProceduresforIADGatheringofevidence,evidence standards o Task7:MethodsofReceivingCitizenComplaints7.3anonymouscomplaints o Task16:SupportingIADProcessSupervisor/ManagerialAccountability Properlyidentifyandinvestigatesupervisoryfailures
WorkingDraftAugust2010 Page26 OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
o Task20:SpanofControlforSupervisorsSufficientprimarysergeants o Task24:UseofForceReportingPolicyNotificationofsupervisorsfollowingUse ofForce o Task25:UseofForceInvestigationsandReportResponsibilityUseofForce investigationtimeliness o Task26:UseofForceReviewBoard(UFRB)FRBscheduledintimelymanner o Task33:ReportingMisconductAnonymouscomplaints/confidential complaints o Task34:VehicleStops,FieldInvestigationsandDetentionsAccuratedata, searchabledatabase,formscompleted o Task42:FieldTrainingProgramReimplementationofFTP o Task45:ConsistencyofDisciplinePolicySkellyhearinginconsistencies RevisetheapproachtocompletingtherequirementsoftheNSA/MOUfrom compliancedriventoanapproachdrivenbyimprovingOPDmanagementand operationsusingtheconceptsandrequirementsoftheNSA/MOUacrossalldivisions. ExpandthecommandlevelresourcesoftheOfficeofInspectorGeneraltoincreasethe focusonaccelerationofthepaceofaccomplishment. CollaboratewiththeMonitorasanadvisorindevelopingandimplementingpolicies, procedures,andapproachestoimprovingOPDmanagementandoperationsconsistent withtheNSA/MOU. Createacultureandrealityofeffectiveaccountabilityforaccomplishingthe requirementsoftheNSA/MOU. Providetraining,mentoring,andsupervisorysupportformanagersandsupervisorsto facilitateeffectiveaccountabilityacrossalldivisions.

StrategicObjective3.2:IncreasetheLevelofOpennessandAccessibilityoftheOPD andOPDPersonnel ForthePoliceDepartmenttobesuccessfulinmeetingtheneedsoftheCommunityitmustbe open and accessible to the members of the Community and must keep the Community well informedofitsactivities.TherearedefinitebarriersbetweentheDepartmentandCommunity. A major challenge for the Police Department is to develop an environment where individual Community members are comfortable to approach both the Department and individual officers,feelinformedofandinvestedinpoliceactivities,andareenthusiasticaboutworking together.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page27

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. DevelopandinstituteaDepartmentwidephilosophyandcorrespondingpoliciesand proceduresbasedonCommunityBasedLegitimacyPolicingstandards. ConductanannualsurveyofCommunitymemberstodeterminetheirperceivedlevelof safety,priorityofservices,ratingofpoliceservices,perspectiveoftheOPD,and suggestionsforimprovementsand use to evaluate progress and performance improvements over the past year. ConductpublicmeetingswithCommunityandneighborhoodgroupsthroughoutthe CitytosolicitinputintoPoliceprioritiesandstrategies. DevelopandpublishanannualprogressreportcommunicatingtotheCommunitythe DepartmentseffortsandresultsbasedontheCommunityspriorities. Implementindividualbodycamerasonpoliceofficersinthefieldtorecordallofficer interactionswithmembersoftheCommunity. ImprovethelanguagecapabilitiesoftheOPDandabilitytodirectlycommunicatewith OaklandsnonEnglishspeakingcommunities. Exploretheuseofcurrentstateofthearttechnologytobettercommunicatewiththe Community(twitter, facebook, blogs, texting, internet, up-to-date OPD website, etc.). ExpandthePublicInformation/MediaOfficetoimproveaccesstoOPDbythemedia andaddressOPDsandtheCitysnegativeimagewithpositivestories. ExpandtheuseofCommunityAdvisorygroupstoprovideinputandassisttheOPDin identifyingandresolvingCommunityissuesandconcerns. Strengthenthedaytodaycoordinationandworkingrelationshipwiththe NeighborhoodServicesDivisionandpursuechangesinorganizationalstructureto integratetheDivisionbackintotheOPD. Developaplantohaveofficersattendschoolprograms,neighborhoodwatchmeetings, andotherCommunityevents. ReinforcethenewvaluesoftheOPDfocusingonservicetotheCommunity,professional andrespectfuldemeanor,courteouscustomerservice,andCommunitybased legitimacy.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page28

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
ExpandthenumberofCommunityvolunteersworkingwithOPD,especiallyreserve policeofficers. ExpandCommunityawarenessandinteractiontrainingforallpersonnelincludingField TrainingOfficers. Expandeffortstocommunicatewithanddevelopcommonunderstandingswith Oaklandsyouth,focusedontheroleofOPDinmeetingtheirneeds. ExpandeffortstodevelopOaklandyouthandresidentsforserviceinOPD,andrecruit andselectresidentsofOaklandforpositionstotheextentpractical. ExplorethepotentialforprovidingencouragementandincentivesforswornOPD personnelatalllevelstolivewithintheCityandbecomeinvolvedintheCommunity.

Strategic Objective 3.3: Increase the Level of Positive Interaction Between the OaklandPoliceDepartmentandtheCommunity A key way to improve the level of trust, respect, and value for the Police Department is to increase the level of positive interaction between OPD and the Community. This will require some training of police personnel on how provide better Community and customer oriented service, and an increase in the importance placed on this positive interaction. Time must be madeavailableforthisinteraction,andrecognitionandincentivesprovidedtoencouragethis positiveinteraction.Positiveinformationcanalsobedevelopedandsharedwiththemedia. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. DevelopandimplementacomprehensiveemployeetrainingprogramonCommunity andcustomerorientedserviceandlegitimacypolicing. CommunicateanddemonstratetoemployeesatalllevelstheimportanceofCommunity serviceandlegitimacyorientationandcustomerservicetothefuturesuccessofthe OPD.
Communicateanddemonstratetheimportanceofgoodpolicework(timeliness,courteousness, empathy,diligence,etc.)toimprovingtheimageandsuccessofOPD.

Developandimplementarecognitionprogramforemployeesthatexcelinproviding Communityandcustomerservice. Encouragepolicepersonnelatalllevelstowalkandtalkinneighborhoods,andinteract withmembersoftheCommunityininformalsettings,totheextentpractical.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page29

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
EncouragepolicepersonneltoactivelybriefindividualsinneighborhoodsaboutOPD activitiesincludingcrimeproblems,policeactivitiestoresolvethoseproblems,andways Communitymemberscanprovideassistance. Developanongoingprogramofinteractionwiththebusinesscommunity,including identifyingtheirconcernsandissues,informingthemofOPDactivities,andidentifying opportunitiestoworktogethertoaddressissuesandconcerns. Developandencouragethepress/mediatopublishpositiveinformationaboutthe CommunitysorOPDsactivities. DevelopprogramsforKTOPthatinformthepubliconOPDactivitiesandoperations. DevelopCommunityorbusinesssponsoredadsthatinformthepubliconorpromote policeissuesandactivities.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page30

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment

Vision4:TheOaklandCommunityandtheOakland PoliceDepartmentWorkTogethertoSolveCommunity andNeighborhoodConcernsandIssues


CollaborationwiththeCommunityofOakland,andcommunitypolicing,arekeytothesuccess ofOaklandandtheOPD.MembersofthisCommunityhaveinvesteduntoldhoursandeffortat makingcommunitypolicingworkinOakland;thereismuchtobuildon. Lookingtothefuture,theOPDmustbecompletelycommittedtocommunitypolicingandwork very hard to make it as effective as possible in Oakland. The Community and OPD can work togethertomakecommunitypolicingevenbetterforthefuture. The OPD is committed to improving Community Policing in Oakland. The following strategic objectiveswillcontributetoaccomplishingthisvision. Strategic Objective 4.1: Effectively Implement Community Policing in Oakland as DefinedbyCurrentPoliciesandRequirements Community policing in Oakland is defined clearly and in substantial detail in current City ordinancesandinthevoterpassedinitiativeknownasMeasureY.Theseprovidedirectiveson howcommunitypolicingistobeimplemented.OPDmustworkwithinthiscurrentframework forcommunitypolicinganddoallthatispossibletomaketheprogramsasdefinedaseffective aspossible. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. Clarifytheunderstandingoftheobjectives,strategiesanddesiredoutcomesofthe CommunityPolicingapproach. DevelopandimplementCommunityPolicingtrainingforallOPDpersonnelandofferit onafrequentandconsistentbasis. ClearlydefinetherolesandresponsibilitiesoftheNeighborhoodServicesCoordinators, theNeighborhoodCrimePreventionCouncils,NeighborhoodWatch,andothers involvedinCommunityPolicing. Developandimplementacommunitypolicingactivitytrackingsystemtoprovide informationonproblemsidentified,activitiesconducted,andoutcomesachieved.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page31

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
DevelopanannualCommunityPolicingreporthighlightingtheaccomplishmentsofthe Community,andOPDCommunityPolicinginaddressingCommunityIssuesand concerns.

Strategic Objective 4.2: Work with Members of the Community to Develop and Implement an Expanded Community Policing Model in Oakland Based on Best Practices Inthelongterm,therearesubstantialimprovementsthatcanbemadetothecurrentmodelof community policing in Oakland. The Community Policing Consortium of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has put substantial effort into reviewing and evaluating variousmodelsandstrategiesforimplementingcommunitypolicing.Thisincludesdefiningand evaluatingvariouscommunitypolicingmodels. The model used in Oakland is referred to as the split force model. While there are some definite advantages to this model it also presents some clear disadvantages. The primary disadvantage is that it makes community policing the responsibility of a unit rather than the responsibility of everyone in the police department. The following exhibit outlines the advantagesanddisadvantagesofthismodel. Exhibit23 SplitForceModelofCommunityPolicing Advantages Disadvantages
ProvidesCommunityPolicingspecialists Canresultinanimositybetweenregular andCommunityPolicingofficers NotallofficersbuyintoCommunity Policing Patrolrefersroutinecomplaintsto CommunityPolicing Communityattachmenttotheir CommunityPolicingofficers

Focusedtimeandattention

Buildsterritorialimperative

PositiverelationshipwiththeCommunity

Source:CommunityPolicingDeploymentModels&Strategies,InternationalAssociationofChiefsofPolice

AnalternativemodelisreferredtoastheTotalCommunityPolicingModel.Inthismodelthe organization as a whole is fully committed to community policing all segments of the departmentareinvolvedinandsupportcommunitypolicing. The followingexhibitoutlines theadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthismodel.

WorkingDraftAugust2010 Page32 OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
Exhibit24 TotalCommunityPolicingModelofCommunityPolicing Advantages Disadvantages
Organizationfullycommittedto CommunityPolicing Buildsterritorialimperativeamongpatrol officersandCommunityserved Buildslongtermrelationships Focusesmoreonproactiveproblem solving Requireslongtermcommitmentfrom PoliceChiefandCommandOfficers NotagoodstartingpointforCommunity Policing Requiresdedicationofadditional resourcestopatroloperations

Source:CommunityPolicingDeploymentModels&Strategies,InternationalAssociationofChiefsofPolice

Clearly,anychangestocommunitypolicinginOaklandmustbethroughcollaborationdoingit anyotherwaywouldviolatethebasicprinciplesofcommunitypolicing PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. CollectinformationandconductresearchonbestpracticesinCommunityPolicingand potentialmodelstobeimplementedinOakland. DevelopadraftmodelforCommunityPolicinginOaklandbasedonbestpractices researchandOaklandsstrongCommunityPolicinghistory. ObtainfeedbackandinputfrommembersoftheCommunityonthedraftmodelfor CommunityPolicinginOaklandandreviseasneeded. Identifychangesrequiredinordinancesorvoterinitiativestoimplementtherevised modelofCommunityPolicinginOaklandandpursueneededchanges.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page33

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment

Vision5:TheOaklandPoliceDepartmentisanEffective Organization,ProvidingaSupportiveandPositiveWork EnvironmentforitsEmployees


For a police department to be successful, as with any organization, it must have the basic capabilitytoperformitsfunctions.TheDepartmentisunderstaffedgiventhelevelofcrimein Oakland and the demand for police services. Basic equipment needed for Department personnel to do their jobs, such as police vehicles, are lacking and inadequate. The Exhibit25 Department also lacks basic police OPDEmployeePerspectives management tools and processes that PercentofAllOPDEmployeesWhoAgree: would allow the Departments limited CityGov'tRespects 7% resourcestobefocusedmosteffectively. ValuedbyCityGovernment 10% ThemoraleoftheDepartmentspersonnel OPDCaresAboutMe 15% is also very low. Most Department WorkUnitAdequatelyStaffed 18% employees felt that they were not valued ValuedbyOaklandCommunity 26% orrespected,andthattheDepartmentdid not care about them. Most also felt their CareerDevelopmentGood 42% work units were not adequately staffed, 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% and did not feel career development was Source:WilliamJCrampon&AssociatesOPDEmployee Exhibit26 good. Survey,November2009(N=788) OPDEmployeePerspectives PercentofAllOPDEmployeesWhoAgree: Perhapsmostimportantly,onlyaboutone third of the Departments employees felt OPDDoingaGoodJob 34% thatOPDwasdoingagoodjob.Lessthan OPDisaFunPlacetoWork 36% half felt OPD had a good reputation, and justoverhalfweresatisfiedwiththeirjobs. OPDGoodReputation 48% Clearly, most Department employees see 56% SatisfiedwithMyJob substantial room for improvement in the performance and effectiveness of the ProudtobePartofOPD 67% Departments services. The fact that over 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% twothirdsofemployeesstillwereproudto Source:WilliamJCrampon&AssociatesOPDEmployee be part of the OPD speaks loudly about Survey,November2009(N=788) their love for and commitment to the organization. Improving the effectiveness of the Oakland Police Department is essential to accomplishing each of the visions outlined in this strategic plan. The following strategic objectives will contributetoaccomplishingthisvision.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page34

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
StrategicObjective5.1:ProvideClearDirectionandOpenCommunicationWithinthe OPD,andEncourageTeamworkandSharedAccomplishment Clear, consistent, and open communication is key to the success of any organization. The Oakland Police Department has faced challenges in its efforts toward effective Exhibit27 communication. Very few employees felt OPDEmployeePerspectives eitherdivisionorcommandcommunication PercentofAllOPDEmployeesWhoAgree: was clear in the Fall of 2009 when the DivisionCommunicationClear 8% employeesurveywasconducted. CommandCommunicationClear 13% Most did not feel well informed regarding W ellInformed 15% whatwasgoingonwithintheDepartment, FreetoExpressOpinions 23% nor did they feel free to express their opinions. Only about onequarter felt the EmphasisonCooperation 24% Department placed an emphasis on UnderstandGoals/Objectives 37% cooperation within the Department, and 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% only a little over onethird understood the Source:WilliamJCrampon&AssociatesOPDEmployee Departmentsgoalsandobjectives. Survey,November2009(N=788) Progress has already been made in providingclearandconsistentdirectionwithintheOPD,includingafocusongangs,drugsand guns. This strategic plan and the mission, visions, values, and strategic objectives provide ongoing detail on where the Department must move to be successful in the future. These effortswillcontinueandbeexpanded. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. Communicatethenewmission,visions,strategicobjectives,valuesandmottoofthe OPDtoallemployees. Developanorganizationwidephilosophyandapproachasalearningorganization, encouragingemployeequestions,suggestions,andopinionsaboutOPDorganization, managementdecisions,andoperations;andcontinuouslyattemptingtoidentifyand implementimprovedwaysofprovidingserviceorperformingfunctions. Conductannualemployeesurveystoidentifytheirperspectives,concerns,andissues andtogaugeprogressinimprovingtheworkenvironmentofOPD.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page35

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
Developanongoingwebbasedemployeesuggestioncapabilitythatallowsemployees toprovidefeedbackidentifyingthemselvesorremaininganonymous. ShareinformationfromCommandstaffmeetingswithallDepartmentpersonnelto provideanincreasedcommunicationaboutdecisionsandthedirectionofOPD. MaintaintheemployeeCommunicationsFocusGroupandimplementtheGroups initiativestotheextentpractical. Developadditionalemployeeproblemsolvingworkinggroupstoidentifyandresolve issuesandconcernswithinOPD. DevelopanOPDIntranetsiteforprovidingsecureaccesstoOPDinformation. ProvidetrainingtoOPDmanagersandsupervisorsontheparametersofMOUsand howtoeffectivelymanageundertheseagreements,andhowtomotivateandobtain optimalperformancefromstaff. Developandimplementdepartmentalteambuildingandotheractivities,includinglight socialevents,toprovideopportunitiesforemployeestointeractwithandbuild constructiveworkrelationshipsoutsidetheirfunctionalunits. Exploremethodsofincreasingrecognitionofprofessionalstaffasimportantmembers oftheOPDteam,includingprovidingcivilianemployeeswithuniforms,includingthem inregulartraining,andexpandingemployeerecognitionandawardprogramstomore fullyincorporateprofessionalstaff. MoreactivelypublicizeDepartmentandindividualaccomplishmentsintheOPD newsletter,ontheOPDIntranetsite,andwiththemedia.

Strategic Objective 5.2: Enhance the Skills, Capabilities, and Professional DevelopmentofOPDEmployees Morethanmostorganizations,theskillsandjudgmentofpolicepersonnellargelydetermines the success or failure of that police agency. Few occupations demand such a wide range of abilitiesorchallengesthoseabilitiesasoften.Forapolicedepartmenttobesuccessfulitmust giveitsofficersagreatdealofdiscretion. Whilerulesandproceduresareimportant,theycannotdescribeeverysituationnorprescribe behaviorineverycircumstance.PoliceOfficersmusthavesubstantialfreedomtodecidehow besttohandlesituations.Tobeeffective,Officersmusthaveverygooddecisionmakingskills. Poor decisions by Police Officers may result in substantially more severe consequences than poordecisionmakinginmanyotherprofessions.
WorkingDraftAugust2010 Page36 OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
In addition, the requirements and expectations of police officers are changing as police departmentsmovefromtheirtraditionalroleoflawenforcementandcrimecontroltoaroleof communityimprovement.Notonlyareofficersexpectedtoenforcethelawandcontrolcrime, theyareexpectedtobecommunityproblemsolvers.Increasingly,policearebeingcalledupon tobeentrepreneurial,findingcreativewaysofsolvingneighborhoodandcommunityproblems. TheOaklandPoliceDepartmentmustmakeadditionalinvestmentsindevelopingtheskillsand capabilitiesofitspersonneltobesuccessfulintothefuture. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. Expandtheleveloftrainingforallswornstaffin: o Tacticaloperations o Searchandseizurelaws o StripsearchMandates o Intelligencegatheringongangmembersandactivities o Guntraffickingandsales o Trackingofarrests,citations,andfieldcontacts. IncreasetherequirementsforfirearmqualificationtestingtoenhanceOPDpersonnels firearmskillsandcapabilities. Conductacomprehensivetrainingneedsassessmentanddevelopatrainingmatrix highlightingtheskillsrequiredforeachpositionwithintheOPD. ExpandcurrenttrainingtomeetOPDtrainingneedsidentifiedthroughthetraining needsassessment. Developweeklytrainingtopicsandscenariosforsupervisorstodiscusswithemployees astrainingopportunities. DevelopaSupervisoryExcellenceTrainingModulefornewprofessionalstaffsupervisors includingprogressivediscipline,grievanceprocedures,sickleavemanagement,howto motivateemployees,workerscompensationprocedures,effectiveleadership,payroll documentsandtimelines,managementreports,applicableadministrativeinstructions, performanceevaluationprocedures,documentsandtimelines,conflictresolution,and organizationalstructure.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page37

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
DevelopasuccessionplanforleadershippositionswithinOPDandprovideleadership trainingandleadershipdevelopmentopportunitiestoexpandindividualskills,abilities, andtopreparefutureOPDleaderstofillthecommandpositionsinthefuture. Reviewpositionscurrentlyfilledwithswornpersonnelthatdonotrequiretheskillsof swornpersonnelandreclassifythemasprofessionalstafftoreducethecostofthese positions,increasethelevelofexpertise,andmaintaingreaterconsistencyofpersonnel inthesepositions.

Strategic Objective 5.3: Enhance Tactical Policies, Procedures, Skills, Capabilities, andPractices In April the California Association of Tactical Officers (CATO) completed an independent assessment of the Oakland Police Departments Special Weapons Team (SWAT). The assessment included an overall analysis of the SWAT policies and procedures, command and control,selection,tactics,training,discipline,andequipment. The assessment also included an indepth appraisal of the SWAT teams conformity with the CaliforniaPOSTSWATGuidelines.TheseGuidelinesaddresslegalandpracticalissuesofSWAT operations, personnel selection, fitness recommendations, planning, tactical issues, safety, afteraction evaluation of operations, logistical and resource needs, uniform and firearms recommendations, risk assessment, policy considerations, and multijurisdictional SWAT operations. Numerous recommendations for improving the Departments tactical policies, procedures, skills,capabilities,andpracticesweremadebyCATO.Implementingtheserecommendationsis keytoachievingthisstrategicobjective. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. DevelopandenforceawrittenTacticalTeamPolicyandProceduresManualthat includes: o ClearlydefinedrolesandresponsibilitiesoftheTacticalOperationsTeam o SpecificTacticalOperationsTeamactivationprocedures o Standardizedreportingsystemforoperationalafteractionreports o Highriskwarrantplanning,briefing,andserviceprocedures

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page38

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
o Documentingandarchivingtheplanningandexecutionofemergencyandpre plannedtacticaloperations o OversightandsupervisorialapprovalofallTacticalTeamdocumentation o Internalaccountabilitymechanismssuchasacomputerizeddatabasesystemto collect,track,monitor,andarchiveallSWATincidentreports,trainingrecords, andweapons,munitions,andequipmentinventory ConductaSWATTeamNeedsAssessmenttodeterminetrainingrequirementsforthe OPDTacticalTeamincludinglongtermtrainingfacilitieswithlivefirerangesand practicalapplicationtrainingstructures. DevelopannualtrainingplansfortheTacticalOperationsTeam. ReviewandrevisethecurriculumoftheOPDBasicSWATCoursetoincludecoreskill trainingthatismeasureableanddocumentedandscenariobasedtraining. IncreasetheleveloftrainingencompassingallelementsoftheTacticalOperationsTeam includingtacticalcommanders,teamleaders,entryteam,sniperteam,negotiators,and thesupportteam. DevelopandmakeuseofSWATsubjectmatterexperts(SMEs)withintheSWATTeam. Developatacticalemergencymedicalsupport(TEMS)program. DevelopandcultivatepositiveworkingrelationshipswithSWATTeamsfromother regionallawenforcementagenciesandpursueopportunitiestoconductjointtraining exercises. FocustrainingfortacticaloperationsonlawenforcementSWATpracticesratherthan militarybasedoperations. ExploreoptionsforimprovingtheresponsetimetorequestsforservicebytheSWAT Team. Reviewandimproveradiocommunicationduringtacticaloperations.

StrategicObjective5.4:EffectivelyUseInformationandTechnologytoImproveOPD Management,Operations,andPerformance Informationisessentialtoeffectivelawenforcementandcrimereduction.PatrolOfficersrely on it for their safety and effectiveness. Detectives rely on it to solve crime. Information is important to management in identifying progress made and holding employees, supervisors, andmanagersaccountable.Theeffectiveuseofinformationiscriticaltoeffectivepolicing.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page39

OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
Advances in technology have revolutionized many functions and organizations, making it possible to provide more effective services with the same or fewer resources. Innovative technologiesarecontinuallydevelopedandsuccessfullyimplementedinpoliceoperations.The Police Department must ensure it is in a position to take advantage of these opportunities whenpresented,andmustmonitorandplanforfuturetechnologicaladvances. PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. EstablishanOPDInformationandTechnologySteeringCommitteetoestablish consistentdirectionamongITstakeholders,reviewoptionsestablishpriorities,and monitoracquisitionandimplementationprogress. Evaluate,acquire,andeffectivelyimplementtechnologythatcanimprovethe effectivenessoftheOPDinaccomplishingitsmission. DevelopandimplementservicelevelagreementsbetweenOPDandtheInformation TechnologyDepartment(ITD)clearlydefiningmutualexpectations,rolesand responsibilities,deliverables,andperformanceexpectationsforeachprojectin developmentortechnologybeingsupported. EstablishanOPDPlanningandResearchfunctionresponsibleforresearchingnew tactics,approaches,andtechnologies;andcollectingandanalyzinginformationonbest practicesforpolicingandlawenforcement. DevelopasystemfortrackingcrimeandviolenceintheCity,assigningresponsibilityfor addressingit,andaccountabilityforresultssimilartoCompStatusedinothercities.

Strategic Objective 5.5: Effectively Plan and Manage Essential OPD Facilities and Equipment At no time in the history of the Police Department has it operated out of so many different buildingsandfacilities.Andatnotimehasitfacedsomanyissueswiththesefacilities.These facilitieshavebecomeimportantintheDepartmentseffortstoimplementcommunitypolicing. ProvidingadequatefacilitiesiscriticaltothefuturesuccessoftheDepartmentinmeetingthe Communitysneeds.Intodaysthreatenvironment,securityoverthesefacilitiesisessentialas wellasreducingthepotentiallossoflifeandcapabilityduetosecuritybreaches. Equipment is also an essential resource to the Police Department. This equipment includes vehicles,radios,protectivedevices,andothermiscellaneousitems.TheDepartmentannually spendsmillionsonthisequipment.Ensuringitisfunctionalandwellmaintainedisimportant fromanoperationalaswellasfinancialperspective.
WorkingDraftAugust2010 Page40 OfficeofChiefofPolice

StrategicPlan OaklandPoliceDepartment
PriorityActions OPDwillpursuethefollowingpriorityactionstoachievethisstrategicobjective. ConductathreatandvulnerabilityassessmentofOPDsPoliceAdministrationBuilding andenhancethelevelofbuildingsecurityasneeded. ConductathreatandvulnerabilityassessmentofOPDsEastmontStationBuildingand enhancethelevelofbuildingsecurityasneeded.
Developandimplementstandardfacilityoperatingproceduresincludingsafetyandcontingency plans.

Developafacilitiesmasterplanthatisbasedonthelikelyfutureorganizationalstructure andstaffingoftheOPD,aninventoryoffuturefacilityneeds,andpotentialfacility configuration,costestimates,andpotentialdevelopmentschedule.Includethe potentialforthefurtherdecentralizationofpoliceoperationsandfacilities. Continuetoexploreandpursuealternativeapproachestoacquiring,maintaining,and replacingtheOPDsvehiclefleetwithonethatmoreeffectivelyandconsistentlymeets theDepartmentsfleetrequirements.

WorkingDraftAugust2010

Page41

OfficeofChiefofPolice

OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT STRATEGIC PLAN APPENDIX

Strategic Objectives and Priority Actions


Working Draft August 2010

Vision 1: Oakland is One of the Safest Large Cities in California

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Vision 1: Oakland is One of the Safest Large Cities in California


Strategic Objectives:
1.1: Focus Proactive Violence Suppression and Enforcement Units and Efforts on Gangs, Drugs, and Guns 1.2: Expand and Strengthen Partnerships and Coordination Efforts with Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Agencies in the Region Working to Suppress Violence and Reduce Crime 1.3: Strengthen OPDs Intelligence Collection and Analysis Capability to Target Violent Crime in Oakland 1.4: Expand and Strengthen Partnerships and Coordination Efforts with Policy Decision Makers and Organizations Working to Prevent and Reduce Violence and Crime In Oakland 1.5: Develop and Implement Innovative and Effective Approaches to Reducing Violence and Crime in Oakland Working with the Academic and Research Community
ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA1 OfficeofChiefofPolice

WorkingDraft

Vision 1: Oakland is One of the Safest Large Cities in California

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 1.1: Focus Proactive Violence Suppression and Enforcement Units and Efforts on Gangs, Drugs, and Guns
PRIORITY ACTIONS 1.1.1 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility BOI, BFO Others Involved Area Commanders

Develop and implement 90 day violence reduction tactical plans using current violence suppression and enforcement units. Review the current allocation of personnel among specialized units Department-wide, and determine which units to combine to establish a consolidated proactive violence suppression and enforcement unit. Review and analyze the occurrence of violent crime by time of day, day of week, and location to determine the optimal deployment schedule and assignment areas for the consolidated proactive violence suppression and enforcement unit. Identify the staffing requirements for the proactive violence suppression and enforcement unit based on deployment analysis and request additional personnel to fully staff the unit. Establish clear and consistent direction for the proactive violence suppression and enforcement unit including well defined and specific operational goals and objectives. Conduct weekly coordination meetings with area commanders and proactive unit commanders to establish weekly priorities and tactics. Communicate these priorities to proactive unit and patrol personnel.

1.1.2

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI, BFO

Area Commanders

1.1.3

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI, BFO

Area Commanders

1.1.4

Mid to LongTerm

TBD

BOI, BFO

1.1.5

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI, BFO

1.1.6

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI, BFO

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA2 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 1: Oakland is One of the Safest Large Cities in California

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 1.1: Focus Proactive Violence Suppression and Enforcement Units and Efforts on Gangs, Drugs, and Guns
PRIORITY ACTIONS 1.1.7 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility BOI, BFO Others Involved

Develop and implement policies and protocols for the proactive violence suppression and enforcement unit that define operational standards including an intelligence-led policing approach. Develop performance standards, monitor and report weekly performance for the proactive violence suppression and enforcement unit.

1.1.8

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI, BFO

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA3 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 1: Oakland is One of the Safest Large Cities in California

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 1.2: Expand and Strengthen Partnerships and Coordination Efforts with Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Agencies in the Region Working to Suppress Violence and Reduce Crime
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved

1.2.1

Request increased assistance and resources from Federal law enforcement agencies including the FBI, DEA, ATF, IRS, USSS and the U.S. Marshals to focus on suppressing violence and reducing crime. Conduct monthly planning and coordination meetings with regional municipal law enforcement agencies to develop targeted cooperative operations and leverage existing partnerships. Conduct monthly planning and coordination meetings with the District Attorneys Office and other elements of the criminal justice system to develop and implement near-term objectives and tactics to suppress violence and reduce crime. Take an active role in the ongoing planning and implementation of changes in regional law enforcement services including communications, laboratory services, detention services, air support, etc., to improve services and reduce costs or contract-in services with other agencies. Identify potential services other regional law enforcement agencies could provide to OPD to enhance its ability to serve the Community and reduce costs.

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

BOI

1.2.2

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

BOI

1.2.3

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI

1.2.4

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

DepartmentWide

1.2.5

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

DepartmentWide

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA4 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 1: Oakland is One of the Safest Large Cities in California

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 1.2: Expand and Strengthen Partnerships and Coordination Efforts with Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Agencies in the Region Working to Suppress Violence and Reduce Crime
PRIORITY ACTIONS 1.2.6 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility OCOP Others Involved

Actively use the Citys State and Federal lobbyists to advocate for resources and legislation beneficial to Oakland and the OPDs mission.

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA5 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 1: Oakland is One of the Safest Large Cities in California

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 1.3: Strengthen OPDs Intelligence Collection and Analysis Capability to Target Violent Crime in Oakland
PRIORITY ACTIONS 1.3.1 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility BOI Others Involved

Centralize existing crime analysis function within Investigations to provide more coordinated analysis and results. Develop a Department-wide philosophy of intelligence-led policing and operationally integrate Intelligence-Led Policing into the OPD. Develop policies and procedures for the collection, development, analysis, sharing and use of intelligence among OPD and external partners. Ensure privacy issues are protected in policy and practice. Provide training to field and investigative personnel on collecting usable information and intelligence. Acquire technology tools that facilitate the development and analysis of information and intelligence using existing information on crime, calls for service, field interviews, witness and victim information, and other sources. Connect to the California criminal justice network and regional intelligence databases, and participate in information sharing initiatives. Routinely use intelligence to improve tactical and strategic decision making.

1.3.2

Short-Term

OCOP

DepartmentWide

1.3.3

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI

1.3.4

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

Training

BOI, BFO

1.3.5

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI

ITD

1.3.6

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI

1.3.7

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI

BFO

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA6 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 1: Oakland is One of the Safest Large Cities in California

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 1.3: Strengthen OPDs Intelligence Collection and Analysis Capability to Target Violent Crime in Oakland
PRIORITY ACTIONS 1.3.8 1.3.9 1.3.10

Establish a well trained and responsive Counter Terrorism Unit. Train Department employees as Terrorism Liaison Officers (TLOs). Train all Department employees in Homeland Security mandates and critical facility protection and response.

Implementation Time Frame Mid to LongTerm Mid-Term Mid-Term

Fiscal Impact TBD TBD TBD

Assignment of Responsibility BOI Training BOS

Others Involved

BOI BOI

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA7 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 1: Oakland is One of the Safest Large Cities in California

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective1.4: Expand and Strengthen Partnerships and Coordination Efforts with Policy Decision Makers and Organizations Working to Prevent and Reduce Violence and Crime In Oakland
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved

1.4.1

Develop and work with policy decision makers to implement additional violence suppression and enforcement mechanisms to strengthen OPDs ability to address violence and reckless behavior (e.g., gang injunctions, anti-loitering ordinances, etc.) Work with the Oakland Unified School District to reduce the level of truancy, and to provide gang and drug resistance education and training to elementary and middle school students. Expand interaction with Oaklands youth and youth development programs including the Explorer Program, Police Cadet Program, Police Athletic League (PAL), Youth Court, Code 33, and Our Kids (O.K.) Mentoring Program. Fully and actively participate in existing efforts to plan and coordinate efforts among City, County, and Community Based Organizations to prevent and reduce violence and crime in Oakland. Advocate for and support efforts to develop broad based violence and crime prevention planning and coordination among all public and community organizations.

Short to MidTerm

Budget Neutral

OCOP

City Attorney

1.4.2

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI

1.4.3

Long-Term

TBD

BOI

1.4.4

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

DepartmentWide

City, County, State, CBOs

1.4.5

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

City, County, State, CBOs

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA8 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 1: Oakland is One of the Safest Large Cities in California

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective1.4: Expand and Strengthen Partnerships and Coordination Efforts with Policy Decision Makers and Organizations Working to Prevent and Reduce Violence and Crime In Oakland
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved

1.4.6

Identify violence and crime prevention services provided by other government and Community service organizations and provide it to enforcement personnel as referral opportunities for individuals at risk. Develop operational partnerships to develop multi-agency approaches to permanently transform violence and crime hotspots throughout the City.

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI

Area Commanders

1.4.7

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI

BFO

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA9 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 1: Oakland is One of the Safest Large Cities in California

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 1.5: Develop and Implement Innovative and Effective New Approaches to Reducing Violence and Crime in Oakland Working with the Academic and Research Community
PRIORITY ACTIONS 1.5.1 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility OCOP Others Involved Academic Advisory Group Academic Advisory Group Academic Advisory Group

Establish an advisory group of regional academic leaders in the fields of law enforcement and criminal justice to provide assistance and guidance to the Chief and Department. Identify specific issues and areas of research in which to request assistance from the academic and research communities. Identify grant funds available to conduct research and develop and implement innovative and effective approaches to reducing violence and crime in Oakland and pursue funding in partnership with the academic and research communities. Continue to work with the academic and research communities to implement innovative approaches including Operation Ceasefire and the Call-In Program.

1.5.2

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

1.5.3

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

1.5.4

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

Academic Advisory Group

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA10 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 2: The Oakland Police Department Provides High Quality Services in a Community Driven and Customer Friendly Manner

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Vision 2: The Oakland Police Department Provides High Quality Services in a Community Driven and Customer Friendly Manner
Strategic Objectives:
Strategic Objective 2.1: Improve the OPDs Call Taking and Dispatch Capability and Performance. Strategic Objective 2.2: Provide Timely Response to Calls for Service and Effective Police Presence in Neighborhoods Strategic Objective 2.3: Improve the Quality and Effectiveness of Criminal Investigations

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA11 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 2: The Oakland Police Department Provides High Quality Services in a Community Driven and Customer Friendly Manner

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 2.1: Improve the OPDs Call Taking and Dispatch Capability and Performance
PRIORITY ACTIONS 2.1.1 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility Radio Room Commander Radio Room Commander Others Involved BOS

Reassign sworn staff from Radio Room to other sworn functions and fully civilianize the communications staff to reduce costs. Recruit and fill vacant dispatcher positions and maintain full staffing to the extent practical. Review the potential to develop separate call taker and dispatcher positions to provide a more effective career ladder and reduce the loss of effective call takers that are not able to make the transition to dispatching. Review and revise the shifts and schedule for call takers and dispatchers to reflect the distribution of call workload by day of week and time of day to the extent practical. Develop and implement policy and procedures for answering and handling 911 calls on hold to reduce the time required for a 911 call to initially be answered. Review and revise the call priority ranking to clarify how each call type should be handled and dispatched, including developing alternative methods of responding (other than a physical response), and increased on-line crime reporting. Review and revise the process for dispatching calls so calls are dispatched regardless of unit availability, allowing field units to know of calls requiring a response.

2.1.2

Short-Term

BOS

2.1.2

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

Radio Room Commander

BOS

2.1.3

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

Radio Room Commander

BOS

2.1.4

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

Radio Room Commander

BOS

2.1.5

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

Radio Room Commander

BOS, BFO

2.1.6

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

Radio Room Commander

BOS

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA12 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 2: The Oakland Police Department Provides High Quality Services in a Community Driven and Customer Friendly Manner

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 2.1: Improve the OPDs Call Taking and Dispatch Capability and Performance
PRIORITY ACTIONS 2.1.7 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Budget Neutral Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility Radio Room Commander Radio Room Commander Radio Room Commander Others Involved BOS

Explore the potential for dispatching calls via the data system rather than by voice to reduce the time required for dispatch. Plan for the implementation of Enhanced 911 and the potential expanded call volume from its implementation. Develop performance standards, and monitor and report monthly performance for call answering, handling, and dispatch.

2.1.8

Short-Term

BOS

2.1.8

Short-Term

BOS

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA13 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 2: The Oakland Police Department Provides High Quality Services in a Community Driven and Customer Friendly Manner

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 2.2: Provide Timely Response to Calls for Service and Effective Police Presence in Neighborhoods
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved Area Commanders, ITD

2.2.1

Acquire and implement the Police Resource Optimization System (PROS) to analyze Community call for service workload by beat, day of week and time of day, to determine the optimal deployment approach for patrol resources based on call for service workload. Revise the deployment schedules and beat assignments for patrol resources based on the results of the PROS analysis, including beats that should be staffed with two-officer units (stresser beats), and those requiring one-officer units. Develop and implement policies and monitoring procedures for ensuring patrol units are deployed as assigned. Move police resources from other OPD functions into patrol functions to the extent practical. Review and revise the current beat structure and boundaries based on demand for service and workload combining some beats with low demand for service and splitting other beats with high demand for service. Acquire and maintain adequate patrol vehicles and equipment to ensure patrol officers and units can be deployed.

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

2.2.2

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

Area Commanders, ITD

2.2.3

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral Budget Neutral

BFO

Area Commanders DepartmentWide

2.2.4

Short-Term

OCOP

2.2.5

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

OCOP, Area Commanders

2.2.6

Mid-Term

TBD

BOS

BFO, Public Works

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA14 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 2: The Oakland Police Department Provides High Quality Services in a Community Driven and Customer Friendly Manner

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 2.2: Provide Timely Response to Calls for Service and Effective Police Presence in Neighborhoods
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved

2.2.7

Explore options for maximizing the amount of time patrol units spend in the field and availability to handle calls including: Expediting the patrol line-up process and time to the extent possible Developing a field transport system for booking suspects in the field and transporting them to jail, and Streamlining the administrative and reporting processes required of patrol personnel Improve field supervision on units responding to calls to expedite the return to service of units no longer needed as quickly as possible. Develop and implement policies and procedures for maintaining beat integrity for patrol units assigning patrol units to specific beats and requiring units to remain on their designated beats to the extent practical. Implement GPS / AVL Technology to provide the ability to centrally monitor and supervise patrol resources and dispatch based on location. Develop performance standards, and monitor and report monthly performance for responding to calls for service by priority.

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

Area Commanders, BOS

2.2.8

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

Area Commanders

2.2.9

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

Area Commanders

2.2.10

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

BFO

2.2.11

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

Area Commanders

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA15 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 2: The Oakland Police Department Provides High Quality Services in a Community Driven and Customer Friendly Manner

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 2.3: Improve the Quality and Effectiveness of Criminal Investigations
PRIORITY ACTIONS 2.3.1 Implementation Time Frame Long-Term Fiscal Impact TBD Assignment of Responsibility BOI Others Involved

Review the caseload and staffing of criminal investigations and enhance the staffing level to match caseload. Deploy investigative personnel to match workload, including increased evening, night, and weekend shifts. Increase the level of field deployment of investigative personnel to conduct investigations, interview victims and witnesses, and collect evidence. Develop a working group in investigators and prosecutors from the District Attorneys Office to develop a working agreement on case filing and prosecution policies. Develop a plan to use civilian personnel to perform routine tasks related to investigations and case filing to expand the available time for sworn investigators to conduct investigations and reduce costs. Review the current structure, assignment, and staff composition of the crime scene response units and revise to make their function more consistent and aligned with the Crime Laboratory. Expand the capability of crime scene response units to collect evidence at the scene of crimes. Expand the capability of the crime lab to process evidence in a timely manner.

2.3.2

Long-Term

TBD

BOI

2.3.3

Long-Term

TBD

BOI

2.3.4

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI

District Attorneys Office

2.3.5

Long-Term

Cost Savings

BOI

2.3.6

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

Crime Lab Director

BOS, BOI, BFO

2.3.7

Long-Term

TBD

Crime Lab Director Crime Lab Director

BOS, BOI, BFO

2.3.8

Long-Term

TBD

BOS, BOI

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA16 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 2: The Oakland Police Department Provides High Quality Services in a Community Driven and Customer Friendly Manner

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 2.3: Improve the Quality and Effectiveness of Criminal Investigations
PRIORITY ACTIONS 2.3.8 Implementation Time Frame Mid-Term Fiscal Impact TBD Assignment of Responsibility Crime Lab Director Others Involved BOS

Explore the potential for forensic laboratory services from other regional law enforcement agency laboratories. Develop performance standards and monitor and report monthly performance for criminal investigations, crime scene investigations, and crime lab services.

2.3.9

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA17 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 3: The Oakland Police Department is Trusted, Respected, and Valued by Those it Serves

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Vision 3: The Oakland Police Department is Trusted, Respected, and Valued by Those it Serves
Strategic Objectives:
Strategic Objective 3.1: Accelerate the Pace of Accomplishment of the Requirements of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement / MOU Strategic Objective 3.2: Increase the Level of Openness and Accessibility of the OPD and OPD Personnel Strategic Objective 3.3: Increase the Level of Positive Interaction Between the Oakland Police Department and the Community

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA18 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 3: The Oakland Police Department is Trusted, Respected, and Valued by Those it Serves

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 3.1: Accelerate the Pace of Accomplishment of the Requirements of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement / MOU
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved

3.1.1

Review policy and procedures and develop mechanisms to gain compliance in outstanding settlement agreement tasks including: Task 3: IAD Integrity Tests - 3.2 Proactive/reactive integrity tests Task 5: Complaint Procedures for IAD - Gathering of evidence, evidence standards Task 7: Methods of Receiving Citizen Complaints - 7.3 anonymous complaints Task 16: Supporting IAD Process-Supervisor/Managerial Accountability - Properly identify and investigate supervisory failures Task 20: Span of Control for Supervisors - Sufficient primary sergeants Task 24: Use of Force Reporting Policy - Notification of supervisors following Use of Force Task 25: Use of Force Investigations and Report Responsibility - Use of Force investigation timeliness Task 26: Use of Force Review Board (UFRB) - FRB scheduled in timely manner Task 33: Reporting Misconduct - Anonymous complaints /confidential complaints Task 34: Vehicle Stops, Field Investigations and Detentions Accurate data, searchable database, forms completed Task 42: Field Training Program - Reimplementation of FTP Task 45: Consistency of Discipline Policy - Skelly hearing inconsistencies

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OIG

DepartmentWide

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA19 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 3: The Oakland Police Department is Trusted, Respected, and Valued by Those it Serves

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 3.1: Accelerate the Pace of Accomplishment of the Requirements of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement / MOU
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved

3.1.2

Revise the approach to completing the requirements of the NSA / MOU from compliance driven to an approach driven by improving OPD management and operations using the concepts and requirements of the NSA / MOU across all divisions. Expand the command level resources of the Office of Inspector General to increase the focus on acceleration of the pace of accomplishment. Collaborate with the Monitor as an advisor in developing and implementing policies, procedures, and approaches to improving OPD management and operations consistent with the NSA / MOU. Create a culture and reality of effective accountability for accomplishing the requirements of the NSA / MOU. Provide training, mentoring, and supervisory support for managers and supervisors to facilitate effective accountability across all divisions.

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OIG

DepartmentWide

3.1.3

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OIG

3.1.4

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OIG

3.1.5

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

OIG

3.1.6

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

OIG

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA20 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 3: The Oakland Police Department is Trusted, Respected, and Valued by Those it Serves

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 3.2: Increase the Level of Openness and Accessibility of the Oakland Police Department and OPD Personnel
PRIORITY ACTIONS 3.2.1 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility OCOP Others Involved DepartmentWide

Develop and institute a Department-wide philosophy and corresponding policies and procedures based on Community Based Legitimacy Policing standards. Conduct an annual survey of Community members to determine their perceived level of safety, priority of services, rating of police services, perspective of the OPD, and suggestions for improvements and use to evaluate progress and performance improvements over the past year. Conduct public meetings with Community and neighborhood groups throughout the City to solicit input into Police priorities and strategies. Develop and publish an annual progress report communicating to the Community the Departments efforts and results based on the Communitys priorities. Implement individual body cameras on police officers in the field to record all officer interactions with members of the Community. Improve the language capabilities of the OPD and ability to directly communicate with Oaklands non-English speaking communities.

3.2.2

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

3.2.3

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

DepartmentWide

3.2.4

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

PIO

3.2.5

Short-Term

TBD

BOS

BFO, Area Commanders, BOI

3.2.6

Long-Term

TBD

BOS

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA21 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 3: The Oakland Police Department is Trusted, Respected, and Valued by Those it Serves

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 3.2: Increase the Level of Openness and Accessibility of the Oakland Police Department and OPD Personnel
PRIORITY ACTIONS 3.2.7 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility BOS Others Involved ITD

Explore the use of current state-of-the-art technology to better communicate with the Community (twitter, facebook, blogs, texting, internet, up-to-date OPD website, etc.) Expand the Public Information / Media Office to improve access to OPD by the media and address OPDs and the Citys negative image with positive stories. Expand the use of Community Advisory groups to provide input and assist the OPD in identifying and resolving Community issues and concerns.

3.2.8

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

3.2.9

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

DepartmentWide

Strengthen the day-to-day coordination and working relationship 3.2.10 with the Neighborhood Services Division and pursue changes in organizational structure to integrate the Division back into the OPD.
3.2.11

Develop a plan to have officers attend school programs, neighborhood watch meetings, and other Community events. Reinforce the new values of the OPD focusing on service to the Community, professional and respectful demeanor, courteous customer service, and Community-based legitimacy. Expand the number of Community volunteers working with OPD, especially reserve police officers.

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

BFO, BOI

3.2.12

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

DepartmentWide

3.2.13

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

Neighborhood Services

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA22 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 3: The Oakland Police Department is Trusted, Respected, and Valued by Those it Serves

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 3.2: Increase the Level of Openness and Accessibility of the Oakland Police Department and OPD Personnel
PRIORITY ACTIONS 3.2.14 Implementation Time Frame Mid-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility Training Commander Others Involved BOS

Expand Community awareness and interaction training for all personnel including Field Training Officers. Expand efforts to communicate with and develop common understandings with Oaklands youth, focused on the role of OPD in meeting their needs.

3.2.15

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOI

BFO/BOS

Expand efforts to develop Oakland youth and residents for service 3.2.16 in OPD, and recruit and select residents of Oakland for positions to the extent practical.
3.2.17

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

Explore the potential for providing encouragement and incentives for sworn OPD personnel at all levels to live within the City and become involved in the Community.

Mid-Term

TBD

BOS

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA23 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 3: The Oakland Police Department is Trusted, Respected, and Valued by Those it Serves

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 3.3: Increase the Level of Positive Interaction Between the Oakland Police Department and the Community
PRIORITY ACTIONS 3.3.1 Implementation Time Frame Mid-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility BOS Others Involved DepartmentWide

Develop and implement a comprehensive employee training program on Community and customer oriented service and legitimacy policing. Communicate and demonstrate to employees at all levels the importance of Community service and legitimacy orientation and customer service to the future success of the OPD. Communicate and demonstrate the importance of good police work (timeliness, courteousness, empathy, diligence, etc.) to improving the image and success of OPD. Develop and implement a recognition program for employees that excel in providing Community and customer service. Encourage police personnel at all levels to walk and talk in neighborhoods, and interact with members of the Community in informal setting, to the extent practical Encourage police personnel to actively brief individuals in neighborhoods about OPD activities including crime problems, police activities to resolve those problems, and ways Community members can provide assistance.

3.3.2

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

DepartmentWide

3.3.3

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

DepartmentWide

3.3.4

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

3.3.5

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

DepartmentWide

3.3.6

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

DepartmentWide

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA24 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 3: The Oakland Police Department is Trusted, Respected, and Valued by Those it Serves

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 3.3: Increase the Level of Positive Interaction Between the Oakland Police Department and the Community
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved

3.3.7

Develop an ongoing program of interaction with the business community, including identifying their concerns and issues, informing them of OPD activities, and identifying opportunities to work together to address issues and concerns. Develop and encourage the press/media to publish positive information about the Communitys or OPDs activities. Develop programs for KTOP that informs the public on OPD activities and operations. Develop Community or business sponsored ads that inform the public on or promote police issues and activities.

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

Area Commanders

3.3.8

Short-Term

Budget Neutral Budget Neutral Budget Neutral

OCOP

DepartmentWide

3.3.9

Short-Term

OCOP

KTOP Community and Business Groups

3.3.10

Short-Term

OCOP

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA25 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 4: The Oakland Community and Oakland Police Department Work Together to Solve Community and Neighborhood Concerns and Issues

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Vision 4: The Oakland Community and Oakland Police Department Work Together to Solve Community and Neighborhood Concerns and Issues
Strategic Objectives:
Strategic Objective 4.1: Effectively Implement Community Policing in Oakland as Defined by Current Policies and Requirements Strategic Objective 4.2: Work with Members of the Community to Develop and Implement and Expanded Community Policing Model in Oakland Based on Best Practices

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA26 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 4: The Oakland Community and Oakland Police Department Work Together to Solve Community and Neighborhood Concerns and Issues

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 4.1: Effectively Implement Community Policing in Oakland as Defined by Current Policies and Requirements
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved Community Policing Advisory Board Community Policing Advisory Board Community Policing Advisory Board Community Policing Advisory Board Community Policing Advisory Board

4.1.1

Clarify the understanding of the objectives, strategies and desired outcomes of the Community Policing approach.

Mid-Term

BFO

4.1.2

Develop and implement Community Policing training for all OPD personnel and offer it on a frequent and consistent basis. Clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the Neighborhood Services Coordinators, the Neighborhood Crime Prevention Councils, Neighborhood Watch, and others involved in Community Policing. Develop and implement a community policing activity tracking system to provide information on problems identified, activities conducted, and outcomes achieved. Develop an annual Community Policing report highlighting the accomplishments of the Community, and OPD Community Policing in addressing Community Issues and concerns.

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

4.1.3

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

4.1.4

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

4.1.5

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA27 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 4: The Oakland Community and Oakland Police Department Work Together to Solve Community and Neighborhood Concerns and Issues

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 4.2: Develop and Implement an Expanded Community Policing Model in Oakland Based on Best Practices in Partnership with Members of the Community
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved Community Policing Advisory Board Community Policing Advisory Board Community Policing Advisory Board Community Policing Advisory Board, City Council, Voters

4.2.1

Collect information and conduct research on best practices in Community Policing and potential models to be implemented in Oakland. Develop a draft model for Community Policing in Oakland based on best practices research and Oaklands strong Community Policing history. Obtain feedback and input from members of the Community on the draft model for Community Policing in Oakland and revise as needed.

Mid-Term

BFO

4.2.2

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

4.2.3

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

4.2.4

Identify changes required in ordinance or voter initiatives to implement the revised model of Community Policing in Oakland and pursue needed changes.

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA28 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 5: The Oakland Police Department is an Effective Organization Providing a Supportive and Positive Work Environment for its Employees

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Vision 5: The Oakland Police Department is an Effective Organization Providing a Supportive and Positive Work Environment for its Employees
Strategic Objectives:
Strategic Objective 5.1: Provide Clear Direction and Open Communication Within the OPD, and Encourage Teamwork and Shared Accomplishment Strategic Objective 5.2: Enhance the Skills, Capabilities, and Professional Development of OPD Employees Strategic Objective 5.3: Enhance Tactical Policies, Procedures, Skills, Capabilities, and Practices Strategic Objective 5.4: Effectively Use Information and Technology to Improve OPD Management, Operations, and Performance Strategic Objective 5.5: Effectively Plan and Manage Essential OPD Facilities and Equipment
ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA29 OfficeofChiefofPolice

WorkingDraft

Vision 5: The Oakland Police Department is an Effective Organization Providing a Supportive and Positive Work Environment for its Employees

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 5.1: Provide Clear Direction and Open Communication Within the OPD, and Encourage Teamwork and Shared Accomplishment
PRIORITY ACTIONS 5.1.1 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility OCOP Others Involved DepartmentWide

Communicate the new mission, visions, strategic objectives, values and motto of the OPD to all employees. Develop an organization wide philosophy and approach as a learning organization, encouraging employee questions, suggestions, and opinions about OPD organization, management decisions, and operations; and continuously attempting to identify and implement improved ways of providing service or performing functions. Conduct annual employee surveys to identify their perspectives, concerns, and issues and to gauge progress in improving the work environment of OPD. Develop an ongoing web based employee suggestion capability that allows employees to provide feedback identifying themselves or remaining anonymous. Share information from Command staff meetings with all Department personnel to provide an increased communication about decisions and the direction of OPD. Maintain the employee Communications Focus Group and implement the Groups initiatives to the extent practical.

5.1.2

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP, Command Staff

DepartmentWide

5.1.3

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

DepartmentWide

5.1.4

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

DepartmentWide

5.1.5

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

Command Staff

5.1.6

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

Assistant COP

DepartmentWide

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA30 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 5: The Oakland Police Department is an Effective Organization Providing a Supportive and Positive Work Environment for its Employees

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 5.1: Provide Clear Direction and Open Communication Within the OPD, and Encourage Teamwork and Shared Accomplishment
PRIORITY ACTIONS 5.1.7 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility Assistant COP Others Involved DepartmentWide

Develop additional employee problem solving working groups to identify and resolve issues and concerns within OPD. Develop an OPD Intranet site for providing secure access to OPD information. Provide training to OPD managers and supervisors on the parameters of MOUs and how to effectively manager under these agreements, and how to motivate and obtain optimal performance from staff.

5.1.8

Short-Term

BOS

ITD

5.1.9

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

Training

Develop and implement departmental team building and other activities, including light social events, to provide opportunities for 5.1.10 employees to interact with and build constructive work relationships outside their functional units. Explore methods of increasing recognition of professional staff as important members of the OPD team, including providing civilian 5.1.11 employees with uniforms, including them in regular training, and expanding employee recognition and award programs to more fully incorporate professional staff. More actively publicize Department and individual accomplishments in the OPD newsletter, on the OPD Intranet site, and with the media.

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

OPOA

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

5.1.12

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

Area Commanders, PSOs, NCPCs, Neighborhood Services

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA31 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 5: The Oakland Police Department is an Effective Organization Providing a Supportive and Positive Work Environment for its Employees

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA32 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 5: The Oakland Police Department is an Effective Organization Providing a Supportive and Positive Work Environment for its Employees

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 5.2: Enhance the Skills, Capabilities, and Professional Development of OPD Employees
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved

5.2.1

Expand the level of training for all sworn staff in: Tactical operations Search and seizure laws Strip search Mandates Gather Intelligence on gang members and activities Gun trafficking and sales Tracking of arrests, citations, and field contacts. Increase the requirements for firearm qualification testing to enhance OPD personnels firearm skills and capabilities. Conduct a comprehensive training needs assessment and develop a training matrix highlighting the skills required for each position within the OPD. Expand current training to meet OPD training needs identified through the training needs assessment. Develop weekly training topics and scenarios for supervisors to discuss with employees as training opportunities.

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

Training

Command Staff

5.2.2

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

Training

Command Staff

5.2.3

Mid-Term

TBD

Training

5.2.4

Mid to LongTerm

TBD

Training

5.2.5

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

Training

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA33 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 5: The Oakland Police Department is an Effective Organization Providing a Supportive and Positive Work Environment for its Employees

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 5.2: Enhance the Skills, Capabilities, and Professional Development of OPD Employees
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved

5.2.6

Develop a Supervisory Excellence Training Module for new professional staff supervisors including progressive discipline, grievance procedures, sick leave management, how to motivate employees, workers compensation procedures, effective leadership, payroll documents and timelines, management reports, applicable administrative instructions, performance evaluation procedures, documents and timelines, conflict resolution, and organizational structure. Develop a succession plan for leadership positions within OPD and provide leadership training and leadership development opportunities to expand individual skills, abilities, and to prepare future OPD leaders to fill the command positions in the future. Review positions currently filled with sworn personnel that do not require the skills of sworn personnel and reclassify them as professional staff to reduce the cost of these positions, increase the level of expertise, and maintain greater consistency of personnel in these positions.

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

Training

5.2.7

Mid-Term

Budget Neutral

Training

5.2.8

Mid-Term

Cost Savings

BOS

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA34 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 5: The Oakland Police Department is an Effective Organization Providing a Supportive and Positive Work Environment for its Employees

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 5.3: Enhance Tactical Policies, Procedures, Skills, Capabilities, and Practices
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved

5.3.1

Develop and enforce a written Tactical Team Policy and Procedures Manual that includes: Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of the Tactical Operations Team Specific Tactical Operations Team activation procedures Standardized reporting system for operational after action reports High risk warrant planning, briefing, and service procedures Documenting and archiving the planning and execution of emergency and pre-planned tactical operations Oversight and supervisorial approval of all Tactical Team documentation Internal accountability mechanisms such as a computerized database system to collect, track, monitor, and archive all SWAT incident reports, training records, and weapons, munitions, and equipment inventory Conduct a SWAT Team Needs Assessment to determine training requirements for the OPD Tactical Team including long-term training facilities with live fire ranges and practical application training structures. Develop annual training plans for the Tactical Operations Team.

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

5.3.2

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

BOS

5.3.3

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

BOS

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA35 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 5: The Oakland Police Department is an Effective Organization Providing a Supportive and Positive Work Environment for its Employees

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 5.3: Enhance Tactical Policies, Procedures, Skills, Capabilities, and Practices
PRIORITY ACTIONS 5.3.4 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility BFO Others Involved BOS

Review and revise the curriculum of the OPD Basic SWAT Course to include core skill training that is measureable and documented and scenario based training. Increase the level of training encompassing all elements of the Tactical Operations Team including tactical commanders, team leaders, entry team, sniper team, negotiators, and the support team. Develop and make use of SWAT subject matter experts (SMEs) within the SWAT Team. Develop a tactical emergency medical support (TEMS) program. Develop and cultivate positive working relationships with SWAT Teams from other regional law enforcement agencies and pursue opportunities to conduct joint training exercises. Focus training for tactical operations on law enforcement SWAT practices rather than military based operations. Explore options for improving the response time to requests for service by the SWAT Team. Review and improve radio communication during tactical operations.

5.3.5

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BFO

BOS

5.3.6

Short-Term

Budget Neutral Budget Neutral Budget Neutral

BFO

5.3.7

Short-Term

BFO

5.3.8

Short-Term

BFO

5.3.9

Short-Term

Budget Neutral Budget Neutral Budget Neutral

BFO

5.3.10

Short-Term

BFO

5.3.11

Short-Term

BFO

BOS

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA36 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 5: The Oakland Police Department is an Effective Organization Providing a Supportive and Positive Work Environment for its Employees

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 5.4: Effectively Use Information and Technology to Improve OPD Management, Operations, and Performance
PRIORITY ACTIONS Implementation Time Frame Fiscal Impact Assignment of Responsibility Others Involved

5.4.1

Establish an OPD Information and Technology Steering Committee to establish consistent direction among IT stakeholders, review options, establish priorities, and monitor acquisition and implementation progress. Evaluate, acquire, and effectively implement technology that can improve the effectiveness of the OPD in accomplishing its mission. Develop and implement service level agreements between OPD and the Information Technology Department (ITD) clearly defining mutual expectations, roles and responsibilities, deliverables, and performance expectations for each project in development or technology being supported. Establish an OPD Planning and Research function responsible for researching new tactics, approaches, and technologies; and collecting and analyzing information on best practices for policing and law enforcement. Develop a system for tracking crime and violence in the City, assigning responsibility for addressing it, and accountability for results similar to CompStat used in other cities.

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

ITD

5.4.2

Mid to LongTerm

TBD

BOS

ITD

5.4.3

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

ITD

5.4.4

Long-Term

TBD

BOS

5.4.5

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

ITD

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA37 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Vision 5: The Oakland Police Department is an Effective Organization Providing a Supportive and Positive Work Environment for its Employees

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Objective 5.5: Effectively Plan and Manage Essential OPD Facilities and Equipment
PRIORITY ACTIONS 5.5.1 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility BOS Others Involved

Conduct a threat and vulnerability assessment of OPDs Police Administration Building and enhance the level of building security as needed. Conduct a threat and vulnerability assessment of OPDs Eastmont Station Building and enhance the level of building security as needed. Develop and implement standard facility operating procedures including safety and contingency plans. Develop a facilities master plan that is based on the likely future organizational structure and staffing of the OPD, an inventory of future facility needs, and potential facility configuration, cost estimates, and potential development schedule. Include the potential for the further decentralization of police operations and facilities. Continue to explore and pursue alternative approaches to acquiring, maintaining, and replacing the OPDs vehicle fleet that more effectively and consistently meets the Departments fleet requirements.

5.5.2

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

5.5.3

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

BOS

5.5.4

Long-Term

TBD

BOS

5.5.5

Short-Term

TBD

BOS

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA38 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Strategic Plan Implementation

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Plan Implementation

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA39 OfficeofChiefofPolice

Strategic Plan Implementation

Strategic Plan Oakland Police Department

Strategic Plan Implementation


PRIORITY ACTIONS I.1 Implementation Time Frame Short-Term Fiscal Impact Budget Neutral Assignment of Responsibility OCOP Others Involved DepartmentWide

Determine the relative importance of each strategic objective and priority action and the potential for effective implementation with resources available. Provide a copy of the Strategic Plan to every OPD employee and provide a forum to answer employee questions and to underscore the Plans importance. Make the OPDs Mission, Vision, and Values Statements highly visible. When possible, explicitly tie budgetary and operational decisions to the strategic plan visions and strategic objectives. Keep OPD employees apprised of status toward achievement of Strategic Plan goals by regularly providing information including developing posters and other visual aids that provide updates on progress toward visions and OPDs performance and post them throughout OPD facilities. Keep City residents apprised of status toward achievement of Plan goals through the regular provision of information. Keep the Mayor and City Council members apprised of status toward achievement of Plan visions and strategic objectives.

I.2

Short-Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

I.3

Short-Term

Budget Neutral Budget Neutral

OCOP PIOs

I.4

Short-Term

OCOP

DepartmentWide

I.3

Mid to Long Term

Budget Neutral

OCOP

I.4

Mid to Long Term Mid to Long Term

Budget Neutral Budget Neutral

OCOP PIOs

I.5

OCOP

WorkingDraft

ImplementationTimeframes:ShortTermisWithin1Year,MidTermis2to3Years,LongTermis4to5Years FiscalImpact:BudgetNeutralAssumestheSameStaffingandFundingLevelasFY200910,TBDisToBeDetermined PageA40 OfficeofChiefofPolice