PUBLIC SAFETY & SERVICES
VIOLENCE PREVENTION
OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (SSOC)
FINAL ANNUAL REPORT
1 Date: 10/29/24
Prepared by: Omar Farmer, SSOC Chairperson
AGENDA
• OVERVIEW
• SSOC SYNOPSIS
• FISCAL TRANSPARENCY
• STRATEGY EVALUATIONS
• RECOMMENDATIONS
2 OVERVIEW
3 OBJECTIVES OF MEASURE Z (MZ)
• Reduce police and fire 911 response times.
• Reduce robberies, homicides, burglaries, and calls related to gun violence.
• Invest in violence prevention and intervention strategies that interrupt the cycle of violence for our most at risk populations. [MZ Parts 1(B) and 3(A)] 4
JOINT MEETING PURPOSE
For City Council, the Safety & Services Oversight Commission, the Community Policing Advisory Board, the Police Commission and other public safety Boards or Commissions to provide Oakland residents with informational reports regarding the City's efforts to reduce violent crime.
[MZ Section 4(A)5] 5
SSOC PURPOSE
To ensure the proper revenue collection and spending of the MZ parcel and property tax, as well as the implementation of the programs and strategies designed to accomplish the
objectives of the MZ Ordinance.
Note: The SSOC first convened sometime in 2015.
Only data from June 2018 to present is available online.
However, there are references (page 12) going back to
the June 2015 timeframe.
[MZ Section 4(A)5] 6
SSOC COMMISSIONERS
• Kelly Cure District 1
• Samuel Dawit District 6
• Omar Farmer District 2
• Paula Hawthorn District 3
• Sonya Mehta At Large
• Yoana Tchoukleva District 4
• Michael Wallace Mayoral
[MZ Section 4(A)3] 7
HISTORICAL SSOC MEMBERSHIP
Rebecca Alvarado D5 Anne Marks D1 Gloria Bailey-Ray D7 Kevin McPherson D7 Carlotta Brown D6 Sonya Mehta At-Large Kelly Cure D1 Jody Nunez D1 Samuel Dawit D6 Jo Robinson Mayoral Nikki Uyen T. Dinh D5 Dayna Rose D2 Billy G. Dixon D7 Yoana Tchoukleva D4 Omar Farmer D2 Sydney Thomas D1 Rev. Curtis Flemming, Sr. D3 Pastor Michael Wallace Mayoral Paula Hawthorn D3 Troy Williams Mayoral Letitia Henderson Watts At-Large Edwillis Wright D4 Beth H. Hodess At-Large
June 2018 to present is the only data available online. 8
SSOC DUTIES
1. Review and evaluate the implementation of MZ by DVP, OPD, & OFD
2. Receive draft performance reviews before evaluator finalizes the report
3. Report issues identified in the annual fiscal audit to the Mayor & City Council
4. Review annual fiscal and performance audits & evaluations
5. Report in a public meeting to the Mayor & City Council on the implementation of MZ
6. Recommend ordinances, laws, resolutions and regulations, to ensure compliance with the requirements of MZ
7. Provide input on strategies
8. Receive semi-annual progress reports from the departments updating the SSOC on progress toward desired outcomes.
9. Make recommendations to the City Administrator regarding scope of program evaluation
[MZ Section 4(A)6(a-h] 9
SSOC SYNOPSIS
10 SSOC STRATEGIC PLAN
While not a requirement, the SSOC created a strategic plan for years 2022-2024. Strategic planning is a fundamental duty of any commission. Further, it is a disciplined effort to produce decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it.
11 1.1 Analyze the city auditor's report of each department's MZ funds.
1.2 Analyze whether OPD's hiring plan demonstrates how to achieve or maintain the force required by MZ.
1.3 Receive a report from DVP about areas they need more funding for.
1.4 Receive a report from SVS on expenditures to combat the commercial sexual exploitation of children.
1.5 Receive an annual report from DVP on expenditures to combat GBV.
2.1 Receive a detailed annual Ceasefire analysis.
2.2 Receive a report on CRO projects, request a metric be created to measure how they support MZ goals.
2.3 Request a crime reduction metric for OPS 1-3 personnel be created.
2.4 Create a document that tracks all recommendations from Evaluations.
2.5 Receive updates on diversity and recruitment goals for MZ positions.
2.6 Receive a report on success markers for OFD + analysis of 911 times.
3.1 Create a community engagement plan.
3.2 Create an annual report and present it at the joint meeting.
4.1 Consider drafting Ordinances, Resolutions, or Regulations. 2022-2024 STRATEGIC PLAN OBJECTIVES
12 SSOC CORE VALUES
• RESPECT and COURTESY create space for honest conversations, which fosters greater participation and rewards us with perspectives we may not have otherwise considered.
• EVIDENCE-BASED DECISION MAKING requires us to consider quantitative and qualitative data before making decisions.
• IMPACT-ORIENTATION allows us to develop goals that build trust and confidence with the public and offer us the opportunity to be more effective. • TEAMWORK can be directly linked to increased productivity because it inspires us to work together toward a common goal.
13 Community Activation Research & Elevation (CARE)
2023
1. NCPC 22x February 2023 D4
2. League of Women Voters May 2023 City-wide
3. Violence Prevention Coalition July 2023 City-wide
4. Grand Lake NCPC 14y & 16x August 2023 D1 & D2
5. Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church September 2023 D3
6. Delta Town Hall, City of Refuge December 2023 D7
2024
7. NCPC 32x February 2024 D7
8. NCPC 33x & 34x February 2024 D7
9. NCPC 35y, South Hills March 2024 D7
10. NCPC 35x June 2024 D7
11. Rockridge NCPC July 2024 D1
12. Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church Nov. 18th 2024 D3 14 SSOC Milestones
• Voted to create DVP 2017
• Offsite meeting held at Castlemont High 2017
• Provided input that led to the creation of the OPC Community Policing Policy 2017-2021 • Overcame Covid to stay on track, 8 meetings canceled between: 2019-2020 • Reimagining Public Safety Task Force Representation 2020-2021 • Participated in OPC Community Policing Ad hoc Committee 2021-2024 • Creation of Strategic Plan 2022
• Verified Response recommendation created and approved 2022-2024 • Participated in Urban Strategies Community Advisory Board 2022-present • Creation of Community Activity Research and Elevation team 2023-present • Creation of MACRO Advisory Board recommendation (being considered) 2023-present • Created ASAP to PSAP 911 Improvement recommendation (being considered) 2023-present • Final recommendations we hope result in a City Council Resolution 2024 • Offsite meeting at Mt. Zion Missionary Baptist Church 11/18/24 15 16
Data Analysis – Reports
Audits
2.7%
Data Analysis – Meeting Hours
• Over the past 6.25 years the SSOC has held seventy-one (71) Brown Act governed meetings for a total of one-hundred and sixty-seven (167) volunteer meeting hours. • An average of eleven (11) meetings have been held per year. • Five to six (5.5) Commissioners present per meeting.
• Meetings were approximately 2 hours 22 min long for average of upwards of twenty-six (26) meeting hours per year.
• This does not include time spent outside of meetings on committees, recommendations, outreach, emails, phone calls, or meeting preparation.
• Note: the only meeting information available online is from June 2018 to present. 17 FISCAL TRANSPARENCY
18 FY 2023 Revenue Collected & Dispersed
• Parcel Tax $19,798,577
• Parking Tax $10,222,500
• Right to use $349,300
• Total $30,370,377
• OPD $13,548,814 60%
• DVP $8,635,383 40%
• OFD $2M Fixed amount
• Evaluations $422,784 3% Fixed amount
• Administration $368,895 Part of 3% bucket
19 Revenue History for Measures Y and Z, Fiscal Years 2012‐13 through 2021‐22 ($ millions) FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
Parcel taxes 14.7 15.1 15.4 15.7 16.0 16.5 17.1 17.8 18.5 19.0 Parking surcharge 7.6 8.2 9.1 10.0 10.2 10.3 10.7 8.2 5.3 8.6 Note: Measure Y was adopted in 2004 and was replaced by Measure Z in 2015 Source: Controller's Bureau
‐
5.0 10.0
15.0 20.0
25.0 30.0
FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22
Measure Y/Z Revenue History
Parcel taxes Parking surcharge
$millions
20 FY 23
30.3M
$269M raised from FY 15-present / $29.8M on average raised per year not including FY 2024 Required Reports – OPD
*** FY 23-24 ISSUE REPORTED ***
$12,000.00 of Measure Z funds used to pay for approximately eleven (11) officers to attend a California National Peace Officers Memorial Service in Sacramento.
We do not believe this was an appropriate use of MZ funds.
We memorialized our concerns in this document.
Semi-Annual reports a minimum of twice per year:
• FY 21-22 Q4 Not Received
• FY 22-23 Q1-Q4 Not Received
• 1 semi-annual report received in the last 20 months
Spending Plan Reports a minimum of once every three years:
• FY 15-18 Received
• FY 18-21 Not Received
• FY 23-24 Not Received 21
Required Reports – OFD
Semi-Annual Reports a minimum of twice per year:
• FY 17-20 Received
• FY 20-21 & 21-22, Q1 & Q4 Not Received both years
• No Semi-Annual Reports received for 27 consecutive months, 6/22-present Spending Plan Reports a minimum of once every three years:
• FY 18-21 Spending Plan Received
• No Spending Plans received from FY 21-present
22 Required Reports – DVP
Semi-Annual reports due a minimum of twice per year:
• In compliance for the Semi-Annual Reporting requirement Spending Plan Reports due a minimum of once every three years:
• In compliance for the Spending Plan Reporting requirement 23 Fiscal Audit Inquiry
• The audits states that 1-3% of the funds appropriated shall be set aside for performance evaluations and administration costs.
• Measure Z states that amount is fixed at 3%.
• When was this MZ line item proposed and approved from a fixed 3% to 1-3% and who was it approved by?
• Or where does it say in MZ that it’s a 1-3% range and not a fixed 3% amount? 24 Accountability & Transparency
To prevent a Department from circumventing an oversight body and to provide that group with sufficient time to adequately review proposals, we propose the following:
1. That each Department verify they have disclosed their information to the appropriate body prior to scheduling a council review.
2. Require that all plans and reports be action items that need to be approved at the Commission level at least two (2) commission meetings prior to any city deadline so they can have time to sufficiently review items and make amendments.
3. Intentionally, circumventing an oversight body shall be grounds to disqualify their request, and/or for reclassifying their portion of the proceeds. 25 OFD & OPD MZ Staffing
• MZ requires the City to maintain a minimum of 678 sworn police officers unless some sudden, unforeseen event sharply affects the City's financial status. If the City fails to budget for at least this many officers in any given year, the City would be prohibited from levying either the parcel tax or the parking tax. We believe there was at least one (1) year (2021?) where this wasn’t accomplished and an exception was made via City Council.
• In accordance with the annual audits OPD is also tasked with hiring and maintaining at least a total of sixty-three (63) community and neighborhood police officers to act as or assist with neighborhood beat officers, school safety, crime reduction teams, domestic violence and child abuse interventions, officer training and equipment. However, there are three (3) years where the sixty-three (63) officer requirement was changed and no known reasons were provided. • The Fire Department primarily uses it’s proceeds to maintain staffing and equipment to operate twenty-five (25) fire engine companies and seven (7) truck companies, to expand paramedic services, and to establish a peer mentorship program at each station. However, the FY 21-22, and 22-23 audits state that twenty-four (24) fire engine companies were maintained. Why was that changed & what was the reason?
26 OPD MZ Staffing Inquiry
• The FY 20-21 audit states that sixty-three (63) officers were required but only fifty-four (54) were maintained. The FY 21-22 audit states fifty-four (54) officers. The FY 22-23 audit states fifty-two (52) officers required. We believe the FY 21-23 changes (page 14) are due to OPD being tasked with reducing its MZ budget by 14 percent due to anticipated drops in MZ revenues related to Covid-19. Are the FY 20-21 results related to the same issue? • In May 2022 the SSOC received a report (page 23) from OPD stating that in 2020 there were eleven (11) CRO’s and sixteen (16) CRT’s out of the fifty-three (53) authorized MZ officers.
However, the audit states there were seventeen (17) CRO’s and 28.02 CRT’s. • In the same report it stated in 2021 there were seventeen (17) CRO’s and thirty-seven (37) CRT’s but the audit reflects seven (7) and 19.72 respectively. Which report is correct? • FY 15-16: 66 FY 19-20: 61.81
• FY 16-17: 67.50 FY 20-21: 53.02
• FY 17-18: 65.50 FY 21-22: 53.72
• FY 18-19: 66 FY 22-23: 52.72
27 STRATEGY EVALUATIONS
28 Evaluation Schedule
• DVP Mathematica Evaluation 2016-19
• OPD Evaluation 2017
• OPD Evaluation 2018
• OPD Evaluation 2019
• Ceasefire Evaluation 2018
• OPD Evaluation 2020
• DVP & OPD Urban Strategies Evaluation 2023-24 (In progress) • Independent Audits Annual
Note: OFD exempt from Evaluations
29 30
OPD Goals & Strategies
OPD Evaluation Findings – 2017 to 2020
• Improve operational coordination and communication between CRO, CRT, and Ceasefire officers. • Establish performance measures and reporting structures that ensure alignment with MZ goals. • Ensure geo-policing officers represent the diverse community they serve. • Create and sustain a merit based geographical policing program. • Establish measures for implementation of CRO/CRT scheduling patterns and deployment trends and analyze how criminal activity is impacted.
• Assess the most appropriate types of calls, SARA projects and timeframes for them to accomplish these types of activities as they relate to MZ goals.
• Clarify to CRO’s and the public the type of community driven work they’re tasked with and establish minimum timeframes for them to stay in their beats.
• Assign enough CRO’s and CRT’s per beat. There are thirty-five (35) beats but not enough officers consistently assigned to each beat. Some beats may require more than one (1) CRO. • Explore mechanisms to limit patrol activities so geo-policing officers can stay in their beats to build relationships and work on MZ goals.
• To the best of our knowledge the above findings have not been completed since the 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 evaluations. 31
32 Map of Police Beats & Patrol Areas
Ceasefire Evaluation from 2018
• Ceasefire efforts draw on a combination of four areas of theory and practice:
(a) focused deterrence, (b) procedural justice and police legitimacy, (c) gang intervention and violence interruption best practice, (d) performance management. • Use of a place-based analysis was associated with a 32% reduction in citywide shootings supporting the assertion that reduction in gun violence is associated with the Ceasefire gun violence reduction strategy and was distinct from trends in other cities.
• Ceasefire generated a 20% reduction in shootings in neighborhoods that experienced it relative to neighborhoods that did not. There’s no evidence that it pushed violence into surrounding neighborhoods.
• Ceasefire generated a 27% reduction in shootings by gangs/groups as well as those socially- connected to treated gangs/groups.
• Pre and post-Ceasefire era measures indicate that compliant participants in Ceasefire had fewer victimizations and arrests in the two years after enrollment in the program than in the two years prior. • Despite outlining it as a strategy to be strengthened over the life of MZ it was at best minimally maintained. It still achieved outstanding results throughout city leadership and administration changes, OPD scandals, budget cuts, and other challenges that occurred during the Covid-19 era. 33 Ceasefire – Gun Violence Impact
34 Ceasefire – Recidivism Impact
35 DVP Mathematica Evaluation for 2016-19
• Fewer violent offense short-term arrests for adults who received life coaching or employment and education support services. The same can be said of youth who received life coaching support
• Data shows that adult life coaching reduced the likelihood of being arrested for a violent offense even after 12 months from the time participant graduated from the program
36 DVP Mathematica Evaluation for 2016-19
• Job training services have consistently yielded great results • Life coaching program has consistently received high ratings • Bottoms-up strategy has helped foster trust between the DVP and the communities they serve
• Large number of individuals served and services concentrated on populations most at risk
37 Fire Response Times
• Have response or turnout times improved between the implementation of MZ to present for medical, fire, or high hazard high rise incidents? Are NFPA standards being met or not met?
• Before and after impact of software application, and infrastructure improvements for better management of service delivery? Improvements include: First Watch program, Locution system, LiveMUM software, CAD upgrade, etc.
• MACRO impact on response times?
• OFD call center and departmental staffing status.
• Mass casualty or joint OFD & OPD response training impact on response times? 38 Police Response Times
• There have been, multiple grand jury reports conducted for the 911 call center due to it being out of California Office of Emergency Services standards for call answering times for at least five (5) years. Call answering times have either stayed the same or increased over the life of MZ.
• OPD has improved staffing and completed the installation of a new Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. However, per OPD the CAD system will not significantly improve response times and the staffing issue will not yield results until the Fall of 2025. ➢ The SSOC has a three-part strategy to decrease 5.4% of the 911 center call volume for burglar alarms that 98% of the time result in false alarms.
1. A policy recommendation called Verified Response which was implemented in July 2024.
2. Implement ASAP to PSAP. A technology upgrade that’s currently being considered which will absorb many of the alarms attributed to system malfunctions and it will speed up responses to actual alarms.
3. Conduct Cost Recovery for every call that results in a false alarm. 39 40 Police Response Times
41 Police Response Times
RECOMMENDATIONS
42 [Long form recommendation document created by Vice-Chair Tchoukleva:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qhR1hkfw2ygRO6PEAMsLbR6Mn0wBjAlHYlW4bMv0naU/edit?tab=t.0]
ACE SCORECARD
43 • ACCESS provided for SSOC oversight: Meeting attendance frequency, offline availability, developed a productive working relationship. • COMMITTMENT to MZ standards: Submitted required reports or other pertinent documentation appropriately and within a reasonable timeframe. • ENHANCEMENTS to MZ goals: Demonstrated consistent progress and improvement towards the objectives of the ordinance.
ACE SCORECARD
44 • DVP, OPD, & OFD were graded in each of the aforementioned areas on a one to four (1-4) scale. Four (4) being the best. One (1) being the lowest. Below are scoring definitions:
1. Non-compliant
2. Compliance in progress.
3. Compliant
4. Exceeds standards.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
ENHANCEMENTS
COMMITTMENT
ACCESS
OPD DVP
5 of 12 8 of 12 12 of 12SCORES = 45
1. Provide DVP with enough funding to serve at minimum the most at risk youth and young adults they have the capacity for. Investments in have historically led to decreased gun violence at an average of 10% or more per year.
2. Create a Ceasefire standing ad hoc committee through one of the city’s established Public Safety Boards or Commissions to ensure the Ceasefire strategy stays on track and is strengthened over the long-term despite leadership, community partnership, or administration changes, understaffing issues, or other obstacles.
3. In 2022 the League of Women Voters conducted a scoring of the performance of Commissions to grade their effectiveness. Their report can be used to build an evaluation scorecard for oversight bodies to gauge their effectiveness. [LWVO Report - Item 6, Attachment 6:
https://cao-94612.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/documents/SSOC-Agenda-and-Materials-9-26-22.pdf] SSOC Prioritized Recommendations
46 SSOC Prioritized Recommendations
4. Provide Commissions with more tool and resources to be successful. Including some degree of enforcement power to make their oversight duties more effective when departments they oversee are out of compliance or don’t provide required reports.
5. Create a Brown Act governed MACRO Board or Commission to oversee the development of this 911 improvement strategy that’s within the Oakland Fire Department.
6. Adopt a Public Safety Officer (PSO) position to assist with FTE shortfalls, improve response times, and alleviate overtime costs. PSO’s would cross train as both Police Officers and Firefighters. It could be initiated by creating a joint pilot academy.
7. Increase funding and expand access to Restorative Justice (RJ) diversion for youth and young adults. Residents who complete RJ programs have a high chance of not recidivating.
8. Start growing a Restorative Justice Transformative Justice ecosystem so that Oakland can become a Restorative City. Support the development of a Restorative & Transformative Justice web of support made up of restorative justice centers, community organizations, service providers, school restorative justice hubs and community healing spaces. 47 SSOC Prioritized Recommendations
9. Build a holistic reentry hub in Oakland — a central location where the formerly incarcerated can receive not just access to general services but individualized case management and support.
10. Conduct Cost Recovery for Police Department responses to false burglar alarms by charging Alarm Call Centers $20.00 each time they refer a call to the 911 dispatch for a burglar alarm that results in being a false alarm. Historically, 98% of Alarm Call Center referrals are for false alarms. This amounts to $910K-$1.4M in unproductive police officer wages wasted per year and 4.5-6.8 annual police officer FTE hours wasted.
11. Adopt ASAP to PSAP technology for the 911 call center. It will absorb a significant amount of the false burglar alarms that are a minimum of 5.4% of the overall call volume which will improve call answering times.
In Nashville, where burglar alarms are 5.5% of the call volume, after implementing ASAP in 2020 their call answering times improved by 15-25%. It also pays for itself in terms of FTE hours saved and eliminates on average four to six (4-6) follow up calls. It’s a one time cost for $79,043.00 total. See Nashville chart on next slide. 48 49 SSOC Prioritized Recommendations
END OF REPORT
50 Safety and Services
Oversight Commission
Damon Covington, Fire Chief
Oakland Fire Department
Safety Services Oversight Commission
In addition to its core goals and objectives, the annual Measure Z funding allocation of $2 Million to Oakland Fire ($2,000,000) plays a critical role in supporting overall department efforts to maintain adequate personnel resources to respond to fire and medical emergencies through our Dispatch Center, including, but not limited to violent crimes and other injuries.
Safety Services Oversight Commission
Measure Z funds ensure that the Oakland Fire Department has the necessary personnel resources to:
• Maintain the minimum daily required staffing requirements; • Meet and improve mandated fire emergency 911 responses; • Respond quickly & effectively to violent crime and traumatic incidents where high level emergency medical services
(EMS) treatment is needed.
• Prompt and skilled response by Fire & EMS personnel will make the difference in whether a person who is violently assaulted or involved in a shooting becomes a homicide
victim or not.
Safety Services Oversight Commission
Measure Z supports key elements of the Fire Department mission to providing the highest quality and highest level of courteous and responsive services to the residents, businesses, and visitors of Oakland by implementing comprehensive strategies and training in fire prevention, fire suppression, emergency medical services, and all risk mitigation, including human-caused and natural disasters, emergency preparedness, 9-1-1 services and community-based fire services.
Safety Services Oversight Commission
• OFD operates an Emergency Fire Dispatch Center and twenty-five (25) fire stations located throughout the city, twenty-four (24) hours per day, seven (7) days per week.
• OFD is responsible for fire and medical dispatch, fire prevention, fire suppression, mitigation, emergency medical response (EMS), specialized rescue operations, fire investigation, MACRO, emergency management, and fire code inspection within the city.
• OFD personnel are the front line first responders for all manners of medical and hazardous incidents.
Safety Services Oversight Commission
The Fire Communications Center (FDC) serves as the first point of contact for 9-1-1 callers in need of fire or medical services in the City of Oakland. Annually, approximately 70,000 calls are processed each year by highly trained, Emergency Medical Dispatch (EMD) certified staff. In addition to biennial recertification which includes CPR training, OFD Communications has been an Accredited Center of Excellence (ACE) by the International Academies of Emergency Dispatch for 15 years.
Safety & Services Oversight Commission
The OFD Medical Services Division (MSD) provides OFD personnel and MACRO staff with continuing education and training which meets the state-mandated minimum requirements for Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT) and Paramedics (EMT-P).
Fire personnel serve as first responders to emergency calls that may require basic and advanced emergency care when dispatched through the 911 system.
MACRO personnel conduct wellness checks for
Oakland’s most vulnerable populations.
Safety & Services Oversight Commission
OFD Medical Services Division:
• Provides written guidelines and procedures related to the operation of first responder fire personnel, EMT and Paramedics.
• Provides continuing education, course requirements, and skills testing to maintain licenses and certificates for Paramedic and EMT credentials.
• Ensures adequate medical equipment and supplies are available, and establishes procedures for patient care.
Safety & Services Oversight Commission
In 2021, The Fire Department launched the MACRO Program, a community response program for non-violent, non-emergency 911 calls to meet the needs of the community with a compassionate care first response model to reduce responses by police, resulting in fewer arrests and negative interactions, and increased access to community- based services and resources for impacted individuals and families.
MACRO logged over 15,000 contacts with Oakland residents.
Approximately 1/3 of community contacts results in a referral to an Service provider in Alameda County.
Safety & Services Oversight Commission
Community Outreach:
• OFD works to reach, educate, and train the public on fire and life safety hazards.
• OFD members can be found at local community meetings, health fairs and special events throughout the year giving OFD an opportunity to interact with tens of thousands of residents a year. • In 2023, OFD hosted or participated in over 200 community public education events, including school visits, station tours, fire safety training, career fairs, mentoring, National Night Out, and smoke alarm distribution events.
Safety & Services Oversight Commission
Community Outreach:
• The Oakland Fire Department Public Education and Community Outreach arm works year round to engage, educate, and train the public on fire and life safety hazards.
• The Oakland Fire Explorer program is a proven tool to engage hard to reach youth and teenagers, fostering a mentorship relationship, partnership with school sites, and creating valuable career pipeline. • In 2023 alone OFD distributed 200+ smoke and carbon monoxide alarms to help save lives and reduce the spread of fire, focusing on our most vulnerable communities which are at greatest risk.
Measure Z Spending
in FY23-24
Department of Violence Prevention
Holly Joshi
Chief of Violence Prevention
Jenny Linchey
Deputy Chief of Grants, Programs, and Evaluation
Oakland City Council, CPAB, SSOC, and Police Commission – August 26, 2024 The City of Oakland’s Department of Violence Prevention (DVP) is charged with reducing group violence, intimate partner violence, and commercial sexual exploitation in Oakland.
To do this, the DVP invests in immediate crisis response services and near-term interventions that focus on stabilizing victims and preventing additional violence.
The DVP also invests in longer-term, intensive support services for individuals caught in cycles of violence.
Background
Background
The DVP performs three primary functions:
1. Supervise and deploy a team of direct service staff who perform intensive life coaching and violence interruption work with individuals at highest risk of imminent violence.
2. Fund community organizations to deliver violence intervention and healing services to community members impacted by violence.
3. Convene and build capacity among community organizations that form the ecosystem of violence intervention services in Oakland.
Background
The DVP’s work advances the following two objectives of Measure Z:
1. Reduce homicides, robberies, burglaries, rape, domestic violence, human trafficking, and gun-related violence.
2. Invest in violence intervention and prevention strategies that provide support for at-risk youth and young adults that data says are at highest risk of gun violence to interrupt the cycle of violence and recidivism.
Background
The DVP uses Measure Z funds almost exclusively for services delivered by community-based organizations (CBOs).
From October 1, 2023, to June 30, 2024, services delivered by CBOs totaled $12,837,397.
Measure Z provided 84% of the funding for these services, for a total of $10,728,688.
Gro u p Vio le n c e
Group Violence: Theory of Change
Problem
Participation in
group violence is
rooted in survival
instincts and prior
trauma.
Oppression,
overincarceration,
and disinvestment
lead to community
violence.
Intervention
The DVP delivers
and funds intensive
services for high-
risk individuals to
help them change
their mindsets,
behaviors, support
systems, and
environments to
avoid future
violence.
Outcomes
Reduced
victimization and
experiences of
trauma
Reduced
footprint of the
criminal justice
system
Group Violence Grants: 10/1/23 - 6/30/24
Service Cost of Services Number of people
served
Adult employment $362,613 160
Adult life coaching $1,132,920 289
Emergency relocation $198,750 32
Hospital-based intervention $275,418 50
Violence interruption $1,800,841 173
Group Violence Grants: 10/1/23 - 6/30/24
Service Cost of Services Number of people
served
Youth diversion $331,575 109
Youth employment $786,689 207
Youth life coaching $869,531 140
Total spent: $5,758,337
Total people served: 1,085 unduplicated; 1,160 duplicated Gender -Based
Vio le n c e (GBV)
GBV: Theory of Change
Problem
GBV is a learned
behavior rooted in
misogyny, historical
violence, and prior
trauma.
GBV negatively
impacts survivors
and destabilizes
families and
communities.
Intervention
The DVP funds
stabilization
services to
survivors and
longer-term
intensive support
services to
survivors and
individuals who
cause harm.
Outcomes
Reduced
victimization
Survivors heal
and thrive
Reduced
footprint of the
criminal justice
system
GBV Grants: 10/1/23 - 6/30/24
Service Cost of
Services
Unduplicated
people served
Duplicated
people served
24-hour hotlines $169,840 – 2,985
Bedside advocacy $273,880 – 184
Emergency shelter $570,876 147 –
Employment $266,136 147 –
Legal advocacy $460,763 512 –
GBV Grants: 10/1/23 - 6/30/24
Service Cost of
Services
Unduplicated
people served
Duplicated
people served
Life coaching $199,124 40 –
Safe space alternatives $243,940 – 773
Therapeutic support $517,575 213 6,515
Transitional housing $219,520 26 –
Total spent: $2,921,654
Total people served: 1,085 unduplicated; 10,457 duplicated Co m m u n it y He a lin g
Community Healing: Theory of Change
Problem
Group violence
causes immense
and lasting
trauma for
victims, families,
and communities.
This trauma can
lead to further
perpetration of
violence.
Intervention
The DVP funds
services that help
victims, families,
and communities
cope with and
heal from trauma
caused by group-
related shootings
and homicides.
Outcomes
Healthy coping
mechanisms
Healing from
trauma
Reductions in
group violence
that result from
unresolved
trauma
Community Healing Grants: 10/1/23 - 6/30/24
Service Cost of
Services
Unduplicated
people served
Duplicated
people served
Family support $186,055 122 –
Healing and restorative
activities
$730,454 – 4,215
Neighborhood and
community teams
$907,477 – 10,424
Therapeutic supports $20,000 12 –
Total spent: $1,843,986
Total people served: 134 unduplicated; 14,639 duplicated Sc h o o l Vio le n c e
I nterv enti on and
P re ve n t io n (VIP )
Program
School VIP Program: Theory of Change
Problem
Children who are
impacted by
violence cannot
effectively learn
in school.
Violence in
Oakland moves
between streets
and schools.
Intervention
The DVP funds
credible
messengers in
schools to
intervene in
violence and
deliver intensive
support services
to impacted
students.
Outcomes
Safer school
campuses
Reduced
victimization
among
Oakland’s most
vulnerable youth
School VIP Program Grants: 10/1/23 - 6/30/24
Service Cost of
Services
Unduplicated
people served
Duplicated
people served
Community healing $619,455 – 698
GBV services $748,381 133 1,765
Life coaching & violence
interruption
$945,584 93 172
Total spent: $2,313,420
Total people served: 226 unduplicated; 2,635 duplicated Additional MZ Expenses: 7/1/23 – 6/30/24
1. $70,000 funded the DVP’s data management system, Apricot 360.
2. $75,000 paid for general operating expenses such as cell phone service, office supplies, materials for outreach events, rental space and food for trainings, and emergency gift cards for participants.
3. $119,000 paid for professional services that included mental health services for DVP direct practice staff and printing of public outreach materials.
T hank Y ou!
Joint SSOC/City Council Presentation
October 29, 2024
1 Implementation of the Oakland
Ceasefire strategy was specifically
demanded by community members to
address gun violence. In direct
response, the City of Oakland and its
partners began implementation of the
strategy in 2012 after years of
community pressure.
2 What is Oakland Ceasefire ?
Oakland Ceasefire is a partnership-based, intelligence
led, and data-driven strategy designed to:
• Reduce Gang/Group related shootings and
homicides
• Reduce the recidivism rate amongst participants
• Improve community police relationships
3 When we talk
about
Ceasefire
We are really talking about these activities:
1. In-depth analysis of risk
2. Direct, respectful communication
3. Intensive, relationship-based life coaching
and other services needed
4. Intelligence-based enforcement, informed
by the principles of procedural justice
These activities are implemented continuously
as a closely coordinated, joint strategy to
reduce shootings citywide.
4 Gun Violence Reduction
Strategy Cycle
Goals
Reduce:
1. Homicides & Shootings
2) Recidivism
3.) Build Community Trust
2. Direct
Communication
(Call-Ins, Custom
Notifications)
3. Services &
Support
(Interested Direct
Communication
participants)
4. Law
Enforcement
follow through
(First and worst
offenders)
1. Ongoing
Analysis
Data & Intel
Shooting Reviews
2. Normally conducted by OPD,
Community Partners, USAO, DA, service
providers, faith leaders, victims of
violence. survivors
1. Involves problem
analysis; crime analysis,
Ceasefire, CGIC, and other
partners
3. DVP , Service
Providers, and Life
Coaches
4. OPD Ceasefire Unit and
other units/agencies as
necessary
5 Coordination
Meetings
Assignments
to outreach
Connections to
Supports & Services
Analysis
Ceasefire identifies groups & individuals at very highest risk of GUN violence through ongoing, intensive, and systematic data collection and analysis with a particular focus on social networks.
Achieving community-wide reductions in violence required a shift from assessing categorical risk factors/assessing “overall” risk to identifying and engaging groups and
individuals at imminent risk of involvement in gun violence.
Oakland’s violence prevention efforts have associated a person’s probability of involvement in violence with
individual, situational, or community risk factors, but most people in high-risk populations never get involved in gun violence.
Within a generally high-risk population, risk of gun violence is super concentrated among a *small number of people and more closely related to the characteristics of individuals’ social networks than to categorical risk factors – this is Andrew Papachristos’ “handshake away” formula.
*This small number of people are “Very High Risk” individuals. 6 COMMON FACTOR
Analysis-
Shooting
Review
The purpose of Shooting Review is to provide and share real-time information on the most active groups and individuals in order to prevent retaliation. While solving crime may occur at Shooting Review, this is not the primary focus. The focus is preventing retaliation. Retaliation is a common and unique element of gang/group-related shootings and homicides.
Shooting Review focusses on the details of shootings and homicides that occurred during the week including strategies for deterrence (e.g. service provider outreach, Custom Notification) or resolution of cases, etc.
Shooting Review provides a designated time and place for discussion as well as collaboration and information-sharing among OPD departments and other law enforcement agencies.
In addition to the Shooting Review a weekly meeting is held to review the most recent NIBIN results. (CGIC leads this meeting).
The purpose of the NIBIN review is to identify and confirm current gang/group conflicts, identify subjects and/or gang/groups that are driving the violence, assist Area Commanders with the allocation of police resources to help reduce retaliatory shootings and to provide additional intelligence to assist investigators and the Ceasefire Unit.
The GOAL: Prevent Retaliation
8 Direct Communications
We want to reach those groups and individuals at
very highest risk of violence with the direct and
respectful communication of an evidence-based
“risk and opportunity” message.
Custom notifications and call-ins are a means of
communicating with impact players to warn them of
violent activity, to give them information about their
legal exposure and risks and to offer them
opportunities for help – services through Oakland’s
Department of Violence Prevention and its network.
This is done by an alliance of concerned community
leaders, victims, survivors, clergy, service providers
and criminal justice agency representatives -
through call-ins and custom notifications.
9 Communication is The Key
We know that a relatively small number of highly
active groups, representing less than one half of one
percent of a city’s population, will routinely be
connected with up to three-quarters of all homicides
in Oakland. Within that small population of groups, an
even smaller number of highly active “Very High Risk”
(VHR) individuals drives the violence.
VHR individuals typically represent only 10 to 20
percent of group members, yet they are responsible
for most of the group violence, whether by instigating
conflict or committing violent offenses themselves.
Both in theory and in practice, it follows that changing the behavior of these groups and very high-risk
individuals will have a powerful impact on violence.
10 people
430
k
250
-
300
people
Focus on
very high-risk
individuals
OAKLAND’S
POPULATION
VERY HIGH-RISK
POPULATION
11 Direct
Communications
(Custom
Notifications)
Custom Notifications are a quick tactical tool,
that is tailored for particular individuals or
groups. Custom notifications are usually used
to:
Manage near-term spikes in violence,
including conflicts between groups.
Interrupt retaliatory shooting.
Communicate with groups/individuals
offering services.
To keep open lines of communication
with priority groups/individuals.
12 Direct
Communications
(Call-Ins)
Call-ins can be transformative experiences in which group members, community members, and law enforcement
experience each other in a different – direct way. At their core, call-ins are a communication tool, a way to speak to group members and deliver critical information.
A call-in is a face-to-face meeting between the
Ceasefire partnership and group members
representing groups active in the City of Oakland.
Call-ins rely on probation and parole to bring group
members to the meeting.
Call-ins communicate with groups/individuals offering services.
Partners present their message and ask the attendees
to take what they have heard back to their groups.
13 Services
1. Employ a relationship-focused life coaching
effort with as many of this pool of very highest
risk individuals as is possible.
2. The initial focus is on reducing the immediate
risk of violence & incarceration.
3. This also includes laying the groundwork for a
long-term supportive relationship that enables
DVP staff to:
Monitor individuals’ continuing risk of
violence & incarceration
Support personal change & improved
educational & employment outcomes
14 Law
Enforcement’s
Role
Ceasefire Unit: Strategic & Laser Focused
Enforcement
Coordinated law enforcement action against
members of a violent groups, performed by
the law enforcement operational team of the
Ceasefire partnership. The Ceasefire unit
coordinates with other agencies and units to
conduct its enforcement. Performed upon a
jurisdiction’s most active and violent
individuals, it demonstrates to other
individuals and groups that the partnership is
serious about ending violence.
15 125 90 79 83 85 71 67 75 102 124 118 120 64
553
471 420 342 307 279 276 287
495
599
456 508
279
678
561
499
425
392
350 343 362
597
733
576
628
343
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Homicides Non Fatal Shootings Total Shootings
Oakland Shootings
2012-2022
* #s effective through 9/22/2024 27% decrease in homicides; 30% decrease in Non-fatal shootingsovember 7, 2022. 16 QUESTIONS?
Ceasefire Director: Damita Davis-Howard
Captain of Ceasefire: Captain Steve Valle
1 2
3 4
*Through September 2024
Filled Authorized
Sworn Staff 685 678
Professional Staff 257.5 303.5
Total 942.5 981.5
Filled Authorized
Community Resource Officer (West) 9 9
Community Resource Officer (East) 8 9
Ceasefire 39 51
Total 56 69
Patrol 378 354
5 6
Part 1 Crimes 2022 2023
YTD
2024
YTD % Change
2023 vs. 2024
Homicide – 187 94 91 66 -27%
Homicide – All Other 2 5 4 -20%
AggravatedAssault 2,484 2,885 2,485 -14%
Assault with a
Firearm 376 408 289 -29%
Rape 151 157 137 -13%
Robbery 2,110 2,928 2,227 -24%
Burglary* 9,790 14,861 6,859 -54%
Motor VehicleTheft 7,377 11,788 8,976 -24%
Larceny 6,639 7,661 5,342 -30%
Arson 137 91 82 -10%
Total 28,784 40,467 26,178 -35%
*Burglary included auto burglary
8 626,815
703,561 728,647
760,818 775,215
909,753
963,504
563,708
-
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
OPD Calls for Service by Year 2017 to 2024
Gun Recoveries 2023 2024 YTD % Change
2023 vs. 2024
Crime Recoveries 752 784 4%
Non-Criminal Recoveries 174 207 19%
Total Gun Recoveries 926 991 7%
ShotSpotter Activations 2023 2024 YTD % Change
2023 vs. 2024
Citywide 6,168 4,987 -19%
Area 1 603 410 -32%
Area 2 198 165 -17%
Area 3 626 496 -21%
Area 4 1,090 1,005 -8%
Area 5 1,726 1,416 -18%
Area 6 1,925 1,495 -22%
9 83 85 72 67 75 102 123 105 96 70
342 307 281 274 284
495
599
402
362
289
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Homicides Shootings
10 11
12 13
14 CID Section YTD Cases Staff Filled Staff Authorized
Homicide and Cold Cases 129 15 18
Robbery 2809 8 9
Felony Assault 2784 6 9
Burglary 14430 4 8
General Crimes 27467 7 8
Missing Persons 907 2 2
Domestic Violence 3155 7 9
Special Victims 740 7 7
Vice & Child Exploitation 420 6 6
Total 52841 62 76
15 16
60 57
73 56
65 52 48
35 49
67 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 *2024
*2024=YTD September 2024
17 18
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Q1-Q3 Afr American 57% 59% 62% 61% 55% 51% 52% 50% 46% 41% 43% Hispanic 18% 20% 20% 22% 22% 26% 26% 31% 35% 35% 34%
White 14% 11% 10% 9% 11% 12% 11% 8% 9% 10% 9%
Asian 7% 7% 5% 5% 7% 7% 6% 6% 6% 8% 9%
Other 4% 3% 3% 4% 5% 4% 4% 4% 5% 5% 5%
4,552
4,943
5,312
4,254
5,4995,3715,354
6,2826,422
5,407
4,2074,374
5,3065,289
4,815
4,374
3,707
2,7732,771
1,6731,8762,1062,128
1,407
1,676
1,957
1,500
1,056 856 818 814 611 779 667 689
1412
973 902 985 1205 1185 1333 12861,3251,513
1,846
1,403
1,6811,6721,851
2,3002,210
1,732
1,4011,342
2,0061,929
1,676
1,4361,436
1,1551,145
756 990 1,0381,096
685 790
1,083
791
467 426 558 565 341
586 485 472
1173
728 809 924 999 967 1111 952
0 1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr2 Qtr3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3 Qtr4 Qtr1 Qtr 2 Qtr 3
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Afr American Hispanic White Asian Other
1 9