Attachment C
Annual Surveillance Report for Surveillance Technology
Department of Violence Prevention Apricot Data Management System - June 2026
A. System Use
• Prompt: Provide a description of how the surveillance technology was used, including the type and quantity of data gathered or analyzed by the technology.
• Response: The Apricot data management system (Apricot) was used by approximately 36 staff from the Department of Violence Prevention (DVP) and 170 staff from community-based organizations funded by the DVP to deliver community violence intervention services. Direct service staff used the system to enter data on enrollment, service engagement, milestone achievement, and outcomes for individuals served, as well as attendance, duration, and content for group services.
Supervisory staff used the system to monitor service delivery and track performance metrics. Grant management staff used the system to track budget spenddown, track progress on contract deliverables, and receive and process quarterly invoices. DVP program staff used the system to coordinate services between agencies and support the effective implementation of services. Lastly, the DVP’s data and evaluation staff used the system to summarize service delivery and outcome data for external reports, monitor the completion of participant consent forms and adherence to service eligibility criteria, and identify and remediate data entry errors.
Many services funded by the DVP and delivered by direct service staff require the collection of individual-level data. Users enter individual-level data in Apricot by first completing a participant record and a program enrollment form. Users then complete forms related to the type of service delivery. Table 1 provides the number of participant records and related service forms entered by users in Apricot from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025.
Table 1. Apricot forms completed for individual services from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025.
Apricot form Approximate number of
records entered
Emergency relocation 92
Employment 37
Family and victim support 17
Housing 236
Incentive 2,819
Intake and needs assessment 188
Life map goal 1,907
Participant record 2,398
Program enrollment 2,563
Service note 71,588
Service referral 2,633
Users also enter data in Apricot related to group services or outreach and response activities. Table 2 provides the approximate number of forms completed for these services.
Table 2. Apricot forms completed for group services or outreach and response activities from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025.
Apricot form Approximate number of
records entered
Crisis navigation response 253
Group activities and events 1,755
Hospital response 69
Shooting and homicide response 201
Violence interruption 2,034
B. Data Sharing
• Prompt: Please provide information about whether and how often data acquired through the use of the surveillance technology was shared with outside entities, the name of any recipient entity, the type(s) of data disclosed, under what legal standard(s) the information was disclosed, and the justification for the disclosure(s).
• Response: Deidentified data on services delivered and personally identifiable information (PII) for participants who provided their consent was shared with the following two parties, as approved in the use policy:
a) Urban Institute, for the independent third-party evaluation of Measure Z spending and programs, as authorized by the City Council Resolution No. 89139, Professional Services Agreement 18001, and the corresponding data- sharing agreement.
b) Urban Institute, for the independent third-party evaluation of the DVP’s Board of State and Community Corrections’ California Violence Intervention and Prevention (CalVIP) grant, as authorized by the City Council Resolution No. 89367, Professional Services Agreement 13898, and the corresponding data-sharing agreement.
C. Installation & Application
• Prompt: Where applicable, provide a breakdown of what physical objects the surveillance technology hardware was installed upon; using general descriptive terms so as not to reveal the specific location of such hardware; for surveillance technology software, a breakdown of what data sources the surveillance technology was applied to.
• Response: Not applicable as Apricot is a cloud-based software.
D. Deployment Breakdown
• Prompt: Where applicable, provide a breakdown of where the surveillance technology was deployed geographically, by each Police Area in the relevant year.
• Response: Not applicable as Apricot is a cloud-based software.
E. Community Complaints
• Prompt: Provide a summary of community complaints or concerns about the surveillance technology, and an analysis of the technology’s adopted use policy and whether it is adequate in protecting civil rights and civil liberties. The analysis shall also identify the race of each person that was subject to the technology’s use. The Privacy Advisory Commission may waive this requirement upon making a determination that the probative value in gathering this information to evaluate the technology’s impact on privacy interests is outweighed by the City’s administrative burden in collecting or verifying this information and the potential greater invasiveness in capturing such data. If the Privacy Advisory Commission makes such a determination, written findings in support of the determination shall be included in the annual report submitted for City Council review.
• Response: There have been no complaints or concerns raised about Apricot related to its protection of civil rights and civil liberties. DVP data and evaluation staff have communicated with numerous grantees to integrate their feedback regarding ways to improve the user-friendliness of the system.
The adopted use policy is adequate in protecting civil rights and liberties. Service delivery information entered in Apricot is limited to high-level information about frequency, duration, and outcomes of service delivery. Entry of PII is only required for adult services related to group violence; it is not required for services related to gender-based violence or for youth services. When PII is entered, data are only visible to staff within the agency entering the data and select staff from the DVP who perform data and evaluation or service coordination roles; they are not visible to other agencies funded by the DVP. PII is only shared with external evaluation partners for individuals who consent to having their data shared externally for evaluation purposes. Table 3 provides race and ethnicity data for participants whose data was entered in Apricot from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025.
Table 3. Race and ethnicity data for participants whose data were entered in Apricot from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025.
Race Percentage
African American 45%
Asian 3%
Hispanic or Latino 24%
Multi-Racial 7%
White 5%
Race Percentage
Other 1%
Missing 15%
F. Internal Audits & Compliance
• Prompt: Provide the results of any internal audits, any information about violations or potential violations of the Surveillance Use Policy, and any actions taken in response unless the release of such information is prohibited by law, including but not limited to confidential personnel file information.
• Response: DVP data and evaluation staff regularly review record audits of Apricot.
There have not been any violations or potential violations of the use policy to date.
G. Data Breaches or Other Unauthorized Access
• Prompt: Provide information about any data breaches or other unauthorized access to the data collected by the surveillance technology, including information about the scope of the breach and the actions taken in response.
• Response: There have been no data breaches or unauthorized access to the Apricot system.
H. Efficacy
• Prompt: Provide information, including crime statistics, that help the community assess whether the surveillance technology has been effective at achieving its identified purposes.
• Response: Data collected through Apricot have allowed DVP staff to perform the following tasks:
a) Monitor service delivery to ensure alignment with best practices. In 2024, the City of Oakland reimplemented the Ceasefire-Lifeline strategy for reducing gun violence. The DVP delivers the Lifeline part of the strategy, which involves providing intensive life coaching and violence interruption services to individuals who are at highest risk of drawing or driving gun violence. Performance reports generated through Apricot based on data entered by DVP direct service staff allow DVP supervisors and leadership to continuously monitor services to ensure they are being delivered with fidelity to the evidence-based model. Oakland ended 2025 with reductions of 49% in homicides and shootings compared to 2023, suggesting that this work has been highly successful in reducing group-driven violence.
Additionally, DVP staff were able to review services delivered by funded community-based organizations to ensure they met expectations outlined in
grant scopes of work. In cases when service delivery was not happening as expected, DVP staff were able to provide technical support and guidance to agencies. For example, after reviewing data entered by an agency funded to deliver emergency housing services to survivors of gender-based violence, DVP staff realized that participants were consistently being directed to shelters instead of receiving the option for temporary hotel stays, as outlined in the agency’s scope of work. DVP staff had a conversation with agency staff about this service expectation and the agency adjusted its offerings for clients going forward. This is one of many examples of how reviewing service data on a regular basis has allowed DVP staff to support enhanced service delivery from funded agencies.
b) Coordinate group violence services. DVP staff who coordinate group violence services, including violence interruption activities, relocation, and life coaching, were able to access data entered by funded agencies to coordinate service response across agencies. For instance, supervisors who coordinate violence interruption activities were able to access information entered by each of the four agencies funded to perform violence interruption work to monitor the status of these activities and determine next steps.
Additionally, the program officer who coordinates emergency relocation services was able to review referral requests and approve or deny them, after which approved requests were sent to a funded agency to process.
c) Understand coordinated access to services. The DVP strives to engage participants in multiple services funded through its network of community- based organizations to address multiple needs that clients have related to their vulnerabilities to violence. Apricot allows the DVP to determine how many funded services each participant accesses; Table 4 provides the percent of clients engaged in one or more group violence services from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025. In the next year, the DVP intends to facilitate stronger referral pathways and coordination across agencies to achieve higher percentages of participants accessing more than one service.
Table 4. Number of services accessed by participants in the group violence strategy from January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2025.
Number of services accessed Percent of clients served
1 94%
2 5%
3 or more 1%
d) Summarize and share service data with public oversight bodies and external funders to justify continued funding. DVP data and evaluation staff created reports that summarized aggregate service data for councilmembers and commissioners who oversee the allocated of DVP funding for community-based contracts. These data have been instrumental in justifying continued financial investments in violence prevention and
intervention services in Oakland by providing a clear picture of the services delivered and the demographics of people served. Additionally, data and evaluation staff used data collected through Apricot to complete quarterly and biannual grant reports for external funders to justify a continued financial investment.
e) Evaluate services to assess impact. Data collected in Apricot have served as the primary source of data for impact evaluations of violence intervention services funded by public ballot measures, as well as evaluations of external grants from the California Board of State Community Corrections and Kaiser Permanente.
I. Public Records Requests
• Prompt: Provide statistics and information about public records act requests regarding the relevant subject surveillance technology, including response rates.
• Response: There have been no public records requests pertaining to Apricot.
J. Total Annual Costs
• Prompt: Provide the total annual costs for the surveillance technology, including personnel and other ongoing costs, and what source of funding will fund the technology in the coming year.
• Response: The annual cost of Apricot in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026-2027 is $125,000.
Approximately $63,000 will come from the DVP’s General Purpose Fund allocation and approximately $62,000 will be funded by external grants.
K. Requested Use Policy Amendments
• Prompt: Please describe any requested modifications to the Surveillance Use Policy and provide a detailed basis for the request.
• Response: The DVP is requesting one modification to the use policy. The current use policy states that PII is not entered for individuals receiving services related to gender-based violence. The DVP would like to modify this to state that PII is not required for individuals receiving services related to gender-based violence. Data may be entered if individuals provide their informed consent. This is the same approach taken for all youth services related to gun violence intervention.