Kalb Responsive Records - 9852 PDF

From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Molly Batchelder
Kalb, Dan
Very disappointed
Wednesday, June 03, 2015 1:13:41 PM
Dear Dan Kalb,
I am your constituent. I witnessed your rant regarding the FBI, telling the people they were wrong
about their concerns about this notorious agency coming into our community. It was in poor taste,
and very offensive, considering you are a white European settler with no personal experience of the
oppression, pain and fear that comes with structural racism. I am a white European settler too, yet I
try to be extremely compassionate and understanding in these matters, and listen to people who
have experienced firsthand this oppression and do my best to amplify their voices and discontinue
my perpetration of white supremacy. It is immoral to act simply within my own privileged
perspective.
I only heard about your rant regarding the Eucalyptus trees and their inferior non-native status. I
realize this is a very contentious, emotional issue. I also realize there is a lot of fear induced
misinformation floating around, and yet some only rally around ideas that support their own
personal notions of what is beautiful and acceptable and what is not. Even when it means
destroying established ecosystems and 100s of gallons of poison. This is not a holistic approach.
This is a selfish approach.
I would like to point out that you are not native, sir. But yet you vote to continue to desecrate this
land without even permission or consultation from the Ohlone people who have tended to it
sustainably for a millennia. There was one indigenous woman who spoke before you that brought
tears to my eyes, her perspective was so tender and compassionate. Did you not listen?
Dan Kalb you suck so much.
Sincerely,
Molly Batchelder
SBCA TREE CONSULTING
Molly Batchelder, Consulting Arborist
WE ISA Certified Arborist #9613A

ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
1534 Rose Street, Crockett, CA 94525
Phone (510) 787-3075, Fax (510) 787-3065
E-mail: molly@sbcatree.com
Website: www.sbcatree.com
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Shannon, Christopher
Henry, James; DL - OPD Executive Notifications; DL - OPD Watch Supervisor; Hamilton, Freddie; Encinias, Jill;
Armstrong, Leronne
Barricaded Hostage at 10588 Topanaga
Sunday, May 17, 2015 1:46:27 AM
INFORMATION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - NOT FOR DISSEMINATION

RD#: 15-026000
Incident#: LOP150516000755 & LOP150516000831
Date: 16 May 15
Time: 1841
Crimes: Bank robbery in Antioch, 211/212.5/236 in Oakland
Location: Antioch to 10588 Topanga Dr #A
At 1841 hours, CHP advised that they were in pursuit of an armed 211 bank robbery suspect (later
identified as Shawn McGee Sr) from Antioch. At 1850 hours, the suspect exited the freeway on 98 th
Ave and eventually crashed his vehicle into a fence in the 500 block of 105th Ave. The suspect then
fled on foot and into 10588 Topanga Dr #A where he took the occupant, Rita Reed (older female),
hostage. CHP, CoCo Sheriffs deputies, and OPD units surrounded the apartment.
Two the hostages adult daughters were outside the apartment when this occurred. One was
speaking with their mother (the hostage) via phone. Officers worked with the daughter to obtain
information about the suspect and interior.
OPD evacuated the other three apartment units. OPD made announcements for the suspect to exit
the residence or make contact, but received no response from the suspect. A blue alert was made at
2102 hours.
Antioch PD obtained a search warrant for the residence.
OPDs tactical team responded and established an ERT. At 2307 hours, the hostage advised she was
going to self-rescue by running out the door because the suspect was nodding off from drinking and
using heroin. The hostage fled the residence and was safely secured by the ERT. The door to the
residence was left open and the suspect was taken into custody.
Antioch PD responded to the scene and took custody of McGee. The FBI also responded.
I was the initial incident commander and then became the tactical commander after Capt. Toribio
responded and became the incident commander.
Lt. Wehrly was on scene as an assistant tactical commander, but also evaluated the case for CID.
OPD is completing a report for 211/212.5/236 PC. Lt. Wehrly will coordinate with Antioch PD and
the FBI. Antioch PD will be conducting the initial interview and the FBI might handle the entire case
(decision pending until next week).
Lt. Shannon
BFO 2 Watch Commander
From: Henry, James

Sent: Saturday, May 16, 2015 11:28 PM
To: DL - OPD Executive Notifications; DL - OPD Watch Supervisor; Hamilton, Freddie; Encinias, Jill;
Armstrong, Leronne
Subject: UPDATE: Robbery suspect
Good evening,
This is an update regarding incident 150516000755. A suspect has been detained. A security
search of the residence was conducted and deemed secure.
The inner and outer perimeters have begun to demobilize.
A/Sgt. James Henry 8113

Oakland Police Department
Communications Section
510-777-8801
Good evening,
This is an update regarding incident 150516000755. Some neighbors in the area have been
relocated for their safety. A Tactical Team Call Out has been authorized. The BLUE
ALERT message has been sent.

510-777-8801
Good evening,
On May 16, 2015, at approximately 1841 hours the Oakland Police Department
Communications Section received notice that California Highway Patrol units, along with
their helicopter, were in a vehicle pursuit of a 211PC armed suspect and that the pursuit was
entering Oakland. Initial reports indicate that the pursuit originated in the City of Antioch
and that the suspect was armed with a handgun.
It appears that the pursuit ended in the area of 105th Ave and Topanga Drive. The suspect
fled on foot into possibly a nearby apartment building. A perimeter has been established.
Oakland Police field units are assisting with the incident. Updates in regards to this incident
will be forthcoming.
Incident number: 150516000755 BFO2/Area5/Beat 31z

510-777-8801
News from: Oakland Police Department

For Immediate Release
May 6, 2015
Suspect Arrested and Charged in Double Homicide

Oakland, CA Oakland Police Department homicide investigators worked with
the Alameda County District Attorneys Office in charging Carlton Broussard, 29,
with two counts of murder for the double homicide of Marcus Sims, 29, and
Donald Ray Ward Jr., 22. Broussard is one of several suspected gunmen in the
shooting of Sims and Ward. Investigators continue to identify other persons of
interest in the case.
Media Contact:
Officer Johnna Watson
Officer Frank Bonifacio
Media Relations Office
510-238-7230
opdmedia@oaklandnet.com
OPD homicide investigators worked with the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which
assisted in the March 21, 2015 arrest of
Broussard in Middleburg, Florida. He was
recently extradited to California.
Besides the murder counts, Broussard is charged
with an armed robbery committed with two
others on January 25, 2015 in Brentwood.
Background: On January 20, 2015, at about 5:25
PM Marcus Sims and Donald Ray Ward Jr. were
shot and killed as they sat in a parked van in the 1600 block of 10th Street.
Nixle Tip Watch allows ANONYMOUS tipsters to send OPD a tip three ways:
1. Text TIP OAKLANDPD to 888777 from your cell phone followed by your
tip
2. Call our toll-free tip hotline at 855-TIPS-247 (855-847-7247)
3. Submit a tip by web form - see the option at the bottom of OPD's Nixle
messages or visit http://nixle.us/tip/oakland-police-department-ca/ to
complete and send.
Anonymous Tipping allows residents to proactively connect with the Oakland
Police Department by submitting anonymous tips via web form and text message.
Additionally, with the issuance of a tipping passcode to tipsters, we can initiate a
two-way, anonymous communication to help gather more information.
For more information, please contact the Media Relations Office at 510-238-7230
or opdmedia@oaklandnet.com.
Visit Nixle.com to receive Oakland Police Department alerts, advisories and
community messages, or follow OPD on Twitter, @oaklandpoliceca.
# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 6, 2014
Oakland Police Department Launches Ceasefire Web

Page
Oakland, CA On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 the Oakland Police Department
launched a new Ceasefire page on the Departments website.
(http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/OPD/s/Ceasefire/index.htm).
Media Contact:
510-238-7230
Ceasefire is the Oakland Police Departments violence reduction strategy.

Implemented in partnership with community members, faith leaders, and service
providers, Ceasefire seeks to reduce homicides and shootings by using intelligence
to identify groups and individuals involved in crime so that we can direct our
collective attention on them. Intervening in the lives of those most at risk and
offering alternatives toward a healthy future is a vital element of the Ceasefire
strategy.
Once identified as being involved in or at risk for violence, individuals and/or
groups are offered resources and encouragement to choose a different path but also
warned that violence will result in arrest and prosecution. Ceasefire is a fair,
ethical, and effective violence intervention strategy that has been successfully
implemented in other U.S. cities.
Go to the webpage and learn more about Ceasefire Oakland, including:
How Ceasefire Oakland's goals are being met
The partnership aspect of Ceasefire Oakland
How Ceasefire Oakland communicates with gangs/groups involved in
violent behavior
Evidence that the Ceasefire strategy actually works
Procedural justice and police legitimacy training
Services and support
Media links
Nixle Tip Watch allows tipsters to send OPD a tip three ways:
1. Text TIP OAKLANDPD to 888777 from your cell phone
3. Respond to OPD's Nixle messages
# # #
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Oakland Police Department CA

Kalb, Dan
Community Message: Oakland Police Department Launches Ceasefire Web Page
Wednesday, May 06, 2015 7:01:19 PM
Message sent via Nixle | Go to nixle.com | Unsubscribe

Wednesday May 6, 2015, 6:57 PM
Community: Oakland Police Department Launches

Ceasefire Web Page
Dear Nixle User,
Oakland Police Department Launches Ceasefire Web Page
Oakland, CA On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 the Oakland Police Department
launched a new Ceasefire page on the Departments website.
Ceasefire is the Oakland Police Departments violence reduction strategy.
Implemented in partnership with community members, faith leaders, and
service providers, Ceasefire seeks to reduce homicides and shootings by
using intelligence to identify groups and individuals involved in crime so that
we can direct our collective attention on them. Intervening in the lives of those
most at risk and offering alternatives toward a healthy future is a vital element
of the Ceasefire strategy.
Once identified as being involved in or at risk for violence, individuals and/or
groups are offered resources and encouragement to choose a different path
but also warned that violence will result in arrest and prosecution. Ceasefire is
a fair, ethical, and effective violence intervention strategy that has been
successfully implemented in other U.S. cities.
How Ceasefire Oakland communicates with gangs/groups involved in violent
behavior

Media links
For more information, please contact the Media Relations Office at 510-2387230 or opdmedia@oaklandnet.com.
###
For full details, view this message on the web.
TEXT-A-TIP
TextTIP OAKLANDPD followed by your message, to888777 or Submit an
anonymous web tip
For help, reply HELP to 888777. To cancel, reply STOP to 888777. No charge but Message & Data rates may apply. 2
messages. More info at nixle.com. AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon Wireless and most other carriers are supported.
Contact customer support at support@nixle.com.
Sent by Oakland Police Department CA

455 7th St, Oakland, CA 94607
To manage your email settings, click here. To update your account settings, login here.
If you prefer not to receive future emails, unsubscribe here.
Powered by
. 2015 Nixle, LLC. All rights reserved.
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Kalb, Dan
Community Message: Suspect Arrested and Charged in Double Homicide

Wednesday May 6, 2015, 6:21 PM
Community: Suspect Arrested and

Charged in Double Homicide
Dear Nixle User,
Oakland, CA Oakland Police Department
homicide investigators worked with the Alameda
County District Attorneys Office in charging Carlton
Broussard, 29, with two counts of murder for the
double homicide of Marcus Sims, 29, and Donald
Ray Ward Jr., 22. Broussard is one of several
suspected gunmen in the shooting of Sims and
Ward. Investigators continue to identify other
persons of interest in the case.
OPD homicide investigators worked with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which
assisted in the March 21, 2015 arrest of Broussard
in Middleburg, Florida. He was recently extradited
to California.
Besides the murder counts, Broussard is charged
with an armed robbery committed with two others
on January 25, 2015 in Brentwood.
Background: On January 20, 2015, at about 5:25
PM Marcus Sims and Donald Ray Ward Jr. were
shot and killed as they sat in a parked van in the
1600 block of 10th Street.
Nixle Tip Watch allows ANONYMOUS tipsters to

send OPD a tip three ways:
1. Text TIP OAKLANDPD to 888777 from your cell
phone followed by your tip
2. Call our toll-free tip hotline at 855-TIPS-247
(855-847-7247)
3. Submit a tip by web form - see the option at the
bottom of OPD's Nixle messages or visit
http://nixle.us/tip/oakland-police-department-ca/ to
complete and send.
Anonymous Tipping allows residents to proactively
connect with the Oakland Police Department by
submitting anonymous tips via web form and text
message. Additionally, with the issuance of a
tipping passcode to tipsters, we can initiate a twoway, anonymous communication to help gather
more information.
For more information, please contact the Media
Relations Office at 510-238-7230 or
opdmedia@oaklandnet.com.
Visit Nixle.com to receive Oakland Police
Department alerts, advisories and community
messages, or follow OPD on Twitter,
@oaklandpoliceca.
##
TEXT-A-TIP
anonymous web tip

Powered by
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:

Kalb, Dan
Community Message: The Oakland Police Department and partnering law enforcement agencies serve search
warrants
Thursday, March 05, 2015 9:56:58 AM

Thursday March 5, 2015, 9:53 AM
Community: The Oakland Police Department and

partnering law enforcement agencies serve search
warrants
Dear Nixle User,
This morning, March 5, 2015, the Oakland Police Department and partnering
law enforcement agencies served search and arrest warrants within our city.
The search and arrest warrants were safely conducted.
Our outreach and explanation on social media is to advise and inform our
community of this mornings events. Our goal is to inform the community as
we work together making our city safer.
The circumstances surrounding these warrants pertain to open and active
investigations, and only limited information can be shared at this time.
TEXT-A-TIP
anonymous web tip

Powered by
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Stoffmacher, Bruce
Luby, Oliver
FBI Build-Out Report
Friday, May 15, 2015 3:43:55 PM
https://oakland.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2287624&GUID=B4865125-298F-43559EA3-CA7D22BA471D&Options=&Search=
Oliver, pls let me know if you/Dan have any questions, concerns. Happy to meet.
Bruce
Bruce Stoffmacher
Management Assistant

Office of the Chief / Research & Planning
455 7 th Street, 7 th Floor

(510) 238-6976
bstoffmacher@oaklandnet.com
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Luby, Oliver
Harris, Monica
FW: constituent seeking more info about CEASEFIRE
Thursday, March 19, 2015 5:30:00 PM
Dan has written some overviews of what he is doing to address crime, but the should probably be
updated to reflect the latest information. After checking Dans Sent box to see if an email was ever
sent to her, can you get back to Joanne and apologize for the delay?
From: District 1 Intern

Sent: Friday, August 09, 2013 3:37 PM
To: Luby, Oliver
Subject: constituent seeking more info about CEASEFIRE
Hey Oliver!
Joanne Lafler (senior citizen) lives on
. She would like to know more
about CEASEFIRE and what exactly Dan is doing to prevent further crime. She is concerned about
violence in Oakland as a whole.
Her phone # (510)
Email Jwlafler@ix.netcom.com
She says communicating with her via e-mail would be great.

Thanks!
Natali
MEETING OF THE VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND PUBLIC SAFETY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

(MYOC)
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY AND SERVICES OVERSIGHT COMMISSION (SSOC)
JOINT MEETING OF THE MYOC AND SSOC
Monday, May 18, 2015
6:00-9:00 p.m. Council Chambers 3rd Floor
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, City Hall Oakland, California 94612
MYOC Members: Chair Jos Dorado, Qaid Aqeel, Vice Chair Peter Barnett, Jamila Edwards Brooks,
Ryan Hunter, Kisha Jackson, Lanenna Joiner, Melanie Shelby, Mara Velez, Lirio Zepeda.
SSOC Members: Chair Rev. Curtis Flemming Sr., Vice Chair Jennifer Madden, Rebecca Alvarado,
Letitia Henderson, Tony Marks-Block, Kevin McPherson, Jody Nunez, Gary Malachi Scott, Melanie
Shelby.
PUBLIC COMMENT: The Oversight Committee welcomes you to its meetings and your interest is appreciated.
If you wish to speak before the Oversight Committee, please fill out a speaker card and hand it to
Staff of the Oversight Committee.
If you wish to speak on a matter not on the agenda, please sign up for Open Forum and wait for your name
to be called.
If you wish to speak on a matter on the agenda, please approach the Committee when called, give your
name, and your comments.
Please be brief and limit your comments to the specific subject under discussion. Only matters within the Oversight
Committees jurisdictions may be addressed. Time limitations shall be at the discretion of the Chair.
ITEM
TIME
TYPE
ATTACHMENTS
Joint MYOC and SSOC Meeting

1. Call to Order SSOC and MYOC Joint
Meeting
2. Roll Call SSOC and MYOC
6PM
AD
2 Minutes
AD
3. Agenda Approval
2 Minutes
4. Coordinators Announcements
a. Recusals Update
b. Online Tools for SSOC
c. MYOC Upcoming Agendas
5. Open Forum
4 Minutes
10 Minutes
AD
6. MYOC Ad Hoc Committee Update (RE:

Transition information to SSOC)
15 Minutes
I/A
7. Measure Y Evaluator Presentation about

Oakland Unite Outcomes and Update on
Current Evaluation Scope
20 Minutes
Attachment 1
(will be available at meeting)
Attachment 2
Attachment 3
ITEM
TIME
TYPE
ATTACHMENTS
Measure Y Oversight Committee Meeting

1. Call to Order
AD
2. Agenda Approval
2 Minutes
3. Approval of Minutes
MYOC February 9, 2015
MYOC Special Meeting April 22, 2015
4. MYOC Agenda Building
3 Minutes
5 Minutes
AD
5. MYOC Quarterly Report to Public Safety

Committee
5 Minutes
Attachment 4
Attachment 5
Safety and Services Oversight Committee Meeting

1. Call to Order
AD
2. Agenda Approval SSOC
2 Minutes
3. SSOC Bylaws Discussion
5 Minutes
4. Approval of Minutes
SSOC April 27, 2015
3 Minutes
5. Follow-up Discussion on the 6-month / 3month HSD program extensions

(Transition to Measure Z Funding)
15 Minutes
6. Three-year Priority Spending Plan

Human Services Dept (HSD)
10 Minutes

Oakland Fire Department (OFD)
5 Minutes

Oakland Police Department (OPD)
15 Minutes
9. SSOC Report to Public Safety Committee
5 Minutes
10. Agenda Building
5 Minutes
A = Action Item
Attachment 6
Attachment 7
I/A
Attachment 8
Attachment 8A
Attachment 8B
Attachment 8C
Attachment 8D
I/A
Attachment 9
Attachment 9A
Attachment 9B
I/A
Attachment 10
I/A
Attachment 11
Attachment 11A
Attachment 11B
I = Informational Item
AD = Administrative Item
ATTACHMENT 2
OAKLAND UNITE:
SUMMARY OF EVALUATION FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
May 18, 2015
Patricia Marrone Bennett, PhD
Mikaela Rabinowitz, PhD
Agenda
Overview of Measure Z and Oakland Unite
Legislation and programming structure
Evaluation Findings
Successes and Challenges in Evolution and Implementation in
Measure Y Violence Prevention Programs
Recommendations
Recommendations for addressing program challenges,
leveraging best practices in Measure Z
Questions
4
Measure Z/Oakland Unite

Overview
Measure Z Violence Prevention Programs
Oaklands voter-approved Measure Z provides ~$7-8

million annually to community-based violence prevention
efforts to:
Reduce homicides, robberies, burglaries, and gun-related
violence; and
Invest in violence intervention and prevention strategies that
provide support for at-risk youth and youth adults to
interrupt the cycle of violence and recidivism.
Suggested strategies include:

Street outreach and case management for young people at
high risk of involvement in violence;
Crisis response, advocacy and case management for victims;
Reentry programs for youth and young adults; and
Services for young children exposed to trauma and violence
Oakland Unite
The Human Services Department (HSD) implements

these efforts via the Oakland Unite (OU) violence
prevention programs (VPPs)
HSD, in consultation with the Measure Z Oversight
Committee and City Councils Public Safety
Committee,
Develops
triennial funding strategies for services that

align with legislation and meet Citys shifting needs
Administers and monitors grants to community
organizations to provide services
7
Evaluation Overview
Qualitative data collection
Interviews and focus groups with clients
Interviews and focus groups with providers
Interviews with partners
Quantitative data collection
Service receipt
Client surveys
School outcomes
Justice-system outcomes
Evaluation Findings
Key Findings: Clients have consistently

demonstrated reduced recidivism
10
Key Findings: Target Population

Move to higher-risk
population
Many clients still low risk
More clients with

justice-system
involvement
Older clients
More men and boys
Approx. half of clients

in recidivism-reduction
programs have an
active/recent justice
system involvement
Several programs
provide universal
intervention that is less
targeted
11
Key Findings: Target Population
12
Key Findings: Service Delivery

Infrastructure
Limited Collaborative
Case Planning
Strong Partnerships
Partnerships
between HSD and
Probation, OPD,
County Agencies
Internal
partnerships
between providers
Collaborative case
planning only in
certain
strategy/program
areas
13
Key Findings: Service Delivery

Infrastructure
There are good structures built around doing the work and
trying meet the needs of the kidseach public system entity
gets better the more we find places our work intersects.
(Curtiss Sarikey, OUSD)
Communication from the hospital to the street [is] so
powerful on both endsits a true intervention. (Stefania
Kaplanes, Highland Hospital)
The relationship between DHS and HCSA has a long and
strong tradition of collaboration, and that collaborative
culture is one of the strengths of Measure Y. (Alex Briscoe,
ACHCSA)
14
Key Findings: Direct Service Provision

Committed service
providers with strong
community links
Many providers have

limited training
Providers form strong

relationships with clients
Many providers have
lived experiences that
reflect those of their
clients
Limited use of EBPs

Inconsistent
understanding of
trauma-informed care
No use of validated
criminogenic assessments
Difficulty linking clients
to services
15

Growing up, I didnt have my mom, my pops, and I
turned to the street. When I saw that they wasnt there

for me, I went to this program and they filled that family
void for me that wasnt there.
I thought Id come and not want to be here, not want to
talk; I thought people werent really going understand

who I was, why I did stuff, theyd be judgmental and they
really arent. And they care. You dont wonder if they
care with anyone who works with these organizations. You
know that they care.
16

My case manager, she like the general, she gather a
team that was just for me I really had an advocate a

voice that made such a difference, that I had all of that
behind me, things I couldnt articulate, and things I didnt
know I needed, certain things the judge order, I wouldnt
know where to get this counseling or do this community
service. She like a navigation system to get it together in
bad weather.
17
Employment Services
Difficult for clients to
transition to unsubsidized
employment
Integration of hard and

soft skills
Paid employment
training opportunities
Variety of soft-skill
support
Weak links to
employers
Lack of certification
programs
Absence of links to
apprenticeships
18
Key Findings: Employment Services

I learned how to respect others, like greeting people. I
can also say that this program helped me with my

references, my cover letter, that sort of thing. Now I can
fill out a whole job application. It bettered me for a lot
of things.
They were putting people back into the routine of
getting up in the morning, utilizing your time, taking
advantage of the opportunities in front of you. It really
tries to put people back in motion and get people mobile
with their time.
19
Recommendations for program

improvement
20
Overview of recommendations
Shortterm
Provide or fund training in

evidence-based and promising
practices
Increase collaboration with
existing partners
Longterm
Build new partnerships to

improve service delivery
infrastructure
Focus on job development
21
Recommendations: Target Population
More explicitly define the target populations

Victims/family
members
Potential perpetrators
If
high risk, define risk

Use a validated tool
Determine how important prior involvement in violence is
Tailor service delivery model to target population
22
Recommendations: Partnerships
Formalize partnerships with ACPD, ACSO

Consider funding positions on-site at ACPD and Santa Rita
Jail to support coordinated case planning
Improve data sharing so CBOs have access to crimogenic
assessments
Partner with Workforce Development, local businesses,

and community colleges to identify job growth
opportunities and align employment programs
Collaborate with County realignment efforts to
leverage resources
23
Recommendations: Service Delivery
Require use of evidence-based or promising

practices
Motivational
interviewing
Validated assessment tools
Provide or fund training for CBOs

Trauma
informed care
Evidence based practices
24
Recommendations: Case Management
Identify established case management models for

use
Caseloads
Service
delivery approach
Participate in collaborative case planning with key

partners
All
clients should have a single case plan across

different services
Family-centered case planning for youth clients

25
Recommendations: Employment
Services
Focus on job placement in addition to skill

development
Job
coaching and job search help

Ongoing employment retention support
Identify, create, incentive jobs

Identify
businesses and industries willing to hire

individuals with felony convictions
Create incentives for hiring hard-to-employ populations
Support non-transitional subsidized employment
26
Questions?
Patricia Marrone Bennett, PhD
pbennett@resourcedevelopment.net
510.488.4345 x105
Mikaela Rabinowitz, PhD
mrabinowitz@resourcedevelopment.net
510.488.4345 x114
27
ATTACHMENT 3
Oakland Unite
Violence Prevention Programs
Retrospective Evaluation: 2005-2013
Prepared by:
Resource Development Associates
December 2014
28
December 2014 | 0

This page left intentionally blank.
29
City of Oakland Human Services Department

Oakland Unite Programs

Table of Contents
Summary of Abbreviations and Acronyms .................................................................................................. 2
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 3
I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 6
II. Methodology ........................................................................................................................................ 9
III.
Findings ............................................................................................................................................. 18
A. Evolution of Oakland Unite Service Delivery Model ...................................................................... 18

B. Criminal Justice Involvement of Oakland Unite Clients .................................................................. 30
IV. Conclusions ....................................................................................................................................... 48
30
December 2014 | 1

Summary of Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation
ACHCSA
ACPD
BAWAR
CDCR
CiC
CRSN
CSEC
EBAYC
HSD
JJC
JJC/OUSD
MISSSEY
OPD
OSO
OU
OUSD
RDA
RJOY
SPA
VPN
VPP
YEP
YU
Definition
Alameda County Health Care Services Agency
Alameda County Probation Department
Bay Area Women Against Rape
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
Caught in the Crossfire
Crisis Response and Support Network
Outreach to Commercially Sexually Exploited Minors
East Bay Asian Youth Center
Juvenile Justice Center
Juvenile Justice Center/Oakland Unified School District Wraparound Services
Motivating, Inspiring, Supporting and Serving Sexually Exploited Youth
Oakland Street Outreach
Oakland Unite
Oakland Unified School District
Resource Development Associates
Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth
Safe Place Alternative
Violence Prevention Networks
Violence Prevention Programs
Youth Employment Partnership
Youth UpRising
31
December 2014 | 2


Executive Summary
Background and Context
The City of Oaklands Measure Y ordinance provides approximately $6 million annually for the City to
spend on violence prevention programs (VPP), with an emphasis on services for youth and children. The
four service areas identified in the legislation and funded via Measure Y include: 1) youth outreach
counselors; 2) after and in-school programs for youth and children; 3) domestic violence and child abuse
counselors; and 4) offender/parolee employment training.
The Citys Human Services Department (HSD) is responsible for implementing the VPP component of the
Measure Y legislation, which it does through the Oakland Unite programs. In consultation with the
Measure Y Oversight Committee and the City Councils Public Safety Committee, HSD develops triennial
funding strategies that align with the services delineated in the legislation and that meet the shifting
needs of the City of Oakland. HSD then administers and monitors grants to community-based
organizations and public agencies that provide these services across the City.
Since 2008, the City of Oakland has contracted with Resource Development Associates (RDA) to evaluate
various components of Measure Y, including the Oakland Unite Violence Prevention Programs. Over the
past six years, these evaluations have taken a variety of approaches to assessing the implementation
and effectiveness of Oakland Unite, collecting a range of qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate
individual programs, funding strategies, and the initiative as a whole.
This report integrates these approaches to provide a retrospective analysis of Oakland Unite, with a
focus on the programs and strategies that directly address crime and violence, from the initiatives
inception in 2005 through Fiscal Year 2012-2013. In particular, the evaluation examines:
How the Oakland Unite service model has changed over time, including target population,
service array, and service dosage;
How participants justice system involvement changes after participation in Oakland Unite
programs; and
How participants post-service justice system contact has changed over the course of the
initiative.
Methodology
This evaluation uses a mixed methods approach to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of
the Oakland Unite initiative and of specific Oakland Unite strategies from the inception of the initiative
through the end of the most recent funding cycle.
Qualitative Data
Qualitative data collection activitiesincluding interviews and focus groups with Oakland Unite
leadership, service providers and participants, as well as external stakeholders from a variety of City of
32
December 2014 | 3


Oakland and Alameda County agenciesprovided context for understanding the evolution of the
Oakland Unite initiative, the changes to the initiatives service delivery model over time, and the
changes in client outcomes that are evident in the quantitative data analysis.
The evaluation team interviewed leaders from agencies and organizations across the City of Oakland
and Alameda County, as well as national violence prevention experts. These interviews, which were
conducted in 2013, provided high-level perspective about the successes of the initiative over the past
eight years, as well as challenges it has overcome and others it continues to face. To explore changes,
successes, and challenges at the strategy level, the evaluation team also conducted more than 40
interviews and focus groups with service providers and clients.
Quantitative Data
The evaluation team analyzed client-level data from the Oakland HSDs CitySpan data system, which
were then matched to justice system records from three sources: the Alameda County Probation
Departments (ACPD) Juvenile Division, ACPDs Adult Division, and the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR).
Key Findings
A. Evolution of Oakland Unite Service Delivery Model
Oakland Unite has refined its service delivery model to serve a higher risk population. Oakland Unite
used data to target its programs to individuals who are at higher risk for justice system involvement. As
a result, over time, Oakland Unite served older clients; a greater proportion of men and boys compared
to women and girls; and a greater proportion of clients with histories of justice system involvement.
Funding strategies have also evolved to reflect a better understanding of the Citys changing needs,
including a greater emphasis on intervention rather than prevention. Over the years, Oakland Unite has
shifted its funding strategiesincluding the addition or discontinuation of some strategies, as well as
modifications to funding levelsto give more emphasis to Street Outreach and Crisis Response services,
and services for Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC), as compared to strategies targeting
young children and after-school programs.
Over time, Oakland Unite has built a coordinated infrastructure for delivering high-quality services.
Despite limited service coordination when the HSD began implementing Measure Y in 2005, Oakland
Unite has helped build a broad and integrated network of violence prevention services. This network
involves extensive collaboration between various Oakland Unite providers as well as between Oakland
Unite providers and other public and private partners, including the Oakland Unified School District
(OUSD), Alameda County Behavioral Health Care Services Agency (BHCS), CeaseFire, the Oakland Police
Department (OPD), and more. This coordination enables Oakland Unite and its partners to provide
needed services efficiently and without duplication.
33
December 2014 | 4


B. Criminal Justice Involvement of Oakland Unite Clients
Oakland Unite participants had reduced criminal justice involvement after participating in Oakland
Unite programs. Participants were less likely to be arrested or convicted of any new offenseeither
violent or non-violentafter participating in an Oakland Unite program, with particularly striking
decreases in the percentage of clients arrested or convicted for violent offenses. This is true when
looking at Oakland Unite as a whole, as well as for individual strategies, especially the strategy serving
Commercially Sexually Exploited Children, the Juvenile Justice Center/Oakland Unified School District
(JJC/OUSD) Wraparound Services, and Oakland Street Outreach (OSO).
Oakland Unite programs have served increasingly high risk clients while achieving progressively lower
rates of recidivism, indicating increased effectiveness over time. The percentage of Oakland Unite
participants who were arrested for or convicted of a new crime after participating in Oakland Unite
progressively decreased over time for both violent and non-violent offenses. Oakland Unite clients have
shown progressively lower post-service arrest and conviction rates, even as the initiative has targeted
increasingly high-risk, more justice-involved clients. Put together, this has meant that the gap between
clients pre-Oakland Unite justice system involvement and their post-Oakland Unite justice system
involvement has grown.
Conclusion
The retrospective analysis of Oakland Unite has shown that over time, Oakland Unite has refined its
service delivery model and funding strategies to meet Oaklands changing needs within the parameters
of Measure Y legislation. Participants in Oakland Unite programs from 2005 to 2013 demonstrated
progressively decreasing post-program arrest and conviction rates, even while Oakland Unite shifted to
serve individuals with higher pre-program arrest rates, suggesting that Oakland Unite programming has
continually improved over time.

34
December 2014 | 5

I.
Introduction
Oakland Unite Background and Overview

In 2004, Oakland voters passed Measure Y, The Violence Prevention and Public Safety Act of 2004,
which levied a parcel and parking tax on Oakland residents in order to support citywide public safety
services, including the Oakland Police Departments Community Policing Neighborhood Services
program, the Oakland Fire Department, and a series of Violence Prevention Programs (VPP). This report
is an evaluation of the VPP component of Measure Y, or Oakland Unite, which is funded at
approximately $6 million annually.
The legislation describing the VPPs purpose and reach is as follows:
Violence Prevention Services With an Emphasis on Youth and Children:
Expand preventive social services provided by the City of Oakland, or by adding capacity to
community-based nonprofit programs with demonstrated past success, for the following
objectives:
a. Youth outreach counselors: Hire and train personnel who will reach out, counsel and
mentor at-risk adolescents and young adults by providing services, and presenting
employment opportunities.
b. After and in-school program for youth and children: Expand existing City programs
and City-supported programs that provide recreational, academic tutoring and
mentoring opportunities for at-risk adolescents and children during after school
hours; expand truancy enforcement programs to keep kids in school.
c. Domestic violence and child abuse counselors: Make available counselors who will
team with police and the criminal justice system to assist victims of domestic
violence or child prostitution and to find services that help to avoid repeat abuse
situations; expand early childhood intervention programs for children exposed to
violence in the home at an early age.
d. Offender/parolee employment training: Provide parolee pre-release employment
skills training and provide employers with wage incentives to hire and train young
offenders or parolees.
The Citys Human Services Department (HSD) is responsible for implementing the VPP component of the
Measure Y legislation, which it does through the Oakland Unite programs. In consultation with the
Measure Y Oversight Committee and the City Councils Public Safety Committee, HSD develops triennial
funding strategies that align with the services delineated in the legislation and that meet the shifting
needs of the City of Oakland. HSD then administers and monitors grants to community-based
organizations and public agencies that provide these services across the City.
35
December 2014 | 6


Because of this three year funding and implementation cycle, the specific strategy areas funded though
Oakland Unite have evolved over time. Figure 1 shows the strategies that were funded during the
initiatves most recent funding cycle.

Figure 1. Strategy Areas Supporting M easure Y Mandates

Legislation
Youth Outreach
Counselors
Ajer- and In-School

Programs
Domeshc Violence
and Child Abuse
Oender/Parolee
Employment Training
Implementation
Juvenile Jushce Center/Oakland Unied School District
Wraparound
Highland Hospital Intervenhon
Restorahve Jushce
Gang Prevenhon
OUR KIDS Middle School
Family Violence Intervenhon Unit
Outreach to Commercially Sexually Exploited Children
Mental Health Services for Ages 0-5
Reentry Employment
Youth Employment
Project Choice

Consistent with the Measure Y legislation, Oakland Unite programs are designed to comprehensively
address the risk factors associated with violence in Oakland. Oaklands effort is built on the premises
that violence can be reduced and prevented through:
Individual interventions to redirect high-risk clients toward education, career, and pro-social
peer opportunities;
Systems change efforts that lead to improved public safety at the school or community level;
Improved capacity to identify and engage high-risk populations; and/or
Improved coordination across systems.
Among the key characteristics of Oakland Unite programs are:
Oakland Unite strategy areas include a diversity of programs that share either a common target
population (e.g. young adults on probation or parole) or a common intervention (e.g. school
placement and case management).
Oakland Unite programs target populations at risk for perpetrating, falling victim to, or
experiencing negative consequences resulting from exposure to violencefrom young children
36
December 2014 | 7


exposed to violence in the home or neighborhood, to sexually-exploited minors, to individuals
on probation or parole.
Because Oakland Unite supports a comprehensive array of programs and services with a diversity of
interventions and target populations, there is no single overarching outcome that all programs aim to
achieve. Nonetheless, the public and other stakeholders have high expectations for Oakland Unite to
help reduce crime and violence in Oakland. Due to the strong interest in understanding whether and to
what extent Oakland Unite has helped reduce crime and violence in particular, this report focuses on
those programs and strategies that work with individuals who are most directly at risk for becoming
perpetrators of crime. Those programs and strategies that provide services that are either aimed toward
the victims of crimesuch as the Family Violence Intervention Unit, which works with survivors of
domestic violenceor that are intended as long-term crime prevention strategiessuch as Mental
Health Services for Children Ages 0-5, which works with young children who have been exposed to
violence and their caregiversare not included in this report. Additional details about which clients and
strategies are included from this report appear in the Methodology section below.
The Oakland Unite Evaluation

Since 2008, the City of Oakland has contracted with Resource Development Associates (RDA) to evaluate
components of Measure Y, including the Oakland Unite Violence Prevention Programs. Over the past six
years, these evaluations have taken a variety of approaches to assessing the implementation and
effectiveness of Oakland Unite, collecting a range of qualitative and quantitative data to evaluate
individual programs, funding strategies, and the initiative as a whole.1
This report integrates these approaches to provide a retrospective analysis of Oakland Unite, from the
initiatives inception in 2005 through Fiscal Year 2012-2013, with a focus on programs and strategies
that directly address crime and violence. In particular, the evaluation:
Examines how the Oakland Unite service model changed over time, including its target
population, service array, and service dosage;
Assess whether and to what extent Oakland Unite participants demonstrate reduced criminal
and/or juvenile justice involvement following their participation Oakland Unite programs and
strategies; and
Assesses whether and to what extent Oakland Unite participants post-service recidivism rates
changed as the initiatives service delivery model evolved over time.
Past Oakland Unite evaluations can been seen online at OaklandUnite.org
37
December 2014 | 8


II.
Methodology
This evaluation uses a mixed methods approach to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of
the Oakland Unite initiative and of specific Oakland Unite strategies from the inception of the initiative
through the end of the most recent funding cycle. To do so, this report draws on interviews and focus
groups with Oakland Unite leadership, service providers (programs) and participants (clients), as
well as external stakeholders from a variety of City of Oakland and Alameda County agencies. In
addition, this report draws on eight years of data about Oakland Unite clients, including their service
history and demographic profiles, and more than 15 years of data from the Alameda County Probation
Department (ACPD) and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). Further
details of data collection and analysis follow.
Qualitative Data
To learn about the Oakland Unite initiative as a whole, the evaluation team interviewed leaders from
agencies and organizations across the City of Oakland and Alameda County, as well as national violence
prevention experts. These interviews, which were conducted in 2013, provided high-level perspective
about the successes of the initiative over the past eight years, as well as challenges it has overcome and
others it continues to face. Table 1 presents a list of all leaders interviewed for the evaluation.
Table 1. City and County Leaders Interviewed
Name
Position/Affiliation
Sara Bedford
Interim Director, City of Oakland Human Services Department (HSD)
Shay Bilchik
Director, Center for Juvenile Justice Reform, Georgetown University
Alex Briscoe
Director, Alameda County Health Care Services Agency
Dyanna Christie
Violence Prevention Planner, Oakland Unite Programs, City of

Oakland HSD
Kevin Grant
Violence Prevention Networks Coordinator, City of Oakland HSD
Mark Henderson
Program Analyst II, City of Oakland HSD

(Former Interim Manager, Oakland Unite Programs)
Josie Halpern-Finnerty Program Planner, Oakland Unite Programs, City of Oakland HSD
Reygan Harmon
Interim Ceasefire Project Manager & Senior Policy Advisor to the

Mayor, Oakland Police Department & Office of the Mayor
Priya Jagannathan
Program Planner, City of Oakland HSD

(Former Interim Manager, Oakland Unite Programs)
Stefania Kaplanes
Community Injury Prevention Coordinator, Trauma Services,

Alameda County Medical Center
38
December 2014 | 9

David Muhammad
Former Chief Probation Officer, Alameda County Probation

Department
(Former Executive Director, The Mentoring Center)
Nancy OMalley
Alameda County District Attorney
Curtiss Sarikey
Associate Superintendent for Family, School and Community

Partnerships, Oakland Unified School District
Dan Simmons
Reentry Program Analyst, City of Oakland HSD
Capt. Anthony Toribio
Captain of Police, Oakland Police Department
To learn about changes, successes, and challenges at the strategy level, the evaluation team conducted
more than 40 interviews and focus groups with service providers and clients. Leadership, senior staff,
and case managers from all the funded providers participated in key informant interviews in which they
described the factors they believe make their programs effective and the barriers they encounter.
Following the interviews, the evaluation team held client focus groups to learn about clients
experiences with the services, including aspects that were especially helpful and areas for improvement.
Table 2 presents the strategies and providers that participated in staff interviews and/or client focus
groups for this evaluation.
Table 2. Strategies and Providers Participating in Interviews and Focus Groups
Strategy
Providers
Staff
Interview(s)
Client
Focus
Groups

(EBAYC)
Motivating, Inspiring, Supporting

and Serving Sexually Exploited
Youth (MISSSEY)
The Mentoring Center
OUSD Alternative Education
Youth ALIVE!
Youth UpRising (YU)

(OSO)
California Youth Outreach (CYO)
Healthy Oakland

(CiC)
Youth ALIVE!
Juvenile Justice Center/

Oakland Unified School
District Wraparound
Services (JJC/OUSD)
39
December 2014 | 10


Strategy
Providers
Staff
Interview(s)
Client
Focus
Groups
Restorative Justice2
Restorative Justice for Oakland

Youth (RJOY)
Gang Prevention
Oakland Unified School District

Alternative Education
Outreach to Commercially
Sexually Exploited
Children (CSEC)
Motivating, Inspiring, Supporting

and Serving Sexually Exploited
Youth (MISSSEY)

(BAWAR)
Civicorps
Volunteers of America Bay Area
Youth UpRising
The Unity Council
Youth Radio
Youth UpRising
Reentry Employment
Men of Valor Academy

3
Youth Employment
Project Choice
Each of the above qualitative data collection activities provides context for understanding the evolution
of the Oakland Unite initiative, the changes it has made to its service delivery model over time, and the
improvement in client outcomes that are evident both observationally and in the quantitative data
analysis.
Quantitative Data
The recidivism analysis in this report relies on data from the Oakland Unite programs and justice system
agencies. The evaluation team analyzed client-level service data from HSDs CitySpan data system, which
Oakland Unite providers use to track clients date of enrollment; hours of services provided; service type
(individual, group, or work hours); and client demographic information. These client-level records were

2
The evaluation team observed two Restorative Justice Circles instead of conducting a focus group with clients.
No clients from this program were available for a focus group.
4
No clients from this program were available for a focus group.
3
40
December 2014 | 11


matched to justice system records from three sources: the ACPDs Juvenile Division, ACPDs Adult
Division, and CDCR. Data from ACPDs Juvenile Division included information on all instances in which
youth were referred to the Probation Department for an alleged offense, as well as all instances in
which youth were adjudicated delinquent (found responsible) for an offense between 2005 and 2013.
Data from ACPDs Adult Division included information on all instances for which an individual was
referred to probation following a conviction. Data from CDCR included information on all instances in
which an individual was incarcerated in a CDCR institution for a criminal conviction, as well as all
instances in which an individual was accused of violating or found to have violated the conditions of
his/her parole. All three justice-system datasets included details on the date when any alleged offense
occurred and the statutory code for the offense itself.
CitySpan Data Cleaning Process
The CitySpan data were cleaned before analysis in order to remove data from clients who declined to
release their data for the evaluation5; clients of programs that do not record services in CitySpan or do
not directly serve clients at risk of recidivating; and data entry anomalies. The initial data pull from
CitySpan, of all clients served since Measure Ys passage, yielded more than 20,000 individuals records.
After removing all non-consented participants and participants with missing enrollment date or no
participation activity recordedsince these missing data fields precluded knowing when, how, or who
was serveda total of 12,459 entries remained.
Further, clients too young to commit crimes, or whose program model was otherwise inappropriate for
inclusion in a recidivism analysis, were removed. The excluded programs are Catholic Charities of the
East Bay; Family Justice Center/Family Violence Law Center; Mental Health Services for Children ages 0-
5; Bay Area Video Coalition; Sports4Kids; and Project Reconnect Parents. After these exclusions, 9,571
individuals remained. In addition, over the years as many as 25% of individuals participated in more than
one Oakland Unite program. The evaluators identified where these individuals had multiple records in
CitySpan and collapsed each duplicate into a single individuals record.
A total of 7,071 unique individuals remained who consented to share their data and had participated in
strategies targeting individuals high risk of involvement in violent crime. Descriptive data regarding this
group of participants is found in Findings Section A.
Figure 2. Clients Included in Descriptive Data
Clients in data set,
including those who
decline to share data
The present report focuses
on clients who consented
to share data and were
served by strategies
high-risk
targeting
individuals
The majority of programs obtained consent from the majority of their clients.
41
December 2014 | 12


Using the list of 7,071 clients, the evaluation team then matched those individuals to the justice system
data obtained from ACPD and CDCR.
CitySpan/Justice Data Match Process & Service Threshold
The evaluation team used individuals first, middle, and last names and dates of birth to match
Oakland Unite client records to the records of arrests and convictions in the justice system data. Being
able to match data to other service systems is a great success for Oakland Unite that indicates the
quality of its record keeping processes and makes possible more rigorous evaluation. It bears noting that
any data match process is imperfect and will miss some matches because of missing data or data entry
errors in one or both data sets. It is therefore likely that this evaluations match process returned some
false negatives: clients who did have contact with a justice system but are reported as having no
contact. For example, a client who was adjudicated in Contra Costa County would not be captured in the
match process; similarly, an individual whose name was misspelled might be missed. Such anomalies are
inherent to working across data systems and do not negate the value of analyzing matched data.
In the present evaluation, individuals who could not be matched to justice system data were excluded
from the analysis of arrest and conviction rates presented in Findings Section B. As a result, the number
of clients who are included in the descriptive data (7,071 individuals) is larger than the number in the
analysis of client recidivism rates in Findings Section B (3,566 individuals). Nonetheless, both numbers
are impressively large for a program evaluation.
Of the 3,566 individuals who matched to justice system data, one final group was excluded from the
recidivism analysis: clients who participated in too few hours of Oakland Unite services to expect their
outcomes to be affected. The threshold number of service hours was nine and one-half (9.5) hours for
all strategies except Oakland Street Outreach, for which it was five hours. The threshold for Street
Outreach is lower because its service model is not geared toward ongoing services. After excluding
individuals served below the threshold number of hours, there are 2,681 individuals who are included in
the arrest and conviction rate analysis.
Analyses
To assess how Oakland Unite VPP participant characteristics have changed over time, individuals were
assigned to one of four cohorts based on the date they started receiving services. Each of the cohorts is
comprised of individuals with start dates falling during a two-year fiscal year period: FY 2005-06 through
FY 2006-07 for Cohort 1; FY 2007-08 through FY 2008-09 for Cohort 2; FY 2009-10 through FY 2010-11
for Cohort 3; and FY2011-12 through FY2012-13 for Cohort 4. Cohort 1 includes fewer participants than
the others because enrollment in Oakland Unite programs was slow during the initial year of the
initiative while programs were becoming fully operational.

42
December 2014 | 13


Table 3. Cohort Time Periods and Clients Served
Cohort
Enrollment Dates Number of
Included
Identified
Clients (n=)
Cohort 1
FY 2005-2006*
986
FY 2006-2007
Cohort 2
FY 2007-2008
2,217
FY 2008-2009
Cohort 3
FY 2009-2010
1,903
FY 2010-2011
Cohort 4
FY 2011-2012
1,965
FY 2012-2013
All Cohorts
Total :
7,071
* Few enrollments due to passage date of Measure Y

Figure 3. Proportion of Total Oakland Unite Clients Served in Each Enrollment Cohort

Oakland Unite VPP strategies were also divided according to a set of groupings that represent a shared
focus in the service delivery model. The providers and programs that comprise each strategy grouping
are listed in Table 4.

43
December 2014 | 14


Table 4. Composition of Oakland Unite Service Strategies
Strategy Grouping
Funding Strategy
Youth Reentry and Employment
Juvenile Justice Center/Oakland Unified

School District Wraparound Services
Youth Employment
Adult Reentry and Employment
Young Adult Reentry

Project Choice
Other Youth Services
Community Initiative/Restorative
Justice for Oakland Youth
Gang Prevention
Leadership Excellence
Outreach to Commercially Sexually

Exploited Children
Street Outreach and Crisis Response Services
Commercially Sexually Exploited

Children (stand-alone strategy)
Recidivism Analysis
To assess the extent to which clients had decreasing justice system involvement following enrollment in
Oakland Unite VPPs, the evaluation team calculated the percentage of clients who were arrested and/or
convicted of a crime (or for juveniles, adjudicated delinquent) during the years prior and subsequent to
their enrollment date. For the five years before clients Oakland Unite start date, the evaluation team
examined justice data to determine whether or not the client had one or more arrests or convictions for
violent, nonviolent, and technical violations. Similarly, two years of justice system data after each
clients Oakland Unite start date were also examined in the same way. Note that these are not
analogous timeframes and that there were practical and methodological considerations involved in
using these pre-and post-service time periods. In particular, many Oakland Unite clients were
incarcerated for some period of time prior to enrolling in an Oakland Unite program, but the evaluation
was not able to obtain release dates for many of the individuals. Because of this limitation, we extended
our analysis of arrests and convictions to five years prior to program enrollment, in order to capture
more of the offenses that preceded (and led to) individuals incarcerations.
Figure 4. Seven Years of Justice Data Examined for Each Client
Up to 5 years
prior to
enrollment
Through 2
years ajer
enrollment

44
December 2014 | 15

The percentage of individuals with at least one pre- and post-Oakland Unite arrest and conviction in
each offense category (violent, nonviolent, and technical) was then calculated. By comparing these pre-
and post-Oakland Unite arrest and conviction rates, the percent difference in likelihood that any client
would have an arrest or conviction after versus before enrollment could be calculated.6 These gaps, as
well as the pre- and post-Oakland Unite arrest and conviction rates on which they are based, are
reported in the first portion of Findings Section B. A negative difference for any offense type means
clients were arrested or convicted at a lower rate following their enrollment than before, which is the
desired outcome. The second portion of Findings B compares these calculations across the four cohorts
to show the increasing effectiveness of Oakland Unite VPPs at reducing clients involvement in the
justice system over time.
Data Limitations
Being able to match provider service data to justice system data is a big success for Oakland Unite, and
one that greatly strengthens the evaluation of its program model. Still, there are limitations to the data
in addition to the potential for missed matches noted above, all of which are beyond the control of
Oakland Unite. First, justice system data is based on official records of arrests and convictions, which
may not reflect the true rate at which offenses occur. In addition, given the fragmented nature of the
criminal justice system in California and elsewhere, it was only feasible to analyze data from two
agencies: Alameda County Probation and the California Department of Corrections. While the large
majority of Oakland Unite clients justice system involvement is likely to be with one of these agencies,
missing data from other jurisdictions makes it impossible to determine true rates of involvement. Both
of the above factors contribute to the likely undercounting of justice system involvement in this report.
In addition, the justice system agencies from which we received data serve somewhat different
functions and thus capture somewhat different information. In particular, Juvenile Probation records
include all instances in which a youth was referred to the Probation Department for an arrest as well as
all instances in which youth were found responsible (adjudicated delinquent) for an offense. Thus, for
individuals with juvenile probation records (approximately half of our sample), we have data on arrests
and delinquency adjudications. Adult Probation records, by contrast, only include information on
individuals who were placed on probation, and not those who were arrested but not convicted. CDCR
data falls somewhere in-between: because an individual is only sentenced to a CDCR facility if he/she is
convicted of a crime, data on initial offenses only includes those offenses for which individuals were
convicted, not incidents in which individuals were arrested but not convicted. CDCR parole data, on the
other hand, includes all alleged parole violations, including those that were upheld and those that were
dismissed.
For example a strategy might have 80% of clients arrested for a violent or non-violent incident in the five years
prior to enrollment, but 40% of clients arrested for the same type of incidents in the two years after enrollment.
The difference in arrest rates is (40%-80%)/80% = -50%, or a 50% decline in the likelihood a client was arrested
after enrollment compared to before.
45
December 2014 | 16


Because of the above data limitations, our counts of adults who were arrested but not convicted are
undoubtedly low. This is true for both pre- and post-service arrests. Nonetheless, the records of Oakland
Unite clients justice system involvement are a valuable tool for evaluating the initiatives effectiveness,
and both the match rates and sample sizes are large enough for the evaluation team to feel confident
generalizing to the universe of Oakland Unite participants.

46
December 2014 | 17


III.
Findings
A. Evolution of Oakland Unite Service Delivery Model

Key Findings
How did the Oakland Unite service model change over time?
Oakland Unite has refined its service delivery model to serve a higher risk population.
Oakland Unite used data to target its programs to individuals who are at higher risk for justice
system involvement. As a result, Oakland Unite increasingly served an older population, a
greater proportion of whom are male, and individuals with higher levels of justice system-
involvement.
Funding strategies have evolved to reflect a better understanding of the Citys changing
needs, including a greater emphasis on intervention rather than prevention. Over the years,
Oakland Unite has shifted its funding strategiesincluding both adding and discontinuing
some strategies, as well as modifying funding levelsto give more emphasis to Street
Outreach and Crisis Response services and to services for Commercially Sexually Exploited
Children, as compared to strategies targeting young children and after-school programs.
Over time, Oakland Unite has built a coordinated infrastructure for delivering high-quality
services. Despite limited service coordination when the City of Oaklands Human Services
Department began implementing M easure Y in 2005, Oakland Unite has helped build a broad
and integrated network of violence prevention services. This network involves extensive
collaboration between various Oakland Unite providers as well as between Oakland Unite
providers and other public and private partners, including the Oakland Unified School District,
Alameda County Health Care Services Agency, CeaseFire, the Oakland Police Department, and
more. This coordination enables Oakland Unite and its partners to provide needed services
efficiently and without duplication.

Overview
When Measure Y was passed, its language was largely oriented toward violence prevention. HSD began
to plan for and implement services in alignment with this vision, which included funding afterschool
programs and services targeted at young children. In light of new data on the Citys rising crime, both
the City and Oakland Unite began to prioritize a focus on serving higher risk populations in order to
47
December 2014 | 18


meet the Citys changing needs. To match this shift, Oakland Unite also shifted several of its strategies
and funding allocations.
The following sections highlight key findings in the evolution of Oakland Unites service delivery model
over time, including changes in the characteristics of clients, changes in funding strategies, and evolving
collaboration and coordination over time.
Refinement of Target Population over Time
Key Finding: Data on the individuals served by Oakland Unite from 2005-2013 show that
Oakland Unite has successfully shifted its service delivery model to serve a higher-risk
population.
As Oakland Unite shifted toward more intervention compared to prevention, its target population
shifted, too. Over time, Oakland Unite served older clients; more men and boys compared to girls and
women; and more clients with histories of justice system involvement.
Overall, Oakland Unite served its primary intended target population of youth and young adults, with
the average age of clients rising across cohorts.
Over the course of all cohorts, Oakland Unite served its primary intended target population of youth and
young adults, which data show is the age range most likely to commit violent crimes. Figure 5 shows
that across all cohorts, most clients were 14 to 18 years old. Their mean age was 19 years and their
median age was 17 years. Overall, the clients enrolled in Oakland Unite fit the age profile foreseen by
the authorizing legislation.
Figure 5. Distribution of Client Ages on Date of Enrollment in Oakland Unite

As the initiative progressed, Oakland Unite began to target its enrollment to reach an older population,
as additional analysis of available data began to show that young adults, rather than youth, were
responsible for most of the violent crime in Oakland. David Muhammad, who has been involved in the
48
December 2014 | 19


initiative first as a service provider and later as the Chief of Probation for Alameda County, commented,
Measure Y was sold as a youth initiative. I think then, that probably was the need, but clearly thats not
the case now. In terms of violencegun violenceits not a juvenile crime problem in Oakland, despite
popular opinion.
Figure 6 shows the rising average age of clients at the time they enrolled in an Oakland Unite-funded
program. The mean age rose from 18 to nearly 20 years old from Cohort 1 to Cohort 4, while the median
age rose from approximately 17 to 18 year old.
Figure 6. Average Age of Oakland Unite Clients at Time of Enrollment

Across all cohorts, Oakland Unite served predominantly African American and Latino clients,
consistent with the groups most likely to be arrested and/or incarcerated in Oakland.
Figure 7 shows that more than two-thirds of clients in each cohort identified as Black/African American
or Latino/Hispanic. The racial/ethnic composition has been relatively static over time (while Cohort 1
showed a lower percentage of Black/African American clients, this may be due to data collection and
entry processes, which recorded a higher proportion of Other/Multi-Ethnic/Unknown individuals in
Cohort 1). Figure 7 also suggests that providers improved their data collection and entry techniques: the
percentage of clients whose race/ethnicity was marked as Other/Multi-Ethnic/Unknown in Cohort 1
was 18%, but much lower thereafter.
49
December 2014 | 20


Figure 7. Racial/Ethnic Composition of Oakland Unite Cohorts

Oakland Unite served a higher proportion of male clients over time, in line with data showing that
males commit most crime.
Figure 8 shows the relative increase in male clients served by Oakland Unite over time. In Cohort 1, 60%
of Oakland Unite clients were men or boys; in Cohort 4 the proportion was 69%.
Figure 8. Gender of Oakland Unite Clients by Cohort
50
December 2014 | 21


Between the first and fourth cohorts, Oakland Unite served a clientele that had more criminal justice
system involvement.
Figure 9 presents the proportion of Oakland Unite clients in each cohort who had a criminal history with
the Alameda County Probation Department Juvenile or Adult Divisions and/or the California Department
of Corrections and Rehabilitation. By the last cohort, more than half of all clients (51%) were found to
have a criminal history.
Figure 9. Justice System Match Rate

Figure 10 looks specifically at the proportion of clients in Reentry Services programs (including the
Project Choice, Reentry Employment, and Juvenile Justice Center/Oakland Unified School District
(JJC/OUSD) Wraparound Services strategies) with a history of criminal involvement, showing that the
percentage of clients who had a history of involvement with ACPD and/or CDCR increased from 57% in
the first cohort to 77% by the last cohort.7
As noted in the Methodology section, the percentage of Oakland Unite participants justice system involvement is
likely higher, since Oakland Unite programs often serve Oakland residents who are on probation in other counties.
51
December 2014 | 22


Figure 10. Reentry Strategy Match Rate

In addition, among programs serving clients with a criminal or juvenile justice history, the percentage of
clients who were arrested for or convicted of a crime in the five years prior to enrolling in an Oakland
Unite program increased steadily over time. As Figure 11 shows, in the first cohort, 56% of individuals
with prior criminal histories had been arrested in the five years before enrolling in an Oakland Unite
program, with 18% having been arrested for a violent crime. In contrast, by the fourth cohort, 75% had
been arrested prior to enrollment, with 24% having been arrested for a violent crime. The trend is
similar when looking at clients with prior convictions as well (Figure 12).
Figure 11. Pre-Program Arrest Rate Over Time
Figure 12. Pre-Program Conviction Rate Over

Time
52
December 2014 | 23


In addition to the fact that an increasing number of clients had criminal histories and recent justice-
system contact, Figure 13 shows that one-third (32%) of Oakland Unites justice-system involved clients
were involved in multiple justice system agencieseither juvenile and adult probation, or parole and
one of the probation divisions, or all threeindicating clients entrenched involvement in the justice
system. Of the clients involved in multiple systems, most were involved in juvenile probation and adult
probation, or adult probation and CDCR.
Figure 13. Cross-Justice System Involvement of Oakland Unite Clients

* Juvenile Probation, Alameda County (JP); Adult Probation, Alameda County (AP); California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR)

Evolution of Strategies and Funding Allocations Over Time
Key Finding: As Oakland Unite moved to serve a higher-risk population, Oakland Unite also
modified its funding strategies to meet Oaklands changing violence prevention needs, while
working within the parameters of the Measure Y legislation.
When Oakland Unite began in 2005, the funded programs provided a broad spectrum of prevention
services. Today, the funding strategy mix has evolved to give greater emphasis to intervention
strategies, including Street Outreach, Crisis Response, and outreach to Commercially Sexually Exploited
Children, as compared to strategies targeting young children and after-school programs.
53
December 2014 | 24


Measure Y prescribes the purpose and reach of the VPPs broadly: it calls for prevention services both for
youth who have a high immediate risk of engaging in violence and youth who have a more general risk
profile, such as young children who have witnessed family trauma. The challenge has been to balance
the two mandates. In an interview, David Muhammad alluded to the balancing act between altering
crime trends immediately and providing preventive services, remarking that there was a false
perception [among stakeholders] that this measure was going to end violence as we know it. If you read
the Measure, its really prevention focused.
Over time, the leaders of the Oakland Unite
We defined the outreach that people wanted and that
initiative honed their funding strategies to
would be most effective for [addressing] the violence in
respond to crime trend data and maximize the
the City.
impact of Oakland Unite resources, while also

adhering to the prevention mandate in the
-Kevin Grant, VPN Coordinator
legislation. Oakland Unites Violence Prevention
Network (VPN) Coordinator, Kevin Grant,
described the evolving strategy as follows: We
defined the outreach that both people wanted
and that would be most effective for the violence in the City.
In practice, Oakland Unites strategy evolution involved several other key changes:
Shifting some of the youth-oriented strategies from school-based services to programs that
work with justice-system-involved youth coming out of juvenile hall;
Increasing funding for offender reentry employment;
Refining the Street Outreach strategy to engage in more conflict mediation to prevent
retaliatory violence; and
Investing more funding and enrolling more clients in the Street Outreach and Crisis Response
strategies and in CSEC.
Figure 14 shows the proportion of Oakland Unite clients who were served under five strategy groupings:
Adult Reentry and Employment; Youth Reentry and Employment; Other Youth Services, Street Outreach
and Crisis Responses, and CSEC. Funding for Youth Reentry and Employment programs declined from
50% to 35% of allocated Oakland Unite funding over the four cohort periods, while Adult Reentry and
Employment declined from 29% to 19%. In contrast, Street Outreach and Crisis Response programs
increased from 8% to 27% of Oakland Unite program funding, and CSEC increased from no funding to 7%
of program funding in the fourth cycle.
Moreover, funding within these strategy groupings has changed. The programs within Other Youth
Services, for example, have shifted from those that provide generalized activities to a broad population
of youth to programs that provide targeted services to youth who are specifically identified as at-risk.
Similarly, the Young Adult Reentry and Employment and Street Outreach and Crisis Response strategies
have shifted their target populations to include Oakland residents up to the age of 35, to better account
for the individuals who are being arrested and returning from prison and jail in Oakland.
54
December 2014 | 25


Figure 14. Changes in Oakland Unite Funding Strategies Over Time
Strategies are grouped as follows:

Commercially & Sexually Exploited Children [CSEC is its own strategy].
Street Outreach and Crisis Response: Oakland Street Outreach, Caught in the Crossfire
Other Youth Services: Gang Prevention, Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth (RJOY), Leadership Excellence
Adult Reentry: Reentry Employment, Project Choice
Youth Reentry and Employment: JJC/OUSD Wraparound Services, Youth Employment
Over time, Oakland Unite also took steps to shift programs outside of its primary focus areas to other
City agencies, recommending that the Oakland Fund for Children and Youth take over most services for
children ages 0-5, for example. Such moves were supported by Reygan Harmon, former Senior Policy
Advisor for Public Safety at the Oakland Mayors Office and current Oakland CeaseFire Project Manager,
who noted that shifting some services allowed Oakland Unite to concentrate on higher-risk clients and
violent crime.
Stakeholders from a number of City and County agencies pointed to the willingness of Oakland Unite
leadership to adapt its strategies based on proven need, with Curtiss Sarikey, Deputy Chief of Oakland
OUSD Community Schools and Student Services, noting, They really are interested in seeing these
programs be successful, and Alameda County Health Care Services Agency (ACHCSA) Director Alex
Briscoe affirming that Oakland Unite changed investment strategies effectively and appropriately.
Other stakeholders stated that certain Oakland Unite strategies, such as domestic violence services and
CSEC-focused strategies, have met the Citys needs from the start. For example, Alameda County District
Attorney Nancy OMalley observed that victim advocates working with OPD have made a significant
difference in domestic violence, and commented that Measure Y has been strong springboard for
innovative work in the area of sexually exploited youth.
55
December 2014 | 26


Creating a Coordinated Service-Delivery Infrastructure
Key Finding: Over time, Oakland Unite has built a coordinated network for delivering high-
quality services.
Findings indicate that, in addition to modifying its strategies to be more aligned with the Citys violence
prevention needs, over time Oakland Unite has built a coordinated infrastructure for delivering high-
quality services. To achieve this coordination, HSD both helped strengthen existing interagency
partnerships and also developed new ones. For example, OU began requiring regular cross-sector
meetings for grantees. Leadership from agencies including HSD, OUSD, OPD, and Highland Hospital
pointed to the effectiveness of such
meetings. Such meetings have helped foster
We have constant collaboration with HSD; [its a] very
a high level of coordination and
supportive partnership, high trust.
communication between Oakland Unite

service providers and across Oakland Unite
- Staff Member, JJC/OUSD Wraparound Services
providers and City and County agencies,
including OUSD, Probation, OPD, and
ACHCSA. Among grantees, Oakland Unite has
fostered a culture of collaboration to
facilitate cooperation. Oakland leaders and partners noted that while many grantees were initially
resistant to collaborate with each other and with public agencies, such partnerships are now the norm.
Oakland Unite providers were nearly unanimous in describing positive relationships with HSD, OUSD,
and other Oakland Unite providers. For example, staff members of JJC/OUSD Wraparound Services
commented, Collaboration with Project Reconnect and California Youth Outreach is going well. [We
have] good long-standing relationships. They also noted, We have constant collaboration with HSD;
[its a] very supportive partnership, [with] high trust.
Oakland Unite initiated several regularly-scheduled conference calls and meetings to support
coordination of services and build cross-cutting relationships among providers. The JJC strategy
conducts monthly case-conferencing; Street Outreach and Crisis Response services meet monthly, as do
employment providers; and a homicide review team meets weekly. There is also a weekly Crisis
Coordination conference call that the VPN Coordinator facilitates with Oakland Street Outreach (OSO),
Catholic Charities of the East Bays Crisis Response Support Network (CRSN), and YouthALIVE!-Caught in
the Crossfire (CiC). This call helps the Street Outreach and Crisis Response teams share information
about incidents or dynamics across the City that might lead to violence, organize an intervention, and
coordinate their responses. For example, CRSN staff who are working with the surviving victims of a
violent incident alert the VPN Coordinator and OSO providers when they hear of potential retaliatory
violence so that Street Outreach workers can intensify their activities in the affected area. CRSN also
works with OUSD leadership to provide school-wide crisis response after a homicide in the
neighborhood and reduce the likelihood of retaliation (as well as to address the trauma experienced by
peers of young homicide victims).
56
December 2014 | 27


The crisis response programs attribute much of their success to the calls, the strength of their
relationships, and collaboration with Oakland Unite partners. Staff described strong partnerships with
Probation, HSD, and a wide range of Oakland Unite partners, which enable them to leverage resources
for the youth they serve.
In addition, the programs that provide
CSEC services have established a
Before one of our gaps would have been employment but continuum of care that includes post-
now we work with YEP. Before wed tell the girls to get off arrest intervention, in-custody prerelease
the street, stop making m oney in those ways but now how planning, and ongoing support in the
community. Bay Area Women Against
are you going to make a living?
Rape (BAWAR) intercepts young people

- Staff Member, Outreach to Commercially & Sexually when they are arrested or detained,
while Motivating, Inspiring, Serving and
Exploited Minors Strategy
Supporting Sexually Exploited Youth
(MISSSEY) provides ongoing support to
help them escape victimization. CSECs
work is supported by a network of
partnerships that includes Youth Employment Partnership (YEP), Youth UpRising (YU), East Bay Asian
Youth Center (EBAYC), OUSD Alternative Education, Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth (RJOY), and
other Oakland Unite providers. MISSSEY staff offered an example of their successful collaboration: when
working with a young Cambodian woman, the staff realized she needed support navigating culturally-
specific issues at home. They worked with EBAYC to find a case manager who spoke Cambodian and
could better help the young woman return home and address family issues. Similarly, when young
women need to find employment to help them get off the street, MISSSEY coordinates with YEP to
enroll them in employment training and subsidized employment programs.
We have strong connections with other organizations.
Together, the Violence Prevention Programs have built an infrastructure to deliver high-quality,
coordinated services to their clients. The infrastructure includes the VPN Coordinator, the crisis
response providers weekly Crisis Call, and most importantly, the relationships providers have built and
deepened among themselves with support from HSD.

Summary of Findings
This section tells the story of how Oakland Unite clients and strategies have evolved over time. Data on
clients characteristics confirms that Oakland Unites intention to target higher risk clients was
successful; over time, Oakland Unite served greater proportions of clients who were older, male, and
had greater pre-program justice system involvement. In addition, this section documents Oakland
Unites progression to focus its strategies on more intensive interventions to meet its target population,
as well as concerted efforts to improve collaboration among partner agencies. The next section presents
findings on the criminal justice involvement of Oakland Unite VPP clients both before and after their
57
December 2014 | 28


program participation in order to explore how their involvement in the criminal justice system has
changed since participating in Oakland Unite programs, and, further, how client outcomes have changed
over the course of the four cohorts.

58
December 2014 | 29


B. Criminal Justice Involvement of Oakland Unite Clients

Key Findings
How did participation in Oakland Unite impact clients criminal and/or juvenile justice
involvement?
Oakland Unite participants had reduced criminal justice involvement after participating in
Oakland Unite programs. Data show that Oakland Unite clients have had consistently
reduced contact with the justice system following their engagement in Oakland Unite.
Participants were less likely to b e arrested or convicted of any new offenseeither violent
or non-violentafter participating in an Oakland Unite program. This is true when looking
at Oakland Unite as a whole, as well as for individual strategies, especially the strategy
serving Commercially Sexually Exploited Children, the Juvenile Justice Center/Oakland
Unified School District Wraparound Services, and Oakland Street Outreach.
How has the effectiveness of Oakland Unite programs and strategies changed over time?
Oakland Unite clients post-enrollment recidivism rates have declined over time,
suggesting interventions may have become more effective. Oakland Unite clients have
had progressively lower post-service arrest and conviction rates, even as the initiative has
targeted increasingly high-risk, more justice-involved clients. Put together, this means that
the gap has grown between clients p re-Oakland Unite justice system involvement and their
post-Oakland Unite justice system involvement. This finding is consistent with increasing
effectiveness of the initiative.

Overview
The findings in this section explore data on the criminal justice involvement of Oakland Unite VPP clients
in order to shed light on the effectiveness of Oakland Unite programs in improving client-level
outcomes. Further, by examining changes in client outcomes across the four enrollment cohorts, these
findings suggest the extent to which Oakland Unite has improved its program effectiveness over time.
Specifically, the sections below explore the following topics:
Changes in criminal justice involvement pre- and post-program participation. How has clients
involvement in the criminal justice system changed since participating in Oakland Unite
programs?
Changes in recidivism rates of Oakland Unite participants over time. How have participant
outcomes changed over the course of the four cohorts?
59
December 2014 | 30


Changes in participant outcomes at the strategy level. Which Oakland Unite strategies show
the greatest reduction in criminal justice involvement? Which strategies have improved the
most over time?
It is important to keep in mind that while the findings in this section present pre- and post-program
arrest and conviction rates, the analysis is not able to causally attribute changes in client outcomes to
participation in Oakland Unite programs. Nevertheless, highlighting changes in participants arrests and
convictions before and after participation in Oakland Unite programs represents a meaningful step in
understanding program effectiveness and how it has changed over time.
Oakland Unite Client Outcomes
This section compares Oakland Unite participants rates of arrest and conviction in the five years prior to
their Oakland Unite start dates and the two years after their program end date.
Key Finding: From 2005-2013, individuals who participated in Oakland Unite programs had
substantially lower rates of arrest or conviction than they had prior to program enrollment,
with particularly striking decreases in the percentage of clients arrested or convicted for
violent offenses.
Following Oakland Unite participation, participants show a substantial decline in arrests for both
violent and non-violent offenses.
As Figure 15 shows, 78% of Oakland Unite participants were arrested at least once in the five years prior
to starting an Oakland Unite program, with 36% having been arrested for a violent offense. By contrast,
only 37% of participants were arrested in the two years following their enrollment in Oakland Unite,
with only 13% having been arrested for a violent offense.
Figure 15. Percentage of Clients Arrested for New Crimes Before and After Oakland Unite
Participation
60
December 2014 | 31


Further, these data show that:
Less than half as many Oakland Unite participants were arrested following program
participation compared to before program participation.
Oakland Unite participants were only about one-third as likely to have been arrested for a
violent offense following program participation compared to before program participation.
Participants show a substantial decline in convictions and/or delinquency adjudications for both
violent and non-violent offenses following program participation.
As Figure 16 shows, these trends are consistent when looking at criminal convictions and/or delinquency
adjudications prior to and following Oakland Unite participation, with the proportion of participants
receiving convictions or delinquency adjudications decreasing from 70% before to 31% after their
participation. Within this finding, the proportion of Oakland Unite participants receiving convictions or
delinquency adjudications for violent offenses decreased from 22% to 8% before and after
participationa 63% decrease.
Figure 16. Percentages of Clients Convicted of a New Crime Before and After Oakland Unite
Participation

Changes in Client Outcomes Over Time
The findings above indicate that participants in Oakland Unite VPP programs had reduced criminal
justice involvement, including reduced rates of both arrest and conviction, following their Oakland Unite
participation. In order to understand how these client outcomes changed over time, and thus begin to
understand how program effectiveness has changed, this section considers participants arrest and
conviction rates across the four enrollment cohorts.

61
December 2014 | 32


Key Finding: The percentage of Oakland Unite participants who were arrested for or
convicted of a new crime after participating in Oakland Unite progressively decreased over
time for both violent and non-violent offenses, even as Oakland Unite evolved to serve higher
risk and more justice-involved clients.
The figures below show client outcomes across the four cohorts. The left-hand side of each figure
demonstrates the percentages of clients in each cohort who were arrested or convicted of a new crime
before Oakland Unite participation, while the right-hand side demonstrates the percentage in each
cohort who were arrested or convicted of a new crime after participating in an Oakland Unite program.
The percentage of Oakland Unite clients with post-program arrests for both violent and non-violent
offenses fell by nearly half from Cohorts 1 to 4.
As discussed in Section A, the percentage of clients who were arrested prior to enrolling in an Oakland
Unite program increased over the course of the initiative, from 68% in the first cohort to 82% in the
most recent cohort, demonstrating a successful shift to serve a greater proportion of clients with pre-
program criminal justice involvement. This is shown again in the left-hand side of Figure 17, below.
Compare the left-hand side to the right-hand side of Figure 17, which shows the proportion of clients
who were arrested after participating in an Oakland Unite program for each cohort. The difference
between the two sides shows a decrease in post-program arrests over time, from nearly half of
participants (48%) in Cohort 1 to one-quarter of participants (26%) in Cohort 4a 46% decrease.
Figure 17. Percentage of Clients Arrested for a New Crime Before and After Oakland Unite
Participation by Cohort
62
December 2014 | 33


As with post-program arrests, post-program conviction rates decreased by nearly half from Cohorts 1
to 4.
Following a similar pattern as arrest rates, the percentage of Oakland Unite clients with convictions
during the five years prior to participation increased from Cohorts 1 to 4, while the percentage of clients
with convictions in the two years following participation decreased over time. The result is a continuous
increase in the percent difference in participants pre- and post-program convictions over time.
Together, these diverging trends (over time, more convictions before participation and fewer
convictions after) lead to a widening gap between pre- and post-program conviction rates shown in the
graph below (Figure 18). While just over half (56%) of Cohort 1 participants were convicted of a new
crime prior to enrolling in an Oakland Unite program, this proportion increased to three-quarters (75%)
by the last two cohorts. This represents an increase of just over one-third (34%). Again, the steady
increase in pre-program conviction rates speak to Oakland Unites growing focus on serving high-risk
clients.
The right-hand side of Figure 18 shows that conviction rates during the two years following participation
in Oakland Unite programs decreased by 45%, from 38% among Cohort 1 clients to 21% among Cohort 4
clients. In contrast to arrests, however, the proportion of clients convicted of violent crimes following
program participation did not decrease across the four cohorts.
Figure 18. Percentage of Clients Convicted of a New Crime Before and After Oakland Unite
Participation by Cohort

To reiterate, the decrease across cohorts in post-program arrests and convictions occurred even as
Oakland Unite programs shifted to serve increasingly high-risk clients with greater rates of justice
system involvement. The combination of the shifting target population and progressively decreasing
post-program arrest and conviction rates means there is a widening gap between participants pre- and
63
December 2014 | 34


post-program arrest and conviction rates. These findings suggest the Oakland Unite programs have
become increasingly effective over time in reducing justice system contact.
The figures below illustrate the difference between participants pre- and post-program arrest and
conviction rates over time, showing that the gap widened substantially and continuously from Fiscal
Year 2005-06 to Fiscal Year 2012-13. Each line, differentiated by color, represents the change over time
in the percentage difference between participants pre- and post-program justice system involvement.
The upward sloping green line demonstrates the over-time increase in the percentage change of
participants with no arrests. The yellow and red lines demonstrate the increase over time in the
percentage change in new arrests or convictions, with the red line representing violent arrests or
convictions (these lines represent an increase in the percentage change even though they are
downward sloping because the percentage of participants with arrests or convictions decreased over
time).
The proportion of clients with at least one post-program arrest steadily decreased over time, despite
the fact that the proportion with arrests before participation steadily increased.
Figure 19 shows the percent differences in rates of arrest before and after participation in Oakland
Unite. The downward sloping yellow and red lines demonstrate that the proportion of participants with
at least one pre-program arrest increased over time, while the proportion of participants with at least
one post-program arrest decreased over time, resulting in a continuous increase in the percent
difference in participants pre- and post-program arrest rates from 2005-2013.
At the same time, the upward sloping green line demonstrates that the proportion of participants with
no pre-program arrests decreased over time, while the proportion of participants with no post-program
arrests increased over time, resulting in a continuous increase in the percent difference in participants
with no pre- and post-program arrests over time. Together, these diverging trends lead to the widening
gap between pre- and post-program arrest rates shown in Figure 19 below.
64
December 2014 | 35


Figure 19. Percent Differences in Post- versus Pre-Oakland Unite Arrest Rates by Fiscal Year

As with arrests, the proportion of clients with at least one post-program conviction steadily decreased
over time, despite the fact that the proportion with pre-program convictions steadily increased.
Figure 20 shows the percent differences in rates of conviction before and after participation in Oakland
Unite. Conviction rates follow the same trends as arrest rates. The downward sloping yellow and red
lines demonstrate that the proportion of participants with at least one pre-program conviction increased
over time, while the proportion of participants with at least one post-program conviction decreased
over time, resulting in a continuous increase in the percent difference in participants pre- and post-
program conviction rates from 2005-2013.
At the same time, the upward sloping green line demonstrates that the proportion of participants with
no pre-program convictions decreased over time, while the proportion of participants with no post-
program convictions increased over time, resulting in a continuous increase in the percent difference in
participants with no pre- and post-program arrests over time. Together, these diverging trends lead to
the widening gap between pre- and post-program conviction rates.
65
December 2014 | 36


Figure 20. Percent Differences in Conviction Rates Post- versus Pre-Oakland Unite by Fiscal Year

Strategy-Level Highlights
This section presents findings on the pre- and post-program criminal justice involvement of clients
participating in particular Oakland Unite strategies, highlighting those strategies that appear to have
been particularly effective in improving client outcomes. In addition, by looking at changes in client
outcomes by strategy over time, we are able to see which strategies may have improved their
effectiveness over time. Following the structure of the previous two sections, the first part of this
section discusses pre- and post-program arrests and convictions at the strategy level. The second part of
this section explores changes in client outcomes over time at the strategy level.
Oakland Unite Client Outcomes by Strategy
Key Findings: Participants in nearly all strategies had lower rates of arrest and conviction
after Oakland Unite enrollment compared with pre-Oakland Unite. The strategies whose
participants show particularly marked improvementsCSEC, JJC/OUSD Wraparound, and
OSOcorrespond with Oakland Unites shifting funding priorities over time.
66
December 2014 | 37


Participants in all strategies except for one (Leadership Excellence, which was discontinued after the
initiatives initial funding cycle) had lower rates of arrest and conviction after participating in Oakland
Unite compared to before their participation. Table 5 and Table 6 show the percentage of participants
with pre- and post-program arrests and convictions, respectively, along with the percent difference
between the pre- and post-program rates.
Table 5: Percent of Clients Arrested for Violent or Nonviolent Offense

Youth Reentry and
Employment
Adult Reentry
Street Outreach and
Crisis Response
CSEC

Strategy
JJC/OUSD Wraparound
Youth Employment
Project Choice
Reentry Employment
Gang Prevention
CSEC
Total
Pre-
88%
70%
83%
79%
65%
72%
72%
39%
80%
78%
Post-
41%
39%
42%
39%
37%
28%
47%
42%
25%
37%
% Diff.
-47%
-30%
-41%
-40%
-28%
-44%
-26%
3%
-55%
-41%

Table 6: Percent of Clients Convicted of Violent or Nonviolent Offense

Youth Reentry and
Employment
Adult Reentry
Street Outreach and
Crisis Response
CSEC

Strategy
JJC/OUSD Wraparound
Youth Employment
Project Choice
Reentry Employment
Gang Prevention
CSEC
Total
Pre-
80%
53%
78%
78%
43%
65%
49%
26%
70%
70%
Post-
32%
27%
38%
38%
29%
23%
37%
32%
21%
31%
% Diff.
-48%
-26%
-41%
-40%
-14%
-43%
-12%
6%
-50%
-38%

There are several strategies whose participants have had especially impressive improvements, including
CSEC, JJC/OUSD Wraparound, and OSO. Recalling that Oakland Unite shifted its target population and
funding strategies over time to serve higher-risk clients, the strategies whose participants demonstrated
the greatest drops in post-program arrest and conviction rates are clearly aligned with Oakland Unites
evolving focus. Client outcomes in each of these three strategies are discussed below.
67
December 2014 | 38


CSEC Strategy: The programs in this strategy work together to provide a continuum of services for
commercially sexually exploited children. BAWAR acts as a first responder, going into the Alameda
County Juvenile Justice Hall and accompanying the OPD on prostitution sweeps to offer intervention
services to young peoplemostly girlswho have recently been arrested for involvement in commercial
sexual activity. After the young women have been engaged, BAWAR links them with MISSSEY, which
provides longer-term services through its JJC/OUSD Wraparound program and through its Safe Place
Alternative (SPA) drop-in center.
As Figure 21 shows, the drop in post-program arrest rates among CSEC clients was even greater than for
Oakland Unite participants as a whole. In fact, this strategy had the largest gap between pre- and post-
program arrests across all cohorts. CSEC participants were 69% less likely to be arrested for a new
offense, and 84% less likely to be arrested for a violent offense after they participated in a CSEC
program. CSEC participants also showed the greatest decrease in pre- to post-program delinquency
adjudications among all strategies (Figure 22).
Figure 21. Percentage of CSEC Clients Arrested for
a New Crime Before and After CSEC Participation
Figure 22. Percentage of CSEC Clients Convicted

of a New Crime Before and After CSEC
Participation

Conversations with CSEC staff and clients highlight that the organizations within the strategy use several
approaches to effectively engage youth and prevent further criminal justice system involvement. First,
the CSEC Strategy is unique among Oakland Unite strategies in that the providers within the strategy
create a continuum of care for sexually exploited minors, with BAWAR acting as the first responder,
meeting the young women through police sweeps or work in Alameda Countys Juvenile Justice Center,
and MISSSEY acting as the second responder, providing longer-term services through their JJC
wraparound program and their SPA drop-in recovery center program. Although clients and staff from
both programs note the importance of all of the services provided through this service continuum, they
especially highlight the importance of the first responder component of this network. BAWAR, which
has developed a strong relationship with OPD, is invited to join the police department when they
68
December 2014 | 39

conduct prostitution sweeps. When the police pick up minors who are involved in commercial sexual
activity, BAWAR staff immediately approach the young people, offering them support that ranges from a
change of clothes to counseling, case management, and more.
Further, employees are California certified rape crisis counselors, and as a result they are trained in
trauma-informed approaches. The programs use an assessment tool for intake and develop case
management plans in collaboration with the client, the clients family, and partner organizations. The
programs also use a teaching curriculum modeled on evidence-based and promising practices, which is
led by certified instructors and counselors.
And finally, CSEC programs show the young people unconditional love and support, even if they
continue to make negative or dangerous life choices. For young women who have been involved in the
juvenile justice system and the foster care system for years, MISSSEY and BAWARs unconditional
support is a new experience, and ultimately one that helps them turn their lives around. As one staff
member shared:
Well start working with some clients and they dont really get the relationship that we have were
there to support them through everything, were not there to turn them into authorities. When that
light bulb turns on, it changes how they respond to situations.
A service participant shared:
I thought Id come and not want to be here, not want to talk; I thought people werent really going
understand who I was, why I did stuff, theyd be judgmental and they really arent. And they care.
You dont wonder if they careyou know that they care.
Highlighting the collaborative network of providers that Oakland Unite has built over the years, CSEC
programs have also developed strong partnerships with each other, with other Oakland Unite providers,
and with City and County agencies that help them better serve Oakland youth.
OSO Strategy: The OSO Strategy is comprised of two organizations: CYO, which operates in Central and
East Oakland, and Healthy Oakland, which operates in West Oakland. Together these organizations
provide street outreach and case management services to youth and young adults under the age of 35
who meet at least four of the following eligibility criteria: gang-involved, gun-involved, on probation or
parole for a violent incident, resides or hangs out in a target area, at high risk for using a gun within 30
days, or is a known gang or clique leader. OSO staff work in collaboration with other City departments
and community-based organizations, many of whom are other Oakland Unite partners.
Individuals who participated in the OSO programs had post-service arrest and conviction differences
that were almost as impressive as those experienced by CSEC clients. As shown in Figure 23, while 72%
of OSO participants had arrests before participation, this dropped to just 28% of participants following
participationa 61% decrease. Further, participants were 72% less likely to have an arrest for a violent
offense. Changes in conviction rates followed a similar trend: OSO clients were 67% less likely to have a
69
December 2014 | 40

conviction for a violent or nonviolent offense following participation, and 68% less likely to have a
conviction for a violent offense (Figure 24).
Figure 23. Percentage of Street Outreach Clients
Arrested for New Crimes Before and After
Program Participation
Figure 24. Percentage of Street Outreach Clients

Convicted of New Crimes Before and After
Program Participation
OSO staff and City stakeholders alike agreed that the OSO strategy has been particularly effective in
preventing violence among its target population. OSO staff attribute this to several reasons. First and
foremost, they reported that the trust they have developed in the neighborhoods, among community
members, and with clients has allowed them access to historically more violent areas of the City that
other providers cannot reach. Outreach workers relay that just their presence oftentimes will help
prevent violent activity from occurring. As a result of the access they have in these parts of Oakland,
residents trust them and communicate with them when altercations arise. This communication helps
staff to intervene in conflicts to prevent violent incidents or to reduce retaliation.
Youth participants report that working with their OSO case managers has made a significant difference
in their lives and helped redirect their lives. Clients describe the influence these programs have had on
them and the ways in which their case managers have helped them see their life with new perspective
and given them hope that they can achieve their goals. The youth described being more future-oriented,
thinking about pursuing education and employment opportunities, and contrast these goals with where
they might have been had they not participated in the program. Having their case managers support
them and provide them with guidance has created opportunities for young people to sustain changes
they have made in their lives. Clients shared:
I would say its working aint no telling its working. I, we, wouldnt be here. I might be out
hurting someone. Its keeping us busy and off the street. And with other teens who went through
what we went through, going through the right direction instead of making the City work, its
making it better, thats what Ive seen. If I hadnt been with him [case manager] for the last year
and a half, I might not even be here, I dunno. If you ask me, its saving lives.
70
December 2014 | 41

My case manager, she like the general, she gather a team that was just for me I really had an
advocate, a voice that made such a difference, that I had all of that behind me, things I couldnt
articulate, and things I didnt know I needed. She like a navigation system to get it together in
bad weather.
The street outreach workers attribute much of their success to the strength of their relationships, the
Crisis Coordination Meeting activity, and collaboration with Oakland Unite partners. The staff describe
their strong partnerships with Probation, HSD, and a wide range of Oakland Unite partners, and how
these networks enable them to leverage many resources for the youth they serve.
JJC/OUSD Wraparound Strategy: The JJC/OUSD Wraparound strategy provides intensive case
management and wraparound services to youth returning from Alameda County Juvenile Hall to the
community, with the primary goals of re-engaging youth in school and helping youth stay compliant with
the terms of their probation. Through collaboration with OUSD staff co-located at the Juvenile Hall
Transition Center, youth are reenrolled in school immediately upon release. Subsequent to referral, case
managers conduct comprehensive assessments of youth to determine strengths, risks, and individual
needs.
As Figure 25 shows, 88% of JJC clients were arrested in the years prior to their participation in Oakland
Unite; this rate dropped to 41% of participants following participationa 53% decrease. Further, clients
were 65% less likely to have been arrested for a violent offense following their participation. Changes in
delinquency adjudication rates followed a similar trend: JJC clients were 60% less likely to have been
adjudicated delinquent for any new offense after participating in JJC programs (Figure 26).
Figure 25. Percentage of JJC Clients Arrested for
New Crimes Before and After Program
Participation
Figure 26. Percentage of JJC Clients Convicted of

New Crimes Before and After Program
Participation
71
December 2014 | 42

Case managers and clients both described one of the strengths of the JJC/OUSD Wraparound programs
as their capacity to help youth change their behavior and make positive decisions. When youth begin to
change their language, become more respectful around parents and adults, and begin to think long-term
about what will help them stay out of trouble, they are learning to make positive choices.
Providers described that one of the first steps in helping their clients toward compliance involves
establishing a high level of trust. When youth have a stable adult in their lives, they are more likely to
begin to make changes in their behavior. Many clients reported that they felt supported by their case
managers in returning to school and acknowledged that they would not be attending unless they were
getting this level of support. One client described his relationship with his case manager:
He cool, he help me get outta jail and came to my court dates and stuff. He get me to go back
the right way and he contacts me every day and see what Im doing.
Changes in Client Outcomes over Time
Key Findings: Caught in the Crossfire and Reentry Employment showed the greatest
improvement over time, suggesting increasing effectiveness of Oakland Unite strategies
designed to target adults and high-risk youth.
The strategies that showed the greatest improvement between the first and last cohorts were Caught in
the Crossfire, which had the largest change in percent difference for all arrests and convictions, and
Reentry Employment, which had the greatest change in convictions for violent offenses.
Caught in the Crossfire Strategy: The Caught in the Crossfire (CiC) program of Youth ALIVE! provides
case management and retaliatory violence prevention services to youth who have been admitted to
Highland Hospital and have been involved in an Oakland-based incident involving a gunshot or stab
wound. CiC is an evidence-based practice/program and a leading national expert in hospital-based
violence intervention (HVIP).
CiC demonstrated the largest change over time in the percent difference between pre- and post-
program arrests and convictions.
Figure 27 shows that in Cohort 1, the proportion of CiC clients with post-program arrests was 15% higher
than the proportion with pre-program arrests. By Cohort 4, the proportion of CiC participants with post-
program arrests was 92% lower than the proportion with pre-program arrestsa 700% change.
72
December 2014 | 43

Figure 27. Percentage of Caught in the Crossfire Clients Arrested for a New Crime Before and After
Oakland Unite Participation by Cohort
Figure 28 shows that CiC participants in Cohort 1 were 50% more likely to have a post-program
conviction compared to the five years before their program participation. By Cohort 4, however, not a
single Caught in the Crossfire participant (0%) had a conviction or delinquency adjudication for a new
offense in the two years following his or her starting Oakland Unite, despite half (50%) having had a
conviction or delinquency adjudication in the five years prior to starting CiC.
Figure 28. Percentage of Caught in the Crossfire Clients Convicted of a New Crime Before and After
73
December 2014 | 44


CiC staff report that the key to the success of the CiC strategy lies in enrolling youth prior to their
discharge from the hospital. Staff spoke to the strong track records of CiC case managers in engaging
youth in the hospital, despite initial skepticism they frequently encounter from youth. Once youth are
receptive to and engaged in the program, case managers successfully link clients with a wide range of
services. Staff report that they have successfully linked clients with employment opportunities, assisted
with resume building and job searches, and provided clothes for job interviews. The program also refers
youth to mental health services and staff provide assistance with accessing funds through Victims of
Crime assistance, as well as helping clients access safe housing through relocation.
Staff report that roughly 65% of clients access follow-up services primarily related to Victims of Crime
applications. Those who stay connected to CiC experience long-term successes such as enrollment in
college, and more immediate benefits of taking their safety and health more seriously, such as speaking
about their life in a more goal-oriented way and maintaining employment.
Clients describe the way in which the services provided through CiC have impacted their lives:
They help you understand, if your family dont care about you, dont have nobody to give you
advice, you need other people to give you advice, help you get busy, get a job. If you have no
other option, you go back to what you know especially if your familys doing it.
Its a blessing to have had an opportunity to be with Youth ALIVE!, get support in any possible
manner. I wouldnt be doing the same things Im doing today everyone decides what to do in
their life, I have more self-awareness to do better, stay positive, see things differently in my
community.
Speaking to Oakland Unites efforts to build a collaborative network, staff at the CiC program attribute
much of their success in reducing the level of retaliatory violence to the strength of their relationship
and collaboration with Oakland Unite partners.
Reentry Employment Strategy: The Reentry Employment strategy is made up of six programs that
provide employment training and subsidized employment to adults ages 18-35 who are on probation or
parole. Although these programs vary somewhat in their specific target populations and formats, all
provide a combination of case management, education, job readiness training, and subsidized
employment over a period of three-to-six months, as well as job placement and retention support
services longer term. This service array is designed to help probationers and parolees meet the many
challenges they face in obtaining sustained employment, including low literacy levels and educational
attainment, limited work histories, and little experience with the soft skills necessary to find a job.
The Reentry Employment strategy demonstrated the greatest percent change over time in pre- to post-
program convictions for violent offenses. Figure 29 shows that in Cohort 1, 14% of Reentry Employment
participants had a pre-program conviction for a violent offense, compared to 11% of participants with a
post-program conviction for a violent offensea 21% difference. By Cohort 4, Reentry Employment
participants were less than half as likely (52% less so) to have a conviction for a violent offense before
(21%) and after (10%) program participation.

74
December 2014 | 45


Figure 29. Percentage of Reentry Employment Clients Convicted of a New Crime Before and After

When describing why they believe the Reentry Employment programs to be successful in improving
client outcomes, staff and clients point to employment as one of the most important factors in helping
individuals involved in the criminal justice system redirect their lives. They noted that the Reentry
Employment programs help clients gain the soft and hard skills they need to be successfully employed
through a combination of educational support, soft-skills training, and subsidized employment. One
client emphasized the educational support he received, noting:
They helped me with a program called Second Start I have a reading disability and they helped
me a lot. When I first started YEP [Youth Employment Partnership], I was reading at a fifth grade
level and now Im reading at a 10th and 11th grade level. YEP gave me the biggest hug ever. I
came a long way.
A number of other clients highlighted the impact of the programs counselors and case managers in
helping clients believe in themselves and choose a different path:
They saw something in my heart. They keep you off the streets, keep you out of drama. They help
you stay in school, help put money in your pockets so youre not relying on other families, and to
stay out of trouble. It really changed my life. When I was 24 I had an attitude problem. I always
thought I knew everything. But once I sat myself down and looked in the mirror I knew I needed
help and they helped me.
When I started the program, I just lost my brother. I really wanted to keep that off my mind. I sat
down with my counselor and told him I was thinking negative after this happened. He sat down
and told me to take one day at a time and dont put too much pressure on yourself. He told me
that I have a beautiful heart and said he saw more in me than being on the streets. He motivated

75
December 2014 | 46

me. Like in my teenage years, I was always the follower, never the leader. Once he told me that I
could be a leader and do my own thing, that was a smell the coffee type of moment.
Summary of Findings
This section has focused on exploring changes in pre- and post-program criminal justice involvement for
each two-year cohort of clients, in order to provide a picture of how client outcomes have changed over
time. While this analysis cannot definitively attribute changes in client outcomes to Oakland Unite
participation, the fact that over time they showed progressively decreasing post-program arrest and
conviction rateseven while Oakland Unite shifted to serve individuals with higher pre-program arrest
ratessuggests that the effectiveness of Oakland Unite programming may have increased over time.
The next section summarizes key takeaways from the evaluation and discusses next steps for Oakland
Unite, as well as the ongoing evaluation of the initiative.
76
December 2014 | 47


IV.
Conclusions
Since 2008, the City of Oakland has contracted with RDA to evaluate the Oakland Unite Violence
Prevention Programs. Over the past 6 years, the evaluations have taken a variety of approaches to
assess the implementation and effectiveness of the initiative. The present evaluation is a retrospective
analysis of Oakland Unite from 2005 to 2013 that assesses changes in the initiatives implementation,
and in its effectiveness, with a focus on programs and strategies that work with Oakland residents who
are most at risk for perpetrating crime. The evaluations main questions and findings are summarized
below.
How has the Oakland Unite service model changed?
Oakland Unite has refined its service delivery model to serve a higher risk population.
Responding to evidence in data, Oakland Unite (re)targeted its programs to serve an older,
more male population with h igher levels of prior justice system-involvement.
Funding strategies have evolved to meet Oaklands changing needs w ithin the parameters of
Measure Y legislation.
Over the years, Oakland Unite has shifted its funding strategies to give more emphasis to
intervention rather than prevention, with more funding for Street Outreach and Crisis Response
services, and services for Commercially Sexually Exploited Children.
Oakland Unite has built a coordinated infrastructure for delivering high-quality services.
The initiative has helped create an integrated network of violence prevention services, with
extensive collaboration among Oakland Unite providers and between Oakland Unite providers
and other public and private p artners.
How does participation in Oakland Unite impact clients justice system involvement?
Oakland Unite clients have fewer arrests and convictions for both violent and nonviolent
offense following their participation in Oakland Unite programs.
Oakland Unite clients were less likely to be arrested or convicted of any new offense, whether
violent or non-violent, after participating in an Oakland Unite program. This is true for Oakland
Unite as a whole, as well as for individual strategies, especially for Commercially Sexually
Exploited Children, JJC/OUSD Wraparound, and Oakland Street Outreach. Notably, these
correspond with the strategies that have grown over the course of the initiative.
How has the effectiveness of Oakland Unite programs and strategies changed over time?
Oakland Unite clients recidivism rates have increasingly declined.

Oakland Unite clients have shown p rogressively lower post-service arrest and conviction rates,
even as the initiative served clients with riskier profiles.
The strategies whose clients showed particularly marked improvement included Caught in
the Crossfire and Reentry Employment.
These two strategies, both of which focus on higher risk and/or older clients showed the
greatest improvement in client outcomes over time.

77
December 2014 | 48
MEASURE Y OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEETING

February 9, 2015
Hearing Room 1, First Floor
ITEM #1:
ATTACHMENT 4
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:33pm

ITEM #2
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chairperson Jose Dorado

Vice Chairperson Peter Barnett
Commissioner Joanne Brown
Commissioner Ryan Hunter
Commissioner Melanie Shelby
Commissioner Lirio Zepeda
ITEM #3:
Excused:
Commissioner Mara Velez

Commissioner Lanenna Joiner
Commissioner Jamila Edwards Brooks
Absent:
Commissioner Qaid Aqeel

Commissioner Kisha Jackson
OPEN FORUM
Samuel P. Word shared that she had funds available for the committee if they wanted them.
ITEM #4
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Corrections to the December 15, 2014 minutes:

Page 4 line #4 residents as opposed to residences
ITME #9 ITEM (typo)
Page 6 Add draft letter from Chairperson Dorado to minutes
Line #24 MUOC MYOC (typo)
Commissioner Hunter moved to accept the minutes as corrected; seconded by Commissioner Brown; 6 Ayes
ITEM #5
AGENDA DISCUSSION
None
ITEM #6
COORDINATORS ANNOUNCEMENTS Chantal Cotton Gaines
Ms. Cotton Gaines clarified that the new measure is referred to as the Safety and Services Act. There is already
a Measure Z that has nothing to do with the new measure so it could get confusing.
There has been outreach to the council members regarding nominating names to the new Commission. Staff
had hoped to get all the names by the end of January, but is still working on the nomination process. No one
has been scheduled for Council approval to date. The goal is to have all members approved by February with
an orientation for the new members in March. They need to hold their first meeting by the end of April 2015.
Commissioners recommended the following topics be covered during this orientation
How City does contracting and RFP process

Goal and Scope of Committee
Ethics
Open Meetings Act
Come prepared to meetings
How to get items on the agenda for Public Safety Committee or Council Meetings
78
Reviewing staff reports (Ms. Cotton Gaines noted that this might be hard to accomplish)
ITEM #7:
OPD QUARTERLY REPORT (Donneisha Taylor)
Ms. Taylor briefly reviewed the reports that were submitted as Attachment 2.
Chairperson Dorado was pleased to see that the percentage of time the PSOs are reporting is going up.
Ms. Taylor indicated that they are trying to keep PSOs at this assignment as much as possible, because for
November and December the numbers will go down, as many were redeployed for daily protests.
Ms. Taylor noted that software is included in the education totals along with training and conferences. It also
includes about $10,000 for the SARAnet software upgrade.
Ms. Taylor stated that originally 21 PSOs were scheduled to go to the training but only about 4 or 5 attended
(she did not have the names).
ITEM #8:
HSD QUARTERLY REPORT (Peter Kim)
Mr. Peter Kim, HSD Oakland Unite Manager, briefly reviewed the report submitted in the agenda packet.
Commissioner Brown asked if any funds were held back from any provider.
Mr. Kim affirmed that some groups have been given an additional quarter if they under perform. This has
occurred with the Oakland Private Industry Council as well as the Unity Council. HSD takes actions to help the
organizations meet their contractual obligations.
ITEM #9:
UPDATE FROM HSD ABOUT STATUS OF 6 MONTH EXTENSION REQUEST
Mr. Peter Kim, HSD Oakland Unite Manager, explained that HSD needs to get the 6-month extension request
approved by the Safety and Services Oversight Commission (Measure Z). They need the commission to go
approve contract extension until December to pay for the existing contracts to go through the end of the year
and to allow time to effectively execute the RFP process for new contracts under Measure Z.
Commissioner Hunter noted that the community organizations would need to know ASAP if they are extended
for 6 months so that they can properly plan.
Chairperson Dorado noted that this item should be a standing item at upcoming meetings for the Committee
to get regular status updates.
ITEM #10:
UPDATE ON STATUS OF RFP FOR MEASURE Z
Mr. Peter Kim, HSD Oakland Unite Manager, stated that HSD has started collecting input from focus groups (818 people per focus group), staff retreat, and other meetings to know about program strengths and
weaknesses to date. They are currently doing a literature review. HSD will synthesize all of this information to
help in the RFP creation. He noted that HSD has also brought in Urban Strategies and another consultant to
help with analysis.
Chairperson Dorado noted that the information from the focus groups and research should be shared with
NSCs and NCPCs. He also noted that the NCPCs should be consulted for input.
ITEM #11:
AD HOC COMMITTEE UPDATE

79
Commissioner Brown reported that the committee had not met, but that she will be sending out a draft to the
members, which they will give input on. A document will be ready for the next meeting in May.
ITEM #12:
MYOC QUARTERLY REPORT TO PUBLIC SAFETY
Vice Chairperson Peter Barnett moved that the MYOC authorize Chairperson Dorado to write a letter to the
Public Safety Committee of the critical importance of each council person appointing a member to the Safety
and Services Oversight Committee. The letter should include the potential disruption of services, the need for
training new appointees, by-laws, etc.
Commissioner Hunter noted that the results of the Ad Hoc Committee should go to the Public Safety
Committee.
Mr. Dorado gave an update that the SARAnet letter to the Public Safety Committee went well.
ITEM #13:
AGENDA BUILDING
Update from Peter Kim regarding extension progress

Update on RFP process
OPD & HSD quarterly reports (October December)
RDA - scope of evaluation
Transition impacts to OPD and HSD
Ad Hoc Committee Update
ITEM #14:
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Vice Chair Barnett to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Commissioner Hunter.
6 Ayes. Motion passed.
Adjourned at 7:45pm
80
ATTACHMENT 5
MEASURE Y OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING
Wednesday, April 22, 2015
ITEM #1:
CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order at 6:33pm

ITEM #2
ROLL CALL
Present:
Chairperson Jose Dorado

Commissioner Ryan Hunter
Commissioner Lirio Zepeda
Commissioner Mara Velez
Commissioner Lanenna Joiner
ITEM #3:
Excused:
Absent:
Resigned:
Vice Chairperson Peter Barnett

Commissioner Qaid Aqeel
Commissioner Kisha Jackson
Commissioner Jamila Edwards
Brooks
Commissioner Joanne Brown
OPEN FORUM
No speakers
ITEM #4
COORDINATORS ANNOUCEMENTS Chantal Cotton Gaines
The Safety and Services Oversight Commission (SSOC) was officially appointed yesterday, April 21st. A hold up
on the process was the term limits for the members. Staggered 2 year terms have been established. Half of
the commissioners will start with 1-year terms while the other half will have 2-year terms. The Commission
has a wide variety of experience: 3 have backgrounds in law enforcement or criminal justice; 2 with non-profit
management experience; 2 reflect the service eligible population; and 2 with general experience.
Ms. Shelby will be serving on the new committee.
Item 7.24 of the Council Agenda from April 21st, has all the members resumes if you are interested.
The first Safety and Services Oversight Commission meeting will be on April 27th at 6:30pm in Hearing Room 1.
In an informal conversation, the members of the SSOC were open to a joint meeting with MYOC on May 18th.
Staff will formally request this at the first SSOC meeting.
ITEM #5
MEASURE Y OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE INDEPENDENT AUDITORS REPORT

FOR YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2014
Paige Alderete representing the City of Oakland Controllers Bureau explained that in accordance with
Government Code and the Citys ordinance, an independent audit is performed annually to ensure
accountability, proper disbursement of tax proceeds, and proper program status.
The independent accounting firm Patel & Associates, a sub-contractor to Macias Jeannie OConnell, the Citys
external auditor, conducted the audit.
Mr. Ramesh Patel presented their report. The 2014 report was performed In accordance with both general
and governmental accepted auditing standards.
During compliance testing they had a finding in the area of Police payroll. This is identified on page 9 of the
audit report as a significant deficiency. The controls over OPD payroll have not been implemented effectively
81
as recommended during last years evaluation. It appears there continues to be issues with charging the
correct funding source for the Problem Solving Officers (PSOs). A response has been received, but they have
not audited this response to see if any correcting action has taken place, as this will be reflected in the next
years audit.
Chairperson Dorado inquired if they have seen any improvement to the significant deficiencies. Mr. Patel
responded that there has been some improvement from Fiscal Year 2012-13 to 2013-14.
Nell Taylor, OPD Fiscal Manager concurred that the discrepancies with reconciliation as reported were
accurate. As was noted in their response, reconciliation was hampered due to staff turnover and new
employees hired in the middle of the fiscal year. OPD Fiscal brought in a temporary employee in May to assist
with the reconciliation, but at that time, there were only 2 months to complete an entire year.
They have implemented this year, payroll adjustments every 2 weeks. Overtime is done annually, to make
sure all overtime slips have been turned in.
Ms. Taylor stated that the training provided to anyone charging to Measure Y proved to be helpful. They also
began internal audits and more frequent coordination with Operations, Payroll and Personnel. A bi-weekly
assignment list is generated, which makes reconciliation easier.
Ms. Cotton Gaines added that this report would be presented at the Public Safety Committee Meeting on April
30th.
ITEM #6
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT (HSD) PLANNING PROCESS UPDATE
Peter Kim, HSD Oakland Unite Manager, went over the RFP process and timeline PowerPoint. With the
Measure Z (Safety and Services Oversight Commission, SSOC) members just being approved, the earliest
contracts would be able to start would be January 2016. HSD will formally asking the SSOC on Monday, April
27, 2015 for a 6-month extension of contracts, until the new contacts can be delivered.
Commissioner Hunter appreciates the work already done and the identification of what still needs to be done.
What does Urban Strategies think is well covered and where are the gaps? Will the RFP be ready by July 1st?
Mr. Kim replied that if all goes well it would go to City Council on June 2nd. It is cutting it close. Poses a
difficultly for grantees as they are left in limbo until the approval from the SSOC for the 6-month extension.
The new SSOC members are loosely aware of the need for the 6-month extension.
Commissioner Joiner inquired if any current grantees address LGBTQ youth.
Mr. Kim noted that none of the current grantees currently focus exclusively on LGBTQ. Assessing the needs of
the clients was difficult as identification has been difficult. Training was provided to assist in identifying and
creating a safe environment.
Commissioner Zepeda noted that the focus is on work force development. Some non-profits have connections
with corporations but it would be nice to see more small business leaders connect with corporation leaders.
Mr. Kim stated that communication, coordination, and collaboration have improved. He gave the example of
how seven (7) years ago the JJC system wrap around model the coordination and collaboration wasnt there.
Previously there had been resistance in getting everyone together. Each agency was used to doing things as
they used to do them. Once the group owned the meeting, they began to engage one another in trying to
come up with different plans for the youth. The schools have a more buy-in as they are part of the process in
getting the youth back in school quickly after being released from the JJC.
82
Related to employment opportunities, Mr. Kim said many clients have trouble doing months of training
without pay. Additionally, the high school diploma or GED, Math Test or a CDL are also barriers to employment
that sometimes occur.
ITEM #7
AGENDA BUILIDING
Presentation of advice (RE Ad Hoc Committee)

Update on the 6-month extension
Urban Strategies gap analysis
ITEM #8
ADJOURNMENT
It was moved by Commissioner Shelby to adjourn the meeting; seconded by Commissioner Hunter.
6 Ayes. Motion passed.
Adjourned at 7:30pm
83
ATTACHMENT 6
Draft 2- Bylaws revised from the April 27, 2015 SSOC Meeting for the May 18, 2015 Discussion
Oakland Public Safety and Services

Violence Prevention (Measure Z) Oversight Commission
ARTICLE I: Establishment and Governing Law
1) Name
Public Safety and Services Violence Prevention Oversight Commission (SSOC)
2) Authority, Statutory Requirements: and Other Laws and Polices
The voters of the City of Oakland adopted the 2014 Oakland Public Safety and Services
Violence Prevention Act, also known as the Safety and Services Act or Measure Z, in the
November 4, 2014 General Municipal Election to maintain the parcel tax and parking tax
surcharge for a period of ten years to improve police, fire and emergency response
services and community strategies for at risk youth and young adults. Voter approval of
the Safety and Services Act also created the Public Safety and Services Violence
Prevention Oversight Commission (SSOC).
In addition to the voter approval of the Safety and Services Act, the Oakland City
Council passed Ordinance 13303 C.M.S. to create additional membership terms for the
SSOC.
The Commission shall comply with all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, the
City of Oakland Charter, the Establishing Ordinance and membership ordinance, the
Oakland Sunshine Ordinance (Ordinance No. 11957 C.M.S., adopted January 14, 1997),
the Ralph M. Brown Act (Government Code sections 54950 et seq.), the Political Reform
Act of 1974 (Government Code sections 81000 et. seq.), the Public Records Act
(Government Code sections 6250 et seq.), and the Oakland Conflict of Interest Code
(Ordinance No. 11979 C.M.S., as amended). If any conflict exists between any of the
foregoing laws and these bylaws, the applicable law shall control over the bylaws.
ARTICLE II: Duties, Functions, and Commissioner Appointments
1) Duties and Functions
The Commission shall fulfill duties and functions as set forth in the Safety and Services
Act which are as follows:
(a) Evaluate, inquire, and review the administration, coordination, and evaluation of
strategies and practices mandated in this Ordinance.
(b) Make recommendations to the City Administrator and, as appropriate, the
independent evaluator regarding the scope of the annual program performance
evaluation. Wherever possible, the scope shall relate directly to the efficacy of
strategies to achieve desired outcomes and to issues raised in previous evaluations.
(c) Receive draft performance reviews to provide feedback before the evaluator finalizes
the report.
84
Page 1 of 7
(d) Report issues identified in the annual fiscal audit to the Mayor and City Council.
(e) Review the annual fiscal and performance audits and evaluations.
(f) Report in a public meeting to the Mayor and the City Council on the implementation
of this Ordinance and recommend ordinances, resolutions, and regulations to ensure
compliance with the requirements and intents of this Ordinance.
(g) Provide input on strategies: At least every three (3) years, the department head or
his/her designee of each department receiving funds from this Ordinance shall present
to the Commission a priority spending plan for funds received from this Ordinance.
The priority spending plan shall include proposed expenditures, strategic rationales
for those expenditures and intended measurable outcomes and metrics expected from
those expenditures. The first presentation shall occur within 120 days of the effective
date of this Ordinance. In a public meeting, the Commission shall make
recommendations to the Mayor and City Council on the strategies in the plans prior to
the City Council adoption of the plans. Spending of tax proceeds of this Ordinance
must be sufficiently flexible to allow for timely responsiveness to the changing causes
of violent crime. The priority spending plans shall reflect such changes. The
Commission will recommend to the Mayor and City Council those strategies and
practices funded by tax proceeds of this Ordinance that should be continued and/or
terminated, based on successes in responding to, reducing or preventing violent crime
as demonstrated in the evaluation.
(h) Semi-Annual Progress Reports: Twice each year, the Commission shall receive a
report from a representative of each department receiving funds from this Ordinance,
updating the Commission on the priority spending plans and demonstrating progress
towards the desired outcomes.
2) Number, Appointing Authority and Qualifications:
The SSOC Commission membership shall be as described in the Safety and Services Act
and Ordinance13303, which specifies as follows:
(a) The Commission shall consist of nine (9) members.
(b) The Mayor and each councilmember shall recommend one member of the SSOC
each. All commissioners shall be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City
Council in accordance with City Charter Section 601.
(c) The Safety and Services Act specifies that at least two (2) members will have
experience working with service eligible populations, two (2) members will reflect
the service-eligible populations, and two (2) members will have a professional law
enforcement or criminal justice background, while all other members will have
general experience in criminal justice, public health, social services, research and
evaluation, finance, audits, and/or public policy.
(d) As established in Ordinance 13303 C.M.S., Commission members shall be appointed
to one- or two-year staggered terms and shall be limited to no more than three (3)
consecutive terms.
(e) Vacancies and Holdover Status on the SSOC shall be conducted according to Section
2.F. and 2.D of Ordinance 13303 C.M.S.
85
Page 2 of 7
(f) As established in Ordinance 13303 C.M.S., Section 2.E., a member may be removed
pursuant to Section 601 of the City Charter. Among other things, conviction of a
felony, misconduct, incompetence, inattention to or inability to perform duties, or
absence from three (3) consecutive regular meetings except on account of illness or
when absent from the City by permission of the SSOC, shall constitute cause for
removal.
3) Compensation
Members of the SSOC shall serve without compensation.
4) Oath of Public Office
Acceptance of the Oath of Public Office constitutes a Commission member's sworn
responsibility of public trust. Members are required to serve well and to faithfully
discharge their duties and responsibilities diligently and consistent with the laws of the
City of Oakland and all pertinent state and federal laws.
5) Rules, Regulations and Procedures; Voting Requirements
Except for the two-thirds vote requirement in Article IX hereof, all actions by the SSOC
shall be by a majority vote of those present at a meeting at which a quorum exists.
Rules, regulations, and procedures for the conduct of SSOC business shall be established
by a vote of the members.
The Commission must vote to adopt any motion or resolution.
6) Conflict of Interest
All members shall adhere to the requirements stated in the Safety and Services Act,
Section 4.A.2 related to conflicts of interest. No member of the Commission shall cast a
vote on or participate in a decision-making capacity on the provision of services by that
member or any organization that the member directly represents, on any matter which
would provide a direct financial benefit to such member or a member of his or her
immediate family, or on any other matter which would result in the member violating any
conflict of interest law or regulation.
ARTICLE III: Officers

Officers shall be a Chairperson and Vice Chairperson chosen from members of the SSOC.
1) Chairperson
The Chairperson shall preside at all SSOC meetings and shall submit such agenda,
recommendations and information at such meetings as are reasonable and proper for the
conduct of the business affairs and policies of the SSOC. The Chairperson shall sign all
documents necessary to carry out the business of the SSOC.
86
Page 3 of 7
2) Vice Chairperson
The Vice Chairperson shall assist the Chairperson as directed and shall assume all the
obligations and authority of the Chairperson in the absence or recusal of the Chairperson.
3) Election of Officers
The Officers shall initially be elected by vote from among the members of the
Commission at the Commission's first regular meeting after adoption of these bylaws, or
as soon thereafter as possible.
4) Removal of Chairperson
An affirmative vote of the SSOC members can remove any Officer from office.
5) Officers Terms of Office
The Officers shall hold office for one year. Their terms shall expire one year and one
meeting after their election. No person shall be elected as an Officer for longer than his or
her SSOC term of office.
6) Officer Vacancies
If the office of the Chairperson becomes vacant, the Vice Chairperson shall become
Chairperson. If the office of the Vice Chairperson becomes vacant for any reason, the
SSOC shall vote to elect a successor from among the SSOC members at the next regular
meeting, and such office shall be held for the unexpired term of said office.
ARTICLE IV: Planning and Oversight Staff

1) City Administrator
The Commission shall receive staff support from the City Administrators Office, as
determined by the City Administrator.
2) Legal Advisor
The Oakland Office of the City Attorney (OCA) is the Commission's legal advisor. The
OCA shall provide the Commission with legal assistance as determined by the OCA. Any
member of the Commission may consult informally with any OCA attorney assigned by
the OCA to the Commission on any matter related to SSOC business. However, a request
from a SSOC member for assistance from the SSOCs assigned attorney requiring
significant legal research, a substantial amount of time and attention, or a written
response, may be made only through the Commission Chairperson with the designated
SSOC staff member or by a vote of the SSOC.
3) Commission Staff
Commission members may consult staff of the City Administrators Office informally,
but any request for substantial assistance or a written report must be authorized by a vote
of the SSOC.
87
Page 4 of 7
4) Custodian of Records
Pursuant to section 20.020.240 of the Sunshine Ordinance, the Commission shall
maintain a public records file that is accessible to the public during normal business
hours. The City Clerk shall be the official custodian of these public records, which shall
be maintained in the manner consistent with records kept by the City Clerk on behalf of
all other standing Commissions.
5) If authorized by the City Administrator, a designated member of City staff shall act as
Custodian of Records to the Commission. The Custodian of Records shall keep the
records of the Commission, shall record all votes, and shall prepare minutes and keep a
record of the meetings in a journal of the proceedings.
ARTICLE V: Ad Hoc Committees
1) Ad Hoc Committees
The Chairperson, at her or his discretion, may establish ad hoc committees to perform
specific tasks. An ad hoc committee shall dissolve when the task is completed and the
final report is given. Any ad hoc committee may not have more than 4 SSOC members.
ARTICLE VI: Meetings
1) Quorum
Ordinance 13303 C.M.S. created quorum for the SSOC as five (5) members. A quorum
shall be called for prior to any official business being conducted at the meeting. If there is
no quorum at that time, no official action may be taken at that meeting. In the event that a
quorum is not established within thirty (30) minutes of the noticed start time of the
meeting, the Chairperson, in her or his discretion, may cancel the meeting or may allow
the meeting to make place without any official action being taken at the meeting without
a quorum.
2) Voting
Each member of the Commission shall have one vote. Consistent with Article II, Section
5, a motion shall be passed or defeated by a simple majority of those members present
and voting at a meeting where a quorum has been established.
3) Public Input
(a) Public Input on Items Officially Noticed for the Agenda
At every regular meeting, members of the public shall have an opportunity to address
the SSOC on matters within the SSOCs subject matter jurisdiction. Public input and
comment on matters on the agenda, as well as public input and comment on matters
not otherwise on the agenda, shall be made during the time set aside for public
comment. Members of the public wishing to speak and who have filled out a speakers
card, shall have two (2) minutes to speak unless the chairperson otherwise
The Chairperson may limits the total amount of time allocated for public discussion on particular
issues and/or the time allocated for each individual speaker.
88
Page 5 of 7
(b) Public Input on Items Not Officially Noticed for the Agenda (Open Forum)
Matters brought before the Commission at a regular meeting which were not placed
on the agenda of the meeting shall not be acted upon or discussed by the SSOC at that
meeting unless action or discussion on such matters is permissible pursuant to the
Brown Act and the Sunshine Ordinance. Those non-agenda items brought before the
SSOC which the SSOC determines will require consideration and action and where
action at that meeting is not so authorized shall be placed on the agenda for the next
regular meeting.
(c) Identification of Speaker
Persons addressing the SSOC shall be asked to state their names and the organization
they represent, if any. They shall be asked to confine their remarks to the subject
under discussion, unless they speak during the Open Forum portion of the agenda.
4) Regular Meetings
The Commission shall meet regularly on the fourth Monday of each month, at the hour of
6:30 pm, in Oakland, California. In the event that the regular meeting date shall be a legal
holiday, then any such regular meeting shall be rescheduled at least two meetings prior to
the meeting for a business day thereafter that is not a legal holiday. A notice, agenda, and
other necessary documents shall be delivered to the members, personally or by mail, at
least seventy-two hours prior to the meeting.
5) Notice and Conduct of Regular Meetings
Notices and agendas of all regular SSOC meetings requiring notice shall be posted in the
City Clerk's Office and on an exterior bulletin board accessible twenty-four hours a day.
Notice of regular meetings shall be posted at least seventy-two hours before the meeting.
Action may only be taken on items for which notice was provided in compliance with the
Sunshine Ordinance and the Brown Act.
6) Minutes
Minutes shall be taken at every SSOC meeting. Minutes shall be prepared in writing by
the Custodian of Records. Copies of the minutes of each SSOC meeting shall be made
available to each member of the SSOC and the City. Approved minutes shall be filed in
the official SSOC file.
ARTICLE VII: Agenda Requirements

1) Agenda Preparation
The agenda is prepared through the joint effort of the Chairperson and SSOC Staff, with
appropriate legal review. At the outset of a SSOC meeting, the Commission may remove
items from the posted agenda, but may not add items to the posted agenda or otherwise
modify it. Nothing in this Article VII shall change the requirements for agenda noticing
89
Page 6 of 7
and modification to the agenda as required by the Brown Act, Sunshine Ordinance or
other applicable law.
ARTICLE VIII: Parliamentary Authority

1) Roberts Rules of Order, Ronr, Eleventh Edition
The business of the SSOC shall be conducted, to the extent possible, in accordance with
parliamentary rules as contained in Roberts Rules of Order, Ronr, Eleventh Edition,
except as modified by these rules and in accordance with State open meeting laws and
local open meeting laws, including, without limitation, the Brown Act, the Oakland
Sunshine Ordinance, and the Establishing Ordinance. Failure of compliance with
Roberts Rules of Order, Ronr, Eleventh Edition, shall not constitute cause for
invalidation of any SSOC action of which a majority of SSOC members clearly
expressed approval.
2) Representation of the Safety and Services Oversight Committee
Any official representations on behalf of the SSOC before the City Council or any other
public body shall be made by a member of the SSOC specifically so designated by vote
of the SSOC.
ARTICLE IX: Amendment of Bylaws

The Commission may adopt bylaws amendments at any regular meeting of the SSOC by vote of
two-thirds of the members present at which a quorum exits; provided such proposed amendments
are circulated in writing to all SSOC members at least ten (10) calendar days prior to such
meeting, and three (3) calendar days public notice shall be posted.
90
Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENT 7
PUBLIC SAFETY AND SERVICES OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTESS
Monday, April 27, 2015
ITEM #1:
CALL TO ORDER
Chantal Cotton Gaines, staff, called the meeting to order at 6:31pm. Ms. Cotton Gaines, as secretary/staff of
the new Commission, will chair the meeting, until such time that a Chairperson has been elected.
ITEM #2
ROLL CALL
Present:
Commissioner Rebecca Alvarado

Commissioner Rev. Curtis Flemming Sr.
Commissioner Letitia Henderson
Commissioner Kevin McPherson
Commissioner Jennifer Madden
Commissioner Tony Marks-Block
Commissioner Jody Nunez
Commissioner Gary Malachi Scott
Ms. Cotton Gaines will come back to Open Forum as she heard others are in route to the meeting.
ITEM #4
COORDINATORS ANNOUCEMENTS Chantal Cotton Gaines
Please feel free to fill out a speaker card and give it to staff, Nancy Marcus, or myself.
ITEM #5
REVIEW THE ORDINANCE AND THE SCOPE OF THE COMMISSION
Ms. Cotton Gaines reviewed some highlights of the new measure.

There are 3 objectives for the use of funds as delineated in the voter-approved ordinance:
1) Reduce homicides, robberies, burglaries and gun related violence;
2) Improve police and fire emergency 911 response times and other police services; and
3) Invest in violence intervention and prevention strategies that provide support for at-risk youth and
young adults to interrupt the cycle of violence and recidivism.
The budget office has reported an estimated projected revenue of $25,000,000 for the upcoming fiscal year.
3% shall be set aside annually for audit, evaluation of the program, staff support and support the work of the
Commission including meeting supplies, retreats, and the hiring of consultants.
$2,000,000 shall be allocated to the Oakland Fire Department (OFD), with the remaining funds being split
60%/40% to the Oakland Police Department (OPD) and Human Services Department (HSD).
Scope of strategies:
OPD:
Geographic policing including Crime Reduction Team, Community Resource Officers, conduct intelligencebased violence suppression operations, domestic violence and child abuse intervention and sustaining and
strengthening Operation Ceasefire.
91
Required for collection of tax the City shall maintain a level of 678 sworn Police Officers by July 1, 2016. The
City is prohibited from laying off any police officers if it would lead to a reduction of sworn police personnel to
a level of less than 800 sworn police personnel. If grant funding is lost for sworn police personnel or for any
severe unforeseen financial event or if attrition is higher than projected, the City can continue to collect the
tax so long as it goes through a public process as explained in the measure.
HSD:
Community focused violence prevention services and strategies could include street outreach and case
management to youth and young adults. Crisis response, advocacy and case management for victims of crime
with a strategic focus on reducing likelihood of being re-victimized. Re-entry programs for youth and young
adults including case management, school support and job training/placement. Also, young children exposed
to trauma or domestic and/or community violence.
OFD:
Maintain adequate personnel resources to respond to fire and medical emergencies including, but not limited
to homicides and gun-related violence and investigate fire causes.
Scope of Commission:
The Commission will consist of 9 members. They are recommended by the City Council and Mayor. They are
appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Two (2) members will have experience in working
with the service population; two (2) members will reflect the service population; two (2) members will have
experience with the criminal justice or law enforcement background, with remaining members having to meet
the criteria of doing research and general analytical thinking.
Holding regular meetings. This will be discussed a little later in the meeting during the bylaws discussion.
Duties of the Commission shall include evaluate, inquire and review the administration, coordination and
evaluation strategies and practices mandated in this ordinance. Make recommendations to the City
Administrator, and as appropriate the independent evaluator. Receive draft reviews and provide feedback
before the evaluator finalizes the report. Report Issues identified in the annual fiscal audit to the Mayor and
City Council; review the annual fiscal and performance audits and evaluations; report in a public meeting to
the Mayor and the City Council the implementation of this Ordinance as whole; and to receive and comment
on semi-annual progress reports on the priority spending plans from the departments.
Introduction of newly appointed Commissioners
Rebecca Alvarado was raised and educated in Oakland. Social Worker by trade. Currently working at Highland
Hospital as social worker/supervisor for domestic violence and sexual assault. Glad to be here.
Rev. Curtis Flemming Sr. serves in West Oakland at Bay Community Fellowship. Also serves as Bay Area
Director for World Impact (inner city urban agency which concentrates on the poor, disenfranchised youth and
young adults). He states that he was one of those youths, and was fortunate enough to escape through
education and given a change of life because of groups like this. Excited to be part of this commission and
hopes to make lasting and sustainable changes for the youth of Oakland.
Letitia Henderson home grown Oaklander! Currently works with Alameda County Probation Department as a
management analyst. Is a social worker by trade. Looking forward to contributing this great group of thinkers
and holding services providers accountable to deliver the great work that Oakland residents deserve.
Kevin McPherson is a native of Oakland. Currently a Sergeant in the San Francisco Police Department.
Assigned to Special Victims unit investigating crimes against the elderly. He has also worked in the
92
Community Relations/Community Outreach, and also worked in the Bayview District. Hopes that he can bring
this side of law enforcement to the commission and bring the perspective on how difficult it is for the police to
interact with the community and help to make it better for everyone to work together.
Jennifer Madden currently works as an Assistant District Attorney for Alameda County. She heads the Juvenile
HEAT (Human Exploitation and Trafficking) Division. Has been a resident of Alameda County for 26 years.
Honored to be here and looking forward to working with this group of people and that the youth who are at
risk are being properly served and holding the organizations accountable.
Tony Marks-Block grew up in San Francisco. Currently a PhD student at Stanford. Used to work at the UC
Berkeley Outreach program in Oakland. Continues to work with a group in the Fruitvale area that have been
targeted by the gang injunctions. Excited to be here and provide his perspective.
Jody Nunez did not grow up on the Bay Area, but has been a resident of Oakland now for 25 years. Has
worked for the Alameda County Public Defenders Office for 27 years. Currently heads of the homicide team.
Hope she can be part of making sure that the City provides programs for the youth and that they are useful
and do what they are intended to do.
Gary Malachi Scott works for Westside Community Services in San Francisco. It is a mental wellness
organization. Also the Restorative Justice coordinator for Oakland Youth as well as the North Oakland Justice
Council. As a person who has been through the Juvenile and adult system himself.
Melanie Shelby is a current member of the Measure Y Oversight Committee and is looking forward to working
with the Measure Z commissioners as well. She is lobbyist specializing in government affairs and does work on
the state and federal level. Looking forward to working on how to develop the healing that needs to happen
between the general community and law enforcement, but a dialogue of bringing youth to the table that they
can facilitate change.
ITEM #3:
OPEN FORUM
Angie Tam supports the Ceasefire program, as this is something the community can do the make things
happen.
Rev. Damita Davis Howard knows what violence looks like up close and personal. Walked and talked to many
people during the weeks before the election encouraging residents to support the passage of Measure Z. She
told them that these funds would improve Oakland and reduce the gun violence. Measure Y could not reduce
homicides. We need to increase the number of case managers.
Paula Hawthorn also supports the Ceasefire program. It is a proven program that reduces the violence with
guns. She provided commissioners with the book on reducing homicides which the Ceasefire program is
modeled by. She also invited the commissioners to join a Friday night walk. They are a wonderful part of this
community program.
Bruce Nye is a board member of Make Oakland Better Now. Did not see the decrease in violence over the last
10 years under Measure Y. Wants to make sure to focus on who is at risk and providing them the outreach
and case management that helps to turn their lives around.
Ed Gerber is also a member of Make Oakland Better Now. Did a lot of telephoning for the Measure and was
met with a lot of skepticism on how we were going to get things done and how are you going to measure it.
93
Geoff Collins has served on the Community Policing Advisory Board, President Emeritus and on the Police
Advisory Board of the Police Foundation. He says that the City doesnt have enough outreach and counselors
to reach out to the youth.
Peter Barnett, Vice Chair of the Measure Y Oversight Committee, would like to give you 3 pieces of advice:
1) Attendance is important. Many of our meetings we couldnt establish a quorum.
2) Need to give more than just the monthly meeting. Encourage you to establish ad-hoc committees
when needed.
3) Give yourself time to review documents. Dont feel pressured to make decisions. Set your own
agendas.
He wishes the SSOC members success and looks forward to seeing the commission accomplish some of the
items previous speakers talked about.
ITEM #6
SELECTING A CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION
Motion made by Commissioner Flemming to open the nominations for chair and vice-chair; seconded by
Commissioner McPherson. 9 Ayes
Commissioner Nunez nominated Rev. Curtis Flemming for Chairperson; seconded by Commissioner Madden.
9 Ayes
Chairperson Flemming nominated Jennifer Madden as the vice-chair; seconded by Commissioner Nunez.
9 Ayes.
ITEM #7
DISCUSSION OF COMMISSION BYLAWS
Draft bylaws have been provided to you. You can discuss today and carry them over to your next meeting.
Ms . Cotton Gaines reviewed draft of the bylaws.
Commissioner Nunez has concerns with the adequate timing for public speakers.
Chairperson Flemming noted that special rules can be made to set time limits for the public and
Commissioners, or to leave at the discretion of the Chairperson to determine time limits.
Ms. Cotton Gaines added that the Commission can set standards where on average speakers will receive X
amount of time, but at the discretion of the chair based on the volume of speakers or full agenda.
Commissioner Nunez volunteered to review along with Ms. Cotton Gaines and they will get back to the
Commission.
ITEM #8
SETTING MEETING DATES
Ms. Cotton Gaines explained that the hearing room is available on the 4th Monday of the month with the
exception of May 25th, which happens to be a holiday. Also, the Measure Y Oversight Committee had wanted
to hold a joint meeting with the new Safety and Services Oversight Commission in May, which is scheduled for
May 18th. She proposes that the SSOC meet an hour before the joint meeting to address items specific to
Measure Z. She also proposes an additional meeting date of May 27th as the adoption date for the priority
spending plans from OFD, OPD and HSD.
94
Motion made by Commissioner Commissioner Nunez for the regular meeting schedule to be held on the 4th
Monday of each month with the exception of May 2015; seconded by Commissioner Shelby. 9 Ayes
ITEM #9
HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT SIX (6) MONTH CONTRACT EXTENSION PRESENTATION
Mr. Peter Kim, manager of Oakland Unite, gave an overview of the documents provided in the meeting packet
regarding the development of the RFP process and timeline. This document was also provided to you by
Commission staff previously as background information. The proposed extension will allow for the time for
the RFP process while maintaining continuity in the program.
Mr. Kim stated we are asking for an approval of a 6 month extension of funds from Measure Z to prevent any
gap of services as of July 1, 2105.
Mr. Kim reported 4200 individuals and 1200 in group activities.
Public Speakers:
Peter Barnett commented and encouraged the commissioners to not be in the position to make hasty
decisions. However, there are exceptions to the rule. This is one of them. He hopes the SSOC will approve the
6 month extension, as he personally believes this request should be approved.
Bruce Nye feels that although there were good programs under Measure Y, some of these programs do not
necessarily fit the language of Measure Z. Agrees that a 90-180 days extension should be done, but through
the City, not the Measure Z funds.
Geoff Collins commented that the broader discussion has to be to bring all the stakeholders together who
worked so hard on public safety and the safety of the children. Work it out.
Rev. Damita Davis Howard agrees that Measure Y was an excellent program. The problem is the voters
approved Measure Z. Approving 6 months of Measure Z funds for Measure Y should not be done, as the
language in the Measure is quite different. It would be in my opinion, not a totally honest move. We need to
stay focused on what the language states.
Jen Leland of East Bay Agency for Children. Her organization is not afraid of data or evaluations. They are
happy to open their doors and see if the outcomes we are producing through the Measure Y funding is in align
with the Measure Z funding. Without the 6 month approval, her organization is looking at about 40 youth who
will no longer be able to provide them services if the contract is not extended beyond June 30, 2015.
Commission Discussion:
Commissioner Alvarado requested recusal from the discussion from Chairperson Flemming as she has
identified a possible conflict of interest. Chairperson Flemming granted.
Vice-Chair Madden requested recusal from the discussion from Chairperson Flemming as she has identified a
possible conflict of interest. Chairperson Flemming granted.
Commissioner Henderson requested recusal from the discussion from Chairperson Flemming as she has
Commissioner Gary Malachi Scott requested recusal from the discussion from Chairperson Flemming as he has
95
Due to robust discussion, Chairperson Flemming inquired if this item was held over to our next meeting, would
this be problematic.
Mr. Kim replied it would add challenges to an already challenging situation, but if you need the time to
deliberate, you should take it.
Commissioner Mark-Block made a motion to grant the 6 month extension. Seconded by Commissioner
McPherson.
Commissioner Shelby: Having served on Measure Y, she had hoped that this conversation could have been
held earlier in the year with Measure Y, and then we could have vetted, which would have been helpful to
staff. Her concern is of having to make a decision without any type of back-up plan. Would recommend a
friendly amendment of extending support for 90 days with an abbreviated plan that is outlined by the HSD
team (simply put: extend funding for 3 months instead of 6 months).
Commissioner Mark-Block accepts the friendly amendment to his motion.
Ms. Bedford asked for clarification that the 90 day extension includes Measure Z funding. She still thinks it will
be a challenge to get the RFP to the Commission, Public Safety Committee before councils summer break, and
most likely we will be coming back before you explaining they will need to end services.
Commissioner McPherson commented that there was nothing stopping them from coming back and
requesting an additional 90 days, if the process isnt moving to meet the new deadline.
Chairperson Fleming explained that this body is an advisory committee, and will be advising the City Council.
The City Council will be the ones making the ultimate decision.
The motion for a 6 month contract by Commissioner Mark-Block was amended by Commissioner Shelby to 3
months. 4 Ayes (Flemming, McPherson, Nunez , Shelby) 1 No (Mark-Block) 4 Recused (Alvarado, Henderson,
Madden and Scott).
Regarding recusals, Ms. Cotton Gaines will find out what the potential conflicts of interest, and will check in
with the Office of the City Attorney and Public Ethics Commission Executive Director for clarification.
ITEM #10
PRIORITY SPENDING PLANS
Ms. Cotton Gaines commented that the priority spending plan is a very big deal as part of the scope of this
Commission. Every department that receives funds will need to present to you their spending plans. Tonight
you heard that HSDs spending plan will be in the form of the RFP. OFD and OPD will present to you how they
plan to allocate their staffing based on the funds they receive.
Ms. Cotton Gaines will be presenting the City Administrators, Mayors Office and Finance Department
Controllers Bureaus priority spending plans tonight. On May 18th the spending plans will be presented by
HSD, OPD and OFD. Staff will try to get you the materials as soon as possible, but you will have by Wednesday,
May 13th at the latest (that is when the packet is posted with the Clerks Office). On May 27th staff will be
asking you to approve these spending plans. For all departments except HSD, all spending plans will be part of
the actual City budget. If you have suggestions for different allocations than what is presented, it will be
important to get your suggestions to the City Council before June 30 when they have to adopt the budget.
Ms. Cotton Gaines reviewed the spending plans as submitted in the meeting packet for the CAO, Controllers
Bureau, and the Mayors Office.
96
Commissioner Madden had questions as to why the amount for evaluation was so high.
Ms. Cotton Gaines explained that the amount for evaluation is increased from the amount allocated in
Measure Y to allow for a more robust evaluation. You will be able to discuss the evaluation scope before the
RFP is released for the evaluator.
Commissioner Henderson questioned the increase for 2016-2017 increase of $58,000 for the evaluation.
Ms. Cotton Gaines explained that 3% can be used for audit, evaluation, staff support and support to the
Commission. After these costs have been subtracted, staff allocated the remaining amount to evaluation which
should hopefully allow for a better evaluation. A draft scope of evaluation services for an evaluator will be
shared with the Commission later, then would go through the formal City contracting RFP process.
Ms. Cotton Gaines explained that the funding for the Finance Department Controllers Bureau is for the Annual
Audit. The funding for the Mayors Office is a special assistant to the Mayor whose primary focus is on public
safety. This particular position had previously been held by Reygan Harmon, who now oversees the Ceasefire
Program.
Commissioner Henderson made a motion to adopt the Priority Spending Plans for the City Administrator,
Mayor and Finance Department as presented; Seconded by Commissioner Alvarado. 9 Ayes
Discussion around timeliness of getting reports on which action is required. Ms. Cotton Gaines will work with
staff in getting materials quicker so that affords the committee ample time to review before the meeting.
It was moved by Commissioner Nunez to adjourn the meeting. Seconded by Vice-Chair Madden. Chairperson
Flemming adjourned the meeting at 9:45 pm.
97
ATTACHMENT 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Safety and Services Oversight Committee
FROM: Peter Kim, Manager, Oakland Unite

Human Services Department (HSD)
SUBJECT: Service Transition Funding Options
DATE: May 12, 2015
Purpose: The purpose of the attached report and supplemental materials are to clarify options
for sustaining violence intervention and prevention services through the planning, roll-out and
selection period of a competitive Request for Proposals for new Measure Z services.
Summary of General Context Factors:
Measure Y final contracts end June 30, 2015.
Measure Z new contracts begin Jan 1, 2016
Six month gap: July 1, 2015 Dec 31, 2015
Cost to keep Measure Y programs fully operational for six month gap period: $3,141,889
History: On Monday, April 27, HSD staff recommended that the Safety and Services Oversight
Committee (SSOC) allocate up to $2,772,832 of Measure Z funds to support a six-month
extension of current violence prevention programs and services. Up to $734,057 of Measure Y
reserve funds are also recommended for use in this six-month extension, as discussed with the
Measure Y Oversight Committee (and pending Council approval).
The SSOC approved a three-month extension of programs and requested that HSD staff return
with options for how that could work, as well as additional information about the RFP timeline
and Oakland Unite performance and accountability measures.
Options: Details are in the attached report, but in summary, options include:
Three-month extension of all contracts, with programs ending by October 2015
Six-month extension of all contracts at half capacity, with programs ending December 2015
Six-month extension of selected contracts, with programs ending December 2015
Revisit Six-month extension of all contracts at full capacity, with programs ending December
2015 please note, staff continue to recommend this option for continuity of services.
Information Attached: To provide the SSOC with the information needed to make a decision,
staff have prepared the following:
Summary of transition options
Attachment A provides a list of the agencies and funding amounts options for gap period.
Attachment B provides a detailed RFP timeline.
Attachment C provides a HSD-generated summary of each currently funded agency that
includes performance data and a brief program description.
Attachment D provides HSD/Oakland Unite accountability measures.
98
Oakland Unite Measure Y Sunset Transition to Measure Z

OVERVIEW OF MEASURE Y TRANSITION TO MEASURE Z GAP PERIOD OPTIONS
Summary of General Factors:
Measure Y final contracts end June 30, 2015.
Measure Z new contracts begin Jan 1, 2016
Six month gap: July 1, 2015 Dec 31, 2015
Cost to keep Measure Y programs fully operational for six month gap period:
Cost to keep Measure Y programs fully operational for three months:
$3,141,889
$1,739,717
Option
Option 1 Measure Y
Three Month Only
Extension
Option Description
All contracts receive a three month
extension:
July-Aug-Sept, 2015.
Budget Impact
Cost for three months of
fully operational Measure Y
programs = $1,739,717
(with possible
reconsideration for a
second three month
extension)
Option 2 - Measure Y
Six Month Extension
At Reduced Capacity
NO Oakland Unite Violence

Prevention programming:
Oct-Nov-Dec, 2015.
Measure Z Cost =
$1,005,660
Option 3 Measure Y
Six Month Extension
For Selected Programs
ONLY
All contracts receive a six month

extension at Half capacity.
MY Reserve of $734,057
Cost for Six months of ALL
Measure Y programs HALF
operational = $1,739,717
Oakland Unite Violence Prevention

programming continues, limited,
throughout July 1, 2015 Dec 31,
2015
Measure Z Cost =
$1,005,660
Selected Measure Y contracts are

extended for the full six months.
Some Oakland Unite Violence
Prevention programming continues
throughout
July 1, 2015 Dec 31, 2015
Remaining Measure Y programs End
as of June 30, 2015
Cost for Six months of
selected Measure Y
programs FULLY operational
= $2,216,889
Measure Z Cost =
$1,482,832
Option 1 Three month extension of all Measure Y programs through July, August and Sept, 2015.
Contracted commitments for FY 14/15 are completed by June 30, 2015. In July, 2015, program staff will
begin the process of closing out client caseloads, transitioning clients that still need supports and
services to other providers, as available. Agencies have three months to ramp down services and
expectations in the community regarding needed supports.
For most strategies, with only three months to ramp down services and transition active clients,
deliverable expectations will be low as program staff will not be able to take on new clients. For
example, the Juvenile Justice Strategy (400+ youth per year), provides intensive case management for
1
Measure Y Transition to Measure Z Gap Period Funding Options
99

youth for up to one year. In a three month period, only closing active cases will be possible; no new
referrals could be taken. As the new school year begins for 2015-2016, the Transition Center at the
Alameda County Juvenile Justice Center will no longer have the ability to refer youth being released
from Juvenile Hall to services that reintegrate the youth back into school. Other long-term intensive
programs such as case management to sexually exploited minors (250+ youth per year), Re-entry
Employment, Project Choice and Highland Hospital Intervention programs will also need to use the
three month period to close cases and cannot be expected to begin new cases. Youth Employment
(175) services will be able to carry out the Citys Summer Youth Employment program, but not offer
Oakland Unite after school youth employment services as the funding will be done by the end of the
September. Other school-based programs, including Restorative Justice, OUR KIDS and Gang Prevention,
will not have Oakland Unite funds to support their programs into the 15/16 school year.
Crisis response providers such as Family Violence Law Center, Street Outreach, and Catholic Charities
will be able to continue proving short-term Oakland Unite crisis response for three more months, but
staff will likely be winding down if they need to seek new employment.
Option 2 - Six month extension of all Measure Y programs at Half Funding.
Rather than cut the six month gap period down to three months of continued Oakland Unite programs,
another potential option is to continue all programs for the entire six month period, but at only half the
current funding levels, essentially resulting in the same overall cost, but not creating a breach in services
altogether.
For strategies with long-term, intensive intervention services, clients that are in the middle of services
and that are not ready to terminate, staff could maintain a reduced case load to continue with these
clients. However, it is very difficult to assume that staff will be able to sustain employment under these
highly reduced funds.
Oakland Unite Service Categories
Number of Outreach Contacts

Number of Clients enrolled in Case Management
Number of Clients enrolled in Group Services
ACCESSIBLITY
Number of Hours of Service
IMPACT
Total # of unduplicated participants - individual services
Total # of unduplicated participants - group services
Total # of client hours (individual and group)
# of street outreach/crisis intervention hours
# of Juvenile Justice youth to receive case management
# of SEM youth engaged in services
# of clients to obtain employment training/preparation and placement
# of clients to obtain work experience
# of hours of work experience
FY 13/14 Year
End Totals
FY 15/16
Projected
Services for 6
Months at Full
Capacity
9,511
2,038
967
4,756
1,019
484
FY 15/16
Estimated
Loss at Half
Capacity for 6
Months
-2,378
-510
-242
131,880
65,940
-32,970
3,292
967
87,592
15,222
421
316
510
369
44,288
1,646
484
43,796
7,611
211
158
255
185
22,144
-823
-242
-21,898
-3,806
-105
-79
-128
-92
-11,072
2
100

Option 3 Measure Y Six Month Extension For Selected Programs ONLY to remain fully functional.
Another possible alternative is to not extent some Measure Y programs past June 30, 2015, at the end of
FY 2014-15 at all, but extend some programs for the complete six month gap period at full funding.
Programs that might not be extended past June 30, 2015 could include school-based programs, since a
three month extension of contracts would only provide coverage for a very brief time period at the
beginning of the 15/16 school year. Historically, OUR KIDS, Restorative Justice and Gang Prevention
primary do staff training and infrastructure development during the summer months. If the program
funding is going to end at the end of September anyway, there is a rationale for not extending Oakland
Unite funding for these programs at all. This rationale applies to the JJC strategy as well. JJC Case
Managers would normally continue to support youth on their caseloads throughout the summer
months, and then begin taking new referrals in the fall. If these programs were to receive no extension,
they would need to close cases and refer youth to other available services by the end of June, 2015
instead. As the new school year begins for 2015-2016, the Transition Center at the Alameda County
Juvenile Justice Center will no longer have the ability to refer youth being released from Juvenile Hall to
services that reintegrate the youth back into school. Similarly, the funding for Mental Health programs
for children 0-5 is provided through mental health consultations at Head Start locations, which also close
during the summer. Finally, Project Choice is a program model based on long-term supports to
individuals transitioning from incarceration back into the community, with case management services
beginning while clients are still incarcerated. It would not make sense to begin new client cases only to
close them by September, 2015.
Please see Attachment A: Column for Select Programs Fully 6 Months, to see a list of the programs that
would remain intact at full funded for the six month gap period. With this option, the total funding to
preserve the remaining programs fully for six months is $2,216,889.
Attachment A provides a list of the agencies and funding amounts options for gap period.
Attachment B provides a detailed RFP timeline.
Attachment C provides a Human Services Department (HSD)-generated summary of each currently
funded agency that includes performance data and a brief program description.
Attachment D provides Oakland Unite accountability measures.
3
101
ATTACHMENT 8A
Attachment A: List of Agencies and Funding Amounts Options for Gap Period
ALL Programs
Fully
6 Months
AGENCY NAME
Bay Area Legal Aid
East Bay Agency for Children
(EBAYC)
MISSSEY
Youth ALIVE!
Youth UpRising
Youth UpRising
The Unity Council
Youth Employment Partnership,
Inc
Youth Radio
Youth UpRising
OUSD
Community Initiatives
Alameda County Health Care
Services Agency
PROGRAM STRATEGY
Option 1 & 2
All Programs
Fully for
3 Months
(or 6 mos at
reduced
capacity)
FOCUSED YOUTH SERVICES

Juvenile Justice Center (JJC) Wraparound
$5,000
$23,125
$2,500
$11,563

Youth Employment
$137,500
$37,500
$56,000
$49,000
$55,000
$75,000
$9,375
$45,000
$68,750
$18,750
$28,000
$24,500
$27,500
$37,500
$4,688
$22,500
$97,233
$47,821
$51,258
$40,000
$75,000
$62,500
$48,617
$23,911
$25,629
$20,000
$37,500
$31,250
$100,000
$50,000
Youth Employment
Youth Employment
Youth Employment
JJC Wraparound/Enrollment Manager
Restorative Justice
Gang Prevention
OUR KIDS Middle School Program
FAMILY VIOLENCE INTERVENTION
102
Option 3
Select
Programs
Fully
6 Months
$45,000
$97,233
$47,821
$51,258
ALL Programs
Fully
6 Months
AGENCY NAME
MISSSEY
Family Violence Law Center
Safe Passages
Center for Employment
Opportunities
Civicorps Schools
Men Of Valor Academy
Oakland Private Industry Council,
Inc.
Youth Employment Partnership,
Inc
Youth UpRising
Human Service Department, City
of Oakland
CalPEP
PROGRAM STRATEGY
Exploited Children (CSEC)
Exploited Children (CSEC)
Family Violence Intervention Unit
Mental Health 0 to 5
YOUNG ADULT REENTRY SERVICES
Option 1 & 2
All Programs
Fully for
3 Months
(or 6 mos at
reduced
capacity)
Option 3
Select
Programs
Fully
6 Months
$50,000
$25,000
$50,000
$37,500
$230,000
$20,000
$18,750
$115,000
$10,000
$37,500
$230,000
Reentry Employment
Reentry Employment
Reentry Employment
$77,892
$75,000
$50,000
$38,946
$37,500
$25,000
$77,892
$75,000
$50,000
Reentry Employment
Reentry Employment
$125,063
$9,375
$62,532
$4,688
$125,063
$9,375
Reentry Employment
Reentry Employment
Reentry Employment
Project Choice
Project Choice
$93,720
$55,890
$114,065
$50,000
$130,000
$46,860
$27,945
$57,033
$25,000
$65,000
$93,720
$55,890
$114,065
$65,000
*$65,000
$65,000
$12,500
$6,250
$12,500
Outreach Developer
VIOLENT INCIDENT/CRISIS RESPONSE
103
ALL Programs
Fully
6 Months
AGENCY NAME
Healthy Communities, Inc.
Oakland California Street
Outreach
Youth ALIVE!
Catholic Charities of the East Bay
(CCEB)
of Oakland
of Oakland
of Oakland
CCNI
Mayor's Office, City of Oakland
PROGRAM STRATEGY
Option 1 & 2
All Programs
Fully for
3 Months
(or 6 mos at
reduced
capacity)
Option 3
Select
Programs
Fully
6 Months
$135,500
$67,750
$135,500

Highland Hospital Intervention
$349,035
$62,500
$174,518
$31,250
$349,035
$62,500
$150,000
$75,000
$150,000
Violence Prevention Network Coordinator

COMMUNITY ORGANIZING
$75,000
*$75,000
$75,000
Community Organizing, Parks Program

Community Organizing,
Messengers4Change
Community Organizing
Public Safety Advisor
$10,000
$5,000
$10,000
$65,000
$93,000
$39,537
*$65,000
*$93,000
*$39,537
$65,000
$93,000
$39,537
$3,141,889
$2,407,832
$734,057
$1,739,717
$1,005,660
$734,057
$2,216,889
$1,482,832
$734,057
TOTAL
Measure Z
Measure Y Reserve
* City staff positions are subject to no lay off requirements and are budgeted at full FTE for six months
104
Attachment B: Measure Z RFP Planning, Approval, and Roll-Out Process
ATTACHMENT 8B
What
When
Step One: Internal Review

Analyze evaluation and service data, including logic models, deliverables,
demographics and client outcomes
Collect input from Program Officers on strategy strengths and gaps
Review literature on current best and evidence-based practices; assess
alignment with current strategies
Step Two: External Review
Review Asset Inventory and Gaps Analysis prepared by Urban
Strategies/Prevention Institute including determination of most highly
stressed police beats based on crime, probation, and school district data
Conduct focus groups with: current Oakland Unite providers; clients, and
other members of Measure Z target population to gather input of
program effectiveness and areas for growth
Interview public partners (such as Probation, OPD, Ceasefire Steering
Committee, OUSD) to determine how Measure Z resources can best
supplement and support broader City/County violence prevention efforts
January to
February 2015
January to
March 2015
Step Three: Prepare Recommendations

Synthesize input from steps one and two and identify strategy and funding
recommendations designed to achieve greatest collective impact within
April to May
Measure Z framework
2015
Share initial recommendations with Measure Z Oversight Committee and
other City Leadership; receive guidance and feedback.
Step Four: Present Recommendations and Request Approval
May 18: Present overview of spending plan to SSOC and receive input
May 27: Share full spending plan to SSOC for approval
June 23: Present to Public Safety Committee
June 30: Present to Full Council for approval
Note: Back-up dates for Public Safety and Council are July 14 and 21,
which are the final dates before Council adjourns for recess until Sept.
- Page 1 105
May to June
2015
Attachment B: Measure Z RFP Planning, Approval, and Roll-Out Process

Step Five: RFP Release
Once approval is given, prepare required RFP documents for publication
Mid-July: Release and publicize RFP for Services
End of July: Hold bidders conference, respond to questions around RFP
Early August: Letters of intent due, provide technical assistance to
applicants
Early September: Proposals due (7-8 weeks from release date)
Step Six: RFP Review
August: Identify review panel and train reviewers on scoring rubric and
online review process
September: Oakland Unite convenes reviewers after they have read and
scored proposals to discuss results
Early October: Oakland Unite consolidates results and recommendations
Step Seven: Approve and Award
Mid-October: Applicants notified of recommendations
October 17: Present award recommendations to SS Oversight Committee
October 27: Present award recommendations Public Safety Committee
November 3: Present award recommendations to Full Council
Mid-November: Notify successful applicants; review appeals and respond
July to August
2015
August to
October 2015
October to
November
2015
Step Eight: Negotiate

End of November: Negotiate scopes of work and budgets with successful
applicants
December: Finalize agreements and execute contracts
December: Begin training grantees to use online database and invoicing
system
November to
December
2015
Step Nine: Measure Z Services Begin
January 2016
- Page 2 106
Attachment C: HSD Reporting on FY14-15 Oakland Unite Grantees
ATTACHMENT 8C
Table of Contents
Focused Youth Services
Juvenile Justice and OUSD Wraparound Services
East Bay Asian Youth Center . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MISSSEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OUSD Alternative Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Mentoring Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Youth ALIVE! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Youth UpRising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OUSD JJC Manager . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Youth Employment
The Unity Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Youth Employment Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Youth Radio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Youth UpRising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Restorative Justice
Community Initiatives/Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Gang Prevention
OUSD Alternative Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OUR KIDS Middle School Strategy
Alameda County Health Care Services Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Family Violence Intervention
Outreach to Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC)
Bay Area Women Against Rape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
MISSSEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Mental Health Services for Ages 0 to 5
Safe Passages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Family Violence Law Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
3
4
4
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
9
9
10
10
11
11
Young Adult Reentry Services

Reentry Employment
Center for Employment Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Civicorps Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Men of Valor Academy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Oakland Private Industry Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Volunteers of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Youth Employment Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Youth UpRising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Project Choice
The Mentoring Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Volunteers of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Page 1 of 19
107

Violent Incident/Crisis Response and Community Organizing
Cal PEP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
California Youth Outreach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Healthy Oakland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Catholic Charities of the East Bay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Youth ALIVE!. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Page 2 of 19
108

Juvenile Justice Center and OUSD Wraparound Services
Program Description: East Bay Asian Youth Center provides wraparound case management to counsel
and mentor 101 at risk youth leaving the Juvenile Justice Center and reengaging with OUSD; provides
mentoring and life coaching services to promote school attendance and compliance with probation
terms. Case management services include assessments, individual development plans, academic
tutoring and support and follow-up services.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service
Clients re/enrolled in school or other education
Case management hours
Case managed clients
Violence prevention groups sessions
Clients enrolled in violence prevention groups
Clients referred to Measure Y Employment training
Clients with one supportive adult identified
Presentations at NCPC meetings
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
FY 14/15
Q3
101
3030
101
30
30
11
101
4
102%
157%
109%
167%
173%
436%
109%
100%
100%
137%
100%
817%
127%
379%
100%
100%
121%
105%
99%
423%
137%
491%
158%
75%
MISSSEY
Program Description: MISSSEY provides wraparound case management to 40 Commercially Sexually
Exploited Children (CSEC) and at risk girls leaving the Juvenile Justice Center and reengaging with OUSD;
provides assessment based life planning, incentives for achievement, violence prevention workshops,
and job placement services to promote school attendance and compliance with probation terms.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service

Violence prevention group sessions
Page 3 of 19
109
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
FY 14/15
Q3
40
100%
93%
68%
1200
40
20
8
40
4
124%
103%
135%
113%
100%
100%
87%
105%
215%
100%
100%
100%
78%
100%
10%
0%
55%
100%

Juvenile Justice Center (JJC)and OUSD Wraparound Services
Program Description:
OUSD Alternative Education, in partnership with California Youth Outreach, provides school-based JJC
wraparound services to 36 youth placed in specific OUSD AltEd schools after leaving Probation custody.
Primary services include: re-entry welcoming circles using restorative justice practices yielding in service
plans for each client, ongoing 1:1 case management, mentoring, and crisis intervention, weekly Gang
Redirect life skills classes and leadership-based diversion activities.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
FY 14/15
Q3
36
111%
119%
86%
1080
36
90
36
6
36
4
100%
122%
170%
200%
250%
119%
100%
101%
139%
174%
100%
283%
133%
100%
73%
94%
126%
72%
200%
89%
75%


Program Description: The Mentoring Center (TMC) provides wraparound case management to counsel
and mentor 41 youth leaving the Juvenile Justice Center (JJC) and reengaging with OUSD in West
Oakland and citywide to promote school attendance and compliance with probation terms. Services
include assessments, individual development plans, academic tutoring and support and follow-up
services. TMCs services also include cognitive re-structuring and support groups. They also receive
federal Second Chance funding for this work.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service
Clients referred to Employment and Training Programs
Presentations of NCPC meetings
Page 4 of 19
110
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
FY 14/15
Q3
34
1080
34
38
17
34
17
4
112%
115%
124%
132%
145%
100%
176%
100%
88%
101%
102%
111%
130%
100%
112%
100%
85%
82%
91%
84%
124%
91%
112%
50%

Youth ALIVE!
Program Description: Youth ALIVE! provides wraparound case management to counsel and provide
wraparound services to 40 youth leaving the Juvenile Justice Center (JJC) and reengaging with OUSD in
North Oakland and citywide to promote school attendance and compliance with probation terms.
Services include assessments, individual development plans, and follow-up services.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
40
100%
1200
40
30
12
40
10
4
86%
115%
72%
6%
115%
100%
100%
103%
129%
120%
97%
67%
103%
110%
125%

FY 14/15
Q3
78%
66%
113%
113%
108%
113%
120%
125%
Youth UpRising
Program Description: Youth UpRising (YU) provides wraparound case management to counsel and
mentor 69 at risk youth leaving the Juvenile Justice Center (JJC) and reengaging with OUSD, to promote
school attendance and compliance with probation terms. Case management services include
assessments, individual development plans, academic tutoring and support and follow-up services.
Services are provided in collaboration with YUs clinical mental health staff. Man Up and Womens
Circle support groups are also implemented which include counseling and mentoring. They also receive
federal Second Chance funding for this work.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service

Page 5 of 19
111
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
62
2020
120%
113%
92%
116%
62
8
35
62
18
4
129%
625%
103%
120%
213%
100%
101%
1013%
100%
92%
100%
100%
FY 14/15
Q3
89%
83%
94%
725%
89%
89%
128%
75%

Oakland Unified School District JJC Manager
Juvenile Justice Center (JJC)and OUSD Wraparound Services
The OUSD JJC Enrollment Manager is located in the Transition Center of the Juvenile Justice Center. This
position ensures that youth returning to Oakland are reenrolled to OUSD in a timely and appropriate
manner. This position also refers youth to case management agencies funded by Oakland Unite, and cofacilitates monthly case conferencing meetings to discuss individual clients in a multi-disciplinary setting.
Recent independent evaluation results have shown that placing this position at the JJC has resulted in
youth being enrolled in OUSD within one day on average.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
# of students referred to case management

# MDT meetings at school sites planned
360
12
108%
125%
110%
133%
# of case conferencing meetings co-facilitated

# NCPC meetings
# of students enrolled in OUSD schools
# of youth referred to other educational institutions
11
4
NA
NA
109%
175%
737 total
161 total
109%
250%
661 total
392 total
Service
FY 14/15
Q3
98%
75%
82%
75%
539 total
715 total
The Unity Council

Youth Employment
Program Description: The Unity Council provides afterschool employment services through community
based service learning projects in which 32 youth participants are incentivized through stipends for
completing various community and leadership related activities.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service
Clients served

Work experience hours
Education hours
Life Skills and pre-employment skills hours
Page 6 of 19
112
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
32
97%
207
2424
192
2157
4
59%
80%
223%
70%
175%
34%
17%
19%
35%
39%
100%
FY 14/15
Q3
91%
59%
76%
192%
103%
75%

Youth Employment Partnership Inc.
Youth Employment
Program Description: Youth Employment Partnership Inc. (YEP) provides after school training and
employment to 90 probation youth through a Career Try-Out model which includes a paid internship.
In conjunction with the Mayors Summer Jobs Program, YEP enrolled an additional 98 high-risk youth in
paid summer internships and paid soft skill workshops.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service
Clients served

Work Experience Hours
Clients completing 100 hours of work experience
Client hours of life skills and pre-employment skills
Client hours of education
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
90
113%
1800
7200
72
1800
1800
4
136%
129%
100%
408%
211%
150%
114%
159%
128%
113%
102%
100%
150%
FY 14/15
Q3
90%
105%
88%
88%
88%
213%
100%
Youth Radio
Youth Employment
Program Description: Youth Radio, through the Media Advocates Transforming Community Health
Program (MATCH), provides job-training and stipend work experience that emphasizes media skills
building and health advocacy for 24 at-risk youth on probation or parole through hands on media
production workshops.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
Service
Clients served

Collaboration meetings attended
Client hours of health education
Clients hours of work experience
Clients w/Communications or Health Dept Internships
Clients enrolled in groups
Page 7 of 19
113
24
200
5
1080
195
1700
140
15
24
4
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
121%
117%
97%
80%
96%
99%
100%
101%
73%
117%
100%
81%
100%
101%
179%
79%
107%
158%
129%
100%
FY 14/15
Q3
83%
44%
80%
63%
82%
62%
105%
40%
83%
75%

Youth UpRising
Youth Employment
Program Description: Youth UpRising (YU) provides after school training and employment to 30 youth
on probation through a paid internship. Other services offered through YU JJC wraparound include
educational support and mental health services.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service

Clients served
Networking/collaboration meeting event sessions
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
24
70%
2400
30
4
600
540
4
146%
123%
100%
238%
121%
100%
100%
130%
100%
100%
119%
105%
100%
FY 14/15
Q3
46%
92%
120%
50%
213%
453%
75%
Community Initiatives ~ Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth (RJOY)

Restorative Justice
Program Description: Restorative Justice for Oakland Youth (RJOY) offers Restorative Justice Outreach
and mentoring and facilitates restorative justice Circles of Accountability and Support for Oakland
Unified School District students and youth-serving adults at Street Academy and Excel High School. RJOY
is providing restorative justice services to 100 youth and 50 youth-serving adults in order to decrease
violence, suspensions, and disciplinary referrals in schools. Community Initiatives is the Fiscal Agent for
RJOY.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
General outreach events
10
160%
General outreach event hours

General outreach event participants
Teachers, administrators, staff, community trained
Group session client hours
20
200
100
100
500
175
4
250%
339%
0%
251%
272%
170%
100%
130%
205%
Service
Page 8 of 19
114
495%
301%
142%
375%
132%
100%
FY 14/15
Q3
120%
175%
407%
224%
182%
177%
123%
75%

Oakland Unified School District ~ Alternative Education
Gang Prevention
Program Description: Oakland Unified School District, Office of Alternative Education leads the
Oakland Comprehensive Gang Model with support from California Youth Outreach and Project ReConnect. This strategy provides gang awareness/prevention training for school and community-based
personnel and training and family strengthening for parents/caregivers of youth involved in gangs or at
high risk of gang involvement. At least 450 individuals trained and 50 parents served directly with a 6
week parenting class series that includes gang awareness and positive parenting.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
Service
Community training event sessions
33
450
Community members trained

Clients enrolled in groups
53
800
4
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
103%
100%
128%
146%
198%
109%
100%
238%
127%
100%
FY 14/15
Q3
70%
82%
177%
110%
75%
Alameda County Health Care Service Agency

OUR KIDS Community Schools
Program Description: The OUR KIDS program of Alameda County Health Care Services Agency provides
school-based behavioral health services with the goal of reducing school-related violence and increasing
pro-social behaviors of youth. The OUR KIDS program provides high-risk students with psycho-social
assessments, counseling, case management, referral and follow-up, and family support services.
Oakland Unite funds 2 FTE of the ten (10) Clinical Case Managers that serve up to twelve (12) Oakland
public middle schools.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
Mental health/case management clients
520
189%
Mental health/case management service hours

General outreach hours
Group clients
7500
800
150
650
4
169%
136%
199%
454%
0%
104%
164%
Service
Page 9 of 19
115
212%
86%
963%
100%
FY 14/15
Q3
85%
90%
60%
76%
520%
75%

Outreach to Sexually Exploited Children
Program Description: Through extensive outreach activities throughout the community, the Juvenile
Justice Center and through their location at the Family Justice Center, as well as through their
partnership with the Oakland Police Department, participating in Special Operation sweeps and being
on-call for whenever OPD come across CSEC, BAWAR reaches out to and engages 400 CSEC per year to
offer support services and linkages to assist with ending ties to exploitation.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service
Intensive outreach clients
General outreach clients
Referrals given for MISSSY SPA Drop-in Center
Community members trained/Professional Development
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
FY 14/15
Q3
225
425
300
150
4
91%
521%
171%
245%
100%
95%
104%
120%
387%
75%
83%
4%
0%
172%
50%
MISSSEY
Outreach to Sexually Exploited Children
Program Description: Safe Place Alternative (SPA) offers a drop-in center program for commercially
sexually exploited children. The SPA is open from 2 to 7pm M-F and provides meals, incentives, field trip
activities and hygiene supplies in addition to a structured curriculum for building self care and life skills.
Youth are also referred to case management and employment opportunities.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
Service
Intensive outreach hours
65
40
Community trainings/ Professional Development

Community members trained/Professional Development
Clients attending SPA Drop-in Center
SPA Drop-in Center hours
Page 10 of 19
116
10
100
50
1095
4
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
112%
106%
100%
57%
250%
125%
60%
93%
100%
58%
36%
102%
100%
100%
FY 14/15
Q3
48%
80%
80%
143%
86%
79%
100%

Safe Passages
Mental Health Services for Ages 0-5
Program Description: Safe Passages sub-contracts with Through the Looking Glass to provide mental
health consultation services to classrooms at two Head Start sites located in neighborhoods that
experience a great deal of violence; 85th Ave and Eastmont Head Start sites. Children, family members
and school staff are supported in recognizing and addressing symptoms of exposure to violence.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
Mental health participants
160
109%
Mental health events

150
4
112%
25%
116%
102%
125%
Service
FY 14/15
Q3
116%
95%
125%
Family Violence Law Center

Program Description: The Family Violence Law Center (FVLC), Family Violence Intervention Unit (FVIU)
offers general legal, social, and emotional support to over 1,000 victims of domestic violence each year.
FVLC contacts victims identified from OPD police reports, direct referrals from officers, walk-ins at the
Alameda County Family Justice Center, calls from victims on the 24-hour hotline, and referrals from
other agencies. FVIU provides crisis intervention services, including safety planning, crisis counseling,
legal advocacy, and assistance with emergency relocation. FVIU also provides referrals to longer term
services to all clients, and offers support groups. Additionally, FVLC trains OPD patrol officers on the
dynamics of family violence, emergency protective orders, and the effects of family violence on young
children.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service
Clients placed into shelter/emergency housing
Intensive Care Services Clients
Intensive Care Services Hours
Clients provided with legal assistance
OPD Referrals/Police Reports reviewed by Advocate
OPD officers trained
0-5 mental health clients
0-5 mental health service hours
Page 11 of 19
117
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
FY 14/15
Q3
40
1000
2000
20
250
200
n/a
215
70
400
4
355%
114%
100%
n/a
n/a
n/a
4096 total
153%
n/a
n/a
100%
545%
116%
200%
120%
134%
477%
4180 total
114%
n/a
n/a
100%
398%
117%
163%
130%
79%
195%
2525 total
84%
77%
120%
100%

Center for Employment Opportunities
Reentry Employment
Program Description: CEO, as lead agency, and its partner Inner City Advisors (ICA), have implemented a
pilot reentry employment/business partnership program. The CEO/ICA partnership is designed to
encourage employers to hire eligible people who they would not normally hire. CEO employment
developers will match employment participants with permanent job opportunity within ICA's portfolio
of companies.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
Service
Clients served
80
35
Clients placed in employment

Clients retained in employment 30 days
Client retained in employment 180 days
NCPC Presentations
This grantee began in FY 13/14
31
24
20
315
1280
4
FY 13/14
FY 14/15
Q3
104%
225%
109%
81%
54%
30%
100%
123%
50%
154%
1545%
17%
985%
124%
113%
75%
CiviCorps
Reentry Employment
Civicorps Schools provides case management, education, employment training, subsidized employment,
job placement, and job retention services to 30 youth/young adults (18-26 years of age) who are on
probation or parole.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
Service
Client hours of work experience
Clients with 200 hours of work experience
# of presentations at NCPC meetings
8
6
5250
15
320
630
6300
4
Page 12 of 19
118
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
113%
133%
195%
69%
102%
120%
164%
100%
75%
67%
133%
63%
104%
103%
153%
75%
FY 14/15
Q3
150%
167%
62%
53%
139%
113%
77%
75%

Men of Valor Academy
Reentry Employment
The Men of Valor Academy provides case management, reentry job training, employment placement
and retention services to 25 young adult males (18-35 years of age) on probation or parole.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
OU
OU &
Annual
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
*CBSCC
Service
Goal
Goal
Clients served
25
188%
204%
37
20
29
80%
75%
15
20
60%
127%
12
50%
75%
15
6
33%
83%
6
310
101%
63%
460
1235
265%
156%
1795
Client hours of job skills/vocational training
1580
428%
169%
2300
# of NCPC presentations
4
100%
100%
4
* Deliverables were increased for FY 14/15 due to added CBSCC funding
FY 14/15
Q3
197%
97%
115%
80%
133%
66%
123%
64%
75%
Oakland Private Industry Council

Reentry Employment
Oakland Private Industry Council provides employment training, subsidized employment, placement in
unsubsidized employment, and employment retention services for 69 young adults (18 to 35 yrs old) on
probation or parole. Subcontractors include the Bread Project and St. Vincent de Paul.
Deliverables:
Service
Clients served
OU
Annual
Goal
69
55
% of Goal Reached
OU &
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
*CBSCC
Goal
90%
114%
83
62
91%
62%

50
62%
36
53%
22
23%
6600
124%
35
63%
586
101%
2300
73%
4
100%
* Deliverables were increased for FY 14/15 due to added CBSCC funding
Page 13 of 19
119
70%
61%
60%
147%
63%
128%
95%
100%
62
47
22
7920
54
703
2650
4
FY 14/15
Q3
84%
45%
50%
60%
64%
69%
44%
73%
52%
25%

Volunteers of America
Reentry Employment
Crew Based Sheltered Employment provides transitional employment, wage subsidies, job
preparation/placement, and retention services for 32 young adults (18-35 yrs old) on parole. Parolees
work in 8-man crews under the supervision of the VOABA Crew leader participants and in collaboration
with Parks and Recreation Dept.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service

Clients served
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
125%
6
30
360
26
1426
5720
4
133%
143%
100%
123%
124%
100%
100%
100%
117%
157%
101%
100%
100%
104%
100%
FY 14/15
Q3
75%
83%
127%
78%
81%
75%
82%
100%

Reentry Employment
Program Description: as a provision of receiving Oakland Unite funding from the City of Oakland, YEP
provides employment training services to 30 youth and young adults (18-24 yrs old) who are on
probation or parole. Services will include but are not limited to job readiness training, work experience,
education, vocational Training, support services, unsubsidized job placement, and program follow-up.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service
Clients retained for 30 days in employment

Clients Served
Client hours of job skills/vocational training
Page 14 of 19
120
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
25
100%
14
16
30
300
4050
4944
1876
20
4
130%
100%
107%
339%
79%
129%
101%
65%
150%
33%
40%
0%
110%
457%
111%
82%
83%
100%
150%
FY 14/15
Q3
68%
86%
44%
97%
217%
73%
45%
61%
70%
100%

Youth UpRising
Reentry Employment
Program Description: Youth UpRising (YU) provides reentry case management, education, and
employment services to 13 young adults (18-24 years of age) on parole or probation and residents of
Oakland. The program offers on-going job skills development and educational support workshops,
subsidized employment and job training, support in obtaining and retaining unsubsidized employment.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service

Clients Served
Hours of life skills group and pre-employment skills
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
58%
5
13
2730
435
562
4
50%
147%
91%
101%
78%
100%
11%
0%
115%
55%
152%
109%
100%
FY 14/15
Q3
33%
0%
131%
49%
62%
27%
75%

Project Choice
Program Description: The Mentoring Center (TMC) provides pre- and post-release reentry case
management and Transformative mentoring to 21 youth and young adults (18-24 yrs old) who are
returning to the Oakland community after incarceration.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Service
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
Clients
21
138%
840
1690
21
21
4
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
157%
100%
100%
100%
110%
100%

Client hours of peer support/counseling groups
Clients enrolled in prerelease groups
Clients enrolled in post-release groups
Page 15 of 19
121
FY 14/15
Q3
119%
81%
90%
71%
81%
50%

Volunteers of America
Project Choice
Program Description: Volunteers of America Bay Area (VOABA) provides intensive counseling and
mentoring services for 60 young adults (18-35 yrs old) per year paroling to Oakland from San Quentin
State Prison. Services include development of a release plan, including plans for employment, housing
and education. In addition, VOABA is partnering with the Department of Human Services, the Oakland
Housing Authority, and community providers in the Oakland PATH Rehousing Initiative (OPRI). This
initiative provides scattered site apartments throughout Oakland for 39 Oakland Unite reentry clients.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
Service
Clients receiving mental health assessments
50
60
Clients
Case management contacts
Client hrs of support groups (prerelease)
Client hrs of support groups (post release)
2000
2120
240
600
4
Page 16 of 19
122
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
94%
100%
177%
216%
105%
141%
65%
174%
125%
102%
103%
125%
125%
275%
FY 14/15
Q3
70%
143%
75%
82%
198%
79%
100%

CAL-PEP
Program Description: CAL-PEP supports Oakland Street Outreach at community events by providing
free, rapid HIV testing, counseling, and referrals to street outreach event participants. CAL-PEP also
provides risk reduction counseling/materials, and safer sex negotiation strategies.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
Service
# of outreach events where Rapid HIV testing occurs
# of general outreach event participants
# of clients provided with a referral
26
260
120
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
100%
100%
102%
168%
100%
120%
FY 14/15
Q3
77%
79%
156%
Oakland California Youth Outreach

Program Description: In coordination with the Department of Human Services, Healthy Oakland, and
the Oakland Police Department, OCYO street-based outreach workers provide incident- and hot spotspecific outreach in high-crime areas of Central and East Oakland at hours measured to be of peak need
(nights and weekends). Outreach workers maintain a consistent presence in these neighborhoods and,
along with case managers, create relationships with high risk youth and young adults and connect them
to appropriate services and resources. Teams also work on longer range truce-negotiation and conflict
mediation.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
Service
Case management clients
60
2100

Street outreach event participants unduplicated
Street Outreach Event sessions
Street Outreach staff hours
Social events
Community events (Messengers4Change)
Conflicts mediated
200
1000
2400
300
5000
12
24
9
30
Page 17 of 19
123
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
152%
142%
100%
103%
104%
101%
107%
154%
n/a
92%
104%
100%
142%
105%
117%
151%
239%
263%
117%
104%
100%
338%
FY 14/15
Q3
160%
71%
75%
86%
98%
176%
191%
75%
75%
122%
437%

Healthy Oakland
Program Description: In coordination with the Department of Human Services, Oakland CA Youth
Outreach, and the Oakland Police Department, Healthy Oakland street-based outreach workers provide
incident- and hot spot-specific outreach in high-crime areas of West Oakland at hours measured to be
of peak need (nights and weekends). Outreach workers maintain a consistent presence in these
neighborhoods and, along with the case manager, create relationships with high risk youth and young
adults and connect them to appropriate services and resources. Teams also work on longer range trucenegotiation and conflict mediation.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
Service
60
300

Street outreach event participants unduplicated
Street Outreach Event sessions
Street Outreach staff hours
Social events
Conflicts mediated
25
750
1600
190
2250
12
12
24
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
114%
100%
104%
103%
236%
142%
112%
95%
n/a
67%
108%
88%
FY 14/15
Q3
68%
78%
84%
106%
97%
76%
78%
108%
75%
67%
216%
102%
112%
102%
91%
117%
100%
92%
Catholic Charities of the East Bay

Program Description: Catholic Charities of the East Bay (CCEB), along with its subcontractor, Khadafy
Foundation (Youth ALIVE!), coordinates the Crisis Response and Support Network (CRSN) to provide
immediate crisis response and longer-term intensive counseling and support services for families and
friends affected by a homicide (with priority given to incidents involving homicide victims up to and
including age 30).
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
260
1450
Service
Mental health service clients

Mental health service hours
Victim groups served
Event participants
115
1449
60
350
4
Page 18 of 19
124
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
87%
102%
110%
87%
122%
119%
200%
341%
100%
96%
112%
100%
149%
100%
FY 14/15
Q3
117%
88%
74%
67%
105%
91%
100%

Youth ALIVE!
Program Description: Youth ALIVE!s Caught in the Crossfire intervention program provides intensive
counseling and case management to youth who are hospitalized at Highland Hospital due to violent
injuries with the goal of reducing retaliation, re-injury, and arrest. Comprehensive supports include
mentoring, academic support, family support and employment.
Deliverables:
% of Goal Reached
Annual
Goal
FY 12/13
FY 13/14
1260
105%

72
110
110
4
100%
148%
119%
100%
108%
113%
113%
166%
125%
Service
Page 19 of 19
125
FY 14/15
Q3
89%
99%
64%
95%
125%
Attachment D: Oakland Unite Accountability Measures
ATTACHMENT 8D
Accountable to Who?
Developing a Client-Centered, Team Approach to Violence Intervention
A division of the City of Oaklands Human Services Department, Oakland Unite reduces violence
by funding and coordinating violence prevention and intervention programs throughout the
city. Oakland Unite staff work with community partners to support accountability to one
another, and, most importantly, to those served by programs.
Accountability and Program Monitoring

Oakland Unite has a number of contracting and oversight structures intended to ensure
program fidelity to high quality infrastructure and services. These include:
Communication with grantees around expectations
Each grantees scope of work includes clearly defined deliverables specific to program goals.
Grantee manual is updated each year and includes fiscal, program, reporting requirements.
Grantee meetings held each quarter to communicate changes and updates.
Performance-based contracting and monitoring
All grantees use a web-based reporting system that tracks client services, progress towards
deliverables, and program expenditures.
Quarterly staff review of progress reports includes expenditures and progress towards
deliverables, as well as review of program statistics to ensure match to target population.
If deliverables are not being met, money is withheld and staff work with grantee to develop
a plan to address issues.
Site visits, file review, and program observation
Each year, staff members conduct a structured review of client files and program
observations to monitor service quality.
Two out of three years, review includes examination of fiscal policies and procedures and a
half day of interviews with program staff and agency leaders.
- Page
126 1
When issues arise from site visits/reviews, staff issue corrective actions and work with
grantees to develop a plan to address. Corrective actions that are not addressed may result
in withholdings or not being recommended for renewal.
Oversight Committee monitors and advises program operations and expenditures

Annually, staff prepare a report with renewal recommendations for the Oversight
Committee, Public Safety, and Council that includes information on grantee progress
towards deliverables and reasons for any money withheld.
Accountability and Evaluation

Accountability includes making sure that programs are serving the right people, and that those
people are having better outcomes. Three percent of overall funds from the Citys voterapproved measures to reduce violence (formerly Measure Y, now Z) are set aside for
independent evaluation, managed by the City Administrators Office.
To facilitate evaluation of services, Oakland Unite ensures that participant service details are
entered correctly into the database and that grantees gain consent from participants to
participate in evaluation. To review outcomes, evaluators match participants to:
Juvenile Probation data
Adult Probation data
CA Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Parolee data
Oakland Unified School District data
In their Fiscal Year 2012-2013 evaluation report, Resource Development Associates found that
programs are reaching those most likely to be involved in violence and that there was an 81%
reduction in re-arrests for violence among Oakland Unite participants.
Accountability and Collaboration

Oakland Unite staff members convene regular case conferences for those serving specific
populations. The following efforts are examples of how we work to develop a team approach
to engaging and supporting those most impacted by intense violence.
Crisis Response & Support Network
Each week, the following partners meet:
Hospital staff and first responders who provide stabilization services for shooting victims.
Homicide first responders and clinical care teams who support family and friends of victims.
- Page
127 2
Street Outreach teams who track violence trends, retaliation threats, and the need for
interruption services related to shootings and homicides.
Oakland Unite hosts the meeting and track cross-agency follow-up with a focus on safety.
Accountability in this strategy plays out at multiple levels:

Client and community: Partners ensure that support (financial and otherwise) is provided
equitably, based on client/family need not because families are connected to high profile
homicides and shootings.
Cross-agency: Consistent communication between agencies and Oakland Unite tracks who
is following-up with various needs of victims and their families.
Juvenile Justice Center Wraparound Services
Each month, Oakland Unite convenes the following partners for case conferencing:
Community-based organizations meet clients case management and referral needs.
Oakland Unified School District ensures fast-tracked school placement and progress reports.
Probation Department provides probation status updates and assessment information.
Alameda County Health Care Services brings physical/mental health screening information.
Bay Area Legal Aid offer support on legal status, foster care resources, and legal resources.
Accountability in this strategy is supported by a shared database:
Oakland Unite facilitated the creation of a shared online database to track the multiple
types of data related to the youth participants.
Case managers, probation, and OUSD can track the progress of the youth with real-time
updates, keeping agencies and youth participants accountable to a young persons success.
Ceasefire Services and Support
Each month, different subsets of Ceasefire partners meet:
Oakland Unites Lead Ceasefire Case Manager hosts case conferencing with communitybased case managers to offer support and ensure strong follow-up with high risk clients.
Oakland Unite participates in Ceasefire Partnership Meetings that include community-based
agencies, faith leaders, the Oakland Police Department, and the Probation Department, all
of whom are responsible for guiding implementation of the Ceasefire strategy.
Accountability in this strategy relies heavily on communication with clients:
In call-ins, community partners stress mutual accountability to the young men asked to
participate emphasizing both that the violence must stop, and that support is available.
Oakland Unite convenes participant feedback sessions where the young men discuss their
views on the call-in and on current violence dynamics without law enforcement present,
creating a space for them to have an active voice in strategy planning.
- Page
128 3
ATTACHMENT 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Safety and Services Oversight Committee
FROM: Peter Kim, Manager, Oakland Unite

Human Services Department (HSD)
SUBJECT: Overview of Proposed Spending Plan
DATE: May 12, 2015
Purpose: The purpose of the attached report and supplemental materials are to provide the
Safety and Services Oversight Committee (SSOC) with an overview of the proposed spending
plan for Measure Z-funded violence intervention services and receive input.
History: Recommendations for strategy areas and overall funding amounts are based on a fivemonth planning process that has included:
Internal review of evaluation and service data, including deliverables, demographics and
client outcomes, as well as input from Program Officers on strategy strengths and gaps.
Review of the draft Asset Inventory and Gaps Analysis prepared by Urban
Strategies/Prevention Institute including determination of most highly stressed police beats
based on crime, probation, and school district data (to be released on May 27).
Review of recommendations provided by Resource Development Associates based on past
evaluations and literature review of current best and evidence-based practices.
Focus groups conducted by HSD staff with current Oakland Unite providers, clients, and
other members of Measure Z target population to gather input of program effectiveness
and areas for growth.
Interviews with public partners (such as Probation, OPD, Ceasefire Steering Committee) to
determine how Measure Z resources can best supplement and support broader City/County
violence prevention efforts.
Summary of Next Steps:
After receiving input, HSD will return to the SSOC on May 27 with a more detailed spending
plan that includes projected service numbers.
Pending SSOC approval, HSD hopes to present the detailed spending plan to the Public
Safety Committee on June 23 and (pending approval) to Full Council on June 30.
This timeline would allow for RFP release in mid-July/early August 2015, award
recommendations to be made in October, and new contracts to begin January 2016.
Information Attached: To provide the SSOC with the information needed to make a decision,
staff have prepared the following:
Overview of Proposed HSD/Oakland Unite Service Spending Plan
Attachment A provides a summary table of funding amounts by strategy and sub-strategy
Attachment B provides visual of proposed strategy areas
129
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED HSD/OAKLAND UNITE SERVICES SPENDING PLAN

Measure Z, the 2014 Oakland Public Safety and Services Violence Prevention Act, was passed by the
Oakland voters in November 2014. The objectives of Measure Z are to:
1. Reduce homicides, robberies, burglaries and gun-related violence
2. Improve police and fire emergency 911 response times and other police services; and
3. Invest in violence intervention and prevention strategies that provide support for at-risk youth
and young adults to interrupt the cycle of violence and recidivism.
With respect to Community-focused Violence Prevention and Intervention Services and Strategies, the
measure requires Coordination of public systems and community-based social services with a joint
focus on youth and young adults at highest risk of violence as guided by data analysis.
Proposed service investments for the January 2016 through Fiscal Year 2018 break down as follows:
Jan 2016 - FY 17/18*
Community Asset
Building
9%
Innovation Fund
3%
Life
Coaching/Intensive
Case Management
30%
Violent Incident and
Crisis Response
34%
Education and
Economic SelfSufficiency
24%
Jan 2016 - June 2016

FY 16/17
Life Coaching/Intensive Case Management
$1,187,500
$2,433,904
Education and Economic Self-Sufficiency
$925,000
$1,895,883
Violent Incident and Crisis Response
$1,335,000
$2,736,220
Community Asset Building
$372,500
$763,477
Innovation Fund
$123,491
$253,107
TOTAL
$3,943,491*
$8,082,591*
*Note: Please see Appendix A for a complete breakdown of proposed strategies and substrategies.
Proposed spending plan is based on two-year projected revenues from the Budget Office.
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED HSD SPENDING PLAN JAN 16 FY 17/18

130
Page 1
HIGHLIGHT: Whats New?
Major Ceasefire investment: over $1.5 million annually for expanded case management, client
leadership development, employment support, and coordination.
Increased overall focus on interventions serving those involved in and directly affected by
violence, such as Street Outreach and first response services for victims of gun violence, family
violence, and sexual exploitation.
Increased emphasis on coordination across providers, systems and community members through
case conferencing and other built-in partnerships.
Even higher intensity case management services, including shared standard of practice around
assessment and engagement, small caseloads, longer service periods, and structured stipends.
Greater integration of mental health and family services across interventions.
Training in evidence-based practices for service providers to increase effectiveness.
Community capacity-building fund to empower and engage clients, family members, and other
residents in neighborhoods most affected by violence.
Innovation fund to create space for emerging ideas and promising practices/programs in violence
intervention to prove their effectiveness.
HIGHLIGHT: Ceasefire Direct Investment Across Strategies

The following direct investments will support expansion and sustainability of the Citys Ceasefire effort,
focusing on working intensively with young adults identified as at very highest risk of gun violence.
Ceasefire Direct Investment
Case Management
Client Incentives
Leadership Council
Coordination
Job Developer/Retention Specialist
Total
Strategy Area
Life Coaching/Case Management
Life Coaching/ Case Management
Violent Incident & Crisis Response
Educ. & Economic Self-Sufficiency
Estimated Annual Funding

$625,000
$450,000
$175,000
$270,000
$100,000
$1,620,000
Complementary services that align with Ceasefire efforts include:
Estimated $1.4 million annually in Street Outreach services

Estimated $525,000 annually for violent incident response (shooting and homicide)

131
Page 2
Estimated $1 million annually in adult employment services with priority for Ceasefire clients
Estimated $300,000 annually in community engagement efforts that focus on neighborhoods that
experience a disproportionate amount of gun violence.
Additionally, leveraged funds for Ceasefire include a state CalGRIP grant of $1.5 million over three years
to support mentorship development for Ceasefire clients.
I.
LIFE COACHING & INTENSIVE CASE MANAGEMENT
Goal: To form deep, long-term relationships with highest risk youth and young adults, including
coaching, advocacy, system navigation and connection to basic needs and resources.
Measure Z Language: (a) Street outreach and case management to youth and young adults at high-risk
of involvement in violence in order to connect individuals in need of employment, mental health, or
educational services to needed programs
Population(s):
Youth/Young adult considering using or using violence to solve conflicts
Youth/Young adult with a serious/violent offense returning to the community after incarceration
Key Components:
Client-centered approach prioritizing safety, health and personal development
Small caseloads (ratio 12:1)
High intensity engagement (daily touch)
12-18 month service period
Must use needs assessment to inform life/case plan
Case conferencing required
Incentivized participation for highest risk
Coaching includes basic life skills as well as critical thinking, attitudes and behaviors
Proposed Changes from Current Funding:
Case Management a stand-alone strategy area
Even more strategic, defined referral mechanisms (points of entry)
More emphasis on standard protocols for engagement and assessment
More investment in structured client incentives for milestones
More robust coordination across providers, strategies and systems
Sub-Strategies
Intensive Youth Case Management
Intensive Adult Case Management
Subtotal
Estimated Funding Jan - June 2016 Estimated Funding FY 16/17

$500,000
$1,024,802
$687,500
$1,409,102
$1,187,500
$2,433,904

132
Page 3
II.
EDUCATION AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Goal: To connect highest risk youth and young adults with employment through skills and job readiness
training, academic support, job placement, and strengthening employer relationships.
Measure Z Language: (c) Reentry programs for youth and young adults, including case management,
school support, job training and placement in order to reduce recidivism rates and improve educational
and employment outcomes;
Population(s):
Youth/Young adult at highest risk of violence
Youth/Young adult with a serious/violent offense returning to the community after incarceration
Key Components:
Prioritize referrals from Oakland Unite Case Managers
Employment Specialist at each agency works closely with client and Case Manager
Employment Specialist must demonstrate capacity to effectively work with target population
Case conferencing required
Incentives for employment retention
Funds to support client job readiness (travel, attire, tools, certification)
Soft and hard skills training
Paid job training/internships/transitional employment
Long-term job placement and retention
Dedicated Job Developer/Retention Specialist to work with employers and Employment Specialists
on creating jobs and career pathways that meet employer needs
Focus on building employer-readiness that is aligned with client readiness
Increasing capacity to successfully support high-risk individuals in employment through strong
connection with dedicated case manager, training for employers, stipends
Sub-Strategies
Youth Employment/Academic Support
Adult Employment/Academic Support
Subtotal
III.
Est. Funding Jan - June 2016

Est. Funding FY 16/17
$375,000
$768,601
$550,000
$1,127,282
$925,000
$1,895,883
VIOLENT INCIDENT/CRISIS RESPONSE
Goal: To provide individual and community support following a violent incident, with an eye to
developing relationships that can interrupt retaliation and prevent future violence.
Measure Z Language: (b) Crisis response, advocacy and case management for victims of crime
(including domestic violence victims, commercially sexually exploited children, and victims of shootings

133
Page 4
and homicides) with a strategic focus on reducing likelihood of being re-victimized and (d) Young
children exposed to trauma or domestic and/or community violence.
Population(s)
Young child/adult experiencing violence in the home
Young person being sexually exploited
Youth/young adult who is shot
Family, friends, community of young person who is shot or killed
Key Components
Direct response to shooting victims, families of homicide victims, and those experiencing family
violence within 24-48 hours of incident
Outreach and support for individuals experiencing sexual exploitation
Outreach and support to individuals and communities deeply impacted by gun violence
Trained specialists in intense conflict mediation and violence interruption
First response/outreach services integrated with longer-term clinical case management
Emphasis on mental health services that also address holistic needs associated with aftermath of
violence (housing, etc.)
Strong coordination among those involved in incident response including with Ceasefire efforts,
Highland Hospital, OPD and other law enforcement entities, and community networks
Relocation pilot program for those at highest risk of immediate gun violence
Increased coordination between homicide/shooting response, Street Outreach and Ceasefire efforts
Street Outreach teams even more focused on incident response, violence interruption and
community engagement
Community healing circles following violent incident
Integration of services for young children in family violence and homicide response
Sub-Strategies
Homicide/Shooting Response & Support
Network
Street Outreach
Comm. Sexually Exploited Minor Intervention
Subtotal
IV.
Est. Funding Jan - June 2016 Est. Funding FY 16/17

$287,500
$589,261
$735,000
$225,000
$87,500
$1,335,000
$1,506,458
$461,161
$179,340
$2,736,220
Goal: To deepen the capacity of service providers and communities most affected by violence to change
norms and decision-making around violence.

134
Page 5
Measure Z Language: Coordination of public systems and community-based social services with a joint
focus on youth and young adults at highest risk of violence as guided by data analysis.
Population(s)
Providers in the Oakland Unite network
Community members (parents, residents, educators) in neighborhoods most impacted by violence
Key Components
Offer training, tools, and resources to providers that increase their effectiveness when working with
high-risk clients
Training may include: motivational interviewing, trauma-informed care, case planning, restorative
justice techniques, BMoC informed practices
Support structures, events, and trainings that develop and empower community leaders, helping
them to be active partners in community-wide violence reduction
Community capacity-building activities may include: Leadership Council for Ceasefire and Street
Outreach, Peace in the Parks Program, training for parents and educators
Proposed Changes from Current Funding
New strategy area that focuses on internal capacity of both providers and communities
Intended to highlight best practices within the provider network and encourage learning new skills
and shared approaches based on evidence
Sub-Strategies
Provider Network Skills and Capacity Building
Community Engagement and Support
Subtotal
V.

$100,000
$204,960
$272,500
$558,517
$372,500
$763,477
Innovation Fund
Goal: To create space for emerging ideas and promising practices/programs in violence intervention to
prove their effectiveness.
Population(s): priority given to services focused on those affected by gun violence
Key Components
Innovation programs/practices may include employment, diversion programs,
social/political/cultural education, healing approaches, leadership development
Mechanisms to capture lessons learned with an eye to informing future interventions
New strategy area to provide seed funds that incubate high potential programs/practices
Subtotal

$123,491
$253,107

135
Page 6
ATTACHMENT 9A
Attachment A: Overview of Proposed HSD/Oakland Unite Spending Plan Strategies and Substrategies
Jan 2016 - June 2016
FY 16/17
Life Coaching/Intensive Case Management

Intensive Youth Case Management
500,000
1,024,802
Intensive Adult Case Management
687,500
1,409,102
Subtotal
1,187,500
2,433,904
Youth Employment/Academic Support
375,000
768,601
Adult Employment/Academic Support
550,000
1,127,282
Subtotal
925,000
1,895,883
Homicide/Shooting Response and Support Network
287,500
589,261
Street Outreach
735,000
1,506,458
225,000
461,161
Commercially Sexually Exploited Minor Intervention
87,500
179,340
Subtotal
1,335,000
2,736,220
Provider Network Skills and Capacity Building
100,000
204,960
Community Engagement and Support
272,500
558,517
Subtotal
372,500
763,477
Subtotal
123,491
253,107
TOTAL
3,943,491
8,082,591
Education and Economic Self-Sufficiency
Violent Incident and Crisis Response
Innovation Fund

136
Page 7
ATTACHMENT 9 B
Attachment B: Measure Z January 2016 FY17-18 Proposed Strategy Areas

REFERRAL SOURCE
-
OPD/Ceasefire Call-ins
Probation/Parole
San Quentin/Santa Rita
Outreach & Crisis Response
Highland Hospital
GOALS & TARGET POPULATIONS
OUTCOMES
-
Goal: To form deep , longterm relationships that

include coaching, advocacy,
and connection to basic
needs and resources.
Life Coaching
-
- Youth/Young adult
considering using or
using violence to solve
conflicts
- Youth/Young adult
with a serious/violent
offense returning to the
community after
incarceration
Reduced death, injury and reinjury from violence

Reduced re-arrest and
incarcertation
Increased educational
attainment (attendance,
graduation, certification)
Increased employment and
economic self-sufficiency
Increased community
engagement around violence
prevention and intervention
Violent Incident &

Crisis Response
Goal: To provide individual and

community support following a
violent incident, with an eye to
developing relationships that can
interrupt retaliation and prevent
future violence.
Young child/adult
experiencing violence in the
home
Goal: To deepen the capacity

of providers and communities
most affected by violence to
change norms and decisionmaking around violence.
Education & Economic

Self-Sufficiency
- Youth/young adults at
highest risk of violence
Young person being sexually

exploited
- Youth/Young adult with a

serious/violent offense
returning to the community
after incarceration
Youth/Young adult who is

shot
Family, friends, community of
young person who is shot or
killed
Goal: To connect those served

with employment through skills
and job readiness training,
academic support, job
placement, and strengthening
employer relationships.

137
Page 8
ATTACHMENT 10
To:
From:
Date:
Subject:
SSOC Commissioners
Teresa Deloach-Reed, Chief, Oakland Fire Department
5/12/2015
Priority Spending Plan for OFD
The Oakland Public Safety and Services Violence Prevention Act of 2014 (Safety and Services Act) calls for
each department which will receive funds from the Act to present, every three (3) years, a priority spending
plan for funds received from the Act. The plan should include proposed expenditures, strategic rationales for
expenditures, and intended measureable outcomes expected from those expenditures. The Act calls for the
presentation of a plan to be presented within 120 days of January 1, 2015 which is the effective date of the
Act. This report presents a timeline for all priority spending plans which will come before the Commission as
well as presenting the priority spending plans for the City Administrator's Office, the Finance Department,
and the Mayor's Office.
The following page shows the priority spending plan for the Oakland Fire Department. The expenditure plan
only include a two-year projection because precise staff costs beyond the second year is currently unknown
because it is outside of the two-year cycle. The annual total allotment, however, is listed for each year
because it is a static dollar amount each year.
138
Priority Spending Plan - Oakland Fire Department (OFD)

12-May-15
OFD Annual Allotment of Measure Z Funds

*Note, the amount is a set dollar amount annually
FY 15-16
2,000,000 $
Proposed Priority Spending Plan by Fiscal Year for One Engine Company
Item
FY 15-16
Salary and Benefits - Captain of Fire (2 FTE)
$
472,040
Salary and Benefits - Lieutenant of Fire (2FTE)
$
436,623
Salary and Benefits - Engineer of Fire (4 FTE)
$
816,224
Salary and Benefits - Fire Fighter Paramedic (4FTE)
$
824,531
Salary and Benefits - Fire Fighter (4FTE)
$
749,628
OFD Total for One Engine Company
$
$
$
$
$
3,299,046 $
FY 16-17
2,000,000 $
FY 16-17
486,599
450,064
841,398
849,961
772,748
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
FY 17-18
2,000,000
FY 17-18
3,400,769 Unknown at this time
Descriptions:
Minimum staffing per Engine Company is as follows:
(1) Captain of Fire, (1) Lieutenant of Fire, (3) Engineers of Fire, (3) Fire Fighter Paramedics, and (3) Fire Fighters.
One company is one single fire house. The personnel costs (above) for staffing an Engine Company require an
additional position to be factored into each FTE rank. The additional personnel are assigned to fill vacancies for
personnel on leave (i.e., sick, vacation, regular day off).
The Oakland Fire Department has an authorized strength of 507 sworn members in the proposed FY 2015-17
budget. Aside from the $2 Million Measure Z Funds, the General Purpose Fund (GPF) funds all sworn positions,
except one positon that is fully grant funded and two positions that are partially grant funded.
Operations and Maintenance (O & M) costs are not included in the above calculations.
139
ATTACHMENT 11
AGENDA REPORT
TO: JOHN A. FLORES
INTERIM CITY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: Sean Whent
SUBJECT: Measure Z Spending Plan
DATE:
City Administrator
Approval
May 11, 2015
Date
COUNCIL DISTRICT: City-Wide
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Public Safety Committee approve this spending plan for Measure Z
funds from the Oakland Police Department (OPD).
OUTCOME
This report will help inform discussion between the Oakland Police Department, the Measure Z
Advisory Committee, and the Public Safety Committee regarding the planned expenditure of
Measure Z funds.
BACKGROUND / LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

For the past twenty-five years, the City of Oakland has experienced a significant homicide and
violent crime rate that has resisted state and national downwards trends. Consistently ranked as
the most violent city in California, Oakland also ranks as the second most-violent city in the
United States, according to Law Street Media. 1 Multi-year annual homicide averages (3-, 5-, 10-,
44-year) include107 to109 homicides. In recent years, Oaklands violent crime rate has been
three to four times Californias crime rate. Oaklands homicide rate has been three to six times
Californias crime rate.
In 2004 the residents in Oakland passed Measure Y to help prevent and reduce crime. In 2014
Measure Y sunset and Measure Z was put out to the voters to assist the City in its efforts to
reduce violent Crime. The residents of Oakland passed the Public Safety and Services Violence
Prevention Act (Measure Z) in November 2014. Measure Z outlines three objectives for the
use of funds. Section A (Objectives) states:
http://lawstreetmedia.com/crime-america-2015-top-10-dangerous-cities-200000-2/
140
The tax proceeds raised by these special taxes may be used only to pay for any
costs or expenses relating to or arising from efforts to achieve the following
objectives and desired outcomes:
1. Reduce homicides, robberies, burglaries, and gun-related violence;
2. Improve police and fire emergency 911 response times and other police
services; and,
3. Invest in violence intervention and prevention strategies that provide support
for at-risk youth and young adults to interrupt the cycle of violence and
recidivism.
To address these objectives the Oakland Police Department is seeking to sustain and expand the
Ceasefire strategy, enhance the Crime Reduction Teams, and Community Resource Officers.
History of the Ceasefire Strategy
In 2012, Oakland reached its highest homicide total since 2006, with 126 murders. In response to
this violence, City leadership and the Chief of Police considered re-implementing the Ceasefire
strategy. In previous years, the city had attempted and failed to fully implement the strategy.
With a significant spike in homicides at the close of 2012, City leadership made a commitment
to the Ceasefire strategy and began contracting with the California Partnership for Safe
Communities (CPSC) to implement it.
Figure 1: Homicides in the City of Oakland 1970-2014
180
165
160
146149
140
120
100
100
91
80
60
86
106
94 91
123
116
114
108
101
97 96
94
130
129
154
145
140137
114112
108109
93
80
99
72
66
104 103
93
80
84
82
126
120
116
90
90
80
60
Homicides
40
20
0
1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
In 2012, the CPSC began working with the City of Oakland to help implement the Ceasefire
strategy. They began by conducting and up-to-date analysis about Oakland homicides and gang
141
activity. This problem and opportunity analysis provided a shared understanding of the nature
of violence in Oakland and allowed all stakeholders to operate from a common understanding.
The CPSC offered the implementation of the Ceasefire strategy as a solution.
From this series of meetings, a community working group made up of faith leaders, service
providers, and staff from the Oakland Police Department and the mayors office was formed. A
law enforcement partners group and steering committee were created. The U.S. Attorneys
Office led the partnership that created the law enforcement partners group whose purpose was to
ensure that senior and mid-level law enforcement professionals from federal, state and local
agencies would focus their collective resources on individuals in groups and gangs who were
engaging in violence. The steering committee included the chairs of the community working
group, senior staff from the citys Human Services Department, staff from the mayors office,
and the Chief and Assistant Chief of Police. This steering committee decided what the goals of
the Ceasefire strategy would be:
Reduce gang- and group-related shootings and homicides

Reduce the recidivism rate among participants
Improve community and police relationships among those most impacted by violence
In order to accomplish these goals the strategy utlizies two forms of direct communications.
They include call-ins and custom notifications:
Call-ins are larger meetings involving up to 20 participants on active probation or parole

with multiple community and law enforcement speakers in the same room together.
Custom notifications are smaller, one-on-one meetings with law enforcement, one or two
community members, and participants who may or may not be on probation or parole.
These small meetings still reflect the full partnership: community leaders and residents
impacted by violence, outreach and support services, and law enforcement.
The first call-in was held in October 2012. Since then, call-ins, custom notifications, night walks,
and focused law enforcement actions have been held consistently, using data to ensure a laserlike focus on young men who are at highest risk of violence. Following these efforts, Oakland
has seen a 36.5 percent reduction in homicides during the past two years.
Leveraging Funding
Oakland received funding under a PSN (Project Safe Neighborhoods) grant in January 2014
through the U.S. Attorneys Office, and a Cal GRIP (California Gang Reduction Intervention and
Prevention Program) grant in 2014. A large portion of the PSN grant paid for the Ceasefire
program director that coordinates the strategy within OPD and works with the citys Human
Services Division (HSD) to ensure that high-risk individuals requesting social service assistance
can obtain it. Since the program director position was created and funding allocated to stabilize
it, three work groups have been established:
142
Law Enforcement Partners

Ceasefire Partnership (formerly the Community Working Group)
Weekly Shooting and Homicide Reviews
The Ceasefire program director coordinates and actively participates in these groups and shares
appropriate information between them.
The Cal GRIP grant is a three year grant that is being used to leverage the costs of the Oakland
Unite Case Managers, technical assistance, and the creation of a mentoring program for
Ceasefire clients. Oakland Unite is working closely with The Mentoring Center and the
Empower Initiative to develop and implement this mentoring program.
Coordination: Ceasefire Partnership Meetings
The Ceasefire Partnership includes participation from Oakland Unite staff (social services), the
Assistant Chief of the Oakland Police Department, the Ceasefire Unit and Crime Reduction
Team, CPSC staff, and community partners. At Partnership Committee meetings, the most upto-date version of the shooting scorecard gathered from the weekly Oakland police shooting
and homicide reviews is shared. This allows social service and community partners to ensure
that night walks by concerned residents and clergy take place in the most active areas and that
individuals from violence-involved groups receive higher-intensity case management. This
collaboration also provides for the continued development and implementation of the Procedural
Justice Police Legitimacy and Implicit Bias work. The committee also plans the call-in meetings
and its members often participate as speakers. These partnership meetings take place every 60 to
90 days, with smaller subcommittees meeting in between.
Law Enforcement Coordination & Data Driven Approach to Reducing Crime
The Oakland Police Departments Weekly Shooting and Homicide Reviews include full
participation from the departments Ceasefire CRT (Crime Reduction Team), the U.S. Marshals
Service, FBI analysts, ATF (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms), Alameda County
Probation, California State Parole, Oakland Housing Authority, and OPDs Criminal
Investigations Division, crime analysts, and area commanders. At the meetings, partners review
and share information about every shooting and homicide during the previous week to ensure a
shared understanding of the groups or gangs driving violence. Participants also create and assess
solutions that sharply focus on individuals within groups who are at the highest risk of being
victims or perpetrators of gun violence. At each meeting the following items are discussed as
they pertain to each incident:
The incidents connection to gangs or groups

For hot groups, (those at top of the scorecard, involved in recent shootings, or
identified as highest-risk based on street information), the group discusses:
o Potential future shootings or retaliation that may flow from shootings
o Any information that can be shared about strategies to mediate conflicts and
prevent retaliation among these groups
143
o Attention and support that Oakland police and other agencies might provide to
deter groups from shooting
o Direct communication strategies (custom notifications and call-ins) to address
these groups, including who the partners should focus on and how, and what
role each partner might play
Assessment of and amendment to activities and strategies from previous weeks to

determine if the focus has been correct
The Law Enforcement Partners meeting occurs quarterly, and is largely informed by the weekly
shooting reviews. This meeting is attended by management from the U.S. Attorneys Office,
ATF, FBI, the Alameda County District Attorneys Office, California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation, Alameda County Probation, California Highway Patrol, Oakland Housing
Authority, DEA, Department of Homeland Security, Alameda County Sherriffs Department,
and the U.S. Marshals Service. The meetings provide the agencies with current data, and may
include requests to supplement Oakland police efforts in 90-day plans based on the shooting
reviews to determine the most active gang or group feuds and the vulnerabilities of
individuals involved in these groups.
Since the beginning of the strategy in October 2012, the Ceasefire Partnership has conducted
eight call-ins and more than 130 custom notifications with high-risk young adults. These occur
on the street, in hospitals, homes, and in custody. These efforts added up to 279 direct
communications with individuals at highest risk of gun violence.
Table 1: Areas of Oakland represented in Ceasefire Call-Ins
Police Areas Represented
Call-In Date
4 & 5 (East Oakland)

4 & 5 (Central & East Oakland)
3, 4 & 5 (Central and East)
3, 4 & 5 (Central and East)
1, 3, 4, 5 (Central, East & West)
1, 3, 4, 5 (Central, East & West)
1, 3 ,4, 5 (Central, East & West)
1,2, 3 ,4, 5 (Central, East, West &
North)
Total
October 2012
March 2013
September 2013
December 2013
March 2014
July 2014
November 2014
March 2015
Number of
Attendees
20
23
19
21
15
15
20
16
149
Signed Up for
Services
12 (60%)
18 (78%)
13 (68%)
19 (90%)
13 (80%)
15 (100%)
17 (85%)
15
(94%)
122
Procedural Justice, Police Legitimacy and Implicit Bias

Oakland has a deep history of community distrust of law enforcement, especially in minority
neighborhoods where violent crime is most prevalent. The city is the home of the Black Panther
Party and an important location of the Occupy movement. OPD is under a court-mandated
144
Negotiated Settlement Agreement addressing police misconduct. Given this history, it was clear
to all partners participating in the Ceasefire strategy that they could not solely focus on reducing
crime without also building community trust. As such, the third goal of the strategy is to
strengthen relationships between the police and communities most impacted by violence.
As an initial step, the partnership decided to embark on police legitimacy and procedural justice
training. A shared interest in improved outcomes for the city and those at highest risk of violence
brought community partners to the table with the OPD. With a commitment to accomplish the
following:
Support a way of policing that builds trust

Explain the context for strained relationships with communities of color
Emphasize that through their decision-making and treatment of residents, police can
positively shape residents assessments of them
Applying the rationale that recipients of police services and those most affected by crime and
violence have perspectives that should be respected and taken into account, Oakland agreed that
the community partners would co-author Oaklands training and be involved in the instruction.
After observing Chicagos version of this training, Oakland engaged in six months of planning to
modify the curriculum and build internal capacity to deliver the training in partnership with the
community.
Oakland has already trained all sworn personnel, and has begun training civilian staff. Oakland
developed the first and only (we recently began working with the California Department of
Justice to create a course so that outside agencies could be trained) POST-certified procedural
justice course in California, and it is the only course with community instructors. The training
has been consistently rated as excellent or very good. Nearly every attendee expressed
appreciation that community partners co-taught the sessions. Participants said they felt
positively about hearing from community partners, that they appreciated a personal perspective
on the communitys experience, and that they liked that the history of policing in communities of
color was presented in a clear and relevant way. Additionally, the Presidents Task Force on 21st
Century Policing (see attached) recognizes Procedural Justice and Police Legitimacy as a best
practice in policing
The staff funded by Measure Z (and other staff), the CPSC, and community partners would
continue to co-create and develop Phase 2 and 3 of the procedural justice and implicit bias work.
Phase 2 will focus on implementation and evaluation of the Procedural Justice principles in
critical incidents before expansion to other incidents. Phase 3 will include refresher training for
all sworn staff and be inclusive of efforts addressing implicit bias. Both Phase 2 and 3 are under
development.
Oaklands Results Violence Reductions
In 2014 efforts of the Oakland Ceasefire Partnership achieved the following:
An 11 percent reduction in homicides and a 13 percent reduction in shootings
145
The lowest number of homicides since 2000

From 2012 to 2014, a decline in homicides of 36.5 percent.
Three successful call-ins with 50 participants and 72 custom notifications, totaling 122
direct communications
80 percent of call-in attendees signing up for services and support
Regular focus groups with highest-risk young men about their perspectives on violence
Several focused and intelligence-based law enforcement operations on groups that
continued to engage in violence
Procedural Justice training for all sworn OPD staff, 22 non-sworn police employees, and
10 individuals from external law enforcement agencies and community groups
Receipt of a state Cal GRIP grant for $1.5 million for three years
In addition, the most dramatic decreases in violence occurred in 2014 and 2015 in East Oakland,
the area of the City where the gang/group dynamic is the most complicated, violence is highest
but where the strategy and partnerships are the strongest.
600
Ceasefire began October 18, 2012
500
400
Crime is trending down
300
Shootings (245)(a)(2)
Homicides
200
Ceasefire began October 18, 2012
100
0
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
During this two-year decline in shootings and homicides, OPD reached a staffing low of 613
officers, one of the lowest staffing totals in decades. Despite this challenge, the city has achieved
significant declines in violence. The staff funded by Measure Z (as well as other staff) will
continue to work on all aspects of this strategy discussed above.
ANALYSIS
OPD has had great success with evidence-based strategies that support all three of the Measure Z
objectives 2. OPD proposes placing the greatest emphasis on Objective 1 (Reduce homicides,
2
The residents of Oakland passed the Public Safety and Services Violence Prevention Act (Measure Z) in November 2014.
Measure Z outlines three objectives for the use of funds. Section A (Objectives) states:
The tax proceeds raised by these special taxes may be used only to pay for any costs or expenses relating to
or arising from efforts to achieve the following objectives and desired outcomes:
146
robberies, burglaries, and gun-related violence) and Objective 3 (Invest in violence intervention
and prevention strategies that provide support for at-risk youth and young adults to interrupt the
cycle of violence and recidivism).
Only if Objective 1 and Objective 3 are met, will OPD be able to meet Objective 2 (Improve
police and fire emergency response times and other police services) because less crime and fewer
calls for service will lead to improved response times and other police services. These objectives
will also emphasize appropriate strategy alignment with the Human Services Department (HSD)
because Oaklands violence problems are too big and complex for only one agency to focus on.
These areas of alignment are covered in this report as well as in the RFPs created by HSD.
Measure Z emphasizes community policing. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services, community policing is defined as:
A philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic
use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the
immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social
disorder, and fear of crime.
This philosophy when aligned with the objectives of Measure Z, data, and evidenced-based
practices provides for two categories of community policing:
Community Policing through Problem Solving with Community Stakeholders and

Positive Community Engagement
Ceasefire (including Community Policing through Procedural Justice, Police
Legitimacy and Addressing Implicit Bias)
For fiscal year 2015-16, OPD projects that $13,150,968 of Measure Z funds will be available to
dedicate to these community policing efforts. $12,060,774 will be used for personnel costs;
$715,194 will be used for related costs; $125,000 will be used for technical assistance; and
$250,000 will be used for a program evaluation. The following table includes a breakdown of
personnel who are being funded to implement strategies to meet the objectives provided by the
Measure.
Group
CRO 3
CRO
1.
2.
3.
3
Classification
No. Indiv. Cost
Sergeant of Police
3 $ 205,121
Police Officer 17 $ 177,784
Total
$ 615,363
$ 3,022,328
Reduce homicides, robberies, burglaries, and gun-related violence;

Improve police and fire emergency 911 response times and other police services; and,
Invest in violence intervention and prevention strategies that provide support for at-risk youth and young
adults to interrupt the cycle of violence and recidivism.
CRO is Community Resource Officer and is similar to PSO (Problem Solving Officer) under Measure Y
147
CRT 4
CRT
Ceasefire
Ceasefire
Ceasefire
Ceasefire
Research &
Planning
Ceasefire
Sergeant of Police
Police Officer
Sergeant of Police
Police Officer
Project Manager II
(Program Director)
Volunteer Specialist
(Program Coordinator)
Management Assistant
(Crime Analysis Supervisor)
Position Total
Overtime
Personnel Cost Total
Related Costs 5
Technical Assistance
Program Evaluation
Measure Z FY 2015-16 Spending Plan
Measure Z FY 2015-16 Budget
5
30
1
6
$
$
$
$
205,121
177,784
205,121
177,784
$ 1,025,605
$ 5,333,520
$ 205,121
$ 1,066,704
$ 250,756
250,756
$ 114,309
114,309
1
65
$ 134,816
$ 134,816
$11,768,522
$ 292,252
$12,060,774
$ 715,194
$
125,000
$ 250,000
$13,150,968
$13,150,968
The below chart below indicates shows the percentage of funds dedicated to each strategy.
OPD Spending Plan
19%
Community Policing:
Problem Solving and
Community Engagement
Ceasefire (Includes
Procedural Justice and
Implicit Bias)
81%
Alignment with Measure Z Objectives

The objectives outlined in Measure Z are priorities for the entire department regardless of
funding source. Grants and other funding sources will continue to be leveraged to accomplish
these objectives.
4
CRT is Crime Reduction Team

Related Costs are Computer Maintenance, Database, Training/Travel, Equipment & Supplies, Cellphones,
SARANet, Internal Service/Work Order Expenditures, and Other Expenses
148
Objective 1: Reduce Homicides, Robberies, Burglaries, and Gun-Related Violence

First Strategy/Activity: Community Policing through Problem Solving with Community
Stakeholders and Positive Community Engagement
Area of Focus: Geographic Policing
Budgeted Amount: $10,411,881
Personnel Costs: $9,996,832
Three Community Resource Officer Sergeants of Police: $615,363
Seventeen Community Resource Officer Police Officers: $3,022,328
Five Crime Reduction Team Sergeants of Police: $1,025,605
Thirty Crime Reduction Team Police Officers: $5,333,520
Related Costs: $415,049

Computer Maintenance: $15,000
Database Costs: $49,000
Training/Travel: $32,500
Equipment and Office Supplies: $57,500 6
Cellphones: $29,904
SARA Net: $100,000
Other Expenses: $28,200
Internal Service/Work Order Expenditures: $117,945 7
Community Resource Officers
For many years, Problem Solving Officers (PSOs) were assigned to beats throughout the City.
These officers worked with Neighborhood Service Coordinators and community members
(through Neighborhood Crime Prevention Councils and other avenues) to solve problems.
Measure Z provides funding for Community Resource Officers (CROs) to engage in problem
solving projects, attend Neighborhood Crime Prevention Council meetings, serve as a liaison
with city services teams, provide foot/bike patrols, answer calls for service if needed, lead
targeted enforcement projects and coordinate these projects with Crime Reduction Teams
(CRTs), Patrol, and other sworn police personnel. Although Measure Z only funds twenty CROs
(three sergeants and 17 officers) the OPD general purpose budget will fund an additional twenty
CROs (two sergeants and 18 officers) that will engage in similar activities.
The activities and the projects of the CROs will be dedicated to the reduction of homicides,
robberies, burglaries and gun-related violence in partnership with the community and with the
assistance of the Neighborhood Service Coordinators (NSCs).
Crime Reduction Teams
6
Equipment and Office Supplies includes training books, maintenance, pens, paper, binder clips, binders,
computers, software
7
Internal Service/Work Order Expenditures include vehicle rental, radio rentals, contract and compliance
149
Measure Z provides that CRTs shall strategically and geographically deploy sworn police
personnel to investigate and respond to the commission of violent crimes in identified violence
hot spots using intelligence-based policing. These thirty-five sworn employees will work in
conjunction with the CROs to solve neighborhood based problems associated with homicides,
robberies, burglaries, and gun-related violence. While working with the Ceasefire CRT they will
use timely intelligence, data from problem analyses (Attachment A), data from the weekly
shooting review to assist in their efforts to reduce homicides and shootings. Funding for the
CRTs will be leveraged with existing Community Oriented Policing Grants received from the
Department of Justice.
Second Strategy/Activity: Sustaining the Ceasefire Strategy
Area of Focus: Reduction of Gang/Group Related Shootings and homicides
Budgeted Amount: $2,446,851
Personnel Costs: $1,771,706
One Ceasefire Sergeant of Police: $205,121
Six Ceasefire Police Officers: $1,066,706
One Project Manager II (Ceasefire Program Director): $250,756
One Volunteer Specialist (Ceasefire Program Coordinator): $114,309
One Management Assistant (Crime Analysis Supervisor): $134,816
Related Costs: $300,145
Computer Maintenance: $15,000
Database Costs: $49,000
Cellphones: $5,096
Training/Travel: $32,500
Equipment and Office Supplies: $57,500
Other Expenses: $28,200
Internal Service/Work Order Expenditures: $117,945
Technical Assistance: $125,000

The continued implementation of the Ceasefire strategy requires ongoing technical assistance to
implement correctly. When it is implemented accurately and receives sustained attention, the
Ceasefire strategy not only improves community relationships but can be applied to other crimes
as well. For cities like Oakland, with significant crime problems and limited resources, Ceasefire
is an ideal approach to helping a police department utilize data and intelligence to prioritize
limited resources on the small percentage of people committing violence. Using this approach,
cities not only reduce crime, but foster better working relationships with the community by
demonstrating that law enforcement actions are fair and informed.
Program Evaluation: $250,000
Oakland has invested a significant amount of time and resources into the Ceasefire strategy.
Given the dramatic declines in homicides and shootings during the implementation period the
OPD would like an evaluation specific to the effectiveness of the strategy. A strategy specific
150
evaluation would inform the OPD and City leadership on the outcomes and effectiveness of this
strategy.
The Ceasefire Strategy
Oaklands Ceasefire strategy is a data driven approach to reducing violence. Oaklands strategy
is based on a method first implemented in Boston almost 20 years ago. Its core is the direct
communication of a powerful anti-violence message to young people at highest risk of violence
by an alliance of community leaders. The Boston effort combined the careful analysis of serious
violent incidents and trends to identify those individuals and their social networks at highest risk
of violence; communicating to those individuals and groups the risks associated with continued
violence; enforcement efforts narrowly targeted to those individuals who persisted in violence;
and offering social services and supportive relationships to those who sought them.
In 2012 Oakland conducted a similar analysis of serious incidents to inform implementation
efforts. A preliminary analysis indicated that about 60 percent of Oaklands homicides and
shootings occurred in East Oakland, the Ceasefire strategy originally focused in this area, from
High Street to the San Leandro border. East Oakland covers a third of the citys territory but
accounts for 53 percent of homicides, as indicated in an analysis that provided an in-depth look
at homicides from January 2012 through June 2013 (Attachment B). The remaining 47 percent
of homicides are distributed primarily across West Oakland.
The disparity and concentration of crime became clearer through a Problem and Opportunity
Analysis conducted by CPSC. During the review period covered in the Problem and
Opportunity Analysis, 18 groups were associated with a majority of group-involved violence.
CPSC staff, working with the Oakland Police Department and Oakland Unite, completed the
Problem and Opportunity Analysis of every homicide in the city between January 2012 and June
2013 a total of 179. It showed that 80 percent of Oaklands homicide suspects and victims
were African-American even though they were only 28 percent of the population. It also showed
that the highest concentration of homicides were among adults aged 18 to34, with 30 being the
median age of victims and 26 the median age of suspects. Fifty-nine percent of all homicides
involved group or gang members as victims, suspects or both. Forty percent stemmed from
ongoing group feuds, personal disputes between group members, or internal group disputes.
Nineteen percent were instances in which group members used violence to resolve other kinds of
disputes. Twenty-five percent appear to have involved group members as suspects or victims.
Disputes over drugs, drug turf or drug business made up 13 percent of homicides. Risk of
involvement in homicide was concentrated within and among groups and their networks.
The analysis also demonstrated that there are approximately 50 violent groups or gangs in
Oakland, with an estimated active membership of 1,000 to 1,200 people, making up
approximately 0.3 percent of the citys population. At any time, only a small subset of the
groups are at highest risk of violence. The analysis showed that approximately 50 identifiable
street networks drove 59 to 84 percent of the citys violence. These networks were made up of
1,000 to 1,200 young men in their late teens to late 20s. Within this population, a smaller set of
about 18 groups, with a total active membership of about 200 to 350 people, were associated
with the greatest share of this violence. The analysis helped the partners focus on this small,
151
highest-risk population. To keep the violence analysis up to date, the Oakland partners now
conduct two separate reviews of fatal and non-fatal shootings every week. This tends to reveal an
even smaller number of very highest-risk people and groups at any one time often 4 to 10
groups with fewer than 100 active members. These groups and individuals become the focus of
call-ins and custom notifications and of the outreach and support work led by Oakland Unite. In
addition to these shooting reviews, leaders in the Oakland Police Department and Oakland Unite
regularly communicate to reinforce their joint focus on the same highest risk groups. This
coordination takes place at the senior management level to protect the safety and credibility of
line staff.
This type of analysis continues to help inform the strategy. In the summer of 2015 another indepth analysis will be conducted that focuses on homicides and robberies. We expect that this
report will be completed in the fall of 2015. Necessary adjustments to the strategy will be made
and the information will be made available to the Measure Z Committee, Public Safety
Committee, and the City Council.
Connecting With Those at Highest Risk
There are two primary ways the partners come into contact with and communicate with the
highest-risk groups and individuals: call-ins and custom notifications.
Call-ins are larger meetings involving up to 20 participants on active probation or parole

with multiple community and law enforcement speakers in the same room together.
Custom notifications are smaller, one-on-one meetings with law enforcement, one or two
community members, and participants who may or may not be on probation or parole.
These small meetings still reflect the full partnership: community leaders and residents
impacted by violence, outreach and support services, and law enforcement.
At both types of meetings, highest-risk individuals are given this message:

The community cares about you and wants to help you, but we need the shootings
and homicides to stop. There is special help available for you and those you care
about if you are willing to take it, and we are committed to working with you and
supporting you to change your life. However, if you or members of your group
continue to shoot and kill, your group will receive special attention from multiple
law enforcement agencies.
During call-ins and custom notifications, social services are offered to those wishing to receive
help. However, participation in the services offered is not a requirement. The only requirement is
that the shootings and homicides stop. These communications are important because they
acknowledge what a large body of research already shows that most individuals involved in
this type of violence really do not want to continue in this dangerous lifestyle, and that they can
and will make rational decisions regarding their future if given accurate information about their
risks and opportunities. They often do not understand their legal risks and exposure. They also
152
dont often hear that the community loves and cares about them and is committed to helping
them walk another path.
At these meetings, local, state and federal law enforcement agencies tell attendees that their lives
matter and because the participants value life in their city, stopping gun violence is the highest
priority. Typically, most individuals and group members will heed the message and a smaller
number will not. Law enforcement agencies jointly focus their efforts on those individuals and
groups who continue to engage in violence.
Direct
Communication
: Call-in/Custom
Notifications
Ongoing
outreach and
relationshipbuilding through
Night Walks in
the focus area
Ceasefire
Strategy
Goals 1 and 2:
Reducing
Homicides,
Shootings, and
Recidivism
Tailored services
are made
available to direct
communication
participants who
express interest
Specific law
enforcement
follow-through on
the first and worst
groups that engage
in violence
If participants and their associates continue to engage in violence the Ceasefire CRT and the
Gang Unit gathers the intelligence, and develops the strategy to focus multiple law enforcement
agencies on these gangs/groups. Once information is gathered they will often work together with
the other CRTs and outside law enforcement agencies to implement their intelligence-driven
operations.
Objective 2: Improve Police and Fire Emergency 911 Response Times and Other Police Services
Strategy/Activity: Increase the Number of Sworn Police Personnel
Budgeted Amount: $6,408,880 (FY 2015-16); $6,508,582 (FY 2016-17)
Description: The primary means for OPD to meet this objective are to reduce crime and the
number of calls for service. This can best be done through increasing staffing so there is more
staff to respond to calls. Public Safety and increased police staffing are priorities in the Mayors
Proposed Fiscal Year 2015-17 Budget. She has proposed that $6.4 million be allocated to
increase police staffing by forty positions for FY 2015-16 and $6.5 for FY 2016-17. This will
result from five of academies over the next two years in order to reach 762 budgeted sworn
positions. The Measure Z funds will assist in sustaining current staffing levels while the Mayors
budget helps to increase staffing levels. Both of these actions and the work of the Oakland Fire
Department are efforts to meet this goal.
153
Objective 3: Invest In Violence Intervention and Prevention Strategies that Provide Support for
At-Risk Youth and Young Adults to Interrupt the Cycle of Violence and Recidivism
Strategy/Activity: Expansion of the Ceasefire Program and Programming Efforts to Reduce
Domestic Violence and Commercially Sexually Exploited Children (CSEC)
Budgeted Amount: See above for Ceasefire and OPD General Fund Contribution of $1.4M+
Description: As mentioned throughout the report there is significant alignment and coordination
with Oakland Unite. Their RFP has a focus on working with clients at the highest risk of
violence which are all of the Ceasefire clients that have expressed a desire to accept services in
an effort to decrease their risk and involvement in gun violence. Their RFP includes a
commitment to providing high-level case management, stipends, mentoring, and other
wraparound services to those who data indicates are at the highest risk of engaging in shootings
and homicides.
This work will significantly enhance the work of the Ceasefire strategy and will help the City not
only deliver on the enforcement promise but also on the promise of appropriate services and
support. Since the first call-in and custom notification in 2012 there has been a significant uptick
in direct communications and the desire on behalf of participants to engage in services. This
investment by Oakland Unite helps the strategy move in this direction.
Domestic Violence & Human Trafficking
Since the mid-2000s, OPD has worked in collaboration with Bay Area Women Against Rape
(BAWAR) to provide services and support to children that are victims of human trafficking.
BAWAR, founded in 1971 works with OPD on undercover trafficking investigations; BAWAR
provides comprehensive counseling and wrap-around services for victims of human trafficking,
which helps OPD maintain a victim-centered approach to combatting human trafficking.
BAWAR also provides community education regarding human trafficking and sexual assault
issues. All BAWAR staff and advocates are California State Certified Rape Crisis Counselors
and BAWAR offers multi-lingual support.
Additionally, OPD has staff dedicated to the Family Violence Law Center to investigate and
provide criminal justice advocacy for victims of domestic violence. This work is done in close
coordination with the Alameda County District Attorneys Office. Although not paid out of
Measure Z funds OPD currently has one sergeant, seven officers, and one support staff totaling
working with BAWAR and the FVLC on the issues of domestic violence and CSEC. The total
annual personnel from OPDs General Purpose Fund for these positions is $1,425,633 for FY
2015-16 and $1,447,983 for FY 2016-17.
PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST
This is of public interest as it directly relates to safety within the Oakland community.
154
COORDINATION
The Office of the City Attorney and the Controllers Bureau were consulted in preparation of this
report.
SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
Economic: There are no economic opportunities identified in this report.
Environmental: No environmental opportunities have been identified.
Social Equity: This report provides valuable information to the Oakland community regarding
enforcement and crime reduction efforts in their communities.
For questions regarding this report, please contact Reygan Harmon, Ceasefire Program Director,
at 510-777-8675 and Nell Taylor, Fiscal Manager, 510-238-3288.
Respectfully submitted,
Sean Whent
Chief of Police
Prepared by:
Reygan Harmon
Program Director
Ceasefire
155
ATTACHMENT 11A
I N T E R I M R E POR T O F
M A R CH 2 015
156
157
Recommended citation:
Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 2015. Interim Report of the Presidents Task Force on 21st
Century Policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
First published March 1, 2015
Revised March 4, 2015
158
Contents
From the Co-Chairs ..................................................................................................................................... v
Members of the Task Force ...................................................................................................................... vii
Task Force Staff ......................................................................................................................................... ix
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................................................... xi
Introduction................................................................................................................................................ 1
Pillar One: Building Trust & Legitimacy ...................................................................................................... 7
Pillar Two: Policy & Oversight .................................................................................................................. 19
Pillar Three: Technology & Social Media .................................................................................................. 31
Pillar Four: Community Policing & Crime Reduction ................................................................................ 41
Pillar Five: Training & Education............................................................................................................... 51
Pillar Six: Officer Wellness & Safety ......................................................................................................... 61
Implementation ........................................................................................................................................ 71
Appendix A. Public Listening Sessions & Witnesses ................................................................................. 73
Appendix B. Individuals & Organizations That Submitted Written Testimony ........................................ 79
Appendix C. Executive Order 13684 of December 18, 2014 .................................................................... 83
Appendix D. Task Force Members Biographies ....................................................................................... 85
Appendix E. Recommendations and Actions ........................................................................................... 89
159
From the Co-Chairs

We wish to thank President Barack Obama for giving us the honor and privilege of leading the Task
Force on 21st Century Policing. The task force was created to strengthen community policing and trust
among law enforcement officers and the communities they serve, especially in light of recent events
around the country that have underscored the need for and importance of lasting collaborative
relationships between local police and the public. We found engaging with law enforcement officials,
technical advisors, youth and community leaders, and nongovernmental organizations through a
transparent public process to be both enlightening and rewarding, and we again thank him for this
honor.
Given the urgency of these issues, the President gave the task force an initial 90 days to identify best
practices and offer recommendations on how policing practices can promote effective crime reduction
while building public trust. In this short period, the task force conducted seven public listening sessions
across the country and received testimony and recommendations from a wide range of community
and faith leaders, law enforcement officers, academics, and others to ensure these recommendations
would be informed by a diverse range of voices. Such a remarkable achievement could not have been
accomplished without the tremendous assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Justices Office
of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office), led by Director Ronald L. Davis, who also
served as the executive director of the task force. We thank Director Davis for his leadership, as well as
his chief of staff, Melanca Clark, and the COPS Office team that supported the operation and
administration of the task force.
We also wish to extend our appreciation to the COPS Offices extremely capable logistical and
technical assistance provider, Strategic Applications International (SAI), led by James and Colleen
Copple. In addition to logistical support, SAI digested the voluminous information received from
testifying witnesses and the public in record time and helped facilitate the task forces deliberations on
recommendations for the President. We are also grateful for the thoughtful assistance of Darrel
Stephens and Stephen Rickman, our technical advisors.
Most important, we would especially like to thank the hundreds of community members, law
enforcement officers and executives, associations and stakeholders, researchers and academics, and
civic leaders nationwide who stepped forward to support the efforts of the task force and to lend their
experience and expertise during the development of the recommendations contained in this report.
The passion and commitment shared by all to building strong relationships between law enforcement
and communities became a continual source of inspiration and encouragement to the task force.
The dedication of our fellow task force members and their commitment to the process of arriving at
consensus around these recommendations is also worth acknowledging. The task force members
brought diverse perspectives to the table and were able to come together to engage in meaningful
dialogue on emotionally charged issues in a respectful and effective manner. We believe the type of
constructive dialogue we have engaged in should serve as example of the type of dialogue that must
occur in communities throughout the nation.
160
While much work remains to be done to address many longstanding issues and challengesnot only
within the field of law enforcement but also within the broader criminal justice systemthis
experience has demonstrated to us that Americans are, by nature, problem solvers. It is our hope that
the recommendations included here will meaningfully contribute to our nations efforts to increase
trust between law enforcement and the communities they protect and serve.
Charles H. Ramsey
Co-Chair
Laurie O. Robinson
Co-Chair
161
Members of the Task Force

Co-Chairs
Charles Ramsey, Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department

Laurie Robinson, Professor, George Mason University
Members
Cedric L. Alexander, Deputy Chief Operating Officer for Public Safety, DeKalb County, Georgia
Jose Lopez, Lead Organizer, Make the Road New York
Tracey L. Meares, Walton Hale Hamilton Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Brittany N. Packnett, Executive Director, Teach For America, St. Louis, Missouri
Susan Lee Rahr, Executive Director, Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission
Constance Rice, Co-Director, Advancement Project
Sean Michael Smoot, Director and Chief Counsel, Police Benevolent & Protective Association of Illinois
Bryan Stevenson, Founder and Executive Director, Equal Justice Initiative
Roberto Villaseor, Chief of Police, Tucson Police Department
162
Task Force Staff

The U.S. Department of Justices Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, led by Director
Ronald L. Davis, provided administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment, and other support
services as necessary for the task force to carry out its mission:
Executive Director
Chief of Staff
Communications Director
General Counsel
External Affairs Liaison
External Affairs Liaison
Legislative Liaison
Project Manager
Senior Policy Advisor
Site Manager
Special Assistant
Special Assistant
Writer
Writer
Ronald L. Davis
Melanca Clark
Silas Darden (Office of Justice Programs)
Charlotte Grzebien
Danielle Ouellette
Sheryl Thomas
Shannon Long
Deborah Spence
Katherine McQuay
Laurel Matthews
Michael Franko
Jennifer Rosenberger
Janice Delaney (Office of Justice Programs)
Faye Elkins
Strategic Applications International (SAI): 1 James Copple, Colleen Copple, Jessica Drake, Jason Drake,
Steven Minson, Letitia Harmon, Anthony Coulson, Mike McCormack, Shawnee Bigelow, Monica
Palacio, and Adrienne Semidey
Technical Advisors: Stephen Rickman and Darrel Stephens
Consultant Research Assistants: Jan Hudson, Yasemin Irvin-Erickson, Katie Jares, Erin Kearns, Belen
Lowrey, and Kristina Lugo
SAI provided technical and logistical support through a cooperative agreement with the COPS Office.
163
Acknowledgments
The task force received support from other components of the U.S. Department of Justice, including
the Office of Justice Programs, led by Assistant Attorney General Karol Mason, and the Civil Rights
Division, led by Acting Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta.
The following individuals from across the U.S. Department of Justice also assisted the task force in its
work: Eric Agner, Amin Aminfar, Pete Brien, Pamela Cammarata, Erin Canning, Ed Chung, Caitlin Currie,
Shanetta Cutlar, Melissa Fox, Shirlethia Franklin, Ann Hamilton, Najla Haywood, Esteban Hernandez,
Arthur Gary, Tammie Gregg, Valerie Jordan, Mark Kappelhoff, John Kim, Kevin Lewis, Robert Listenbee,
Cynthia Pappas, Scott Pestridge, Channing Phillips, Donte Turner, Melissa Randolph, Margaret
Richardson, Janice Rodgers, Elizabeth Simpson, Jonathan Smith, Brandon Tramel, and Miriam Vogel.
164
Introduction
Trust between law enforcement agencies and the people they protect and serve is essential in a
democracy. It is key to the stability of our communities, the integrity of our criminal justice system,
and the safe and effective delivery of policing services.
In light of the recent events that have exposed rifts in the relationships between local police and the
communities they protect and serve, on December 18, 2014, President Barack Obama signed an
Executive Order establishing the Task Force on 21st Century Policing.
In establishing the task force, the President spoke of the distrust that exists between too many police
departments and too many communitiesthe sense that in a country where our basic principle is
equality under the law, too many individuals, particularly young people of color, do not feel as if they
are being treated fairly.
When any part of the American family does not feel like it is being treated fairly, thats a problem for
all of us, said the President. Its not just a problem for some. Its not just a problem for a particular
community or a particular demographic. It means that we are not as strong as a country as we can be.
And when applied to the criminal justice system, it means were not as effective in fighting crime as we
could be.
These remarks underpin the philosophical foundation for the Task Force on 21st Century Policing: to
build trust between citizens and their peace officers so that all components of a community are
treating one another fairly and justly and are invested in maintaining public safety in an atmosphere of
mutual respect. Decades of research and practice tell us that the public cares as much about how
police interact with them as they care about the outcomes that legal actions produce. People are more
likely to obey the law when they believe those who are enforcing it have the rightthe legitimate
authorityto tell them what to do. 2 Building trust and legitimacy, therefore, is not just a policing issue.
It involves all components of the criminal justice system and is inextricably bound to bedrock issues
affecting the community such as poverty, education, and public health.
The mission of the task force was to examine how to foster strong, collaborative relationships between
local law enforcement and the communities they protect and to make recommendations to the
President on how policing practices can promote effective crime reduction while building public trust.
The president selected members of the task force based on their ability to contribute to its mission
because of their relevant perspective, experience, or subject matter expertise in policing, law
enforcement and community relations, civil rights, and civil liberties.
T.R. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1990); M.S. Frazer, The Impact of
the Community Court Model on Defendant Perceptions of Fairness: A Case Study at the Red Hook Community
Justice Center (New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2006).
165
The task force was given 90 days to conduct hearings, review the research, and make
recommendations to the President, so its focus was sharp and necessarily limited. It concentrated on
defining the cross-cutting issues affecting police-community interactions, questioning the
contemporary relevance and truth about long-held assumptions about the nature and methods of
policing, and identifying the areas where research is needed to highlight examples of evidence-based
policing practices compatible with present realities.
To fulfill this mission, the task force convened seven listening sessions to hear testimonyincluding
recommendations for actionfrom government officials; law enforcement officers; academic experts;
technical advisors; leaders from established nongovernmental organizations, including grass-roots
movements; and any other members of the public who wished to comment. The listening sessions
were held in Washington, D.C., January 13; Cincinnati, Ohio, January 3031; Phoenix, Arizona, February
1314; and again in Washington, D.C., February 2324. Other forms of outreach included a number of
White House listening sessions to engage other constituencies, such as people with disabilities, the
LGBTQ community, and members of the armed forces, as well as careful study of scholarly articles,
research reports, and written contributions from informed experts in various fields relevant to the task
forces mission.
Each of the seven public listening sessions addressed a specific aspect of policing and policecommunity relations, although cross-cutting issues and concerns made their appearance at every
session. At the first session, Building Trust and Legitimacy, the topic of procedural justice was
discussed as a foundational necessity in building public trust. Subject matter experts also testified as to
the meaning of community policing in its historical and contemporary contexts, defining the
difference between implicit bias and racial discriminationtwo concepts at the heart of perceived
difficulties between police and the people. Witnesses from community organizations stressed the
need for more police involvement in community affairs as an essential component of their crime
fighting duties. Police officers gave the beat cops perspective on protecting people who do not
respect their authority, and three big-city mayors told of endemic budgetary obstacles to addressing
policing challenges.
The session on Policy and Oversight again brought witnesses from diverse police forcesboth chiefs
and union representativesfrom law and academia and from established civil rights organizations and
grass-root groups. They discussed use of force from the point of view of both research and policy and
internal and external oversight; explained how they prepare for and handle mass demonstrations; and
pondered culture and diversity in law enforcement. Witnesses filled the third session, on Technology
and Social Media, with testimony on the use of body-worn cameras and other technologies from the
angles of research and legal considerations, as well as the intricacies of implementing new
technologies in the face of privacy issues. They discussed the ever-expanding ubiquity of social media
and its power to work both for and against policing practice and public safety.
The Community Policing and Crime Reduction Listening Session considered current research on the
effectiveness of community policing on bringing down crime, as well as building up public trust. Task
force members heard detailed descriptions of the methods chiefs in cities of varying sizes used to
166
implement effective community policing in their jurisdictions over a number of years. They also heard
from a panel of young people about their encounters with the criminal justice system and the lasting
effects of positive interactions with police through structured programs as well as individual
relationships. The fifth listening session considered Training and Education in law enforcement over
an officers entire careerfrom recruitment through basic training to in-service trainingand the
support, education, and training of supervisors, leaders, and managers. Finally, the panel on Officer
Safety and Wellness considered the spectrum of mental and physical health issues faced by police
officers, from the day-to-day stress of the job, its likely effect on an officers physical health, and the
need for mental health screening, to traffic accidents, burnout, suicide, and how better to manage
these issues to determine the length of an officers career.
A Listening Session on the Future of Community Policing concluded the task forces public sessions
and was followed by the deliberations leading to the recommendations that follow on ways to
research, improve, support, and implement policies and procedures for effective policing in the 21st
century.
Many excellent and specific suggestions emerged from these listening sessions on all facets of policing
in the 21st century, but many questions arose as well. Paramount among them was how to bring unity
of purpose and consensus on best practices to a nation with 18,000 separate law enforcement
agencies and a strong history of a preference for local control of local issues. It became very clear that
it is time for a comprehensive and multifaceted examination of all the interrelated parts of the criminal
justice system and a focused investigation into how poverty, lack of education, mental health, and
other social conditions cause or intersect with criminal behavior. We propose two overarching
recommendations that will seek the answers to these questions.
0.1 OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATION: The President should support and provide funding for the
creation of a National Crime and Justice Task Force to review and evaluate all components of the
criminal justice system for the purpose of making recommendations to the country on
comprehensive criminal justice reform.
Several witnesses at the task forces listening sessions pointed to the fact that police represent the
face of the criminal justice system to the public. Yet police are obviously not responsible for laws or
incarceration policies that many citizens find unfair. This misassociation leads us to call for a broader
examination of such issues as drug policy, sentencing and incarceration, which are beyond the scope of
a review of police practices.
This is not a new idea.
In the 1967 Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice report, The
Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, one of the major findings stated, Officials of the criminal justice
167
system . . . must re-examine what they do. They must be honest about the systems shortcomings with
the public and with themselves. 3
The need to establish a formal structure to take a continuous look at criminal justice reform in the
context of broad societal issues has never faded from public consciousness. When former Senator Jim
Webb (D-VA) introduced legislation to create the National Criminal Justice Commission in 2009, a
number of very diverse organizations, from the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the Fraternal Order of
Police, the National Sheriffs Association, and the National District Attorneys Association to Human
Rights Watch, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People all supported it. This legislation would have authorized a national criminal justice
commission to conduct a comprehensive review of the criminal justice system by a bipartisan panel of
stakeholders, policymakers, and experts that would make thoughtful, evidence-based
recommendations for reform. The bill received strong bipartisan support and passed the House but
never received a final vote.
More recently, a number of witnesses raised the idea of a national commission at the task forces
listening sessionsnotably Richard Beary, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police
(IACP), who said,
For over 20 years, the IACP has called for the creation of a National Commission on
Criminal Justice to develop across-the-board improvements to the criminal justice
system in order to address current challenges and to increase the efficiency and
effectiveness of the entire criminal justice community. A deep dive into communitypolice relations is only one part of this puzzle. We must explore other aspects of the
criminal justice system that need to be revamped and further contribute to todays
challenges. 4
And Jeremy Travis, president of John Jay College of Criminal Justice, added, in the final listening
session,
You said it is time to look at the criminal justice system, and actually I would broaden
the scope. We have this question of how to reintegrate into our society those who
have caused harms . . . . It is not just the system but these big, democratic, societal
questions that go to government functions and how we deal with conflict as well. 5
The Presidents Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a
Free Society (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967), 15,
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/42.pdf.
Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy (oral testimony of Richard Beary, president, IACP, for the
Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, January 1314, 2015).
Listening Session on the Future of Community Policing (oral testimony of Jeremy Travis, president, John Jay
College of Criminal Justice, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, January 24,
2015).
168
0.2 OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATION: The President should promote programs that take a
comprehensive and inclusive look at community based initiatives that address the core issues of
poverty, education, health, and safety.
As is evident from many of the recommendations in this report, the justice system alone cannot solve
many of the underlying conditions that give rise to crime. It will be through partnerships across sectors
and at every level of government that we will find the effective and legitimate long-term solutions to
ensuring public safety.
169
Pillar One: Building Trust & Legitimacy

Building trust and nurturing legitimacy on both sides of the police/citizen divide is not only the first
pillar of this task forces report but also the foundational principle underlying this inquiry into the
nature of relations between law enforcement and the communities they serve. For the last two
decades, policing has become more effective, better equipped, and better organized to tackle crime.
Despite this, Gallup polls show the publics confidence in police work has remained flat, and among
some populations of color, confidence has declined. 6 This decline is in addition to the fact that
nonwhites have always had less confidence in law enforcement than whites, likely because the poor
and people of color have felt the greatest impact of mass incarceration, such that for too many poor
citizens and people of color, arrest and imprisonment have become an inevitable and seemingly
unavoidable part of the American experience. 7 Decades of research and practice support the premise
that people are more likely to obey the law when they believe that those who are enforcing it have the
legitimate authority to tell them what to do. But the public confers legitimacy only on those whom
they believe are acting in procedurally just ways.
Procedurally just behavior is based on four central principles:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Treating people with dignity and respect

Giving individuals voice during encounters
Being neutral and transparent in decision making
Conveying trustworthy motives 8
Research demonstrates that these principles lead to relationships in which the community trusts that
officers are honest, unbiased, benevolent, and lawful. The community therefore feels obligated to
follow the law and the dictates of legal authorities and is more willing to cooperate with and engage
those authorities because it believes that it shares a common set of interests and values with the
police. 9
Justin McCarthy, Nonwhites Less Likely to Feel Police Protect and Serve Them, Gallup: Politics, November 17,
2014, http://www.gallup.com/poll/179468/nonwhites-less-likely-feel-police-protect-serve.aspx.
Bryan Stevenson, Confronting Mass Imprisonment and Restoring Fairness to Collateral Review of Criminal
Cases, Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review 41 (Summer 2006): 339367.
Lorraine Mazerolle, Sarah Bennett, Jacqueline Davis, Elise Sargeant, and Matthew Manning, "Legitimacy in
Policing: A Systematic Review," The Campbell Collection Library of Systematic Reviews 9 (Oslo, Norway: The
Campbell Collaboration, 2013).
Tom Tyler, Jonathon Jackson, and Ben Bradford, Procedural Justice and Cooperation, in Encyclopedia of
Criminology and Criminal Justice, eds. Gerben Bruinsma and David Weisburd (New York: Springer, 2014), 4011
4024.
170
There are both internal and external aspects to procedural justice in policing agencies. Internal
procedural justice refers to practices within an agency and the relationships officers have with their
colleagues and leaders. Research on internal procedural justice tells us that officers who feel respected
by their supervisors and peers are more likely to accept departmental policies, understand decisions,
and comply with them voluntarily. 10 It follows that officers who feel respected by their organizations
are more likely to bring this respect into their interactions with the people they serve.
External procedural justice focuses on the ways officers and other legal authorities interact with the
public and how the characteristics of those interactions shape the publics trust of the police. It is
important to understand that a key component of external procedural justicethe practice of fair and
impartial policingis built on understanding and acknowledging human biases, 11 both explicit and
implicit.
All human beings have biases or prejudices as a result of their experiences, and these biases influence
how they might react when dealing with unfamiliar people or situations. An explicit bias is a conscious
bias about certain populations based upon race, gender, socioeconomic status, sexual orientation, or
other attributes. 12 Common sense shows that explicit bias is incredibly damaging to police-community
relations, and there is a growing body of research evidence that shows that implicit biasthe biases
people are not even aware they haveis harmful as well.
Witness Jennifer Eberhardt said,
Bias is not limited to so-called bad people. And it certainly is not limited to police
officers. The problem is a widespread one that arises from history, from culture, and
from racial inequalities that still pervade our society and are especially salient in the
context of criminal justice. 13
To achieve legitimacy, mitigating implicit bias should be a part of training at all levels of a law
enforcement organization to increase awareness and ensure respectful encounters both inside the
organization and with communities.
10
Nicole Haas et al., Explaining Officer Compliance: The Importance of Procedural Justice and Trust inside a
Police Organization, Criminology and Criminal Justice (January 2015), doi: 10.1177/1748895814566288; COPS
Office, Comprehensive Law Enforcement Review: Procedural Justice and Legitimacy, accessed February 28,
2015, http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/taskforce/Procedural-Justice-and-Legitimacy-LE-Review-Summary.pdf.
11
Lorie Fridell, This is Not Your Grandparents Prejudice: The Implications of the Modern Science of Bias for
Police Training, Translational Criminology (Fall 2013):1011.
12
Susan Fiske, Are We Born Racist? Greater Good (Summer 2008):1417.
13
Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy (oral testimony of Jennifer Eberhardt for the Presidents
Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, January 13, 2015).
171
The first witnesses at the task force sessions on Pillar One also directly addressed the need for a
change in the culture in which police do their work: the use of disrespectful language and the implicit
biases that lead officers to rely upon race in the context of stop and frisk. They addressed the need for
police officers to find how much they have in common with the people they servenot the lines of
authority they may perceive to separate themand to continue with enduring programs proven
successful over many years.
Several speakers stressed the continuing need for civilian oversight and urged more research into
proving ways it can be most effective. And many spoke to the complicated issue of diversity in
recruiting, especially Sherrilyn Ifill, who said of youth in poor communities,
By the time you are 17, you have been stopped and frisked a dozen times. That does
not make that 17-year-old want to become a police officer . . . . The challenge is to
transform the idea of policing in communities among young people into something
they see as honorable. They have to see people at local events, as the person who
lives across the street, not someone who comes in and knows nothing about my
community. 14
The task forces specific recommendations that follow offer practical ways agencies can act to promote
legitimacy.
1.1 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement culture should embrace a guardian mindset to build public
trust and legitimacy. Toward that end, police and sheriffs departments should adopt procedural
justice as the guiding principle for internal and external policies and practices to guide their
interactions with the citizens they serve.
How officers define their role will set the tone for the community. As Plato wrote, In a republic that
honors the core of democracythe greatest amount of power is given to those called Guardians. Only
those with the most impeccable character are chosen to bear the responsibility of protecting the
democracy.
Law enforcement cannot build community trust if it is seen as an occupying force coming in from
outside to rule and control the community.
14
Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy (oral testimony of Sherrilyn Ifill, president and directorcounsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing,
Washington, DC, January 13, 2015); Statement by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (written
testimony submitted for listening session at Washington, DC, January 13, 2015).
172
As task force member Susan Rahr wrote

In 2012, we began asking the question, Why are we training police officers like
soldiers? Although police officers wear uniforms and carry weapons, the similarity
ends there. The missions and rules of engagement are completely different. The
soldiers mission is that of a warrior: to conquer. The rules of engagement are decided
before the battle. The police officers mission is that of a guardian: to protect. The
rules of engagement evolve as the incident unfolds. Soldiers must follow orders. Police
officers must make independent decisions. Soldiers come into communities as an
outside, occupying force. Guardians are members of the community, protecting from
within. 15
Theres an old saying, Organizational culture eats policy for lunch. Any law enforcement organization
can make great rules and policies that emphasize the guardian role, but if policies conflict with the
existing culture, they will not be institutionalized and behavior will not change. In police work, the vast
majority of an officers work is done independently, outside the immediate oversight of a supervisor.
But consistent enforcement of rules that conflict with a military-style culture, where obedience to the
chain of command is the norm, is nearly impossible. Behavior is more likely to conform to culture than
rules.
The culture of policing is also important to the proper exercise of officer discretion and use of
authority, as task force member Tracey Meares has written. 16 The values and ethics of the agency will
guide officers in their decision-making process; they cannot just rely on rules and policy to act in
encounters with the public. Good policing is more than just complying with the law. Sometimes actions
are perfectly permitted by policy, but that does not always mean an officer should take those actions.
Adopting procedural justice as the guiding principle for internal and external policies and practices can
be the underpinning of a change in culture and should contribute to building trust and confidence in
the community.
1.2 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should acknowledge the role of policing in past
and present injustice and discrimination and how it is a hurdle to the promotion of community trust.
At one listening session, a panel of police chiefs described what they had been doing in recent years to
recognize and own the history and to change the culture within both the police forces and the
communities.
15
Sue Rahr, Transforming the Culture of Policing from Warriors to Guardians in Washington State,
International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training Newsletter 25, no. 4
(2014): 34.
16
Tracey L. Meares, Rightful Policing, New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin (Washington, DC: National Institute
of Justice, 2015), NCJ 248411.
173
Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts described the process in his city:
The process started with the commissioning of a study to evaluate the police
department and the communitys views of the agency . . . . The review uncovered
broken policies, outdated procedures, outmoded technology, and operating norms
that put officers at odds with the community they are meant to serve. It was clear that
dramatic and dynamic change was needed. 17
Ultimately, the Baltimore police created the Professional Standards and Accountability Bureau, tasked
with rooting out corruption, holding officers accountable, and implementing national best practices for
polices and training. New department heads were appointed and a use of force review structure based
on the Las Vegas model was implemented. These were critical infrastructure changes centered on the
need to improve the internal systems that would build accountability and transparency, inside and
outside the organization, noted Commissioner Batts. 18
1.2.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should develop and disseminate case studies that
provide examples where past injustices were publically acknowledged by law enforcement agencies
in a manner to help build community trust.
1.3 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should establish a culture of transparency and
accountability in order to build public trust and legitimacy. This will help ensure decision making is
understood and in accord with stated policy.
1.3.1 ACTION ITEM: To embrace a culture of transparency, law enforcement agencies should make all
department policies available for public review and regularly post on the departments website
information about stops, summonses, arrests, reported crime, and other law enforcement data
aggregated by demographics.
1.3.2 ACTION ITEM: When serious incidents occur, including those involving alleged police
misconduct, agencies should communicate with citizens and the media swiftly, openly, and
neutrally, respecting areas where the law requires confidentiality.
One way to promote neutrality is to ensure that agencies and their members do not release
background information on involved parties. While a great deal of information is often publicly
available, this information should not be proactively distributed by law enforcement.
17
Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Building Community Policing Organizations
(oral testimony of Anthony Batts, commissioner, Baltimore Police Department, for the Presidents Task Force on
21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).
18
Ibid.
174
Figure 1. Community members confidence in their police officers
Note: Survey conducted August 2024, 2014. Voluntary responses of None and Dont know/Refused not shown. Blacks
and Whites include only non-Hispanics. Hispanics are of any race.
Source: Jens Manuel Krogstad, Latino Confidence in Local Police Lower than among Whites, Pew Research Center, August
28, 2014, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/08/28/latino-confidence-in-local-police-lower-than-among-whites/.
175
1.4 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should promote legitimacy internally within the
organization by applying the principles of procedural justice.
Organizational culture created through employee interaction with management can be linked to
officers interaction with citizens. When an agency creates an environment that promotes internal
procedural justice, it encourages its officers to demonstrate external procedural justice. And just as
employees are more likely to take direction from management when they believe managements
authority is legitimate, citizens are more likely to cooperate with the police when they believe the
officers authority is legitimate.
Internal procedural justice begins with the clear articulation of organizational core values and the
transparent creation and fair application of an organizations policies, protocols, and decision-making
processes. If the workforce is actively involved in policy development, they are more likely to use these
same principles of external procedural justice in their interactions with the community. Even though
the approach to implementing procedural justice is top down, the method should include all
employees to best reach a shared vision and mission. Research shows that agencies should also use
tools that encourage employee and supervisor collaboration and foster strong relationships between
supervisors and employees. A more effective agency will result from a real partnership between the
chief and the staff and a shared approach to public safety. 19
1.4.1 ACTION ITEM: In order to achieve internal legitimacy, law enforcement agencies should involve
employees in the process of developing policies and procedures.
For example, internal department surveys should ask officers what they think of policing strategies in
terms of enhancing or hurting their ability to connect with the public. Sometimes the leadership is out
of step with their rank and file, and a survey like this can be a diagnostic tool, a benchmark against
which leadership can measure its effectiveness and ability to create a work environment where
officers feel safe to discuss their feelings about certain aspects of the job.
1.4.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agency leadership should examine opportunities to
incorporate procedural justice into the internal discipline process, placing additional importance on
values adherence rather than adherence to rules. Union leadership should be partners in this
process.
1.5 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should proactively promote public trust by
initiating positive nonenforcement activities to engage communities that typically have high rates of
investigative and enforcement involvement with government agencies.
In communities that have high numbers of interactions with authorities for a variety of reasons, police
should actively create opportunities for interactions that are positive and not related to investigation
19
Tim Richardson (senior legislative liaison, Fraternal Order of Police), in discussion with Ajima Olaghere
(research assistant, COPS Office, Washington, DC), October 2014.
176
or enforcement action. Witness Laura Murphy, for example, pointed out how when law enforcement
targets people of color for the isolated actions of a few, it tags an entire community as lawless when in
actuality 95 percent are law-abiding. 20 This becomes a self-reinforcing concept. Another witness,
Carmen Perez, provided an example of police engaging with citizens in another way:
In the community [where] I grew up in southern California, Oxnard, we had the Police
Athletic League. A lot of officers in our communities would volunteer and coach at the
police activities league. That became our alternative from violence, from gangs and
things like that. That allows for police officers to really build and provide a space to
build trusting relationships. No longer was that such and such over there but it was
Coach Flores or Coach Brown. 21
In recent years, agencies across the county have begun to institutionalize community trust building
endeavors. They have done this through programs such as Coffee with a Cop (and Sweet Tea with the
Chief), Cops and Clergy, Citizens on Patrol Mobile, Students Talking It Over with Police, and The West
Side Story Project. Joint community and law dialogues and truth telling, as well as community and law
enforcement training in procedural justice and bias, are also occurring nationally. Some agencies are
even using training, dialogues, and workshops to take steps towards racial reconciliation.
Agencies engaging in these efforts to build relationships often experience beneficial results.
Communities are often more willing to assist law enforcement when agencies need help during
investigations. And when critical incidents occur, those agencies already have key allies who can help
with information messaging and mitigating challenges.
1.5.1 ACTION ITEM: In order to achieve external legitimacy, law enforcement agencies should involve
the community in the process of developing and evaluating policies and procedures.
1.5.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should institute residency incentive programs such as
Resident Officer Programs.
Resident Officer Programs are arrangements where law enforcement officers are provided housing in
public housing neighborhoods as long as they fulfill public safety duties within the neighborhood that
have been agreed to between the housing authority and the law enforcement agency.
1.5.3 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should create opportunities in schools and
communities for positive, nonenforcement interactions with police. Agencies should also publicize
the beneficial outcomes and images of positive, trust-building partnerships and initiatives.
20
Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy (oral testimony of Laura Murphy to the Presidents Task
Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, January 13, 2015).
21
Listening Session on Building Trust and LegitimacyCommunity Representatives: Building Community Policing
Organizations (oral testimony of Carmen Perez, executive director, The Gathering for Justice, for the Presidents
Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, January 13, 2015).
177
For example, Michael Reynolds, a member of the Youth and Law Enforcement panel at the Listening
Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction, told the moving story of a police officer who saw
him shivering on the street when he was six years old, took him to a store, and bought him a coat.
Despite many negative encounters with police since then, the decency and kindness of that officer
continue to favorably impact Mr. Reynolds feelings towards the police. 22
1.5.4 ACTION ITEM: Use of physical control equipment and techniques against vulnerable
populationsincluding children, elderly persons, pregnant women, people with physical and mental
disabilities, limited English proficiency, and otherscan undermine public trust and should be used
as a last resort. Law enforcement agencies should carefully consider and review their policies
towards these populations and adopt policies if none are in place.
1.6 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should consider the potential damage to public
trust when implementing crime fighting strategies.
Crime reduction is not self-justifying. Overly aggressive law enforcement strategies can potentially
harm communities and do lasting damage to public trust, as numerous witnesses over multiple
listening sessions observed.
1.6.1 ACTION ITEM: Research conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of crime fighting strategies
should specifically look at the potential for collateral damage of any given strategy on community
trust and legitimacy.
1.7 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should track the level of trust in police by their
communities just as they measure changes in crime. Annual community surveys, ideally
standardized across jurisdictions and with accepted sampling protocols, can measure how policing in
that community affects public trust.
Trust in institutions can only be achieved if the public can verify what they are being told about a
product or service, who is responsible for the quality of the product or service, and what will be done
to correct any problems. To operate effectively, law enforcement agencies must maintain public trust
by having a transparent, credible system of accountability.
Agencies should partner with local universities to conduct surveys by ZIP code, for example, to
measure the effectiveness of specific policing strategies, assess any negative impact they have on a
communitys view of police, and gain the communitys input.
22
Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Youth and Law Enforcement (oral testimony of
Michael Reynolds, co-president, Youth Power Movement, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing,
Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).
178
1.7.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should develop survey tools and instructions for use of
such a model to prevent local departments from incurring the expense and to allow for consistency
across jurisdictions.
A model such as the National Institute of Justice-funded National Police Research Platform could be
developed and deployed to conduct such surveys. This platform seeks to advance the science and
practice of policing in the United States by introducing a new system of measurement and feedback
that captures organizational excellence both inside and outside the walls of the agency. The platform is
managed by a team of leading police scholars from seven universities supported by the operational
expertise of a respected national advisory board.
1.8 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should strive to create a workforce that contains
a broad range of diversity including race, gender, language, life experience, and cultural background
to improve understanding and effectiveness in dealing with all communities.
Many agencies have long appreciated the critical importance of hiring officers who reflect the
communities they serve and also have a high level of procedural justice competency. Achieving
diversity in entry level recruiting is important, but achieving systematic and comprehensive
diversification throughout each segment of the department is the ultimate goal. It is also important to
recognize that diversity means not only race and gender but also the genuine diversity of identity,
experience, and background that has been found to help improve the culture of police departments
build greater trust and legitimacy with all segments of the population.
A critical factor in managing bias is seeking candidates who are likely to police in an unbiased
manner. 23 Since people are less likely to have biases against groups with which they have had positive
experiences, police departments should seek candidates who have had positive interactions with
people of various cultures and backgrounds. 24
1.8.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should create a Law Enforcement Diversity Initiative
designed to help communities diversify law enforcement departments to reflect the demographics
of the community.
1.8.2 ACTION ITEM: The department overseeing this initiative should help localities learn best
practices for recruitment, training, and outreach to improve the diversity as well as the cultural and
linguistic responsiveness of law enforcement agencies.
National and local affinity police organizations could be formally included in this effort. This program
should also evaluate and assess diversity among law enforcement agencies around the country and
issue public reports on national trends.
23
Lorie Fridell, Racially Biased Policing: The Law Enforcement Response to the Implicit Black-Crime Association,
in Racial Divide: Racial and Ethnic Bias in the Criminal Justice System, eds. Michael J. Lynch, E. Britt Patterson, and
Kristina K. Childs (Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 2008), 51.
24
Ibid., 5152.
179
1.8.3 ACTION ITEM: Successful law enforcement agencies should be highlighted and celebrated and
those with less diversity should be offered technical assistance to facilitate change.
Law enforcement agencies must be continuously creative with recruitment efforts and employ the
public, business, and civic communities to help.
1.8.4 ACTION ITEM: Discretionary federal funding for law enforcement programs could be influenced
by that departments efforts to improve their diversity and cultural and linguistic responsiveness.
1.8.5 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should be encouraged to explore more flexible
staffing models.
As is common in the nursing profession, offering flexible schedules can help officers achieve better
work-life balance that attracts and encourages retention, particularly for officers with sole
responsibility for the care of family members.
1.9 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should build relationships based on trust with
immigrant communities. This is central to overall public safety.
Immigrants often fear approaching police officers when they are victims of and witnesses to crimes
and when local police are entangled with federal immigration enforcement. At all levels of
government, it is important that laws, policies, and practices do not hinder the ability of local law
enforcement to build the strong relationships necessary to public safety and community well-being. It
is the view of this task force that whenever possible, state and local law enforcement should not be
involved in immigration enforcement.
1.9.1 ACTION ITEM: Decouple federal immigration enforcement from routine local policing for civil
enforcement and nonserious crime.
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security should terminate the use of the state and local criminal
justice system, including through detention, notification and transfer requests, to enforce civil
immigration laws against civil and nonserious criminal offenders. 25
In 2011, the Major Cities Chiefs Association recommended nine points to Congress and the President
on this issue, noting that immigration is a federal policy issue between the United States government
and other countries, not local or state entities and other countries. Any immigration enforcement laws
or practices should be nationally based, consistent, and federally funded. 26
25
Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy: Civil Rights/Civil Liberties (oral testimony of Maria Teresa
Kumar, president and CEO, Voto Latino, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC,
January 13, 2015).
26
Major Cities Chiefs Association Immigration Position October 2011, accessed February 26, 2015,
http://majorcitieschiefs.com/pdf/news/immigration_position112811.pdf.
180
1.9.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should ensure reasonable and equitable language
access for all persons who have encounters with police or who enter the criminal justice system. 27
1.9.3 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should remove civil immigration information
from the FBIs National Crime Information Center database. 28
27
Listening Session on Building Trust and Legitimacy (written testimony of Nicholas Turner, president and
director, Vera Institute of Justice, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC,
January 13, 2015).
28
Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction (written testimony of Javier Valdes, executive
director, Make the Road New York, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February
1314, 2015).
181
Pillar Two: Policy & Oversight

The issues addressed in Pillar One of this report, building trust and legitimacy between law
enforcement agencies and the communities they serve, underlie all questions of law enforcement
policy and community oversight. If police are to carry out their responsibilities according to established
policies, these policies must be reflective of community values and not lead to practices that result in
disparate impacts on various segments of the community. They also need to be clearly articulated to
the community and implemented transparently so police will have credibility with residents and the
people can have faith that their guardians are always acting in their best interests.
Paramount among the policies of law enforcement organizations are those controlling use of force.
Not only should there be policies for deadly and nondeadly uses of force but a clearly stated sanctity
of life philosophy must also be in the forefront of every officers mind. This way of thinking should be
accompanied by rigorous practical ongoing training in an atmosphere of nonjudgmental and safe
sharing of views with fellow officers about how they behaved in use of force situations. At one
listening session, Geoffrey Alpert described Officer-Created Jeopardy Training, in which officers who
had been in situations where mistakes were made or force was used came to explain their decision
making to other officers. Some explained what they did right and how potentially violent situations
were resolved without violence. Other officers told what they did wrong, why they made mistakes,
what information was missing or misinterpreted, and how they could have improved their behavior
and response to suspects. 29
Data collection, supervision, and accountability are also part of a comprehensive systemic approach to
keeping everyone safe and protecting the rights of all involved during police encounters. Members of
the Division of Policing of the American Society of Criminology recently wrote, While the United
States presently employs a broad array of social and economic indicators in order to gauge the overall
health of the nation, it has a much more limited set of indicators concerning the behavior of the
police and the quality of law enforcement. 30
That body noted that Section 210402 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
requires the U.S. Attorney General to acquire data about the use of excessive force by law
enforcement officers and to publish an annual summary of the data acquired under this section. 31
But the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has never been allocated the funds necessary to undertake
the serious and sustained program of research and development to fulfill this mandate. Expanded
29
Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Use of Force Research and Policies (oral testimony of Geoffrey
Alpert, professor, University of South Carolina, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati,
OH, January 30, 2015).
30
Recommendations to the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Listening Session on Training and
Education (written testimony of Anthony Braga et al., Ad Hoc Committee to the Presidents Task Force on 21st
Century Policing, Division of Policing, American Society of Criminology, February 1314, 2015).
31
Ibid.
182
research and data collection are also necessary to knowing what works and what does not work, which
policing practices are effective and which ones have unintended consequences. Greater acceptance of
the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) National Incident-Based Reporting System could also benefit
policing practice and research endeavors.
Mass demonstrations, for example, are occasions where evidence-based practices successfully applied
can make the difference between a peaceful demonstration and a riot. Citizens have a Constitutional
right to freedom of expression, including the right to peacefully demonstrate. There are strong
examples of proactive and positive communication and engagement strategies that can protect
constitutional rights of demonstrators and the safety of citizens and the police. 32
2.1 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should collaborate with community members to
develop policies and strategies in communities and neighborhoods disproportionately affected by
crime for deploying resources that aim to reduce crime by improving relationships, greater
community engagement, and cooperation.
The development of a service model process that focuses on the root causes of crime should include
the community members themselves because what works in one neighborhood might not be equally
successful in every other one. Larger departments could commit resources and personnel to areas of
high poverty, limited services, and at-risk or vulnerable populations through creating priority units with
specialized training and added status and pay. Chief Charlie Beck of the Los Angeles Police Department
(LAPD) described the LAPDs Community Safety Partnership, in which officers engage the community
and build trust where it is needed most, in the public housing projects in Watts. The department has
assigned 45 officers to serve for five years at three housing projects in Watts and at an additional
housing project in East Los Angeles. Through a partnership with the Advancement Project and the
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, the program involves officers going into the housing
developments with the intent not to make arrests but to create partnerships, create relationships,
hear the community, and see what they needand then work together to make those things
happen. 33
2.1.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should incentivize this collaboration through a variety
of programs that focus on public health, education, mental health, and other programs not
traditionally part of the criminal justice system.
32
Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Mass Demonstrations (oral testimony of Garry McCarthy, chief of
police, Chicago Police Department, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH,
January 31, 2015); Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Mass Demonstrations (oral testimony of Rodney
Monroe, chief of police, Charlotte-Mecklenberg [NC] Police Department, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st
Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015).
33
Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Civilian Oversight (oral testimony of Charlie Beck, chief, Los Angeles
Police Department, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015).
183
2.2 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should have comprehensive policies on the use of
force that include training, investigations, prosecutions, data collection, and information sharing.
These policies must be clear, concise, and openly available for public inspection.
2.2.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agency policies for training on use of force should emphasize
de-escalation and alternatives to arrest or summons in situations where appropriate.
As Chuck Wexler noted in his testimony,
In traditional police culture, officers are taught never to back down from a
confrontation, but instead to run toward the dangerous situation that everyone else is
running away from. However, sometimes the best tactic for dealing with a minor
confrontation is to step back, call for assistance, de-escalate, and perhaps plan a
different enforcement action that can be taken more safely later. 34
Policies should also include, at a minimum, annual training that includes shoot/dont shoot scenarios
and the use of less than lethal technologies.
2.2.2 ACTION ITEM: These policies should also mandate external and independent criminal
investigations in cases of police use of force resulting in death, officer-involved shootings resulting in
injury or death, or in-custody deaths.
One way this can be accomplished is by the creation of multi-agency force investigation task forces
comprising state and local investigators. Other ways to structure this investigative process include
referring to neighboring jurisdictions or to the next higher levels of government (many smaller
departments may already have state agencies handle investigations), but in order to restore and
maintain trust, this independence is crucial.
In written testimony to the task force, James Palmer of the Wisconsin Professional Police Association
offered an example in that states statutes requiring that agency written policies require an
investigation that is conducted by at least two investigators . . . neither of whom is employed by a law
enforcement agency that employs a law enforcement officer involved in the officer-involved death. 35
Furthermore, in order to establish and maintain internal legitimacy and procedural justice, these
investigations should be performed by law enforcement agencies with adequate training, knowledge,
and experience investigating police use of force.
34
Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Use of Force Investigations and Oversight (oral testimony of Chuck
Wexler, executive director, Police Executive Research Forum, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century
Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015).
35
Listening Session on Policy and Oversight (written testimony of James Palmer, executive director, Wisconsin
Professional Police Association, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January
3031, 2015).
184
2.2.3 ACTION ITEM: The task force encourages policies that mandate the use of external and
independent prosecutors in cases of police use of force resulting in death, officer-involved shootings
resulting in injury or death, or in-custody deaths.
Strong systems and policies that encourage use of an independent prosecutor for reviewing police
uses of force and for prosecution in cases of inappropriate deadly force and in-custody death will
demonstrate the transparency to the public that can lead to mutual trust between community and law
enforcement.
2.2.4 ACTION ITEM: Policies on use of force should also require agencies to collect, maintain, and
report data to the Federal Government on all officer-involved shootings, whether fatal or nonfatal,
as well as any in-custody death.
In-custody deaths are not only deaths in a prison or jail but also deaths that occur in the process of an
arrest. The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) implemented the Arrest Related Deaths data collection in
2003 as part of requirements set forth in the Deaths in Custody Reporting Act of 2000 and reenacted in
2014, but this is a voluntary reporting program. Access to this data is important to gain a national
picture of police use of force as well as to incentivize the systematic and transparent collection and
analysis of use of force incident data at the local level. The reported data should include information
on the circumstances of the use of force, as well as the race, gender, and age of the decedents. Data
should be reported to the U.S. Department of Justice through the FBIs Uniform Crime Reporting
System or an expansion of collections managed by the BJS.
2.2.5 ACTION ITEM: Policies on use of force should clearly state what types of information will be
released, when, and in what situation, to maintain transparency.
This should also include procedures on the release of a summary statement regarding the
circumstances of the incident by the department as soon as possible and within 24 hours. The intent of
this directive should be to share as much information as possible without compromising the integrity
of the investigation or anyones rights.
2.2.6 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should establish a Serious Incident Review Board
comprising sworn staff and community members to review cases involving officer involved shootings
and other serious incidents that have the potential to damage community trust or confidence in the
agency. The purpose of this board should be to identify any administrative, supervisory, training,
tactical, or policy issues that need to be addressed.
2.3 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies are encouraged to implement nonpunitive peer
review of critical incidents separate from criminal and administrative investigations.
These reviews, sometimes known as near miss or sentinel event reviews, focus on the
improvement of practices and policy. Such reviews already exist in medicine, aviation, and other
industries. According to the National Institute of Justice (NIJ), a sentinel event in criminal justice would
185
include wrongful convictions but also near miss acquittals and dismissals of cases that at earlier
points seemed solid; cold cases that stayed cold too long; wrongful releases of dangerous or factually
guilty criminals or of vulnerable arrestees with mental disabilities; and failures to prevent domestic
violence within at-risk families.
Sentinel events can include episodes that are within policy but disastrous in terms of community
relations, whether or not everyone agrees that the event should be classified as an error. In fact,
anything that stakeholders agree can cause widespread or viral attention could be considered a
sentinel event. 36
What distinguishes sentinel event reviews from other kinds of internal investigations of apparent
errors is that they are nonadversarial. As task force member Sean Smoot has written,
For sentinel event reviews to be effective and practical, they must be cooperative
efforts that afford the types of protections provided in the medical context, where
state and federal laws protect the privacy of participants and prevent the disclosure of
information to anyone outside of the sentinel event review . . . . Unless the sentinel
event process is honest and trustworthy, with adequate legal protectionsincluding
use immunity, privacy, confidentiality, and nondisclosure, for examplepolice officers,
who have the very best information about how things really work and what really
happened, will not be motivated to fully participate. The sentinel event review
approach will have a better chance of success if departments can abandon the process
of adversarial/punitive-based discipline, adopting instead education-based
disciplinary procedures and policies. 37
2.4 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies are encouraged to adopt identification
procedures that implement scientifically supported practices that eliminate or minimize presenter
bias or influence.
A recent study by the National Academy of Sciences, Identifying the Culprit: Assessing Eyewitness
Identification, studied the important role played by eyewitnesses in criminal cases, noting that
research on factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness identification procedures has given an
increasingly clear picture of how identifications are made and, more important, an improved
understanding of the limits on vision and memory that can lead to failure of identification. 38 Many
factors, including external conditions and the witnesss emotional state and biases, influence what a
36
James M. Doyle, Learning from Error in the Criminal Justice System: Sentinel Event Reviews, Mending Justice:
Sentinel Event Reviews (Special Report from the National Institute of Justice, September 2014): 320.
37
Sean Smoot, Punishment-Based vs. Education-Based Discipline: A Surmountable Challenge? in Mending

Justice: Sentinel Event Reviews (Special Report from the National Institute of Justice, September 2014): 4850.
38
Samuel R. Gross et al., Rate of False Conviction of Criminal Defendants who are Sentenced to Death,
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111, no. 20 (2014): 72307235.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/20/7230.full.pdf+html.
186
witness sees or thinks she sees. Memories can be forgotten, reconstructed, updated, and distorted.
Meanwhile, policies governing law enforcement procedures for conducting and recording
identifications are not standard, and policies and practices to address the issue of misidentification
vary widely.
2.5 RECOMMENDATION: All federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies should report
and make available to the public census data regarding the composition of their departments
including race, gender, age, and other relevant demographic data.
While the BJS collects information on many aspects of police activities, there is no single data
collection instrument that yields the information requested in this recommendation. Demographic
data should be collected and made available to the public so communities can assess the diversity of
their departments and do so in a national context. This data will also be important to better
understand the impact of diversity on the functioning of departments. Malik Aziz, National Chair of the
National Black Police Association (NBPA), reminded the task force that the NBPA not only urges all
departments to meet the demographics of the community in which they serve by maintaining a plan of
action to recruit and retain police officers of color but also has called for the DOJ to collect the annual
demographic statistics from the 18,000 police agencies across the nation. It is not enough to mandate
diversity, he stated, but it becomes necessary to diversify command ranks in departments that have
historically failed to develop and/or promote qualified and credentialed officers to executive and
command ranks. 39
2.5.1 ACTION ITEM: The Bureau of Justice Statistics should add additional demographic questions to
the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey in order to meet
the intent of this recommendation.
2.6 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should be encouraged to collect, maintain, and
analyze demographic data on all detentions (stops, frisks, searches, summons, and arrests). This
data should be disaggregated by school and non-school contacts.
The BJS periodically conducts the Police-Public Contact Survey, a supplement to the National Crime
Victimization Survey. The most recent survey, released in 2013, asked a nationally representative
sample of U.S. residents age 16 or older about experiences with police during the prior 12 months. 40
But these surveys do not reflect what is happening every day at the local level when police interact
with members of the communities they serve. More research and tools along the lines of Lorie Fridells
39
Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Law Enforcement Culture and Diversity (oral testimony of Malik Aziz,
chairman, National Black Police Association, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati,
OH, January 30, 2015).
40
Lynn Langton and Matthew Durose, Police Behavior during Traffic and Street Stops, 2011, Special Report
(Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013), NCJ 242937; Matthew Durose and
Lynn Langton, Requests for Police Assistance, 2011, Special Report (Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013), NCJ 242938.
187
2004 publication, By the Numbers: A Guide for Analyzing Race Data From Vehicle Stopsto help local
agencies collect and analyze their data, understand the importance of context to the analysis and
reporting process, and establish benchmarks resulting from their findingswould improve
understanding and lead to evidence-based policies.
2.6.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government could further incentivize universities and other
organizations to partner with police departments to collect data and develop knowledge about
analysis and benchmarks as well as to develop tools and templates that help departments manage
data collection and analysis.
2.7 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should create policies and procedures for policing
mass demonstrations that employ a continuum of managed tactical resources that are designed to
minimize the appearance of a military operation and avoid using provocative tactics and equipment
that undermine civilian trust.
Policies should emphasize protection of the First Amendment rights of demonstrators and effective
ways of communicating with them. Superintendent Garry McCarthy of the Chicago Police Department
detailed his police force training and operations in advance of the 2012 NATO Summit at the height of
the Occupy movement. The department was determined not to turn what it knew would be a mass
demonstration into a riot. Police officers refreshed perishable skills, such as engaging in respectful
conversations with demonstrators, avoiding confrontation, and using extraction techniques not only
on the minority of demonstrators who were behaving unlawfully (throwing rocks, etc.) but also on
officers who were becoming visibly upset and at risk of losing their composure and professional
demeanor. 41
2.7.1. ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agency policies should address procedures for implementing a
layered response to mass demonstrations that prioritize de-escalation and a guardian mindset.
These policies could include plans to minimize confrontation by using soft look uniforms, having
officers remove riot gear as soon as practical, and maintaining open postures. When officers line up in
a military formation while wearing full protective gear, their visual appearance may have a dramatic
influence on how the crowd perceives them and how the event ends. 42
2.7.2 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should create a mechanism for investigating complaints
and issuing sanctions regarding the inappropriate use of equipment and tactics during mass
demonstrations.
41
Listening Session on Policy and Oversight (oral testimony of Garry McCarthy, Chicago Police Department, to
the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015).
42
Listening Session on Policy and Oversight (written testimony of Edward MacGuire, American University, for the
Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015).
188
There has been substantial media attention in recent months surrounding the police use of military
equipment at events where members of the public are exercising their First Amendment rights. This
has led to the creation of the Presidents Interagency Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group.
This group has been tasked by the Executive Order of January 16, 2015 with a number of issues,
including ensuring that law enforcement agencies adopt organizational and operational practices and
standards that prevent the misuse or abuse of controlled equipment and ensuring compliance with
civil rights requirements resulting from receipt of federal financial assistance.
2.8 RECOMMENDATION: Some form of civilian oversight of law enforcement is important in order to
strengthen trust with the community. Every community should define the appropriate form and
structure of civilian oversight to meet the needs of that community.
Many, but not all, state and local agencies operate with the oversight or input of civilian police boards
or commissions. Part of the process of assessing the need and desire for new or additional civilian
oversight should include input from and collaboration with police employees because the people to be
overseen should be part of the process that will oversee them. This guarantees that the principles of
internal procedural justice are in place to benefit both the police and the community they serve.
We must examine civilian oversight in the communities where it operates and determine which
models are successful in promoting police and community understanding. There are important
arguments for having civilian oversight even though we lack strong research evidence that it works.
Therefore we urge action on further research, based on the guiding principle of procedural justice, to
find evidence-based practices to implement successful civilian oversight mechanisms.
As noted by witness Brian Buchner at the Policy and Oversight Listening Session on January 30,
Citizen review is not an advocate for the community or for the police. This impartiality
allows oversight to bring stakeholders together to work collaboratively and proactively
to help make policing more effective and responsive to the community. Civilian
oversight alone is not sufficient to gain legitimacy; without it, however, it is difficult, if
not impossible, for the police to maintain the publics trust. 43
2.8.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice, through its research arm, the National Institute
of Justice (NIJ), should expand its research agenda to include civilian oversight.
NIJ recently announced its research priorities in policing for FY 2015, which include such topics as
police use of force, body-worn cameras, and procedural justice. While proposals related to research on
police oversight might fit into several of these topical areas, police oversight is not highlighted by NIJ in
43
Listening Session on Policy and Oversight (oral testimony of Brian Buchner, president, National Association for
Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH,
January 30, 2015).
189
any of them. NIJ should specifically invite research into civilian oversight and its impact on and
relationship to policing in one or more of these areas.
2.8.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justices Office of Community Oriented Policing Services
(COPS Office) should provide technical assistance and collect best practices from existing civilian
oversight efforts and be prepared to help cities create this structure, potentially with some matching
grants and funding.
2.9 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies and municipalities should refrain from practices
requiring officers to issue a predetermined number of tickets, citations, arrests, or summonses, or to
initiate investigative contacts with citizens for reasons not directly related to improving public
safety, such as generating revenue.
Productivity expectations can be effective performance management tools. But testimony from Laura
Murphy, Director of the Washington Legislative Office of the American Civil Liberties Union, identifies
some of the negative effects of these practices:
One only needs to paint a quick picture of the state of policing to understand the dire
need for reform. First, there are local and federal incentives that instigate arrests. At
the local level, cities across the country generate much of their revenue through court
fines and fees, with those who cant pay subject to arrest and jail time. These debtors
prisons are found in cities like Ferguson, where the number of arrest warrants in
201333,000exceeded its population of 21,000. Most of the warrants were for
driving violations. 44
2.10 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement officers should be required to seek consent before a
search and explain that a person has the right to refuse consent when there is no warrant or
probable cause. Furthermore, officers should ideally obtain written acknowledgement that they
have sought consent to a search in these circumstances.
2.11 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should establish search and seizure procedures
related to LGBTQ and transgender populations and adopt as policy the recommendation from the
Presidents HIV/AIDS Task Force to cease using the possession of condoms as the sole evidence of
vice.
44
Listening Session on Trust and Legitimacy (oral testimony of Laura Murphy, director of the Washington
Legislative Office, American Civil Liberties Union, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing,
Washington, DC, January 13, 2015); Joseph Shapiro, In Ferguson, Court Fines and Fees Fuel Anger, NPR.com,
last updated August 25, 2014, http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fines-and-feesfuel-anger; In For A Penny: The Rise of Americas Debtors Prisons (New York: American Civil Liberties Union,
2010), http://www.aclu.org/files/assets/InForAPenny_web.pdf.
190
2.12 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should adopt and enforce policies prohibiting
profiling and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, gender
identity/expression, sexual orientation, immigration status, disability, housing status, occupation,
and/or language fluency.
The task force heard from a number of witnesses about the importance of protecting the safety and
dignity of all people. Andrea Ritchie noted that
Gender and sexuality-specific forms of racial profiling and discriminatory policing
[include] . . . . Failure to respect individuals gender identity and expression when
addressing members of the public and during arrest processing, searches, and
placement in police custody. 45
Invasive searches should never be used for the sole purpose of determining gender identity, and an
individuals gender identity should be respected in lock-ups and holding cells to the extent that the
facility allows for gender segregation. And witness Linda Sarsour spoke to how
an issue plaguing and deeply impacting Arab-American and American Muslim
communities across the country is racial and religious profiling by local, state, and
federal law enforcement. We have learned through investigative reports, Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) requests, and lawsuits that agencies target communities by
religion and national origin. 46
2.12.1 ACTION ITEM: The Bureau of Justice Statistics should add questions concerning sexual
harassment of and misconduct toward LGBTQ and gender-nonconforming people by law
enforcement officers to the Police Public Contact Survey.
2.12.2 ACTION ITEM: The Centers for Disease Control should add questions concerning sexual
enforcement officers to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.
2.12.3 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should promote and disseminate guidance to
federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies on documenting, preventing, and addressing
sexual harassment and misconduct by local law enforcement agents, consistent with the
recommendations of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. 47
45
Listening Session on Training and Education (oral testimony of Andrea Ritchie, founder of Streetwise and Safe,
for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).
46
Listening Session on Training and Education (oral testimony of Linda Sarsour, Advocacy And Civic Engagement
coordinator for the National Network for Arab American Communities, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st
Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).
47
IACP, Addressing Sexual Offenses and Misconduct by Law Enforcement: Executive Guide (Alexandria, VA:
International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2011).
191
2.13 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice, through the Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services and Office of Justice Programs, should provide technical assistance and incentive
funding to jurisdictions with small police agencies that take steps towards shared services, regional
training, and consolidation.
Half of all law enforcement agencies in the United States have fewer than ten officers, and nearly
three-quarters have fewer than 25 officers. 48 Lawrence Sherman noted in his testimony that so many
problems of organizational quality control are made worse by the tiny size of most local police
agencies . . . less than 1 percent of 17,985 U.S. police agencies meet the English minimum of 1,000
employees or more. 49 These small forces often lack the resources for training and equipment
accessible to larger departments and often are prevented by municipal boundaries and local custom
from combining forces with neighboring agencies. Funding and technical assistance can give smaller
agencies the incentive to share policies and practices and give them access to a wider variety of
training, equipment, and communications technology than they could acquire on their own.
Table 1. Full-time state and local law enforcement employees, by size of agency, 2008
Source: Brian A. Reaves, Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008,Bulletin (Washington, DC: Bureau of
Justice Statistics, July 2011), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/csllea08.pdf.
48
Brian A. Reaves, Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2008, Bulletin (Washington, DC: Office
of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2011), NCJ 233982.
49
Listening Session on the Future of Community Policing (oral testimony of Lawrence Sherman, Cambridge
University, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, February 24, 2015).
192
Policing Services, should partner with the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement
Standards and Training (IADLEST) to expand its National Decertification Index to serve as the
National Register of Decertified Officers with the goal of covering all agencies within the United
States and its territories.
The National Decertification Index is an aggregation of information that allows hiring agencies to
identify officers who have had their license or certification revoked for misconduct. It was designed as
an answer to the problem wherein a police officer is discharged for improper conduct and loses
his/her certification in that state . . . [only to relocate] to another state and hire on with another police
department. 50 Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) boards can record administrative actions
taken against certified police and correctional officers. Currently the criteria for reporting an action on
an officer is determined by each POST independently, as is the granting of read-only access to hiring
departments to use as part of their pre-hire screening process. Expanding this system to ensure
national and standardized reporting would assist in ensuring that officers who have lost their
certification for misconduct are not easily hired in other jurisdictions. A national register would
effectively treat police professionals the way states licensing laws treat other professionals. If
anything, the need for such a system is even more important for law enforcement, as officers have the
power to make arrests, perform searches, and use deadly force. 51
2.15 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should adopt policies requiring officers to
provide their names to individuals they have stopped, along with the reason for the stop, the reason
for a search if one is conducted, and a card with information on how to reach the civilian complaint
review board.
50
National Decertification IndexFAQs, accessed February 27, 2015,

https://www.iadlest.org/Portals/0/Files/NDI/FAQ/ndi_faq.html.
51
Roger L. Goldman, Police Officer Decertification: Promoting Police Professionalism through State Licensing
and the National Decertification Index, Police Chief 81 (November 2014): 4042,
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=3538&issue_id=1
12014.
193
Pillar Three: Technology & Social Media

We live in a time when technology and its many uses are advancing far more quickly than are policies
and laws. Technology available to law enforcement today includes everything from body-worn
cameras (BWC) to unmanned aircraft to social media and a myriad of products in between.
The use of technology can improve policing practices and build community trust and legitimacy, but its
implementation must be built on a defined policy framework with its purposes and goals clearly
delineated. Implementing new technologies can give police departments an opportunity to fully
engage and educate communities in a dialogue about their expectations for transparency,
accountability, and privacy. But technology changes quickly in terms of new hardware, software, and
other options. Law enforcement agencies and leaders need to be able to identify, assess, and evaluate
new technology for adoption and do so in ways that improve their effectiveness, efficiency, and
evolution without infringing on individual rights.
Thus, despite (and because of) the centrality of technology in policing, law enforcement agencies face
major challenges including determining the effects of implementing various technologies; identifying
costs and benefits; examining unintended consequences; and exploring the best practices by which
technology can be evaluated, acquired, maintained, and managed. Addressing these technology
challenges by using research, accumulated knowledge, and practical experiences can help agencies
reach their goals, 52 but law enforcement agencies and personnel also need to recognize that
technology is only a tool for doing their jobs: just because you have access to technology does not
necessarily mean you should always use it. 53
BWCs are a case in point. An increasing number of law enforcement agencies are adopting BWC
programs as a means to improve evidence collection, to strengthen officer performance and
accountability, and to enhance agency transparency. By documenting encounters between police and
the public, BWCs can also be used to investigate and resolve complaints about officer-involved
incidents.
Jim Bueermann, retired chief of the Redlands (California) Police Department and President of the
Police Foundation, told the task force about a seminal piece of research that demonstrated a positive
impact of BWCs in policing. The researchers used the gold standard of research models, a randomized
52
Elizabeth Groff and Tom McEwen, Identifying and Measuring the Effects of Information Technologies on Law
Enforcement Agencies: The Making Officer Redeployment Effective Program (Washington, DC: Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services, 2008), http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/Publications/e08084156-IT.pdf;
Christopher S. Koper, Cynthia Lum, James J. Willis, Daniel J. Woods, and Julie Hibdon, Realizing the Potential of
Technology in Policing: A Multi-Site Study of the Social, Organizational, and Behavioral Aspects of Implementing
Police Technologies (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 2015), http://cebcp.org/wp-content/evidencebased-policing/ImpactTechnologyFinalReport.
53
IACP Technology Policy Framework (Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, 2014),
http://www.theiacp.org/Portals/0/documents/pdfs/IACP%20Technology%20Policy%20Framework%20January%
202014%20Final.pdf.
194
control trial, in which the people being studied are randomly assigned either to a control group that
does not receive the treatment being studied or to a treatment group that does. The results of this 12month study are highly suggestive that the use of BWCs by the police can significantly reduce both
officer use of force and complaints against officers. They found that the officers wearing the cameras
had 87.5 percent fewer incidents of use of force and 59 percent fewer complaints than the officers not
wearing the cameras. One of the important findings of the study was the impact BWCs might have on
the self-awareness of officers and citizens alike. When police officers are acutely aware that their
behavior is being monitored (because they turn on the cameras), and when officers tell citizens that
the cameras are recording their behavior, everyone behaves better. The results of this study are highly
suggestive that this increase in self-awareness contributes to more positive outcomes in police-citizen
interaction. 54
But other considerations make the issue of BWCs more complex. A 2014 Police Executive Research
Forum (PERF) publication, funded by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office),
reporting on extensive research exploring the policy and implementation questions surrounding
BWCs noted,
Although body-worn cameras can offer many benefits, they also raise serious
questions about how technology is changing the relationship between police and the
community. Body-worn cameras not only create concerns about the publics privacy
rights but also can affect how officers relate to people in the community, the
communitys perception of the police, and expectations about how police agencies
should share information with the public. 55
Now that agencies operate in a world in which anyone with a cell phone camera can record video
footage of a police encounter, BWCs help police departments ensure that events are also captured
from an officers perspective. 56 But when the public does not believe its privacy is being protected by
law enforcement, a breakdown in community trust can occur. Agencies need to consider ways to
involve the public in discussions related to the protection of their privacy and civil liberties prior to
implementing new technology, as well work with the public and other partners in the justice system to
develop appropriate policies and procedures for use.
Another technology relatively new to law enforcement is social media. Social media is a
communication tool the police can use to engage the community on issues of importance to both and
54
Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Body Cameras-Research and Legal Considerations (oral
testimony of Jim Bueermann, president, Police Foundation, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century
Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015); Ariel Barak, William A. Farrar, and Alex Sutherland, The Effect of
Police Body-Worn Cameras on Use of Force and Citizens Complaints Against the Police: A Randomized
Controlled Trial, Journal of Quantitative Criminology 2014.
55
Lindsay Miller and Jessica Toliver, Implementing a Body-Worn Camera Program: Recommendations and
Lessons Learned (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014), vii, http://ric-zaiinc.com/Publications/cops-p296-pub.pdf.
56
Ibid., 1.
195
to gauge community sentiment regarding agency policies and practices. Social media can also help
police identify the potential nature and location of gang and other criminal or disorderly activity such
as spontaneous crowd gatherings. 57
The Boston Police Department (BPD), for example, has long embraced both community policing and
the use of social media. The department put its experience to good and highly visible use in April 2013
during the rapidly developing investigation that followed the deadly explosion of two bombs at the
finish line of the Boston Marathon. The BPD successfully used Twitter to keep the public informed
about the status of the investigation, to calm nerves and request assistance, to correct mistaken
information reported by the press, and to ask for public restraint in the tweeting of information from
police scanners. This demonstrated the level of trust and interaction that a department and a
community can attain online. 58
While technology is crucial to law enforcement, it is never a panacea. Its acquisition and use can have
unintended consequences for both the organization and the community it serves, which may limit its
potential. Thus, agencies need clearly defined policies related to implementation of technology, and
must pay close attention to community concerns about its use.
3.1 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice, in consultation with the law enforcement
field, should broaden the efforts of the National Institute of Justice to establish national standards
for the research and development of new technology. These standards should also address
compatibility and interoperability needs both within law enforcement agencies and across agencies
and jurisdictions and maintain civil and human rights protections.
The lack of consistent standards leads to a constantly spiraling increase in technology costs. Law
enforcement often has to invest in new layers of technology to enable their systems to operate with
different systems and sometimes must also make expensive modifications or additions to legacy
systems to support interoperability with newer technology. And these costs do not include the
additional funds needed for training. Agencies are often unprepared for the unintended consequences
that may accompany the acquisition of new technologies. Implementation of new technologies can
cause disruptions to daily routines, lack of buy-in, and lack of understanding of the purpose and
appropriate uses of the technologies. It also often raises questions regarding how the new
technologies will impact the officers expectations, discretion, decision making, and accountability. 59
57
Police Executive Research Forum, Social Media and Tactical Considerations for Law Enforcement (Washington,
DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2013), http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p261pub.pdf.
58
Edward F. Davis III, Alejandro A. Alves, and David Alan Sklansky, Social Media and Police Leadership: Lessons
from Boston, New Perspectives in Policing (Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, March 2014),
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/content/download/67536/1242954/version/1/file/SocialMediaandPoliceLeadershi
p-03-14.pdf.
59
Koper et al., Potential of Technology in Policing (see note 52).
196
Inconsistent or non-existent standards also lead to isolated and fractured information systems that
cannot effectively manage, store, analyze, or share their data with other systems. As a result, much
information is lost or unavailablewhich allows vital information to go unused and have no impact on
crime reduction efforts. As one witness noted, the development of mature crime analysis and
CompStat processes allows law enforcement to effectively develop policy and deploy resources for
crime prevention, but there is a lack of uniformity in data collection throughout law enforcement, and
only patchwork methods of near real-time information sharing exist. 60 These problems are especially
critical in light of the threats from terrorism and cybercrime.
3.1.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should support the development and delivery of
training to help law enforcement agencies learn, acquire, and implement technology tools and
tactics that are consistent with the best practices of 21st century policing.
3.1.2 ACTION ITEM: As part of national standards, the issue of technologys impact on privacy
concerns should be addressed in accordance with protections provided by constitutional law.
Though all constitutional guidelines must be maintained in the performance of law enforcement
duties, the legal framework (warrants, etc.) should continue to protect law enforcement access to data
obtained from cell phones, social media, GPS, and other sources, allowing officers to detect, prevent,
or respond to crime.
3.1.3 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should deploy smart technology that is designed to
prevent the tampering with or manipulating of evidence in violation of policy.
3.2 RECOMMENDATION: The implementation of appropriate technology by law enforcement agencies
should be designed considering local needs and aligned with national standards.
While standards should be created for development and research of technology at the national level,
implementation of developed technologies should remain a local decision to address the needs and
resources of the community.
In addition to the expense of acquiring technology, implementation and training also requires funds, as
well as time, personnel, and physical capacity. A case in point is the Phoenix Police Departments
adoption of BWCs mentioned by witness Michael White, who said that the real costs came on the back
end for managing the vast amount of data generated by the cameras. He quoted the Chief of the
Phoenix Police Department as saying that it would cost their department $3.5 million to not only outfit
all of their officers with the cameras but also successfully manage the program.
3.2.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should encourage public engagement and
collaboration, including the use of community advisory bodies, when developing a policy for the use
of a new technology.
60
Listening Session on Technology and Social Media (oral testimony of Elliot Cohen, Maryland State Police, for
the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015).
197
Local residents will be more accepting of and respond more positively to technology when they have
been informed of new developments and their input has been encouraged. How police use technology
and how they share that information with the public is critical. Task force witness Jim Bueermann,
president of the Police Foundation, addressed this issue, noting that concerns about BWCs include
potential compromises to the privacy of both officers and citizens, who are reluctant to speak to police
if they think they are being recorded. And as the task force co-chair, Charles Ramsey, noted, Just
having the conversation can increase trust and legitimacy and help departments make better
decisions.
3.2.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should include an evaluation or assessment process
to gauge the effectiveness of any new technology, soliciting input from all levels of the agency, from
line officer to leadership, as well as assessment from members of the community. 61
Witnesses suggested that law enforcement agencies create an advisory group when adopting a new
technology. 62 Ideally, it would include line officers, union representatives, and members from other
departmental units, such as research and planning, technology, and internal affairs. External
stakeholders, such as representatives from the prosecutors office, the defense bar, advocacy groups,
and citizens should also be included, giving each group the opportunity to ask questions, express their
concerns, and offer suggestions on policy and training.
3.2.3. ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should adopt the use of new technologies that will
help them better serve people with special needs or disabilities.
3.3 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should develop best practices that can be
adopted by state legislative bodies to govern the acquisition, use, retention, and dissemination of
auditory, visual, and biometric data by law enforcement.
These model policies and practices should at minimum address technology usage and data and
evidence acquisition and retention, as well as privacy issues, accountability and discipline. They must
also consider the impact of data collection and use on public trust and police legitimacy.
3.3.1 ACTION ITEM: As part of the process for developing best practices, the U.S. Department of
Justice should consult with civil rights and civil liberties organizations, as well as law enforcement
research groups and other experts, concerning the constitutional issues that can arise as a result of
the use of new technologies.
61
Sharon Stolting, Shawn Barrett, and David Kurz, Best Practices Guide for Acquisition of New Technology
(Alexandria, VA: International Association of Chiefs of Police, n.d.), http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/BPNewTechnology.pdf.
62
Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Body CamerasResearch and Legal Considerations (oral
testimony of Michael White, professor, Arizona State University, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century
Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015).
198
3.3.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should create toolkits for the most effective and
constitutional use of multiple forms of innovative technology that will provide state, local, and tribal
law enforcement agencies with a one-stop clearinghouse of information and resources.
3.3.3. ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should review and consider the Bureau of Justice
Assistances (BJA) Body Worn Camera Toolkit to assist in implementing BWCs.
A Body-Worn Camera Expert Panel of law enforcement leaders, recognized practitioners, national
policy leaders, and community advocates convened a two-day workshop in February, 2015 to develop
a toolkit and provide guidance and model policy for law enforcement agencies implementing BWC
programs. Subject matter experts contributed ideas and content for the proposed toolkit while a panel
composed of privacy and victim advocates contributed ideas and content for the toolkit to broaden
input and ensure transparency.
3.4 RECOMMENDATION: Federal, state, local, and tribal legislative bodies should be encouraged to
update public record laws.
The quickly evolving nature of new technologies that collect video, audio, information, and biometric
data on members of the community can cause unforeseen consequences. Public record laws, which
allow public access to information held by government agencies, including law enforcement, should be
modified to protect the privacy of the individuals whose records they hold and to maintain the trust of
the community.
Issues such as the accessibility of video captured through dashboard or body-worn cameras are
especially complex. So too are the officer use of force events that will be captured by video camera
systems and then broadcast by local media outlets. Use of force, even when lawful and appropriate,
can negatively influence public perception and trust of police. Sean Smoot, task force member,
addressed this by recalling the shooting of a Flagstaff, Arizona, police officer whose death was
recorded by his BWC. Responding to public record requests by local media, the police department
released the graphic footage, which was then shown on local TV and also on YouTube. 63 This
illustration also raises questions concerning the recording of police interactions with minors and the
appropriateness of releasing those videos for public view given their inability to give informed consent
for distribution.
63
Listening Session on Technology and Social Media (Sean Smoot, task force member, for the Presidents Task
Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015).
199
3.5 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should adopt model policies and best practices for
technology-based community engagement that increases community trust and access.
These policies and practices should at a minimum increase transparency and accessibility, provide
access to information (crime statistics, current calls for service), allow for public posting of policy and
procedures, and enable access and usage for persons with disabilities. They should also address issues
surrounding the use of new and social media, encouraging the use of social media as a means of
community interaction and relationship building, which can result in stronger law enforcement. As
witness Elliot Cohen noted,
We have seen social media support policing efforts in gathering intelligence during
active assailant incidents: the Columbia Mall shooting and the Boston Marathon
bombing. Social media allowed for a greater volume of information to be collected in
an electronic format, both audibly and visually. 64
Table 2. What types of social media does your agency currently use, and what types of
social media do you plan to begin using within the next 2 to 5 years?
Note: PERF, with the support of the COPS Office and Target Corporation, disseminated a Future of Policing survey in 2012
to more than 500 police agencies; nearly 200 responded.
Source: Police Executive Research Forum, Future Trends in Policing (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, 2014), http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p282-pub.pdf.
64
Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Technology Policy (oral testimony of Elliot Cohen,
lieutenant, Maryland State Police, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January
31, 2015).
200
But to engage the community, social media must be responsive and current. Said Bill Schrier,
Regularly refresh the content to maintain and engage the audience, post content rapidly during
incidents to dispel rumors, and use it for engagement, not just public information. 65 False or incorrect
statements made via social media, mainstream media, and other means of technology deeply harm
trust and legitimacy and can only be overcome with targeted and continuing community engagement
and repeated positive interaction. Agencies need to unequivocally discourage falsities by underlining
how harmful they are and how difficult they are to overcome.
Agencies should also develop policies and practices on social media use that consider individual officer
expression, professional representation, truthful communication, and other concerns that can impact
trust and legitimacy.
3.6 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should support the development of new less than
lethal technology to help control combative suspects.
The fatal shootings in Ferguson, Cleveland, and elsewhere have put the consequences of use of force
front and center in the national news. Policies and procedures must change, but so should the
weaponry. New technologies such as conductive energy devices (CED) have been developed and may
be used and evaluated to decrease the number of fatal police interventions. Studies of CEDs have
shown them to be effective at reducing both officer and civilian injuries. For example, in one study that
compared seven law enforcement agencies that use CEDs with six agencies that do not, researchers
found a 70 percent decrease in officer injuries and a 40 percent decrease in suspect injures. 66 But new
technologies should still be subject to the appropriate use of force continuum restrictions. And Vincent
Talucci made the point in his testimony that over-reliance on technological weapons can also be
dangerous. 67
65
Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Technology Policy (oral testimony of Bill Schrier, senior
policy advisor, Office of the Chief Information Officer, State of Washington, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st
66
Bruce Taylor et al., Comparing Safety Outcomes in Police Use-Of-Force Cases for Law Enforcement Agencies
That Have Deployed Conducted Energy Devices and A Matched Comparison Group That Have Not: A QuasiExperimental Evaluation (Washington, DC: Police Executive Research Forum, 2009),
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/237965.pdf; John M. MacDonald, Robert J. Kaminski, and Michael R.
Smith, The Effect of Less-Lethal Weapons on Injuries in Police Use-of-Force Events, American Journal of Public
Health 99, no. 12 (2009) 22682274, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2775771/pdf/2268.pdf;
Bruce G. Taylor and Daniel J. Woods, Injuries to Officers and Suspects in Police Use-of-Force Cases: A QuasiExperimental Evaluation, Police Quarterly 13, no. 3 (2010): 260289,
http://pqx.sagepub.com/content/13/3/260.full.pdf.
67
Listening Session on Technology and Social Media (oral testimony of Vincent Talucci, International Association
of Chiefs of Police, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 31, 2015).
201
3.6.1 ACTION ITEM: Relevant federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Defense and
Justice, should expand their efforts to study the development and use of new less than lethal
technologies and evaluate their impact on public safety, reducing lethal violence against citizens,
Constitutionality, and officer safety.
3.7 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should make the development and building of
segregated radio spectrum and increased bandwidth by FirstNet for exclusive use by local, state,
tribal, and federal public safety agencies a top priority. 68
A national public safety broadband network which creates bandwidth for the exclusive use of law
enforcement, the First Responder Network (FirstNet) is considered a game-changing public safety
project, which would allow instantaneous communication in even the most remote areas whenever a
disaster or incident occurs. It can also support many other technologies, including video transmission
from BWCs.
68
Listening Session on Technology and Social Media: Technology Policy (oral testimony of Bill Schrier, senior
policy advisor, Office of the Chief Information Officer, State of Washington, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st
202
Pillar Four: Community Policing & Crime

Reduction
Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the
systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate
conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime. 69
Over the past few decades, rates of both violent and property crime have dropped dramatically across
the United States. 70 However, some communities and segments of the population have not benefited
from the decrease as much as others, and some not at all. 71 Though law enforcement must
concentrate their efforts in these neighborhoods to maintain public safety, sometimes those specific
efforts arouse resentment in the neighborhoods the police are striving to protect.
Police interventions must be implemented with strong policies and training in place, rooted in an
understanding of procedural justice. Indeed, without that, police interventions can easily devolve into
racial profiling, excessive use of force, and other practices which disregard civil rights, causing negative
reactions from people living in already challenged communities.
Yet mutual trust and cooperation, two key elements of community policing, are vital to protecting
residents of these communities from the crime that plagues them. By combining a focus on
intervention and prevention through problem solving with building collaborative partnerships with
schools, social services, and other stakeholders, community policing not only improves public safety
but also enhances social connectivity and economic strength, which increases community resilience to
crime. And, as noted by one speaker, it improves job satisfaction for line officers, too.
In his testimony to the task force, Camden County, New Jersey, Police Chief J. Scott Thomson noted
that community policing starts on the street corner, with respectful interaction between a police
officer and a local resident, a discussion that need not be related to a criminal matter. 72 In fact, it is
important that not all interactions be based on emergency calls or crime investigations.
69
Community Policing Defined (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2014),
http://ric-zai-inc.com/Publications/cops-p157-pub.pdf.
70
Crime Statistics for 2013 Released: Decrease in Violent Crimes and Property Crimes, Federal Bureau of
Investigation, last modified November 10, 2014, http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/november/crimestatistics-for-2013-released/crime-statistics-for-2013-released.
71
(oral testimony of Chris Magnus, chief, Richmond [CA] Police Department, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st
72
Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Using Community Policing to Reduce Crime
(oral testimony of J. Scott Thomson, chief, Camden County [NJ] Police Department, for the Presidents Task Force
on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).
203
Another aspect of community policing that was discussed in the listening session on this topic is the
premise that officers enforce the law with the people not just on the people. In reflecting this belief,
some commented on the negative results of zero tolerance policies, which mete out automatic and
predetermined actions by officers regardless of extenuating circumstances.
Community policing requires the active building of positive relationships with members of the
communityon an agency as well as on a personal basis. This can be done through assigning officers
to geographic areas on a consistent basis, so that through the continuity of assignment they have the
opportunity to know the members of the community. It can also be aided by the use of programs such
as Eagle County, Colorados Law Enforcement Immigrant Advisory Committee, which the police
department formed with Catholic Charities to help the local immigrant community. 73 This type of
policing also requires participation in community organizations, local meetings and public service
activities.
To be most effective, community policing also requires collaborative partnerships with agencies
beyond law enforcement, such as Philadelphias successful Police Diversion Program described by
Kevin Bethel, Deputy Commissioner of Patrol Operations in the Philadelphia Police Department in his
testimony to the task force. 74 This partnership with the Philadelphia Department of Human Services,
the school district, the District Attorneys office, Family Court, and other stakeholders significantly
reduced the number of arrests of minority youths for minor offenses.
Problem solving, another key element of community policing, is critical to prevention. And problems
must be solved in partnership with the community in order to effectively address chronic crime and
disorder problems. As Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Director Ronald L. Davis has
said, We need to teach new recruits that law enforcement is more than just cuffing perpsits
understanding why people do what they do. 75
73
74
(oral testimony of Kevin Bethel, deputy police commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department, for the Presidents
Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).
75
Faye Elkins, Five COPS Office Directors Look Back and Think Forward at the 20th Anniversary Celebration,
Community Policing Dispatch 8, no. 1 (January 12, 2014), http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/012015/cops_office_20th_anniversary.asp.
204
In summary, law enforcements obligation is not only to reduce crime but also to do so fairly while
protecting the rights of citizens. Any prevention strategy that unintentionally violates civil rights,
compromises police legitimacy, or undermines trust is counterproductive from both ethical and costbenefit perspectives. Ignoring these considerations can have both financial costs (e.g., law suits) and
social costs (e.g., loss of public support).
It must also be stressed that the absence of crime is not the final goal of law enforcement. Rather, it is
the promotion and protection of public safety while respecting the dignity and rights of all. And public
safety and well-being cannot be attained without the communitys belief that their well-being is at the
heart of all law enforcement activities. It is critical to help community members see police as allies
rather than as an occupying force and to work in concert with other community stakeholders to create
more economically and socially stable neighborhoods.
4.1 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should develop and adopt policies and strategies
that reinforce the importance of community engagement in managing public safety.
Community policing is not just about the relationship between individual officers and individual
neighborhood residents. It is also about the relationship between law enforcement leaders and leaders
of key institutions in a community, such as churches, businesses, and schools, supporting the
communitys own process to define prevention and reach goals.
Law enforcement agencies cannot ensure the safety of communities alone but should seek to
contribute to the strengthening of neighborhood capacity to prevent and reduce crime through
informal social control. More than a century of research shows that informal social control is a much
more powerful mechanism for crime control and reduction than is formal punishment. And perhaps
the best evidence for the preventive power of informal social control may be the millions of unguarded
opportunities to commit crime that are passed up each day. 76
4.1.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should consider adopting preferences for seeking
least harm resolutions, such as diversion programs or warnings and citations in lieu of arrest for
minor infractions.
4.2 RECOMMENDATION: Community policing should be infused throughout the culture and
organizational structure of law enforcement agencies.
76
Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, Social Change and Crime Rate Trends: A Routine Activities Approach,
American Sociological Review 44 (August 1979): 588607.
205
Community policing must be a way of doing business by an entire police force, not just a specialized
unit of that force. 77 The task force heard testimony from Chief J. Scott Thomson of Camden County,
New Jersey, who noted that
Community policing cannot be a program, unit, strategy or tactic. It must be the core
principle that lies at the foundation of a police departments culture. The only way to
significantly reduce fear, crime, and disorder and then sustain these gains is to
leverage the greatest force multiplier: the people of the community. 78
This message was closely echoed by Chris Magnus, the police chief in Richmond, California. To build a
more effective partnership with residents and transform culture within the police department as well
as in the community, the Richmond police made sure that all officers, not just a select few, were doing
community policing and neighborhood problem solving. Every officer is expected to get to know the
residents, businesses, community groups, churches, and schools on their beat and work with them to
identify and address public safety challenges, including quality of life issues such as blight. Officers
remain in the same beat or district for several years or morewhich builds familiarity and trust. 79
Testimony from a number of witnesses also made clear that hiring, training, evaluating, and promoting
officers based on their ability and track record in community engagementnot just traditional
measures of policing such as arrests, tickets, or tactical skillsis an equally important component of
the successful infusion of community policing throughout an organization.
4.2.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should evaluate officers on their efforts to engage
members of the community and the partnerships they build. Making this part of the performance
evaluation process places an increased value on developing partnerships.
4.2.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should evaluate their patrol deployment practices to
allow sufficient time for patrol officers to participate in problem solving and community
engagement activities.
4.2.3 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice and other public and private entities should
support research into the factors that have led to dramatic successes in crime reduction in some
communities through the infusion of non-discriminatory policing and to determine replicable factors
that could be used to guide law enforcement agencies in other communities.
77
Tracey Meares, Praying for Community Policing, California Law Review 90 (2002): 15931634,
http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/518/.
78
(oral testimony of J. Scott Thomson, chief, Camden County [NJ] Police Department, for the Presidents Task Force
79
206
4.3 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should engage in multidisciplinary, community

team approaches for planning, implementing, and responding to crisis situations with complex
causal factors.
Collaborative approaches that engage professionals from across systems have emerged as model
practices for addressing community problems that are not resolvable by the police alone. These team
approaches call upon law enforcement agencies, service providers, and community support networks
to work together to provide the right resources for the situation and foster sustainable change.
Multiple witnesses before the task force spoke of departments who coordinate mental health
response teams that include mental health professionals, social workers, crisis counselors, and other
professionals making decisions alongside the police regarding planning, implementing, and responding
to mental health crisis situations. But this model is applicable to a number of community problems
that regularly involve a police response including homelessness, substance abuse, domestic violence,
human trafficking, and child abuse. Ultimately, the idea is for officers to be trained and equipped to
make use of existing community resources in the diffusion of crisis situations.
4.3.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should collaborate with others to develop and
disseminate baseline models of this crisis intervention team approach that can be adapted to local
contexts.
4.3.3 ACTION ITEM: Communities should look to involve peer support counselors as part of
multidisciplinary teams when appropriate. Persons who have experienced the same trauma can
provide both insight to the first responders and immediate support to individuals in crisis.
4.3.4 ACTION ITEM: Communities should be encouraged to evaluate the efficacy of these crisis
intervention team approaches and hold agency leaders accountable for outcomes.
4.4 RECOMMENDATION: Communities should support a culture and practice of policing that reflects
the values of protection and promotion of the dignity of all, especially the most vulnerable.
The task force heard many different ways of describing a positive culture of policing. David Kennedy
suggested there could be a Hippocratic Oath for Policing: First, Do No Harm. 80 Law enforcement
officers goal should be to avoid use of force if at all possible, even when it is allowed by law and by
policy. Terms such as fair and impartial policing, rightful policing, Constitutional policing, neighborhood
policing, procedural justice, and implicit bias training all address changing the culture of policing.
Respectful language; thoughtful and intentional dialogue about the perception and reality of profiling
and the mass incarceration of minorities; and consistent involvement, both formal and informal, in
community events all help ensure that relationships of trust between police and community will be
built. The vision of policing in the 21st century should be that of officers as guardians of human and
constitutional rights.
80
(oral testimony of David Kennedy, professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, for the Presidents Task Force
207
4.4.1 ACTION ITEM: Because offensive or harsh language can escalate a minor situation, law
enforcement agencies should underscore the importance of language used and adopt policies
directing officers to speak to individuals with respect.
4.4.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should develop programs that create opportunities
for patrol officers to regularly interact with neighborhood residents, faith leaders, and business
leaders.
4.5 RECOMMENDATION: Community policing emphasizes working with neighborhood residents to coproduce public safety. Law enforcement agencies should work with community residents to identify
problems and collaborate on implementing solutions that produce meaningful results for the
community.
As Delores Jones Brown testified, Neighborhood policing provides an opportunity for police
departments to do things with residents in the co-production of public safety rather than doing things
to or for them. 81 Community policing is not just about the behavior and tactics of police; it is also
about the civic engagement and capacity of communities to improve their own neighborhoods, their
quality of life, and their sense of safety and well-being. Members of communities are key partners in
creating public safety, so communities and police need mechanisms to engage with each other in
consistent and meaningful ways. One model for formalizing this engagement is through a civilian
governance system such as is found in Los Angeles. As Chief Charles Beck explained in testimony to the
task force,
The Los Angeles Police Department is formally governed by the Board of Police
Commissioners, a five-person civilian body with each member appointed by the
mayor. The Commission has formal authority to hire the Chief of Police, to set broad
policy for the department, and to hold the LAPD and its chief accountable to the
people. 82
Community policing, therefore, is concerned with changing the way in which citizens respond to police
in more constructive and proactive ways. If officers feel unsafe and threatened, their ability to operate
in an open and shared dialogue with community is inhibited. On the other hand, the police have the
responsibility to understand the culture, history, and quality of life issues of the entire community
youth, elders, faith communities, special populationsand to educate the community, including its
children, on the role and function of police and ways the community can protect itself, be part of
solving problems, and prevent crime. Community and police jointly share the responsibility for civil
dialogue and interaction.
81
Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Community Policing and Crime Prevention
Research (oral testimony of Delores Jones Brown, professor, Department of Law, Police Science & Criminal
Justice Administration, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century
Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).
82
Listening Session on Policy and Oversight: Civilian Oversight (oral testimony of Charles Beck, chief, Los Angeles
Police Department, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 30, 2015).
208
4.5.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should schedule regular forums and meetings where
all community members can interact with police and help influence programs and policy.
4.5.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should engage youth and communities in joint
training with law enforcement, citizen academies, ride-alongs, problem solving teams, community
action teams, and quality of life teams.
4.5.3. ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should establish formal community/citizen advisory
committees to assist in developing crime prevention strategies and agency policies as well as
provide input on policing issues.
Larger agencies should establish multiple committees to ensure they inform all levels of the
organization. The makeup of these committees should reflect the demographics of the community or
neighborhood being served.
4.5.4 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should adopt community policing strategies that
support and work in concert with economic development efforts within communities.
As several witnesses, including Bill Geller, testified, public safety and the economic health of
communities go hand in hand. 83 It is therefore important for agencies to work with local, state, and
federal partners on projects devoted to enhancing the economic health of the communities in which
departments are located.
4.6 RECOMMENDATION: Communities should adopt policies and programs that address the needs of
children and youth most at risk for crime or violence and reduce aggressive law enforcement tactics
that stigmatize youth and marginalize their participation in schools and communities.
The past decade has seen an explosion of knowledge about adolescent development and the
neurological underpinnings of adolescent behavior. Much has also been learned about the pathways
by which adolescents become delinquent, the effectiveness of prevention and treatment programs,
and the long-term effects of transferring youths to the adult system and confining them in harsh
conditions. These findings have raised doubts about a series of policies and practices of zero
tolerance that have contributed to increasing the school-to-prison pipeline by criminalizing the
behaviors of children as young as kindergarten age. Noncriminal offenses can escalate to criminal
charges when officers are not trained in child and adolescent development and are unable to
recognize and manage a childs emotional, intellectual, and physical development issues. School
district policies and practices that push students out of schools and into the juvenile justice system
cause great harm and do no good.
83
Research (oral testimony of Bill Geller, director, Geller & Associates, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st
209
One witness told the task force a stunning story about what happened to him one day when he was a
high school freshman:
As I walked down the hall, one of the police officers employed in the school noticed I
did not have my identification badge with me. Before I could explain why I did not
have my badge, I was escorted to the office and suspended for an entire week. I had to
leave the school premises immediately. Walking to the bus stop, a different police
officer pulled me over and demanded to know why I was not in school. As I tried to
explain, I was thrown into the back of the police car. They drove back to my school to
see if I was telling the truth, and I was left waiting in the car for over two hours. When
they came back, they told me I was in fact suspended, but because the school did not
provide me with the proper forms, my guardian and I both had to pay tickets for me
being off of school property. The tickets together were 600 dollars, and I had a court
date for each one. Was forgetting my ID worth missing school? Me being kicked out of
school did not solve or help anything. I was at home alone watching Jerry Springer,
doing nothing. 84
4.6.1 ACTION ITEM: Education and criminal justice agencies at all levels of government should work
together to reform policies and procedures that push children into the juvenile justice system. 85
4.6.2 ACTION ITEM: In order to keep youth in school and to keep them from criminal and violent
behavior, law enforcement agencies should work with schools to encourage the creation of
alternatives to student suspensions and expulsion through restorative justice, diversion, counseling,
and family interventions.
4.6.3 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to encourage the use of
alternative strategies that involve youth in decision making, such as restorative justice, youth courts,
and peer interventions.
The Federal Government could incentivize schools to adopt this practice by tying federal funding to
schools implementing restorative justice practices.
4.6.4 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to adopt an instructional
approach to discipline that uses interventions or disciplinary consequences to help students develop
new behavior skills and positive strategies to avoid conflict, redirect energy, and refocus on learning.
84
Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Prevention (oral testimony of Michael Reynolds for the
Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).
85
For more information about such policies and procedures, see the U.S. Department of Justices Civil Rights
Division and U.S. Department of Educations Office for Civil Rights, Joint Dear Colleague Letter, last updated
February 4, 2014, http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201401-title-vi.html.
210
4.6.5 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to develop and monitor
school discipline policies with input and collaboration from school personnel, students, families, and
community members. These policies should prohibit the use of corporal punishment and electronic
control devices.
4.6.6 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to create a continuum of
developmentally appropriate and proportional consequences for addressing ongoing and escalating
student misbehavior after all appropriate interventions have been attempted.
4.6.7 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with communities to play a role in
programs and procedures to reintegrate juveniles back into their communities as they leave the
juvenile justice system.
Although this recommendationand therefore its action itemsspecifically focuses on juveniles, this
task force believes that law enforcement agencies should also work with communities to play a role in
re-entry programs for adults leaving prisons and jails.
4.6.8 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies and schools should establish memoranda of
agreement for the placement of School Resource Officers that limit police involvement in student
discipline.
Such agreements could include provisions for special training for School Resource Officers to help
them better understand and deal with issues involving youth.
4.6.9 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should assess and evaluate zero tolerance strategies
and examine the role of reasonable discretion when dealing with adolescents in consideration of
their stages of maturation or development.
4.7 RECOMMENDATION: Communities need to affirm and recognize the voices of youth in community
decision making, facilitate youth-led research and problem solving, and develop and fund youth
leadership training and life skills through positive youth/police collaboration and interactions.
Youth face unique challenges when encountering the criminal justice system. Law enforcement
contacts for apparent infractions create trauma and fear in children and disillusionment in youth, but
proactive and positive youth interactions with police create the opportunity for coaching, mentoring,
and diversion into constructive alternative activities. Moving testimony from a panel of young people
allowed the task force members to hear how officers can lead youth out of the conditions that keep
them in the juvenile justice system and into self-awareness and self-help.
211
Phoenix native Jose Gonzales, 21, first went to jail at age nine and had a chaotic childhood; but in
turning his life towards a productive and healthy future, he vividly remembers one officer who made a
difference:
Needless to say, I have had a fair amount of interaction with law enforcement in my
youth. Some has been very positive. Like the time that a School Resource Officer got
me involved in an after school club. Officer Bill D. helped me stop being a bad kid and
assisted with after school activities. He sought me out to be a part of a club that
included all sorts of youthathletes, academicsand helped me gain confidence in
reaching out to other social circles beyond my troubled community. The important
idea Id like to convey is that approach is everything. 86
4.7.1 ACTION ITEM: Communities and law enforcement agencies should restore and build trust
between youth and police by creating programs and projects for positive, consistent, and persistent
interaction between youth and police.
4.7.2 ACTION ITEM: Communities should develop community- and school-based evidence-based
programs that mitigate punitive and authoritarian solutions to teen problems.
86
Listening Session on Community Policing and Crime Reduction: Youth and Law Enforcement (oral testimony of
Jose Gonzales for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 13, 2015).
212
Pillar Five: Training & Education

As our nation becomes more pluralistic and the scope of law enforcements responsibilities expands,
the need for more and better training has become critical. Todays line officers and leaders must meet
a wide variety of challenges including international terrorism, evolving technologies, rising
immigration, changing laws, new cultural mores, and a growing mental health crisis. All states,
territories, and the District of Columbia should establish standards for hiring, training, and education.
The skills and knowledge required to effectively deal with these issues requires a higher level of
education as well as extensive and ongoing training in specific disciplines. The task force discussed
these needs in depth, making recommendations for basic recruit and in-service training, as well as
leadership development in a wide variety of areas:
Community policing and problem-solving principles

Interpersonal and communication skills
Bias awareness
Scenario-based, situational decision making
Crisis intervention
Procedural justice and impartial policing
Trauma and victim services
Mental health issues
Analytical research and technology
Languages and cultural responsiveness
Many who spoke before the task force recommended that law enforcement partner with academic
institutions; organizations such as the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), the Major
Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA), the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
(NOBLE), and the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF); and other sources of appropriate training.
Establishing fellowships and exchange programs with other agencies was also suggested.
Other witnesses spoke about the police education now offered by universities, noting that
undergraduate criminal justice and criminology programs provide a serviceable foundation but that
short courses of mixed quality and even some graduate university degree programs do not come close
to addressing the needs of 21st-century law enforcement.
In addition to discussion of training programs and educational expectations, witnesses at the listening
session made clear that approaches to recruitment, hiring, evaluation, and promotion are also
essential to developing a more highly educated workforce with the character traits and social skills
that enable effective policing and positive community relationships.
To build a police force capable of dealing with the complexity of the 21st century, it is imperative that
agencies place value on both educational achievements and socialization skills when making hiring
decisions. Hiring officers who reflect the community they serve is also important not only to external
213
relations but also to increasing understanding within the agency. On the other hand, task force
member Connie Rice described the best line officer she knewWhite, but better at relating to the
African-American community than his Black colleagues. Her recommendation was to look for the
character traits that support fairness, compassion, and cultural sensitivity. 87
The need for understanding, tolerance, and sensitivity to African Americans, Latinos, recent
immigrants, Muslims, and the LGBTQ community was discussed at length at the listening session, with
witnesses giving examples of unacceptable behavior in law enforcements dealings with all of these
groups. Participants also discussed the need to move towards practices that respect all members of
the community equally and away from policing tactics that can unintentionally lead to excessive
enforcement against minorities.
Witnesses noted that officers need to develop the skills and knowledge necessary in the fight against
terrorism by gaining an understanding of the links between normal criminal activity and terrorism, for
example. What is more, this training must be ongoing, as threats and procedures for combatting
terrorism evolve.
The need for realistic, scenario based training to better manage interactions and minimize using force
was discussed by a number of witnesses. Others focused more on content than delivery: Dennis
Rosenbaum suggested putting procedural justice at the center of training, not on the fringes. 88 Ronal
Serpas recommended training on the effects of violence not only on the community and individual
victims but also on police officers themselves, noting that exposure to violence can make individuals
more prone to violent behavior. 89 And witnesses Bruce Lipman and David Friedman both spoke about
providing officers with historical perspectives of policing in order to provide context as to why some
communities have negative feelings towards the police and improve understanding of the role of the
police in a democratic society. 90
Though todays law enforcement professionals are highly trained and highly skilled operationally, they
must develop specialized knowledge and understanding that enable fair and procedurally just policing
and allow them to meet a wide variety of new challenges and expectations. Tactical skills are
87
Listening Session on Training and Education (Connie Rice, task force member, for the Presidents Task Force on
21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).
88
Research (oral testimony of Dennis Rosenbaum, professor, University of Illinois at Chicago, for the Presidents
89
Listening Session on Training and Education: Special Training on Building Trust (oral testimony of Ronal Serpas,
advisory board member, Cure Violence Chicago, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix,
AZ, February 14, 2015).
90
Listening Session on Training and Education: Special Training on Building Trust (oral testimony of David C.
Friedman, director of National Law Enforcement Initiatives, Anti-Defamation League, for the Presidents Task
Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015); Listening Session on Training and Education:
Special Training on Building Trust (oral testimony of Bruce Lipman, Procedural Justice Training, for the Presidents
214
important, but attitude, tolerance, and interpersonal skills are equally so. And to be effective in an
ever-changing world, training must continue throughout an officers career.
The goal is not only effective, efficient policing but also procedural justice and fairness. Following are
the task forces recommendations for implementing career-long education and training practices for
law enforcement in the 21st century.
5.1 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should support the development of partnerships
with training facilities across the country to promote consistent standards for high quality training
and establish training innovation hubs.
A starting point for changing the culture of policing is to change the culture of training academies. The
designation of certain training academies as federally supported regional training innovation hubs
could act as leverage points for changing training culture while taking into consideration regional
variations. Federal funding would be a powerful incentive to these designated academies to conduct
the necessary research to develop and implement the highest quality curricula focused on the needs of
21st century American policing, along with cutting edge delivery modalities.
5.1.1 ACTION ITEM: The training innovation hubs should develop replicable model programs that use
adult-based learning and scenario based training in a training environment modeled less like boot
camp. Through these programs the hubs would influence nationwide curricula, as well as
instructional methodology.
5.1.2 ACTION ITEM: The training innovation hubs should establish partnerships with academic
institutions to develop rigorous training practices, evaluation, and the development of curricula
based on evidence-based practices.
5.1.3 ACTION ITEM: The Department of Justice should build a stronger relationship with the
International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement (IADLEST) in order to leverage their
network with state boards and commissions of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).
The POSTs are critical to the development and implementation of statewide training standards and the
certification of instructors and training courses, as well as integral to facilitating communication,
coordination, and influence with the more than 650 police academies across the nation. This
relationship would also serve as a pipeline for disseminating information and creating discussion
around best practices.
5.2 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should engage community members in the
training process.
Not only can they make important contributions to the design and implementation of training that
reflects the needs and character of their community but it is also important for police training to be as
transparent as possible. This will result in both a better informed public and a better informed officer.
215
Where appropriate and through managed programs, the community would
learn about and evaluate the existing training within departments;

provide input into shaping that some training content and delivery;
in some cases, participate in training alongside officers.
5.2.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should conduct research to develop and
disseminate a toolkit on how law enforcement agencies and training programs can integrate
community members into this training process.
5.3 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should provide leadership training to all
personnel throughout their careers.
Standards and programs need to be established for every level of leadership from the first line to
middle management to executive leadership. If there is good leadership and procedural justice within
the agency, the officers are more likely to behave according to those standards in the community. As
Chief Edward Flynn of the Milwaukee Police Department noted, Flexible, dynamic, insightful, ethical
leaders are needed to develop the informal social control and social capital required for a civil society
to flourish. 91 One example of leadership training is Leading Police Organizations, a program
developed by the IACP and modeled after the West Point Leadership Program, which offers training for
all levels of agency management in programs based on a behavioral science approach to leading
people groups, change, and organizations, focusing on the concept of every officer a leader.
5.3.1 ACTION ITEM: Recognizing that strong, capable leadership is required to create cultural
transformation, the U.S. Department of Justice should invest in developing learning goals and model
curricula/training for each level of leadership.
This training should focus on organizational procedural justice, community policing, police
accountability, teaching, coaching, mentoring, and communicating with the media and the public.
Chief Kim Jacobs noted this in her testimony discussing current issues with training on reviewing
investigations of police actions and prepare comprehensive reports for all stakeholders, including the
media and citizens. 92 These standards should also influence requirements for promotion and
continuing/ongoing education should also be required to maintain leadership positions.
5.3.2 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should encourage and support partnerships between
law enforcement and academic institutions to support a culture that values ongoing education and
the integration of current research into the development of training, policies, and practices.
91
Listening Session on Training and Education (oral testimony of Edward Flynn, chief, Milwaukee Police
Department, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).
92
Listening Session on Training and Education (oral testimony of Kim Jacobs, chief, Columbus [OH] Division of
Police, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).
216
5.3.3 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should support and encourage cross-discipline
leadership training.
This can be within the criminal justice system but also across governments, non-profits, and the
private sector, including social services, legal aid, businesses, community corrections, education, the
courts, mental health organizations, civic and religious organizations, and others. When people come
together from different disciplines and backgrounds, there is a cross-fertilization of ideas that often
leads to better solutions. Furthermore, by interacting with a more diverse group of professionals,
police can establish a valuable network of contacts whose knowledge and skills differ from but
complement their own. This opportunity does exist for front-line staff on a variety specialty topics but
also needs to happen at decision/policy maker levels. For example, the National Alliance for Drug
Endangered Children is an especially appropriate model for the value of cross-discipline training. Their
written testimony to the task force explains how their training approach focuses on the formation of
community partnerships that engage law enforcement and professionals from multiple disciplines to
collaboratively identify and protect drug endangered children and their families. 93
5.4 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should develop, in partnership with
institutions of higher education, a national postgraduate institute of policing for senior executives
with a standardized curriculum preparing them to lead agencies in the 21st century.
To advance American law enforcement, we must advance its leadership. To that end, the task force
recommends the establishment of a top quality graduate institute of policing to provide ongoing
leadership training, education, and research programs which will enhance the quality of law
enforcement culture, knowledge, skills, practices and policies. Modeled after the Naval Postgraduate
School in Monterey, California, this institute will be staffed with subject matter experts and instructors
drawn from the nations top educational institutions, who will focus on the real world problems that
challenge todays and tomorrows law enforcement, teaching practical skills and providing the most
current information for improving policing services throughout the nation. This institute could even, as
witness Lawrence Sherman proposed, admit qualified applicants to a three-month residential course
for potential police executives, concluding in an assessment center and examination that would certify
qualified graduates to serve as chief police executives anywhere in the United States. 94
93
Listening Session on Training and Education (written testimony of the National Alliance for Drug Endangered
Children for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015).
94
Listening Session on The Future of Community Policing (oral testimony of Lawrence Sherman, Wolfson
Professor of Criminology, University of Cambridge, and Distinguished University Professor, University of
Maryland, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, February 24, 2015).
217
5.5 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should instruct the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to modify the curriculum of the National Academy at Quantico to include prominent
coverage of the topical areas addressed in this report. In addition, the COPS Office and the Office of
Justice Programs should work with law enforcement professional organizations to encourage
modification of their curricula in a similar fashion. 95
The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) and the Office of Justice Programs
(OJP) should work with the law enforcement professional organizations to encourage modification of
their curriculafor example, the Senior Management Institute for Police run by PERF and the Police
Executive Leadership Institute managed by the Major Cities Chiefs Association.
5.6 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should make Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) a part of both basic
recruit and in-service officer training.
Crisis intervention training (CIT) was developed in Memphis, Tennessee, in 1988 and has been shown
to improve police ability to recognize symptoms of a mental health crisis, enhance their confidence in
addressing such an emergency, and reduce inaccurate beliefs about mental illness. 96 It has been found
that after completing CIT orientation, officers felt encouraged to interact with people suffering a
mental health crisis and to delay their rush to resolution. 97 Dr. Randolph Dupont, Chair of the
Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis, spoke to the task force
about the effectiveness of the Memphis Crisis Intervention Team (CIT), which stresses verbal
intervention and other de-escalation techniques.
Noting that empathy training is an important component, Dr. Dupont said the Memphis CIT includes
personal interaction between officers and individuals with mental health problems. Officers who had
contact with these individuals felt more comfortable with them, and hospital mental health staff who
participated with the officers had more positive views of law enforcement. CIT also provides a unique
opportunity to develop cross-disciplinary training and partnerships.
5.6.1 ACTION ITEM: Because of the importance of this issue, Congress should appropriate funds to
help support law enforcement crisis intervention training.
95
Listening Session on Training and Education: Supervisory, Leadership and Management Training (oral
testimony of Kimberly Jacobs, chief, Columbus [OH] Division of Police, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st
Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015); Listening Session on Training and Education (e-mail of Annie
McKee, senior fellow, University of Pennsylvania, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing,
Phoenix, AZ, February 1314, 2015); Listening Session on Training and Education (written testimony of Anthony
Braga et al. for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Phoenix, AZ, February 1314, 2015).
96
Natalie Bonfine, Christian Ritter, and Mark R. Munetz, Police Officer Perceptions of the Impact of Crisis
Intervention Team (CIT) Programs, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 37, no. 4 (JulyAugust 2014):
341350, doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2014.02.004.
97
Kelly E. Canada, Beth Angell, and Amy C. Watson, Crisis Intervention Teams in Chicago: Successes on the
Ground, Journal of Police Crisis Negotiations 10, no. 12 (2010), 86100, doi:10.1080/15332581003792070.
218
5.7 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should ensure that basic officer training includes lessons to improve
social interaction as well as tactical skills.
These include topics such as critical thinking, social intelligence, implicit bias, fair and impartial
policing, historical trauma, and other topics that address capacity to build trust and legitimacy in
diverse communities and offer better skills for gaining compliance without the use of physical force.
Basic recruit training must also include tactical and operations training on lethal and nonlethal use of
force with an emphasis on de-escalation and tactical retreat skills.
5.8 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should ensure that basic recruit and in-service officer training include
curriculum on the disease of addiction.
It is important that officers be able to recognize the signs of addiction and respond accordingly when
they are interacting with people who may be impaired as a result of their addiction. Science has
demonstrated that addiction is a disease of the braina disease that can be prevented and treated
and from which people can recover. The growing understanding of this science has led to a number of
law enforcement agencies equipping officers with overdose-reversal drugs such as naloxone and the
passage of legislation in many states that shield any person from civil and criminal liability if they
administer naloxone.
The Obama Administrations drug policy reflects this understanding and emphasizes access to
treatment over incarceration, pursuing smart on crime rather than tough on crime approaches to
drug-related offenses, and support for early health interventions designed to break the cycle of drug
use, crime, incarceration, and re-arrest. 98 And the relationship between incarceration and addiction is
a significant one. A 2004 survey by the U.S. Department of Justice estimated that about 70 percent of
state and 64 percent of federal prisoners regularly used drugs prior to incarceration. 99
5.9 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should ensure both basic recruit and in-service training incorporates
content around recognizing and confronting implicit bias and cultural responsiveness.
As the nation becomes more diverse, it will become increasingly important that police officers be
sensitive to and tolerant of differences. It is vital that law enforcement provide training that recognizes
the unique needs and characteristics of minority communities, whether they are victims or witnesses
of crimes, subjects of stops, or criminal suspects.
Keeshan Harley, a young Black man, testified that he estimates that hes been stopped and frisked
more than 100 times and that he felt that the problem is not just a few individual bad apples, but the
98
A Drug Policy for the 21st Century, July 2014, accessed February 27, 2015,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/drugpolicyreform.
99
C. Mumola and J.C. Karberg, Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004 (Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2007),
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dudsfp04.pdf.
219
systemic way policing treats certain communitiesincluding low-income and young people, African
Americans, LGBTQ people, the homeless, immigrants, and people with psychiatric disabilities. In so
doing, police have produced communities of alienation and resentment. 100 He is arguably not alone in
his opinions, given that research has shown that of those involved in traffic and street stops, a smaller
percentage of Blacks than Whites believed the police behaved properly during the stop. 101
And in a 2012 Survey of LGBTQ/HIV contact with police, 25 percent of respondents with any recent
police contact reported at least one type of misconduct or harassment, such as being accused of an
offense they did not commit, verbal assault, being arrested for an offense they did not commit, sexual
harassment, physical assault, or sexual assault. 102
5.9.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should implement ongoing, top down training for all
officers in cultural diversity and related topics that can build trust and legitimacy in diverse
communities. This should be accomplished with the assistance of advocacy groups that represent
the viewpoints of communities that have traditionally had adversarial relationships with law
enforcement.
5.9.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should implement training for officers that covers
policies for interactions with the LGBTQ population, including issues such as determining gender
identity for arrest placement, the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities, and immigrant or
non-English speaking groups, as well as reinforcing policies for the prevention of sexual misconduct
and harassment.
5.10 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should require both basic recruit and in-service training on policing
in a democratic society.
Police officers are granted a great deal of authority, and it is therefore important that they receive
training on the Constitutional basis of and the proper use of that power and authority. Particular focus
should be placed on ensuring that Terry stops 103 are conducted within constitutional guidelines.
100
Listening Session on Training and Education: Voices in the Community (oral testimony of Keeshan Harley,
member, Communities United for Police Reform, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing,
Phoenix, AZ, February 14, 2015); see also Tracey L. Meares, Programming Errors: Understanding the
Constitutionality of Stop-and-Frisk as a Program, Not an Incident, University of Chicago Law
Review (forthcoming).
101
Lynn Langton, and Matthew Durose, Police Behavior During Traffic and Street Stops, 2011, Special Report
(Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2013), NCJ 242937.
102
Listening Session on Policy and Oversight (written testimony of Lambda Legal for the Presidents Task Force on
21st Century Policing, Cincinnati, OH, January 3031, 2015); Lambda Legal, Protected and Served? Survey of
LGBT/HIV Contact with Police, Courts, Prisons, and Security, 2014, accessed February 28, 2015,
http://www.lambdalegal.org/protected-and-served.
103
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968).
220
5.11 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government, as well as state and local agencies, should
encourage and incentivize higher education for law enforcement officers.
While many believe that a higher level of required education could raise the quality of officer
performance, law enforcement also benefits from a diverse range of officers who bring their cultures,
languages, and life experiences to policing. Offering entry level opportunities to recruits without a
college degree can be combined with the provision of means to obtain higher education throughout
their career, thereby ensuring the benefits of a diverse staff with a well-educated police force and an
active learning culture. Current student loan programs allow repayment based on income, and some
already provide tuition debt forgiveness after 120 months of service in the government or nonprofit
sector.
5.11.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should create a loan repayment and forgiveness
incentive program specifically for policing.
This could be modeled on similar programs that already exist for government service and other fields
or the reinstitution of funding for programs such as the 1960s and 70s Law Enforcement Education
Program.
Table 3. College degree requirements for full-time instructors in state and local law
enforcement training academies, by type of operating agency, 2006
Source: Brian A. Reaves, State and Local Law Enforcement Training Academies, 2006, Special Report (Washington, DC:
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2009), http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/slleta06.pdf.
221
5.12 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should support research into the development of
technology that enhances scenario based training, social interaction skills, and enables the
dissemination of interactive distance learning for law enforcement.
This will lead to new modalities that enhance the effectiveness of the learning experience, reduce
instructional costs, and ensure the broad dissemination of training through platforms that do not
require time away from agencies.
This would be especially helpful for smaller and more rural departments who cannot spare the time for
their officers to participate in residential/in-person training programs. Present day technologies should
also be employed more oftenweb based learning, behavior evaluations through body worn camera
videos, software programs for independent learning, scenario-based instruction through videos, and
other methods. This can also increase access to evidence based research and other sources of
knowledge.
5.13 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should support the development and
implementation of improved Field Training Officer programs.
This is critical in terms of changing officer culture. Field Training Officers impart the organizational
culture to the newest members. The most common current program, known as the San Jose Model, is
more than 40 years old and is not based on current research knowledge of adult learning modalities. In
many ways it even conflicts with innovative training strategies that encourage problem-based learning
and support organizational procedural justice.
5.13.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should support the development of broad Field
Training Program standards and training strategies that address changing police culture and
organizational procedural justice issues that agencies can adopt and customize to local needs.
A potential model for this is the Police Training Officer program developed by the COPS Office in
collaboration with PERF and the Reno (Nevada) Police Department. This problem based learning
strategy used adult learning theory and problem solving tools to encourage new officers to think with
a proactive mindset, enabling the identification of and solution to problems within their communities.
5.13.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should provide funding to incentivize agencies
to update their Field Training Programs in accordance with the new standards.
222
Pillar Six: Officer Wellness & Safety

Most law enforcement officers walk into risky situations and encounter tragedy on a regular basis.
Some, such as the police who responded to the carnage of Sandy Hook Elementary School, witness
horror that stays with them for the rest of their lives. Others are physically injured in carrying out their
duties, sometimes needlessly, through mistakes made in high stress situations. The recent notable
deaths of officers are stark reminders of the risk officers face. As a result, physical, mental, and
emotional injuries plague many law enforcement agencies.
However, a large proportion of officer injuries and deaths are not the result of interaction with
criminal offenders but the outcome of poor physical health due to poor nutrition, lack of exercise,
sleep deprivation, and substance abuse. Yet these causes are often overlooked or given scant
attention. Many other injuries and fatalities are the result of vehicular accidents.
The wellness and safety of law enforcement officers is critical not only to themselves, their colleagues,
and their agencies but also to public safety. An officer whose capabilities, judgment, and behavior are
adversely affected by poor physical or psychological health may not only be of little use to the
community he or she serves but also a danger to it and to other officers. As task force member Tracey
Meares observed, Hurt people can hurt people. 104
Commenting on the irony of law enforcements lack of services and practices to support wellness and
safety, Dr. Laurence Miller observed in his testimony that supervisors would not allow an officer to go
on patrol with a deficiently maintained vehicle, an un-serviced duty weapon, or a malfunctioning
radiobut pay little attention to the maintenance of what is all officers most valuable resource: their
brains. 105
Officer suicide is also a problem: a national study using data of the National Occupational Mortality
Surveillance found that police died from suicide 2.4 times as often as from homicides. And though
depression resulting from traumatic experiences is often the cause, routine work and life stressors
serving hostile communities, working long shifts, lack of family or departmental supportare frequent
motivators too.
In this pillar, the task force focused on many of the issues that impact and are impacted by officer
wellness and safety, focusing on strategies in several areas: physical, mental, and emotional health;
vehicular accidents; officer suicide; shootings and assaults; and the partnerships with social services,
unions, and other organizations that can support solutions.
104
Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness (comment of Tracey Meares, task force member, for the
Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, February 23, 2015).
105
Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness (oral testimony of Laurence Miller, psychologist, for the
223
Physical injuries and death in the line of duty, while declining, are still too high. According to estimates
of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, more than 100,000 law enforcement professionals are injured in the
line of duty each year. Many are the result of assaults, which underscores the need for body armor,
but most are due to vehicular accidents.
To protect against assaults, Orange County (Florida) Sheriff Jerry Demings talked about immersing new
officers in simulation training that realistically depicts what they are going to face in the real world. I
subscribe to an edict that there is no substitute for training and experience . . . deaths and injuries can
be prevented through training that is both realistic and repetitive. 106
But to design effective training first requires collecting substantially more information about the
nature of injuries sustained by officers on the job. Dr. Alexander Eastmans testimony noted that the
field of emergency medicine involves the analysis of vast amounts of data with regard to injuries in
order to improve prevention as well as treatment.
In order to make the job of policing more safe, a nationwide repository for [law
enforcement officer] injuries sustained is desperately needed. A robust database of
this nature, analyzed by medical providers and scientists involved in law enforcement,
would allow for recommendations in tactics, training, equipment, medical care and
even policies/procedures that are grounded in that interface between scientific
evidence, best medical practice and sound policing. 107
Poor nutrition and fitness are also serious threats, as is sleep deprivation. Many errors in judgment can
be traced to fatigue, which also makes it harder to connect with people and control emotions. But
administrative changes such as reducing work shifts can improve officers feelings of well-being, and
the implementation of mental health strategies can lessen the impact of the stress and trauma.
However, the most important factor to consider when discussing wellness and safety is the culture of
law enforcement, which needs to be transformed. Support for wellness and safety should permeate all
practices and be expressed through changes in procedures, requirements, attitudes, and behaviors. An
agency work environment in which officers do not feel they are respected, supported, or treated fairly
is one of the most common sources of stress. And research indicates that officers who feel respected
by their supervisors are more likely to accept and voluntarily comply with departmental policies. This
transformation should also overturn the tradition of silence on psychological problems, encouraging
officers to seek help without concern about negative consequences.
106
Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness: Officer Safety (oral testimony of Jerry Demings, sheriff,
Orange County, FL, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, February 23, 2015).
107
Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness: Officer Safety (oral testimony of Dr. Alexander Eastman,
lieutenant and deputy medical director, Dallas Police Department, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century
Policing, Washington, DC, February 23, 2015).
224
Partnerships are another crucial element. An agency cannot successfully tackle these issues without
partners such as industrial hygienists, chaplains, unions, and mental health providers. But no program
can succeed without buy-in from agency leadership as well as the rank and file.
The bulletproof cop does not exist. The officers who protect us must also be protectedagainst
incapacitating physical, mental, and emotional health problems as well as against the hazards of their
job. Their wellness and safety are crucial for them, their colleagues, and their agencies, as well as the
well-being of the communities they serve.
6.1 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should enhance and further promote its
multi-faceted officer safety and wellness initiative.
As noted by all task force members during the listening session, wellness and safety supports public
safety. Officers who are mentally or physical incapacitated cannot serve their communities adequately
and can be a danger to the people they serve, to their fellow officers, and to themselves.
6.1.1 ACTION ITEM: Congress should establish and fund a national Blue Alert warning system.
Leveraging the current Amber Alert program used to locate abducted children, the Blue Alert would
enlist the help of the public in finding suspects after a law enforcement officer is killed in the line of
duty. Some similar state systems do exist, but there are large gaps; a national system is needed. In
addition to aiding the apprehension of suspects, it would send a message about the importance of
protecting law enforcement from undue harm.
6.1.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice, in partnership with the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, should establish a task force to study mental health issues unique to
officers and recommend tailored treatments.
Law enforcement officers are subject to more stress than the general population owing to the nature
of their jobs. In addition to working with difficulteven hostileindividuals, responding to tragic
events, and sometimes coming under fire themselves, they suffer from the effects of everyday
stressorsthe most acute of which often come from their agencies, because of confusing messages or
non-supportive management; and their families, who do not fully understand the pressures the
officers face on the job. And as witness Laurence Miller said, When both work and family relations
fray, the individuals coping abilities can be stretched to the limit, resulting in alcohol abuse, domestic
violence, overaggressive policing, even suicide. 108
108
Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness (oral testimony of Laurence Miller, psychologist, for the
225
To add to the problems of those suffering from psychological distress, law enforcement culture has not
historically supported efforts to treat or even acknowledged mental health problems, which are
usually seen as a sign of weakness. The challenges and treatments of mental health issues should
therefore be viewed within the context of law enforcements unique culture and working
environment.
This task force should also look to establish a national toll-free mental health hotline specifically for
police officers. This would be a fast, easy, and confidential way for officers to get advice whenever
they needed to; and because they would be anonymous, officers would be more likely to take
advantage of this resource. Since nobody understands the challenges an officer faces like another
officer, it should be peer drivenanonymously connecting callers to officers who are not in the same
agency and who could refer the caller to professional help if needed. An advisory board should be
formed to guide the creation of this hotline service.
6.1.3 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should support the continuing research into the
efficacy of an annual mental health check for officers, as well as fitness, resilience, and nutrition.
Currently, most mental health checks are ordered as interventions for anger management or
substance abuse and are ordered reactively after an incident. Mental health checks need to be more
frequent to prevent problems. Because officers are exposed to a wide range of stressors on a
continuous basis as part of their daily routines, mental and physical health check-ups should be
conducted on an ongoing basis. Furthermore, officer nutrition and fitness issues change with time,
varying widely from those of the new academy graduate to those of the veteran who has spent the last
five years sitting in a squad car. Many health problemsnotably cardiac issuesare cumulative.
6.1.4. ACTION ITEM: Pension plans should recognize fitness for duty examinations as definitive
evidence of valid duty or non-duty related disability.
Officers who have been injured in the line of duty can exist in limbo, without pay, unable to work but
also unable to get benefits because the fitness for duty examinations given by their agencies are not
recognized as valid proof of disability. And since officers, as public servants, cannot receive social
security, they can end up in a precarious financial state.
6.1.5 ACTION ITEM: Public Safety Officer Benefits (PSOB) should be provided to survivors of officers
killed while working, regardless of whether the officer used safety equipment (seatbelt or antiballistic vest) or if officer death was the result of suicide attributed to a current diagnosis of dutyrelated mental illness, including but not limited to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
226
Families should not be penalized because an officer died in the line of duty but was not wearing a seat
belt or body armor. Though these precautions are very important and strongly encouraged, there are
occasions when officers can be more effective without them. 109
A couple of situations were mentioned by task force member Sean Smoot, who described the efforts
of an officer who took off his seat belt to tend to the injuries of a victim in the back of the car as his
partner sped to the hospital. Another scenario he mentioned was the rescue of a drowning woman by
an officer who shed his heavy body armor to go into the water. Charles Ramsey, task force co-chair,
also noted that these types of situations could be further mitigated by the invention of seatbelts that
officers could quickly release without getting tangled on their belts, badges, and radios, as well as body
armor that is lighter and more comfortable.
6.2 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should promote safety and wellness at every level
of the organization.
Safety and wellness issues affect all law enforcement professionals, regardless of their management
status, duty, or tenure. Moreover, line officers are more likely to adopt procedures or change practices
if they are advised to do so by managers who also model the behavior they encourage. According to
witness David Orr, buy-in from the leaders as well as the rank and file is essential to the success of any
program. 110
6.2.1 ACTION ITEM: Though the Federal Government can support many of the programs and best
practices identified by the U.S. Department of Justice initiative described in recommendation 6.1,
the ultimate responsibility lies with each agency.
Though legislation and funding from the Federal Government is necessary in some cases, most of the
policies, programs, and practices recommended by the task force can and should be implemented at
the local level. It is understood, however, that there are no one size fits all solutions and that
implementation will vary according to agency size, location, resources, and other factors.
6.3 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should encourage and assist departments in
the implementation of scientifically supported shift lengths by law enforcement.
109
Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness: Voices from the Field (oral testimony of William Johnson,
executive director, National Association of Police Organizations, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century
110
Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness (oral testimony of David Orr, sergeant, Norwalk [CT] Police
Department, to the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, February 23, 2015).
227
It has been established by significant bodies of research that long shifts can not only cause fatigue,
stress, and decreased ability to concentrate but also lead to other more serious consequences. 111
Fatigue and stress undermine not only the immune system but also the ability to work at full capacity,
make decisions, and maintain emotional equilibrium. Though long shifts are understandable in the
case of emergencies, as a standard practice they can lead to poor morale, poor job performance,
irritability, and errors in judgment that can have serious, even deadly, consequences.
6.3.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should fund additional research into the efficacy
of limiting the total number of hours an officer should work within a 2448 hour period, including
special findings on the maximum number of hours an officer should work in a high risk or high stress
environment (e.g., public demonstrations or emergency situations).
6.4 RECOMMENDATION: Every law enforcement officer should be provided with individual tactical
first aid kits and training as well as anti-ballistic vests.
Task force witness Dr. Alexander Eastman, who is a trauma surgeon as well as a law enforcement
professional, noted that tactical first aid kits would significantly reduce the loss of both officer and
civilian lives due to blood loss. Already available to members of the military engaged in combat
missions, these kits are designed to save lives by controlling hemorrhaging. They contain tourniquets,
an Olaes modular bandage, and QuikClot gauze and would be provided along with training in
hemorrhage control. Dr. Eastman estimated that the kits could cost less than $50 each and require
about two hours of training, which could be provided through officers who have completed train the
trainer programs. 112
This would be a national adoption of the Hartford Consensus, which calls for agencies to adopt
hemorrhage control as a core law enforcement skill and to integrate rescue/emergency medical
services personnel into community-wide active shooter preparedness and training. These activities
would complement the current Save Our Own law enforcement-based hemorrhage control
programs. 113
111
Bryan Vila, Tired Cops: The Importance of Managing Police Fatigue, (Washington, DC: Police Executive
Research Forum, 2000); Mora L. Fiedler, Officer Safety and Wellness: An Overview of the Issues (Washington, DC:
Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2011), 4, http://cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/OSWG/e091120401OSWGReport.pdf.
112
Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness: Officer Safety (oral testimony of Dr. Alexander Eastman,
lieutenant and deputy medical director, Dallas Police Department, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century
113
M. Jacobs Lenworth, Jr., Joint Committee to Create a National Policy to Enhance Survivability from Mass
Casualty Shooting Events: Hartford Consensus II, Journal of the American College of Surgeons 218, no. 3 (March
2014): 476478.
228
To further reduce officer deaths, the task force also strongly recommends the provision of body armor
to all officers with replacements when necessary.
6.4.1 ACTION ITEM: Congress should authorize funding for the distribution of law enforcement
individual tactical first-aid kits.
6.4.2 ACTION ITEM: Congress should reauthorize and expand the Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP)
program.
Created by statute in 1998, this program is a unique U.S. Department of Justice initiative designed to
provide a critical resource to state and local law enforcement. Based on data collected and recorded
by Bureau of Justice Assistance staff, in FY 2012 protective vests were directly attributed to saving the
lives of at least 33 law enforcement and corrections officers.
6.5 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should expand efforts to collect and analyze
data not only on officer deaths but also on injuries and near misses.
Another recommendation mentioned by multiple witnesses is the establishment of a nationwide
repository of data on law enforcement injuries, deaths, and near misses. Though the Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) does maintain a database of information pertinent to police procedures on officers
killed in the line of duty, it does not contain the medical details that could be analyzed by medical
providers and scientists to improve medical care, tactics, training, equipment, and procedures that
would prevent or reduce injuries and save lives. The Police Foundation, with the support of a number
of other law enforcement organizations, launched an online Law Enforcement Near Miss Reporting
System in late 2014, but it is limited in its ability to systematically analyze national trends in this
important data by its voluntary nature. 114
6.6 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should adopt policies that require officers to wear
seat belts and bullet-proof vests and provide training to raise awareness of the consequences of
failure to do so.
According to task force witness Craig Floyd, traffic accidents have been the number one cause of
officer fatalities in recent years, and nearly half of those officers were not wearing seat belts. 115 He
suggests in-car cameras and seat belt sensors to encourage use along with aggressive safety
campaigns. Some witnesses endorsed mandatory seat belt policies as well.
114
Deborah L. Spence, One on One with LEO Near Miss, Community Policing Dispatch 8, no. 2 (February 2015),
http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/02-2015/leo_near_miss.asp.
115
Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness (oral testimony of Craig Floyd, National Law Enforcement
Officer Memorial Foundation, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC, February
23, 2015).
229
The Prince Georges County Arrive Alive Campaign initiated by task force witness Chief Mark Magraw
to promote 100 percent seat belt usage relied on incentives and peer pressure for success. The
message was, it is not just about you, it is also about your family and your department. 116
There were also many calls for mandatory requirements that all officers wear soft body armor any
time they are going to be engaging in enforcement activities, uniformed or not. It was also suggested
that law enforcement agencies be required to provide these for all commissioned personnel.
6.7 RECOMMENDATION: Congress should develop and enact peer review error management
legislation.
The task force recommends that Congress enact legislation, similar to the Healthcare Quality
Improvement Act of 1986, 117 that would support the development of an effective peer review error
management system for law enforcement similar to what exists in medicine. A robust but nonpunitive
peer review error management programin which law enforcement officers could openly and frankly
discuss their own or others mistakes or near misses without fear of legal repercussionswould go a
long way toward reducing injuries and fatalities by improving tactics, policies, and procedures.
Protecting peer review error management findings from being used in legal discovery would enable
the widespread adoption of this program by law enforcement.
The Near Miss anonymous reporting system developed by the Police Foundation in Washington, D.C.
currently collects anonymous data that can be very helpful in learning from and preventing mistakes,
fatalities, and injuriesbut a program that enabled peer review of errors would provide even more
valuable perspectives and solutions.
6.8 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Transportation should provide technical assistance
opportunities for departments to explore the use of vehicles equipped with vehicle collision
prevention smart car technology that will reduce the number of accidents.
Given that the FBIs 2003 to 2012 Law Enforcement Officers Killed in Action report showed that 49
percent of officer fatalities were a result of vehicle-related accidents, the need for protective devices
cannot be understated. New technologies such as vehicle prevention systems should be explored.
116
Listening Session on Officer Safety and Wellness (oral testimony of Mark Magraw, chief, Prince Georges
County [MD] Police Department, for the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing, Washington, DC,
February 23, 2015).
117
The Health Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986 (HCQIA), 42 USC 11101 et seq., sets out standards for
professional review actions. If a professional review body meets these standards, then neither the professional
review body nor any person acting as a member or staff to the body will be liable in damages under most federal
or state laws with respect to the action. For more information, see Medical Peer Review, American Medical
Association, accessed February 28, 2015, http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/legaltopics/medical-peer-review.page.
230
Figure 2. Total fatalities from 19642014
Source: 126 Law Enforcement Fatalities Nationwide in 2014, Preliminary 2014 Law Enforcement Officer Fatalities Report
(Washington, DC: National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund, December 2014),
http://www.nleomf.org/assets/pdfs/reports/Preliminary-2014-Officer-Fatalities-Report.pdf.
231
Implementation
The members of the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing are convinced that these 59
concrete recommendations for research, action, and further study will bring long-term improvements
to the ways in which law enforcement agencies interact with and bring positive change to their
communities. But we also recognize that the Administration, through policies and practices already in
place, can start right now to move forward on the bedrock recommendations in this report.
Accordingly, we propose the following items for immediate action.
7.1 RECOMMENDATION: The President should direct all federal law enforcement agencies to review
the recommendations made by the Task Force on 21st Century Policing and, to the extent
practicable, to adopt those that can be implemented at the federal level.
7.2 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should explore public-private partnership
opportunities, starting by convening a meeting with local, regional, and national foundations to
discuss the proposals for reform described in this report and seeking their engagement and support
in advancing implementation of these recommendations.
7.3 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should charge its Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) with assisting the law enforcement field in addressing
current and future challenges.
For recommendation 7.3, the COPS Office should consider taking actions including but not limited to
the following:
Create a National Policing Practices and Accountability Division within the COPS Office.
Establish national benchmarks and best practices for federal, state, local, and tribal police
departments.
Provide technical assistance and funding to national, state, local, and tribal accreditation bodies
that evaluate policing practices.
Recommend additional benchmarks and best practices for state training and standards boards.
Provide technical assistance and funding to state training boards to help them meet national
benchmarks and best practices in training methodologies and content.
Prioritize grant funding to departments meeting benchmarks.
Support departments through an expansion of the COPS Office Collaborative Reform Initiative.
232
Collaborate with universities, the Office of Justice Programs and its bureaus (Bureau of Justice
Assistance [BJA], Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], National Institute of Justice [NIJ], and Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]), and others to review research and literature
in order to inform law enforcement agencies about evidence-based practices and to identify areas
of police operations where additional research is needed.
Collaborate with the BJS to
establish a central repository for data concerning police use of force resulting in death, as well
as in-custody deaths, and disseminate this data for use by both community and police;
provide local agencies with technical assistance and a template to conduct local citizen
satisfaction surveys;
compile annual citizen satisfaction surveys based on the submission of voluntary local surveys,
develop a national level survey as well as surveys for use by local agencies and by small
geographic units, and develop questions to be added to the National Crime Victimization
Survey relating to citizen satisfaction with police agencies and public trust.
Collaborate with the BJS and others to develop a template of broader indicators of performance
for police departments beyond crime rates alone that could comprise a Uniform Justice Report.
Collaborate with the NIJ and the BJS to publish an annual report on the State of Policing in the
United States.
Provide support to national police leadership associations and national rank and file
organizations to encourage them to implement task force recommendations.
Work with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to ensure that community policing tactics in
state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies are incorporated into their role in homeland
security.
233
Appendix A. Public Listening Sessions &

Witnesses
The Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing hosted multiple public listening sessions to gain
broad input and expertise from stakeholders. The information collected in these meetings informed
and advised the task force in developing its recommendations.
Listening Session 1: Building Trust & Legitimacy

Washington, D.C., January 13, 2015
Panel One: Subject Matter Experts
Jennifer Eberhardt, Associate Professor of Psychology, Stanford University

Charles Ogletree, Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, Harvard Law School
Tom Tyler, Macklin Fleming Professor of Law and Professor of Psychology, Yale Law School
Samuel Walker, Emeritus Professor of Criminal Justice, University of Nebraska Omaha
Panel Two: Community Representatives
Carmen Perez, Executive Director, The Gathering for Justice

Jim St. Germain, Co-Founder, Preparing Leaders of Tomorrow, Inc.
Jim Winkler, President and General Secretary, National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA
Panel Three: Law Enforcement Organizations
Richard Beary, President, International Association of Chiefs of Police

Chuck Canterbury, National President, Fraternal Order of Police
Andrew Peralta, National President, National Latino Peace Officers Association
Richard Stanek, Immediate Past President, Major County Sheriffs Association
Panel Four: Civil Rights / Civil Liberties
Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel, National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Maria Teresa Kumar, President and CEO, Voto Latino
Laura Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office, American Civil Liberties Union
Vikrant Reddy, Senior Policy Analyst, Texas Public Policy Foundation Center for Effective Justice
Panel Five: Mayors
Kevin Johnson, Mayor, Sacramento

Michael Nutter, Mayor, Philadelphia
Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, Mayor, Baltimore
234
Listening Session 2: Policy & Oversight

Cincinnati, Ohio, January 30, 2015
Panel One: Use of Force Research and Policies
Geoffrey Alpert, Professor, University of South Carolina

Mick McHale, Vice President, National Association of Police Organizations
Harold Medlock, Chief, Fayetteville (North Carolina) Police Department
Rashad Robinson, Executive Director, Color of Change
Panel Two: Use of Force Investigations and Oversight
Sim Gill, District Attorney, Salt Lake County, Utah

Jay McDonald, President, Fraternal Order of Police of Ohio
Kirk Primas, Deputy Chief, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Chuck Wexler, Executive Director, Police Executive Research Forum
Panel Three: Civilian Oversight
Charlie Beck, Chief, Los Angeles Police Department

Brian Buchner, President, National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement
Darius Charney, Senior Staff Attorney, Center for Constitutional Rights
Panel Four: Mass Demonstrations
Christina Brown, Member, Black Lives Matter: Cincinnati

Garry McCarthy, Superintendent, Chicago Police Department
Rodney Monroe, Chief, Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police Department
Sean Whent, Chief, Oakland (California) Police Department
Panel Five: Law Enforcement Culture and Diversity
Malik Aziz, National Chairman, National Black Police Association

Hayley Gorenberg, Deputy Legal Director, Lambda Legal
Kathy Harrell, President, Fraternal Order of Police, Queen City Lodge #69, Cincinnati, Ohio
Barbara OConnor, President, National Association of Women Law Enforcement Executives
235
Listening Session 3: Technology & Social Media

Cincinnati, Ohio, January 31, 2015
Panel One: Body CamerasResearch and Legal Considerations
Jim Bueermann, President, Police Foundation

Scott Greenwood, Attorney
Tracie Keesee, Co-Founder and Director of Research Partnerships, Center for Policing Equity
Bill Lewinski, Executive Director, Force Science Institute
Michael White, Professor, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University
Panel Two: Body CamerasImplementation
Johanna Miller, Advocacy Director, New York Civil Liberties Union

Ken Miller, Chief, Greenville (South Carolina) Police Department
Kenton Rainey, Chief, Bay Area Rapid Transit, San Francisco
Richard Van Houten, Sergeant, Fort Worth (Texas) Police Officers Association
Panel Three: Technology Policy
Eliot Cohen, Lieutenant, Maryland State Police

Madhu Grewal, Policy Counsel, The Constitution Project
Bill Schrier, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Chief Information Officer, State of Washington
Vincent Talucci, Executive Director / Chief Executive Officer, International Association of Chiefs of
Police
Panel Four: Social Media, Community Digital Engagement and Collaboration
Hassan Aden, Director, Research and Programs, International Association of Chiefs of Police
DeRay McKesson, This is the Movement
Steve Spiker, Research and Technology Director, Urban Strategies Council
Lauri Stevens, Founder and Principal Consultant, LAwS Communications
Listening Session 4: Community Policing & Crime Reduction

Phoenix, Arizona, February 13, 2015
Panel One: Community Policing and Crime Prevention Research
Bill Geller, Director, Geller & Associates

Dr. Delores Jones-Brown, Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
Dr. Dennis Rosenbaum, Professor, University of Illinois at Chicago
Dr. Wesley G. Skogan, Professor, Northwestern University
236
Panel Two: Building Community Policing Organizations
Anthony Batts, Police Commissioner, Baltimore Police Department

Jeffrey Blackwell, Chief, Cincinnati (Ohio) Police Department
Chris Magnus, Chief, Richmond (California) Police Department
Patrick Melvin, Chief, Salt River Police Department (Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community)
Panel Three: Using Community Policing to Reduce Crime
Kevin Bethel, Deputy Police Commissioner, Philadelphia Police Department

Melissa Jones, Senior Program Officer, Bostons Local Initiatives Support Corporation
David Kennedy, Professor, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
J. Scott Thomson, Chief, Camden County (New Jersey) Police Department
George Turner, Chief, Atlanta Police Department
Panel Four: Using Community Policing to Restore Trust
Rev. Jeff Brown, Rebuilding Every City Around Peace

Dwayne Crawford, Executive Director, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives
Justin Hansford, Assistant Professor of Law, Saint Louis University School of Law
Cecil Smith, Chief, Sanford (Florida) Police Department
Panel Five: Youth and Law Enforcement
Delilah Coleman, Member, Navajo Nation (Senior at Flagstaff High School)

Jose Gonzales, Alumnus, Foster Care and Crossover Youth
Jamecia Luckey, Youth Conference Committee Member, Cocoa (Florida) Police Athletic League
Nicholas Peart, Staff Member, The Brotherhood-Sister Sol (Class Member, Floyd, et al. v. City of New
York, et al.)
Michael Reynolds, Co-President, Youth Power Movement
Listening Session 5: Training & Education

Phoenix, Arizona, February 14, 2015
Panel One: Basic Recruit Academy
Arlen Ciechanowski, President, International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards

and Training
William J. Johnson, Executive Director, National Association of Police Organizations
Benjamin B. Tucker, First Deputy Commissioner, New York City Police Department
Dr. Steven Winegar, Coordinator, Public Safety Leadership Development, Oregon Department of
Public Safety Standards and Training
237
Panel Two: In-Service Training
Dr. Scott Decker, Professor, Arizona State University

Aaron Danielson, President, Public Safety Employee Association/AFSCME Local 803, Fairbanks, Alaska
Dr. Cheryl May, Director, Criminal Justice Institute and National Center for Rural Law Enforcement
John Ortolano, President, Arizona Fraternal Order of Police
Gary Schofield, Deputy Chief, Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department
Panel Three: Supervisory, Leadership and Management Training
Edward Flynn, Chief, Milwaukee (Wisconsin) Police Department

Sandra Hutchens, Sheriff, Orange County (California) Sheriffs Department
Kimberly Jacobs, Chief, Columbus (Ohio) Division of Police
John Layton, Sheriff, Marion County (Indiana) Sheriffs Office
Dr. Ellen Scrivner, Executive Fellow, Police Foundation
Panel Four: Voices in the Community
Allie Bones, MSW, Chief Executive Officer, Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence
Renaldo Fowler, Staff Advocate, Arizona Center for Disability Law
Keeshan Harley, Member, Communities United for Police Reform
Andrea Ritchie, Senior Policy Counsel, Streetwise and Safe
Linda Sarsour, Director, Arab American Association of New York
Panel Five: Special Training on Building Trust
Lt. Sandra Brown (retired), Principal Trainer, Fair and Impartial Policing
Dr. Randolph Dupont, Professor and Clinical Psychologist, University of Memphis
David C. Friedman, Director of National Law Enforcement Initiatives, Anti-Defamation League
Lt. Bruce Lipman (retired), Procedural Justice Training
Dr. Ronal Serpas, Advisory Board Member, Cure Violence Chicago
Listening Session 6: Officer Safety & Wellness

Washington, DC, February 23, 2015
Panel One: Officer Wellness
Dr. Laurence Miller, Clinical Psychologist

David Orr, Sergeant, Norwalk (Connecticut) Police Department
Dr. Sandra Ramey, Professor, University of Iowa
Dr. John Violanti, Professor, State University of New York Buffalo
Yost Zakhary, Public Safety Director, City of Woodway, Texas
238
Panel Two: Officer Safety
Jane Castor, Chief, Tampa (Florida) Police Department

Jerry L. Demings, Sheriff, Orange County (Florida) Sheriffs Office
Dr. Alexander L. Eastman, Lieutenant and Deputy Medical Director, Dallas Police Department
Craig W. Floyd, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
Fund
Panel Three: Voices from the Field
Dianne Bernhard, Executive Director, Concerns of Police Survivors

Robert Bryant, Chief, Penobscot Nation
Chuck Canterbury, National President, Fraternal Order of Police
William J. Johnson, Executive Director, National Association of Police Organizations
Jonathan Thompson, Executive Director, National Sheriffs Association
Panel Four: Labor/Management Relations
Dr. Chuck Wexler, Executive Director, Police Executive Research Forum

Karen Freeman-Wilson, Mayor, Gary, Indiana
Mark Magaw, Chief, Prince Georges County (Maryland) Police Department
Jim Pasco, Executive Director, Fraternal Order of Police
Dustin Smith, President, Sacramento (California) Police Officers Association
Listening Session 7: Future of Community Policing

Washington, DC, February 24, 2015
Panel: Future of Community Policing
Dr. Phillip Goff, Professor, University of California, Los Angeles

Jim McDonnell, Sheriff, Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
Dr. Daniel Nagin, Professor, Carnegie Mellon University
Dr. Lawrence Sherman, Professor, University of Cambridge, U.K.
Jeremy Travis, President, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York
239
Appendix B. Individuals & Organizations That

Submitted Written Testimony
In addition to receiving testimony from those individuals that appeared as witnesses during public
listening sessions, the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing accepted written testimony from
any individual or organization to ensure that its information gathering efforts included as many people
and perspectives as possible. The task force thanks the individuals and organizations who submitted
written testimony for their time and expertise.
This list reflects organizational affiliation at the time of testimony submission and may not represent
submitters current positions.
Individuals
Eli Briggs, Director of Government Affairs,

National Association of County and City
Health Officials (NACCHO)
Cherie Brown, Executive Director, National
Coalition Building Institute
Steven Brown, Journalist / Public Relations
Consultant
Chris Calabrese, Senior Policy Director, Center
for Democracy and Technologywith Jake
Laperruque, Fellow on Privacy, Surveillance,
and Security
Melanie Campbell, President and CEO, National
Coalition on Black Civic Participation
Mo Canady, Executive Director, National
Association of School Resource Officers
(NASRO)
Hugh Carter Donahue, Adjunct Professor,
Department of History, Rowan University
Anthony Chapa, President, Hispanic American
Police Command Officers Association
Lorig Charkoudian, Executive Director,
Community Mediation Maryland
Ralph Clark, President and CEO, SST Inc.
Faye Coffield
The Hon. LaDoris Cordell, Office of the
Independent Police Auditor, San Jose,
California
Robert Abraham, Chair, Gang Resistance

Education & Training (GREAT) National Policy
Board
Phillip Agnew, Executive Director, Dream
Defenders
Kilolo Ajanaku, National Executive Director,
World Conference of Mayors Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. American Dream Initiative
Barbara Attard, Past President, National
Association for Civilian Oversight of Law
Enforcement
Paul Babeu, Vice President, Arizona Sheriffs
Association
Monifa Bandele, Communities United for Police
Reform
Dante Barry, Executive Director, Million Hoodies
Michael Bell, Lt. Colonel (retired), United States
Air Force
Michael Berkow, Chief, Savannah (Georgia)
Police Department
Greg Berman and Emily Gold LaGratta, Center
for Court Innovation
Angela Glover Blackwell, Founder and CEO,
PolicyLink
Mark Bowman, Assistant Professor of Justice
Studies, Methodist University
240
Jill Corson Lake, Director of Global Advising,

Parsons The New School for Design
David Couper, Chief of Police (retired),
Minneapolis Police Department
Madeline deLone, Executive Director, The
Innocence Projectwith Marvin Anderson,
Board Member
Jimmie Dotson, Police Chief (retired), Houston
Independent School District / GeoDD
GeoPolicing Team
Ronnie Dunn, Professor, Cleveland State
University
Lauren-Brooke Eisen and Nicole Fortier
Counsel, Justice Program, Brennan Center
for Justice at NYU School of Law
Christian Ellis, CEO, Alternative Ballistics
Jeffrey Fagan, Professor of Law, Columbia Law
School
Mai Fernandez, Executive Director, National
Center for Victims of Crime
Johnny Ford, Founder, Alabama Conference of
Black Mayors and Mayor, Tuskegee, Alabama
Lisa Foster, Director, Access to Justice Initiative,
U.S. Department of Justice
Neill Franklin, Executive Director, Law
Enforcement Against Prohibition
S. Gabrielle Frey, Interim Executive Director,
National Association of Community
Mediation
Lorie Fridell, Associate Professor of Criminology,
University of South Florida
Ethan Garcia, Youth Specialist, Identity Inc.
Michael Gennaco, Principal, OIR Group
Al Gerhardstein, Civil Rights Attorney
James Gierach, Executive Board Vice Chairman,
Law Enforcement Against Prohibition
Fred Ginyard, Organizing Director, Fabulous
Independent Educated Radical for
Community Empowerment (FIERCE)
Mark Gissiner, Past President, International
Association for Civilian Oversight of Law
Enforcement
Becca Gomby, SDR Academy
Rev. Aaron Graham, Lead Pastor, The District

Church
Fatima Graves, Vice President, National
Womens Law Centerwith Lara S.
Kaufmann, Senior Counsel and Director of
Education Policy for At-Risk Students
Virgil Green, Chairman, Future America National
Crime Solution Commission
Sheldon Greenberg, Professor, School of
Education, Division of Public Safety
Leadership, The Johns Hopkins University
Robert Haas, Police Commissioner, Cambridge
(Massachusetts) Police Department
W. Craig Hartley, Executive Director, CALEA
Steven Hawkins, Executive Director, Amnesty
International USA
Louis Hayes, The Virtus Group, Inc.
Wade Henderson, President and CEO, The
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human
Rightswith Nancy Zirkin, Executive Vice
President
Maulin Chris Herring, Trainer/Consultant, Public
Safety
Sandy Holman, Director, The Culture CO-OP
Zachary Horn and Kent Halverson, Aptima,
Inc.with Rebecca Damari and Aubrey
Logan-Terry, Georgetown University
Tanya Clay House, Director of Public Policy,
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law
Melanie Jeffers
Megan Johnston, Executive Director, Northern
Virginia Mediation Service
Nola Joyce, Deputy Commissioner, Philadelphia
Police Department
Keith Kauffman, Captain, Hawthorne (California)
Police Department
Gwendolyn Puryear Keita, Executive Director,
American Psychological Association, Public
Interest Directorate
Stanley Knee, Chief, Austin (Texas) Police
Department
Laura Kunard, Senior Research Scientist, CNA
Corporation
241
Chuck Noerenberg, President, National Alliance

for Drug Endangered Children
Newell Normand, Sheriff, Jefferson Parish
(Louisiana) Sherriffs Officesubmitted with
Adrian Garcia, Sheriff, Harris County (Texas)
Sheriffs Office; David Mahoney, Sheriff,
Dane County (Wisconsin) Sheriffs Office;
Anthony Normore, Ph.D., Criminal Justice
Commission for Credible Leadership
Development; and Mitch Javidi, Ph.D.,
International Academy of Public Safety
Gbadegesin Olubukola, St. Louis University
Patrice ONeill, CEO/Executive Producer, Not In
Our Town
Jim Palmer, Executive Director, Wisconsin
Professional Police Association
Julie Parker, Media Relations Division Director,
Prince Georges County (Maryland) Police
Department
George Patterson, Associate Professor, City
University of New York
David Perry, President, International Association
of Campus Law Enforcement Administrators
(IACLEA)
Megan Price, Director, Insight Conflict
Resolution Program, School for Conflict
Analysis and Resolution, George Mason
University
Sue Quinn, Past President, National Association
for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement
Tess Raser, Teacher, Brooklyn, New York
Darakshan Raja, Program Manager, Washington
Peace Center
Sir Desmond Rea and Robin Masefield, Northern
Ireland Policing Board
Nuno Rocha
Edwin Roessler, Jr., Chief, Fairfax County
(Virginia) Police Department
Jeffrey Rojek, University of Texas at El Paso
Iris Roley, Black United Front of Cincinnati
Julia Ryan, Community Safety Initiative Director,
LISC
Robert Samuels, Former Acting Director, DOJ
Executive Office for Weed and Seed
David Kurz, Chief, Durham (New Hampshire)

Police Department
Deborah Lauter, Director of Civil Rights, AntiDefamation Leaguewith Michael
Lieberman, Washington Counsel
Cynthia Lum and Christopher Koper, George
Mason University, Center for Evidence-Based
Crime Policy
Bruce Lumpkins
Edward Maguire, Professor of Justice, Law &
Criminology, American University
Baron Marquis
Travis Martinez, Lieutenant, Redlands
(California) Police Department
Mike Masterson, Chief, Boise (Idaho) Police
Department
Andrew Mazzara, Executive Director,
International Law Enforcement Forumwith
Colin Burrows QMP (U.K.), ILEF Advisory
Board Chair
R. Paul McCauley, Past President, Academy of
Criminal Justice Sciences
V. Michael McKenzie
Harvey McMurray, Chair, Department of
Criminal Justice, North Carolina Central
University
Pamela Meanes, President, National Bar
Association
Doug Mellis, President, Massachusetts Chiefs of
Police Associationwith Brian Kyes,
President, Massachusetts Major City Chiefs
Association
Seth Miller, President, The Innocence Network
Charlene Moe, Program Coordinator, Center for
Public Safety and Justice, Institute of
Government and Public Affairs, University of
Illinois
Marc Morial, CEO, National Urban League
Richard Myers, Chief, Newport News (Virginia)
Police Department
Toye Nash, Sergeant, Phoenix Police Department
Rebecca Neri and Anthony Berryman UCLA
Improvement by Design Research Group
242
Kami Chavis Simmons, Professor of Law and

Director of the Criminal Justice Program,
Wake Forest University School of Law
Russell Skiba, Professor and Director, Equity
Project at Indiana University
Ronald Sloan, President, Association of State
Criminal Investigative Agencies
Samuel Somers, Jr., Chief, Sacramento Police
Department
Don Tijerina, President, Hispanic American
Police Command Officers Association
Nicholas Turner, President and Director, Vera
Institute of Justice
Organizations
American Friends Service Committee

American Society of Criminology, Division of
Policing, Ad Hoc Committee to the
Presidents Task Force on 21st Century
Policing (Anthony Braga, Rod K. Brunson,
Gary Cordner, Lorie Fridell, Matthew
Hickman, Cynthia Lum, Stephen D.
Mastrofski, Jack McDevitt, Dennis P.
Rosenbaum, Wesley G. Skogan, and William
Terrill)
Center for Popular Democracy
Civil Rights Coalition on Police Reform
CNA Corporation (George Fachner, Michael D.
White, James R. Coldren, Jr., and James K.
Stewart)
Color of Change
Dignity in Schools Campaign
Ethics Bureau at Yale (Lawrence Fox, Supervising
Lawyer)
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America
International Association for Human Values
(IAHV) / Works of Wonder International
John F. Kennedy School of Government
James Unnever, Professor of Criminology,

University of South Florida
Javier Valdes, Executive Director, Make the Road
New York
Kim Vansell, Director, National Center for
Campus Public Safety
Nina Vinik, Program Director, Gun Violence
Prevention, The Joyce Foundation
Vincent Warren, Executive Director, Center for
Constitutional Rights
Barbara Weinstein, Associate Director, Religious
Action Center of Reform Judaism
Jenny Yang, Chair, U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission
Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC)

Major County Sheriffs Association
National Action Network (NAN)
National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law
Enforcement
National Association of Counties
National Association of Police Organizations
National Association of Women Law
Enforcement Executives
National Collaborative for Health Equity, Dellums
Commission
National Fraternal Order of Police
National Organization of Black Law Enforcement
Executives (NOBLE)
National Sheriffs Association
PICO National Network
Public Science Project
Santa Fe College and the Santa Fe Police
Department, Gainesville, Florida
Streetwise & Safe
Team Kids
Think Tank Johnny
243
Appendix C. Executive Order 13684 of December

18, 2014
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of
America, and in order to identify the best means to provide an effective partnership between law
enforcement and local communities that reduces crime and increases trust, it is hereby ordered as
follows:
Section 1. Establishment. There is established a Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing (Task
Force).
Sec. 2. Membership. (a) The Task Force shall be composed of not more than eleven members
appointed by the President. The members shall include distinguished individuals with relevant
experience or subject-matter expertise in law enforcement, civil rights, and civil liberties.
(b) The President shall designate two members of the Task Force to serve as Co-Chairs.
Sec. 3. Mission. (a) The Task Force shall, consistent with applicable law, identify best practices and
otherwisemake recommendations to the President on how policing practices can promote effective
crime reduction while building public trust.
(b) The Task Force shall be solely advisory and shall submit a report to the President by March 2, 2015.
Sec. 4. Administration. (a) The Task Force shall hold public meetings and engage with Federal, State,
tribal, and local officials, technical advisors, and nongovernmental organizations, among others, as
necessary to carry out its mission.
(b) The Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services shall serve as Executive Director
of the Task Force and shall, as directed by the Co-Chairs, convene regular meetings of the Task Force
and supervise its work.
(c) In carrying out its mission, the Task Force shall be informed by, and shall strive to avoid duplicating,
the efforts of other governmental entities.
(d) The Department of Justice shall provide administrative services, funds, facilities, staff, equipment,
and other support services as may be necessary for the Task Force to carry out its mission to the
extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(e) Members of the Task Force shall serve without any additional compensation for their work on the
Task Force, but shall be allowed travel expenses, including per diem, to the extent permitted by law for
persons serving intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C.5701-5707).
Sec. 5. Termination. The Task Force shall terminate 30 days after the President requests a final report
from the Task Force.
244
Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to a department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary,
administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural,
enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or
entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
(c) Insofar as the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App.) (the Act) may apply to
the Task Force, any functions of the President under the Act, except for those in section 6 of the Act,
shall be performed by the Attorney General.
THE WHITE HOUSE,
December 18, 2014.
245
Appendix D. Task Force Members Biographies

Co-Chairs
Charles Ramsey
Charles Ramsey is the commissioner of the Philadelphia Police Department (PPD), a position he has
held since 2008. Since 2010, he has served as president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association and the
Police Executive Research Forum. Commissioner Ramsey began his law enforcement career in 1968 as
a cadet with the Chicago Police Department (CPD). Over the next 30 years, he held various positions
with the CPD, including commander of the Narcotics Division, deputy chief of the Patrol Division, and
deputy superintendent, a role he held from 1994 to 1998. In 1998, he was named chief of the
Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia (MPDC), where he served until early 2007.
In 2007, Commissioner Ramsey served on the Independent Commission on Security Forces of Iraq,
leading a review of the Iraqi Police Force. In addition to his current role at the PPD, he also serves as a
member of the Homeland Security Advisory Council. Commissioner Ramsey received a BS and MS from
Lewis University.
Laurie Robinson
Laurie Robinson is the Clarence J. Robinson Professor of Criminology, Law and Society at George
Mason University, a position she has held since 2012. She served as assistant attorney general for the
Office of Justice Programs (OJP) in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) from 2009 to 2012. Prior to
that, Ms. Robinson served as the Principal deputy assistant attorney general for OJP and acting
assistant attorney general for OJP. Previously, she was a member of the Obama-Biden Transition
Team. From 2003 to 2009, Ms. Robinson was the director of the Master of Science Program in
Criminology at the University of Pennsylvania. From 1993 to 2000, she served her first term as
assistant attorney general for OJP. Before joining DOJ, Ms. Robinson spent over 20 years with the
American Bar Association, serving as assistant staff director of the Criminal Justice Section from 1972
to 1979, director of the Criminal Justice Section from 1979 to 1993, and director of the Professional
Services Division from 1986 to 1993. She is a senior fellow at the George Mason University Center for
Evidence-Based Crime Policy and serves as co-chair of the Research Advisory Committee for the
International Association of Chiefs of Police. She also serves on the board of trustees of the Vera
Institute of Justice. Ms. Robinson received a BA from Brown University.
Members
Cedric L. Alexander
Cedric L. Alexander is the deputy chief operating officer for Public Safety in DeKalb County, Georgia, a
position he has held since late 2013. Dr. Alexander is also the national president of the National
Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives. In 2013, he served as chief of police for the DeKalb
County Police Department. Prior to this, Dr. Alexander served as federal security director for the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport from 2007 to
2013. And from 2006 to 2007, he was deputy commissioner of the New York State Division of Criminal
246
Justice Services. From 2005 to 2006, Dr. Alexander was chief of the Rochester (New York) Police
Department (RPD), where he previously served as deputy chief of police from 2002 to 2005. Before
joining RPD, Dr. Alexander was a faculty member in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of
Rochester Medical Center from 1998 to 2002. He began his career as a deputy sheriff in Florida from
1977 to 1981, before joining the Miami-Dade Police Department, where he was as an officer and
detective from 1981 to 1992. He received a BA and MS from St. Thomas University in Miami, Florida,
and a PsyD from Wright State University.
Jose Lopez
Jose Lopez is currently the lead organizer at Make the Road New York (MRNY), a Brooklyn-based nonprofit community organization focused on civil rights, education reform, and combating poverty. He
became lead organizer of MRNY in 2013. Mr. Lopez began his career in 2000 as youth organizer with
Make the Road by Walking, which later merged with the Latin American Integration Center to form
MRNY in 2007. He continued to serve as youth organizer with MRNY until 2009 when he became
senior organizer. Since 2011, Mr. Lopez has represented MRNY on the steering committee of
Communities United for Police Reform, a New York City organization advocating for law enforcement
reform. From 2001 to 2004, he was an active contributor to the Radio Rookies Project, an initiative of
New York Public Radio. He received a BA from Hofstra University.
Tracey L. Meares
Tracey Meares is the Walton Hale Hamilton Professor of Law at Yale Law School, a position she has
held since 2007. From 2009 to 2011, she also served as deputy dean of Yale Law School. Before joining
the faculty at Yale, she served as a professor at the University of Chicago Law School from 1995 to
2007. She has served on the Committee on Law and Justice, a National Research Council Standing
Committee of the National Academy of Sciences. She was appointed by Attorney General Eric Holder
to serve on the inaugural U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs Science Advisory
Board. She also currently serves on the board of directors of the Joyce Foundation. Ms. Meares began
her legal career as a law clerk for Judge Harlington Wood, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Seventh Circuit. She later served as a trial attorney in the Antitrust Division at the U.S. Department of
Justice. Ms. Meares received a BS from the University of Illinois and a JD from the University of Chicago
Law School.
Brittany N. Packnett
Brittany Packnett is currently executive director of Teach For America in St. Louis, Missouri, a position
she has held since 2012. From 2010 to 2012, she was a director on the Government Affairs Team at
Teach For America. Ms. Packnett was a legislative assistant for the U.S. House of Representatives from
2009 to 2010. From 2007 to 2009, she was a third grade teacher in Southeast Washington, D.C., as a
member of the Teach For America Corps. Ms. Packnett has volunteered as executive director of Dream
Girls DMV, a mentoring program for young girls, and was the founding co-chair of The Collective-DC, a
regional organization for Teach For America alumni of color. She currently serves on the board of New
City School, the COCA (Center of Creative Arts) Associate Board, the Urban League of Metro St. Louis
Education Committee, and the John Burroughs School Board Diversity Committee. Ms. Packnett
received a BA from Washington University in St. Louis and an MA from American University.
247
Susan Lee Rahr

Susan Rahr is executive director of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission, a
position she has held since 2012. From 2005 to 2012, she served as the first female sheriff in King
County, Washington. Ms. Rahr spent over 30 years as a law enforcement officer, beginning as a patrol
officer and undercover narcotics officer. While serving with the King County Sheriffs Office, she held
various positions including serving as the commander of the Internal Investigations and Gang Units;
commander of the Special Investigations Section; and police chief of Shoreline, Washington. Ms. Rahr
received a BA from Washington State University. She has served as a member of the National Institute
of Justice and Harvard Kennedy School Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety; president of
the Washington State Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, and an executive board member of the
National Sheriffs Association.
Constance Rice
Constance Rice is a civil rights attorney and co-director of the Advancement Project, an organization
she co-founded in 1999. In 2003, Ms. Rice was selected to lead the Blue Ribbon Rampart Review Panel,
which investigated the largest police corruption scandal in Los Angeles Police Department history. In
1991, Ms. Rice joined the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and she became co-director of
the Los Angeles office in 1996. She was previously an associate at Morrison & Foerster and began her
legal career as a law clerk to Judge Damon J. Keith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Ms.
Rice received a BA from Harvard College and a JD from the New York University School of Law.
Sean Michael Smoot
Sean Smoot is currently director and chief counsel for the Police Benevolent & Protective Association
of Illinois (PB&PA) and the Police Benevolent Labor Committee (PBLC), positions he has held since
2000. He began his career with PB&PA and PBLC as a staff attorney in 1995, before becoming chief
counsel of both organizations in 1997. Since 2001, Mr. Smoot has served as the treasurer of the
National Association of Police Organizations and has served on the Advisory Committee for the
National Law Enforcement Officers Rights Center since 1996. From 2008 to 2009, he was a policy
advisor to the Obama-Biden Transition Project on public safety and state and local police issues and
was a member of the National Institute of Justice and Harvard Kennedy School of Government
Executive Session on Policing and Public Safety from 2008 to 2011. Mr. Smoot served as police
commissioner of Leland Grove, Illinois, from 1998 to 2008. He received a BS from Illinois State
University and a JD from Southern Illinois University School of Law.
Bryan Stevenson
Bryan Stevenson is founder and executive director of the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI), a private,
nonprofit organization headquartered in Montgomery, Alabama. In addition to directing the EJI since
1989, he is a clinical professor at New York University School of Law. He previously has served as a
visiting professor of law at the University of Michigan School of Law. Mr. Stevenson has received the
American Bar Associations Wisdom Award for public service, the ACLUs National Medal of Liberty,
and the MacArthur Foundation Genius Award Prize. Mr. Stevenson received a BA from Eastern
College (now Eastern University), a JD from Harvard Law School, and an MPP from the John F. Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard University.
248
Roberto Villaseor
Roberto Villaseor is chief of police for the Tucson (Arizona) Police Department (TPD), a position he
has held since 2009. He joined the TPD in 1980 and has served as officer, sergeant, lieutenant, and
captain and as assistant chief from 2000 to 2009. Chief Villaseor was named Officer of the Year for
the TPD in 1996 and has been awarded the TPD Medal of Merit three times. He also received the TPD
Medal of Distinguished Service. Chief Villaseor is the incoming president of the Arizona Association of
Chiefs of Police and a board member of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). He received a BS
from Park University and a MEd from Northern Arizona University.
249
Appendix E. Recommendations and Actions

0.1 OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATION: The President should support and provide funding for the
creation of a National Crime and Justice Task Force to review and evaluate all components of the
criminal justice system for the purpose of making recommendations to the country on comprehensive
criminal justice reform.
0.2 OVERARCHING RECOMMENDATION: The President should promote programs that take a
comprehensive and inclusive look at community based initiatives that address the core issues of
poverty, education, health, and safety.
1.1 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement culture should embrace a guardian mindset to build public
trust and legitimacy. Toward that end, police and sheriffs departments should adopt procedural
justice as the guiding principle for internal and external policies and practices to guide their
interactions with the citizens they serve.
1.2 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should acknowledge the role of policing in past and
present injustice and discrimination and how it is a hurdle to the promotion of community trust.
1.2.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should develop and disseminate case
studies that provide examples where past injustices were publically acknowledged by law
enforcement agencies in a manner to help build community trust.
1.3 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should establish a culture of transparency and
accountability in order to build public trust and legitimacy. This will help ensure decision making is
understood and in accord with stated policy.
1.3.1 ACTION ITEM: To embrace a culture of transparency, law enforcement agencies should
make all department policies available for public review and regularly post on the
departments website information about stops, summonses, arrests, reported crime, and
other law enforcement data aggregated by demographics.
1.3.2 ACTION ITEM: When serious incidents occur, including those involving alleged police
misconduct, agencies should communicate with citizens and the media swiftly, openly, and
neutrally, respecting areas where the law requires confidentiality.
1.4 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should promote legitimacy internally within the
organization by applying the principles of procedural justice.
1.4.1 ACTION ITEM: In order to achieve internal legitimacy, law enforcement agencies should
involve employees in the process of developing policies and procedures.
1.4.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agency leadership should examine opportunities to
incorporate procedural justice into the internal discipline process, placing additional
importance on values adherence rather than adherence to rules. Union leadership should be
partners in this process.
250
1.5 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should proactively promote public trust by initiating
positive nonenforcement activities to engage communities that typically have high rates of
investigative and enforcement involvement with government agencies.
1.5.1 ACTION ITEM: In order to achieve external legitimacy, law enforcement agencies should
involve the community in the process of developing and evaluating policies and procedures.
1.5.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should institute residency incentive programs
such as Resident Officer Programs.
1.5.3 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should create opportunities in schools and
communities for positive, nonenforcement interactions with police. Agencies should also
publicize the beneficial outcomes and images of positive, trust-building partnerships and
initiatives.
1.5.4 ACTION ITEM: Use of physical control equipment and techniques against vulnerable
populationsincluding children, elderly persons, pregnant women, people with physical and
mental disabilities, limited English proficiency, and otherscan undermine public trust and
should be used as a last resort. Law enforcement agencies should carefully consider and
review their policies towards these populations and adopt policies if none are in place.
1.6 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should consider the potential damage to public trust
when implementing crime fighting strategies.
1.6.1 ACTION ITEM: Research conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of crime fighting
strategies should specifically look at the potential for collateral damage of any given strategy
on community trust and legitimacy.
1.7 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should track the level of trust in police by their
communities just as they measure changes in crime. Annual community surveys, ideally standardized
across jurisdictions and with accepted sampling protocols, can measure how policing in that
community affects public trust.
1.7.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should develop survey tools and instructions for
use of such a model to prevent local departments from incurring the expense and to allow for
consistency across jurisdictions.
1.8 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should strive to create a workforce that contains a
broad range of diversity including race, gender, language, life experience, and cultural background to
improve understanding and effectiveness in dealing with all communities.
1.8.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should create a Law Enforcement Diversity
Initiative designed to help communities diversify law enforcement departments to reflect the
demographics of the community.
1.8.2 ACTION ITEM: The department overseeing this initiative should help localities learn best
practices for recruitment, training, and outreach to improve the diversity as well as the
cultural and linguistic responsiveness of law enforcement agencies.
251
1.8.3 ACTION ITEM: Successful law enforcement agencies should be highlighted and celebrated
and those with less diversity should be offered technical assistance to facilitate change.
1.8.4 ACTION ITEM: Discretionary federal funding for law enforcement programs could be
influenced by that departments efforts to improve their diversity and cultural and linguistic
responsiveness.
1.8.5 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should be encouraged to explore more flexible
staffing models.
1.9 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should build relationships based on trust with
immigrant communities. This is central to overall public safety.
1.9.1 ACTION ITEM: Decouple federal immigration enforcement from routine local policing for
civil enforcement and nonserious crime.
1.9.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should ensure reasonable and equitable
language access for all persons who have encounters with police or who enter the criminal
justice system.
1.9.3 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should remove civil immigration
information from the FBIs National Crime Information Center database.
2.1 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should collaborate with community members to
develop policies and strategies in communities and neighborhoods disproportionately affected by
crime for deploying resources that aim to reduce crime by improving relationships, greater community
engagement, and cooperation.
2.1.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should incentivize this collaboration through a
variety of programs that focus on public health, education, mental health, and other programs
not traditionally part of the criminal justice system.
2.2 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should have comprehensive policies on the use of
force that include training, investigations, prosecutions, data collection, and information sharing.
These policies must be clear, concise, and openly available for public inspection.
2.2.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agency policies for training on use of force should
emphasize de-escalation and alternatives to arrest or summons in situations where
appropriate.
2.2.2 ACTION ITEM: These policies should also mandate external and independent criminal
investigations in cases of police use of force resulting in death, officer-involved shootings
resulting in injury or death, or in-custody deaths.
2.2.3 ACTION ITEM: The task force encourages policies that mandate the use of external and
independent prosecutors in cases of police use of force resulting in death, officer-involved
shootings resulting in injury or death, or in-custody deaths.
252
2.2.4 ACTION ITEM: Policies on use of force should also require agencies to collect, maintain,
and report data to the Federal Government on all officer-involved shootings, whether fatal or
nonfatal, as well as any in-custody death.
2.2.5 ACTION ITEM: Policies on use of force should clearly state what types of information will
be released, when, and in what situation, to maintain transparency.
2.2.6 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should establish a Serious Incident Review
Board comprising sworn staff and community members to review cases involving officer
involved shootings and other serious incidents that have the potential to damage community
trust or confidence in the agency. The purpose of this board should be to identify any
administrative, supervisory, training, tactical, or policy issues that need to be addressed.
2.3 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies are encouraged to implement nonpunitive peer
review of critical incidents separate from criminal and administrative investigations.
2.4 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies are encouraged to adopt identification procedures
that implement scientifically supported practices that eliminate or minimize presenter bias or
influence.
2.5 RECOMMENDATION: All federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies should report and
make available to the public census data regarding the composition of their departments including
race, gender, age, and other relevant demographic data.
2.5.1 ACTION ITEM: The Bureau of Justice Statistics should add additional demographic
questions to the Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics (LEMAS) survey
in order to meet the intent of this recommendation.
2.6 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should be encouraged to collect, maintain, and
analyze demographic data on all detentions (stops, frisks, searches, summons, and arrests). This data
should be disaggregated by school and non-school contacts.
2.6.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government could further incentivize universities and other
organizations to partner with police departments to collect data and develop knowledge about
analysis and benchmarks as well as to develop tools and templates that help departments
manage data collection and analysis.
2.7 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should create policies and procedures for policing
mass demonstrations that employ a continuum of managed tactical resources that are designed to
minimize the appearance of a military operation and avoid using provocative tactics and equipment
that undermine civilian trust.
2.7.1. ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agency policies should address procedures for
implementing a layered response to mass demonstrations that prioritize de-escalation and a
guardian mindset.
253
2.7.2 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should create a mechanism for investigating
complaints and issuing sanctions regarding the inappropriate use of equipment and tactics
during mass demonstrations.
2.8 RECOMMENDATION: Some form of civilian oversight of law enforcement is important in order to
strengthen trust with the community. Every community should define the appropriate form and
structure of civilian oversight to meet the needs of that community.
2.8.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice, through its research arm, the National
Institute of Justice (NIJ), should expand its research agenda to include civilian oversight.
2.8.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justices Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services (COPS Office) should provide technical assistance and collect best practices from
existing civilian oversight efforts and be prepared to help cities create this structure,
potentially with some matching grants and funding.
2.9 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies and municipalities should refrain from practices
requiring officers to issue a predetermined number of tickets, citations, arrests, or summonses, or to
initiate investigative contacts with citizens for reasons not directly related to improving public safety,
such as generating revenue.
2.10 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement officers should be required to seek consent before a search
and explain that a person has the right to refuse consent when there is no warrant or probable cause.
Furthermore, officers should ideally obtain written acknowledgement that they have sought consent
to a search in these circumstances.
2.12 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should adopt and enforce policies prohibiting
profiling and discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, age, gender, gender
identity/expression, sexual orientation, immigration status, disability, housing status, occupation,
and/or language fluency.
2.12.1 ACTION ITEM: The Bureau of Justice Statistics should add questions concerning sexual
enforcement officers to the Police Public Contact Survey.
2.12.2 ACTION ITEM: The Centers for Disease Control should add questions concerning sexual
enforcement officers to the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey.
2.12.3 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should promote and disseminate guidance
to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies on documenting, preventing, and
addressing sexual harassment and misconduct by local law enforcement agents, consistent
with the recommendations of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.
254
Policing Services and Office of Justice Programs, should provide technical assistance and incentive
funding to jurisdictions with small police agencies that take steps towards shared services, regional
training, and consolidation.
Policing Services, should partner with the International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement
Standards and Training (IADLEST) to expand its National Decertification Index to serve as the National
Register of Decertified Officers with the goal of covering all agencies within the United States and its
territories.
2.15 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should adopt policies requiring officers to
provide their names to individuals they have stopped, along with the reason for the stop, the reason
for a search if one is conducted, and a card with information on how to reach the civilian complaint
review board.
3.1 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice, in consultation with the law enforcement field,
should broaden the efforts of the National Institute of Justice to establish national standards for the
research and development of new technology. These standards should also address compatibility and
interoperability needs both within law enforcement agencies and across agencies and jurisdictions and
maintain civil and human rights protections.
3.1.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should support the development and delivery of
training to help law enforcement agencies learn, acquire, and implement technology tools and
tactics that are consistent with the best practices of 21st century policing.
3.1.2 ACTION ITEM: As part of national standards, the issue of technologys impact on privacy
concerns should be addressed in accordance with protections provided by constitutional law.
3.1.3 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should deploy smart technology that is designed
to prevent the tampering with or manipulating of evidence in violation of policy.
3.2 RECOMMENDATION: The implementation of appropriate technology by law enforcement agencies
should be designed considering local needs and aligned with national standards.
3.2.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should encourage public engagement and
collaboration, including the use of community advisory bodies, when developing a policy for
the use of a new technology.
3.2.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should include an evaluation or assessment
process to gauge the effectiveness of any new technology, soliciting input from all levels of the
agency, from line officer to leadership, as well as assessment from members of the
community.
3.2.3. ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should adopt the use of new technologies that
will help them better serve people with special needs or disabilities.
255
3.3 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should develop best practices that can be
adopted by state legislative bodies to govern the acquisition, use, retention, and dissemination of
auditory, visual, and biometric data by law enforcement.
3.3.1 ACTION ITEM: As part of the process for developing best practices, the U.S. Department of
Justice should consult with civil rights and civil liberties organizations, as well as law
enforcement research groups and other experts, concerning the constitutional issues that can
arise as a result of the use of new technologies.
3.3.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should create toolkits for the most effective
and constitutional use of multiple forms of innovative technology that will provide state, local,
and tribal law enforcement agencies with a one-stop clearinghouse of information and
resources.
3.3.3. ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should review and consider the Bureau of
Justice Assistances (BJA) Body Worn Camera Toolkit to assist in implementing BWCs.
3.4 RECOMMENDATION: Federal, state, local, and tribal legislative bodies should be encouraged to
update public record laws.
3.5 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should adopt model policies and best practices for
technology-based community engagement that increases community trust and access.
3.6 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should support the development of new less than
lethal technology to help control combative suspects.
3.6.1 ACTION ITEM: Relevant federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Defense and
Justice, should expand their efforts to study the development and use of new less than lethal
technologies and evaluate their impact on public safety, reducing lethal violence against
citizens, Constitutionality, and officer safety.
3.7 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should make the development and building of
segregated radio spectrum and increased bandwidth by FirstNet for exclusive use by local, state, tribal,
and federal public safety agencies a top priority.
4.1 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should develop and adopt policies and strategies
that reinforce the importance of community engagement in managing public safety.
4.1.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should consider adopting preferences for
seeking least harm resolutions, such as diversion programs or warnings and citations in lieu
of arrest for minor infractions.
4.2 RECOMMENDATION: Community policing should be infused throughout the culture and
organizational structure of law enforcement agencies.
256
4.2.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should evaluate officers on their efforts to
engage members of the community and the partnerships they build. Making this part of the
performance evaluation process places an increased value on developing partnerships.
4.2.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should evaluate their patrol deployment
practices to allow sufficient time for patrol officers to participate in problem solving and
community engagement activities.
4.2.3 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice and other public and private entities should
support research into the factors that have led to dramatic successes in crime reduction in
some communities through the infusion of non-discriminatory policing and to determine
replicable factors that could be used to guide law enforcement agencies in other communities.
4.3 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should engage in multidisciplinary, community team
approaches for planning, implementing, and responding to crisis situations with complex causal
factors.
4.3.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should collaborate with others to develop
and disseminate baseline models of this crisis intervention team approach that can be adapted
to local contexts.
4.3.3 ACTION ITEM: Communities should look to involve peer support counselors as part of
multidisciplinary teams when appropriate. Persons who have experienced the same trauma
can provide both insight to the first responders and immediate support to individuals in crisis.
4.3.4 ACTION ITEM: Communities should be encouraged to evaluate the efficacy of these crisis
intervention team approaches and hold agency leaders accountable for outcomes.
4.4 RECOMMENDATION: Communities should support a culture and practice of policing that reflects the
values of protection and promotion of the dignity of all, especially the most vulnerable.
4.4.1 ACTION ITEM: Because offensive or harsh language can escalate a minor situation, law
enforcement agencies should underscore the importance of language used and adopt policies
directing officers to speak to individuals with respect.
4.4.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should develop programs that create
opportunities for patrol officers to regularly interact with neighborhood residents, faith
leaders, and business leaders.
4.5 RECOMMENDATION: Community policing emphasizes working with neighborhood residents to coproduce public safety. Law enforcement agencies should work with community residents to identify
problems and collaborate on implementing solutions that produce meaningful results for the
community.
4.5.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should schedule regular forums and meetings
where all community members can interact with police and help influence programs and
policy.
257
4.5.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should engage youth and communities in joint
training with law enforcement, citizen academies, ride-alongs, problem solving teams,
community action teams, and quality of life teams.
4.5.3. ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should establish formal community/citizen
advisory committees to assist in developing crime prevention strategies and agency policies as
well as provide input on policing issues.
4.5.4 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should adopt community policing strategies that
support and work in concert with economic development efforts within communities.
4.6 RECOMMENDATION: Communities should adopt policies and programs that address the needs of
children and youth most at risk for crime or violence and reduce aggressive law enforcement tactics
that stigmatize youth and marginalize their participation in schools and communities.
4.6.1 ACTION ITEM: Education and criminal justice agencies at all levels of government should
work together to reform policies and procedures that push children into the juvenile justice
system.
4.6.2 ACTION ITEM: In order to keep youth in school and to keep them from criminal and
violent behavior, law enforcement agencies should work with schools to encourage the
creation of alternatives to student suspensions and expulsion through restorative justice,
diversion, counseling, and family interventions.
4.6.3 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to encourage the use
of alternative strategies that involve youth in decision making, such as restorative justice,
youth courts, and peer interventions.
4.6.4 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to adopt an
instructional approach to discipline that uses interventions or disciplinary consequences to
help students develop new behavior skills and positive strategies to avoid conflict, redirect
energy, and refocus on learning.
4.6.5 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to develop and
monitor school discipline policies with input and collaboration from school personnel,
students, families, and community members. These policies should prohibit the use of corporal
punishment and electronic control devices.
4.6.6 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with schools to create a continuum
of developmentally appropriate and proportional consequences for addressing ongoing and
escalating student misbehavior after all appropriate interventions have been attempted.
4.6.7 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should work with communities to play a role in
programs and procedures to reintegrate juveniles back into their communities as they leave
the juvenile justice system.
258
4.6.8 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies and schools should establish memoranda of
agreement for the placement of School Resource Officers that limit police involvement in
student discipline.
4.6.9 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should assess and evaluate zero tolerance
strategies and examine the role of reasonable discretion when dealing with adolescents in
consideration of their stages of maturation or development.
4.7 RECOMMENDATION: Communities need to affirm and recognize the voices of youth in community
decision making, facilitate youth-led research and problem solving, and develop and fund youth
leadership training and life skills through positive youth/police collaboration and interactions.
4.7.1 ACTION ITEM: Communities and law enforcement agencies should restore and build trust
between youth and police by creating programs and projects for positive, consistent, and
persistent interaction between youth and police.
4.7.2 ACTION ITEM: Communities should develop community- and school-based evidencebased programs that mitigate punitive and authoritarian solutions to teen problems.
5.1 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should support the development of partnerships with
training facilities across the country to promote consistent standards for high quality training and
establish training innovation hubs.
5.1.1 ACTION ITEM: The training innovation hubs should develop replicable model programs
that use adult-based learning and scenario based training in a training environment modeled
less like boot camp. Through these programs the hubs would influence nationwide curricula,
as well as instructional methodology.
5.1.2 ACTION ITEM: The training innovation hubs should establish partnerships with academic
institutions to develop rigorous training practices, evaluation, and the development of
curricula based on evidence-based practices.
5.1.3 ACTION ITEM: The Department of Justice should build a stronger relationship with the
International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement (IADLEST) in order to leverage their
network with state boards and commissions of Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST).
5.2 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should engage community members in the training
process.
5.2.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should conduct research to develop and
disseminate a toolkit on how law enforcement agencies and training programs can integrate
community members into this training process.
259
5.3 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should provide leadership training to all personnel
throughout their careers.
5.3.1 ACTION ITEM: Recognizing that strong, capable leadership is required to create cultural
transformation, the U.S. Department of Justice should invest in developing learning goals and
model curricula/training for each level of leadership.
5.3.2 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should encourage and support partnerships
between law enforcement and academic institutions to support a culture that values ongoing
education and the integration of current research into the development of training, policies,
and practices.
5.3.3 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should support and encourage crossdiscipline leadership training.
5.4 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should develop, in partnership with institutions
of higher education, a national postgraduate institute of policing for senior executives with a
standardized curriculum preparing them to lead agencies in the 21st century.
5.5 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should instruct the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to modify the curriculum of the National Academy at Quantico to include prominent
coverage of the topical areas addressed in this report. In addition, the COPS Office and the Office of
Justice Programs should work with law enforcement professional organizations to encourage
modification of their curricula in a similar fashion.
5.6 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should make Crisis Intervention Training (CIT) a part of both basic recruit
and in-service officer training.
5.6.1 ACTION ITEM: Because of the importance of this issue, Congress should appropriate funds
to help support law enforcement crisis intervention training.
5.7 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should ensure that basic officer training includes lessons to improve
social interaction as well as tactical skills.
5.8 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should ensure that basic recruit and in-service officer training include
curriculum on the disease of addiction.
5.9 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should ensure both basic recruit and in-service training incorporates
content around recognizing and confronting implicit bias and cultural responsiveness.
5.9.1 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should implement ongoing, top down training
for all officers in cultural diversity and related topics that can build trust and legitimacy in
diverse communities. This should be accomplished with the assistance of advocacy groups that
represent the viewpoints of communities that have traditionally had adversarial relationships
with law enforcement.
Interim Report of the Presidents Task Force on 21st Century Policing

260
99
5.9.2 ACTION ITEM: Law enforcement agencies should implement training for officers that
covers policies for interactions with the LGBTQ population, including issues such as
determining gender identity for arrest placement, the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian
communities, and immigrant or non-English speaking groups, as well as reinforcing policies for
the prevention of sexual misconduct and harassment.
5.10 RECOMMENDATION: POSTs should require both basic recruit and in-service training on policing in a
democratic society.
5.11 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government, as well as state and local agencies, should
encourage and incentivize higher education for law enforcement officers.
5.11.1 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should create a loan repayment and forgiveness
incentive program specifically for policing.
5.12 RECOMMENDATION: The Federal Government should support research into the development of
technology that enhances scenario based training, social interaction skills, and enables the
dissemination of interactive distance learning for law enforcement.
5.13 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should support the development and
implementation of improved Field Training Officer programs.
5.13.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should support the development of broad
Field Training Program standards and training strategies that address changing police culture
and organizational procedural justice issues that agencies can adopt and customize to local
needs.
5.13.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should provide funding to incentivize
agencies to update their Field Training Programs in accordance with the new standards.
6.1 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should enhance and further promote its multifaceted officer safety and wellness initiative.
6.1.1 ACTION ITEM: Congress should establish and fund a national Blue Alert warning system.
6.1.2 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice, in partnership with the U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services, should establish a task force to study mental health issues unique
to officers and recommend tailored treatments.
6.1.3 ACTION ITEM: The Federal Government should support the continuing research into the
efficacy of an annual mental health check for officers, as well as fitness, resilience, and
nutrition.
6.1.4. ACTION ITEM: Pension plans should recognize fitness for duty examinations as definitive
evidence of valid duty or non-duty related disability.
261
6.1.5 ACTION ITEM: Public Safety Officer Benefits (PSOB) should be provided to survivors of
officers killed while working, regardless of whether the officer used safety equipment (seatbelt
or anti-ballistic vest) or if officer death was the result of suicide attributed to a current
diagnosis of duty-related mental illness, including but not limited to post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD).
6.2 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should promote safety and wellness at every level of
the organization.
6.2.1 ACTION ITEM: Though the Federal Government can support many of the programs and
best practices identified by the U.S. Department of Justice initiative described in
recommendation 6.1, the ultimate responsibility lies with each agency.
6.3 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should encourage and assist departments in the
implementation of scientifically supported shift lengths by law enforcement.
6.3.1 ACTION ITEM: The U.S. Department of Justice should fund additional research into the
efficacy of limiting the total number of hours an officer should work within a 2448 hour
period, including special findings on the maximum number of hours an officer should work in a
high risk or high stress environment (e.g., public demonstrations or emergency situations).
6.4 RECOMMENDATION: Every law enforcement officer should be provided with individual tactical first
aid kits and training as well as anti-ballistic vests.
6.4.1 ACTION ITEM: Congress should authorize funding for the distribution of law enforcement
individual tactical first-aid kits.
6.4.2 ACTION ITEM: Congress should reauthorize and expand the Bulletproof Vest Partnership
(BVP) program.
6.5 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should expand efforts to collect and analyze
data not only on officer deaths but also on injuries and near misses.
6.6 RECOMMENDATION: Law enforcement agencies should adopt policies that require officers to wear
seat belts and bullet-proof vests and provide training to raise awareness of the consequences of failure
to do so.
6.7 RECOMMENDATION: Congress should develop and enact peer review error management legislation.
6.8 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Transportation should provide technical assistance
opportunities for departments to explore the use of vehicles equipped with vehicle collision
prevention smart car technology that will reduce the number of accidents.
7.1 RECOMMENDATION: The President should direct all federal law enforcement agencies to review the
recommendations made by the Task Force on 21st Century Policing and, to the extent practicable, to
adopt those that can be implemented at the federal level.
262
7.2 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should explore public-private partnership
opportunities, starting by convening a meeting with local, regional, and national foundations to discuss
the proposals for reform described in this report and seeking their engagement and support in
advancing implementation of these recommendations.
7.3 RECOMMENDATION: The U.S. Department of Justice should charge its Office of Community Oriented
Policing Services (COPS Office) with assisting the law enforcement field in addressing current and
future challenges.
For recommendation 7.3, the COPS Office should consider taking actions including but not limited to
the following:
Create a National Policing Practices and Accountability Division within the COPS Office.
Establish national benchmarks and best practices for federal, state, local, and tribal police
departments.
Provide technical assistance and funding to national, state, local, and tribal accreditation bodies
that evaluate policing practices.
Recommend additional benchmarks and best practices for state training and standards boards.
Provide technical assistance and funding to state training boards to help them meet national
benchmarks and best practices in training methodologies and content.
Prioritize grant funding to departments meeting benchmarks.
Support departments through an expansion of the COPS Office Collaborative Reform Initiative.
Collaborate with universities, the Office of Justice Programs and its bureaus (Bureau of Justice
Assistance [BJA], Bureau of Justice Statistics [BJS], National Institute of Justice [NIJ], and Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [OJJDP]), and others to review research and literature
in order to inform law enforcement agencies about evidence-based practices and to identify areas
of police operations where additional research is needed.
Collaborate with the BJS to
establish a central repository for data concerning police use of force resulting in death, as well
as in-custody deaths, and disseminate this data for use by both community and police;
provide local agencies with technical assistance and a template to conduct local citizen
satisfaction surveys;
263
compile annual citizen satisfaction surveys based on the submission of voluntary local surveys,
develop a national level survey as well as surveys for use by local agencies and by small
geographic units, and develop questions to be added to the National Crime Victimization
Survey relating to citizen satisfaction with police agencies and public trust.
Collaborate with the BJS and others to develop a template of broader indicators of performance
for police departments beyond crime rates alone that could comprise a Uniform Justice Report.
Collaborate with the NIJ and the BJS to publish an annual report on the State of Policing in the
United States.
Provide support to national police leadership associations and national rank and file
organizations to encourage them to implement task force recommendations.
Work with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to ensure that community policing tactics in
state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies are incorporated into their role in homeland
security.
264
ATTACHMENT 11B
Understanding Serious Violence in Oakland:

A Problem And Opportunity Analysis
Daniela Gilbert
Vaughn Crandall
Stewart Wakeling
January 2014
265
FOR PRESENTATION - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION - JANUARY 2014
Contents
1. Problem Analysis: Introduction, Purpose, Methodology, 3 6
Objectives, Activities
2. Context and Trend Data
7 12
3. Demographics, Criminal History and Criminal Justice

System Involvement
13 23
4. Homicide Incident Reviews
24 32
5. Citywide Group Dynamic and Violence Analysis
33 45
6. Shooting Density Analysis
46 49
7. Discussion of Findings and General Conclusions
50 55
8. Acknowledgements, Sources, and Bibliography
56 58
9. Appendix
59 67
266
Problem Analysis (1): Introduction and Purpose
A problem analysis is a set of data collection & analysis exercises

designed to support the implementation of partnership-based
violence reduction strategies, including Ceasefire.
This analysis establishes a common understanding of the local

violence problem that guides and informs the work of civic,
community, and criminal justice leaders to reduce violence.
The problem analysis identifies the groups and individuals within a

community who are at greatest risk of violence, and helps tailor an
intervention to reduce that risk.
The problem analysis method has been developed and refined over
the past 20 years, as Ceasefire interventions have been tested in
numerous cities across the U.S. and internationally. For more
information on problem analyses, see slide 60.
Though its methodology is informed by research, the analysis is

primarily a practice document with implications for local policy.
267
Problem Analysis (2): Methodology
The problem analysis produces a comprehensive and detailed

understanding of local violence by focusing on a particular aspect of
that problem, in this case homicide.
The problem analysis examines homicide incidents rather than

nonfatal incidents because homicide investigations offer a more
detailed, in-depth, and reliable pool of information from which to
draw.
The analysis looks at this problem from two important angles:

a. Quantitative and qualitative data from public agency records
b. The expertise of staff from agencies and organizations with
working knowledge of homicide incidents, and the individuals
and groups involved in the incidents
268
Problem Analysis (3): Objectives

1.
Provide a detailed understanding of local serious violence during a

specific period of time: January 2012 June 2013.
2.
Understand the demographics of who is at highest risk of violence

and their justice system involvement.
3.
Understand the near-term drivers of violence, including

circumstances and the role of groups and networks (for example,
sets, teams, cliques and gangs) in violence.
4.
Identify patterns of violence, and the geographic and social

concentration of violence within groups and networks.
5.
Build capacity for Oakland partners to conduct real-time analysis of

violence dynamics on a regular basis. These ongoing analytic
exercises are key to successful implementation of the partnershipbased violence reduction strategy.
269
Problem Analysis (4): Activities

1.
Analyze basic contextual and trend data regarding violence in

Oakland.
2.
Review and analyze suspect and victim demographics and criminal

histories to understand how they are coming to the attention of the
criminal justice system.
3.
In-depth review of each homicide incident who was involved, what

happened, circumstances and motive, role of group membership and
relationships.
4.
Analysis of group dynamics including relationships within and across

groups, involvement in violence, other activities, and any turf
associations.
5.
Map homicides and shootings.
6.
Synthesize this information into a unified document that identifies

the highest risk population & guides the Ceasefire partnerships
work.
270
Contents
7 12

System Involvement
13 23
24 32
33 45
46 49
50 55
56 58
9. Appendix
59 67
271
Summary of Contextual and Trend Data
Oaklands violence problem has been stable over the last

44 years. Multi-year annual homicide averages (3-, 5-, 10-,
44-year) all hover around 107-109 homicides.
In recent years:
Oaklands violent crime rate has been 3x 4x the state
rate
Oaklands homicide rate has been 3x 6x the state rate

Oaklands violent crime rates tend to resist state and
national downward trends
272
Trend Data: Oakland Homicides
44-year = 107.04
Homicide Averages:
10-year = 108.9
5-year = 107.8
273
3-year = 106.67
Violent Crime Rate per 100,000:

Oakland v. California
274
10
Homicide Rate per 100,000:

Oakland v. California
275
11
Trend Data Comparison: Violent Crime Rate, 20002012
276
12
Contents
7 12

System Involvement
13 23
24 32
33 45
46 49
50 55
56 58
9. Appendix
59 67
277
13
Summary of Basic Demographic Data of Those

Involved in Homicides
84% of victims and 94% of suspects are male
While only 28% of Oaklands population, approximately

80% of victims and suspects are Black
Highest concentration among ages 18-34

67% of all individuals involved in homicide (both victims
and suspects)
66% of all victims
69% of known suspects
76.25% of victims known to be group involved
278
14
Basic Victim and Suspect Info, Citywide Homicides,

January 2012 June 2013
Victims
N = 171
Suspects
N = 67
Oakland
Population,
2010 Census
Male
84%
94%
49.5%
Female
16%
6%
51.5%
Asian and Pacific Islander
8%*
6%
17.4%
Black
78%
82%
28%
Hispanic
9%
10.5%
25.4%
White
5%
1.5%
34.5%
Sex
Race
* Oikos University killing of 7 people (4%) contributes to an uncharacteristically high

percentage of Asian victimization during the review period. Without this mass shooting, the
percentage of Black and Hispanic victims would likely be higher.
279
15
Age, Victims and Suspects,

Citywide Homicides, January 2012 June 2013
Victims
N = 171
Known Suspects
N = 67
17 and under
8%
15%
18 - 24
36%
36%
25 - 34
30%
33%
35 - 44
12%
9%
45 and older
14%
7%
30.25
26.36
Age Distribution
Mean Age
280
16
Age, All Known Individuals Involved in Homicide,

281
17
Age, All Victims and Known Suspects,

282
18
Age, Victims Known to be Group Involved,

Victims Known to be Group
Involved, N = 80
Age Distribution
17 and under
12.5%
18 - 24
48.75%
25 - 34
27.5%
35 - 44
7.5%
45 and older
3.75%
Mean Age
24.59
283
19
Age, Victims Known to be Group Involved,

284
20
Criminal Histories of Victims and Suspects, 2012

Victims
Suspects
Known to the CJ system prior to the incident
69.84%
90.38%
Of those known to the CJ system
N = 88
N = 47
Average age
30.90
28.64
Average # of prior arrests
11.65
9.40
Average # of felony arrests
7.99
6.64
Prior probation
79.55%
76.60%
Active probation at time of incident
19.32%
36.17%
Prior parole
31.82%
25.53%
Prior Incarceration
84.10%
82.98%
Convicted of Felony
73.86%
72.34%
285
21
Criminal Justice System Involvement of

Homicide Victims and Suspects, 2012
286
22
Criminal Histories of Victims and Suspects, 2012

Victims
Suspects
N = 88
N = 47
Violent offenses (without firearm)
1.68
1.85
Violent offenses with firearm
0.65
1.47
Nonviolent firearm offenses
0.68
1.09
Drug
3.30
2.62
Property
2.70
2.30
Disorderly
1.93
1.98
Sex Industry
0.06
.04
Fraud
0.34
0.38
Other
2.82
1.75
Of those known to the system prior to

the homicide, average # of arrests for:
287
23
Contents
7 12

System Involvement
13 23
24 32
33 45
46 49
50 55
56 58
9. Appendix
59 67
288
24
Group Member Involvement, Citywide Homicides,

N = 43
N = 27
N = 101
289
25
Homicide Circumstances and Group Membership (1),

January 2012 June 2013, Total N = 171
Number
Percentage
101
59%
Ongoing Conflict Between Groups
30
17.5%
Dispute Internal to Group (general, respect, money,

loyalty)
12
7%
Ongoing Conflict Between a Group and an Individual
1.1%
Personal Dispute
26
15.2%
Drug Business (includes drug robbery, drug turf

disputes)
5.3%
Other/Non-drug Business (includes sex industry,

money owed, sales)
4.6%
Instant Dispute
2.9%
Robbery
2.3%
Motive Unknown
2.3%
Domestic
0.5%
Group Member Involved
290
26

Number
Percentage
43
25.1%
Personal Dispute
10
5.8%
Robbery (includes residential robbery)
11
6.4%
Drug Business (includes drug robbery)
11
6.4%
Motive Unknown
2.9%
Instant Dispute
2.3%
Domestic
0.5%
Witness Intimidation
0.5%
Group Member Involvement Unknown or Not Confirmed
291
27

Number
Percentage
27
15.7%
Domestic
3.5%
Instant Dispute
2.9%
Personal
2.3%
Residential Robbery
1.1%
Drug Business
1.1%
Motive Unknown
0.5%
Other* (Oikos Shooting)
4%
Not Group-member Involved
292
28
Homicide Circumstances:
As Percentage of Homicides Citywide and Percentage Group Member
Involvement (GMI) Across Each Circumstance Category
Circumstance
Total % of
Homicides
% GMI
% GMI
Unknown/Not
Confirmed
% No
GMI
Ongoing Conflict
Between Groups
17.5%
100%
0%
0%
Personal Dispute
23%
65%
25%
10%
Robbery (includes
residential robbery)
10%
23%
65%
12%
Drug Business
13%
41%
50%
9%
Instant Dispute
8%
36%
48%
36%
Motive Unknown
6%
40%
50%
10%
Domestic
5%
12.5%
12.5%
75%
4.6%
100%
0%
0%
Other Business
(Non-drug)
293
29
Summary Highlights: Homicide Circumstances

59% (N = 101) of all homicides involve group members as victims,
suspects or both.
Most, 40% (N = 70), are running group feuds, personal disputes
between group members or internal group disputes.
The balance, 19% (N = 31), are instances where group
members use violence to resolve other kinds of disputes.
Another 25% (N = 43) may involve group members as suspects

and/or victims.
Disputes over drugs, drug turf or drug business are relatively rare:
13% (N = 22) of all homicide.
Risk of involvement in homicide is concentrated within and among
groups and their networks.
294
30
Group Involvement Comparison for Victims and Suspects,

Citywide Homicides, January 2012 June 2013, (1)
While 59% - 84% of incidents involve a victim and/or a suspect who
is group involved, there are variations between victim group
involvement and suspect group involvement in homicides.
Disaggregating group involvement of victims and suspects
demonstrates the following differences between their group
involvement:
Just under half, 47% (N = 80), of victims are group involved
Just over half, 53% (N = 90), of suspects are group involved
Group involvement is unknown/not confirmed for 9% (N = 16) of

victims
Group involvement is unknown/not confirmed for 27% (N = 47)
of suspects
295
31
Group Involvement Comparison for Victims and Suspects,

Citywide Homicides, January 2012 June 2013, (2)
Victims who are not group involved
include victims of:
Incidents that had no group member
involvement
Incidents in which the victim was caught
in crossfire
Incidents in which suspects are unknown,
or are group involved but victims are not
Victims
N = 16
N = 75
N = 80
Suspects
N = 34
Suspects who are not group involved

include individuals who perpetrated:
Incidents that had no group member
involvement
Incidents in which the victim was group
involved but the suspect was not
N = 47
N = 90
296
32
Contents
7 12

System Involvement
13 23
24 32
33 45
46 49
50 55
56 58
9. Appendix
59 67
297
33
Framing Observations (1): Oakland Group Dynamics

Groups are involved in 59% - 84% of homicides in Oakland.
Therefore, a more detailed understanding of group dynamics
in Oakland is needed.
The following observations are drawn from interviews and
research regarding groups involved in violence over the
review period.
298
34

Among groups that are primarily black:
Group affiliation can change over time depending on age and
residence; it can also change very quickly. Group names can also
change over time, or very quickly.
Personal relationships often determine if groups get along,
commit crimes together, or feud.
There are a number of groups with longstanding, group-wide
feuds or alliances.
While groups often include individuals who have more influence
than others, they often lack a formal hierarchy or structure.
Individuals may identify with multiple groups and/or multiple
groups in an area, and/or may just identify with the area overall.
Personal connections made in custody can affect the street
dynamic of groups.
299
35

Among groups that are primarily Latino:
Primarily Latino groups in Oakland fall under one of three general
groups: Norteo, Border Brother, or Sureo. These three groups
do not get along.
As a Norteo, Border Brother, or Sureo, individuals must be part
of a specific group; there are no general Norteos, Sureos, etc.
Within each of these general groups, specific groups of Norteos,
Border Brothers, and Sureos in Oakland primarily operate in
isolation of one another. When groups work together, it is
because of personal relationships and/or proximity, rather than a
formal alliance.
While there are certain individuals of influence in each group who
may work to shape the activities of the group, the groups for the
most part lack a regimented hierarchy or structure.
300
36

General Dynamics Driving Feuds
Causal factors involved in long-standing group feuds,
personal disputes, or instant disputes include the following
dynamics:
Familial relationships
Associative relationships (i.e. not blood relations but

individuals with long-standing relationships)
Connections to neighborhoods or areas
Defining teams: when individuals are killed, they are often
memorialized by friends, associates, and other group
members who form a team and take it upon themselves to
avenge the death of their deceased loved one or associate.
301
37

Differences Across City Areas
Group affiliations and risk of violence are more stable in
West and North Oakland than in East Oakland; the violence
dynamic in East Oakland is more complicated and fluid.
Summary
Though relationships within and across groups are complex,
risk of violence is concentrated among these groups and the
networks they consist of, which reflect a very small number
of people.
Focusing on these networks is key to reducing violence in
Oakland.
While group characteristics may vary, the concentration
of violence in Oakland among groups and their networks
is not significantly different from other cities.
302
38
West and North Oakland Groups, Primarily Black
Associations change frequently;

Updated December 2013
303
39
Central and East Oakland Groups, Primarily Black
Associations change
frequently; Updated
December 2013
304
40
Central and East Oakland Groups, Primarily Latino
Updated December 2013

305
41
Group Member Involved Homicides, Citywide,

Groups with 3 or More Incidents, Jan 2012 June
2013
*When specific Norteo or Border Brother set is306known, those incidents are counted twicewithin all
42
sets, and separately by set
Group Member Involved Homicides, Citywide,

Groups with 2 or Fewer Incidents, Jan 2012 June 2013
307
43
West and North Oakland Groups,

Highlighting Groups Involved in 3 + Homicides January 2012June 2013
308
44
Central and East Oakland Groups,

Highlighting Groups Involved in 3 + Homicides January 2012June 2013
309
45
Contents
7 12

System Involvement
13 23
24 32
33 45
46 49
50 55
56 58
9. Appendix
59 67
310
46
Choropleth Density of Homicides and Nonfatal Shootings,

2009 November 20, 2013
PIED MON
RD
CH
R
AN
TE R
SH
EP
KB
PA
R
CO
LI
N
14TH
AV
LEY
AV
SE
M
I
AV
TVA
LE
FR U
I
14TH AV
AV
D
23
R
AV
AV
35 T
H
8T H ST
AR
D
14
T
FR
A
WE NK L
HA B ST I N S
T
RR
E
ISO R S
NS T
T
ST
WE
B
WEBSTER ST
ND
S
ST
H
G
HI
29X
ST
IN
TE
R
TH
GR
A
12
BANCROF T
AV
NA
TIO
N
AL
ST
BL
VD
IN
M
SE
Y
AR
MA
CA
R
TH
U
AV
27Y
OA
K
RD
73
AV
AV
AV
ER
AV
30Y
35Y
30X
S
NK
AV
LV
GE
B
E
SID
N
FE
R
LI
ISLA N
D DR
AV
32X
AV
FOOT
H
IL
L
31Y
31X
LL O
UDI
EST
14
TH
ST
DR
Count as a Percent of Total
PO
A IR
AV
T
IS S
DAV
DR
Legend
35Y
E
OL
IT T
LE
V
ON A
ST
DO
DUTT
PA
RK
31Z
31X
0.023855% - 0.596374%
32Y
VD
BL
AV
T
98
AV
EDE
S
Y
NLE
STA
33X
FT
RO
NC
BA
V
TA
OF
CR
Y RD
34X
N
BA
HEGE NB ERGER RD
HEGENBE RG ER R D
ST
TNE
35X
RO
TH
77
AV
GOL
ND
A
LE
26Y
V
TA
AN
CO
AV
LL
E
TH
77
F
RO
26X
NC
BA
DR
MECAR
TH
77
K EL L
R
VD
BL
AL
6TH ST
D
RR
AR
2T
H
OT
IS
RY AV
NA
27X
EN
C IN
UR
BL
VD
28X
VD
BL
E1
25Y
C
MA
TH
ST
RD
24X
23X
2T
TH
CENT RAL AV
24Y
IL
TH
E1
E7
25X
AV
ST
20X
E 7THST
YL
IN
ST
TH
35
ST
ST
E1
2T
12 H S
TH T
ST
E
11
TH
ST
ST
21Y
DA
VIS
O
FO
BU
EN
A
VIS
LIN
TA
CO
AV
LN
AV
20
TH
RE
DW
OO
SK
E
YL
BL
VD
IN
E
BL
VD
ST
ER
ST
DE
LA
WA
RE
VI
DA
22Y
21X
18X
AV
AR
AW
TH
AV
ILLE
18Y
E
2
E 1S T
20
T H ST
ST
ST
ST
14
22X
16Y
IN M
QU
LV
VD
BL
L
DE
TH
11
TH
20
ST
17X
E 12
TH S
T
A
JO
U
TH
V
HA
14 T
TH
15
19X
T
ST H S
TH
0T
20 E 2
E 7T
H ST
01X
17Y
ST
03X
RK
PA
MA
CA
R
TH
20
ST
M
OA ADI
K S SO
N
T
LV
AV
RE
RE
SH
O
LA
K
16X
TH
12
ST
ER FR AN
TU
K
BE LIN
PO
ST
SE
Y
TU
BE
D WA
GRA
ND A
V
AV
N
ST
WG
RAND
KE
LA
H
ES
15X
LKM1
ST
AV
RAPH
TELEG
WEB
STER
ST
AD
WA
Y
HA
R
V
BL
BR
O
LI
MART
SKY
AV
B
WE
MAIN ST
FI
SH
NNEL RD
E ST
L IN
ADE
E ST
AD EL
IN
KIN G
JR W
Y
IN LU
T H ER
INE
ST
ADE
L
ST
MAR
KET
PDT2
BL
GRA ND A
V
N
NYO
CA
NE
14Y
LV
D
RD
HE
IN
TA
UN
14X
MO
SO
RI
AV
NT
O
RD
KE
13Z
GA
RA
MO
MA ND
EL A
M AN
PKWY
DELA
PKW Y
ST
ED
PI
AV
V
DA
PE
NA
AG
AA
V
N
LA
40T
MO
R
R O
H
HI G
TIM
LY
EN
M
AR
I
F I SH
RD
13X
09X
RTHUR
CA
MA
KE
S
TH
14
IDE
ST
EL
12X
L A KE S
8T
H
LVD
13Y
RD
BR
03Y
EL
ST
ST
LA
12
TH
11T ST
HS
T
ST
7T H ST
NN
TU N
TU
51 ST
D
DE
02X
02Y
ST
04X
6TH
AK
AV
PL
BAY
PL
Y
BA
RD
8T H
ST
7T H
ST
ST
OR
E
IM
RIT
DL
E H
AR
B
WY
MA
20 T
H
RD
TU
Y
AD WA
O
TE R
B
ER
AY T
DW
OA
08X
D AV
05X
AV
BEL ROSE
JR
V
LO A
ST
12T
1
ST 1TH ST H ST
WG
RAN
CO LLEGE AV
PAB
SAN
7TH
ST
7 TH
ST
MID
AV
12Y
AV
ER KIN
10Y
T ST
12
TH
11
TH
A
V
GR
AN
D
13Y
RA
N
CH
IZ
Z
A VIS
T
SHAT TU CK
MARKE
T
LI S S
H OL
05Y
ST
AV
AV
NT
MO
RE
11X
51 ST ST
06X
A
CL
I N LUTH
MART
AV
GR
AN
D
W
7T H
12Y
40TH
ST
PIEDMONT AV
O
PAB L
AV
RD
FO
WARR IN G S T
SAN
AN
ST
07X
7TH ST
AV
ASHB Y
AZ
ALCATR
10X
ST
E LL
P OW
POWELL ST
PIEDMONT AV
PARK ST
ST
8TH
B Y AV
ASH
V
ER A
FOLG
AV
IR
FT WY
BANCRO R ANT AV
T AV DU
DUR A N
KIN G JR WY
O ST
SACRAMENT
O
PA BL
S
7T H
SAN
DW
IG
HT
C
ITY AV
MART IN L UTHER
ST
8T H
ST
6T H
UN IVERS
D ST
RE
UCK SQUA
SHATTUCK AV
DEL AW
Y AV
ERS IT
UN IV
TY AV
ERSI
UN IV
RT
A IR
P O
31Z
R T DR
0.596375% - 1.312023%
1.312024% - 2.051527%
2.051528% - 3.053435%
3.053436% - 6.05916%
City of Oakland
0.7
1.4 Miles
311
47
SHATTUCK AV
SQUARE
PI EDM
AV
MAR T IN LUTHER
ITY
UNIV ERS
6TH ST
8T H S
Y AV
RS IT
UNIVE
Y AV
ERS IT
UN IV
FT W Y
BA NC RO
NT AV
AV DU R A
DU RANT
RD
CH
AV
SH
EP
CO
LIN
AV
AV
14 TH
24Y
LE A
V
ST
UR
B
RY A V
NA
AV
35T
H
ST
T
12
TH
ST
H
G
HI
27X
29X
ST
ND
VD
BL
25Y
LVD
28X
IL
TH
23X
2T
IN
TE
RN
12
TH
GR
A
BANCROF T
AV
AT
IO
NA
L
BL
VD
IN
M
SE
RY
MA
CA
R
TH
U
AV
27Y
RD
73
OA
K
AV
AV
AV
35Y
LV
AV
B
E
N
FE
R
KS
LIN
O
DR
EY
AV
32X
32Y
SA
V
FOOT
H
IL
L
VD
BL
AV
EDE
T
98
AV
ISLA N
D DR
NL
STA
33X
FT
RO
NC
BA
V
TA
OF
CR
Y R
D
RD
34X
N
BA
H EGENB ERGER RD
HEGEN BE RG ER RD
ST
TNE
35X
AV
GO L
AN
LE
TH
77
AV
26Y
LL
EG
E
AV
SA
CO
TH
77
FT
RO
26X
31Y
O
L IT
35Y
D
ESTU
14
TH
ST
ED
R
TL
Legend
S
VIS
DA
DR
Shootings and Homicides by Beat 2012-2013

Count as a Percent of Total
AIR
PO
ST
DO
V
ON A
DU TT
PA
RK
31Z
31X
A IR
P O
0.788531% - 1.792115%
30Y
31X
0.071685% - 0.78853%
AV
NC
BA
DR
MECAR
TH
77
ER
30X
SI
D
AL
K EL L
VD
BL
ST
ST
EN
C IN
TH
SE
MI
LEY
14
T
AR
D
AV
23
RD
FRU
I TVA
14TH AV
25X
AV
24X
O
FO
E1
TH
S
ST
CA
MA
TH
35
ST
ST
E 7T H ST
E7
RD
NE
SK
YL
BL
VD
IN
E
BL
VD
21Y
DA
VIS
20X
CENTRAL AV
YL
I
ST
AV
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
VI
DA
20
TH
RE
DW
OO
ST
ST
12
T
E
12 H S
TH T
ST
E
11
TH
ST
22Y
AR
TH
20
TH
11
21X
18X
AV
AW
18Y
PA
R
KB
LV
R
SH
O
AK
LA
KE
AV
ST
TH
BU
EN
A
VIS
LIN
TA
CO
AV
LN
AV
OT
IS
W GR
AV
8T H ST
RA
N
TE R
D WA
GRA
ND A
V
AV
AND
ST
N
HA
R
BR
O
P H AV
TELEG
RA
WEB
STER
ST
AD
WA
Y
MART
IN
FR
A
W NKL
HA EBST IN S
T
RR
E
ISO R ST
NS
T
ST
M
OA ADIS
KS
ON
T
LV
D
L
DE
T
ST H S
T
20
H
14T
E
2
E 1S T
20
T H ST
ST
TH
20
TH
15
14
E 12
TH S
T
22X
16Y
R RD
19X
17X
LL E
N MI
UI
U
H
T
D
LV
KB
AQ
JO
R
PA
17Y
ST
WEB STER ST
16X
MA
CA
R
R
TE
6TH ST
HO
ES
BS
WE
MAIN ST
FI
SH
NNEL RD
ST
INE
ADE
L
E ST
AD EL
IN
Y
JR W
R KING
L UT HE
ADE
LIN E
ST
ST
V
BL
K ET
LI
MAR
SKY
AV
ST
WE
BS
TE FRA
RT N
U B KLIN
PO
E
ST
SE
Y
TU
BE
VD
MAN
M AN D EL A PK WY
DE L
A PK WY
BL
LV
D
TH
20
E 7T
H ST
N
NY O
CA
NE
14Y
15X
ST
03X
01X
RD
HE
IN
TA
UN
PDT2
ST
MO
14X
RD
KE
13Z
AV
NA
GA
AV
GA
SO
RI
MO
RA
RA
MO
AV
LKM1
ST
PE
TIM
LY
MA
RI
F I SH
NT
O
GRAND A
V
V
DA
TH
12
ST
ED
PI
8T
H
N
HLA
HIG
09X
40
TH
KE
SI
TH
14
DE
03Y
RD
EN
LA
12
TH
11T ST
HS
T
ST
7TH ST
RD
04X
6TH
EL
12X
HU R
A RT
M AC
02X
02Y
ST
L AKE S I
RD
8T H
ST
7T H
ST
ST
OR
11TH 12 TH
ST ST
LV
D
13Y
13X
LE
HA
RB
E
IM
RI T
MID
D
ST
MA
BR
D
DE
7T H
ST
20 T
H
EL
AY
AD W
O
TE R
B
ER
AY T
DW
OA
08X
D AV
05X
ST
ST
7TH
ST
7TH
ST
7TH ST
ST
51 ST
PL
BAY
Y PL
BA
12
TH
11
TH
WG
RAN
WY
05Y
AV
AV
A
V
GR
AN
D
N
N
N
TU
R
GJ
O
PA BL
TU
TU
R K IN
10Y
06X
RD
AV
12Y
ST
SAN
GR
AN
D
13Y
RA
NC
H
IZ
Z
A VIS
T
V
SHAT TUCK A
T ST
MARKE
11X
51 ST ST
40TH
07X
AV
O NT
EM
AR
THE
RTI N LU
MA
T
IS S
HOLL
AV
RD
FO
AV
BEL R OSE
O AV
PA BL
POWELL ST
AN
ST
12Y
Z AV
AL CATRA
10X
L ST
OWEL
AV
ASHBY
CL
COLL EGE AV
SAN
ER AV
FOLG
WARRING S T
PARK ST
8T H S
AV
ASHBY
PIEDMONT AV
IR
KING JR W Y
HT
C
AV
IG
PIEDMON T AV
O
PA BL
S
7T H
SAN
DW
ST
SACRA MENTO
Choropleth Density of Homicides and Nonfatal Shootings During

Review Period, January 2012 June 2013
ILL O
AV
RT
31Z
R T DR
1.792116% - 2.580645%
2.580646% - 3.44086%
3.440861% - 6.308244%
City of Oakland
0.7
1.4 Miles
312
FOR PRESENTATION
- NOT FOR
DISTRIBUTION - JANUARY 2014
48
AS H
AV
NT
MO
EL R
CL
AR
E
TUN
SNA
HE
SHEP
ST
S TE R
WEB
RI
S
AV
AN
JOA
ST
TH
11
ST
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
NC
O
L
LI
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
TH
35
DA
VI
S
ST
ST
B
BL
VD LVD
AV
ST
ST
ST
TH
EM
I
L
IL
E7
TH
O
7TH ST
RY AV
NA
FO
E 12
T
H
IST
A
A
LIN
CO V
LN
AV
CE NTRA L AV
BL
VD
ST
H
G IN T
HI
ER
NA
T
T
12
GR
AN
D
ST
AV
B LVD
R
73
TH
77
RN
RO
ND
A
FE
TH
77
AV
AV
AV
F LINK
L
V
BL
HEGE NBER GE R RD
HEGE NBERGER RD
D DR
FO
O
IL
TH
PAR
AV
IS LA N
EY
AV
ON AV
UTT
TL
ST
Legend
TH
DO
OL
IT
ED E
SA
V
98
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
N EY R
D
RD
ANL
ST
ST
M E CAR T
AV
K E LL E R
L
GO
LE
TH
77
AV
MA
CA
RT
H
UR
AV
LL
EG
AV
N
SA
CO
Y
AR
IN
M
SE
FT
RO
DR
AV
NC
BA
AV
SI
DE
AL
BL
VD
VD
BL
CI N
BANC ROFT
IO
NA
OA
K
ST
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
ST
BUENA
V
DW
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
20
TH
RE
NE
VI
DA
IN ST
MA
TH
14
AV
AV
TH
15
ST
H ST
AV
TH
12
E 7T
Q UIN M I LLER
RD
RD
H
14T
BL
VD
AV
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
AV
14TH
AV
RK
PA
AV
RT
HU
VD
BL
T VA
LE A
V
AC
A
FR U
I
14 TH
RT
HU
R B
LV
D
AR
DL E
Y
GR
IN LU
THE
BR
OA
DW
AY
NE
8TH ST
LI
MART
SK
BL
V
3R
INE
S
ADE
L
AP H AV
TELE
GR
Y
JR W
R KI
NG
ST
INE
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
AD E
L
RD
S T ST
TH H
20 20T
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
WE
RT
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
T
R
SE T U A
HE
Y T BE NK
RK
L IN
UB
IN G
E
ST
JR
WY
FR
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE S T
IS O R S
NS T
M
T
OA AD I
K S SO
T NS
T
I
TA
UN
V
DA
WEBS TE R ST
AV
LAN
MO
AV
OAK
ST
6TH ST
RD
GA
A AV
ND
LA
RA
MO
MORA
G
H
HIG
D EL
A P KWY
M AN
D EL
A PKWY
AV
MAN
D
BL V
TA
S
6T T
H
7T S T
HS
T
NA
HA
AV
IDE D
R
R RD
8T
H
VIS
TE R
WA Y
AD
ES
MI
D D E HA RB O
L
HS
ED
PI
K
LA
6TH
S
20
T
40
TH
ST
O
BR
MA
12T
H
8T H
S
7T H T
ST
20
TH
ST
ST
Y PL
BA
ST
EL
AV
40TH
ST
AV
11
TH
ND
51 ST
ST
O
PAB L
SA N
7TH S
T
7T H ST
GR
A
NN
S
M ARK ET T
T
IS S
AV
SHATT UCK
F
AN
ST
V
DA
OR
AV
ER S T
WEBS T
AV
HO LL
ST
E LL
PO W
ST
E LL
PO W
COLL EGE AV
Y AV
O
PAB L
SA N
ASHB
N G JR WY
ENT O ST
K ST
ST
AV
Nonfatal Shooting Density Map with Pins of Homicides,

DR
U
ES T
2012-2013 187A
LO
DIL
AV
40.22866517 - 80.45733032
80.45733033 - 120.6859955
120.6859956 - 160.9146606
DR
0 - 40.22866516
VIS
DA
ST
RT
PO
AIR
14
TH
ST
160.9146607 - 201.1433258
City of Oakland
0.65
1.3 Miles
FOR PRESENTATION -313

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION - JANUARY
2014
49
Contents
7 12

System Involvement
13 23
24 32
33 45
46 49
50 55
56 58
9. Appendix
59 67
314
50
Summary of Findings (1): Group Violence, City Areas

Groups play a significant role in driving serious violence at the
citywide level. At least 59% and up to 84% of homicides citywide
are group member involved.
While approximately 1/3 of the citys area, East OaklandHigh
St. to San Leandro Borderaccounts for 53% of homicide over
the review period.
During the review period, violence was most concentrated in
Beats 26Y, 27Y, 29X, 30X, 30Y, 33X, 34X, and 35Xall of which are
in East Oakland.
The remaining 47% of homicide is distributed primarily across
West Oaklandbounded by the 580, 880, and 980/24 freeways
and Central OaklandLake Merritt to High St.
In West Oakland, as indicated on the heat maps, this occurs
mostly in Beats 02Y, 02X, 04X, 05X, 06X, 07X, and 08X. In Central
Oakland, this occurs mostly in 17Y, 19X, 20X, 21X, 21Y, 23X, 24X,
and 24Y.
51
315
Summary of Findings (2): Social Concentration

There are approximately 50 violent groups in Oakland, with
an estimated active membership of 1000 1200 people. This
is approximately 0.3% of the entire citys population.
Of active groups in Oakland, at any one time, only a small
subset of the groups are at highest risk of violence. During
the review period, 18 groups citywide were associated with a
majority of group-involved violence.
316
52
Summary of Findings (3): Criminal Justice System

Involvement
Approximately 70% victims and 90% of suspects have come into

contact with the criminal justice system prior to the homicide
incident.
Homicide victims and suspects come into contact with the criminal
justice system frequently and for a variety of offenses:
Arrested an average of 10 times prior to their homicide

victimization or perpetration
Approximately 7 of all their arrests are felony arrests
Approximately 73% have been convicted of a felony
76% - 80% have been on probation
Approximately 84% have been incarcerated
Have high averages of violent offenses, and also have high
averages of other offenses, particularly drug and property.
317
53
Summary of Findings (4): Age Trends

Serious violence is most concentrated among among individuals
ages 18-34
67% of all individuals involved in homicide (both victims and
suspects)
66% of all homicide victims

69% of known homicide suspects
76.25% of homicide victims known to be group involved
The average age of an individual involved in homicide is
29.15.
The average age of victims is 30.25 and the average age of
suspects is 26.36.
318
54
Summary Observations
The following summary observations are relevant to quality
implementation of Oakland Ceasefire:
1. Risk of involvement in violence in Oakland tends to be highly
concentrated among young men ages 18-34 that are involved in
fluid and complicated but recognizable groups and networks.
2. These young men tend to come into contact with the criminal
justice system frequently.
3. Making progress on reducing the risk these young men present to
themselves and the community depends on making them a joint
and sustained focus of the full range of Ceasefire partners.
4. Oakland has experienced especially high rates of violence for
several decades. Continued progress will require intensive
sustained effort.
5. Maintaining progress on violence reduction in East Oakland should
be factored into any consideration of expanding full
implementation of Ceasefire to other areas of Oakland
55
319
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the personnel of the Oakland Police Department for
dedicating their time and expertise to this process and product.
Thank you to the Department of Human Services for their
administration and management of the funding that made this
product possible.
Special thanks to the following people for their effort and support:
Interim Chief Sean Whent
Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa
Captain Ersie Joyner
Andrea Van Peteghem
Reygan Harmon
Lieutenant Tony Jones
Sergeant Fred Shavies
Officer Gerardo Melero
Julian Ware
Robert Batty FOR PRESENTATION - NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION - JANUARY 2014
320
56
Data Sources by Slide

Slides
Sources
Notes
Oakland Police Department;

Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Uniform Crime Reports
For the purposes of this analysis, we used UCR data when

available. Data points 1969-1984 provided by OPD; Data
points 1985-2012 are from UCR. There are slight differences
in UCR vs OPD totals for certain years 1985 and later.
10-12
Bureau of Justice Statistics,

Uniform Crime Reports
14-20

California Department of Justice;
U.S. Census Bureau
21-23
California Department of Justice;

Parole LEADS
25-45
47-50

Forensic Logic; City of Oakland
Office of Information Technology
While there are consistent categorization principles that

apply to criminal history coding, due to the volume of PC
codes, variance among charges, and inconsistency of data
entry across criminal histories, the coding process is an
imperfect and subjective one. That said, the local process
maximized accuracy by concentrating coding responsibilities
within one trained analyst, and double-checking a random
sample of both victim and suspect criminal histories.
321
57
Bibliography: Problem Analysis Methods

For more information on problem analysis methods and examples, see:
1. Papachristos, A.V., Braga, A.A., Hureau, D.M. (2011). Six Degrees of
Violent Victimization: Social Networks and the Risk of Gunshot
Injury
2. Braga, A. A., McDevitt, J., & Pierce, G. L. (2006). Understanding and
Preventing Gang Violence: Problem Analysis and Response
Development in Lowell, Massachusetts. Police Quarterly, 9 (1) 20-46
3. Engel, R.S., Baker, G., Skubak Tillyer, M., Dunham, J.R., Hall, D., Ozer,
M., Henson, B., Godsey, T. (2009). Implementation of the Cincinnati
Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV): Year 2 Report. University of
Cincinnati Policing Institute
4. Kennedy, D. M., Braga, A.A., & Piehl, A.M. (1997).

The (Un)Known Universe: Mapping Gangs and Gang Violence in
Boston, Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention, ed. David L. Weisburd
and J. Thomas McEwen.
New York: Criminal Justice Press
58
322
Appendix
1. Additional Maps of Violence in Oakland
60 65
2. Further Analysis Work To Be Done
66 67
323
59
AV
AV
NT
E L RD
TUN
MO
CL
AR
E
SNA
HE
SHEP
ST
S TE R
WEB
RI
S
ST
SK
NE
AV
BL
V
JOA
AV
TH
11
ST
AV
TH
15
ST
NC
O
L
TH
35
DA
VI
S
ST
AV
ST
7 TH ST
E7
TH
ST
ST
ST
RY AV
NA
EM
I
L
IL
AV
OL
N
AV
E 12
T
LIN
C
CE NT RA L AV
TA
TH
O
VI S
BL
VD
ST
H
G IN T
HI
ER
NA
T
12
GR
AN
D
TH
ST
ST
NA
L
OA
K
MA
CA
R
AV
R
73
AV
E
TH
77
FE
TH
77
TH
AV
AV
AV
F LINK
V
BL
FO
O
L
HEGENB ERGER RD
HE GENBERGE R R D
AV
IL
TH
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
T
98
TO N
DUT
PAR
AV
TL
Legend
ST
DO
OL
IT
ED E
SA
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
NEY R
D
RD
ANL
ST
ST
M E CAR T
AV
K E LL E R
UR
L
GO
RO
ND
A
TH
77
AV
AV
LE
RN
LL
EG
SA
CO
AR
IN
M
SE
FT
RO
DR
AV
NC
BA
AV
BL
VD
B LVD
AL
SI
DE
CI N
B ANC ROFT
IO
VD
BL
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
FO
B UENA
DW
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
20
TH
B
BL
VD LVD
VI
DA
RE
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
ST
IN ST
MA
T
14
AV
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
NE
FR U
IT
ST T
S
TH H
20 2 0T
E
E
TH
12
E 7T
H ST
AV
RD
H
14 T
E
BL
VD
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
VD
BL
LI
TH
U
RK
PA
VAL
E AV
AC
AR
AV
14 TH
AV
AV
14 TH
RT
HU
R B
LV
D
AR
DL E
Y
GR
AN
8T H ST
LI
3R
I NE
AD E
L
AP H AV
TELEG
R
R KIN
G JR
WY
V
DA
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
BR
OA
DW
AY
LAN
RD
IN
O AK
RD
A
AV U NT
MO
IN LU
THE
A
AG
AV
MA R T
A AV
ND
LA
ST
R
MO
MORA
G
H
HIG
INE
AV
ST
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
WE
RT
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
TH
SE T U R A
ER
Y T BE NK
K IN
L IN
UB
GJ
E
ST
RW
FR
Y
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE S T
IS O R S
NS T
MA
T
OA D I
K S SO
T NS
T
VIS
TA
AD E
L
NA
AV
WEBS TER ST
D
BL V
6TH ST
RD
D EL
A P KWY
M AN
D EL
A PK WY
PE
MA N
LY
F ISH R IZZ
R
G
HA
N
O
ST
S
6T T
H
7T S T
HS
T
AN
CH
EL
IDE D
R
8T
H
NT
TER
Y
DWA
ES
MI
D D E HA R
L
ED
PI
K
LA
6TH
S
RD
B OR
HS
20
T
40
T
MA
20
TH
ST
O
EM
AR
ST
8T H
S
7TH T
ST
NN
OA
BR
YP
BA
ST
12T
H
51 ST
S
ST
AV
ST
AV
11
TH
ND
S
MARKET T
PAB LO
SA N
7T H S
T
7TH S T
GR
A
CL
AV
AV
SHATT U CK
AV
40 TH
ST
BE LROSE
O ST
ER
WEB S T
V
DA
OR
T
IS S
ST
E LL
T
LL S
HOLL
PO W
E
PO W
F
AN
ST
WAR RIN G S T
PIED MON T AV
AV
AS HB Y
CO LL EG E AV
AM ENT
Y AV
O
PAB L
SA N
ASHB
T AV
DU RA N
PIED MON T AV
WY
SACR
ST
PAR K ST
7T H
AV
PAB LO
SA N
ST
8T H
DWIG HT
JR W Y
AV
SHATTU CK AV
Y
RS IT
ST
8T H
T
6T H S
E
UN IV
R K IN G
MAR TIN LU T HE
Heat Map
Density
of Homicides
2009-2013
Shootings
and Homicides and Nonfatal Shootings,
2009 November 20, 2013
DR
U
EST
LO
DIL
AV
0 - 156.1818726
DR
156.1818727 - 312.3637451
312.3637452 - 468.5456177
R
PO
AIR
468.5456178 - 624.7274902
VIS
DA
ST
14
TH
ST
624.7274903 - 780.9093628
324
City of Oakland
0.65
1.3 Miles
60
AV
AV
NT
MO
E L RD
CL
AR
E
SNA
HE
S TE R
WEB
RI
S
SHEP
ST
TELEG
R
SK
NE
AV
BL
V
AN
JOA
ST T
S
TH H
20 2 0T
AV
TH
11
ST
AV
TH
15
ST
NC
O
L
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
TH
35
DA
VI
S
ST
B
BL
VD LVD
AV
ST
7 TH ST
E7
TH
ST
ST
ST
RY AV
NA
EM
I
L
IL
AV
OL
N
AV
E 12
T
LIN
C
CE NT RA L AV
TA
TH
O
VI S
BL
VD
ST
H
G IN T
HI
ER
NA
T
12
GR
AN
D
TH
ST
ST
NA
L
OA
K
MA
CA
R
AV
R
73
AV
E
TH
77
FE
TH
77
TH
AV
AV
AV
F LINK
V
BL
FO
O
L
HEGENB ERGER RD
HE GENBERGE R R D
AV
IL
TH
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
T
98
TO N
DUT
PAR
AV
TL
Legend
ST
DO
OL
IT
ED E
SA
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
NEY R
D
RD
ANL
ST
ST
M E CAR T
AV
K E LL E R
UR
L
GO
RO
ND
A
TH
77
AV
AV
LE
RN
LL
EG
SA
CO
AR
IN
M
SE
FT
RO
DR
AV
NC
BA
AV
BL
VD
B LVD
AL
SI
DE
CI N
B ANC ROFT
IO
VD
BL
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
FO
B UENA
DW
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
20
TH
RE
VI
DA
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
NE
ST
IN ST
MA
T
14
AV
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
3R
TH
12
E 7T
H ST
AV
RD
H
14 T
E
BL
VD
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
VD
BL
LI
TH
U
RK
PA
VAL
E AV
AC
AR
FR U
IT
AV
14 TH
AV
AV
RT
HU
R B
LV
D
14 TH
AR
DL E
Y
8T H ST
LI
GR
R KIN
G JR
WY
V
DA
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
BR
OA
DW
AY
LAN
RD
IN
O AK
RD
A
AV U NT
MO
IN LU
THE
A
AG
AV
AV
A AV
ND
LA
R
MO
MORA
G
H
HIG
MA R T
TUN
ST
I NE
AD E
L
AP H AV
AV
ST
VIS
TA
INE
NA
AD E
L
ST
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
WE
RT
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
TH
SE T U R A
ER
Y T BE NK
K IN
L IN
UB
GJ
E
ST
RW
FR
Y
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE S T
IS O R S
NS T
MA
T
OA D I
K S SO
T NS
T
TER
Y
DWA
WEBS TER ST
RD
D
BL V
6TH ST
PE
D EL
A P KWY
M AN
D EL
A PK WY
AN
CH
MA N
LY
F ISH R IZZ
R
G
HA
N
O
ST
S
6T T
H
7T S T
HS
T
NT
EL
IDE D
R
8T
H
NN
ES
MI
D D E HA R
L
ED
PI
K
LA
6TH
S
RD
B OR
HS
20
T
40
T
MA
20
TH
ST
O
EM
AR
ST
8T H
S
7TH T
ST
OA
BR
YP
BA
ST
12T
H
51 ST
S
ST
AV
ST
AV
11
TH
ND
CL
AV
AV
SHATT U CK
S
MARKET T
PAB LO
SA N
7T H S
T
7TH S T
GR
A
BE LROSE
O ST
AV
40 TH
ST
ER
WEB S T
V
DA
OR
T
IS S
ST
E LL
T
LL S
HOLL
PO W
E
PO W
F
AN
ST
WAR RIN G S T
PIED MON T AV
AV
AS HB Y
CO LL EG E AV
AM ENT
Y AV
O
PAB L
SA N
ASHB
T AV
DU RA N
PIED MON T AV
WY
SACR
ST
PAR K ST
7T H
AV
PAB LO
SA N
ST
8T H
DWIG HT
JR W Y
AV
SHATTU CK AV
Y
RS IT
ST
8T H
T
6T H S
E
UN IV
R K IN G
MAR TIN LU T HE
2012-2013
Shootings and Homicides
Heat Map Density
of Homicides
and Nonfatal Shootings During Review
Period, January 2012 June 2013
DR
U
EST
LO
DIL
AV
0 - 58.56820679
117.1364137 - 175.7046204
175.7046205 - 234.2728271
DR
58.5682068 - 117.1364136
R
PO
AIR
VIS
DA
ST
14
TH
ST
234.2728272 - 292.8410339
City of Oakland
0.65
1.3 Miles
325
FOR PRESENTATION
- NOT FOR
61
AV
CL
AR
EM
ON
T
E L RD
TUN
SNA
HE
SHEP
ST
S TER
WEB
RI
S
H AV
JR W
Y
SK
NE
AV
AN
JOA
AV
ST T
S
TH H
2 0 20T
ST
E
TH
ST
15
TH
E
11
E
ST
H
14 T
E
L
NC
O
LI
TH
35
DA
VI
S
ST
B
BL
VD LVD
AV
ST
7 TH ST
RY AV
NA
E7
TH
ST
ST
HI
ST
EM
I
L
IL
TH
E 12
T
H
IST
A
A
LIN
CO V
LN
AV
CE NTRA L AV
BL
VD
ST
H
G IN T
ER
NA
T
12
GR
AN
D
TH
AV
TH
77
RN
ND
A
FE
TH
77
AV
K E LL E R
UR
AV
AV
L
GO
LE
RO
TH
77
AV
AV
LL
EG
R
73
N
SA
CO
MA
CA
RT
H
AV
FT
RO
DR
Y
AR
IN
EM
F LINK
V
BL
AV
FO
O
LL
HE GENBER GER RD
HEGE NBERGER R D
AV
I
TH
TH
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
98
AV
TON
D UT
PAR
TL
ST
2009-2013 187A
RD
DO
OL
IT
Legend
ED
ES
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
N EY R
D
ANL
ST
ST
ME CAR T
AV
NC
BA
AV
AV
B LVD
AL
SI
DE
CI N
BL
VD
OA
K
ST
ST
B AN C ROFT
IO
NA
L
VD
BL
EN
OT
IS
O
FO
BUENA
V
OO
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
20
TH
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
DW
VI
DA
RE
NE
ST
IN ST
MA
TH
14
AV
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
RD
TH
12
E 7T
H ST
BL
VD
AV
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
AV
14TH
AV
HU
R
PA
AV
RT
VD
BL
VAL
E AV
AC
A
14 TH
AR
DL E
Y
R B
LV
D
AV
RT
HU
FR U
IT
8T H ST
LI
BL
V
GR
ER K
I NG
AD
WA
Y
BR
O
V
DA
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
MART
I N LU
TH
LAN
RD
IN
O AK
ST
RD
A
AV U NT
MO
WEBSTE R ST
GA
RA
MO
AV
AV
A AV
D
AN
HA
N
O
MORA
G
3R
INE
ST
AD E
L
TELEG
RAP
TER
Y
DWA
HL
HIG
INE
ST
VIS
AV
AD E
L
D
BL V
TA
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
WE
RT
IN
B
LU
POS TER F
TH
SE T U R A
E
Y T BE N K
RK
LIN
UB
IN G
E
ST
JR
WY
FR
W AN
HA EB SKLIN
RR TE S T
ISO R S
NS T
M
T
OA AD I
K S SO
T NS
T
RD
6TH ST
NA
D EL
A PKW Y
MAN
D EL
A PK WY
PE
M AN
Y
SH R IZZ L
R
G
E
PI
S
6T T
H
7T ST
HS
T
AN
C
HS
NT
EL
IDE D
R
8T
H
NN
ES
MI
R RD
D D E HA RB O
L
K
LA
6TH
S
20
TH
ST
20
T
40
T
ST
O
EM
AR
ST
MA
12T
H
8T H
7T H S T
ST
OA
BR
Y PL
BA
ST
ST
AV
AV
51 ST
ST
O
PAB L
SA N
11
TH
ND
CL
AV
S
M ARKET T
T
IS S
7TH S
T
7T H ST
GR
A
BE LR OS E
AV
SHATT UCK
V
DA
OR
40 TH
ST
R
WEBS TE
AV
HOLL
ST
E LL
PO W
ST
ELL
PO W
F
AN
ST
R IN G S T
PIED MO N T AV
AV
ASHB Y
COLL EGE AV
ST
PAB LO
SA N
JR W Y
M ENTO
Y AV
MO N T AV
SACRA
ST
PAR K ST
7T H
AS HB
G
N LUT HE R KIN
WY
UCK AV
DWIG HT
O AV
PAB L
SA N
ST
8T H
ST
Homicide Density Map with Pins of Homicides,

2009 November 2013
DR
U
ES T
<VALUE>
AV
LO
DIL
0 - 18.14234009
36.28468019 - 54.42702026
54.42702027 - 72.56936035
DR
18.1423401 - 36.28468018
R
PO
AIR
VIS
DA
ST
14
TH
ST
72.56936036 - 90.71170044
City of Oakland
0.65
1.3 Miles
326
FOR PRESENTATION
- NOT FOR
62
AV
AV
NT
E L RD
TUN
MO
CL
AR
E
SNA
HE
SHEP
ST
S TE R
WEB
RI
S
ST
SK
NE
AV
BL
V
JOA
AV
TH
11
ST
AV
TH
15
ST
NC
O
L
TH
35
DA
VI
S
ST
AV
ST
7 TH ST
E7
TH
ST
ST
ST
RY AV
NA
EM
I
L
IL
AV
OL
N
AV
E 12
T
LIN
C
CE NT RA L AV
TA
TH
O
VI S
BL
VD
ST
H
G IN T
HI
ER
NA
T
12
GR
AN
D
TH
ST
ST
NA
L
OA
K
MA
CA
R
AV
R
73
AV
E
TH
77
FE
TH
77
TH
AV
AV
AV
F LINK
V
BL
HEGENB ERGER RD
HE GENBERGE R R D
FO
O
IL
TH
AV
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
TO N
DUT
PAR
AV
TL
ST
2012-2013 187A
T
98
DO
OL
IT
Legend
ED E
SA
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
NEY R
D
RD
ANL
ST
ST
M E CAR T
AV
K E LL E R
UR
L
GO
RO
ND
A
TH
77
AV
AV
LE
RN
LL
EG
SA
CO
AR
IN
M
SE
FT
RO
DR
AV
NC
BA
AV
BL
VD
B LVD
AL
SI
DE
CI N
B ANC ROFT
IO
VD
BL
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
FO
B UENA
DW
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
20
TH
B
BL
VD LVD
VI
DA
RE
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
ST
IN ST
MA
T
14
AV
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
NE
FR U
IT
ST T
S
TH H
20 2 0T
E
E
TH
12
E 7T
H ST
AV
RD
H
14 T
E
BL
VD
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
VD
BL
LI
TH
U
RK
PA
VAL
E AV
AC
AR
AV
14 TH
AV
AV
14 TH
RT
HU
R B
LV
D
AR
DL E
Y
GR
AN
8T H ST
LI
3R
I NE
AD E
L
AP H AV
TELEG
R
R KIN
G JR
WY
V
DA
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
BR
OA
DW
AY
LAN
RD
IN
O AK
RD
A
AV U NT
MO
IN LU
THE
A
AG
AV
MA R T
A AV
ND
LA
ST
R
MO
MORA
G
H
HIG
INE
AV
ST
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
WE
RT
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
TH
SE T U R A
ER
Y T BE NK
K IN
L IN
UB
GJ
E
ST
RW
FR
Y
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE S T
IS O R S
NS T
MA
T
OA D I
K S SO
T NS
T
VIS
TA
AD E
L
NA
AV
WEBS TER ST
D
BL V
6TH ST
RD
D EL
A P KWY
M AN
D EL
A PK WY
PE
MA N
LY
F ISH R IZZ
R
G
HA
N
O
ST
S
6T T
H
7T S T
HS
T
AN
CH
EL
IDE D
R
8T
H
NT
TER
Y
DWA
ES
MI
D D E HA R
L
ED
PI
K
LA
6TH
S
RD
B OR
HS
20
T
40
T
MA
20
TH
ST
O
EM
AR
ST
8T H
S
7TH T
ST
NN
OA
BR
YP
BA
ST
12T
H
51 ST
S
ST
AV
ST
AV
11
TH
ND
S
MARKET T
PAB LO
SA N
7T H S
T
7TH S T
GR
A
CL
AV
AV
SHATT U CK
AV
40 TH
ST
BE LROSE
O ST
ER
WEB S T
V
DA
OR
T
IS S
ST
E LL
T
LL S
HOLL
PO W
E
PO W
F
AN
ST
WAR RIN G S T
PIED MON T AV
AV
AS HB Y
CO LL EG E AV
AM ENT
Y AV
O
PAB L
SA N
ASHB
T AV
DU RA N
PIED MON T AV
WY
SACR
ST
PAR K ST
7T H
AV
PAB LO
SA N
ST
8T H
DWIG HT
JR W Y
AV
SHATTU CK AV
Y
RS IT
ST
8T H
T
6T H S
E
UN IV
R K IN G
MAR TIN LU T HE
2012-2013
187A
Density
Homicide Density
Map
with
Pins of Incidents, Review Period, January
2012 June 2013
DR
U
EST
<VALUE>
LO
DIL
AV
0 - 7.099176025
DR
7.099176026 - 14.19835205
14.19835206 - 21.29752808
R
PO
AIR
21.29752809 - 28.3967041
VIS
DA
ST
14
TH
ST
28.39670411 - 35.49588013
327
City of Oakland
0.65
1.3 Miles
63
AV
AV
NT
CL
AR
EM
O
E L RD
SNA
RI
S
HE
SHEP
ST
S TE R
WEB
H AV
SK
NE
AV
AN
JOA
AR
DL E
Y
AV
3R
AV
ST
TH
35
DA
VI
S
AV
ST
AV
7TH ST
AV
E7
TH
ST
ST
ST
LN
RY AV
NA
L
IL
CO
E 12
T
H
LIN
CE NT RA L AV
TA
EM
VIS
BL
VD
ST
H
G IN T
HI
ER
NA
TI
B AN C ROFT
AV
MA
12
AN
D
ST
S
B LVD
AV
E
R
73
TH
77
FE
TH
77
AV
ND
RO
AV
AV
F LINK
V
BL
HEGE NBER GE R RD
HE GE NBERGER R D
AV
FO
O
IL
TH
AV
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
AV
TON
D UT
PAR
TL
ST
DO
OL
IT
ED E
S
T
98
Legend
N EY R
D
RD
ANL
ST
ST
M E CAR T
AV
K E LL E R
UR
L
GO
TH
77
CA
RT
H
AV
AV
LE
LL
EG
AV
SA
CO
RY
FT
RO
DR
A
IN
EM
NC
BA
AV
RN
SI
DE
AL
BL
VD
VD
BL
CI N
ON
AL
OA
K
ST
GR
TH
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
TH
O
FO
B UENA
B
BL
VD LVD
VI
DA
ST
ST
DW
RD
E
IN
TH
11
20
TH
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
NE
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
RE
YL
TH
15
ST
I N ST
MA
TH
14
AV
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
YL
TH
12
E 7T
H ST
AV
SK
ST ST
TH H
20 20T
H
14 T
E
BL
VD
SK
NC
O
L
PA
VD
BL
LI
TH
U
RK
AV
AC
AR
14 TH
AV
R B
LV
D
VAL
E AV
RT
HU
FR U
IT
14TH
AV
8T H ST
LI
BL
V
GR
ER K
ING JR
W
TUN
ST
INE
AD E
L
GRA
P
TELE
IN LU
TH
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
BR
OA
DW
AY
ST
V
DA
RD
IN
MART
LAN
RD
A
AV U NT
MO
O AK
ST
WEBS TE R ST
GA
RA
MO
AV
AV
A AV
D
AN
HA
N
O
MORA
G
HL
HIG
INE
AV
AD E
L
TA
TER
Y
DWA
ST
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
WE
RT
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
TH
SE T U R A
ER
Y T B E NK
K IN
LIN
UB
GJ
E
ST
RW
FR
Y
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE ST
IS O R S
NS T
MA
T
OA D IS
KS O
T NS
T
D
BL V
VIS
6TH ST
NA
DE L
A PKW Y
M AN
D EL
A PK WY
RD
M AN
LY
FISH R IZZ
R
G
ED
PI
S
6T T
H
7T ST
HS
T
PE
AN
CH
HS
NT
EL
IDE D
R
ES
RD
K
LA
MI
R
D D E HA RB O
L
40
T
20
T
8T
H
20
TH
ST
6TH
S
NN
O
EM
AR
ST
MA
ST
8T H
S
7T H T
ST
CL
OA
BR
Y PL
BA
ST
12T
H
51 ST
ST
AV
40 TH
ST
AV
11
TH
ND
AV
BE LROSE
AV
SH ATTU CK
S
M ARK ET T
O
PAB L
SA N
7TH ST
7T H ST
GR
A
ST
ER
WEB S T
AV
RD
T
IS S
WAR R IN G ST
PIED MO N T AV
AV
AS HB Y
AV
HO LL
ST
E LL
PO W
ST
ELL
PO W
FO
AN
ST
AV
PIED MO N T AV
DU RA NT
COLLEG E AV
ST
Y AV
O
PAB L
SA N
AS HB
WY
M ENT O
SACRA
PAR K ST
S
7T H
O AV
PAB L
SA N
ST
8T H
DWIGHT
JR WY
AV
R KING
MART IN LU THE
Y
RS IT
SH ATTU CK AV
E
UN IV
ST
8T H
ST
6T H
Nonfatal Shooting Density Map with Pins of Incidents,

2009 November 2013
DR
U
ES T
2009-2013 245A(2)
LO
DIL
AV
113.5868165 - 227.1736328
227.1736329 - 340.7604492
340.7604493 - 454.3472656
454.3472657 - 567.934082
City of Oakland
DR
0 - 113.5868164
RT
PO
AIR
328
FOR PRESENTATION
- NOT FOR
VIS
DA
ST
14
TH
ST
64
AV
AV
NT
E L RD
TUN
MO
CL
AR
E
SNA
HE
SHEP
ST
S TE R
WEB
RI
S
ST
SK
NE
AV
BL
V
JOA
AV
TH
11
ST
AV
TH
15
ST
NC
O
L
TH
35
DA
VI
S
ST
AV
ST
7 TH ST
E7
TH
ST
ST
ST
RY AV
NA
EM
I
L
IL
AV
OL
N
AV
E 12
T
LIN
C
CE NT RA L AV
TA
TH
O
VI S
BL
VD
ST
H
G IN T
HI
ER
NA
T
12
GR
AN
D
TH
ST
ST
NA
L
OA
K
MA
CA
R
AV
R
73
AV
E
TH
77
FE
TH
77
TH
AV
AV
AV
F LINK
V
BL
FO
O
L
HEGENB ERGER RD
HE GENBERGE R R D
AV
IL
TH
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
T
98
TO N
DUT
PAR
AV
TL
ST
DO
OL
IT
Legend
ED E
SA
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
NEY R
D
RD
ANL
ST
ST
M E CAR T
AV
K E LL E R
UR
L
GO
RO
ND
A
TH
77
AV
AV
LE
RN
LL
EG
SA
CO
AR
IN
M
SE
FT
RO
DR
AV
NC
BA
AV
BL
VD
B LVD
AL
SI
DE
CI N
B ANC ROFT
IO
VD
BL
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
FO
B UENA
DW
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
20
TH
B
BL
VD LVD
VI
DA
RE
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
ST
IN ST
MA
T
14
AV
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
NE
FR U
IT
ST T
S
TH H
20 2 0T
E
E
TH
12
E 7T
H ST
AV
RD
H
14 T
E
BL
VD
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
VD
BL
LI
TH
U
RK
PA
VAL
E AV
AC
AR
AV
14 TH
AV
AV
14 TH
RT
HU
R B
LV
D
AR
DL E
Y
GR
AN
8T H ST
LI
3R
I NE
AD E
L
AP H AV
TELEG
R
R KIN
G JR
WY
V
DA
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
BR
OA
DW
AY
LAN
RD
IN
O AK
RD
A
AV U NT
MO
IN LU
THE
A
AG
AV
MA R T
A AV
ND
LA
ST
R
MO
MORA
G
H
HIG
INE
AV
ST
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
WE
RT
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
TH
SE T U R A
ER
Y T BE NK
K IN
L IN
UB
GJ
E
ST
RW
FR
Y
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE S T
IS O R S
NS T
MA
T
OA D I
K S SO
T NS
T
VIS
TA
AD E
L
NA
AV
WEBS TER ST
D
BL V
6TH ST
RD
D EL
A P KWY
M AN
D EL
A PK WY
PE
MA N
LY
F ISH R IZZ
R
G
HA
N
O
ST
S
6T T
H
7T S T
HS
T
AN
CH
EL
IDE D
R
8T
H
NT
TER
Y
DWA
ES
MI
D D E HA R
L
ED
PI
K
LA
6TH
S
RD
B OR
HS
20
T
40
T
MA
20
TH
ST
O
EM
AR
ST
8T H
S
7TH T
ST
NN
OA
BR
YP
BA
ST
12T
H
51 ST
S
ST
AV
ST
AV
11
TH
ND
S
MARKET T
PAB LO
SA N
7T H S
T
7TH S T
GR
A
CL
AV
AV
SHATT U CK
AV
40 TH
ST
BE LROSE
O ST
ER
WEB S T
V
DA
OR
T
IS S
ST
E LL
T
LL S
HOLL
PO W
E
PO W
F
AN
ST
WAR RIN G S T
PIED MON T AV
AV
AS HB Y
CO LL EG E AV
AM ENT
Y AV
O
PAB L
SA N
ASHB
T AV
DU RA N
PIED MON T AV
WY
SACR
ST
PAR K ST
7T H
AV
PAB LO
SA N
ST
8T H
DWIG HT
JR W Y
AV
SHATTU CK AV
Y
RS IT
ST
8T H
T
6T H S
E
UN IV
R K IN G
MAR TIN LU T HE
2012-2013
245A(2) Map
Density with Pins of Incidents, Review Period,
Nonfatal Shooting
Density
DR
U
EST
2012-2013 245A(2)
LO
DIL
AV
0 - 40.22866516
DR
40.22866517 - 80.45733032
80.45733033 - 120.6859955
R
PO
AIR
120.6859956 - 160.9146606
VIS
DA
ST
14
TH
ST
160.9146607 - 201.1433258
329
City of Oakland
0.65
1.3 Miles
65
Further work to be done (1)

Note: the problem analysis is a living document; revisions and/or
corrections are made regularly. Please contact Reygan Harmon,
Ceasefire Project Manager, RHarmon@oaklandnet.com for the most
up-to-date version.
1. Enhanced analytic capacity and routinization of analytic exercises
are required to support interventions focused on violence:
Regular and frequent real-time review of violent incidents,
the individuals involved in those incidents, and the groups &
networks they may be part of is necessary to ensure the
analysis is accurate, comprehensive and up-to-date.
Shooting reviews are one key way to facilitate this.
The analysis of social networks of individuals at highest risk of
violence is an important complement to this problem
analysis. This Social Network Analysis, currently facilitated
by Andrew Papachristos of Yale University under the auspices
of the California Partnership for Safe Communities, should be
completed.
330
66
Further work to be done (2)

2. As Realignment progresses, individuals at very highest risk of
violence are increasingly likely to be under local supervision
and/or in local custody. Both the problem analysis & shooting
reviews should focus on opportunities for better understanding
and reducing the risk of violence this population faces. This
process would be a natural extension of the partnership-based
violence reduction strategy work currently under way.
3. Anecdotal information suggests that the involvement of street
groups in human trafficking and the violence associated with it
has been underestimated. Understanding the relationship
between human trafficking, street groups, and violence will
benefit from further data collection and analysis.
331
67
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Marcus, Nancy
Al Leu; Allen Valenzuela; Angela Haller; Angie Tam; Argueta, Jennifer; Barbara Azad; Bedford, Sara; Beverly A.
Williams; Bill Puskas; Bruce Nye; Bryan Parker; Carl Chan; Cary Barbane; Christie, Dyanna; Cotton, Chantal;
Cynthia Balagtas; Dalia Dynes; Deloach Reed, Teresa; DL - City Council; DL - OPD Command; Dorothy Smith;
Eboni Hynes; Esther Guolsley; Fern Stronde; Geoff Collins; Grant, Kevin; Haile, Maereg; Halpern-Finnerty,
Johanna; Harmon, Reygan E.; Holly Colvin; Howard D. Yakoff; J. Copes; Jagannathan, Priya; Jared Williams;
Jay Askford; Jennifer Lynn-Whaley; Jeremy Danky; Jerry Budin; Jesse Strauss; Jessica Chen; Jim Dexter;
Jimenez, Javier; Joe Tuman; Halpern-Finnerty, Johanna; Joseph Tudisco; Judy Cox; Katherine Enad; Ken
Chambers; Kilgore, Kelli; Kim, Peter; Kyle Franklin; Lauren Palmetto; Lena Toney; Linda Taylor; Marc Guillory;
Marcus, Nancy; Margurite Fuller; Marion Mius; Henderson, Mark B; Marleen Sacks ; Mena, Emilio; Wetzel,
Michael; Michael Ubel; Miguel Vargas; Mikela Rabinowitz; Minci XZE; Mitchell, Adriana; Natasha Middleton;
Patricia Bennett ; Paul Junge; Paula Hawthorn; Peg Lum; Renee Wiess; Rita Beles
(Rik@electroncartifacts.com); Rodney Brooks; Scott Olsen; Serin-Christ, Sara; Sheryl Walton; Simmons, Dan;
Sze_old, Sun-Kwong_old; Suo Fong; Treva Reid; Wang, Mailee; William Elman
Joint Meeting for MYOC and Public Safety Oversight Committees
Joint Meeting #1 - Final.pdf
Good Evening,
You are receiving this email as a subscriber to the Measure Y Oversight Committee (MYOC) and/or
Public Safety and Services Oversight Committee (SSOC) meeting notices.
Attached is the agenda for the joint MYOC & SSOC meeting to be held on Monday, May 18, 2015 at
6:00pm in Council Chambers.
If you no longer want to receive these emails, please respond to this email, and I will remove your
name from the distribution list.
If you have any questions, please dont hesitate to contact me.
Thanks,
Nancy Marcus
Special Business Permits
Office of the City Administrator
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza 11th Fl.
Oakland, CA 94612
510-238-3294
510-238-7084 (fax)
City offices will be closed Monday, May 25, 2015

For Immediate Release
March 5, 2015
Long-Term Criminal Investigation Culminates with Arrests
Oakland, CA Today Mayor Libby Schaaf and Oakland Police Chief Sean
Whent were joined by representatives from the community; the California
Department of Justice; the Alameda County District Attorneys Office; the
Alameda County Probation Department; the Oakland Housing Authority; the
Federal Bureau of Investigation; the U.S. Marshals; City of Oakland
councilmembers Desley Brooks and Larry Reid; Bishop Bob Jackson, Pastor of
Acts Full Gospel Church; and the California Highway Patrol at a press conference
discussing the culmination of a long-term criminal investigation.
Media Contact:
510-238-7230
The investigation focused on two of the most active and violent street gangs in the
City of Oakland, 65th Ave Gang and 69th Ave Village Gang. The 65th Ave and 69th
Ave Village gangs have a long history of violence and feuding that goes back
decades. The 2014 murder of a high ranking 69th Ave Village gang member
prompted increased tension between the groups.
Recognizing the serious potential for retaliation and continued violence, we
utilized the Ceasefire Strategy to focus our attention on the groups. We
communicated directly with several members of each gang warning them to stop
the violence and advising them that alternatives existed. Some of the individuals
we communicated with chose not to engage in violence. We focused our collective
resources on those individuals who chose to continue their involvement in violent
crime.
Together with our partner agencies, we worked diligently to gather the information
and intelligence needed to put together these criminal cases. The suspects
identified are responsible for numerous violent crimes, including shootings,
assaults, burglaries, and street robberies.
Chief Whent said, We are relieved to have built cases on these violent individuals.
This extensive investigation was made possible because of the continued
commitment of our partner agencies. We understand we have much more work to
do and we are dedicated to our role in creating a safer Oakland.
This community has made it clear that stopping gun violence is our number one
priority. That is why we are using the proven strength of the Ceasefire partnership
to help end this plague in our city, said Mayor Libby Schaaf. This partnership is
about giving people the opportunity to make better choices, but also being
extremely clear that we will make good on our promise of harsh consequences if
you continue on a path of violence. The individuals that were arrested today were
not only guilty of gang violence, but also of terrorizing Oaklanders with
carjackings, home invasions and street robberies. Taking them off our streets is an
important step toward helping Oakland realize its amazing potential and giving
residents back their right to live without fear.
We are committed to dismantling violent street gangs terrorizing our
communities, said Attorney General Kamala Harris. I want to thank our

Department of Justice agents and the Oakland Police Department for their work to
keep our communities safe.
Some of the firearms recovered during the course of this long-term investigation
are pictured below.
Anonymous Tipping allows residents to proactively connect with the Oakland

Police Department by submitting anonymous tips via web form and text message.
Additionally, with the issuance of a tipping passcode to tipsters, we can initiate a

two-way, anonymous communication to help gather more information.
# # #
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
McDaniel, Sylvia on behalf of OPD Media

OPD Media
Allison, Darren; Boyd, Karen; Coleman, Kirk; Cunningham, Oliver; Derryck, Erica; Downing, David; Figueroa,
Paul; Flores, John; Garcia, Mai-Ling; Hamilton, Freddie; Hamilton, Harry; Hom, Donna; Joshi, Holly J.; Lindsey,
Drennon; Moss, Tomiquia; Nosakhare, Shereda; Orozco, Ricardo; Outlaw, Danielle; Schaaf, Libby; Whent,
Sean; Williams, Sharon J
Long-Term Criminal Investigation Culminates with Arrests
Thursday, March 05, 2015 4:45:40 PM
Long-Term Criminal Investigation Culminates with Arrests.pdf
guns Mar 5 2015 -1.jpg
Final Ceasefire Briefing Sheets.pdf
Oakland, CA Today Mayor Libby Schaaf and Oakland Police Chief Sean Whent were joined by
representatives from the community; the California Department of Justice; the Alameda County
District Attorneys Office; the Alameda County Probation Department; the Oakland Housing
Authority; the Federal Bureau of Investigation; the U.S. Marshals; City of Oakland councilmembers
Desley Brooks and Larry Reid; Bishop Bob Jackson, Pastor of Acts Full Gospel Church; and the
California Highway Patrol at a press conference discussing the culmination of a long-term criminal
investigation.
The investigation focused on two of the most active and violent street gangs in the City of Oakland,
65th Ave Gang and 69th Ave Village Gang. The 65th Ave and 69th Ave Village gangs have a long
history of violence and feuding that goes back decades. The 2014 murder of a high ranking 69th Ave
Village gang member prompted increased tension between the groups.
Recognizing the serious potential for retaliation and continued violence, we utilized the Ceasefire
Strategy to focus our attention on the groups. We communicated directly with several members of
each gang warning them to stop the violence and advising them that alternatives existed. Some of
the individuals we communicated with chose not to engage in violence. We focused our collective
resources on those individuals who chose to continue their involvement in violent crime.
Together with our partner agencies, we worked diligently to gather the information and intelligence
needed to put together these criminal cases. The suspects identified are responsible for numerous
violent crimes, including shootings, assaults, burglaries, and street robberies.
Chief Whent said, We are relieved to have built cases on these violent individuals. This extensive
investigation was made possible because of the continued commitment of our partner agencies. We
understand we have much more work to do and we are dedicated to our role in creating a safer
Oakland.
This community has made it clear that stopping gun violence is our number one priority. That is
why we are using the proven strength of the Ceasefire partnership to help end this plague in our
city, said Mayor Libby Schaaf. This partnership is about giving people the opportunity to make
better choices, but also being extremely clear that we will make good on our promise of harsh
consequences if you continue on a path of violence. The individuals that were arrested today were
not only guilty of gang violence, but also of terrorizing Oaklanders with carjackings, home invasions
and street robberies. Taking them off our streets is an important step toward helping Oakland
realize its amazing potential and giving residents back their right to live without fear.
We are committed to dismantling violent street gangs terrorizing our communities, said Attorney
General Kamala Harris. I want to thank our Department of Justice agents and the Oakland Police
Department for their work to keep our communities safe.
Anonymous Tipping allows residents to proactively connect with the Oakland Police Department by
submitting anonymous tips via web form and text message. Additionally, with the issuance of a
tipping passcode to tipsters, we can initiate a two-way, anonymous communication to help gather
more information.
For more information, please contact the Media Relations Office at 510-238-7230 or
Visit Nixle.com to receive Oakland Police Department alerts, advisories and community messages, or
follow OPD on Twitter, @oaklandpoliceca.
Sylvia McDaniel
Technical Communications Specialist
Media Relations Office, Office of the Chief of Police
smcdaniel@oaklandnet.com
MEMORANDUM
TO:
HONORABLE MAYOR &

CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Safety and Services (Measure Z)

Oversight Commission
Background and Next Steps
FROM: Henry L. Gardner
DATE: December 9, 2014
________________
INFORMATION
This information memorandum describes efforts underway by the City of Oakland staff to
implement the requirements of the 2014 Public Safety and Services Violence Prevention Act
(Safety and Services Act, Measure Z). It outlines the relationship between Measure Y and the
Safety and Services Act, gives a high level overview of the Safety and Services Act
requirements, and outlines the qualifications and timeline for the Safety and Services Act
Oversight Commission.
I.
Overview of the Safety and Services Act (Measure Z)

The Safety and Services Act passed in November 2014 with 77.49% of the vote,
surpassing the required 67% supermajority approval rate. The Safety and Services Act
maintains the current parcel tax rate of $99.77 for a single-family home and the parking
surcharge of 8.5 percent for parking garages/lots. Programs required by the act include:
Police:
1. Geographic Policing: hire, deploy and maintain sworn police personnel assigned to
specific geographic areas or neighborhoods, performing duties such as:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Crime Reduction Teams/CRTs using intelligence based policing

Community Resource Officer engaged in problem solving projects
Intelligence based suppression operations
Domestic violence and child abuse intervention
Sustaining and strengthening of Project Ceasefire
2. Maintenance of Sworn Police

Fire:
Maintain adequate personnel resources to respond to fire and medical emergencies
Henry L. Gardner, City Administrator

Information Memo: Safety and Services (Measure Z) Oversight Commission
Date: December 8, 2014
Page 2
Violence Prevention and Intervention Programs:

1. Street outreach and case management for high-risk youth/young adults.
2. Crisis response for domestic violence victims, commercially sexually exploited
children, and victims of shootings and homicides.
3. Reentry programs for youth and young adults, including case management, school
support, job training and placement.
4. Young children exposed to trauma or domestic and/or community violence.
II.
Measure Y and Measure Z

The existing Public Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2004 (Measure Y) will run
concurrently with the Safety and Services Act until all Measure Y business is completed.
This includes the following:
1. An oversight committee to oversee the usage of the funds.
2. An annual financial audit.
3. An annual program performance evaluation for all Police and Human Services
activities.
According to the City Attorneys Office, the City is required to maintain the Measure Y
Oversight Committee due to the written requirements in Measure Y calling for an
oversight body to perform the aforementioned duties. The Measure Y ordinance does not
allow for such duties to be done by another body as a replacement of the Measure Y
Oversight Committee. In addition, the Safety and Services Act did not grant authority for
the Safety and Services Oversight Commission to provide oversight for anything outside
of the scope of the new measure.
III.
The Safety and Services Oversight Commission Role (Job Duties)

The Safety and Services Oversight Commission serves in the capacity to make
recommendations to the Public Safety Committee and City Council. According to the
ordinance, the Commission will be responsible for the following:
1. Inquire, review and evaluate the administration, coordination, and evaluation of
strategies and practices mandated in this Ordinance.
2. Make recommendations to the City Administrator and, as appropriate, the
independent evaluator regarding the scope of the annual program performance
evaluation. Wherever possible, the scope shall relate directly to the efficacy of
strategies to achieve desired outcomes and to issues raised in previous evaluations.
3. Receive draft performance reviews to provide feedback before the final report.
4. Report issues identified in the annual fiscal audit to the Mayor and City Council.
5. Review the annual fiscal and performance audits and evaluations.
6. Report in a public meeting to the Mayor and the City Council on the
implementation of this Ordinance and recommend ordinances, resolutions, and
regulations to ensure compliance with the requirements and intents of this
Ordinance.

Page 3
7. Provide input on strategies: At least every three (3) years, the department head or
his/her designee of each department receiving funds from this Ordinance shall
present to the Commission a priority spending plan for funds received from this
Ordinance. The priority spending plan shall include proposed expenditures,
strategic rationales for those expenditures and intended measurable outcomes and
metrics expected from those expenditures. In a public meeting, the Commission
shall make recommendations to the Mayor and City Council on the strategies in the
plans prior to the City Council adoption of the plans.
8. The Commission will recommend to the Mayor and City Council those strategies
and practices funded by the Safety and Services Act that should be continued and/or
terminated, based on successes in responding to, reducing or preventing violent
crime as demonstrated in the evaluation.
9. Semi-Annual Progress Reports: Twice each year, the Commission shall receive a
report from a representative of each department receiving funds from this
Ordinance, updating the Commission on progress towards the desired outcomes.
10. Have a Joint Meeting of the Commission and City Council: The City Council, the
Commission and other public safety-related boards and commissions shall conduct
an annual joint special public informational meeting devoted to the subject of public
safety.
IV.
Qualifications and Backgrounds (Commissioner Job Description)

The Safety and Services Oversight Commission will consist of 9 members, one
recommended by each councilmember and one recommended by the Mayor. All
appointments will be made according to the City Charter. The ordinance clearly calls out
specific qualifications for the Commissioners, including the following:
Category 1: At least two (2) members with extensive experience working with serviceeligible populations (retirees welcome), especially youth and young adults at highest risk
of violence. This could include backgrounds such as the following:
Case manager, violence intervention specialist, or youth worker
Job developer or reentry employment specialist
Mental health, systems advocate, or social worker with experience in
working with victims of community violence, domestic violence, trauma,
and/or commercial sexual exploitation
Probation, parole, or law enforcement officer
Category 2: At least two (2) members who reflect the service-eligible population,
specifically individuals at highest risk of violence and who have engaged in
comprehensive services. This could include backgrounds such as the following:
Formerly incarcerated individuals
Individuals on or that have been on probation or parole
Victims of violence or sexual exploitation
Individuals that have been engaged in community violence

Page 4
Category 3: At least two (2) members with a professional law enforcement or criminal
justice background (retirees welcome). This could include backgrounds such as the
following:
Public defenders
Court experience
Probation experience
District Attorneys Office
Parole experience
Police officer
All members should have the ability to think about larger policy implications. The
remaining three (3) members should have one or more of the general qualifications as set
forth in the Safety and Services Act including individuals with experience in criminal
justice, public health, social services, research and evaluation, finance, audits, and/or
public policy.
The Safety and Services Act does not require residency in Oakland, but an intimate
knowledge of Oakland and its communities and/or residency or employment in Oakland
are highly preferred.
Staff will work with Council offices, if needed, to help generate interviewees for
potential members. With the short timeframe to get the Commission seated and operating,
staff will also coordinate with the Mayors Office to ensure membership balance.
V.
Who should be on the Commission?

Councilmembers should choose members who are dedicated and willing to attend the
meetings and contribute to discussion. They should generally be people that can look at
the issues from a high level and provide sound recommendations to the Public Safety
Committee and City Council.
Should the Current Measure Y Oversight Committee Members be moved to the Safety
and Services Commission? No. With the background knowledge that they have about
Measure Y, it is best to keep that committee intact and use such historical knowledge to
properly close out Measure Y. In addition, due to the timeline overlap of the two
measures, it will be logistically and programmatically challenging to have members serve
on two committees simultaneously.
VI.
Next Steps
The commission should be chosen soon because the first order of business for the
commission has to occur by April 2015 (the first priority spending plan presentation must
occur by 120 days after the effective date of the ordinance). This means that the
commission should be confirmed by City Council, seated, and have received orientation
about roles, process, etc., by early March 2015.

Page 5
Staff requests that the City Council and the Mayor brainstorm potential candidates and
recommend those candidates by January 31, 2015 to allow the Mayors office and
City staff the time needed to organize all necessary details.
/s/
HENRY L. GARDNER
City Administrator
For questions, please contact Chantal Cotton Gaines, at ccotton@oaklandnet.com, or

510-238-7587.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
Summary of Measure Z
RFP Planning Process
Measure Y Oversight Committee
April 22, 2015
34
RFP: Process & Timeline
For new contracts to begin July 1, 2015, RFP must be released by

February/March. Considering need for SSOC and Council approval of
spending plan/RFP, this is impossible.
Requesting a 6 month extension of the process for a more robust
planning period would mean:
all current contracts extended until December 31, 2015

RFP approved July 2015
RFP released August 2015
Proposals due September 2015
Recommendations/Approval of Awards October 2015
Contract Negotiations November/December 2015
New Contracts begin January 1, 2016
35
RFP: Process & Timeline

Internal Review (January-February):
past data and evaluations, past provider/client input
staff feedback
literature review of best practices and effective models
External Review (January-March):
Asset Inventory and Gap Analysis (Urban Strategies)

City Stakeholder Interviews (Prevention Institute)
Providers/Clients Focus Groups
ED Listening Session/Youth Forum
Public Partner Meetings
Draft Recommendations for RFP/Spending Plan (March/April)

Synthesize information into first draft
Prepare final draft
Present Recommendation and Secure Approval (May-July)

SSOC, Public Safety Committee, and Full Council Approvals
36
OU Listening Campaign Overview
Six focus groups were held with a total of 26 Oakland Unite agencies represented, across all
program strategies: Family Violence and CSEC; Shooting and Homicide Response; Street
Outreach; Youth Employment; Young Adult Reentry; and Youth Case Management
Three intense focus groups were held with: 6 OU youth participants, 7 OU young adult
participants, and 10 members of the Youth Advisory Commission
Additionally, three listening sessions were held with: 17 Executive Directors in the Oakland Unite
Network; 8 members of the Ceasefire Partnership Committee; and a general public Youth Forum
with over 120 youth participants (co-sponsored with OFCY)
This input will be combined with participant and provider feedback collected by RDA from
prior year evaluations and interviews, along with a services gap analysis and community
stressor report created by Urban Strategies
Researching best practices and innovative programming in other cities including San
Francisco, Richmond, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, and Boston
Interviews with key stakeholders and systems leaders, including the Mayor, Councilmembers,
OUSD Superintendant, Chief of Probation, District Attorney, State Parole Office, Highland Hospital,
and Public Health Dept
37
Summary of Grantee and Participant Feedback

Strategies
Success
Focused Youth
Services (JJC and
OUSD Wraparound
Services; and Youth
Employment)
Young Adult Reentry

Services
Family Violence
Intervention
Violence
Incident/Crisis
Intervention
Gaps/Challenges
Intense relationships and
consistent presence of
mentor/advocate/case manager are
critical elements to participant
success
Improved
coordination/collaboration across
systems and agencies

Improved data and information in
regards to how we access, use and
share
Sometimes a disconnect with

probation/schools, in terms of
alignment of goals, consistent
communication
Lack of shared risk assessment and
evaluation tools
Gaps in services, esp in areas of
employment, enrichment
opportunities, mental
health/substance abuse, and intensive
academic support
We have positive impact on lives in

areas of school engagement, job
training/transitional employment,
decrease in recidivism/contact with
law enforcement, and improved

access to resources
Caseload sizes can impact ability to

engage youth as intensively or
consistently as needed
Increased ability to respond

immediately to crises, esp around
support to families of homicide
victims, victims of gun violence, and

mediation of retaliation (ie: 2nd and
3rd incidents)
Lack of long term shelter/ permanent

housing
Dedicated program staff that reflect

the participants experiences, can
relate and connect, and are
passionate about the work
Hopes/Aspiration
Revisting and strengthening

Intensive Case
Management/Life Mentorship
model with emphasis on
relationships
Streamlining and improving

communication and
collaboration between
partners and across systems
Expanding access and

availability of resources, with
an eye towards increasing
providers internal capacities
In particular, must develop

improved pathways and
relationships with long-term
employers
Improve ability to measure

different types of change and
outcomes across agencies and
services
Develop trainings and shared

standards of practice
Develop a more cohesive

theory of change that
encompasses all of OU
Lack of support systems for entire

family
Addressing needs of undocumented,

LGBTQ, GWOC, CSEMale participants
Staff burnout and promoting self-care
of staff (vicarious trauma support)
Internal instability of grassroots CBOs
in regards to financial strength, staff
38 turnover, consistent/supportive
management, and regular trainings
Comments & Questions???
39
From: Sze, Sun-Kwong (Michael) <MSze@oaklandnet.com>

Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2015 5:29 PM
To: Nosakhare, Shereda; Harris, Monica
Subject:
RE: Public Safety Summit
Attachments: Oak. Sum. English Post Card (4-23-15).pdf
Hi Monica,
Attached is the flyer and registration information. Let me know if you have further questions.
Best,
Sun Kwong
Sun Kwong (Michael) Sze
Special Projects Coordinator | Office of the Mayor
1 Frank. H. Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor, Oakland CA 94612
Office: 510.238.3141 | Direct: 510.238.7577|Email: msze@oaklandnet.com
From: Nosakhare, Shereda
To: Harris, Monica
Cc: Sze, Sun-Kwong (Michael)
Subject: RE: Public Safety Summit
Hi Monica,
Sun- Kwong (copied) can assist with your question.
Best,
Shereda
Shereda F. Nosakhare
Deputy Chief of Staff | Office of the Mayor
1 Frank. H. Ogawa Plaza, 3rd Floor, Oakland CA 94612
Office: 510.238.3141 | Direct: 510.238.7439 |
Email: snosakhare@oaklandnet.com|http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/Mayor/index.htm
From: Harris, Monica
To: Nosakhare, Shereda
Subject: Public Safety Summit
Hi Shereda,
I am looking for information re: the Public Safety Summit that the Mayors Office is holding. Dan wants
us to include that in our newsletter.
Could you point me in the appropriate direction?
Thanks,
Monica Harris
Community Liaison
District 1, Councilman Dan Kalb

City Council | City of Oakland
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza Ste. 234 | Oakland, CA 94612
510-238-7014
Click this link to subscribe to Council Member Kalb's newsletter.
2015
OAKLAND
SUMMIT
Mayor Libby Schaaf and Chief of Police
Sean Whent will present their vision of
Oakland through Community Policing.
Saturday, June 6, 2015

Welcome Session: 9:00am to 10:30am
Workshops: 10:45am to 12:00pm
Tentatively scheduled workshops include:
Laney College*
900 Fallon Street

Oakland, California 94607
* Parking in the Laney College parking lot off E. 8th Street.
Handicap parking on campus off 7th Street. See Oakland
Summit website for parking map.
Community Healing through

Restorative Justice
Community Policing in
Oakland
Data-Driven Policing
Gang Awareness
Procedural Justice and
Ceasefire
Public Nuisance and

Problem Priorities
Public Works
Violence Prevention
Programs
Spanish Work Session

Chinese Work Session
How to Register:
Visit: www.oaklandnet.com/summit
Call: (510) 986-2715
Deadline to register is May 22nd, 2015
To request interpretation services in Spanish call (510) 238-7159 or in

Chinese call (510) 238-3102. For more information, visit the Oakland Summit
website, www.oaklandnet.com/summit, or Neighborhood Services website,
www.oaklandnet.com/neighborhoodservices.html
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

OPD Media
Drennon; Moss, Tomiquia; Nosakhare, Shereda; Outlaw, Danielle; Schaaf, Libby; Whent, Sean; Williams,
Sharon J
Oakland Police Department Launches Ceasefire Web Page
Ceasefire Web Page.pdf
Oakland, CA On Wednesday, May 6, 2015 the Oakland Police Department launched a

new Ceasefire page on the Departments website.
Ceasefire is the Oakland Police Departments violence reduction strategy. Implemented in

partnership with community members, faith leaders, and service providers, Ceasefire seeks to
reduce homicides and shootings by using intelligence to identify groups and individuals
involved in crime so that we can direct our collective attention on them. Intervening in the
lives of those most at risk and offering alternatives toward a healthy future is a vital element
of the Ceasefire strategy.
Once identified as being involved in or at risk for violence, individuals and/or groups are
offered resources and encouragement to choose a different path but also warned that violence
will result in arrest and prosecution. Ceasefire is a fair, ethical, and effective violence
intervention strategy that has been successfully implemented in other U.S. cities.

How Ceasefire Oakland communicates with gangs/groups involved in violent behavior
Media links

Visit Nixle.com to receive Oakland Police Department alerts, advisories and community
messages, or follow OPD on Twitter, @oaklandpoliceca.
# # #
Sylvia McDaniel


510-637-0441
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Luby, Oliver
Birch, Timothy; Coleman, Kirk
Gibbons, Mary; Stoffmacher, Bruce
RE: CID Report
Monday, April 20, 2015 4:12:00 PM
Thank you.
From: Birch, Timothy

Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 4:10 PM
To: Luby, Oliver; Coleman, Kirk
Cc: Gibbons, Mary; Stoffmacher, Bruce
Subject: CID Report
Good Afternoon Oliver and Kirk,
Please find attached the report on CID for our meeting tomorrow.
I dont believe Mary or Bruce will need to attend.
See you then,
Tim
Timothy Birch
Police Services Manager
Research and Planning
Office of the Chief
455 7th Street, 8th floor
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 238-6443
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Luby, Oliver
Birch, Timothy
Gibbons, Mary; Stoffmacher, Bruce
RE: Conference Call this Morning re: Crime Lab
Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:59:00 AM
Dan will be here in 6 min. We will call you then. Sorry for the delay.

Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2015 10:48 AM
To: Luby, Oliver
Cc: Gibbons, Mary; Stoffmacher, Bruce; Bolotina, Olga
Subject: RE: Conference Call this Morning re: Crime Lab
Thank you Oliver!
Timothy Birch
Office of the Chief
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 238-6443
From: Luby, Oliver

To: Birch, Timothy; Bolotina, Olga
Cc: Gibbons, Mary; Stoffmacher, Bruce
Subject: RE: Conference Call this Morning re: Crime Lab
Hi Tim.
Thanks. Im still waiting on CM Kalb. If he makes it in by 11 am, well call Mary from his office.
Otherwise, I will call to represent our office.
Oliver

To: Bolotina, Olga
Cc: Luby, Oliver; Gibbons, Mary; Stoffmacher, Bruce
Subject: Conference Call this Morning re: Crime Lab
Good Morning Olga,
I hope this message finds you well.
I am trying to confirm meetings concerning the report on Criminal Investigations.

Bruce Stoffmacher scheduled a conference call for 11:00 this morning between your office and
Mary Gibbons, our Crime Lab Manager.
If the call is still on, please contact Mary at 3386.
I have attached the latest version of the report.
Thank you,
Tim
Timothy Birch
Office of the Chief
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 238-6443
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Birch, Timothy
Bolotina, Olga
Luby, Oliver; Stoffmacher, Bruce
Agenda Report on Investigations
Monday, April 13, 2015 3:47:05 PM
Report on CID.docx
Attachment A Investigators in Large California Cities Final.docx
Attachment B Grand Jury Crime Lab Report.pdf
Hello Olga,
I hope this message finds you well.
Please find attached a draft report in response to Council Member Kalbs request concerning
Investigations in the Oakland Police Department.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
I still have a meeting on this subject scheduled for next week. Please let me know if you would still
like to meet.
Thank you,
Tim
Timothy Birch
Office of the Chief
Oakland, CA 94607
(510) 238-6443
AGENDA REPORT
TO: JOHN A. FLORES
FROM: Sean Whent
SUBJECT: Investigative Capacity of the

City Administrator
Approval
DATE:
April 17, 2015
Date

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Public Safety Committee accept this Informational Report from the
Oakland Police Department (OPD) on the Investigative Capacity of the Criminal Investigations
Division.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As discussed in the Analysis section of this report, the Oakland Police Department recommends
adding the following positions:
Twenty Sergeants of Police

One-hundred forty-nine Police Officers
Thirty-five Criminalists
Fifty-four Police Evidence Technicians
One Police Services Manager I
Two Management Assistants (or Supervising Crime Analysts, as a new
classification)
Sixteen Administrative Analyst IIs (or Crime Analysts, as a new classification)
This report also recommends substantial expansion or replacement of the current Crime Lab to
accommodate additional positions.
OUTCOME
This report will help facilitate discussion between the Oakland Police Department and the Public
Safety Committee regarding the investigative capacity of the Criminal Investigation Division.
Item: __________
Public Safety Committee
May 12, 2015
John A. Flores, Interim City Administrator

Subject: Investigative Capacity of the Oakland Police Department
Date: April 17, 2015
Page 2

The Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the Oakland Police Department is charged with
conducting follow up investigations on major crimes in the City of Oakland. The Division is led
by a Captain of Police, who supervises six Lieutenants of Police. Each Lieutenant oversees one
of the following sections:
Homicide
Robbery and Burglary
Theft/Misdemeanor Crimes and Field Support/Task Forces
Special Victims
Youth and Family Services
Felony Assault and Gangs
The CID Captain reports to the Assistant Chief of Police.

ANALYSIS
As requested by Council Member Dan Kalb, this report will attempt to answer all of the
following requests:
What percentage of serious crimes are investigated by CID?

What are actual staffing levels for sworn investigators and what would be ideal?
How many Police Evidence Technicians (PETs) does OPD have? Are some
investigations not possible due to an insufficient number of PETs?
In what ways is crime lab staffing or the facility itself a factor in the success in
investigations?
What is the status of Bratton-Wasserman recommendations as they relate to
investigations?
What is relationship between CID and the Alameda County District Attorneys Office?
Investigations of Serious Crimes

The following table provides the percentage of reported crimes assigned to investigators
since 2009. Data is largely unavailable prior to 2009.
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Homicide 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Robbery
18%
24%
34%
N/A 26%
20%
Burglary
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4%
3%
Aggravated Assault
12%
28%
27%
N/A
N/A
66%
Domestic Violence
66%
26%
49%
92% 64%
68%
Sexual Assault and Child Abuse 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Vice/Child Exploitation 100% 100%
90% 100% 100%
77%
N/A: Not Available due to record-keeping practices in previous years
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Page 3
Staffing Levels of Sworn Investigators: Current and Ideal

There are 133 sworn and nineteen civilian positions allocated to CID. As of the writing of this
report, all nineteen civilian positions are filled. The following table provides approved and
actual staffing levels for sworn investigators as of December 31, 2014.
Section
Homicide
Theft/Misdemeanor Crimes
and Field Support/Task Forces
Special Victims
Youth and School Services
Sergeants
Approved Actual
6
5
3
2
2
1
Ideal
8
5
Unk.
4
3
3
18
Unk.
5
4
1
3
Officers
Approved Actual
6
5
13
11
19
18
27
16
18
25
16
18
Ideal
8
27
Unk.
140
Unk.
38
HOMICIDE SECTION
A 2008 study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) found that of fifty-five
agencies with a minimum of twenty-five homicides per year for five years, homicide
investigators handled an average of five cases annually. The study found that law
enforcement agencies with smaller homicide investigator caseloads had a 5.4 percent
higher clearance rate than those agencies with larger homicide investigator caseloads. 1
The Oakland Police Department currently has twelve investigators. There were eightysix homicides (including eighty murders) in 2014, resulting in an average of nearly seven
homicide cases per investigator. Decreasing the caseload even to the average from this
study would require increasing the number of OPD homicide investigators to sixteen.
SPECIAL VICTIMS SECTION
A 2014 survey was conducted by OPD concerning the investigator caseloads within the
Special Victims Unit and the Domestic Violence Unit (part of the Special Victims
Section of CID). Alameda County law enforcement agencies provided an average
caseload of twenty to twenty-five per investigator. At the time of the survey, OPD was
averaging 147 cases per Special Victims investigator and 657 cases per Domestic
Violence investigator. The Special Victims Unit investigates allegations of rape and
child molest, abuse, endangerment, pornography, and neglect.
In order to meet the Countywide average, OPD would require six times the current
number of Special Victims Unit investigators and twenty-six times the current number of
Domestic Violence Unit investigators. There are currently seven investigators assigned
to the Special Victims Unit and five assigned to the Domestic Violence Unit. To equal
the average caseload of investigators in Alameda County law enforcement, the Special
Victims Unit would require forty-two investigators and the Domestic Violence Unit
would require 130 investigators.
http://leb.fbi.gov/2008-pdfs/leb-february-2008
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Page 4
Human trafficking is also handled by the Special Victims Section. In order to have
greater impact upon human trafficking, OPD needs to add a significant number of
personnel. Four additional Vice/Child Exploitation Unit investigators are needed to
perform operations. Six additional Special Victims Unit investigators are needed to
perform follow-up work resulting from these operations.
ROBBERY AND BURGLARY SECTION/FELONY ASSAULT AND GANGS
SECTION
Concerning investigator caseloads for Robbery, Burglary, and Aggravated Assault, few
guidelines exist. Attachment A provides a detailed comparison of the City of Oakland to
five of the other largest cities within California. By using 2014 FBI Uniform Crime
Report (UCR) information and the current number of specialized investigators actually
assigned for each city, the following ratios of reported offenses to investigator were
determined:
Oakland
Average including Oakland
Average excluding Oakland
Average excluding Oakland and San Jose
Robbery Burglary
419:1
735:1
206:1
1,332:1
164:1
1,451:1
522:1
Aggravated
Assault
443:1
292:1
262:1
The Oakland Police Department had the highest ratio of offenses to investigators in all
categories except for Burglary. If the average number of investigators actually assigned
was applied to Oakland, OPD would have sixteen Robbery investigators, three Burglary
investigators, and nine Aggravated Assault investigators. Excluding Oakland from the
averages increases the numbers to twenty Robbery investigators and ten Aggravated
Assault investigators. Excluding Oakland and San Jose from the Burglary average would
call for Oakland to have seven Burglary investigators. (The San Jose Police Department
has only one Burglary investigator to handle over 5,000 burglaries per year.)
Concerning Gang investigations, the Oakland Police Department has experienced great
success through using the Ceasefire strategy to reduce violent crime in Oakland. One
critical component of this success is the ability to respond effectively to shootings
through the deployment of a dedicated Crime Reduction Team (CRT). Adding two
additional Ceasefire CRTs would greatly enhance the violence reduction capabilities and
further reduce aggravated assaults.
THEFT/MISDEMEANOR CRIMES AND FIELD SUPPORT/TASK FORCES AND
YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES SECTIONS
Unfortunately, there is no known way to determine the ideal staffing number for the
Theft/Misdemeanor Crimes and Field Support/Task Forces or Youth and Family Services
sections of CID. Because both of these sections are so specialized and each one handles
such a variety of services, it is unknown how many additional staff are needed.
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Page 5
Police Evidence Technicians

The Oakland Police Department has eighteen civilian Police Evidence Technician (PET)
positions allocated. All eighteen positions are filled as of the writing of this report. In
addition, there are four sworn PETs. Three of these sworn Technicians are assigned one
to each Patrol shift and the fourth serves as the Evidence Technician Coordinator.
There is an insufficient number of PETs to respond adequately to every significant crime
scene in the City of Oakland. Minimum staffing for PETs is two per shift. Each
homicide scene requires a minimum of two PETs to process and should use three to four
PETs to process well. Each homicide scene requires a minimum of two hours to process
and may take as long as ten hours. After processing the scene, several hours (up to two
or three additional shifts) are required to process the evidence collected. With at least
eighty homicides annually over the last few years, the availability of PETs to respond to
other serious crimes is very limited.
Increasing the number of civilian PETs from eighteen to twenty-two would reduce the
number of shifts in which only two PETs are working. This increase would greatly
enhance the opportunity for PETs to respond to every significant crime scene. In turn,
the evidence collected and processed would provide further opportunity to investigate
and reduce crime in Oakland. An additional fifty PETs are required to process property
crimes for biological and latent fingerprint evidence in coordination with the Crime Lab.
There has been a substantial decline in the collection of fingerprint evidence by OPD
personnel during the last twenty-five years, as provided in the below chart:
Number of Incidents in Which Latent Prints were Submitted
to the Crime Laboratory from the Field
3000
Number of Incidents
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
1990 1995 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Calendar Year
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Page 6
Crime Lab Staffing, Facility, and Success in Investigations

The Oakland Police Department has an authorized staff of thirty-three civilian positions.
As of this report, twenty-seven positions are filled. Two of the six vacancies cannot be
filled because of inadequate laboratory space for the Firearms Unit. All other units are at
capacity as well. Laboratory staffing is a major factor in the success of investigations
principally in latent prints, DNA evidence, and firearms casework. The size of the
facility is the single greatest impediment to full staffing. Having an adequately-sized
facility would assist in attracting and retaining staff as well as improving casework
efficiency and lead to greater success in investigations.
With full staffing, the Forensic Biology Unit is well positioned to meet the demand for
service at current levels. The expansion of DNA services to property crimes would
certainly require additional analysts. Based on the experience in the United Kingdom
(where property crimes are aggressively investigated and DNA testing is routinely used),
approximately 10 percent of such crimes result in the collection of biological evidence
and 77 percent of those with evidence result in the submission of DNA profiles to the
DNA database. Our current hit rate in CODIS to unknown offenders is on the order of 50
percent, meaning that half of the cases submitted to the DNA database now result in the
identification of a previously unknown suspect.
Assuming the United Kingdom experience is predictive, we estimate additional
laboratory staffing ranging from seven to thirty-five analysts would be required
depending upon whether testing was applied to all property crimes with biological
evidence or restricted to burglaries only. Further reductions may be possible if the
number of items of evidence submitted per case for testing was capped. Based on hit rate
alone, there is a significant potential to solve crimes through DNA technology
The number of incidents that give rise to latent prints submitted to the laboratory is
known as shown in the graph above for the years 1990-2014. What is not known is the
total number of crime scene processing events for those years that gave rise to the subset
with prints. Thus, it is difficult to predict based on these data how many more cases
would result in latent print submissions to the laboratory were all property crimes scenes
processed.
Based on historical data, 56 percent of all incidents that result in the collection of latent
prints include computer searchable (AFIS) prints. If searched, OPD expects the AFIS
database to return the source of the prints approximately 50 percent of the time. Based
on the last four years of data, OPD receives approximately 500 AFIS quality cases per
year. However, only 15 percent of these are searched and most of those are associated
with person crimes. On average, 428 cases per year are not searched. Those cases
represent 214 lost opportunities to solve crime annually. In order to search all the AFIS
prints the lab currently receives, OPD estimates a need for two additional examiners.
However, those two additional staff members cannot be accommodated in the current
facility.
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Page 7
There is no doubt that the expansion of crime scene latent print processing to all property
crimes or even just to burglary will dramatically increase the numbers of AFIS searchable
prints submitted to the Laboratory. This will require a commensurate, but known,
increase in latent print staff to process. However, the dividends of collection and testing
could be significant for public safety given the recidivistic nature of these crimes and the
fact that such offenses are a step stone to more serious crime.
Another important consideration in favor of further evidence collection, processing, and
testing for property crimes with potential for DNA or latent print evidence is an increase
in efficiency. With true intelligence-led policing, it is much more cost effective to use
available technology (and accompanying civilian personnel) than to simply assign more
sworn investigators who will not be able to make informed decisions based on science.
Based on space considerations alone, significant expansion or replacement of the Crime
Lab is necessary to accommodate the staff currently allotted to the Crime Laboratory,
much less any additional positions. Significant additional staff is necessary to process
biological evidence and latent print evidence collected by additional Police Evidence
Technicians in all property crime cases. Significant expansion or replacement of the
Crime Lab is necessary to accommodate additional positions.
Any increase in the number of investigators within CID would necessitate a
corresponding increase in the number of Crime Lab personnel, as the demand for lab test
results would increase. This, in turn, would necessitate additional space for the Crime
Lab, which is already insufficient. While there are no established standards for caseload
and staff size, there are standards/guidelines on space per staff. These standards/
guidelines provide 800 to 1,000 square feet per staff member. The Crime Lab currently
provides about 200 square feet per staff member. Actual laboratory space is about
ninety-six square feet per staff member.
A copy of the September 2013 Agenda Report concerning the follow-up to the Grand
Jury Report on Crime Lab Services (Attachment B) provides additional information
concerning the OPD Crime Lab staffing, facility, and success in investigations.
Attachment C provides further updates in response to the Grand Jury Report.
Bratton-Wasserman Recommendations on Investigations
In May 2013, the Bratton Group, LLC (Bill Bratton) produced a report for the City of
Oakland. This report, Rapid and Effective Response to Robberies, Burglaries and
Shootings, included a recommendation that each of the five OPD patrol areas be staffed
with a District-Investigative Unit (DIU) made up of an investigative sergeant, three
experience investigators, and three to five police officers. The recommendation was that
the DIU would work staggered hours in the afternoons and evenings seven days a week.
This would allow DIU personnel to respond to crime scenes to interview victims, canvass
for witness, and gather evidence. The DIU sergeant would be responsible for
coordinating with the Criminal Investigations Division (CID), evidence technicians, and
the crime lab. The DIU sergeant would also report to the Area Captain and represent
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Page 8
district investigations at CompStat meetings. The report provided a number of

appendices that included detailed information on a district-level case-management
system.
The Oakland Police Department has attempted to implement the above recommendation
with varying levels of completion over the past two years. Unfortunately, low staffing
levels have plagued OPD and prevented full implementation. A previous attempt (in the
early 2000s) to decentralize property crimes and some crimes against persons was
unsuccessful. Identified problems included an inability to prioritize investigations across
areas and inconsistency of training and skill among decentralized staff.
What has been successful for CID is a limited implementation in which investigators
within CID are assigned to handle specific types of crime within designated patrol areas.
Even if additional staffing is provided, physically decentralized investigators may not be
the best model for OPD. In its limited implementation, DIU personnel are housed in CID
so that they can report to their respective lieutenants more effectively. The designated
personnel also maintain relationships and active communication with respective area
captains.
The Oakland Police Department should implement the recommendation from BrattonWasserman in Rapid and Effective Response to Robberies, Burglaries and Shootings that
DIU personnel work staggered hours in the afternoons and evenings seven days a week to
allow response to crime scenes to interview victims, canvass for witness, and gather
evidence. At present, OPD has very limited ability to respond to crimes that have just
occurred. Because of the extraordinarily high call volume and very limited resources,
Oakland Police personnel are generally unable to respond to robberies that have just
occurred. The results are critical failures in three areas: an inability to gather information
from victims when memory is strongest; an inability to interview witnesses before they
have left the area; and an inability to apprehend robbery suspects before they flee.
Dedicating sworn personnel to be able to respond immediately to robberies that have just
occurred will greatly increase opportunities to obtain useful information from victims and
witnesses as well as opportunities to arrest suspects. In addition to being able to respond
immediately to robberies, officers would be able to perform necessary follow-up
investigative work when not investigating a crime that just occurred. This follow-up
investigative work would allow traditional CID Robbery Section Investigators to perform
other investigative functions.
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Page 9
In October 2013, the Strategic Policy Partnership, LLC (Bill Bratton and Robert
Wasserman) produced a report for the City of Oakland. This report, Best Practices
Review, included recommendations that the Oakland Police Department:
Decentralize investigations in the manner recommended by the Bratton Group,

LLC.
Significantly increase the camera monitoring capabilities of the OPD in
commercial areas throughout the city to provide identifications and evidence in
robbery, burglary, and some shooting cases.
Establish a new protocol for the processing of fingerprints from burglary scenes
so that prints in cases with other leads and/or in cases that have been linked a
pattern of burglaries can be submitted for expeditious AFIS comparisons. Hire
additional fingerprint analysts as needed to provide this service.
The first recommendation, concerning the decentralization of specific investigations, has

been addressed previously in this report. The second recommendation in the Best
Practices Review further stated that [c]ameras would be monitored and recorded at the
Domain Awareness Center that is currently under construction. At the December 16,
2014 Public Safety Committee meeting, a private video camera registration program was
discussed. This issue was referred by the Public Safety Committee to the Privacy
Committee. The third recommendation, concerning the processing of latent fingerprints,
does not adequately consider two dimensions: first, there is no more room in the current
Crime Lab for the additional fingerprint analysts. Second, even if there was sufficient
space and more fingerprint analysts, there is an insufficient number of investigators to
follow up on any leads established by the evidence. Adding burglary investigators
necessitates fewer (additional) personnel for other priorities such as investigating
violent crime.
In December 2013, the Strategic Policy Partnership, LLC produced an additional report
for the City of Oakland. This report, Zeroing Out Crime, expanded crime reduction
responsibilities to other City departments. This report reinforced the recommendations of
the previous two reports and did not provide any additional recommendations concerning
investigations.
Relationship between Investigators and the Alameda County District Attorneys Office
The Oakland Police Department particularly CID has an excellent relationship with
the Alameda County District Attorneys (District Attorneys) Office. The District
Attorneys Office has provided the Oakland Police Department with two full-time
Deputy District Attorneys to assist with criminal legal issues and case consultation. One
is situated on-site in CID at the Police Administrative Building. The other is co-located
with the Domestic Violence Unit and Special Victims Unit at the Family Violence
Center.
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Page 10
Crime Analysis
Though not part of the request by Council Member Kalbs Office, the importance of an
effective Crime Analysis Section cannot be overstated. At present, OPD has four
Administrative Analyst II positions that serve as Crime and Intelligence Analysts. There
is currently no separate Crime and Intelligence Analyst classification within the City of
Oakland, thus the minimum requirements for the position are no different than for any
other Administrative Analyst II position within the City. In addition to a lack of specific
credentials (such as certification from the renowned California State University,
Sacramento Crime Analysis training program), there is a significant lack of capacity to
perform Crime Analysis. As part of the forthcoming OPD Strategic Plan, it is
recommended that a Crime Analysis Section be created in OPD. This section should
include a Police Services Manager I, two Management Assistants (or Supervising Crime
Analysts, as a new classification), and twenty Administrative Analyst IIs (or Crime
Analysts, as a new classification).
The return on investment in creating a Crime and Intelligence Analysis Section would be
substantial in making the City of Oakland a safer community. The analysis performed by
the section would provide CID, Ceasefire, and all other operational units with
information that would allow sworn personnel to perform in a far more efficient manner.
Due to caseload and other more appropriate duties, sworn investigators do not currently
have the opportunity to perform adequate analysis of crimes such as robbery to determine
patterns or trends. Even with properly trained Administrative Analyst IIs in this role, the
sheer volume of crime dictates much greater numbers of personnel. Having an effective
Crime Analysis Section in place would greatly increase the efficiencies of OPD
particularly CID and lead to lower crime throughout the City of Oakland.
COORDINATION
The City Attorneys Office was consulted in preparation of this report.
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Page 11
social equity through criminal investigation and crime reduction.
For questions regarding this report, please contact Captain Kirk Coleman, Criminal Investigation
Division, at (510) 238-4486 or Police Services Manager Mary Gibbons, Criminalistics Section,
at (510) 238-3386.
Sean Whent
Chief of Police
Prepared by:
Timothy Birch
Police Services Manager I
Office of the Chief
Attachment A: Investigators in Large California Cities

Attachment B: September 5, 2013 Agenda Report:
Follow-Up to Grand Jury Report on Crime Lab Services
Item: __________
May 12, 2015
AGENDA REPORT
TO: JOHN A. FLORES
FROM: Sean Whent
SUBJECT: Investigative Capacity of the

DATE:
City Administrator
Approval
April 7, 2015
Date

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Public Safety Committee accept this Informational Report from the
Oakland Police Department (OPD) on the Investigative Capacity of the Criminal Investigations
Division.
OUTCOME
This report will help facilitate discussion between the Oakland Police Department and the Public
Safety Committee regarding the investigative capacity of the Criminal Investigation Division.
The Criminal Investigation Division (CID) of the Oakland Police Department is charged with
conducting follow up investigations on major crimes in the City of Oakland. The Division is led
by a Captain of Police, who supervises six Lieutenants of Police. Each Lieutenant oversees one
of the following sections:
Homicide
Theft/Misdemeanor Crimes and Field Support/Task Forces
Special Victims
Youth and Family Services
The CID Captain reports to the Assistant Chief of Police.
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Date: April 7, 2015
Page 2
ANALYSIS
As requested by Council Member Dan Kalb, this report will attempt to answer all of the
following requests:
What percentage of serious crimes are investigated by CID?

What are actual staffing levels for sworn investigators and what would be ideal?
How many Police Evidence Technicians (PETs) does OPD have? Are some
investigations not possible due to an insufficient number of PETs?
In what ways is crime lab staffing or the facility itself a factor in the success in
investigations?
What is the status of Bratton-Wasserman recommendations as they relate to
investigations?
What is relationship between CID and the Alameda County District Attorneys
Office?
Investigations of Serious Crimes

The following table provides information about how many serious crimes (number and
percentage) were assigned to investigators in 2014.
Crime
Homicide
Robbery
Burglary
Aggravated Assault
Domestic Violence
Sexual Assault and Child Abuse
Vice/Child Exploitation
Number of
Incidents
80
3,691
11,136
1,384
7,270
1,150
423
Number
Assigned
80
720
366
915
4,908
1,150
326
Percent
Assigned
100.0%
19.5%
3.3%
66.1%
67.5%
100%
77.0%
Staffing Levels of Sworn Investigators: Current and Ideal

There are 133 sworn and nineteen civilian positions allocated to CID. As of the writing of this
report, all nineteen civilian positions are filled. The following table provides approved and
actual staffing levels for sworn investigators as of December 31, 2014.
Section
Homicide
Theft/Misdemeanor Crimes
and Field Support/Task Forces
Special Victims
Youth and School Services
Sergeants
Approved Actual
6
5
3
2
2
1
Ideal
7
5
Unk.
4
3
3
18
Unk.
5
4
1
3
Officers
Approved Actual
6
5
13
13
19
18
27
23
18
24
13
18
Ideal
8
38
Unk.
140
Unk.
38
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Date: April 7, 2015
Page 3
HOMICIDE SECTION
A 2008 study by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) found that of fifty-five
agencies with a minimum of twenty-five homicides per year for five years, homicide
investigators handled an average of five cases annually. The study found that law
enforcement agencies with smaller homicide investigator caseloads had a 5.4 percent
higher clearance rate than those agencies with larger homicide investigator caseloads. 1
The Oakland Police Department currently has twelve investigators. There were eighty
homicides in 2014, resulting in an average of nearly seven homicide cases per
investigator. Decreasing the caseload even to the average from this study would require
increasing the number of OPD homicide investigators to fifteen.
SPECIAL VICTIMS SECTION
A 2014 survey was conducted by OPD concerning the investigator caseloads within the
Special Victims Unit and the Domestic Violence Unit (part of the Special Victims
Section of CID). Alameda County law enforcement agencies provided an average
caseload of twenty to twenty-five per investigator. At the time of the survey, OPD was
averaging 147 cases per Special Victims investigator and 657 cases per Domestic
Violence investigator. The Special Victims Unit investigates allegations of rape and
child molest, abuse, endangerment, pornography, and neglect.
In order to meet the Countywide average, OPD would require six times the current
number of Special Victims Unit investigators and twenty-six times the current number of
Domestic Violence Unit investigators. There are currently seven investigators assigned
to the Special Victims Unit and five assigned to the Domestic Violence Unit. To equal
the average caseload of investigators in Alameda County law enforcement, the Special
Victims Unit would require forty-two investigators and the Domestic Violence Unit
would require 130 investigators.
Human trafficking is also handled by the Special Victims Section. In order to have
greater impact upon human trafficking, OPD needs to add a significant number of
personnel. Four additional Vice/Child Exploitation Unit investigators are needed to
perform operations. Six additional Special Victims Unit investigators are needed to
perform follow-up work resulting from these operations.
ROBBERY AND BURGLARY SECTION/FELONY ASSAULT AND GANGS
SECTION
Concerning investigator caseloads for Robbery, Burglary, and Aggravated Assault, few
guidelines exist. Attachment A provides a detailed comparison of the City of Oakland to
five of the other largest cities within California. By using 2014 FBI Uniform Crime
Report (UCR) information and the current number of specialized investigators actually
assigned for each city, the following ratios of reported offenses to investigator were
determined:
1
http://leb.fbi.gov/2008-pdfs/leb-february-2008
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Date: April 7, 2015
Oakland
Average including Oakland
Average excluding Oakland
Average excluding Oakland and San Jose
Robbery Burglary
419:1
2,263:1
206:1
1,586:1
164:1
1,451:1
522:1
Page 4
Aggravated
Assault
443:1
292:1
262:1
The Oakland Police Department had the highest ratio of offenses to investigators in all
categories among all cities except for Burglary in San Jose. If the average number of
investigators actually assigned was applied to Oakland, OPD would have sixteen
Robbery investigators, seven Burglary investigators, and nine Aggravated Assault
investigators. Excluding Oakland from the averages increases the numbers to twenty
Robbery investigators and ten Aggravated Assault investigators. Excluding Oakland and
San Jose from the Burglary average would call for Oakland to have twenty-two Burglary
investigators. (The San Jose Police Department has only one Burglary investigator.)
Concerning Gang investigations, the Oakland Police Department has experienced great
success through using the Ceasefire strategy to reduce violent crime in Oakland. One
critical component of this success is the ability to respond effectively to shootings
through the deployment of a dedicated Crime Reduction Team (CRT). Adding two
additional Ceasefire CRTs would greatly enhance the violence reduction capabilities and
further reduce aggravated assaults.
THEFT/MISDEMEANOR CRIMES AND FIELD SUPPORT/TASK FORCES AND
YOUTH AND FAMILY SERVICES SECTIONS
Unfortunately, there is no known way to determine the ideal staffing number for the
Theft/Misdemeanor Crimes and Field Support/Task Forces or Youth and Family Services
sections of CID. Because both of these sections are so specialized and each one handles
such a variety of services, it is unknown how many additional staff are needed.
Police Evidence Technicians
The Oakland Police Department has eighteen civilian Police Evidence Technician (PET)
positions allocated. All eighteen positions are filled as of the writing of this report. In
addition, there are four sworn PETs. Three of these sworn Technicians are assigned one
to each Patrol shift and the fourth serves as the Evidence Technician Coordinator.
There is an insufficient number of PETs to respond adequately to every significant crime
scene in the City of Oakland. Minimum staffing for PETs is two per shift. Each
homicide scene requires a minimum of two PETs to process and should use three to four
PETs to process well. Each homicide scene requires a minimum of two hours to process
and may take as long as ten hours. After processing the scene, several hours (up to two
or three additional shifts) are required to process the evidence collected. With at least
eighty homicides annually over the last few years, the availability of PETs to respond to
other serious crimes is very limited.
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Date: April 7, 2015
Page 5
Increasing the number of civilian PETs from eighteen to twenty-two would reduce the
number of shifts in which only two PETs are working. This increase would greatly
enhance the opportunity for PETs to respond to every significant crime scene. In turn,
the evidence collected and processed would provide further opportunity to investigate
and reduce crime in Oakland. An additional fifty PETs are required to process property
crimes for biological evidence in coordination with the Crime Lab.
Crime Lab Staffing, Facility, and Success in Investigations
The Oakland Police Department has an authorized staff of thirty-two civilian positions.
As of this report, twenty-seven positions are filled. Two of the five vacancies cannot be
filled because of inadequate laboratory space for the Firearms Unit. Laboratory staffing
is a major factor in the success of investigations principally in latent prints and firearms
casework. The size of the facility is the single greatest impediment to full staffing.
Having an adequately-sized facility would assist in attracting and retaining staff as well
as improving casework efficiency and lead to greater success in investigations.
Any increase in the number of investigators within CID would necessitate a
corresponding increase in the number of Crime Lab personnel, as the demand for lab test
results would increase. This, in turn, would necessitate additional space for the Crime
Lab, which is already insufficient. While there are no established standards for caseload
and staff size, there are standards/guidelines on space per staff. These standards/
guidelines provide 800 to 1,000 square feet per staff member. The Crime Lab currently
provides about 200 square feet per staff member. Actual laboratory space is about
ninety-six square feet per staff member.
A copy of the September 2013 Agenda Report concerning the follow-up to the Grand
Jury Report on Crime Lab Services (Attachment C) provides additional information
concerning the OPD Crime Lab staffing, facility, and success in investigations.
Bratton-Wasserman Recommendations on Investigations
In May 2013, the Bratton Group, LLC (Bill Bratton) produced a report for the City of
Oakland. This report, Rapid and Effective Response to Robberies, Burglaries and
Shootings, included a recommendation that each of the five OPD patrol areas be staffed
with a District-Investigative Unit (DIU) made up of an investigative sergeant, three
experience investigators, and three to five police officers. The recommendation was that
the DIU would work staggered hours in the afternoons and evenings seven days a week.
This would allow DIU personnel to respond to crime scenes to interview victims, canvass
for witness, and gather evidence. The DIU sergeant would be responsible for
coordinating with the Criminal Investigations Division (CID), evidence technicians, and
the crime lab. The DIU sergeant would also report to the Area Captain and represent
district investigations at CompStat meetings. The report provided a number of
appendices that included detailed information on a district-level case-management
system.
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Date: April 7, 2015
Page 6
The Oakland Police Department has attempted to implement the above recommendation
with varying levels of completion over the past two years. Unfortunately, low staffing
levels have plagued OPD and prevented full implementation. What has been successful
for CID is a limited implementation in which investigators within CID are assigned to
handle specific types of crime within designated patrol areas. Even if additional staffing
is provided, physically decentralized investigators may not be the best model for OPD.
In its limited implementation, DIU personnel are housed in CID so that they can report to
their respective lieutenants more effectively. The designated personnel also maintain
relationships and active communication with respective area captains.
In October 2013, the Strategic Policy Partnership, LLC (Bill Bratton and Robert
Wasserman) produced a report for the City of Oakland. This report, Best Practices
Review, included recommendations that the Oakland Police Department:
Decentralize investigations in the manner recommended by the Bratton Group,

LLC.
Significantly increase the camera monitoring capabilities of the OPD in
commercial areas throughout the city to provide identifications and evidence in
robbery, burglary, and some shooting cases.
Establish a new protocol for the processing of fingerprints from burglary scenes
so that prints in cases with other leads and/or in cases that have been linked a
pattern of burglaries can be submitted for expeditious AFIS comparisons. Hire
additional fingerprint analysts as needed to provide this service.
The first recommendation, concerning the decentralization of specific investigations, has

been addressed previously in this report. The second recommendation in the Best
Practices Review further stated that [c]ameras would be monitored and recorded at the
Domain Awareness Center that is currently under construction. At the December 16,
2014 Public Safety Committee meeting, a private video camera registration program was
discussed. This issue was referred by the Public Safety Committee to the Privacy
Committee. The third recommendation, concerning the processing of latent fingerprints,
does not adequately consider two dimensions: first, there is no more room in the current
Crime Lab for the additional fingerprint analysts. Second, even if there was sufficient
space and more fingerprint analysts, there is an insufficient number of investigators to
follow up on any leads established by the evidence. Adding burglary investigators
necessitates fewer (additional) personnel for other priorities such as investigating
violent crime.
In December 2013, the Strategic Policy Partnership, LLC produced an additional report
for the City of Oakland. This report, Zeroing Out Crime, expanded crime reduction
responsibilities to other City departments. This report reinforced the recommendations of
the previous two reports and did not provide any additional recommendations concerning
investigations.
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Date: April 7, 2015
Page 7
Relationship between Investigators and the Alameda County District Attorneys Office
The Oakland Police Department particularly CID has an excellent relationship with
the Alameda County District Attorneys (District Attorneys) Office. The District
Attorneys Office has provided the Oakland Police Department with two full-time
Deputy District Attorneys to assist with criminal legal issues and case consultation. One
is situated on-site in CID at the Police Administrative Building. The other is co-located
with the Domestic Violence Unit and Special Victims Unit at the Family Violence
Center.
Crime Analysis
Though not part of the request by Council Member Kalbs Office, the importance of an
effective Crime Analysis Section cannot be overstated. At present, OPD has four
Administrative Analyst II positions that serve as Crime and Intelligence Analysts. There
is currently no separate Crime and Intelligence Analyst classification within the City of
Oakland, thus the minimum requirements for the position are no different than for any
other Administrative Analyst II position within the City. In addition to a lack of specific
credentials (such as certification from the renowned California State University,
Sacramento Crime Analysis training program), there is a significant lack of capacity to
perform Crime Analysis. As part of the forthcoming OPD Strategic Plan, it is
recommended that the following structure be put in place for a Crime Analysis Section:
One Police Services Manager I

Two Management Assistants (or Supervising Crime Analysts, as a new
classification)
Twenty Administrative Analyst IIs (or Crime Analysts, as a new classification)
The return on investment in creating a Crime and Intelligence Analysis Section would be
substantial in making the City of Oakland a safer community. The analysis performed by
the section would provide CID, Ceasefire, and all other operational units with
information that would allow sworn personnel to perform in a far more efficient manner.
Due to caseload and other more appropriate duties, sworn investigators do not currently
have the opportunity to perform adequate analysis of crimes such as robbery to determine
patterns or trends. Even with properly trained Administrative Analyst IIs in this role, the
sheer volume of crime dictates much greater numbers of personnel. Having an effective
Crime Analysis Section in place would greatly increase the efficiencies of OPD
particularly CID and lead to lower crime throughout the City of Oakland.
COORDINATION
The City Attorneys Office was consulted in preparation of this report.
Item: __________
May 12, 2015

Date: April 7, 2015
Page 8
social equity through criminal investigation and crime reduction.
For questions regarding this report, please contact Captain Kirk Coleman, Criminal Investigation
Division, at (510) 238-4486 or Police Services Manager Mary Gibbons, Criminalistics Section,
at (510) 238-3386.
Sean Whent
Chief of Police
Prepared by:
Timothy Birch
Police Services Manager I
Office of the Chief
Attachment A: Investigators in Large California Cities

Attachment B: September 5, 2013 Agenda Report:
Follow-Up to Grand Jury Report on Crime Lab Services
Item: __________
May 12, 2015
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Cotton, Chantal
Kalb, Dan; Bolotina, Olga
Request for a Meeting to Discuss the Measure Z Safety and Services Commission
Monday, February 09, 2015 8:35:26 PM
Memo-12.9.14-oversight commission duties.pdf
Hello Councilmember Kalb,
I hope all is well. I am hoping to get a quick (30 minutes tops) meeting with you to talk about the
Measure Z Safety and Services Commission. We are hoping that all of the councilmembers can
choose someone to recommend for appointment soon so we can get them appointed this month
with a hope of having our first Oversight meeting in March. Do you have time this week to briefly
chat about this?
Ive also attached the info memo that we published in December with the information on the
required backgrounds for the Commission members as well as a list of duties.
Thanks so much,
Chantal C. G.
Chantal R. Cotton Gaines

Assistant to the City Administrator
City of Oakland
ccotton@oaklandnet.com
(W) 510-238-7587
1 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, CA 94612
From:
To:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:
Marcus, Nancy
Al Leu; Allen Valenzuela; Angela Haller; Angie Tam; Barbara Azad; Bedford, Sara; Beverly A. Williams; Bill
Puskas; Bruce Nye; Bryan Parker; Caceres, Patrick; Carl Chan; Cary Barbane; Christie, Dyanna; Cotton,
Chantal; Cynthia Balagtas; Dalia Dynes; Deloach Reed, Teresa; DL - City Council; DL - OPD Command; Dorothy
Smith; Eboni Hynes; Esther Guolsley; Fern Stronde; Geoff Collins; Harmon, Reygan E.; Holly Colvin; Howard D.
Yakoff; J. Copes; Jagannathan, Priya; Jared Williams; Jay Askford; Jennifer Lynn-Whaley; Jeremy Danky; Jerry
Budin; Jesse Strauss; Jessica Chen; Jim Dexter; Joe Tuman; Halpern-Finnerty, Johanna; Joseph Tudisco; Judy
Cox; Katherine Enad; Kathleen Russell (krussell@russell-govdm.cms); Ken Chambers; Kim, Peter; Kyle Franklin;
Lauren Palmetto; Lena Toney; Linda Taylor; Marc Guillory; Marcus, Nancy; Margurite Fuller; Marion Mius;
Henderson, Mark B; Marleen Sacks ; Melanie Wallace; Wetzel, Michael; Michael Ubel; Miguel Vargas; Mikela
Rabinowitz; Minci XZE; Mitchell, Adriana; Natasha Middleton; Patricia Bennett ; Paul Junge; Paula Hawthorn;
Peg Lum; Renee Wiess; Rita Beles (Rik@electroncartifacts.com) ; Rodney Brooks; Russ Jeung; Scott Olsen;
Serin-Christ, Sara; Sheryl Walton; Sze_old, Sun-Kwong_old; Suo Fong; Treva Reid; William Elman
Special Meeting for the Measure Y Overisght Committee for April 22
Thursday, April 16, 2015 7:33:16 PM
MYOC Special Meeting Apr 22 packet.pdf
Attached is the meeting packet for a special meeting of the Measure Y Oversight Committee for
Wednesday, April 22 at 6:30pm in Hearing Room 1.
Nancy Marcus
Special Business Permits
Office of the City Administrator
1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza 11th Fl.
Oakland, CA 94612
510-238-3294
510-238-7084 (fax)
City offices will be closed Monday, May 25, 2015
From:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Date:
Attachments:

OPD Media
Drennon; Moss, Tomiquia; Nosakhare, Shereda; Outlaw, Danielle; Schaaf, Libby; Whent, Sean; Williams,
Sharon J
Suspect Arrested and Charged in Double Homicide
Broussard arrested and charged.pdf
Carlton Broussard.jpg
Oakland, CA Oakland Police Department homicide investigators worked with the Alameda County
District Attorneys Office in charging Carlton Broussard, 29, with two counts of murder for the
double homicide of Marcus Sims, 29, and Donald Ray Ward Jr., 22. Broussard is one of several
suspected gunmen in the shooting of Sims and Ward. Investigators continue to identify other
persons of interest in the case.
OPD homicide investigators worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), which assisted in
the March 21, 2015 arrest of Broussard in Middleburg, Florida. He was recently extradited to
California.
Besides the murder counts, Broussard is charged with an armed robbery committed with two others
on January 25, 2015 in Brentwood.
Background: On January 20, 2015, at about 5:25 PM Marcus Sims and Donald Ray Ward Jr. were
shot and killed as they sat in a parked van in the 1600 block of 10th Street.
Nixle Tip Watch allows ANONYMOUS tipsters to send OPD a tip three ways:
1. Text TIP OAKLANDPD to 888777 from your cell phone followed by your tip
3. Submit a tip by web form - see the option at the bottom of OPD's Nixle messages or visit
http://nixle.us/tip/oakland-police-department-ca/ to complete and send.
Anonymous Tipping allows residents to proactively connect with the Oakland Police Department by
submitting anonymous tips via web form and text message. Additionally, with the issuance of a
tipping passcode to tipsters, we can initiate a two-way, anonymous communication to help gather
more information.
Visit Nixle.com to receive Oakland Police Department alerts, advisories and community messages, or
follow OPD on Twitter, @oaklandpoliceca.
# # #
Sylvia McDaniel

Kalb Responsive Records - 9852 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Kalb Responsive Records - 9852 PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

From:

Dear Dan Kalb,

Dan Kalb you suck so much.

SBCA TREE CONSULTING

Molly Batchelder, Consulting Arborist

WE ISA Certified Arborist #9613A

INFORMATION FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY - NOT FOR DISSEMINATION

Antioch PD obtained a search warrant for the residence.

BFO 2 Watch Commander

From: Henry, James

The inner and outer perimeters have begun to demobilize.

A/Sgt. James Henry 8113

A/Sgt. James Henry 8113

Incident number: 150516000755 BFO2/Area5/Beat 31z

A/Sgt. James Henry 8113

News from: Oakland Police Department

Suspect Arrested and Charged in Double Homicide

OPD homicide investigators worked with the

News from: Oakland Police Department

Oakland Police Department Launches Ceasefire Web

Ceasefire is the Oakland Police Departments violence reduction strategy.

Oakland Police Department CA

Message sent via Nixle | Go to nixle.com | Unsubscribe

Oakland Police Department CA

Community: Oakland Police Department Launches

Evidence that the Ceasefire strategy actually works

Sent by Oakland Police Department CA

. 2015 Nixle, LLC. All rights reserved.

Oakland Police Department CA

Message sent via Nixle | Go to nixle.com | Unsubscribe

Oakland Police Department CA

Community: Suspect Arrested and

Nixle Tip Watch allows ANONYMOUS tipsters to

Sent by Oakland Police Department CA

. 2015 Nixle, LLC. All rights reserved.

Oakland Police Department CA

Message sent via Nixle | Go to nixle.com | Unsubscribe

Oakland Police Department CA

Community: The Oakland Police Department and

Sent by Oakland Police Department CA

If you prefer not to receive future emails, unsubscribe here.

. 2015 Nixle, LLC. All rights reserved.

Oakland Police Department

455 7 th Street, 7 th Floor

From: District 1 Intern

She says communicating with her via e-mail would be great.

MEETING OF THE VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND PUBLIC SAFETY OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE

Joint MYOC and SSOC Meeting

6. MYOC Ad Hoc Committee Update (RE:

7. Measure Y Evaluator Presentation about

Measure Y Oversight Committee Meeting

5. MYOC Quarterly Report to Public Safety

Safety and Services Oversight Committee Meeting

2. Agenda Approval SSOC

3. SSOC Bylaws Discussion

5. Follow-up Discussion on the 6-month / 3month HSD program extensions

6. Three-year Priority Spending Plan

7. Three-year Priority Spending Plan

8. Three-year Priority Spending Plan

9. SSOC Report to Public Safety Committee

10. Agenda Building

Measure Z/Oakland Unite

Measure Z Violence Prevention Programs