What's In Demographics For Us?
[May 24, 2008]

            The U.S. Census Bureau conducts an annual statistical American Community Survey and issues comprehensive population data.  Oakland's is interesting, on its own and in comparison with Richmond and San Jose.

            You will recall that Oakland's Violent Crime rate went up 51% from 2000 to 2006, while in the same time period we lost 22,228 citizens of our population in an exodus.  There are some who would jump to conclusions based on general impressions of age, race, poverty, and other demographic factors.  Perhaps the following findings by the Census Bureau might cause some second thinking:

1.  Oakland lost a dramatic number of youth, especially those likely to commit crimes.  From 15 to 24 years, Oakland lost 17% of that population.  From 20 to 34 years, Oakland lost 21%.

2.  Oakland's older population, those above 55 years and least likely to commit crimes, gained 17% population.

3.  Whites gained in population by 3%, and now comprise 34.1% of Oakland's citizens.

4.  African Americans lost 28,118 citizens since 2000 to other locations, about a 20% reduction.  They now comprise 30.3% of the citizenry.

5.  Asians lost about 3.2% of their Oakland population and now comprise about 15.6% of the total.

6.  Latinos increased 11.7%, and now constitute 25.9% of Oaklanders.

7.  Oakland's foreign born population has increased less than 3% and comprises 28.9% of the population.

8.  Individuals living under the poverty line in Oakland dropped by 6,577 since 2000, or about 8.5%.  They comprise about 18.8% of the population.

9.  Affordable housing is a hot topic.  The median price for a home in Oakland increased from $235,500 to $590,800.  Yet, home ownership increased by 832, about 1.3%.  It is the renters who have moved out, from 88,301 to 81,426, for a drop of 7.8%.  The vacant housing units increased 187% from 6,718 to 19,296.  There were 30% more housing units built in the five years before 2006 than before 2000;  4,655 compared with 3,593.

10.  In 2000, 62% of those over 16 were employed.  The highest category, 39.2%, were employed in managerial, professional, or related fields.  59.5% of the households earned less than $50,000.  The median family income, those equally making more and less than this number, was $44,384.  Unemployment was at 5.14%.

11.  In 2006,  64.8% of those over 16 were employed. The highest category, 40.5% were employed in managerial, professional or related fields.  53.4% of the households earned less than $50,000.  The median family income, those equally making more and less than this number, was $45,552.  Unemployment was at 5.27%.

            San Jose and Richmond are often looked to for comparisons, especially since we're neighbors and our populations share ties.  San Jose's Violent Crimes went down 28% since 2000.  Richmond's Violent Crimes were almost flat, experiencing only 24 more Violent Crimes in 2006 versus 2000.

1.  San Jose's African American population is only about 2.9% of the total, but significant is that it also dropped - 14.5% since 2000.  Their Latino population is 32.2% of its total citizens, and that increased 9.2% since 2000.  San Jose's foreign born population is 38.6% of the total, and has increased 7.3% since 2000. 10.3% of individuals live below the poverty line, but that number has increased 17% since 2000.

2. Richmond is currently 30.1% White, 28.5% African American, and 35.4% Hispanic.  That represents no real change for Whites since 2000, an 18% drop for African Americans, and an over 38% increase for Latinos.  Foreign born comprise 30.7% of the population and that represents an increase of 23% since 2000.  Richmond's population living under the poverty line is 14.0%, and that is coincidentally a 14% decline since 2000.

Comments:

            There is nothing in the demographics above to suggest any reason or offer any explanation as to why Oakland should have experienced a 51% increase in Violent Crimes since 2000... or any increase for that matter.  Oakland had a very dramatic drop in youth in the ages when crimes are most likely committed by them.  On the contrary, there is just as dramatic an increase in the older population where we wouldn't find many criminals.  This is astounding.

            Poverty has also gone down, so those who tie poverty to crime should have expected a drop in crime.  Those who feel that perhaps Oakland's foreign born (3% increase and 29% of the population) are responsible for crimes, and that feeling could only come from bigotry, should look at San Jose and Richmond.  They both have significantly more foreign born, and a much higher rate of increase in that category.  Income, unemployment and housing factors have all either had slight improvements or exhibited little change.

            Given all the comparatively benign factors, individually or collectively, Oakland should have been able to at least match the prevailing Violence reductions in California cities over 100,000 and the drops in national cities over 250,000.  There has been only one change to affect Public Safety in Oakland, the introduction of Chief Tucker in the beginning of February, 2005.   A 39-year veteran of the Sheriff's Department, having little knowledge or experience with the OPD or City of Oakland, Mayor Brown must have felt his experience in running a tight ship in the predominantly custodial arena qualified him to constrain the violence in Oakland.  It is common knowledge that Mayor Brown sincerely tried to dismiss Tucker 17 months ago.  Chip Johnson had a similar report.  After almost 40 months at the helm of OPD now, Tucker has cast the Police Department and its employees into confusion and turmoil, and the City is in the grips of violent chaos.  By the end of 2006, 23 months later, Tucker reigned over a 43% increase that year compared with the five-year average of his predecessor.  Murders were up 61%, Felony Assaults were up 60%, and Robberies were up 32%.  Violence in California over that same period was down 14.3% and across the US it was down 13.2%.  Robberies were down 26% in California and down 12% nationally. At the end of 2007, Violent Crimes in Oakland were higher yet, and 2008 looks like another record setting year for the paradigm escalation of Violent Crimes.  

            When you hear the Police Chief recite his hypotheses and generalizations why Oakland's Violent Crime rate has increased so dramatically, ask him for real, complete, and hard facts.  When you hear others recite their theories, give them the real facts.  When you hear that the Chief intends to lower the crime rate, ask "How?" and do not accept eyes-to-the-ceiling excuses.  His version of Area Command and 12-hour shifts are not "how," they are blind-folded dart throwing without metrics.  Staffing shortages, the OPOA, and insufficient money are long-running crutches of the can't-do.  The precepts of Beats and 24-hour command, and the priorities of Response and Investigations, have been tossed out or de-structured by this Chief as "old practices" garbage.  He's made it very tough to pick up the pieces and reconnect with the problems of public safety, but we can do it.  The men and women of OPD are ready for changes that are inspiring and constructive, to replace the last few years of intimidation, neglect, and destruction of efficiency and good-will.

            As for me, I've in previous essays slowly debunked the myth of baby-boomer attrition that was used to justify the panic-grab of Measure Y funds and many other hollow excuses.  I've listed the fifteen harmless "side letters" with the OPOA since 1998 that the Chief told Chip Johnson kept him from being a Chief.  I've recited many examples of gross inefficiencies in current police operations, including the very harmful closing of the Jail, elimination of the Patrol Division, loss of Planning and Research, decimation of Investigators, the total lack of any consistent stream of information, the overweight and isolation of the Eighth Floor, the wasteful money-handling, the low OPD morale and high job dissatisfaction, the absolute lack of definitive justification for fiat Area Command, the capriciousness and unsubstantiated claims for the 2-2-3-2-2-3 configuration of 12-hour shifts, the abandonment of priorities for Response and Investigations, the neglect for either the Patrol or PSO Beat systems, and many other cold reality reasons why accountability for the Violent Crime rate should be at Chief Wayne Tucker's doorstep.

            It is with a deep pain that I and many on OPD have watched the dismantling of OPD during the past 39 months, along with the disintegration of Public Safety in Oakland.  I cannot fathom the political support for Chief Tucker.  In the chronic absence, incompleteness, habitual delays and consistent misguidance of City-staff generated information, the policy makers might have an excuse, but to attribute the violence as if it's some sort of bad weather pattern or earthquake fissure outside of our ability to do something about it is inadvisable.

            A prognosis of terminal illness was never cured with a wait-and-see attitude.

ronoz