 |
|
 |
|
Email: ronoz@ronoz.com |
|||
|
No Excuses “... I think citizens are tired of the fact that we cannot manage our resources.” “We cannot say that we are doing a better job, or that we are conducting more investigations, or that we are reducing crime, or that we even have a plan to reduce crime.” Councilmember Ignacio De la Fuente We must repaint the portrait of our expectations in Oakland, and throw out the colorless oils of excuses. Mediocrity and incompetence sleep in a straw bed of excuses. Success frolics with the energy of accomplishments. In this essay we challenge many of the excuses given for Oakland’s high violent crime rate with respect to our City’s commonly perceived negative social conditions. In other essays, we’ve debunked all the excuses made by the Chief as to why internally he hasn’t been able to produce. There are those who simply will not believe that it is singularly incompetence by the Chief of Police that has caused Oakland’s descent into the depths of Violent Crimes over the past almost four years. It seems never ending, the growing list of OPD fumbles and foibles that indicate we are simply not a public safety force. Human nature, such that it is, finds crime flourishing in an environment lacking efficient restraints. To have kept Wayne Tucker in office as Chief of Police is to ignore what has happened in our City. Our Violent Crimes Rate increased +75% in 2007 since 2000, from 12.61 per thousand residents to 22.02. San Jose, just next door, has enjoyed a -26% reduction in the same period. Oakland Violent Crimes are up another +4% this year to date (Nov. 6) over 2007. Policy makers and others commonly misperceive crime and related statistics as a distracting world of percentages. However, it is individuals who commit crimes. Conditions of social injustice, such as unemployment, youthful waywardness, poverty, lack of education, crowded conditions, and the like are all valid factors that should set expectations for crime in a city. The more individuals who live under these conditions, the more crime we can expect… as is the contrary. Therefore, it should be the absolute numbers of persons living under crime-prone conditions that determine the expectation of how many crimes may occur. It is a distraction to say that Oakland has high percentages of unemployment, poverty, youth, and other factors by which we almost generically tend to create our high expectations that high crime is inevitable. Crime plague is not inevitable, nor is crime anticipated properly in Oakland. If we subscribe to the sober notion that the probabilities of violent crimes rise when negative social conditions exist, we must not jump from assumptions to conclusions. While certainly we should expect crime to go up when the unemployment rises, we should ask how much crime should we expect? From what benchmarks? We must determine our benchmarks in order to validate our expectations. After all, we should expect crime also to drop. Experts cannot agree on any formula, but rather it is the portrait of a city that determines its crime rate. Oakland has painted itself a picture that is dismal with the inevitability of crime, whereas San Jose, only next door, with many more people living under conditions that favor much higher crime in numerical terms, has enjoyed her portrait as The Safest Large City in America. Oakland had 5,038 Violent Crimes in 2000 and it will exceed 8,000 this year. San Jose had 4,928 in 2000 and 3,759 in 2007. Yes, with more than twice our population, and greater numbers of people living in negative social conditions, San Jose has fewer than half our Violent Crimes. Population Growth? Keep in mind that while San Jose’s population has increased steadily since 2000, from 894,943 to 922,389 in 2007, according to the U.S. Census Bureau, Oakland’s has decreased from 399,484 in 2000 to 358,829. The numbers seem conservative, but they are consistent. Our reduction in population might seem shocking to those who maintain that Oakland has enjoyed continuing growth to over 425,000 people currently, but look around… In 1950 we had a population of 385,000 people and our City was vibrant with confidence, our downtown was alive, our neighborhoods were safe and pleasant, our cops were on the Beats, our government was small, we enjoyed our parks and libraries, and we had traffic jams. OPD Reorganization? The 1950’s was also a time when OPD had a major reorganization from a three area command system [Precincts] where Captains acted as chiefs – to a “modern” centralized police department where a single Chief of Police was expected to eliminate waste, inefficiencies, and corruption. In 1960, construction was underway for a nine-story Police Administration Building that placed the entire organization working within only eight floors. In private business, especially in trying times, this is called “consolidation.” OPD grew to emphasize regular Beat Officers (as the “backbone of the Department”), permanent Walking Officers, Wagon Officers, Jail Officers, Juvenile Street Officers, Vice Control Officers, Three Wheeler Business District Officers, Technician Officers, “Inspector” investigators, Crime Analysis Officers, Research and Planning Officers, Mounted Patrol Officers, and many other specialist officer positions – none of which even exist today. The adage of “never have so few done so much” has been completely reversed at OPD. OPD has in the past almost four years disintegrated, fragmented, disconnected, and squandered its much expanded resources into a corruption of management and leadership. It is now headquarters-centric, with seven separate facilities, plus the ninth floor at the PAB. This is not reorganization; it is “de-organization.” Inner City Conditions? There are those who say we are an “inner city’ and that’s why we have to “expect” more violent crimes. We are, of course, no such thing. A common definition for “inner city” is: “The older, central part of a city, often characterized by crowded, run-down, low-income neighborhoods, and a high proportion of minority racial and ethnic groups.” Crowded Conditions? The density of our population is considerably less than that of San Jose. Take the number of people residing per household – Oakland in 2000 had 2.65 compared with San Jose’s 3.15. By 2007, Oakland reduced its density to 2.43 per household while San Jose reduced to 3.02. In other words, San Jose was 24% more crowded per household in 2007. We do not live in crowded conditions, certainly not in any comparison with the tenements of large eastern U.S. “inner cities.” Poverty? There are those who say we have so many people living in poverty conditions that high violent crimes are understandable. Again, this is blatantly untrue. The number of our citizens living below the poverty level has decreased -19%, from 77,500 in 2000 to 63,154 in 2007. San Jose’s figures show that their citizens in poverty have increased +16%, from 78,755 in 2000 to 91,317 in 2007. In any event, they have 28,163 more people struggling under the poverty line than Oakland. Unemployment? In 2000, Oakland had 15,982 unemployed persons according the Census Bureau, and in 2007 that number increased by 801 to 16,783. San Jose, on the other hand, saw their numbers of unemployed increase +47% from 19,751 in 2000 to 29,067 in 2007. The recent downturn in our economy has seen 20,800 of our labor force unemployed just this last September, but be aware that San Jose has 33,200 unemployed. San Jose has 12,400 more people out of work than Oakland. Youth Problems? Yes, there are those who feel Oakland has too many youth running around committing crimes. Actually, the number of 15 to 24 year olds has decreased dramatically in Oakland from 53,622 in 2000 to 42,560 in 2007, a drop of -21%. Including those up to 34 years old, the numbers show a reduction from 125,937 in 2000 to 97,464 in 2007, a drop of -23%. San Jose again experienced just the opposite. Their 15-24 group is +185% larger than ours, at 121,453. Their 15-34 group is 258,550 strong. Another way of looking at this is to note that per San Jose cop, each has to contend with 185 young people between 15-34; OPD has only a ratio of 121 per cop. Perhaps we should look at high school dropouts. In 2000, Oakland had 68,097 residents over 25 who failed to complete high school; 34,762 of these dropped out before the 9th grade. In 2007, Oakland reduced this number to 52,099 who failed to complete high school. That’s 16,000 fewer high school dropouts living in Oakland. San Jose, for reference, had 119,172 high school dropouts in 2007. San Jose has 67,073 more high school dropouts in their population. Minority and Ethnic Densities? Perhaps the following Census statistics will be helpful:
Non-English Speakers? Some argue that Oakland has many foreign-born who are inordinately victimized because they don’t speak English. Non-English speakers, those the Census Bureau counts as not speaking English “very well,” actually reduced from 82,731 in 2000 to 71,224 in 2007. San Jose had 240,615 in that category in 2007. Blighted Areas? Concerning “blighted areas,” as being common for inner cities, this is a judgment call. There are some who see that our downtown area is blighted in the sense that the exodus of tenants and businesses is obvious. Our commercial and industrial areas are for sale and for rent in exceeding proportions. However, our residential areas, where criminals emanate, are far from blighted in the sense that from most appearances they have generally improved over the years, and certainly don’t equate with those in eastern U.S. inner cities. More Cops? There are those who say that Oakland must have more cops to be on par with other “inner cities.” Our cops can tell you that half of our residential areas rarely see a regular cop. For argument sake, let’s say that half our City commonly referred to as the “hill areas” simply don’t have the calls for service as the “flatlands.” All the “stressor” Beats are in the flatlands. In other words, our cops are well over 80% occupied in policing about 40% of our neighborhoods. In that sense, OPD deploys cops on par with other inner cities across the U.S. To counter those who automatically correlate “more cops” with better policing, please note that cities with more cops also have considerably more crime than most cities with fewer cops. Oakland in 2007 was fourth in Violent Crimes nationally, and it had 2.03 cops per thousand population. The three cities with higher violent crimes had considerably more cops: St Louis, 3.88; Detroit, 3.53; Memphis, 3.07. Besides, Oakland in 2004, when we had 5,150 Violent Crimes, had far fewer cops than today. In 2008, we will bust over 8,000 Violent Crimes. 2005-2008 actually saw the most dramatic escalation of law enforcement personnel in Oakland’s history, counting overtime, annuitants, civilianizing, abandoning various functions, the airport takeover, the ACSO, FBI, state police, CHP all working our streets… and still the crime rate accelerated as never before in Oakland’s recorded history. Many seem to say that isn’t a fair comparison because San Jose has many more cops. That isn’t true, of course, because anyone bothering to check would see that OPD now has about 48% more cops [224] per hundred thousand residents than San Jose [151]. Maybe you think San Jose has more money to spend on its cops. Last May I wrote the facts on this: “Does San Jose have more money for its police department? No. They are spending this fiscal year about $284 million. That's a quick ratio of about $211,000 for each police officer. Oakland is spending $193.7 million General Purpose Fund dollars plus $10.7 Special Revenue Funds (Measure Y) for a total of $204.4 million. That's a quick ratio of about $255,000 per police officer. In other words, dollar for dollar, Oakland should be getting the services of about 969 officers (including all the cars, headquarters, high-tech, civilian employees, and what-not) that San Jose is getting for the same money. San Jose is getting a much better deal all the way around because quite obviously it is being much smarter with its money, what it buys, and how it uses those resources. This is especially interesting since San Jose advertises officer pay beginning at $70,307 and topping at $107,853, compared with Oakland's $69,172 and $87,172.” Conclusion Adding all the numbers of people residing in Oakland under social conditions that are commonly perceived to promote crime, we have considerably fewer than San Jose. Add the resources, including police and money, devoted to addressing crime issues, and Oakland expends considerably more than San Jose per resident. In fact, those factors promoting crime have significantly decreased in Oakland while the resources to fight crime have considerably increased in this new century. We have the best cops that money can buy and train. We should be a safe city, by San Jose standards. Nevertheless, contrary to all indications, Oakland had 5,038 Violent Crimes in 2000 and it will exceed 8,000 this year. San Jose had 4,928 in 2000 and 3,759 in 2007. Our inferiority complex has pegged our expectations. We have stereotyped ourselves. So, if Oakland has had a lesser set of crime-prone demographics and a much larger complement of law enforcement resources, what has been the failure in public safety? It’s too obvious. We’ve replaced mediocrity with incompetence at the head of the OPD. We have many more resources, at much greater cost, producing most dismal results. No professional team and no private business enterprise would have retained the manager of their assets in such a bankruptcy of results. For those who are fans and friends of Wayne Tucker, this is not to say that his systematic destruction of Oakland’s OPD has been intended in any way, or that his incompetence of performance is to be described as lacking intellect. Not at all. We should grant him every courtesy while holding him accountable and replaceable. Performance is measured by results. ronoz |
|||
Email: ronoz@ronoz.com |
|||
