|
Dellums' Outreach Plan Based on Misrepresentation
The evidence for a $575,000 "anti-violence" plan of street outreach is based on misrepresentation of projects in other cities.
Although the Dellums administration has shown no real concern to achieve peaceful neighborhoods in Oakland, the mayor and his staff would like to reduce headline-grabbing homicides, which have already exceeded 100 for the second year in a row.
The funds request from the mayor's office asserts, "Street-based outreach is a strategy that calls on community members who are familiar with the neighborhoods most impacted by violence and skilled at conflict mediation, intervention, and mentorship to walk the streets seeking to connect with youth and adults involved in the street life." (p. 2)
What is the evidence that this strategy works? The proposal claims:
"National best practices in violence prevention recommend street-based outreach in hot spot areas as an important strategy to help prevent street violence in urban communities. From Boston, MA; Chicago, IL; Philadelphia, PA; High Point, NC; and other cities, street outreach has been an essential component of violence prevention." (p. 2)
That's it. The proposal provides no explanation, no references. And no wonder: Boston has 34 police officers for every 10,000 residents; Oakland has 18. Chicago has 45 officers per 10,000 residents, and Philadelphia has 46. How can anyone compare a piece of public safety strategy between Oakland and cities with twice the police resources?
But what about the mayor's allusion to High Point, North Carolina? It turns out this town of 98,000 (one quarter the size of Oakland) did indeed put together a street outreach program in late 2003 – partly because murders spiked that year to ... eight! (At that rate, Oakland would have 34 homicides, not well over 100.) Mayor Dellums' proposal does not tell us what High Point did, so we looked around. A fascinating report from the University of North Carolina at Greensboro explains how authorities and community people pushed back against a street culture of disrespect. The report says:
The West End Initiative is a combined law enforcement and community strategy that attempts to address street-level drug activity, especially as it relates to violent crime and criminal activity. ... Building on a statistical and mapping foundation, extensive intelligence is gathered both on networks of individuals involved in the local drug scene and individual patterns of criminal behavior. The project then used a joint police-community partnership to identify individual offenders, notify them of the consequences of continued illegal activity, and provide supportive services through a community-based resource coordinator. (High Point West End Initiative, p. 1; all emphasis added)
In-depth intelligence was gathered on this initial list of offenders. The Vice/Narcotics unit created a file for each individual. Driving records, criminal records, arrest reports, and incident reports on those individuals were placed in the file. The file documented whether the individual was on probation or parole and whether or not the individual had any pending state charges (with corresponding docket numbers) against them. (p. 5)
Police neighborhood surveillance and continued fact checking narrowed the list down to about 12 verified street-level drug dealers who would be eligible for the program. Although some of these individuals had previous drug convictions on their records, none had felony convictions. During this identification phase, police also made numerous undercover drug-buys in the West End area and identified multiple operating drug houses. Importantly, some of the drug-buys were directly from the 12 verified dealers. On the basis of prior criminal histories, surveillance, and undercover operations, police were able to develop criminal cases against most of the 12 targeted for the upcoming notification session. (p. 5)
Members of the community volunteered and were trained to assist in identifying and communicating with those close to the offenders, the "influentials." These community volunteers worked together with the offenders' "influentials" to convey a community statement that they will no longer tolerate drug activity in the West End. (p. 7)
Most of the meetings took place in one of the area churches, a location that provided neutrality and safety. The group conducting the visit tried to keep the message friendly but persuading. Those identified as significant in an offender's life were told that police officers had made undercover drug-buys from the offender and that there was enough evidence to make a formal charge. The groups presented an unsigned warrant that would be signed should the offender choose not to participate in the program. (p. 8)
The called-in offenders receive a stern law enforcement message to stop breaking the law or else face the consequences of prosecution and incarceration. At the same meeting, community members offer resources, help, and support for offenders who are willing to turn their lives around. (p. 8)
Misrepresenting the Evidence
Oakland officials tell us they want a street outreach program. They say other cities have done it, but those cities did not do what Dellums proposes. The big cities all have twice the police force that Oakland has. As for High Point, N.C., its method is much the same as the two-pronged "Boston model" – identify the street thugs and develop specific cases; then meet with the criminal and his family and friends, telling him: we have a warrant ready, but if you leave the street life, if you use these resources to become a peaceful, productive member of society, we will not send you to prison.
What were the results? "Drug and violent crimes declined. Burglary, drug sales, assault (other dangerous weapon), and robbery (by knife or strongarm) all declined." (p. 11) In fairness, it must be noted that results were reported within a few months and may not represent long-lasting effects.
|
| |
Hot spots before and after in High Point, N.C.
(High Point Police Dept. Annual Report, 2005, p. 8)
|
|
Oakland mayor Dellums does not want to follow the High Point example. Actually, his public safety director, Lenore Anderson, prepared the proposal. Her job was created as part of a $1.3 million increase in the budget for the mayor and his immediate staff demanded by Dellums. Ms. Anderson proposes:
- i. Create a public safety presence of credible civilians in hot spots.
- ii. Build and use relationships with "hot spot" residents, their families, and friends, including "street leaders," to actively promote positive life choices that build healthy communities.
- iii. Connect "high risk" individuals and their families to resources that provide opportunities for productive lives, including career and education services.
- iv. Proactively prevent the escalation of tension that is likely to lead to violence through the identification of key disputants and the provision of mediation services.
- v. Increase community cohesion through rallying community response following violence, ensuring linkage to support services and hosting community events aimed at fostering non-violence. (p.6)
This wishful talk-talk is all carrot and no stick. For Ms. Anderson to cite High Point, N.C. as a precedent is either highly paid ignorance or outright falsehood.
Another Grab by Youth UpRising
Ms. Anderson is a close ally of Youth UpRising, the agency that promotes sideshow culture and introduces gutter rappers to youth as models of success. (High Point, N.C. officials would probably laugh in disbelief.) Anderson and Olis Simmons, the executive director of Youth UpRising, were buddies as chair and co-chair of another agency where they gave a $56,000 contract to the woman who now chairs the oversight committee for Measure Y funds. Youth UpRising already has a virtually unconditional five-year $1.5 million grant of Measure Y funds.
Now Ms. Anderson hints that Youth UpRising will get a good chunk of a $575,000 pot, two-thirds of which would come from Measure Y taxes. Her criteria for getting a grant (p. 3) read as though Youth UpRising managers wrote them for her. An aide to mayor Dellums already knows the outreach workers will be "a team of East Bay residents who will act as liaisons in two neighborhoods in North and Southwest Oakland." (Daily Californian, Nov. 21, 2007) Youth UpRising is in east Oakland; the two target areas listed by Anderson are in north and southwest Oakland. Anderson focuses on Youth UpRising's alleged experience:
"Alameda County and the state have also invested in street-based outreach strategies for Oakland. In February 2007, Alameda County, Youth UpRising (a Measure Y funded service provider), Mayor Dellums, and the Oakland Police Department partnered with State Senator Don Perata's Office to launch PeaceMaking, a street outreach and conflict mediation program in Oakland." (p. 2)
|
Take away the misrepresentations, and there is no reason to fund this proposal.
|
|
High Point, N.C. obtained results within weeks of launching its effort, but Ms. Anderson's proposal presents no data, solid or otherwise, about the PeaceMaking program after almost nine months.
The Oakland outreach program would be active in only two police beats with a combined population of about 18,000 people. (p. 2) However, Dellums' staff hopes to set a precedent for Youth UpRising to expand beyond its current base around one high school.
Ramming Through the Giveaway
The Measure Y oversight committee, a body of citizens appointed by the mayor and councilmembers, refused to recommend the outreach proposal to the city council. At a Nov. 19 meeting, several committee members told Ms. Anderson that she had not submitted a business proposal, failing to give any estimate of how long the program would run, how many people would be hired, and exactly how the program would continue after using the one-time funds requested.
Ms. Anderson departed early, not bothering to hear a host of residents who spoke for established west Oakland programs and by implication against Youth UpRising "taking over" the area. Ms. Anderson was therefore absent when the committee made its decision giving her an additional 30 days to submit something with substance and asking the city council to wait for a real proposal, too.
|
Mayor Dellums' secret letter to the city council shows the importance of having even one independent councilmember. The mayor's staff would have faced the choice of sending the letter to all councilmembers but one – likely to cause a scandal once it became known – or having a councilmember expose a handout with no reason to think it will contribute to peaceful neighborhoods in the fourth most dangerous city in the country.
|
|
However, the proposal sailed through the public safety committee of the city council on Nov. 27. One reason was that councilmembers that day received an unpublished letter from mayor Dellums. He demanded that first the council should hand him the $575,000 he wants; then the oversight committee's "questions will be answered in the development of the RFP itself." How? The mayor wrote that the City would "release a Letter of Intent (LOI) in December" and then "the Request for Proposals (RFP) will be issued in January after the pool of applicants has been narrowed through the LOI process." What better way is there to compose a request for proposals that ensures the favored agencies (Youth UpRising in particular) design the very requirements they are "required" to fulfill?
Three members of the oversight committee went to the council committee – a rare occurrence – and said their deliberations seem to be irrelevant. In response, councilmember Quan directed them to hold a special meeting so that Ms. Anderson could inform them further. The oversight body duly held a special session the day before the next full council meeting, where, like children held after school, they agreed to the proposal. The council then met and granted the money by unanimous vote.
Currently, not one councilmember advocates the minimum condition needed for peaceful neighborhoods in Oakland – a commitment and plan for at least 1,100 police officers. Instead, the council accepted the "outreach" proposal despite the absence of any compelling reason to fund it. That's why we must change City Hall.
– Nov. 18, 2007; updated Dec. 9
|
