OPD report to Council: Gang injunction has NOT reduced violent crime (Analysis)

Published on Thursday, November 10, 2011
Last updated on 06:45AM, Thursday, November 10, 2011
From March gang injunction march in Oakland

From March gang injunction march in Oakland

Even though a report just released to City Council shows that the North Oakland gang injunction has not reduced violent crime, police say they think it's worthwhile.  Why? Because they have an email from a city employee saying the NCPC leaders in the beats covered report "normal impacted dealing locations, loitering, and shootings have been reduced dramatically" since the injunctions. (And because non-violent crime has gone down 2% in the area during the report's time-frame.)

Jordan's report states: "The fact that the community feels the quality of life has risen in the safety zone leads staff to believe that this is a strategy worth continuing to pursue" - but the stats show no real impact - and, in fact, it's possible that the crime "reduction" is a reflection of the city laying off 80 officers during this time. 

After all, the PSOs who were supposed to manage the injunction strategy were all reassigned during this time.

Stats show that there were 123 violent crimes, including two homicides, between April 4, 2009 and June 1, 2010.

After the injunction was put in place there were 176 violent crimes, with three homicides, between June 2, 2010 and Oct. 6, 2011.  Not progress.

On the other hand, none of these crimes were committed in the safety zone by any of the 15 gang members named in the injunction. Of those 15 people, one  was arrested in the 100-block "safety zone,"  and six were arrested outside the safety zone for crimes such as narcotic sales and kidnapping.

Critics called the program a failure, while supporters continue to endorse it. Of course, this is a complex issue, and it is important to recognize that communities need tools to hold gang members in check so their neighborhoods are not bullied. But the data in this report is so inconclusive it doesn't inspire confidence--one longs for the promised outside evaluation, which will hopefully provide a more in-depth view of the gang injunction and its actual impact.

Want more details so you can form your own view? Read the complete report right here.

Gang Injuncto Report Nov 8

About Susan Mernit
Susan Mernit is the founder of Oakland Local. She is also a circuit rider for The Community Information Challenge, a program of The John S and James L Knight Foundation, and a consultant to non-profit and community organizations. Susan lives in North Oakland, near the Santa Fe school, with her partner, her housemate, a rescue dog named Cazzie, and a yard full of ants. She is an aspiring gardener, a long-time blogger & entrepreneur, and a recovering journalist who's found home in Oakland.
Eric K Arnold commented at Wed, 9 Nov at 9:51am

this is mind-boggling. basically, it's like saying, "violent crime went up, but community perception is that crime has been reduced, so we'll go with that."

in all seriousness, i ask, what's a worse offense: loitering, or assault with a deadly weapon?

livegreen commented at Wed, 9 Nov at 1:23pm
Your slants show bias. The Injunction currently covers ONLY 15 gang members, therefor it should only b evaluated for the people it covered. Susan, What you are saying is it did not work for people it did not cover. Duh.
Eric K Arnold commented at Wed, 9 Nov at 3:02pm

livegreen, i think you have to evaluate the effectiveness of a GI in terms of its overall impact on the area it was enacted in--which is the same measurement OPD used in its Public Safety Committee report. So, if there's any bias or slant, it is in trying to frame the narrative around a "feeling" that quality of life has improved, when statistical evidence suggests otherwise.

i'm sorry that the data gathered by OPD doesn't say what you want it to say and doesn't fit the narrative you want to be the story. But to report that, as Susan has done, is not indicative of a bias or slant, it's called disclosure. If you're looking for a slant, you may want to question why the Chronicle mentioned an "uptick" in violent crime, but didn't mention that the percentage was 43%, or that the 2% decrease included loitering arrests.

Sandra Citron commented at Wed, 9 Nov at 3:18pm

Very biased article, indeed. The writer womehow "forgets" to mention what Kernighan pointed out the meeting: There is absolutely no way to tell what effect the GI had, positive or negative, since another very important variable changed at the same time. The GI overlapped with the time a significant number of cops were laid off, including PSOs. So please get your facts straight and don't jump to these knee-jerk conclusions.

livegreen commented at Wed, 9 Nov at 4:53pm

It is NOT how I want it to be framed, it's how it IS framed.  It covers 15 people.  Period.

Eric K Arnold commented at Wed, 9 Nov at 4:58pm

Sandra, citing an OPD stat that violent crime is up 43% is biased? how? and if there is no way to tell what effect the GI had, then why are Katz and Jordan claiming it's been effective? it looks like the injunction resulted in exactly one arrest within the safety zone, but the six arrests outside the zone suggest the crime has simply moved elsewhere and not been permanently reduced. Also worth noting that those six arrests happened in non-injuncted areas.

the fact is, besides the effectiveness questions, there are major issues with monitoring -- but that's a story for another time. ;)

Sandra Citron commented at Wed, 9 Nov at 6:27pm

Biased because of the faulty implication. The reduction in cops could just as well have caused the jump in crime. And I believe it did. You are free to believe the injunction caused the increase. LOL

Eric K Arnold commented at Wed, 9 Nov at 8:13pm

sandra, i did not say the injunction caused the increase in violent crime, and i don't think susan said that either. that would be a fairly absurdist position to hold. but the converse of that is also true: it cannot be said that the injunction caused the (slight) decrease in non-violent crime. either way, also it cannot be said with any surety, as you yourself noted, that the injunction has been an effective tactic in reducing crime.

Susan Mernit commented at Thu, 10 Nov at 8:23am

I reported what the report and the presenter stressed, which seems like a much less stringent standard to call success than what a journalist would request. Does this mean the program doesn't work? No.  Does it mean it works? No.  Does it mean the police are making general and blanket statements based on what they would like to be true?
Yes

Sandra Citron commented at Thu, 10 Nov at 10:08am

You can spin this all you want but the article hints, or tries to imply, like all articles on "this side" of the issue hint or imply - some more subtly, some less subtly (e.g., Robert"gang injunctions don't work" Gammon) - that gang injunctions don't work.

You make a statement, as you did, that the report "shows" that the GI hasn't reduced crime and I'm putting you smack dab on the non-subtle side. It "shows" no such thing, because it doesn't really "show" (i.e., prove) anything at all - as you finally admit in your response.

By making such a statement - that is, by claiming, as you did, the report "shows" this, that, or the other, when it actually shows nothing of the kind - you, and not OPD, are the one guilty of making what you call a "blanket statement" to support your point of view. This is editorializing. Not reporting.

livegreen commented at Thu, 10 Nov at 1:57pm

Susan, Your headline reflects only part of the report.  That shows bias.  Not until halfway through your article & barely mentioned is that the 15 people covered by the injunction were effectively deterred from doing so in North Oakland (the area covered by the Injunction - not Hayward).

 

You made a decision to triage the report and emphasize only part, showing your bias. And the half of the report you chose is not even covered by the injunction, further emphasizing your bias.

Sandra Citron commented at Thu, 10 Nov at 2:53pm

livegreen,

Yes. You understand. Susan's claim to be simply reporting the facts is about as disingenuous (or perhaps naive) as you can get. She's only reporting *certain* facts. And she's only reporting *certain* sources - not, for example, Pat Kernighan, who gave a convincing argument as to why the report is inconclusive.

Susan Mernit commented at Thu, 10 Nov at 3:10pm

Folks, I appreciate the intensity of these comments. However, this is labelled analysis.  OL has run more than 50 articles on the gang injunctions, so I'd urge you to look at our coverage at http://oaklandlocal.com/tags/gang-injunction to get all the details--and some community voices as well. There is no way anyone reports all the facts in one piece, editing  and writing involve choosing what the  reporter and editor think are key for that moment and the space allotted. This is the reason it's always good to read multiple pieces and form your own views.

Sandra Citron commented at Thu, 10 Nov at 3:17pm

Where is it labelled "analysis"? You seemed be claiming before that you were just reporting. I'm not saying you need to include all the facts in one piece. What I *am* saying is that this one piece is very biased and can't stand on its own as simple reportage.

livegreen commented at Thu, 10 Nov at 3:43pm

Susan, You're sidestepping what's meant as a constructive critique.  It's not an analysis if you mostly analyse half the findings in the report.  And your title is both leading and misleading towards a specific conclusion on only a portion of the report.  A fair title would have also shown that it was successful in deterring the gang members it covered in North Oakland.

Mike Santos commented at Thu, 10 Nov at 10:40pm

Crime has not dropped because of the reduction in the police force, not because the gang injunction is not useful.

In fact one might argue that crime might be even higher had the injunction not been in place.