Thank you so much, Alex, for this enlightening and heartening analysis. I've long felt, without any evidence, that OPD and its beleaguered officers get a bum rap on the spending front. It's great to see your data.
Great and important article. Well said, Oakland police do carry by far the heaviest load and I have seen it first hand. We need to expand our police force and give the tools to do their job. Also, get rid of the Federal Oversight and revise the police commission. It would be good to see how much money and manpower is spent on "police oversight". You are also right to raise the question "why do we have so much crime". Mindy Pechenuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor 2026
Thank you for the thorough analyses. It is so obvious that Oakland needs more police, not less. When former mayor Libby Schaaf invited former NYPD commissioner Bill Bratton to Oakland, he commented that it is a tough city to work in because the police dont have the support of city hall and he specifically pointed out that we dont have enough officers for the high level of crime.
And this article makes it clear that anti-police people like Cat Brooks, Millie Cleveland, and etc... have no business (ie credentials) in dictating public safety policies. Too often, their stances and actions make Oakland less safe for residents and small businesses.
Thanks as always for providing fact-based analysis. I'll admit that I came away from this article without a clear idea of the 'so what'. I'm also wondering whether the amount of crime - perhaps weighted by severity - is the definitive measure of 'workload'. Are there other accepted measures? My perception is that a fair amount of crime in Oakland goes uninvestigated or, if you will, unworked. But if more crime goes unworked here versus elsewhere, then the cost per work metric is flawed.
And I really struggled with what to make of cost per homicide comparisons with places like Piedmont. Everyone knows that homicides per capita are a lot lower there, so the comparison of cost per homicide seems almost meaningless (unless that is the only crime on which officers spend time, and all crimes are investigated).
My guess is that many crimes not investigated are those with no witnesses, or witnesses who won’t talk. Cameras can help, but it takes time to check locations and recover and analyze footage. The useful clues that appear on TV are often missing in real life. If there is any physical evidence, tying it to specific individuals can be challenging or impossible. All of this work takes a bunch of time, and OPD’s investigative units are stretched thin for the workload, which grows daily. The element missing from any discussions of investigation, or patrol work for that matter, is the time it takes to do it.
Amazing work. I bet you won’t see this research cited on The Oaklandside!! And we all know why.
Thank you so much, Alex, for this enlightening and heartening analysis. I've long felt, without any evidence, that OPD and its beleaguered officers get a bum rap on the spending front. It's great to see your data.
Great and important article. Well said, Oakland police do carry by far the heaviest load and I have seen it first hand. We need to expand our police force and give the tools to do their job. Also, get rid of the Federal Oversight and revise the police commission. It would be good to see how much money and manpower is spent on "police oversight". You are also right to raise the question "why do we have so much crime". Mindy Pechenuk, candidate for Oakland Mayor 2026
Nerd alert!! This is fascinating. I need to read it a few more times to digest all the data.
Thank you for the thorough analyses. It is so obvious that Oakland needs more police, not less. When former mayor Libby Schaaf invited former NYPD commissioner Bill Bratton to Oakland, he commented that it is a tough city to work in because the police dont have the support of city hall and he specifically pointed out that we dont have enough officers for the high level of crime.
And this article makes it clear that anti-police people like Cat Brooks, Millie Cleveland, and etc... have no business (ie credentials) in dictating public safety policies. Too often, their stances and actions make Oakland less safe for residents and small businesses.
Thanks as always for providing fact-based analysis. I'll admit that I came away from this article without a clear idea of the 'so what'. I'm also wondering whether the amount of crime - perhaps weighted by severity - is the definitive measure of 'workload'. Are there other accepted measures? My perception is that a fair amount of crime in Oakland goes uninvestigated or, if you will, unworked. But if more crime goes unworked here versus elsewhere, then the cost per work metric is flawed.
And I really struggled with what to make of cost per homicide comparisons with places like Piedmont. Everyone knows that homicides per capita are a lot lower there, so the comparison of cost per homicide seems almost meaningless (unless that is the only crime on which officers spend time, and all crimes are investigated).
My guess is that many crimes not investigated are those with no witnesses, or witnesses who won’t talk. Cameras can help, but it takes time to check locations and recover and analyze footage. The useful clues that appear on TV are often missing in real life. If there is any physical evidence, tying it to specific individuals can be challenging or impossible. All of this work takes a bunch of time, and OPD’s investigative units are stretched thin for the workload, which grows daily. The element missing from any discussions of investigation, or patrol work for that matter, is the time it takes to do it.