Understanding Serious Violence in Oakland: A Problem And

Understanding Serious Violence in Oakland: A Problem And

Understanding Serious Violence in Oakland: A Problem And Opportunity Analysis Daniela Gilbert Vaughn Crandall Stewart Wakeling January 2014 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 1 Contents 1.  Problem Analysis: IntroducHon, Purpose, Methodology, 3 – 6 ObjecHves, AcHviHes 2. Context and Trend Data 7 – 12 3. Demographics, Criminal History and Criminal JusHce System Involvement 13 – 23 4. Homicide Incident Reviews 24 – 32 5. Citywide Group Dynamic and Violence Analysis 33 – 45 6. ShooHng Density Analysis 46 – 49 7. Discussion of Findings and General Conclusions 50 – 55 8. Acknowledgements, Sources, and Bibliography 56 – 58 9. Appendix 59 – 67 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 2 Problem Analysis (1): IntroducHon and Purpose • 
A “problem analysis” is a set of data collecHon & analysis exercises designed to support the implementaHon of partnership-­‐based violence reducHon strategies, including Ceasefire. • 
This analysis establishes a common understanding of the local violence problem that guides and informs the work of civic, community, and criminal jusHce leaders to reduce violence. • 
The problem analysis idenHfies the groups and individuals within a community who are at greatest risk of violence, and helps tailor an intervenHon to reduce that risk. • 
The problem analysis method has been developed and refined over the past 20 years, as Ceasefire intervenHons have been tested in numerous ciHes across the U.S. and internaHonally. For more informaHon on problem analyses, see slide 60. • 
Though its methodology is informed by research, the analysis is primarily a pracHce document with implicaHons for local policy. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 3 Problem Analysis (2): Methodology • 
The problem analysis produces a comprehensive and detailed understanding of local violence by focusing on a parHcular aspect of that problem, in this case homicide. • 
The problem analysis examines homicide incidents rather than nonfatal incidents because homicide invesHgaHons offer a more detailed, in-­‐depth, and reliable pool of informaHon from which to draw. • 
The analysis looks at this problem from two important angles: a.  QuanHtaHve and qualitaHve data from public agency records b.  The experHse of staff from agencies and organizaHons with working knowledge of homicide incidents, and the individuals and groups involved in the incidents FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 4 Problem Analysis (3): ObjecHves 1.  Provide a detailed understanding of local serious violence during a specific period of Hme: January 2012 – June 2013. 2.  Understand the demographics of who is at highest risk of violence and their jusHce system involvement. 3.  Understand the near-­‐term drivers of violence, including circumstances and the role of groups and networks (for example, sets, teams, cliques and gangs) in violence. 4.  IdenHfy paferns of violence, and the geographic and social concentraHon of violence within groups and networks. 5.  Build capacity for Oakland partners to conduct real-­‐Hme analysis of violence dynamics on a regular basis. These ongoing analyHc exercises are key to successful implementaHon of the partnership-­‐
based violence reducHon strategy. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 5 Problem Analysis (4): AcHviHes 1.  Analyze basic contextual and trend data regarding violence in Oakland. 2.  Review and analyze suspect and vicHm demographics and criminal histories to understand how they are coming to the afenHon of the criminal jusHce system. 3.  In-­‐depth review of each homicide incident – who was involved, what happened, circumstances and moHve, role of group membership and relaHonships. 4.  Analysis of group dynamics including relaHonships within and across groups, involvement in violence, other acHviHes, and any turf associaHons. 5.  Map homicides and shooHngs. 6.  Synthesize this informaHon into a unified document that idenHfies the highest risk populaHon & guides the Ceasefire partnership’s work. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 6 Contents 1.  Problem Analysis: IntroducHon, Purpose, Methodology, 3 – 6 ObjecHves, AcHviHes 2. Context and Trend Data 7 – 12 3. Demographics, Criminal History and Criminal JusHce System Involvement 13 – 23 4. Homicide Incident Reviews 24 – 32 5. Citywide Group Dynamic and Violence Analysis 33 – 45 6. ShooHng Density Analysis 46 – 49 7. Discussion of Findings and General Conclusions 50 – 55 8. Acknowledgements, Sources, and Bibliography 56 – 58 9. Appendix 59 – 67 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 7 Summary of Contextual and Trend Data •  Oakland’s violence problem has been stable over the last 44 years. MulH-­‐year annual homicide averages (3-­‐, 5-­‐, 10-­‐, 44-­‐year) all hover around 107-­‐109 homicides. •  In recent years:   Oakland’s violent crime rate has been 3x – 4x the state rate   Oakland’s homicide rate has been 3x – 6x the state rate   Oakland’s violent crime rates tend to resist state and naHonal downward trends FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 8 Trend Data: Oakland Homicides 44-­‐year = 107.04 Homicide Averages: 10-­‐year = 108.9 5-­‐year = 107.8 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 3-­‐year = 106.67 9 Violent Crime Rate per 100,000: Oakland v. California FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 10 Homicide Rate per 100,000: Oakland v. California FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 11 Trend Data Comparison: Violent Crime Rate, 2000-­‐2012 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 12 Contents 1.  Problem Analysis: IntroducHon, Purpose, Methodology, 3 – 6 ObjecHves, AcHviHes 2. Context and Trend Data 7 – 12 3. Demographics, Criminal History and Criminal Jus@ce System Involvement 13 – 23 4. Homicide Incident Reviews 24 – 32 5. Citywide Group Dynamic and Violence Analysis 33 – 45 6. ShooHng Density Analysis 46 – 49 7. Discussion of Findings and General Conclusions 50 – 55 8. Acknowledgements, Sources, and Bibliography 56 – 58 9. Appendix 59 – 67 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 13 Summary of Basic Demographic Data of Those Involved in Homicides •  84% of vicHms and 94% of suspects are male •  While only 28% of Oakland’s populaHon, approximately 80% of vicHms and suspects are Black •  Highest concentraHon among ages 18-­‐34   67% of all individuals involved in homicide (both vicHms and suspects)   66% of all vicHms   69% of known suspects   76.25% of vicHms known to be group involved FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 14 Basic VicHm and Suspect Info, Citywide Homicides, January 2012 – June 2013 VicHms N = 171 Suspects N = 67 Oakland PopulaHon, 2010 Census Male 84% 94% 49.5% Female 16% 6% 51.5% Asian and Pacific Islander 8%* 6% 17.4% Black 78% 82% 28% Hispanic 9% 10.5% 25.4% White 5% 1.5% 34.5% Sex Race * Oikos University killing of 7 people (4%) contributes to an uncharacterisHcally high percentage of Asian vicHmizaHon during the review period. Without this mass shooHng, the percentage of Black and Hispanic vicHms would likely be higher. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 15 Age, VicHms and Suspects, Citywide Homicides, January 2012 – June 2013 VicHms N = 171 Known Suspects N = 67 17 and under 8% 15% 18 -­‐ 24 36% 36% 25 -­‐ 34 30% 33% 35 -­‐ 44 12% 9% 45 and older 14% 7% 30.25 26.36 Age DistribuHon Mean Age FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 16 Age, All Known Individuals Involved in Homicide, Citywide Homicides, January 2012 – June 2013 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 17 Age, All VicHms and Known Suspects, Citywide Homicides, January 2012 – June 2013 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 18 Age, VicHms Known to be Group Involved, Citywide Homicides, January 2012 – June 2013 VicHms Known to be Group Involved, N = 80 Age DistribuHon 17 and under 12.5% 18 -­‐ 24 48.75% 25 -­‐ 34 27.5% 35 -­‐ 44 7.5% 45 and older 3.75% Mean Age 24.59 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 19 Age, VicHms Known to be Group Involved, Citywide Homicides, January 2012 – June 2013 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 20 Criminal Histories of VicHms and Suspects, 2012 VicHms Suspects Known to the CJ system prior to the incident 69.84% 90.38% Of those known to the CJ system N = 88 N = 47 Average age 30.90 28.64 Average # of prior arrests 11.65 9.40 Average # of felony arrests 7.99 6.64 Prior probaHon 79.55% 76.60% AcHve probaHon at Hme of incident 19.32% 36.17% Prior parole 31.82% 25.53% Prior IncarceraHon 84.10% 82.98% Convicted of Felony 73.86% 72.34% FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 21 Criminal JusHce System Involvement of Homicide VicHms and Suspects, 2012 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 22 Criminal Histories of VicHms and Suspects, 2012 VicHms Suspects N = 88 N = 47 Violent offenses (without firearm) 1.68 1.85 Violent offenses with firearm 0.65 1.47 Nonviolent firearm offenses 0.68 1.09 Drug 3.30 2.62 Property 2.70 2.30 Disorderly 1.93 1.98 Sex Industry 0.06 .04 Fraud 0.34 0.38 Other 2.82 1.75 Of those known to the system prior to the homicide, average # of arrests for: FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 23 Contents 1.  Problem Analysis: IntroducHon, Purpose, Methodology, 3 – 6 ObjecHves, AcHviHes 2. Context and Trend Data 7 – 12 3. Demographics, Criminal History and Criminal JusHce System Involvement 13 – 23 4. Homicide Incident Reviews 24 – 32 5. Citywide Group Dynamic and Violence Analysis 33 – 45 6. ShooHng Density Analysis 46 – 49 7. Discussion of Findings and General Conclusions 50 – 55 8. Acknowledgements, Sources, and Bibliography 56 – 58 9. Appendix 59 – 67 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 24 Group Member Involvement, Citywide Homicides, January 2012 – June 2013 N = 43 N = 27 N = 101 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 25 Homicide Circumstances and Group Membership (1), January 2012 – June 2013, Total N = 171 Number Percentage Group Member Involved 101 59% Ongoing Conflict Between Groups 30 17.5% Dispute Internal to Group (general, respect, money, loyalty) 12 7% Ongoing Conflict Between a Group and an Individual 2 1.1% Personal Dispute 26 15.2% Drug Business (includes drug robbery, drug turf disputes) 9 5.3% Other/Non-­‐drug Business (includes sex industry, money owed, sales) 8 4.6% Instant Dispute 5 2.9% Robbery 4 2.3% MoHve Unknown 4 2.3% DomesHc 1 0.5% FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 26 Homicide Circumstances and Group Membership (2), January 2012 – June 2013, Total N = 171 Number Percentage 43 25.1% Personal Dispute 10 5.8% Robbery (includes residenHal robbery) 11 6.4% Drug Business (includes drug robbery) 11 6.4% MoHve Unknown 5 2.9% Instant Dispute 4 2.3% DomesHc 1 0.5% Witness InHmidaHon 1 0.5% Group Member Involvement Unknown or Not Confirmed FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 27 Homicide Circumstances and Group Membership (3), January 2012 – June 2013, Total N = 171 Number Percentage Not Group-­‐member Involved 27 15.7% DomesHc 6 3.5% Instant Dispute 5 2.9% Personal 4 2.3% ResidenHal Robbery 2 1.1% Drug Business 2 1.1% MoHve Unknown 1 0.5% Other* (Oikos ShooHng) 7 4% FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 28 Homicide Circumstances: As Percentage of Homicides Citywide and Percentage Group Member Involvement (GMI) Across Each Circumstance Category Circumstance Total % of Homicides % GMI % GMI Unknown/
Not Confirmed % No GMI Ongoing Conflict Between Groups 17.5% 100% 0% 0% Personal Dispute 23% 65% 25% 10% Robbery (includes residenHal robbery) 10% 23% 65% 12% Drug Business 13% 41% 50% 9% Instant Dispute 8% 36% 28% 36% MoHve Unknown 6% 40% 50% 10% DomesHc 5% 12.5% 12.5% 75% 4.6% 100% 0% 0% Other Business (Non-­‐drug) FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 29 Summary Highlights: Homicide Circumstances •  59% (N = 101) of all homicides involve group members as vicHms, suspects or both.  Most, 40% (N = 70), are running group feuds, personal disputes between group members or internal group disputes.  The balance, 19% (N = 31), are instances where group members use violence to resolve other kinds of disputes. •  Another 25% (N = 43) may involve group members as suspects and/or vicHms. •  Disputes over drugs, drug turf or drug business are relaHvely rare: 13% (N = 22) of all homicide. •  Risk of involvement in homicide is concentrated within and among groups and their networks. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 30 Group Involvement Comparison for VicHms and Suspects, Citywide Homicides, January 2012 – June 2013, (1) •  While 59% -­‐ 84% of incidents involve a vicHm and/or a suspect who is group involved, there are variaHons between vicHm group involvement and suspect group involvement in homicides. •  DisaggregaHng group involvement of vicHms and suspects demonstrates the following differences between their group involvement:  Just under half, 47% (N = 80), of vicHms are group involved  Just over half, 53% (N = 90), of suspects are group involved  Group involvement is unknown/not confirmed for 9% (N = 16) of vicHms  Group involvement is unknown/not confirmed for 27% (N = 47) of suspects FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 31 Group Involvement Comparison for VicHms and Suspects, Citywide Homicides, January 2012 – June 2013, (2) VicHms N = 16 N = 75 N = 80 Vic@ms who are not group involved include vic@ms of: •  Incidents that had no group member involvement •  Incidents in which the vic@m was caught in crossfire •  Incidents in which suspects are unknown, or are group involved but vic@ms are not Suspects Suspects who are not group involved include individuals who perpetrated: •  Incidents that had no group member involvement •  Incidents in which the vic@m was group involved but the suspect was not N = 34 N = 47 N = 90 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 32 Contents 1.  Problem Analysis: IntroducHon, Purpose, Methodology, 3 – 6 ObjecHves, AcHviHes 2. Context and Trend Data 7 – 12 3. Demographics, Criminal History and Criminal JusHce System Involvement 13 – 23 4. Homicide Incident Reviews 24 – 32 5. Citywide Group Dynamic and Violence Analysis 33 – 45 6. ShooHng Density Analysis 46 – 49 7. Discussion of Findings and General Conclusions 50 – 55 8. Acknowledgements, Sources, and Bibliography 56 – 58 9. Appendix 59 – 67 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 33 Framing ObservaHons (1): Oakland Group Dynamics •  Groups are involved in 59% -­‐ 84% of homicides in Oakland. Therefore, a more detailed understanding of group dynamics in Oakland is needed. •  The following observaHons are drawn from interviews and research regarding groups involved in violence over the review period. 34 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 Framing ObservaHons (2): Oakland Group Dynamics Among groups that are primarily black: •  Group affiliaHon can change over Hme depending on age and residence; it can also change very quickly. Group names can also change over Hme, or very quickly. •  Personal relaHonships osen determine if groups get along, commit crimes together, or feud. •  There are a number of groups with longstanding, group-­‐wide feuds or alliances. •  While groups osen include individuals who have more influence than others, they osen lack a formal hierarchy or structure. •  Individuals may idenHfy with mulHple groups and/or mulHple groups in an area, and/or may just idenHfy with the area overall. •  Personal connecHons made in custody can affect the street dynamic of groups. 35 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 Framing ObservaHons (3): Oakland Group Dynamics Among groups that are primarily LaHno: •  Primarily LaHno groups in Oakland fall under one of three general groups: Norteño, Border Brother, or Sureño. These three groups do not get along. •  As a Norteño, Border Brother, or Sureño, individuals must be part of a specific group; there are no “general” Norteños, Sureños, etc. •  Within each of these general groups, specific groups of Norteños, Border Brothers, and Sureños in Oakland primarily operate in isolaHon of one another. When groups work together, it is because of personal relaHonships and/or proximity, rather than a formal alliance. •  While there are certain individuals of influence in each group who may work to shape the acHviHes of the group, the groups for the most part lack a regimented hierarchy or structure. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 36 Framing ObservaHons (4): Oakland Group Dynamics General Dynamics Driving Feuds •  Causal factors involved in long-­‐standing group feuds, personal disputes, or instant disputes include the following dynamics:  Familial relaHonships  AssociaHve relaHonships (i.e. not blood relaHons but individuals with long-­‐standing relaHonships)  ConnecHons to neighborhoods or areas •  Defining “teams”: when individuals are killed, they are osen memorialized by friends, associates, and other group members who form a “team” and take it upon themselves to avenge the death of their deceased loved one or associate. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 37 Framing ObservaHons (5): Oakland Group Dynamics Differences Across City Areas •  Group affiliaHons and risk of violence are more stable in West and North Oakland than in East Oakland; the violence dynamic in East Oakland is more complicated and fluid. Summary •  Though relaHonships within and across groups are complex, risk of violence is concentrated among these groups and the networks they consist of, which reflect a very small number of people.  Focusing on these networks is key to reducing violence in Oakland.  While group characterisHcs may vary, the concentraHon of violence in Oakland among groups and their networks is not significantly different from other ciHes. 38 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 West and North Oakland Groups, Primarily Black AssociaHons change frequently; Updated December 2013 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 39 Central and East Oakland Groups, Primarily Black AssociaHons change frequently; Updated December 2013 40 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 Central and East Oakland Groups, Primarily LaHno Updated December 2013 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 41 Group Member Involved Homicides, Citywide, Groups with 3 or More Incidents, Jan 2012 – June 2013 *When specific Norteño or Border Brother set is known, those incidents are counted twice—within “all 42 sets”, and separately by set FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 Group Member Involved Homicides, Citywide, Groups with 2 or Fewer Incidents, Jan 2012 – June 2013 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 43 West and North Oakland Groups, HighlighHng Groups Involved in 3 + Homicides January 2012–June 2013 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 44 Central and East Oakland Groups, HighlighHng Groups Involved in 3 + Homicides January 2012–June 2013 45 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 Contents 1.  Problem Analysis: IntroducHon, Purpose, Methodology, 3 – 6 ObjecHves, AcHviHes 2. Context and Trend Data 7 – 12 3. Demographics, Criminal History and Criminal JusHce System Involvement 13 – 23 4. Homicide Incident Reviews 24 – 32 5. Citywide Group Dynamic and Violence Analysis 33 – 45 6. Shoo@ng Density Analysis 46 – 49 7. Discussion of Findings and General Conclusions 50 – 55 8. Acknowledgements, Sources, and Bibliography 56 – 58 9. Appendix 59 – 67 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 46 2009-2013 Shootings and Homicides by Beat
R ST
YL
GA
OXFO RD ST
ARE
CK SQU
SHATTU
SHATTUCK AV
CEDA
RD
CH
R
AN
H
TE R
D WA
R
GRAN
D AV
AV
E
D
R
S
SH
EP
L
CO
LIN
14TH
AV
LEY
AV
AR
D
E AV
AV
FRU
ITVA
L
23
RD
35T
HA
V
T
ND
S
SE
M
I
14
TH
14TH AV
PA
R
KB
LV
E
R
SH
O
AK
R
ST
HA
R
BR
O
N
AV
WE
BS
TE FRA
RT N
UB KLIN
PO
E
ST
SE
Y
TU
BE
8TH ST
RY AV
NA
28X
ST
H
G
HI
29X
ST
IN
E
TE
RN
BANCROFT AV
AT
IO
TH
GR
A
12
ST
NA
L
BL
VD
M
SE
IN
Y
AR
27Y
OA
K
RD
73
AL
AV
AV
TH
77
AV
30Y
AV
35Y
LV
D
AV
B
E
SID
N
FE
R
KS
LIN
O
R
Y
NLE
STA
33X
32X
32Y
FOOT
H
IL
L
VD
BL
AV
AV
TH
V
TA
EDE
SA
V
98
F
RO
NC
BA
V
TA
OF
CR
ISLA N
D DR
RD
34X
N
BA
HEGENB ERGER RD
HEGENBERGER RD
ST
Y RD
35X
F
D
TH
77
AV
GO L
N
A
LE
26Y
AV
AN
LL
EG
E
AV
S
CO
TH
77
FT
RO
26X
NC
BA
DR
31Y
31X
OL
IT
35Y
D
ESTU
14
TH
ST
DR
IS S
DAV
DR
TL
E
E
Legend
Count as a Percent of Total
AIR
PO
ON AV
ST
DO
DUTT
PA
RK
31Z
31X
A IR
P O
0.596375% - 1.312023%
ER
30X
MECART
NE
0.023855% - 0.596374%
K EL L
MA
CA
RT
HU
R
AV
VD
BL
OT
IS
S
WEBSTER ST
R RD
T
2T
H
25Y
UR
BLV
D
27X
ST
EN
C IN
ILLE
AR
TH
VD
BL
S
E1
RD
24X
23X
2T
H
TH
ST
CENTRAL AV
24Y
L
E1
E7
25X
AV
IL
TH
20X
E 7THST
D
C
MA
TH
35
ST
O
FO
BU
EN
AV
LIN
IST
CO
AA
LN
V
AV
ST
21Y
DA
VIS
ST
E1
2T
12 H S
TH T
ST
E
11
TH
ST
RE
DW
OO
KY
LIN
SK
E
YL
BL
VD
IN
E
BL
VD
ST
E
20
TH
22Y
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
VI
DA
E
NM
UI
21X
18X
AV
Q
AV
N
ST
TH
18Y
E
2
E 1S T
20 S
TH T
ST
ST
ST
6TH ST
22X
E
TH
11
14
E 12
TH S
T
D
A
JO
V
HA
14T
TH
20
E
ST
19X
17X
E
TH
15
01X
U
H
T
E
E 7T
H ST
T
ST H S
T H 0T
20 E 2
ST
03X
17Y
E
ST
BL
VD
ST
R
R
TH
20
D
VD
BL
RK 16Y
PA
E
ST
A
AV
GRAP
H
TELE
WEB
STER
ST
KING
JR
AD
WA
Y
D AV
L
16X
MA
CA
R
T
RS
TE
BS
WE
MAIN ST
FIS
NNEL RD
ST
INE
ADE
L
INE ST
ADEL
WY
ADEL
INE
LUTH
ER
ST
ST
MART
IN
WG
RAN
KE
LA
HO
ES
15X
LKM1
D
AV
AR
W
LA
DE
FR
A
W NKL
HA EBST IN S
T
RR
E
M
ISO R S
OA ADIS
NS T
KS
ON
T
T
ST
V
BL
ST
SKY
LI
KET
D
MAR
V
M AN
D EL
M AN
A PKWY
DELA
PKW Y
PDT2
NE
14Y
LV
D
N
NYO
CA
BL
14X
GRAND AV
KE
SI
RD
HE
IN
TA
UN
B
MO
O
13Z
AV
E
AV
RD
KE
GA
T
NA
GA
AV
RA
MO
LA
B
M
N
O
MO
RA
V
DA
TIM
B
A
RIS
Y
R O
AN
HL
HIG
AR
I
PE
RD
EN
M
LY
RD
EL
B
D
PIE
TH
12
8T
H
F I SH
R
N
N
TU N
TU
12
TH
11T ST
HS
T
03Y
G
AV
H
E
02Y
04X
ST
7T H ST
LVD
13Y
DWAY
OA
TE R
09X
40T
R
RTHU
CA
MA
02X
EL
12X
TH
14
IDE
LAKE S
RD
20T
HS
T
6TH
AK
TU
13X
R
OR
8T H
ST
7T H
ST
T
ES
DL
E H
AR
B
IM
RIT
MID
MA
RD
ST
D
DE
ST
BR
B
ER
AY T
DW
OA
08X
D AV
05X
51 ST
ST
7T H
ST
11TH 12TH
ST
ST ST
WG
RAN
13Y
RA
NC
H
Z
AV
PL
BAY
PL
Y
BA
7TH
ST
7TH
ST
7TH ST
11
TH
AV
WY
12
TH
ND
BEL ROSE
JR
05Y
GR
A
COLLEGE AV
IN G
10Y
06X
IZ
A VIST
12Y
AV
W
AV
N
11X
SHAT TUCK
AV
BLO
GR
AN
D
AV
AV
NT
MO
RE
ST
PA
SAN
W
CL A
U
51ST ST
40TH
07X
12Y
HER K
IN LUT
MART
T ST
MARKE
T
IS S
HOLL
AV
RD
FO
PIEDMONT AV
AV
BLO
POWELL ST
AN
ST
AV
ASHBY
AZ
ALCATR
10X
ELL ST
POW
PIEDMONT AV
Y AV
PA
SAN
ER AV
FOLG
FT WY
BANCRO RANT AV
AV DU
DURANT
WARRING ST
PARK ST
8T H ST
ASHB
R
D
ST
IR
R KING JR WY
MART IN LUTHE
SACRAMENTO
HT
C
AV
BLO
7T H ST
PA
SAN
DW
IG
Y
E
8T H ST
6T H ST
ITY AV
UNIVERS
ONT AV
PIED M
Choropleth Density of Homicides and Nonfatal ShooHngs, 2009 – November 20, 2013 ST
DEL AWARE
TY AV
ERSI
UNIV
TY AV
ERSI
UNIV
ILL O
AV
T
RT
31Z
R T DR
1.312024% - 2.051527%
2.051528% - 3.053435%
3.053436% - 6.05916%
City of Oakland
0
0.7
1.4 Miles
FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 47 2012-2013 Shootings and Homicides by Beat
Y
R
D
8T H ST
6T H ST
R KING JR WY
MART IN LUTHE
ITY AV
UNIVERS
E
E ST
DEL AWAR
PIED MONT AV
R ST
YL
GA
OXFO RD ST
ARE
CK SQU
SHATTU
SHATTUCK AV
CEDA
FT WY
BANCRO RANT AV
AV DU
DURANT
RD
CH
R
AN
H
TE R
D WA
R
GRAN
D AV
AV
E
E AV
35T
HA
V
T
ND
S
RY AV
NA
SE
M
I
FRU
ITVA
L
ST
H
G
HI
SH
EP
27X
29X
ST
IN
E
TE
RN
BANCROFT AV
AT
IO
TH
GR
A
12
ST
NA
L
BL
VD
M
SE
IN
Y
AR
27Y
OA
K
RD
73
AL
AV
AV
TH
77
AV
30Y
AV
35Y
LV
D
AV
B
E
SID
N
FE
R
O
R
Y
NLE
STA
33X
32X
32Y
FOOT
H
IL
L
VD
BL
AV
AV
TH
AV
EDE
SA
V
98
FT
RO
NC
BA
V
TA
OF
CR
ISLA N
D DR
RD
34X
N
BA
HEGENB ERGER RD
HEGENBERGER RD
ST
Y RD
35X
KS
LIN
AV
F
D
TH
77
GO L
N
A
LE
26Y
AV
AN
LL
EG
E
AV
S
CO
TH
77
FT
RO
26X
NC
BA
DR
31Y
31X
OL
IT
35Y
D
ESTU
14
TH
ST
E
TL
E
Legend
DR
IS S
DAV
DR
Shootings and Homicides by Beat 2012-2013
Count as a Percent of Total
AIR
PO
ON AV
ST
DO
DUTT
PA
RK
31Z
31X
A IR
P O
0.788531% - 1.792115%
ER
30X
MECART
NE
0.071685% - 0.78853%
K EL L
MA
CA
RT
HU
R
AV
VD
BL
OT
IS
D
R
S
L
CO
LIN
14TH
AV
LEY
AV
AR
D
14
TH
14TH AV
AV
23
RD
AV
PA
R
KB
LV
E
R
SH
O
AK
R
ST
N
HA
R
BR
O
FR
AN
WE
BS
TE FRA
RT N
UB KLIN
PO
E
ST
SE
Y
TU
BE
8TH ST
T
2T
H
S
WEBSTER ST
R RD
S
E1
25Y
UR
BLV
D
28X
ST
EN
C IN
ILLE
AR
TH
VD
BL
TH
ST
RD
24X
23X
2T
H
E7
24Y
L
E1
CENTRAL AV
25X
AV
IL
TH
20X
E 7THST
D
C
MA
TH
35
ST
ST
O
FO
BU
EN
AV
LIN
IST
CO
AA
LN
V
AV
ST
21Y
DA
VIS
E1
2T
12 H S
TH T
ST
E
11
TH
ST
RE
DW
OO
KY
LIN
SK
E
YL
BL
VD
IN
E
BL
VD
ST
E
20
TH
22Y
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
VI
DA
E
AV
NM
UI
21X
18X
N
ST
TH
E
2
E 1S T
20 S
TH T
ST
ST
ST
6TH ST
22X
16Y
Q
AV
VD
BL
E
TH
20
TH
11
14
18Y
E
E
ST
17X
E 12
TH S
T
D
A
JO
U
H
T
T
ST H S
T
20
TH
15
19X
V
HA
14T
E
E
E 7T
H ST
TH
20
ST
03X
01X
BL
VD
17Y
E
ST
ST
R
RK
PA
R
TH
20
D
A
AV
GRAP
H
TELE
WEB
STER
ST
KING
JR
AD
WA
Y
D AV
L
16X
MA
CA
R
T
RS
TE
BS
WE
MAIN ST
FIS
NNEL RD
ST
INE
ADE
L
INE ST
ADEL
WY
INE
ADE
L
MART
IN
WG
RAN
KE
LA
HO
ES
E
ST
D
AV
AR
W
LA
DE
KL
W
HA EBST IN S
T
RR
E
M
ISO R S
OA ADIS
NS T
KS
ON
T
T
ST
V
BL
ST
SKY
LI
KET
D
MAR
V
M AN
D EL
M AN
A PKWY
DELA
PKW Y
BL
LUTH
ER
ST
ST
E
TIM
PDT2
15X
LKM1
N
NYO
CA
IN
TA
UN
GRAND AV
KE
SI
RD
HE
NE
14Y
LV
D
MO
B
14X
AV
O
RD
KE
13Z
GA
N
O
AV
NA
GA
AV
RA
MO
AR
I
B
LA
B
M
TH
12
8T
H
PE
M
LY
D
PIE
T
MO
RA
V
DA
H
E
03Y
F I SH
R
A
40T
RIS
Y
R O
AN
HL
HIG
12
TH
11T ST
HS
T
ST
7T H ST
G
EN
04X
6TH
RD
RD
B
02X
02Y
20T
HS
T
TH
14
E
LAKE SID
RD
EL
DWAY
OA
TE R
09X
R
OR
T
ES
DL
E H
AR
B
8T H
ST
7T H
ST
LVD
13Y
12X
R
RTHU
CA
MA
MA
IM
RIT
MID
EL
13X
D
DE
ST
BR
B
ER
AY T
DW
OA
08X
D AV
05X
AK
ST
ST
7T H
ST
11TH 12TH
ST
ST ST
WG
RAN
51 ST
PL
BAY
PL
Y
BA
7TH
ST
7TH
ST
7TH ST
11
TH
AV
WY
12
TH
ND
N
N
N
TU
JR
05Y
GR
A
RD
TU
TU
IN G
10Y
06X
13Y
RA
NC
H
Z
AV
12Y
AV
W
AV
IZ
A VIST
11X
SHAT TUCK
AV
BLO
GR
AN
D
N
ST
PA
SAN
W
AV
HER K
IN LUT
MART
T ST
MARKE
T
IS S
HOLL
07X
AV
AV
NT
MO
RE
U
51ST ST
40TH
BEL ROSE
AV
BLO
AV
RD
FO
WARRING ST
PA
SAN
ELL ST
POW
POWELL ST
12Y
AZ
ALCATR
10X
AN
ST
AV
ASHBY
CL A
COLLEGE AV
Y AV
PIEDMONT AV
PARK ST
8T H ST
ASHB
ER AV
FOLG
PIEDMONT AV
IR
ST
HT
C
AV
BLO
7T H ST
PA
SAN
DW
IG
SACRAMENTO
Choropleth Density of Homicides and Nonfatal ShooHngs During Review Period, January 2012 – June 2013 TY AV
ERSI
UNIV
TY AV
ERSI
UNIV
ILL O
AV
T
RT
31Z
R T DR
1.792116% - 2.580645%
2.580646% - 3.44086%
3.440861% - 6.308244%
FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 City of Oakland
0
0.7
1.4 Miles
48 BE LROSE
AV
AV
CL
O
EM
AR
NT
AN
C
AV
AM ENTO
LY
FISH R IZZ
R
G
DU RA NT
WARR ING ST
PIEDMONT AV
PIED MON T AV
SACR
PAR K ST
ST
8T H
7T H
PAB LO
SA N
T
KING
MAR TIN LUT HER
ST
WY
DWIG HT
SHATTUCK AV
AV
6T H S
Y
RS IT
8T H
E
UN IV
PE
H
RD
E L RD
TUN
D
R
E
SNA
HE
WEB
S TE
SHEP
R ST
AV
D
D
AN
JOA
L
NC
O
LI
TH
35
DA
VI
S
ST
B
BL
VD LVD
T
AV
ST
TH
ST
ST
ST
E7
EM
I
S
L
IL
7 TH ST
RY AV
NA
TH
O
FO
E
E 12
T
H
IST
A
A
LIN
CO V
LN
AV
CENTRAL AV
MA
CA
RT
H
UR
AV
AV
D
R
H
T
73
77
GR
AN
D
12
OA
K
ST
TH
AV
E
FE
LL
EG
CO
L
GO
RO
ND
A
AV
AV
LE
TH
77
AV
FT
RO
N
SA
TH
77
NC
BA
AV
B LVD
AL
RN
SI
DE
CIN
DR
F LINK
V
BL
AV
FO
O
L
HEGENBERGER RD
HEGENBERGE R RD
AV
IL
TH
TH
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
98
D
AV
TON
DUT
PAR
K
TL
E
ST
DO
OL
IT
Legend
ED E
S
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
NEY R
D
RD
S
ANL
ST
ST
MECAR T
AV
K E LL E R
VD
BL
BL
VD
ST
H
BANCROFT
G IN T
AV
HI
ER
NA
T IO
NA
AV
L
ST
Y
BL
AR
VD
IN
M
SE
E
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
S
BUENA
V
DW
VI
DA
20
TH
ST
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
2
E
RE
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
VAL
E AV
H
AV
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
NE
FR U
IT
AV
ST
IN ST
MA
T
14
H
14T
E
AV
RD
TH
12
ST ST
TH H
20 20T
ST
E
TH
ST
15
TH
E
11
E
E
E 7T
H ST
BL
VD
N
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
R
VD
BL
AV
14 TH
AV
AV
RK
PA
14 TH
AC
AR
TH
U
AR
DL E
Y
M
AV
RT
HU
R B
LV
D
D
A
3R
Y
JR W
ER K
ING
AV
CL
AR
EM
ON
T
NE
T
E
8TH ST
LI
BL
V
GR
INE
ST
AD E
L
P H AV
TELEG
RA
RI
S
SK
Y
MART
IN LU
TH
BR
OA
DW
AY
INE
ST
AD E
L
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
RT
WE
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
TH
SE T U R A
ER
Y T BE NK
K IN
L IN
UB
GJ
E
ST
RW
FR
Y
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE S T
IS O R S
T
NS
M
T
OA AD IS
KS O
T NS
T
RD
IN
R
E
WEBSTER ST
RD
A
AV U NT
MO
V
DA
E
6TH ST
K
GA
D EL
A PKW Y
M AN
D EL
A PKWY
RA
MO
M AN
D
BL V
LAN
E
T
A
OAK
ST
IDE D
R
ES
MI
8T
HS
6T T
H
7T S T
HS
T
T
AV
N
AV
A AV
D
AN
HA
N
O
O
M
MORA
G
HL
HIG
ED
PI
K
LA
6TH
S
R RD
D D E HARB O
L
HS
AV
20
T
TA
ST
40
TH
C
12 T
H
8T H
7T HS T
ST
VIS
ST
MA
ST
20
TH
ST
E
NA
AV
N
TER
Y
DWA
OA
BR
Y PL
BA
11
TH
ND
AV
7T H ST
7T H ST
GR
A
51 ST
ST
PAB LO
SA N
W
ST
B
K
U
S
MARK ET T
T
IS S
40 TH
EL
D
AV
RD
NN
R
AV
SHATTU CK
AV
HOLL
ST
E LL
POW
ST
E LL
PO W
FO
AN
ST
ST
R
WEBS TE
U
T
JR WY
ST
Y AV
PAB LO
SA N
ASHB
COLL EGE AV
ST
AV
Nonfatal ShooHng Density Map with Pins of Homicides, January 2012 – June 2013 AV
AS HB Y
DR
U
ES T
2012-2013 187A
LO
DIL
AV
0 - 40.22866516
80.45733033 - 120.6859955
120.6859956 - 160.9146606
DR
40.22866517 - 80.45733032
R
PO
AIR
VIS
DA
ST
T
E
14
TH
ST
160.9146607 - 201.1433258
City of Oakland
0
0.65
1.3 Miles
FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 49 Contents 1.  Problem Analysis: IntroducHon, Purpose, Methodology, 3 – 6 ObjecHves, AcHviHes 2. Context and Trend Data 7 – 12 3. Demographics, Criminal History and Criminal JusHce System Involvement 13 – 23 4. Homicide Incident Reviews 24 – 32 5. Citywide Group Dynamic and Violence Analysis 33 – 45 6. ShooHng Density Analysis 46 – 49 7. Discussion of Findings and General Conclusions 50 – 55 8. Acknowledgements, Sources, and Bibliography 56 – 58 9. Appendix 59 – 67 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 50 Summary of Findings (1): Group Violence, City Areas •  Groups play a significant role in driving serious violence at the citywide level. At least 59% and up to 84% of homicides citywide are group member involved. •  While approximately 1/3 of the city’s area, East Oakland—High St. to San Leandro Border—accounts for 53% of homicide over the review period. •  During the review period, violence was most concentrated in Beats 26Y, 27Y, 29X, 30X, 30Y, 33X, 34X, and 35X—all of which are in East Oakland. •  The remaining 47% of homicide is distributed primarily across West Oakland—bounded by the 580, 880, and 980/24 freeways—
and Central Oakland—Lake Merrif to High St. •  In West Oakland, as indicated on the heat maps, this occurs mostly in Beats 02Y, 02X, 04X, 05X, 06X, 07X, and 08X. In Central Oakland, this occurs mostly in 17Y, 19X, 20X, 21X, 21Y, 23X, 24X, and 24Y. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 51 Summary of Findings (2): Social ConcentraHon •  There are approximately 50 violent groups in Oakland, with an esHmated acHve membership of 1000 – 1200 people. This is approximately 0.3% of the enHre city’s populaHon. •  Of acHve groups in Oakland, at any one Hme, only a small subset of the groups are at highest risk of violence. During the review period, 18 groups citywide were associated with a majority of group-­‐involved violence. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 52 Summary of Findings (3): Criminal JusHce System Involvement •  Approximately 70% vicHms and 90% of suspects have come into contact with the criminal jusHce system prior to the homicide incident. •  Homicide vicHms and suspects come into contact with the criminal jusHce system frequently and for a variety of offenses:  Arrested an average of 10 Hmes prior to their homicide vicHmizaHon or perpetraHon  Approximately 7 of all their arrests are felony arrests  Approximately 73% have been convicted of a felony  76% -­‐ 80% have been on probaHon  Approximately 84% have been incarcerated  Have high averages of violent offenses, and also have high averages of other offenses, parHcularly drug and property. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 53 Summary of Findings (4): Age Trends •  Serious violence is most concentrated among individuals ages 18-­‐34   67% of all individuals involved in homicide (both vicHms and suspects)   66% of all homicide vicHms   69% of known homicide suspects   76.25% of homicide vicHms known to be group involved   The average age of an individual involved in homicide is 29.15.   The average age of vicHms is 30.25 and the average age of suspects is 26.36. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 54 Summary ObservaHons The following summary observaHons are relevant to quality implementaHon of Oakland Ceasefire: 1.  Risk of involvement in violence in Oakland tends to be highly concentrated among young men ages 18-­‐34 that are involved in fluid and complicated but recognizable groups and networks. 2.  These young men tend to come into contact with the criminal jusHce system frequently. 3.  Making progress on reducing the risk these young men present to themselves and the community depends on making them a joint and sustained focus of the full range of Ceasefire partners. 4.  Oakland has experienced especially high rates of violence for several decades. ConHnued progress will require intensive sustained effort. 5.  Maintaining progress on violence reducHon in East Oakland should be factored into any consideraHon of expanding full implementaHon of Ceasefire to other areas of Oakland 55 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 Acknowledgements   Thank you to the personnel of the Oakland Police Department for dedicaHng their Hme and experHse to this process and product.   Thank you to the Department of Human Services for their administraHon and management of the funding that made this product possible.   Special thanks to the following people for their effort and support:   Interim Chief Sean Whent   Interim Assistant Chief Paul Figueroa  
 
 
 
 
Captain Ersie Joyner Andrea Van Peteghem Reygan Harmon Lieutenant Tony Jones Sergeant Fred Shavies   Officer Gerardo Melero   Julian Ware   Robert Bafy FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 56 Data Sources by Slide Slides Sources Notes 9 Oakland Police Department; Bureau of Jus@ce Sta@s@cs, Uniform Crime Reports For the purposes of this analysis, we used UCR data when available. Data points 1969-­‐1984 provided by OPD; Data points 1985-­‐2012 are from UCR. There are slight differences in UCR vs OPD totals for certain years 1985 and later. 10-­‐12 Bureau of Jus@ce Sta@s@cs, Uniform Crime Reports 14-­‐20 Oakland Police Department; California Department of Jus@ce; U.S. Census Bureau 21-­‐23 California Department of Jus@ce; Oakland Police Department; Parole LEADS 25-­‐45 Oakland Police Department 47-­‐50 Oakland Police Department; Forensic Logic; City of Oakland Office of Informa@on Technology While there are consistent categoriza@on principles that apply to criminal history coding, due to the volume of PC codes, variance among charges, and inconsistency of data entry across criminal histories, the coding process is an imperfect and subjec@ve one. That said, the local process maximized accuracy by concentra@ng coding responsibili@es within one trained analyst, and double-­‐checking a random sample of both vic@m and suspect criminal histories. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 57 Bibliography: Problem Analysis Methods For more informaHon on problem analysis methods and examples, see: 1.  Papachristos, A.V., Braga, A.A., Hureau, D.M. (2011). Six Degrees of Violent VicHmizaHon: Social Networks and the Risk of Gunshot Injury 2.  Braga, A. A., McDevif, J., & Pierce, G. L. (2006). Understanding and PrevenHng Gang Violence: Problem Analysis and Response Development in Lowell, Massachusefs. Police Quarterly, 9 (1) 20-­‐46 3.  Engel, R.S., Baker, G., Skubak Tillyer, M., Dunham, J.R., Hall, D., Ozer, M., Henson, B., Godsey, T. (2009). ImplementaHon of the CincinnaH IniHaHve to Reduce Violence (CIRV): Year 2 Report. University of CincinnaH Policing InsHtute 4.  Kennedy, D. M., Braga, A.A., & Piehl, A.M. (1997). The (Un)Known Universe: Mapping Gangs and Gang Violence in Boston, Crime Mapping and Crime Preven@on, ed. David L. Weisburd and J. Thomas McEwen. New York: Criminal JusHce Press FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 58 Appendix 1.  AddiHonal Maps of Violence in Oakland 60 – 65 2. Further Analysis Work To Be Done 66 – 67 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 59 AV
AV
E L RD
TUN
R
E
SNA
HE
WEB
S TE
SHEP
R ST
AV
D
D
AN
JOA
TH
11
ST
H
L
NC
O
LI
TH
35
DA
VI
S
AV
ST
E7
TH
ST
ST
ST
7 TH ST
RY AV
NA
EM
I
S
L
IL
E
E 12
T
H
IST
A
A
LIN
CO V
LN
AV
CENTRAL AV
MA
CA
RT
H
UR
AV
AV
RD
H
T
73
77
GR
AN
D
12
OA
K
ST
TH
AV
E
FE
LL
EG
CO
L
GO
RO
ND
A
AV
AV
LE
TH
77
AV
FT
RO
N
SA
TH
77
NC
BA
AV
B LVD
AL
DR
RN
SI
DE
CIN
F LINK
V
BL
AV
FO
O
L
HEGENBERGER RD
HEGENB ERGER RD
AV
IL
TH
TH
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
98
D
AV
TON
DUT
PAR
K
TL
E
Legend
ST
DO
OL
IT
ED E
S
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
NEY R
D
RD
S
ANL
ST
ST
MECAR T
AV
K E LL E R
VD
BL
BL
VD
ST
H
BANCROFT
G IN T
AV
HI
ER
NA
T IO
NA
AV
L
ST
Y
BL
AR
VD
IN
M
SE
E
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
T
TH
O
FO
BUENA
V
DW
S
ST
B
BL
VD LVD
VI
DA
20
TH
ST
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
2
E
RE
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
VAL
E AV
E
ST
AV
ST
TH
15
IN ST
MA
T
14
AV
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
NE
FR U
IT
ST ST
TH H
20 20T
E
E
TH
12
H
14T
E
AV
RD
E
E
E 7T
H ST
BL
VD
N
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
R
VD
BL
AV
14 TH
AV
AV
PA
RK
14 TH
AC
AR
TH
U
AR
DL E
Y
M
AV
RT
HU
R B
LV
D
D
A
3R
Y
JR W
ER K
ING
D
P H AV
CL
AR
EM
ON
T
NE
T
E
8TH ST
LI
BL
V
GR
INE
ST
AD E
L
TELEG
RA
RI
S
SK
Y
R
E
WEBSTER ST
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
MART
IN LU
TH
V
DA
RD
IN
BR
OA
DW
AY
INE
ST
LAN
RD
A
AV U NT
MO
AD E
L
K
GA
OAK
ST
RA
MO
AV
A AV
AV
N
T
MORA
G
D
AN
HA
N
O
O
M
C
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
RT
WE
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
TH
SE T U R A
ER
Y T BE NK
K IN
L IN
UB
GJ
E
ST
RW
FR
Y
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE S T
IS O R S
NS T
MA
T
OA D IS
KS O
T NS
T
VIS
E
6TH ST
D
BL V
E
HL
HIG
D EL
A PKW Y
M AN
D EL
A PKWY
A
N
AV
M AN
LY
FISH R IZZ
R
G
RD
K
TER
IDE D
R
ES
MI
8T
HS
6T T
H
7T S T
HS
T
T
H
TA
ED
PI
K
LA
6TH
S
R RD
D D E HARB O
L
HS
40
TH
MA
20
T
B
Y
DWA
OA
BR
Y PL
BA
ST
8T H
7T HS T
ST
AV
ST
12 T
H
20
TH
ST
PE
ST
ST
PAB LO
AV
EL
NA
SA N
11
TH
ND
51 ST
AN
C
U
S
MARK ET T
T
IS S
7T H ST
7T H ST
GR
A
NN
NT
D
HOLL
W
ST
U
O
EM
AR
R
AV
AV
SHATTU CK
PAB LO
40 TH
CL
T
ST
SA N
ST
E LL
POW
ST
E LL
PO W
F
AN
ST
ST
R
WEBS TE
V
DA
OR
COLL EGE AV
AM ENTO
AV
AS HB Y
AV
BELROSE
SACR
ST
AV
PAR K ST
PAB LO
ST
8T H
7T H
Y AV
AV
WARR ING ST
PIEDMONT AV
T
SA N
ASHB
DU RA NT
PIED MON T AV
ST
WY
DWIG HT
KING JR WY
MAR TIN LUTHER
AV
SHATTUCK AV
Y
RS IT
6T H S
E
UN IV
8T H
Heat Map Density of Hand
omicides 2009-2013
Shootings
Homicides and Nonfatal ShooHngs, 2009 – November 20, 2013 DR
U
ES T
LO
DIL
AV
0 - 156.1818726
312.3637452 - 468.5456177
468.5456178 - 624.7274902
DR
156.1818727 - 312.3637451
R
PO
AIR
T
VIS
DA
ST
E
14
TH
ST
624.7274903 - 780.9093628
City of Oakland
0
0.65
1.3 Miles
FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 60 AV
AV
E L RD
TUN
R
E
SNA
HE
WEB
S TE
SHEP
R ST
AV
D
D
AN
JOA
TH
11
ST
H
L
NC
O
LI
TH
35
DA
VI
S
AV
ST
E7
TH
ST
ST
ST
7 TH ST
RY AV
NA
EM
I
S
L
IL
E
E 12
T
H
IST
A
A
LIN
CO V
LN
AV
CENTRAL AV
MA
CA
RT
H
UR
AV
AV
RD
H
T
73
77
GR
AN
D
12
OA
K
ST
TH
AV
E
FE
LL
EG
CO
L
GO
RO
ND
A
AV
AV
LE
TH
77
AV
FT
RO
N
SA
TH
77
NC
BA
AV
B LVD
AL
DR
RN
SI
DE
CIN
F LINK
V
BL
AV
FO
O
L
HEGENBERGER RD
HEGENB ERGER RD
AV
IL
TH
TH
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
98
D
AV
TON
DUT
PAR
K
TL
E
Legend
ST
DO
OL
IT
ED E
S
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
NEY R
D
RD
S
ANL
ST
ST
MECAR T
AV
K E LL E R
VD
BL
BL
VD
ST
H
BANCROFT
G IN T
AV
HI
ER
NA
T IO
NA
AV
L
ST
Y
BL
AR
VD
IN
M
SE
E
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
T
TH
O
FO
BUENA
V
DW
S
ST
B
BL
VD LVD
VI
DA
20
TH
ST
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
2
E
RE
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
VAL
E AV
E
ST
AV
ST
TH
15
IN ST
MA
T
14
AV
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
NE
FR U
IT
ST ST
TH H
20 20T
E
E
TH
12
H
14T
E
AV
RD
E
E
E 7T
H ST
BL
VD
N
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
R
VD
BL
AV
14 TH
AV
AV
PA
RK
14 TH
AC
AR
TH
U
AR
DL E
Y
M
AV
RT
HU
R B
LV
D
D
A
3R
Y
JR W
ER K
ING
D
P H AV
CL
AR
EM
ON
T
NE
T
E
8TH ST
LI
BL
V
GR
INE
ST
AD E
L
TELEG
RA
RI
S
SK
Y
R
E
WEBSTER ST
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
MART
IN LU
TH
V
DA
RD
IN
BR
OA
DW
AY
INE
ST
LAN
RD
A
AV U NT
MO
AD E
L
K
GA
OAK
ST
RA
MO
AV
A AV
AV
N
T
MORA
G
D
AN
HA
N
O
O
M
C
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
RT
WE
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
TH
SE T U R A
ER
Y T BE NK
K IN
L IN
UB
GJ
E
ST
RW
FR
Y
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE S T
IS O R S
NS T
MA
T
OA D IS
KS O
T NS
T
VIS
E
6TH ST
D
BL V
E
HL
HIG
D EL
A PKW Y
M AN
D EL
A PKWY
A
N
AV
M AN
LY
FISH R IZZ
R
G
RD
K
TER
IDE D
R
ES
MI
8T
HS
6T T
H
7T S T
HS
T
T
H
TA
ED
PI
K
LA
6TH
S
R RD
D D E HARB O
L
HS
40
TH
MA
20
T
B
Y
DWA
OA
BR
Y PL
BA
ST
8T H
7T HS T
ST
AV
ST
12 T
H
20
TH
ST
PE
ST
ST
PAB LO
AV
EL
NA
SA N
11
TH
ND
51 ST
AN
C
U
S
MARK ET T
T
IS S
7T H ST
7T H ST
GR
A
NN
NT
D
HOLL
W
ST
U
O
EM
AR
R
AV
AV
SHATTU CK
PAB LO
40 TH
CL
T
ST
SA N
ST
E LL
POW
ST
E LL
PO W
F
AN
ST
ST
R
WEBS TE
V
DA
OR
COLL EGE AV
AM ENTO
AV
AS HB Y
AV
BELROSE
SACR
ST
AV
PAR K ST
PAB LO
ST
8T H
7T H
Y AV
AV
WARR ING ST
PIEDMONT AV
T
SA N
ASHB
DU RA NT
PIED MON T AV
ST
WY
DWIG HT
KING JR WY
MAR TIN LUTHER
AV
SHATTUCK AV
Y
RS IT
6T H S
E
UN IV
8T H
2012-2013
and Homicides
Heat Map Density of HShootings
omicides and Nonfatal ShooHngs During Review Period, January 2012 – June 2013 DR
U
ES T
LO
DIL
AV
0 - 58.56820679
117.1364137 - 175.7046204
175.7046205 - 234.2728271
DR
58.5682068 - 117.1364136
R
PO
AIR
T
VIS
DA
ST
E
14
TH
ST
234.2728272 - 292.8410339
City of Oakland
0
0.65
1.3 Miles
FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 61 AV
WARR ING ST
PIEDMONT AV
DU RA NT
PIED MON T AV
6T H S
KING JR WY
MAR TIN LUTHER
AV
8T H
Y
RS IT
SHATTUCK AV
2009-2013 187A Density
E
UN IV
AV
AV
CL
AR
EM
ON
T
E L RD
TUN
D
R
SNA
E
WEB
S TE
HE
R ST
NE
AV
BL
V
D
D
JOA
ST
H
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
L
NC
O
LI
TH
35
DA
VI
S
AV
ST
E7
TH
ST
ST
ST
7 TH ST
RY AV
NA
EM
I
S
L
IL
E
E 12
T
H
IST
A
A
LIN
CO V
LN
AV
CENTRAL AV
MA
CA
RT
H
UR
AV
AV
RD
H
3
T
7
77
GR
AN
D
12
OA
K
ST
TH
AV
E
FE
LL
EG
CO
L
GO
RO
ND
A
AV
AV
LE
TH
77
AV
FT
RO
N
SA
TH
77
NC
BA
AV
B LVD
AL
RN
SI
DE
CIN
DR
F LINK
V
BL
HEGENBERGER RD
HEGENBERGE R RD
L
AV
FO
O
IL
TH
AV
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
TH
D
AV
TON
DUT
PAR
TL
E
ST
2009-2013 187A
98
K
DO
OL
IT
Legend
ED E
S
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
NEY R
D
RD
S
ANL
ST
ST
MECAR T
AV
K E LL E R
VD
BL
BL
VD
ST
H
BANCROFT
G IN T
AV
HI
ER
NA
T IO
NA
AV
L
ST
Y
BL
AR
VD
IN
M
SE
E
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
T
TH
O
FO
BUENA
V
DW
S
ST
B
BL
VD LVD
VI
DA
20
TH
ST
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
2
E
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
VAL
E AV
TH
11
IN ST
MA
T
14
AV
E
ST
E
AV
RE
NE
FR U
IT
ST ST
TH H
20 20T
E
ST
TH
15
H
14T
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
RD
E
E
TH
12
E 7T
H ST
BL
VD
N
AV
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
R
VD
BL
AV
14 TH
AV
AV
RK
PA
14 TH
AC
AR
TH
U
AR
DL E
Y
M
AV
RT
HU
R B
LV
D
D
A
3R
T
E
8TH ST
LI
AN
Y
JR W
KING
SHEP
SK
GR
INE
ST
P H AV
TELEG
RA
RI
S
R
Y
MART
IN LU
THER
BR
OA
DW
AY
INE
ST
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
AD E
L
RD
IN
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
RT
WE
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
TH
SE T U R A
ER
Y T BE NK
K
L
UB
IN G
IN
E
ST
JR
WY
FR
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE S T
IS O R S
NS T
M
T
OA AD IS
KS O
T NS
T
RD
A
AV U NT
MO
V
DA
E
WEBSTER ST
K
GA
LAN
E
6TH ST
A AV
AV
OAK
ST
RA
MO
AV
D
AN
N
T
MORA
G
HL
HIG
D EL
A PKW Y
M AN
D EL
A PKWY
D
BL V
VIS
AV
M AN
A
N
TA
HA
N
O
O
M
E
8T
HS
6T T
H
7T S T
HS
T
T
RD
K
TER
IDE D
R
ES
MI
R RD
ED
PI
K
LA
6TH
S
D D E HARB O
L
HS
H
E
NA
20
T
PE
U
ST
40
TH
C
12 T
H
8T H
7T HS T
ST
EL
B
Y
DWA
OA
BR
MA
ST
20
TH
ST
AN
C
D
AV
NN
NT
ST
Y PL
BA
11
TH
ND
AV
7T H ST
7T H ST
GR
A
51 ST
ST
PAB LO
SA N
W
ST
U
O
EM
AR
R
AV
SHATTU CK
S
MARK ET T
T
IS S
40 TH
CL
T
ST
AV
HOLL
V
DA
OR
COLL EGE AV
AM ENTO
PAB LO
SA N
ST
E LL
POW
T
LL S
E
PO W
F
AN
ST
ST
R
WEBS TE
AD E
L
SACR
ST
PAR K ST
7T H
Y AV
LY
FISH R IZZ
R
G
T
AV
PAB LO
SA N
ST
8T H
ASHB
AV
AS HB Y
AV
BELROSE
ST
Homicide Density Map with Pins of Homicides, 2009 – November 2013 WY
DWIG HT
DR
U
ES T
<VALUE>
LO
DIL
AV
0 - 18.14234009
36.28468019 - 54.42702026
54.42702027 - 72.56936035
DR
18.1423401 - 36.28468018
R
PO
AIR
T
VIS
DA
ST
E
14
TH
ST
72.56936036 - 90.71170044
City of Oakland
0
0.65
1.3 Miles
FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 62 AV
AV
E L RD
TUN
R
E
SNA
HE
WEB
S TE
SHEP
R ST
AV
D
D
AN
JOA
TH
11
ST
H
L
NC
O
LI
TH
35
DA
VI
S
AV
ST
E7
TH
ST
ST
ST
7 TH ST
RY AV
NA
EM
I
S
L
IL
E
E 12
T
H
IST
A
A
LIN
CO V
LN
AV
CENTRAL AV
MA
CA
RT
H
UR
AV
AV
RD
H
T
73
77
GR
AN
D
12
OA
K
ST
TH
AV
E
FE
LL
EG
CO
L
GO
RO
ND
A
AV
AV
LE
TH
77
AV
FT
RO
N
SA
TH
77
NC
BA
AV
B LVD
AL
DR
RN
SI
DE
CIN
F LINK
V
BL
HEGENBERGER RD
HEGENB ERGER RD
L
AV
FO
O
IL
TH
AV
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
TH
D
AV
TON
DUT
PAR
TL
E
ST
2012-2013 187A
98
K
DO
OL
IT
Legend
ED E
S
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
NEY R
D
RD
S
ANL
ST
ST
MECAR T
AV
K E LL E R
VD
BL
BL
VD
ST
H
BANCROFT
G IN T
AV
HI
ER
NA
T IO
NA
AV
L
ST
Y
BL
AR
VD
IN
M
SE
E
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
T
TH
O
FO
BUENA
V
DW
S
ST
B
BL
VD LVD
VI
DA
20
TH
ST
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
2
E
RE
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
VAL
E AV
E
ST
AV
ST
TH
15
IN ST
MA
T
14
AV
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
NE
FR U
IT
ST ST
TH H
20 20T
E
E
TH
12
H
14T
E
AV
RD
E
E
E 7T
H ST
BL
VD
N
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
R
VD
BL
AV
14 TH
AV
AV
PA
RK
14 TH
AC
AR
TH
U
AR
DL E
Y
M
AV
RT
HU
R B
LV
D
D
A
3R
Y
JR W
ER K
ING
D
P H AV
CL
AR
EM
ON
T
NE
T
E
8TH ST
LI
BL
V
GR
INE
ST
AD E
L
TELEG
RA
RI
S
SK
Y
R
E
WEBSTER ST
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
MART
IN LU
TH
V
DA
RD
IN
BR
OA
DW
AY
INE
ST
LAN
RD
A
AV U NT
MO
AD E
L
K
GA
OAK
ST
RA
MO
AV
A AV
AV
N
T
MORA
G
D
AN
HA
N
O
O
M
C
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
RT
WE
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
TH
SE T U R A
ER
Y T BE NK
K IN
L IN
UB
GJ
E
ST
RW
FR
Y
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE S T
IS O R S
NS T
MA
T
OA D IS
KS O
T NS
T
VIS
E
6TH ST
D
BL V
E
HL
HIG
D EL
A PKW Y
M AN
D EL
A PKWY
A
N
AV
M AN
LY
FISH R IZZ
R
G
RD
K
TER
IDE D
R
ES
MI
8T
HS
6T T
H
7T S T
HS
T
T
H
TA
ED
PI
K
LA
6TH
S
R RD
D D E HARB O
L
HS
40
TH
MA
20
T
B
Y
DWA
OA
BR
Y PL
BA
ST
8T H
7T HS T
ST
AV
ST
12 T
H
20
TH
ST
PE
ST
ST
PAB LO
AV
EL
NA
SA N
11
TH
ND
51 ST
AN
C
U
S
MARK ET T
T
IS S
7T H ST
7T H ST
GR
A
NN
NT
D
HOLL
W
ST
U
O
EM
AR
R
AV
AV
SHATTU CK
PAB LO
40 TH
CL
T
ST
SA N
ST
E LL
POW
ST
E LL
PO W
F
AN
ST
ST
R
WEBS TE
V
DA
OR
COLL EGE AV
AM ENTO
AV
AS HB Y
AV
BELROSE
SACR
ST
AV
PAR K ST
PAB LO
ST
8T H
7T H
Y AV
AV
WARR ING ST
PIEDMONT AV
T
SA N
ASHB
DU RA NT
PIED MON T AV
ST
WY
DWIG HT
KING JR WY
MAR TIN LUTHER
AV
SHATTUCK AV
Y
RS IT
6T H S
E
UN IV
8T H
2012-2013
187A
Density
Homicide Density Map with Pins of Incidents, Review Period, January 2012 – June 2013 DR
U
ES T
<VALUE>
LO
DIL
AV
0 - 7.099176025
14.19835206 - 21.29752808
21.29752809 - 28.3967041
DR
7.099176026 - 14.19835205
R
PO
AIR
T
VIS
DA
ST
E
14
TH
ST
28.39670411 - 35.49588013
City of Oakland
0
0.65
1.3 Miles
63 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 2009-2013 245A(2) Density
AV
AV
CL
AR
EM
ON
T
D
R
SNA
HE
WEB
S TE
ON
NY
CA
E L RD
TUN
VD
BL
RI
S
V
DA
RD
IN
BR
OA
DW
AY
A
AV U NT
MO
LAN
RD
SHEP
R ST
SK
NE
AV
BL
V
D
D
JOA
ST ST
TH H
20 20T
E
E
ST
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
TH
35
DA
VI
S
B
BL
VD LVD
T
AV
ST
E7
TH
ST
ST
ST
7 TH ST
RY AV
NA
EM
I
S
L
IL
E
E 12
T
H
IST
A
A
LIN
CO V
LN
AV
CENTRAL AV
TH
O
FO
BUENA
V
GR
AN
D
12
OA
K
ST
TH
AV
E
FE
CO
AV
L
GO
RO
ND
A
TH
77
AV
AV
LE
LL
EG
N
SA
TH
77
D
F LINK
V
BL
AV
FO
O
L
HEGENBERGER RD
HEGENBERGE R RD
AV
IL
TH
TH
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
98
D
AV
TON
DUT
PAR
K
TL
E
ST
DO
OL
IT
Legend
ED E
S
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
NEY R
D
RD
S
ANL
ST
ST
MECAR T
AV
K E LL E R
FT
RO
DR
R
73
MA
CA
RT
H
UR
AV
TH
77
NC
BA
AV
B LVD
AL
RN
SI
DE
CIN
AV
VD
BL
BL
VD
ST
H
BANCROFT
G IN T
AV
HI
ER
NA
T IO
NA
AV
L
ST
Y
BL
AR
VD
IN
M
E
S
E
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
S
ST
DW
VI
DA
20
TH
L
NC
O
LI
AV
2
E
RE
NE
ST
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
AV
TH
11
H
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
D
E
AV
TH
15
ST
IN ST
MA
T
14
AV
3R
E
TH
12
E 7T
H ST
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
RD
E
H
14T
BL
VD
AV
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
R
K
N
AV
R
PA
VD
BL
AR
DL E
Y
AC
AR
TH
U
VAL
E AV
M
FR U
IT
RT
HU
R B
LV
D
AV
14 TH
A
14 TH
T
E
8TH ST
LI
Y
R
AN
Y
E
K
GA
AV
OAK
ST
RA
MO
T
AV
A AV
D
AN
N
MORA
G
GR
INE
ST
AD E
L
P H AV
TELEG
RA
TER
HL
HIG
JR W
AV
ER K
ING
VIS
TA
MART
IN LU
TH
NA
INE
ST
N
U
AD E
L
RD
K
E
ST
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
RT
WE
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
T
SE T U R A
HE
Y T BE NK
RK
L IN
UB
IN G
E
ST
JR
WY
FR
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE S T
R
IS O S
NS T
M
T
OA AD IS
KS O
T NS
T
H
D
BL V
B
E
WEBSTER ST
PE
A
EL
E
6TH ST
AN
C
D
D EL
A PKW Y
M AN
D EL
A PKWY
NT
R
M AN
LY
FISH R IZZ
R
G
T
HA
N
O
O
M
E
8T
HS
6T T
H
7T S T
HS
T
T
NN
IDE D
R
ES
MI
R RD
ED
PI
K
LA
6TH
S
D D E HARB O
L
HS
40
TH
C
20
T
U
Y
DWA
OA
BR
MA
ST
8T H
7T HS T
ST
O
EM
AR
ST
Y PL
BA
ST
12 T
H
20
TH
ST
CL
AV
AV
AV
11
TH
ND
51 ST
ST
PAB LO
SA N
7T H ST
7T H ST
GR
A
ST
BE LROSE
AV
SHATTU CK
S
MARK ET T
T
IS S
W
ST
R
WEBS TE
AV
HOLL
40 TH
COLL EGE AV
ST
JR WY
AM ENTO
PAB LO
SA N
ST
E LL
POW
T
LL S
E
PO W
F
AN
ST
AV
AS HB Y
V
DA
OR
WARR
SACR
ST
PAR K ST
7T H
Y AV
AV
ING ST
PIEDMONT AV
T
AV
PAB LO
SA N
ST
8T H
ASHB
DU RA NT
PIED MON T AV
ST
6T H S
WY
DWIG HT
KING
MAR TIN LUT HER
AV
8T H
Y
RS IT
SHATTUCK AV
Nonfatal ShooHng Density Map with Pins of Incidents, 2009 – November 2013 E
UN IV
DR
U
ES T
2009-2013 245A(2)
LO
DIL
AV
0 - 113.5868164
227.1736329 - 340.7604492
340.7604493 - 454.3472656
454.3472657 - 567.934082
City of Oakland
0
0.65
1.3 Miles
DR
113.5868165 - 227.1736328
R
PO
AIR
T
FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 VIS
DA
ST
E
14
TH
ST
64 AV
AV
E L RD
TUN
R
E
SNA
HE
WEB
S TE
SHEP
R ST
AV
D
D
AN
JOA
TH
11
ST
H
L
NC
O
LI
TH
35
DA
VI
S
AV
ST
E7
TH
ST
ST
ST
7 TH ST
RY AV
NA
EM
I
S
L
IL
E
E 12
T
H
IST
A
A
LIN
CO V
LN
AV
CENTRAL AV
MA
CA
RT
H
UR
AV
AV
RD
H
T
73
77
GR
AN
D
12
OA
K
ST
TH
AV
E
FE
LL
EG
CO
L
GO
RO
ND
A
AV
AV
LE
TH
77
AV
FT
RO
N
SA
TH
77
NC
BA
AV
B LVD
AL
DR
RN
SI
DE
CIN
F LINK
V
BL
AV
FO
O
L
HEGENBERGER RD
HEGENB ERGER RD
AV
IL
TH
TH
AV
IS LA N
D DR
EY
98
D
AV
TON
DUT
PAR
K
TL
E
ST
DO
OL
IT
Legend
ED E
S
AV
FT
RO
NC
AV
BA
FT
RO
NC
BA
NEY R
D
RD
S
ANL
ST
ST
MECAR T
AV
K E LL E R
VD
BL
BL
VD
ST
H
BANCROFT
G IN T
AV
HI
ER
NA
T IO
NA
AV
L
ST
Y
BL
AR
VD
IN
M
SE
E
EN
OT
IS
OO
D
T
TH
O
FO
BUENA
V
DW
S
ST
B
BL
VD LVD
VI
DA
20
TH
ST
12
TH
12
S
TH T
S
11 T
TH
ST
2
E
RE
DE
LA
WA
RE
S
VAL
E AV
E
ST
AV
ST
TH
15
IN ST
MA
T
14
AV
21
S
E TS
20 T
TH
ST
Q UIN M ILLER
RD
NE
FR U
IT
ST ST
TH H
20 20T
E
E
TH
12
H
14T
E
AV
RD
E
E
E 7T
H ST
BL
VD
N
I
YL
S K INE
YL
SK
R
VD
BL
AV
14 TH
AV
AV
PA
RK
14 TH
AC
AR
TH
U
AR
DL E
Y
M
AV
RT
HU
R B
LV
D
D
A
3R
Y
JR W
ER K
ING
D
P H AV
CL
AR
EM
ON
T
NE
T
E
8TH ST
LI
BL
V
GR
INE
ST
AD E
L
TELEG
RA
RI
S
SK
Y
R
E
WEBSTER ST
ON
NY
CA
VD
BL
MART
IN LU
TH
V
DA
RD
IN
BR
OA
DW
AY
INE
ST
LAN
RD
A
AV U NT
MO
AD E
L
K
GA
OAK
ST
RA
MO
AV
A AV
AV
N
T
MORA
G
D
AN
HA
N
O
O
M
C
MAR
K ET
MA
ST
RT
WE
IN
B
LU
POS TE R F
TH
SE T U R A
ER
Y T BE NK
K IN
L IN
UB
GJ
E
ST
RW
FR
Y
W AN
HA EB SKL IN
RR TE S T
IS O R S
NS T
MA
T
OA D IS
KS O
T NS
T
VIS
E
6TH ST
D
BL V
E
HL
HIG
D EL
A PKW Y
M AN
D EL
A PKWY
A
N
AV
M AN
LY
FISH R IZZ
R
G
RD
K
TER
IDE D
R
ES
MI
8T
HS
6T T
H
7T S T
HS
T
T
H
TA
ED
PI
K
LA
6TH
S
R RD
D D E HARB O
L
HS
40
TH
MA
20
T
B
Y
DWA
OA
BR
Y PL
BA
ST
8T H
7T HS T
ST
AV
ST
12 T
H
20
TH
ST
PE
ST
ST
PAB LO
AV
EL
NA
SA N
11
TH
ND
51 ST
AN
C
U
S
MARK ET T
T
IS S
7T H ST
7T H ST
GR
A
NN
NT
D
HOLL
W
ST
U
O
EM
AR
R
AV
AV
SHATTU CK
PAB LO
40 TH
CL
T
ST
SA N
ST
E LL
POW
ST
E LL
PO W
F
AN
ST
ST
R
WEBS TE
V
DA
OR
COLL EGE AV
AM ENTO
AV
AS HB Y
AV
BELROSE
SACR
ST
AV
PAR K ST
PAB LO
ST
8T H
7T H
Y AV
AV
WARR ING ST
PIEDMONT AV
T
SA N
ASHB
DU RA NT
PIED MON T AV
ST
WY
DWIG HT
KING JR WY
MAR TIN LUTHER
AV
SHATTUCK AV
Y
RS IT
6T H S
E
UN IV
8T H
2012-2013
245A(2) M
Density
Nonfatal ShooHng Density ap with Pins of Incidents, Review Period, January 2012 – June 2013 DR
U
ES T
2012-2013 245A(2)
LO
DIL
AV
0 - 40.22866516
80.45733033 - 120.6859955
120.6859956 - 160.9146606
DR
40.22866517 - 80.45733032
R
PO
AIR
T
VIS
DA
ST
E
14
TH
ST
160.9146607 - 201.1433258
City of Oakland
0
0.65
1.3 Miles
65 FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 Further work to be done (1) Note: the problem analysis is a living document; revisions and/or correcHons are made regularly. Please contact Reygan Harmon, Ceasefire Project Manager, [email protected] for the most up-­‐to-­‐date version. 1.  Enhanced analyHc capacity and rouHnizaHon of analyHc exercises are required to support intervenHons focused on violence:   Regular and frequent “real-­‐Hme” review of violent incidents, the individuals involved in those incidents, and the groups & networks they may be part of is necessary to ensure the analysis is accurate, comprehensive and up-­‐to-­‐date. “ShooHng reviews” are one key way to facilitate this.   The analysis of social networks of individuals at highest risk of violence is an important complement to this problem analysis. This “Social Network Analysis”, currently facilitated by Andrew Papachristos of Yale University under the auspices of the California Partnership for Safe CommuniHes, should be completed. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 66 Further work to be done (2) 2.  As Realignment progresses, individuals at very highest risk of violence are increasingly likely to be under local supervision and/
or in local custody. Both the problem analysis & shooHng reviews should focus on opportuniHes for befer understanding and reducing the risk of violence this populaHon faces. This process would be a natural extension of the partnership-­‐based violence reducHon strategy work currently under way. 3.  Anecdotal informaHon suggests that the involvement of street groups in human trafficking and the violence associated with it has been underesHmated. Understanding the relaHonship between human trafficking, street groups, and violence will benefit from further data collecHon and analysis. FOR PRESENTATION -­‐ NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION -­‐ JANUARY 2014 67