Policy Text
OAKLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT
Office of Chief of Police
2016 -201 8 Racial Impact Report
Oakland Police Department 2016 -18 Racial Impact Report
1
Contents
Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 2
Momentum for Change: Overall Strategies and Stop Data Risk Management ............. 3
Risk Management: Stop Data, Upstream Influences and Footprint Outcomes 3
Rebuilding Trust With Our Commun ity ................................ ............................... 5
Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 6
Appendix ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 7
2016 -2018 Stop Data Statistics ................................ ................................ ...................... 8
Stop Race and Gender ................................ ................................ ............................. 8
Stop Reasons ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 9
Searches ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 10
Search Recovery Percentages ................................ ................................ ............... 11
Search Types ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 13
Search Type Recovery Percentages ................................ ................................ ...... 14
Stop Results ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 15
Intelligence -Led ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 16
Oakland Police Department 2016 -18 Racial Impact Report
2
Introduction
The genesis of the Oakland Police Department’s (OPD) ongoing reform efforts is rooted in
historical community distrust and harm caused by inequitable and racially disparate policing .
Community relationships and trust are profound ly impacted when policing practices are
influenced, or are perceived to be influenced, by bias or racial and identity profiling . We are
committed to eliminating any form of racial profiling. We are also committed to reducing
crime and serving the community through fair and professional, high -quality policing
services . I acknowledge the obstacle s that injustice and discrimination presents . It is the
OPD’s obligation to rise above th ese challenge s through increased transparency , community
collaboration, and measures that provide safeguards for constitutional and legitimate policing
service s. This commitment requires us to continually detect, assess, and address the impacts
of racial disparities against the measure of constitutionality and legitimacy of our actions
when serving our community.
This report provides a statistical overview of discretionary stop data collected from January
1, 2016 to December 19, 201 8. On December 20, 2018, the Department began collecting
stop data under new requirements set forth in California Assembly Bill 953, w hich became
effective on January 1, 2019. Assembly Bill 953 expanded stop data collection to include
detentions and arrests made during dispatched calls for service.
Information collected from police contacts allows the Department to assess our policies,
practices, strategies and enforcement -related decisions . This review helps us to ensure that
the results of our actions are lawful, efficient and equitable. This assessment recognizes that
racially disparate data may result from racially disparate treatment, or from strategies,
policies and practices which may contribute to racially disproportionate contacts or
circumstances . Regardless of the causes or reasons, we are accountable for the results of our
decisions as well as for the polic ies, practic es and procedures which influence our decisions.
My goal, through the presentation of this data, is to promote and ensure that conversation s
regarding policing in Oakland promot e community trust and respect , as well as safety . As
your police chief, I understand that issues around policing and race are difficult and often
painful to discuss. There is no shortage of incidents nationwide that serve to challenge these
conversations. But I sincerely believe that public safety is served b est by a police department
trusted to collaborate with the community it serves . This trust is developed not because the
law demands cooperation, but because the community sees and feels that the Department’s
actions deserve to be trusted.
Respectfully,
Anne E. Kirkpatrick
Chief of Police
Oakland Police Departmen t
Oakland Police Department 2016 -18 Racial Impact Report
3
Momentum for Change: Overall Strategies and Stop Data Risk Management
To more fully and effectively implement policing which can be seen, felt, and understood to
be fair and legitimate by all community members , OPD has implemented a multi -pronged
approach . These approaches and our c urrent collection and use of stop data is greatly
influen ced by the ongoing partnership with Stanford University’s Social Psychological
Answers to Real -world Questions think -tank ( SPARQ ) and the Department’s continued
progress in pursuing SPARQ’s recommendations in Strategies for Change – Research
Initiatives and Recommendations to Improve Police -Community Relations in Oakland, Calif .1
The Strategies for Change report provided 50 recommendations for OPD to affect cultural
change, increase public trust, and improve relationships with the community. OPD considers
the opportunity to implement these recommendations as momen tum and catalyst to fulfill the
overall multi -pronged approaches below.
Risk Management: St op Data, Upstream Influences and Footprint O utcomes
In the past , OPD did not require officers to document justification for stops and searches in
ways which could be reliably reviewed, approved or assessed . Supervisors were not require d
to review and approve the content of such reports . Stop data was neither collected nor entered
into a searchable database . Thus , commanders were unable to assess and understand stop
data decisio ns, outcomes, or disparities or how these results may have been impacted by
implicit bias, public sa fety strategies, or performance -based measurements. Monthly r isk
managemen t meetings are now held