title
ADOPT RESPONSE TO THE 2017-18 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT RELATED TO THE OFFICE OF VIOLENCE PREVENTION, CASE NO. 0817
recommended action
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt by motion action the City Council’s Response to the 2017-18 Civil Grand Jury Report for Investigating Case No. 0817 relating to the Office of Violence Prevention and direct the City Manager to sign the response on behalf of the City Council and to transmit the response to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin County Superior Court.
body
Summary
The 2017-18 Civil Grand Jury Report Investigation Case No. 0817 included findings and a recommendation related to the Office of Violence Prevention. The report was issued on June 14, 2018 (Attachment A). California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05 require a response to the Presiding Judge of San Joaquin County Superior Court by September 12, 2018, to comply with the 90-days allotted to the City as a response time. A letter has been prepared for Council consideration that is responsive to the investigation (Attachment B).
The Grand Jury Report discusses the metrics, staffing, operational changes, and communication for the Office of Violence Prevention. In general, staff agrees with the Grand Jury that communication and transparency related to the Office of Violence Prevention can be improved. In addition, the City acknowledges that there are always ways to improve efficiency and effectiveness of operations. However, the City disagrees with several of the specific staffing, operational and logistical recommendations of the Grand Jury. Unfortunately, there are factual deficiencies and a lack of full understanding of Office of Violence Prevention operations.
DISCUSSION
Background
Civil grand juries were established by the Constitution of the State of California. They conduct investigations and publish reports. Agencies cited in the reports are required to respond to the findings and recommendations of the report.
On June 14, 2018, the San Joaquin Grand Jury issued a report entitled Shining Light into the Dark Corners - Is the Office of Violence Prevention Worth the Money? The report discusses the metrics, staffing, operational changes, and communication for the Office of Violence Prevention. The report calls for statistical measurements of Office of Violence Prevention and greater communication with the public. The Grand Jury makes recommendations related to Office of Violence Prevention operations, logistics and personnel management. In addition, the report speaks to the logistics of the Operation Ceasefire Call-in meetings and the logistics for funding client services. Furthermore, the report references the partnership work of the Office of Violence Prevention in combatting gun violence. Finally, the report makes recommendations as to how the Office of Violence Prevention should engage with community partners.
Present Situation
Pursuant to California Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, a written response has been prepared for submittal to the Presiding Judge of the Superior (Attachment B). In summary, the Grand Jury addresses transparency and accountability of the Office of Violence Prevention, partnership activity for the Office of Violence Prevention and operational activity of the Office of Violence Prevention.
As noted above, the Grand Jury report discusses the metrics, staffing, operational changes, and communication for the Office of Violence Prevention. In general, staff agrees with the Grand Jury that communication and transparency related to the Office of Violence Prevention can be improved. In addition, the City acknowledges that there are always ways to improve efficiency and effectiveness of operations. However, the City disagrees with several of the specific staffing, operational and logistical recommendations of the Grand Jury. Unfortunately, there are factual deficiencies and a lack of full understanding of Office of Violence Prevention operations. During the investigation, the Office of Violence Prevention provided extensive documentation related to operations. However, fully understanding the details of a unique and complex operation can be challenging.
As stated in the Grand Jury Report, “the work of the Office of Violence Prevention in the City of Stockton is vital and necessary.” As explained on page one of the Grand Jury Report, Operation Ceasefire is “an attempt to reduce gun violence...” In June of 2018, the same month in which the Grand Jury report was released, crime had decreased from the previous year, with homicides down 21% and non-fatal shootings down by 42%. This is compared to 2017, a year that already represented the lowest total crime rate in 17 years. Given the stated purpose of the Office of Violence Prevention and the role the office plays along with the police department and other safety partners, it is clear that the Office of Violence Prevention is achieving success.
METRICS
Despite the clear and demonstrated success of the office, several issues do, and will always, remain challenging in the implementation of this important work. The first obstacle is the metric of measurement. The City agrees with the Grand Jury Report that the work of Peacekeepers is “hard to measure” and that the work of the Office of Violence Prevention can be better appreciated. Unlike more traditional city functions like filling potholes, responding to emergencies, or serving children, which can be succinctly and decisively measured by how many potholes were filled, how fast we responded, or how many children participated in an event, the nature of this work is more complicated. As noted in the Grand Jury report, the issue of how to stop violent crime has long been prioritized by city leaders who “have made a number of attempts to address the situation over the years.” In fact, Stockton is not alone, as nearly every city in America has invested brain power and resources to better understand this phenomenon. No one has yet identified the clinical factors that, if addressed, would guarantee outcomes and safe behaviors on the part of community members.
While there are a number of metrics worthy of consideration, each has limitations. Evaluating a program based solely on a single or small number of measurements does not accurately portray the program in its entirety, therefore, the selection of criteria is particularly complicated. For example, measuring the success of the Office of Violence Prevention based on statistics that include things outside the scope of the Office of Violence Prevention is of little use. Vehicular homicide or domestic violence, for example, are terrible crimes with victims who suffer needlessly, yet this is outside the scope of group gun violence for which the program is designed to focus.
Critics have simultaneously complained that they have no vantage point to evaluate the program, and complained that the program hasn’t been effective because all violent crime has not been eliminated in Stockton. Coming from an admitted position of not understanding what’s going on does not position a person well to then criticize what is or is not going on. In fact, applying that same pessimistic and skewed theory to the medical field would imply that the American Cancer Society, for example, is a failure because it has not yet completely eliminated all forms of cancer. This is an unrealistic measurement that does a disservice to the people who provide or receive services related to violent crime.
STAFFING
Forming relationships with people who, by definition, are the most dangerous in the entire community is an inherently stressful task. It is also a necessary one, just like responding to uncontrolled environments in the middle of the night, counseling clients, and displaying a genuine concern for the well-being of very-high-risk individuals. These are duties that most people would shy away from, but they are essential duties carried out every day by Peacekeepers.
The Peacekeepers are not the typical city employee. The skill set required to perform those duties well does not align with traditional city requirements. It is common for cities, including Oakland, to employ these critical workers through non-profits rather than placing them directly on the city’s payroll. This is, in part, because the often non-traditional backgrounds of effective Peacekeepers can be a great fit for obtaining and fostering the necessary credibility, trust, and relationship building, but less than ideal for a traditional and rigid city structure that is accustomed to background checks and office environment rules and norms.
In the course of fulfilling the duties of the Office of Violence Prevention, management must consider the balance between the two. If the primary goal is to have long-term employees who get along well, have no discipline issues, and won’t run the risk of ever displaying undesirable behaviors, we should reconsider the recruitment and staffing model currently being used to satisfy onlookers who are uncomfortable with the harsh realities of this work. Alternatively, if the goal is to reduce group gun violence, the city must be willing to take some uncomfortable risks with the understanding that this work is always challenging and some feelings will be hurt in the process.
The city has opted to place the results and safety of this community ahead of the comfort and predictability desired by some people. This comes at a cost of internal tension and periodic staffing turnovers for which some people will continue to be alarmed. The upside, however, is that the people doing this work are good at what they do and are making a difference, as noted by the 42% reduction in non-fatal shootings referenced earlier.
OPERATIONAL CHANGES
The Office of Violence Prevention programs revolve around people, so there will always be changes being considered or implemented in doing this work. The role of AB109 has been mischaracterized and misunderstood in relation to the Office of Violence Prevention. However, even if everyone were to work to achieve a solid understanding of that work, confusion will continue to exist. Changes to the public safety landscape didn’t begin with AB109 nor will it end there. The environment in which these duties are carried out will continue to evolve and it is incumbent upon the Office of Violence Prevention to adapt accordingly.
Change is fraught with peril for those who are comfortable with the status quo. Someone inevitably loses when a course correction occurs. This leaves one group of people happy with the change and another unhappy, so the mere existence of a disgruntled person does not depict the true state of the organization or merits of the change. By virtue of even choosing to do this work, the city has decided to pursue the best available options for making this community safer. The cutting edge (or bleeding edge) of modern practices require some level of risk. The only way to avoid the friction that comes with change is to avoid change in favor of the status quo. Given the city’s desire to pursue safety, taking the comfortable position is not an option. This means that, in the interest of safety, the Office of Violence Prevention will continue to change in a variety of ways. The Office of Violence Prevention is striving to become a learning, evolving operation.
COMMUNICATION
The public has the right to know how their business is conducted. The city does, and should, continually strive to improve the transparency and communication with the public. There are always some areas where the complete and total sharing of information presents some conflicts with the mandated confidentiality laws and with the safety of individuals. Working with active gang members presents serious safety risks, not only for the Peacekeepers, but for the clients themselves. In some cases, a client’s peers would not respond favorably to knowing a gang member was talking to a Peacekeeper. In other cases, the nature of those conversations could be sensitive (e.g. seeking to relocate or drop out of the gang, etc.). It would be irresponsible of the city to openly convey sensitive information that could jeopardize the safety or privacy of the very people with whom we are seeking to build relationships and improve long-term safety outcomes.
The dashboard, referenced in the report, is a recent example of how the city is trying to meet both needs. The city should, and will, continue to find better ways to tell the story of what the Office of Violence Prevention and the Peacekeepers do every day because we’re proud of what they do and because the public has a right to know.
RESONSE LETTER
The response letter to the Grand Jury Report (Attachment B) outlines the City’s perspective on the Grand Jury’s conclusion and responds to each finding and recommendation. The response letter provides clarification to the key factual deficiencies in the Grand Jury Report. In addition, the response outlines activities on the City that are consistent with many of the Grand Jury findings and recommendations and provides explanations for those findings and recommendations with which the City disagrees.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
There is no financial impact in submitting this response letter to the Presiding Judge of the San Joaquin Superior Court. In addition, it is anticipated that the City’s actions in response to this Grand Jury report will be carried out within existing resources.
Attachment A - 2017-18 Grand Jury Report - Case No. 0817
Attachment B - Response Letter - Grand Jury Case No. 0817