Public safety staff declined by 206 employees (-12%), and other departments added 336 employees (+13%). Police are slated to bear the majority of forthcoming cuts.
"Some council members have a vested interest in protecting MACRO ($10M/year) and the Department of Violence Prevention ($25M/year), whose creation they championed. These programs and staff were left untouched in the budget cutting."
They don't work weekends and don't log hours. Not ness. a scam, but def washing the money and not preventing crime, violence, etc.
Agree with earlier commenter that this analysis is extremely important and helpful. Also agree that DVP and Macro, however flawed, could also be lumped into the Public Safety function and would change the picture of the analysis substantially. Finally, I think it's important to keep in mind what the impacts of budget cuts and tax increases will look like. Getting control of the budget WILL involve painful choices. You have well articulated what the impact of the cuts to police and fire might be. But less so on what cuts in other parts of the city budget would mean on the ground.
I am also deeply troubled by raiding existing voter mandated balances to cover one-time shortfalls. Not only do such raids reduce funding available for the intended purposes, but they also weaken trust in the voter mandated programs to deliver on promised solutions in the future.
With those points made, I think it would also be most helpful if the Oakland Report could begin to frame the solution to what a better alternative to a sustainable budget solution would look like. Clearly, these would involve refinancing and potentially reforming retirement obligations, potentially modifying labor contracts for smaller wage increases and more layoffs for non-public safety functions. Seems like only after making more hard choices should higher taxes be considered.
Thank you, Tim. I really appreciate your ongoing analysis of Oakand's budget. I would suggest, however, that many people would include DVP employees in a definition of "public safety employees." That may change how they view the information.
It's disingenuous to not categorize MACRO and Department of Violence Prevention (DVP) as public safety employees. Taints the credibility of the entire piece and purposefully distorts the stats.
Generally, what are you calling for here? Lots of complaints and no call to action. Are you asking for no cuts to fire and police? What should a city in debt do?
Lynne, thanks for your comment. This is a summarization of the city's recent data and budget reports. It is not a perspective. We have written perspectives, including proposed solutions. They are listed under the Perspectives tab of the Oakland Report website.
The classification of MACRO and DVP as public safety is debatable -- meaning I would welcome your perspective on why they should be classified as public safety, if you wish to submit an evidence-based article for Oakland Report.
My perspective on these programs is provided in prior articles here:
Thank you for the links. I hope you do not actually require readers who are not journalists—but still able to critically assess your work—to submit an article themselves to Oakland Report as the only means to respond legitimately. Though I thank you for the invitation to do so.
If a public safety classification of MACRO and DVP is "debatable", then debate it with your own evidence-based argument. As it stands, it would require an excess of bad faith to merely assume these departments have accomplished nothing since their establishment. I'm happy to read an analysis of the efficacy of each before damning their funding. If they truly are a waste of funds, then those funds should be reallocated.
Indeed you are right -- it would be bad faith to make judgements based purely on assumptions. That is why the articles I linked above provide an analysis of efficiency and effectiveness of those programs using the city's own data, including controlled trials performed by the city from 2016-2019. I hope you take a look.
Others have drawn attention attention to the article's classification of safety workers as an issue, and suggest that MACRO and DVP are newer and possibly more efficient, cheaper, and efficacious uses of public safety dollars. The article mentions that "...police and fire departments are funded almost entirely by the GPF, while many other departments get only 1.3% to 35% of their funding from GPF...." which would suggest that public safety alternatives to police and fire spending impact way below their numbers in terms of dollars of impact on the GPF budget. The metric of numbers of employees is perhaps misleading given this. You need to look at the number of employees, the cost (direct and indirect) of those employees, and the source of fund underlying those costs. Further, much of the overspending of the police is from overtime, with some officers putting in close to a full time equivalent in extra hours. Overtime should count as additional employee equivalents in any analysis based on employee numbers.
If a department is not funded by the GPF, it is still funded. That other funding comes from multiple non-GPF funds -- and those non-GPF funds also are paid by taxpayers and fees-for-service (e.g. building permits).
The bulk of non-GPF revenues are from city ballot measures which dedicate those funds to libraries, parks, paving, homelessness, etc. That funding is real US dollars. So it is not correct use the only the GPF funds as the denominator of a department's efficiency. When they spend non-GPF dollars, they are spending real dollars coming from real taxpayers for real service expectations.
Oakland voters trusted the public employee unions with the keys to City Hall and the checkbook. Surely they would be prudent and reasonable in their salaries and benefits. And protect essential services. And understand that, although they are ‘labor,’ that ‘businesses’ provide the jobs and taxes that maintain and grow a city. And that taxation has limits. How did that work out?
The problem with Oakland's budget is not overpaid bureaucrats. And Oakland voters trusted elects, not the public employee unions.
The police union and SEIU 1021 should not be considered a single entity ever. No one in good faith can claim that all city non-police employees earn unreasonable salaries and benefits. Most Oakland employees earn less than their counterparts in other cities.
Oakland does NOT have a 'strong-mayor' system, so any changes there would not address this issue. From last years, murders in Oakland are way down- would adding more police make it down even further? There's no simple answers here, rather its data that I suspect, reflects the wishes of many, possibly most, citizens. Rather than point fingers, we should look in the mirror.
This is all so deeply irresponsible :( Can a new mayor reverse all this? What are the reasonable boundaries on what they can/could do?
"Some council members have a vested interest in protecting MACRO ($10M/year) and the Department of Violence Prevention ($25M/year), whose creation they championed. These programs and staff were left untouched in the budget cutting."
They don't work weekends and don't log hours. Not ness. a scam, but def washing the money and not preventing crime, violence, etc.
MACRO staff earned a notable of overtime for a dept. that doesn't work weekends and don't log hours. How is that exactly?
https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/search/?a=oakland&q=macro&y=
Agree with earlier commenter that this analysis is extremely important and helpful. Also agree that DVP and Macro, however flawed, could also be lumped into the Public Safety function and would change the picture of the analysis substantially. Finally, I think it's important to keep in mind what the impacts of budget cuts and tax increases will look like. Getting control of the budget WILL involve painful choices. You have well articulated what the impact of the cuts to police and fire might be. But less so on what cuts in other parts of the city budget would mean on the ground.
I am also deeply troubled by raiding existing voter mandated balances to cover one-time shortfalls. Not only do such raids reduce funding available for the intended purposes, but they also weaken trust in the voter mandated programs to deliver on promised solutions in the future.
With those points made, I think it would also be most helpful if the Oakland Report could begin to frame the solution to what a better alternative to a sustainable budget solution would look like. Clearly, these would involve refinancing and potentially reforming retirement obligations, potentially modifying labor contracts for smaller wage increases and more layoffs for non-public safety functions. Seems like only after making more hard choices should higher taxes be considered.
Paul, thanks for the comment. Please see my prior article with a list of prospective solutions. https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/we-can-balance-oaklands-budget-without
Some of these are mirrored in the December 5 budget analysis from the City Administrator -- that's referenced in today's article.
Thank you, Tim. I really appreciate your ongoing analysis of Oakand's budget. I would suggest, however, that many people would include DVP employees in a definition of "public safety employees." That may change how they view the information.
Hi Justin, see response below to Lynn
I foresee further reductions in safety for those in Oakland and resulting further economic decline if the proposed cuts go through as planned.
Still another important piece of real news in the news desert of this failing city. (One friendly suggestion: An explanation - or link - to explain govt jargon such as MACRO (https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/macro-mobile-assistance-community-responders-of-oakland) would be helpful.
It's disingenuous to not categorize MACRO and Department of Violence Prevention (DVP) as public safety employees. Taints the credibility of the entire piece and purposefully distorts the stats.
Generally, what are you calling for here? Lots of complaints and no call to action. Are you asking for no cuts to fire and police? What should a city in debt do?
Lynne, thanks for your comment. This is a summarization of the city's recent data and budget reports. It is not a perspective. We have written perspectives, including proposed solutions. They are listed under the Perspectives tab of the Oakland Report website.
The classification of MACRO and DVP as public safety is debatable -- meaning I would welcome your perspective on why they should be classified as public safety, if you wish to submit an evidence-based article for Oakland Report.
My perspective on these programs is provided in prior articles here:
https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/oaklands-macro-is-5-times-more-expensive
https://www.oaklandreport.org/p/oaklands-crime-data-mess-how-politicians
A well-considered counter-perspective would be most interesting to publish.
Thank you for the links. I hope you do not actually require readers who are not journalists—but still able to critically assess your work—to submit an article themselves to Oakland Report as the only means to respond legitimately. Though I thank you for the invitation to do so.
If a public safety classification of MACRO and DVP is "debatable", then debate it with your own evidence-based argument. As it stands, it would require an excess of bad faith to merely assume these departments have accomplished nothing since their establishment. I'm happy to read an analysis of the efficacy of each before damning their funding. If they truly are a waste of funds, then those funds should be reallocated.
Indeed you are right -- it would be bad faith to make judgements based purely on assumptions. That is why the articles I linked above provide an analysis of efficiency and effectiveness of those programs using the city's own data, including controlled trials performed by the city from 2016-2019. I hope you take a look.
Others have drawn attention attention to the article's classification of safety workers as an issue, and suggest that MACRO and DVP are newer and possibly more efficient, cheaper, and efficacious uses of public safety dollars. The article mentions that "...police and fire departments are funded almost entirely by the GPF, while many other departments get only 1.3% to 35% of their funding from GPF...." which would suggest that public safety alternatives to police and fire spending impact way below their numbers in terms of dollars of impact on the GPF budget. The metric of numbers of employees is perhaps misleading given this. You need to look at the number of employees, the cost (direct and indirect) of those employees, and the source of fund underlying those costs. Further, much of the overspending of the police is from overtime, with some officers putting in close to a full time equivalent in extra hours. Overtime should count as additional employee equivalents in any analysis based on employee numbers.
If a department is not funded by the GPF, it is still funded. That other funding comes from multiple non-GPF funds -- and those non-GPF funds also are paid by taxpayers and fees-for-service (e.g. building permits).
The bulk of non-GPF revenues are from city ballot measures which dedicate those funds to libraries, parks, paving, homelessness, etc. That funding is real US dollars. So it is not correct use the only the GPF funds as the denominator of a department's efficiency. When they spend non-GPF dollars, they are spending real dollars coming from real taxpayers for real service expectations.
Oakland voters trusted the public employee unions with the keys to City Hall and the checkbook. Surely they would be prudent and reasonable in their salaries and benefits. And protect essential services. And understand that, although they are ‘labor,’ that ‘businesses’ provide the jobs and taxes that maintain and grow a city. And that taxation has limits. How did that work out?
The problem with Oakland's budget is not overpaid bureaucrats. And Oakland voters trusted elects, not the public employee unions.
The police union and SEIU 1021 should not be considered a single entity ever. No one in good faith can claim that all city non-police employees earn unreasonable salaries and benefits. Most Oakland employees earn less than their counterparts in other cities.
Oakland does NOT have a 'strong-mayor' system, so any changes there would not address this issue. From last years, murders in Oakland are way down- would adding more police make it down even further? There's no simple answers here, rather its data that I suspect, reflects the wishes of many, possibly most, citizens. Rather than point fingers, we should look in the mirror.
Corrupt Oakland .. future looks sad