|
|
Measure Y Does Not Work
|
|
V Smoothe
|
|
Last Updated on January, 21 2009 at 08:40 AM
|
|
|
|
|
| In 2004, Oakland voters passed Measure Y by
a margin of nearly 70 percent. The $88 a year parcel tax promised to
fund 63 additional police officers devoted to community policing and
pour an extra $6 million per year into violence prevention programs.
Independent evaluators Berkeley Policy Associates have now released the first full report analyzing outcomes of Measure Y violence prevention programs. After examining the impacts of
participation in Measure Y programs for OUSD students, juvenile
offenders, and young adult parolees, the researchers found little in
the way of positive results to report. |
In 2004, Oakland voters passed Measure Y by a margin of nearly 70 percent. The $88 a year parcel tax promised to fund 63 additional police officers devoted to community policing and pour an extra $6 million per year into violence prevention programs. Independent evaluators Berkeley Policy Associates have now released the first full report analyzing outcomes of Measure Y violence prevention programs. After examining the impacts of participation in Measure Y programs for OUSD students, juvenile offenders, and young adult parolees, the researchers found little in the way of positive results to report.
The best news from the report had to do with programs serving OUSD students. The evaluators compared the rate of school suspensions for students participating in Measure Y programs to that for students not receiving the services. Of 332 students who had been suspended from school during the 2005-06 academic year and enrolled in Measure Y funded programs during 2006-07, 9.3 percent were suspended again. In a control group of OUSD students who had been suspended in 2005-06, but did not participate in Measure Y programs the following year, 13.7 percent of students were suspended in 2006-07. The evaluation found similarly positive results when looking at truancy and absentee data, with students served by Measure Y programs recording an average of only four absences from school during the 2006-07, while the overall student averaged 8 absences. Fewer than one-third of students participating in Measure Y programs who had been truant the previous year were truant again the following year, although the evaluators do not compare the repeat truancy rate to that of the overall OUSD student population.
.jpg)
Truancy Repeats by Program
When looking more specifically at the students that were suspended, the evaluators were unable to report the same modest rate of success. Of students who were suspended from school in both years, 90 percent had fewer suspensions in the second year, while 93.4 percent of students in Measure Y programs had fewer suspensions, a difference deemed statistically insignificant by the evaluators. Similarly, the data did not show a statistically significant difference in students being suspended for violent activities.
When looking at programs aimed at decreasing recidivism among juvenile offenders, the evaluators were unable to identify positive outcomes. After looking at the records of 91 youth offenders who participated in Measure Y programs, the evaluators found that 90.1 percent of them recorded additional offenses following their receipt of Measure Y services. In a comparison group of juvenile offenders not receiving Measure Y services, 88.7 percent were arrested again, a difference deemed not statistically significant by the researchers. 38.5% of juvenile offenders participating in Measure Y programs were re-arrested for violent crimes.
.jpg)
Rearrest Rates for Juveniles
The evaluation also examined recidivism among parolees enrolled in Measure Y re-entry programs, and found similarly disappointing results. 57 percent of parolees participating in Measure Y programs after being arrested in 2006 were re-arrested in 2007. Out of this group, 10 percent were re-arrested for violent offenses. For program participants arrested in both 2006 and 2007, 64 percent were arrested again in 2008, 11 percent for violent offenses. The evaluators were unable to find any statistically significant correlation in program hours of service and likelihood of recidivism.
The evaluators caution that the inability to show positive impacts with respect to juvenile and parolee recidivism does not necessarily mean that violence prevention programs will not show improved outcomes at some point in the future. They note that it is possible that members of their control comparison groups were receiving similar preventative services through programs outside of Measure Y, and that perhaps the Measure Y programs would have made more of an impact had they been more intensive. Nonetheless, the results are far from encouraging. The dismal outcome data for violence prevention programs, combined with the City’s continued inability to staff the community policing positions promised by Measure Y, do not bode well for Measure Y’s potential for renewal by Oakland voters when it expires in 2014.
What: Measure Y Oversight Committee
Where: 150 Frank Ogawa Plaza, 6th Floor
When: Monday, January 26 6:30 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OAKLAND
NEW
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|