Measure Y Mobilization

Please forward...
Please help us turn out in big numbers for next Tuesday's City Council Public Safety Committee meeting (May 10th). We will be arriving at 6:30PM to make sure our message and speaker cards are straight for the meeting that begins at 7:30PM. Please come early and bring friends!! Also, please make the following e-mails and calls in support of the following 6 points.


Ignacio de la Fuente (510) 238-7005 510-238-6910
FAX
Email: idelafuente@oaklandnet.com

Larry Reid (510) 238-7007 (510) 238-6910 FAX
E-mail: lreid@oaklandnet.com

Nancy J. Nadel (510) 238-7303 FAX: (510)
238-6129
E-mail: nnadel@oaklandnet.com

Jean Quan 510/238-7004 Fax: 510/238-6129
Email: jquan@oaklandnet.com




COMMUNITY MEMORANDUM

FROM: Measure Y Coalition
TO: Oakland City Council Public Safety Committee
DATE: May 10, 2005
RE: Response to Measure Y: Status Report and Request for Action Violence Prevention and Public Safety Act of 2004 & Council Public Safety Committee Meeting of April 12, 2005

General Considerations:

The Measure Y Coalition would like to thank City staff and the Council Public Safety Committee for serious consideration of the critique and the issues that the Coalition has presented in regards to the implementation of Measure Y and crime prevention in Oakland in general. It is our intention to be constructive and supportive of successful, efficient outcomes that prevent crime, empower individuals and build community.

The Coalition would like to recognize and praise the Committee for what we understand to be the expressed position of a majority of the Members in favor of a maximum use of a RFP process in choosing the service programs to be funded by Measure Y funds. We believe that this will set a necessary precedent for the use of the funds that will militate against the actuality or the perception that the Council’s “favorite” programs will be chosen as opposed to the best programs needed to prevent crime.

In this second meeting of the Public Safety Committee, the Measure Y Coalition would like to emphasize the following revised six points in the spirit of constructive critique:

Six Points of Emphasis:

1.) Maintain the sheltered parolee City sponsored employment program. At the April 12 meeting, staff presented two options for a sheltered employment program.

“Staff recommendations also include two (2) sheltered employment options in which the City would provide subsidized employment and training support modeled after an East Bay MUD project. Sheltered employment options may face serious implementation hurdles such as union concerns. The sheltered employment recommendation has two implementation options. One to create a program working closely with Public Works and the second is to create a program that places workers throughout the City in a variety of “trainee” positions. If Council does not recommend this option, staff proposes the funds be added to the Mayor’s Summer Jobs Program which would support an additional 200 youth (beyond the current proposal of 115) for the summer.”

Council member Ignacio de la Fuentes passed out a written amendment to the staff report that recommended that the City not do the sheltered employment program and that the funds be spent on a recreation program. He said that the private sector should hire parolees. His stated reasoning was that there is an insurance problem for the City.

The Coalition’s question is how are parolees going to be hired, despite all the training and resume writing assistance that they might receive through Measure Y funds, if even the City is not willing to “step up to the plate.” The City needs to set the example for the private sector by hiring these 16 folks. We believe that this sheltered employment program is small and inadequate but an important step for crime prevention.

There is a Federal Bonding Program that bonds all jobs in the public and private sectors, full and part-time positions, as well as jobs secured through temporary agencies. The bond insurance is free to the employer for the first six months. It goes into effect the first day of the job applicant’s employment. After the six months, continued coverage can be purchased under the program’s bond. Coverage is provided for any at-risk job applicant whose background usually leads employers to question their honesty and deny them a job. This includes people with criminal records, people in treatment or recovery for alcohol and/or other drug addictions, and people with little or no work history. There is no insurance problem.

Neither is there a union problem. The staff recommendation is for “trainee” or intern jobs. The program will not be replacing union jobs or work being done by union workers. If the parolees were eventually hired in regular jobs, they would be come members of the union.


2.) There should be more money allocated to a thorough and ongoing evaluation of the Community Policing program. The Coalition still believes that it is unacceptable that neither performance outcomes nor evaluation measures for assigned OPD community policing officers or other officers funded by Measure Y are available or part of the implementation report. These evaluation instruments should already exist! It is unacceptable to require that social service programs be data driven and not require that police programs also be data driven.

3.) There should be full integration and collaboration of violence prevention efforts by community agencies and the Police Department. There is no hope for successful violence prevention if money is being split between various community and city agencies with no coordination with the Police Department. Community policing officers need to be trained by and with the community agencies on what those agencies will be doing. The referral system must be more than a list of telephone numbers and addresses for the police officers; the officers must know the community programs well enough to use them as an alternative to punishing youth in trouble.

4.) There should be comprehensive Re-entry Centers for formerly incarcerated people. Comprehensive means wraparound services that include COMPENSATION, Housing assistance, Educational Training, Vocational Training, Legal services, and Health Services. The current city proposal is woefully inadequate in addressing the needs of the formerly incarcerated. We insist on the creation of a permanent space dedicated to comprehensive wraparound services that give parolees a real chance at starting over.

5.) There should be a comprehensive Teen Centers for high school aged youth. Comprehensive means Jobs, Counseling, Training Programs, Positive Social Activities, Youth Input into Decisions and Design. Prevention does not end in middle school. The current proposal focuses on prevention programs for middle school and intervention programs once youth enter the system.
There is a huge gap in services and resources for youth in high school.
National models for outreach and counseling in Boston and New York demonstrate the importance of prevention in the teen years. Measure Y money should be directed to transforming four (4) Park and Recreation Facilities into Teen Centers. One of these centers should have a African-American cultural focus.

6.) We insist that the City Council keep its statutory promise to “increase and expand” services by using Measure Y money for new services not to fill up holes in the General Fund Budget or any other budget. At the Special City Council Meeting of May 10, 2004, it was reported that approximately $7,298,872 of annual funds from other than City sources (including OFCY) was allocated to violence prevention. In addition, $2,590,981 of City General Funds was used for violence prevention. These levels must be maintained and expanded. It will be a violation of the statute for the City to use Measure Y funds to replace money cut or loss from other budgets. Measure Y money is intended to increase levels of service.

Thank you for your continued serious consideration of these matters.