Oakland (Special to ZennieReport.com) – The City of Oakland City Administrator Jestin Johnson responded to this 2024 Alameda County Grand Jury Report (you can read here) that, among other issues pointed to, the Oakland Police Department did not have a long-term technology strategy plan. Such a report is not hard to produce.
Indeed, a small city like Decatur, Georgia has such a police technology strategy plan, and that’s within an overall police strategic management plan presented in a 43-page document that spans 2016 to 2019, and has since been updated. Where’s Oakland’s version? Well, Oakland City Administrator Jestin Johnson agrees with the 2024 Alameda County Grand Jury Report that the Oakland Police don’t have one.
And then the man who came to Oakland from Atlanta, Georgia, does nothing to change that state of affairs.
In a November 13, 2024 letter called “response to your request to the City of Oakland regarding the 2023-2024 Alameda County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, that included a report titled “Oakland Police
Department: Missed Opportunities with Technology”, Jestin Johnson wrote the following:
A response was requested from the Oakland Police Department (OPD) to the findings and recommendations made by the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury. The Oakland Police Department has prepared a response to the report which is included as Attachment A.
By default, formal responses to the Grand Jury report would have been due 90 days after the report’s public release. The City, however, requested and received an extension of the time to respond from the Grand Jury’s representative. In accordance with the extension, the City’s responses are due no later than Friday, November 15, 2024.
The 2024 report includes eight findings and six recommendations. The findings focused on the Oakland Police Department’s (OPD) lack of a technology strategic plan and the lack of written procedures which limits OPD’s ability to respond to ShotSpotter and Automated license plate reader alerts. The report also references OPD’s Information Technology Unit (ITU) lack of staff which hinders the ability to support current and future technologies. (ITU) lack of staff which hinders the ability to support current and future technologies.The Oakland Police Department and the Information Technology Department
(ITD) collaborated on a Memorandum (Attachment A) that provides responses to all
recommendations and findings in addition to an explanation on Oaklands technology
landscape and a commitment from ITD and the OPD ITU to explore opportunities to provide
effective and efficient law enforcement operations.Sincerely,
Jestin D. Johnson
Oakland City Administrator
And then the “Memorandum (Attachment A) that provides responses to all
recommendations and findings in addition to an explanation on Oaklands technology
landscape and a commitment from ITD and the OPD ITU to explore opportunities” is presented here:
RESPONSE TO FINDINGS
Grand Jury Finding 24-1: The Oakland Police Department does not have a long-term strategic
plan for implementation and use of technology.
City Response: The City agrees with the finding.
City Explanation: The Oakland Police Department’s Information Technology Unit (OPD ITU)
does not currently have a strategic plan specific to the implementation and use of technology.
OPD ITU has committed to creating a Strategic Plan within the next 12-18 months. This will
allow OPD time to receive and analyze the recommendations from the OIG Staffing Study and
incorporate those findings into the OPD ITU Strategic Plan. The Grand Jury should note that
any strategic plan will inevitably lead to a budget request to acquire the technology identified as being necessary to the operational health of the department. OPD ITU will work closely with
centralized ITD to develop a plan that complements and strengthens the ITD Strategic Plan.
Why Does It Take 12 To 18 Months To Produce A Simple Plan Document That Just Says “We Need This Kind Of Technology”?
Mr. Johnson’s response to the Grand Jury is downright scary. He’s telling the Alameda County Grand Jury that it takes almost two years to produce a plan that takes up one page of the Decatur, Georgia Police Strategic Plan, and looks like this:
Strategy C: Solve problems through innovative technologies.
Definition: Embrace advanced technologies to be more effective in the
delivery of services and communication with the community
and the department.
Year One
- Prepare a comprehensive master technology plan, to include desired future
technology acquisitions, and training of personnel - Fully implement the Utility, Inc. Body worn camera and Rocket Box systems
- Allocate resources to upgrade and fully utilize the Crime Reports software in
regards to crime analysis and prediction
Year Two - Develop and implement a plan to delegate technology management to additional
personnel - Develop and implement a “crime intelligence” operation. Year Three
- Allocate resources to implement master technology plan
- Allocate resources to train personnel who have been designated as technology
managers
And that’s it. That’s the technology strategic plan.
Yes, Decatur, Georgia is a small town, but it at least took the time to put down on paper a set of gudelines for action. That’s really all that the Alameda County Grand Jury is calling for. But rather than meet that demand with, well, a plan, Oakland City Administrator Johnson basically tells why a plan can’t be done in a timely fashion, kicking a simple process down way the road for no good reason.
Sharing This With The Oakland Auditor Michael Houston
This blogger will share this post with the Oakland Auditor Michael Houston and at the same time send it to City Administrator Johnson for response. If I had been the Oakland City Administrator, I would have saved everyone a lot of time and just wrote a draft plan, then distributed it, met with the Police Chief, formed a special task for it, called for a meeting of it, then presented it to the City Council for approval, and then gotten on with other matters.
This is not something that should just sit. The reason it does is because our City is not staffed with people who take the initiative to solve problems. This is why I say not one of the Oakland Mayoral Candidates can fix Oakland; there’s no motivation to do better. There’s no real desire to try.
The only way to prove that claim wrong is not lip service, but to get to work.