Study of Race, Crime, and Social Policy in Oakland, California, 1976-1982

In 1980, the National Institute of Justice awarded a grant
to the Cornell University College of Human Ecology for the
establishment of the Center for the Study of Race, Crime, and Social
Policy in Oakland, California. This center mounted a long-term
research project that sought to explain the wide variation in crime
statistics by race and ethnicity. Using information from eight ethnic
communities in Oakland, California, representing working- and
middle-class Black, White, Chinese, and Hispanic groups, as well as
additional data from Oakland's justice systems and local
organizations, the center conducted empirical research to describe the
criminalization process and to explore the relationship between race
and crime. The differences in observed patterns and levels of crime
were analyzed in terms of: (1) the abilities of local ethnic
communities to contribute to, resist, neutralize, or otherwise affect
the criminalization of its members, (2) the impacts of criminal
justice policies on ethnic communities and their members, and (3) the
cumulative impacts of criminal justice agency decisions on the
processing of individuals in the system. Administrative records data
were gathered from two sources, the Alameda County Criminal Oriented
Records Production System (CORPUS) (Part 1) and the Oakland District
Attorney Legal Information System (DALITE) (Part 2). In addition to
collecting administrative data, the researchers also surveyed
residents (Part 3), police officers (Part 4), and public defenders and
district attorneys (Part 5). The eight study areas included a middle-
and low-income pair of census tracts for each of the four
racial/ethnic groups: white, Black, Hispanic, and Asian. Part 1,
Criminal Oriented Records Production System (CORPUS) Data, contains
information on offenders' most serious felony and misdemeanor arrests,
dispositions, offense codes, bail arrangements, fines, jail terms, and
pleas for both current and prior arrests in Alameda
County. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and marital
status. Variables in Part 2, District Attorney Legal Information
System (DALITE) Data, include current and prior charges, days from
offense to charge, disposition, and arrest, plea agreement conditions,
final results from both municipal court and superior court, sentence
outcomes, date and outcome of arraignment, disposition, and sentence,
number and type of enhancements, numbers of convictions, mistrials,
acquittals, insanity pleas, and dismissals, and factors that
determined the prison term. For Part 3, Oakland Community Crime Survey
Data, researchers interviewed 1,930 Oakland residents from eight
communities. Information was gathered from community residents on the
quality of schools, shopping, and transportation in their
neighborhoods, the neighborhood's racial composition, neighborhood
problems, such as noise, abandoned buildings, and drugs, level of
crime in the neighborhood, chances of being victimized, how
respondents would describe certain types of criminals in terms of age,
race, education, and work history, community involvement, crime
prevention measures, the performance of the police, judges, and
attorneys, victimization experiences, and fear of certain types of
crimes. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, and family
status. For Part 4, Oakland Police Department Survey Data, Oakland
County police officers were asked about why they joined the police
force, how they perceived their role, aspects of a good and a bad
police officer, why they believed crime was down, and how they would
describe certain beats in terms of drug availability, crime rates,
socioeconomic status, number of juveniles, potential for violence,
residential versus commercial, and degree of danger. Officers were
also asked about problems particular neighborhoods were experiencing,
strategies for reducing crime, difficulties in doing police work well,
and work conditions. Demographic variables include age, sex, race,
marital status, level of education, and years on the force. In Part 5,
Public Defender/District Attorney Survey Data, public defenders and
district attorneys were queried regarding which offenses were
increasing most rapidly in Oakland, and they were asked to rank
certain offenses in terms of seriousness. Respondents were also asked
about the public's influence on criminal justice agencies and on the
performance of certain criminal justice agencies. Respondents were
presented with a list of crimes and asked how typical these offenses
were and what factors influenced their decisions about such cases
(e.g., intent, motive, evidence, behavior, prior history, injury or
loss, substance abuse, emotional trauma). Other variables measured how
often and under what circumstances the public defender and client and
the public defender and the district attorney agreed on the case,
defendant characteristics in terms of who should not be put on the
stand, the effects of Proposition 8, public defender and district
attorney plea guidelines, attorney discretion, and advantageous and
disadvantageous characteristics of a defendant. Demographic variables
include age, sex, race, marital status, religion, years of experience,
and area of responsibility.