Garry's List

How Oakland's Leadership Produced the Worst Property Crime Rate in the Nation

2026-08-07 · 00:00 UTC ·Garry Tan ·6 min read

Brief

Oakland’s recent surge to the nation’s worst property-crime rate is traced to a 15-year mix of staffing shortfalls, prosecutorial whiplash, administrative decay, and political scandal. Despite voters approving minimum staffing three times (Measure Y 2004: 739 officers; Measure Z 2014: 678; Measure NN 2024: 700), the city fields about 546 sworn officers and an Inspector General study says ~200 more budgeted positions are required. Part I clearance rates fell to roughly 2% in 2024, violent-crime clearance dropped from ~28% in 2010 to under 10% by 2025, and property crimes yielded roughly one solved case per 1,850 reports (17 clearances in 2024). Key inflection points include a $12M police-budget cut and postponed academy in June 2020, the 2024 recall of DA Pamela Price (62.9%–37.1%), Mayor Sheng Thao’s 2025 indictment, and chronic IT failures (ransomware in early 2023 and an outdated records system flagged in 2024). A federal monitor has certified compliance with 51 reform items and a judge signaled oversight could end in fall 2026, but the article argues that decades of governance choices — not just one mayor’s term — explain the public-safety outcomes concentrated in Black and working-class neighborhoods.

Why it matters

Oakland now ranks with the nation’s highest property-crime rate per FBI city-level data and has had California’s highest violent-crime rate for 16 straight years; in 2024 the city closed roughly 2% of Part I crimes and its property-crime clearance effectively 'rounds to zero' (about 17 cases cleared out of tens of thousands, roughly one solvable case per 1,850 reports).

Key details

  • Voters approved minimum OPD staffing via three ballot measures — Measure Y (2004) set 739 sworn officers, Measure Z (2014) lowered it to 678, and Measure NN (2024) set a 700-officer floor with new funding — yet Oakland currently fields ~546 active-duty sworn officers and an Inspector General–commissioned staffing study says ~200 more budgeted positions are needed.
  • Policy and political shifts contributed: the City Council cut about $12 million from the police budget and delayed an academy in June 2020; Alameda County elected DA Pamela Price in 2022 who was recalled Nov 2024 by a 62.9%–37.1% margin; Mayor Sheng Thao was raided and later indicted (events through 2025) amid governance turmoil.
  • Operational problems compound enforcement gaps: Oakland’s police records system has long been outdated and prone to outages (raised with the council in 2024) and the city suffered a ransomware network outage in early 2023; separately, a federal monitor found OPD in full compliance with all 51 court-ordered reforms this spring, with oversight on track to end pending a September case-management hearing (fall 2026).
Source evidence

How Oakland’s Leadership Produced the Worst Property Crime Rate in the Nation

Behind the nation’s worst property crime rate lies fifteen years of disastrous decisions.

TL;DR

Oakland’s leaders built their brand on progressive values—equity, reform, community-first justice—while quietly presiding over the nation’s highest property crime rate and a clearance rate near zero. The costs of that failure have landed almost entirely on the Black and working-class neighborhoods progressive politics claims to champion.

Oakland now has the highest property crime rate of any large city in the United States, according to the FBI’s own national city-level data. It also carries California’s highest violent crime rate, and has for sixteen straight years. And it has all but stopped solving crime: Oakland’s property-crime clearance rate rounds to zero — just 17 cases cleared out of tens of thousands reported in 2024.

Those are three findings from three separate government datasets, and they paint a bleak picture. Oakland leads the state in violence, leads the nation in theft, and has nearly stopped catching the people responsible for either. Yet Mayor Barbara Lee, marking her first year in office, told television cameras that crime “is coming down in all categories,” and told a second station the same day that Oakland’s public-safety turnaround had made it a city other places should look to.

But Oakland’s crime crisis didn’t happen overnight. It was built decision by decision, and the people paying for it are, disproportionately, the same people these leaders claim to speak for.

A Force Voters Paid for Three Times Over

Oakland voters have not been stingy about funding police. In 2004 they passed Measure Y, which set a floor of 739 sworn officers as a condition of collecting the parcel tax that funded them. A decade later, in 2014, voters replaced it with Measure Z, which lowered that floor to 678 officers — itself a concession to the reality that the city couldn’t hit the higher number. Then, in November 2024, voters raised the bar again: Measure NN replaced Measure Z and pushed the minimum to 700 officers, alongside tens of millions in new annual funding.
Three times, Oakland voters have taxed themselves specifically to buy a police department of a certain size.

The city has never delivered one. Oakland currently fields roughly 546 active-duty sworn officers, which is hundreds short of even the original, lower Measure Z threshold, let alone the 700-officer floor voters approved most recently. An independent staffing study commissioned by the city’s own Inspector General found the department needs roughly 200 more budgeted positions than it currently has just to meet its existing patrol and investigative workload, a gap the report links directly to slower response times and thinner investigative capacity.

That shortfall didn’t happen by accident. In June 2020, at the height of the national “defund” moment, the City Council cut roughly $12 million from the police budget and pushed a planned academy into the future. One member, Nikki Fortunato Bas, argued the cut didn’t go nearly far enough — she had proposed shifting a minimum of $25 million out of the department — and a separate council faction went on record backing a 50 percent reduction to OPD’s general-fund footprint.

Academies are the only pipeline a police department has for replacing officers who retire or quit; there is no faster way to guarantee a staffing decline than to cancel one. Oakland’s leadership did it anyway, and the consequences didn’t land evenly. Residents of the hills can afford private security patrols or simply live somewhere with less crime to begin with. The bill for a hollowed-out patrol force has landed overwhelmingly in the flatlands of East and West Oakland — the same Black, brown, and working-class neighborhoods that generate the most 911 calls and now wait longest, if anyone comes at all.

Declining to Prosecute

A thin police force explains why officers often don’t show up. It doesn’t fully explain what happens after they do — and that story runs through the rest of Oakland’s justice system.

In 2022, Alameda County elected Pamela Price as district attorney on a platform of shorter sentences and reduced incarceration. By the time her first term should have ended, voters had already thrown her out: in November 2024 she was recalled, with the certified results showing a 62.9-to-37.1 margin — the first successful DA recall in county history. On the very same ballot, California voters statewide passed Proposition 36, rolling back a decade-old sentencing-reform law and imposing tougher penalties for theft and drug offenses. Whichever approach to prosecution was right, the whiplash itself carries a cost: arrest and prosecution function as a relay, and when the rules governing the handoff change abruptly, deterrence erodes. Patrol officers learn that arrests don’t lead anywhere. Victims learn the same thing about filing a report.

City leadership fared no better. Weeks before that recall, FBI agents raided the home of then-Mayor Sheng Thao; voters recalled her that November, and by January 2025 she had been indicted on federal charges of bribery, conspiracy, and honest-services fraud tied to an alleged scheme to steer city contracts. A city government defending its own mayor in federal court is not a government devoting its attention to closing burglary cases.

The clearance numbers reflect all of it. Oakland’s violent-crime clearance rate fell from roughly 28 percent in 2010 to under 10 percent by 2025. Across all serious (“Part I”) crime, the city closed only about 2 percent of cases in 2024, against a national average near 20 percent. Property crime clearance is effectively a rounding error: one case solved for roughly every 1,850 reported. Some of that gap is triage — a department too thin to do more than work homicides. Some of it is administrative decay: city IT staff told the council’s public safety committee in 2024 that Oakland’s police records system was outdated and prone to outages, a separate and longer-running problem from the ransomware attack that forced much of the city’s network offline in early 2023 (officials said financial and emergency systems were spared, and there’s no established link between that incident and the records-reporting failures). Whatever the precise mix of causes, a city that cannot reliably track whether it has solved a crime is not positioned to manage its way out of a crime wave.

Accountability Matters

This spring, a federal monitor found Oakland’s police department in full compliance with all 51 reforms required under a court settlement dating back to a 2000 police-corruption scandal — a milestone that had eluded five mayors and eight police chiefs. A federal judge indicated in late May that oversight is now on track to end this fall, pending a final case-management hearing in September, which would close out the longest-running police consent decree in the country.

That achievement is genuine, and it matters. But look at what produced it: two decades of a federal judge holding the department to a written checklist and refusing to let go until every item was satisfied. When Oakland was answerable to an outside authority with hard deadlines, it eventually delivered. Left to govern itself on everything else, the same city could not keep the police force its own voters funded three separate times, could not hold a prosecutor’s office to a consistent standard, could not keep its own mayor out of a federal indictment, and could not keep its records system running reliably enough to track its own case outcomes.

External accountability worked, and self-government mostly didn’t. Oakland’s leaders are fluent in the language of justice and equity, and yet preside over a system that closes two cases out of every hundred. They describe the city as a model while it holds the nation’s worst property-crime rate. Barbara Lee inherited a genuinely difficult situation, and the recent drop in violent crime and homicides is real and worth crediting. But a single strong year doesn’t undo fifteen years of decisions, and no amount of “model city” language changes what a 2 percent clearance rate means for the people living with it — disproportionately the same Black, brown, and working-class Oaklanders these officials invoke in every campaign. Until they can actually deliver the safety they’ve promised for two decades, “turnaround” is a generous word for where the city stands.

Comments (0)

        [Sign in](/session/new) to join the conversation.

Reader Comments

Comments (0)
Sign in
to join the conversation.