top of page

See how factors such as Race, Sex, Age, City, and Zip Code impact outcomes for Young People of Color in Alameda County 

Source: “Data | Alameda County Probation Department Q1 Snapshot." & "2016-2020 ACS (ages 10-17) Estimates."

Note: Percentages are rounded, and the containers "Age Group," "Justice-Involved Youth by Race/Ethnicity," and the Map reflect percentages of the grand total, while the "Justice-Involved Youth by City and Race/Ethnicity," container expresses percentages by each city. For example, in the container "Justice-Involved Youth by Race/Ethnicity," Black youth made up 56% of all justice-involved youth. Of all justice-involved youth who came explicitly from Oakland, 72% were Black. The Dashboard is interactive meaning multiple filters can be selected based on what the viewer wants to see. This can be executed by holding shift + clicking whichever icon has filter features. The Dashboard will update accordingly. The following links include documents that define the different definitions of the Custody Status classes for Field Services and Juvenile Facilities.

The above data is a snapshot of data for youth under the jurisdiction of Alameda County Probation. This includes youth under the least to the most stringent of restrictions. The dashboard aims to illustrate the racial and ethnic disparities in the juvenile justice system in the County. The bar graphs depict the race/ethnicity of the youth as well as their share of interaction with the justice system by age, gender, and city. For example, Black youth make up approximately 11% of the County's population, yet a staggering 56% of Black youth are under the County's probation jurisdiction. Another translation is that Black youth are over 5x represented in the justice system compared to their overall population. The inequities are even more pronounced based on the custody status. This continues to point out that White youth are less likely to be represented in the juvenile justice system than those of color, particularly Black youth.

Source:  Alameda County Probation Department Juvenile Services Community Engagement. Snapshot 2020.

Note: The orange circles are interactive and represent the number of justice-involved youth by category in addition to the zip code within the County. The circles vary in size depending on the volume of young people. Furthermore, polygon-shaped colors are defined below:

A (Best): Always upper- or upper-middle-class White neighborhoods that HOLC defined as posing a minimal risk for banks and other mortgage lenders, as they were "ethnically homogeneous" and had room to be further developed.

B (Still Desirable): Generally nearly or completely White, U.S. -born neighborhoods that HOLC defined as "still desirable" and sound investments for mortgage lenders.

C (Declining): Areas where the residents were often working-class and/or first or second-generation immigrants from Europe. These areas often lacked utilities and were characterized by older building stock.

D (Hazardous): Areas here often received this grade because they were "infiltrated" with "undesirable populations" such as Jewish, Asian, Mexican, and Black families. These areas were more likely to be close to industrial areas and to have older housing.

One of the demoralizing repetitive stories illustrated in the map above is that the highest concentration of justice-involved youth come from historically redlined communities. Redlining was a form of housing segregation orchestrated by public and private agencies to determine which neighborhoods were worthy of investment, specifically for homeownership loans. These horrendous policies created by government actors exacerbated racial and economic inequality. Redlined neighborhoods were almost exclusively areas where Black/Brown people lived. And today, the same communities are feeling the remnants of these disastrous policies. Our analysis found that of the 49 zip codes in Alameda County, 50% of justice-involved youth come from only seven zip codes, including 94541, 94544, 94601, 94603, 94605, 94607, and 94621. The key takeaway is that government actors stripped away the ability of these communities to thrive. Residents of these communities did not do it. While we may have choices, our choices are unequivocally influenced by the structures and conditions of our communities. Watch this VIDEO for more information about redlining, which will add additional context to the map.

bottom of page