on c-span, c-span normal to come c-span radio and c-span.org. >> next, the president's task force on policing looks at ways to improve relations between law enforcement and the communities they serve. that i send it energy and natural resources hearing with interior secretary sally jewell testifying on the 2016 budget request. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, >> >> this task force was established by executive order in december following the police

shooting of missouri teenager michael brown. members are examining ways to improve relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve. they are expected to give their recommendations to president obama the summer. this is to an half hours. >> we're going to get started. if you have a cell phone please turn it off for putting on to vibrate. good morning welcome to the president's task force on 21st century policing. today we have a distinguished and final panel all bills were outstanding but we save the best for last there will be the to the co-chairs to explain the purpose of the panel and the thought process while we will close it out this way. and as you know, december 1st 2014 president obama announced his intent to create a president's task force with 21st

century policing to deal with the issue of trust between police and many communities in the task force will be led by two distinguished co-chairs was also a former assistant attorney general and to her left charros ramsey not only the philadelphia police commissioner but the police chief of washington d.c.. but to put this together to ask them to come up with concrete recommendations for being here. >> it seems like a week or two when you think back on how compressed it has been. but a lot of good work came from it. i want to thank those that testified today and those that testified before you, submitted comments and participated in the audience. it has been helpful in us framing what will be the final recommendations we present to the president next week. i am not going to go anything about how it will happen.

we have heard over 150 witnesses, we have listened and received even more written testimony, and after today's morning panel, we will be able to work together, deliberate, and come up with a recommendation on what to give to the president. so today as far as the panel discussion, there's no better way to end it. before i continue, in the back of the room is a lot of staff. the cochairs have been very gracious, and i have think then each and every session. when the president created this task force, he identified the department of justice to support their efforts to make sure the task force has what it needs to do its job. my office was tasked with

providing those services. and i will say tasked and honored to provide the services and support such a great team. and the staff has done just a tremendous job. you think about what has been accomplished in less than 90 days, it is amazing. i want to tell them publicly from the bottom of my heart, thank you for your leadership commitment kind of dedication, and thank you for the work that is yet to come. with that, i want to turn it over to the cochairs so they can lead the final panel and lead us to the conclusions of this process. i will start with cochair commissioner charles ramsey. >> thank you, ron. this is been a very vast process that we have embarked upon over the last 90 days. it seems more like a week or two when you think back on how

compressed it has been. a lot good work has come from it. i want to thank all of you for your testimony all of those who have testified before you, submitted written comments, participated in the audience. it really has been very helpful. we will be framing the final recommendations we will present to the president next week. i'm not going to go over anything like that. ron did a good job of that. soon you will be introduced to the other taskforce members. i am chuck ramsey and i am a co-chair along with lori robinson and i think we have made a good team over the past few months. i am currently the police chief in philadelphia. seven years i have served in few months. that capacity. prior to that where was the police chief in washington for almost nine. i started in chicago in 1968.

i have been around for a while and seen a lot of changing in policing over the years. very dynamic profession and this is a period of time when we have challenges to meet. we will meet those challenges. as we talk about and discuss things that really assist us in better serving the public today we wanted to put together to panel to lean forward and look at tomorrow and what lies ahead. that is why you are here today. again, thank you very much. and i will now turn it over to lori robinson. >> thanks so much, chuck. it has been a privilege working on this task force particularly with co-chair chuck ramsey. i have been in this field for more than 30 years working with the american bar association about ten years with the

department of justice and more recently in academia. our time on the task force has been fast but remarkable with the opportunity to hear from so many witnesses bringing such expertise before us. but our intent with this panel was to look ahead. and i would characterize this as a super star group here and that was the intent. i am looking forward to introducing the panel but before that i want to give the task force members, who by the way have been wonderful to meet with, and what an opportunity to get the chance in what i call a bunker mentality and it is something i will think about for

the rest of my career. this opportunity to work with them. i am starting at the end with roberto and we will move down the line. >> good morning. as lori said, i am the chief of police for tucson, arizona. i grew up in the department and have been with them 35 years and chief for the past 6 years. this has been the culmination of my career and having the opportunity to give and receive input at this level from members like yourself and working with this group here. instead of attending 150 different schools, i was able to bring 150 professors to me and sit there and be awed by the information they gave and pick the little pieces here and there i think go toward providing the framework of the best practices.

it has been a wonderful experience and excited to get to the work of deliberation today. it will probably be long but i am sure we can come to agreement on a lot of the topics. >> good morning, i am brian stevenson, the director of the equal justice initiative. i am an attorney and spent most of my career providing legal services to poor people, people convicted of crimes, people in prison. and people facing conviction. i want to also express my gratitude to the co-chairs for the remarkable leadership they provided and to the cop staff and colleagues on the task force. this has been a remarkable and intense but really incredible insightful and educative process and we appreciate those of you who are here to complete the process. i am looking forward to working with the task force members, and the administration, in hoping

doing what we can to add to the quality of policing in the country and perhaps encouraging the debate and dialogue necessary to make policing what we hope it should and can be. i want to thank all of those who organized this and express my gratitude to you this morning for being here. >> good morning. i am sean smoot, the director and police council for the police organization of illinois and the chair of police organizations. over the last 20 years i have dedicated my life to advocating on behalf of rank and file police officers. i am especially excited about the panel today because i came up as a student of criminal justice at the time that community policing was really starting to filter out in the country.

and starting my career working with law enforcement as a practitioner and later on as an advocate i have had the opportunity to see the ebbs and flows of community policing and departments of all sizes as large as chicago and small as a place like granite city, illinois. and on the national level. so i am really excited and encouraged and i have to say i would like to express my gratitude to president obama for empanelling this task force. i think it was a courageous thing to do and the right thing to do. i am honored to serve with my colleagues on the task force and look forward to closing out the listening session today with a look toward the future and my look is quite hopefully so thank

you. >> good morning. i am sue. started my career in law enforcement 35 years ago as a deputy sheriff working patrol. 35 years flew by. the last seven years i was the elected sheriff in king county which is the area around seattle. i never in my wildest dreams thought i would have an opportunity like this. i think anybody having being able to be part of this panel would say this is amazing. we have the greatest minds in this profession coming together. anyone who says the federal government works slow, not on this task force. it has been a miracle and such a privilege to be part of the movement and like sean i am very optimistic about the future. we are at a cross road with good people, good will and a lot of great ideas and i am looking forward to putting it together. thank you.

>> good morning, everyone. i am tracy near and i have been for the last 20 or years a legal academic first at the university of chicago law school and now at yale. my research focuses on criminal law policy and procedure and understanding the dynamics of violent crime in urban areas. i have been focused on policing and justice and this work we have been doing over the last six weeks has been extremely gratifying professionally for me but also an amazing opportunity to hear from experts like you but also voices from the community and people who have lost their children and struggling every day trying to deal with issue of crime in their community and how to best

come up with a strategy to have policing and law enforcement be accountable for them. i am glad we are ending with a panel on policing for the future because it is my hope the report is a launching pad for change. >> good morning. i am brittany. and 200 days ago today you would never convince me i would have spent the last six months standing on streets, very close to my childhood home, standing up for justice standing up for some of the 20,000 young people that i serve in my full-time job as executive director of teach for america in st. louis. and standing up for young men

and women who look like my brother and myself and trying to and women who look like my brother and myself and trying to create change from tragedy. so this is not the only work that is going on in that realm but i am deeply thankful to be a part of this step. i never knew as an educator i would know this much about policing. and i am thankful to have had the opportunity to help be a voice for young people in this process. so i am hopeful but feeling urgent about the work that is ahead. and i thank you all for joining us. >> good morning. new york city and new york state combines social services and community organizing to work with our 16,000 members to advance mostly a public policy at the city, state and national level.

as on organization we are member of cpr -- communities united for police reform. a campaign that started in new york city to challenge the stop and frisk program and the youth project at the road is currently in the final stages of our partnership with the public science project where we are working with about a dozen youth researchers to study the impacts of the stop, question and frisk program on the impact of 18-24 year olds. thank you for being here. >> good morning and welcome. i am cedrick alexander and i am the current public safety director in decalb, georgia, and serve as the vice president of noble. my career started in 1977 in florida actually.

tallahassee, orlando and in dade county where i left i think about 1992 and decided to go back to school and become a clinical psychologist and i am still trying to determine if that was a good idea or not. but nevertheless that training has helped me a great deal in moving through this progression and helping the profession change, too. but with that being said, i think over the last 35 years and i remember back in 1980, and many of you may remember the riots during that time. those riots actually grew out of the whole lot of years of distrust and quite frankly police brutality that had been occurring throughout that community for a long period of time. the reaction of that community after the loss of a life in the hands of the police.

they have done a great job trying to change the trajectory and relationships that still exist in that community today. there is plenty of opportunity here i think for us to continue to progress the field. as i often hear ron davis say and who has been brilliant for leading us through this. i would like to say thank you and look forward to the dialogue. >> thank you. let me turn back let me turn ba do so. >> as part of this process, we

also brought aboard the outstanding cop staff. we have great technical advisor sitting at the table who are kind of behind the scenes, but they have been an invaluable assistance. i also want to remind people before we get to the first panel that this is being live streamed , webcast. we are encouraging comments from the community at large. you can provide comments by going to the cops website. there is an icon that you click on that says president's task force and you can leave comments recommendations. we receive them. you can also give us comments through twitter. please take it of those venues to do so. and with that, madame cochair, i think we are prepared to start. >> in introducing the panel i am going to make brief induction

introductions. the full bios for the witnesses are on the website. these are very distinguished and accomplished individuals and unfortunately we don't have time to go into their full backgrounds. starting off with dr. philip garth. welcome and look forward to cower your comments. >> thank you co-chair and to the task force and those working behind their scenes. it is my honor to be here and particularly on this panel of distinguished individuals. my work as a research and president of the center for policing equity has sought to bridge gaps for the citizens and law enforcement bridge daily.

i want to talk about stronger evidence base in policing and using that to ensure criminal justice particularly in the area of race. social science can set the table for forces to come together and move toward the future. so as a scientist both in my full time job and spare time it bothers me no end where there is an important question that lacks an answer and i have never been more bothered by that tendency than i was late one night in september of 2008. as the son of a reference librarian i am good at finding things. at least i thought i was. i started at 10 a clock and ten and a half hours later i had to take a break. i had not find anything but the

research staff had not either and i called my mom and she could not find anything. as the task force understands that is because there is no national data on police use of force or on police stops or police behavior in general. and what arrested me or stopped me in that moment was not just the embarrassing lack of data on something so fundamental on what and what arrested me or stopped police officers do. but the data is part of human behavior and something we know more about than anything else. i want to talk to you about flee things we would be considering differently if we took the social science insights seriously. first, social science has revealed for quite some time we engage with others to the degree that they make us feel about ourselves much more than the degree we feel about them. in close relationships you are

likely to make a commitment to a partner because they make you feel good about you than because you are attracted to them. in race and social justice, the work of jennifer richardson and myself and others shows that concerns with how you might appear in an interracial act action is more important than any level of prejudice and what that means if we take it seriously in the domain of policing is we would not put emphasis on how we treat the community but the perception for law enforcement is fundamental. and attitudes predict about 10% of behavior at best it has been found. that includes racial behaviors. and that means that if we were to neutralize all of the prejudice, implicit or explicit, we would only get rid of about 10% of behavior that is discrimination at best. and that leads me to the third

insight which is situations are often more powerful predictors of behavior than character. if we take those insights seriously, it means in addition to focusing on training we would focus on the policies and understanding what policies lead to chronic situations making people vulnerable to their own bias and stereotypes. our goal is to take this sear seriously and the success of the model is what led me here. we are the first to cover police stops and we cover 25% of the nation for those committed to doing this. law enforcement executives came together saying we need this and want to do it in the best

scientific way and came to the scientist to ask for help. i would ask the task force to do three things. i would ask the task force to encourage federal funding to keep up the statistics. and second i would ask them to encourage federal stakeholders to have more opportunities for law enforcement and communities to learn from social science as the evidence base is only growing. and third, i would ask the task force to expand technical assistance to law enforcement groups that want to benefit from this but lack the ability to follow through. we never take money but with approached by departments that can not even afford to task a lieutenant with being a project liaison.

i began by saying as a scientist an important question without answering me. i don't believe social science is the answer but i believe it will set the table to find what the answers are. thank you for your time. >> our next witness is kim mcdonald who is the sheriff for l.a. county. welcome. >> thank you very much. i am very honored to be here today. commissioner ramsey, professor robinson and other panel members thank you for allowing me to address you. i was sworn in as the 32 sheriff nearly three months ago. i took command of a law enforcement agency facing challenges and one that has flown below the radar and not acknowledged from a their cutting-edge work and expertise. so i speak as the new sheriff

who pushes for change and someone who is proud of the enforcement i lead. we are the largest sheriff's department in the country and second largest policing nation. we span a population of 10 million people and police 42 of la's cities and protect the largest state's court system today i want to focus on what managing a complex law enforce. organization as well as a large jail system taught about the challenges and opportunities facing polices. we clearly need more resources we clearly need more resources and support we are equally in need of fresh thinking and strategy that can enable us to rethink the job of policing and learn from here other. we provide housing for 27,000 inmates and our inmates include

rival gang members of vary security levels. there has been unacceptable inmate abuse and recidivism rates are too high. many need to be separated from society but others are there because the society left them behind. while i have seen the challenges i have seen how far we have come. we have education programs that enabled over 300 inmates to secure high school diplomas last year. and we are creating drug assistance programs for homeless. this is working in spite of the environment we work in not because of it. we cannot get there alone. we need federal help including support for correctional treatment centers rather than jails where we warehouse offenders. we need to address the mental health concerns of those in our

charge and resource toes expand education, vocational training and reentry planning that can chart a better future for those returning for the community. and we are running what is the largest mental health facility i have seen how far we have in the nation. we have 3500 inmates who need mental health. we are ill equipped to address the challenges of this population in patrol. patrol personal lack mental health training and we have lack of med teams and community supports to help the deputies de-escalate the contract. we need crisis intervention training so the deputies know how to respond to the mental ill. we need to create a response to those in crisis and strategy that focus on alternatives to

incarceration. and we need to focus on the next generation and those exposed to violence and trauma. the young person may not have been physically struck we know their brains are permanently damaged by the exposure to the violence. your responsibility doesn't end with the yellow tape is down. violent crime has many victims and we must do what we can to support them. law enforcement must be trained on how to interact with young people in crisis and those who are trauma impacted. we need to taylor response to the age and characteristics of the individual and support an environment in which children are learn, develop and thrive and move away from approaches that push kids out of school.

government derives the power from the consent of the governed it was written and whatever authority we have is granted to us and derived from our community. community oriented policing is not something done on the side. we must police and not just in the communities we serve. police officers don't like asking for help but we must acknowledge we need help. i am here to thank you for your work, wisdom and your help and i welcome any questions at the end you may have. thank you for this opportunity. >> thank you so much, sheriff. dr. daniel nagan is our next guest. >> let me indicate how gratified i was to receive this invitation to be on this panel. it was said it is better to prevent crimes than punish them.

i co-authored an essay titled reinventing american policing a six point blue print for the 2 21st century. this blue print aims to advance another important objective of policing. maintenance of high levels of credibility in the communities they are sworn to protect. both objectives form the bed rock of a democratic society. the policy institutionalized many characteristics of the law enforcement system. the function of arrest became important for performance. things like broken windows came to be applied in ways police new best. zero tolerance and the arrest for the simplest crime. we require important changes in

the functions and values of law enforce. the blue point is grounded in decades of return and two principles. crimes averted and not arrest made should be the primary metric for judging police success to prevent crime and disorder. citizen's reaction matter. citizen's response to the police and tactics for preventing crime matter independent of police effectiveness. principle one follows from it is better to prevent crimes than punish. punishment is costly to all involved. society who must pay for it, the individual who has to live it and the police whose time is diverted.

arrest plays a role in crime prevention, arrest shows failure prevention. if a crime is prevented in the first place so is arrest and the ensuing cost. principle one doesn't say arrest should be stopped. bringing the perp trait to justice is important. over the past three decades, a steady accumulation of evidence suggests that pro-active prevention programs are more affective than anything. the activities focus efforts on people, places, times and situations that are high risk of offending. proactive policing stands in sharp contrast to reactive approaches in that it try to address the problems before they get to further crimes through a variety of strategy that don't

emphasis arrest. in the first principle we suggest greater emphasis on deployment strategy and arrest-based strategy. principle two emphasis that police and democracies are responsible for preventing crime and maintaining creditability with all segments of the citizen citizens. this means the reaction of the citizens to the police is important to view their progress. we treat trust and confidence as important in its own right because the overriding objective of policing should be to create a safe democratic society not a a safe democratic society not a safe police state. in emphasizing the importance of citizen trust in the police we are aware the encounter may be

hostile to no fault of the police officer. it may include people who committed or are in the process of committing serious crime and may stand as a danger to the police officer. the person responsible for the hostile action doesn't give up the right as a citizen even if the legal behavior is set for arrest or legal police response. we are aware of the difficulty of what must be dean done to achieve these. preventing crime ration bringing those to justice, and maintaining creditability and just with the police are each significant in their own right and also highly depended upon one another. recognition of the difficulty of what must be done to advance them shouldn't be used to dismiss their dispute. in my written testimony that you

have before you i summarized the six items but let me tell you the first is prioritize crime prevention over arrest, then creating systems for monitoring citizen reaction the police and reporting it back to the public and line officers, and the other bullet items elaborate on upon innovation in training organizational attendance, and management items in the national research infrastructure on policing to advance these goals. thank you for your attention. >> thank you so much. as ron davis noted we have had over 150 witnesses at our listening sessions. but i think our next witness has come the furthest.

you are coming from being a professor of england. >> i hate to say i am a professor of maryland as well. and why dr. goth is right ration we don't know house education and workforce committee people were killed by the police in 2013 the estimates rage from 461 on the low side and over a 1,000 compiled from news reading papers. and state of wales the number of people killed by the police was zero. thousands of arms situations when armed police responded and not one person was killed. this is a comparison crying out

for an explanation and maybe it doesn't have the level of conclusion i will suggest but i think it is inescapable there is a massive difference governing the police in england and wales and governing the united states. i think we have to have a conversation at the constitutional level that puts training and other options but starts with the fundamental policy difference in terms of deadly force. the policy in the uk is similar at law to the policy into the united states which is essential you can kill in defense of life. but the ride along with that policy in england and whales is essential that if you are killing somebody for offense that they are not willing to be

arrested for that is essential trivial than you are doing the wrong thing. and you put yourself in a position where you had no choice and that is not allowed in the u.k. neither is the idea of continuing a confrontation that might not be necessary to arrest someone. so de-escalation and proportionality are key. so we would test the hypothesis of what done in the u.k. at the federal level i would propose executive orders and the first is for the employees to adopt the english standards in shooting which is more restrictive than the current defense of life. i think the president should create a national college of

policing which provides a certification through a three-month course of anyone serving as a police chief of a certified police force in the united states. and third the president would have the college to issue standards compiled from the 50 state boards. there are not 50 of them yet. and force that the federal government establish or register people who have been dismissed from federal law enforcement agencies which is accessible to anyone screening people for employment in police agencies at federal, state and local level. for the state i think they should adopt an inspector general of police who until recently in england had the ability to certify police agencies so they would lose the national funding and certification is something i think the states could require and they could require chiefs of police of agencies that are creatures of the state

including law and local government, the chiefs would have to meet certification if there wasn't one made available by the national government there would be other certification and the standards like the deadly force standard would be part of the post-board authority. in england and whiles we have a state-wide independent police complaint commission that gets around the issues of the local commissions and the states could have their own dismissed officers and contribute to the federal register. and most radically it is important that a lot of killings of citizens by police come from small agencies and i think we need to go with a minimum of a hundred employees for each police agency so you can have adequate standards for vetting training, certifying and disciplining them. in new york city they used to

kill 80 people a year and now it is less than 10. that doesn't happen with small agencies changing like in a big agencies where you have the training and supervision. i have similar recommendations for local agencies. but i thank you for your consideration in the ways that action could be taken now that could have a big impact in saving the lives of young people in the united states in unnecessary tragic, albeit possibly illegal confrontations with the police. thank you. >> thank you so much, dr. sherman. our final witness is president jeremy travis of the criminal college in new york city. >> thank you. thank you very much for the welcome, co-chair ramsey and robinson. i am delighted to appear and be on the panel with my colleagues.

i have one thank you and three recommendations. the thank you is to offer thanks to the department of justice for the opportunity provided by a grant to john jay college yale, ucla, and the urban institute to launch the national institute for building community trust and justice. if we are looking forward this is one of most important undertakings of the justice department. perhaps some of my colleagues here want to express our appreciation. we had our first meeting of the advisory board and it was exciting, sobering, and humbling to think forward. i thank the agencies for this initiative and we hope to learn a lot from the five spots to be

selected and named in the national undertaking we will provide. recommendation one is education matters and that might not surprise you coming from me. and task forces named by other presidents long ago after similar times of urban strife and concern about the role of policing all recommend that it is important to have an educated profession of people who carry out the work of enforcing our laws. this was then a radical idea, a college educated police officer would be a better officer. we need to provide better opportunity for veterans. this is a good career and we need investment in police officers.

and i would echo what dr. sherman said and the founder of the police foundation also referenced this and that is the need for national cohesion. a way of thinking about this as a nationally important profession. there is little national attention. the cops office isn't thinking about standards, research, and developing research. it was proposed a police commission and the closest we have is the fbi academy and that is not the same thing as a way to build the leadership of this profession. universities can make a difference to develop that sort of capability. my second recommendation will not surprise you having been the director of justice serving under assistant attorney general

robinson and reno. i am a strong believer in research and echo what my fellow panelists said. the amount of research we funded under the 1994 crime acting was historic but pitiful when we think what we could have known if he had invested more. if we were like any other research institute and invest in the understanding of the important relationship between government and citizen it is really sobering. so of course we should invest more in research. we learned a lot in those days. but i think what this panel would recommend is that today's research agenda should be broader and different and that is funded by the 1994 crime act. we need an empirical understanding of interaction between the police and public. i have learned a lot from tracy meers' research and professor sherman first brought this to my attention when maryland did the

what works in crime prevention study. we don't understand the interaction of law enforcement and police. that is the goal for the next generation. let me focus on the third recommendation i highlight in my prepared statement. the title of the panel is the future of community policing. this is the conceptual framework taking place. three aspirations are there. one is embracing crime prevention. we have talked about that and have great success in reducing crime in the country. through problem solving as the principle method. those pillars are strong. but the third pillar, which is partnerships of the community, has gotten less attention, it is underdeveloped and in some ways we have lost ground while the others gained ground.

we need to think about strengthening that pillar. how do we do that? we focus on legitimacy and justice. and the testimony, besides bill who was sworn in as the police commission for the second. he said he is back because even though crime has been reduced people in communities of color in particularly are angry at the police. how can this be when we have done well? how can there be such dissatisfaction? we talked about the stop and frisk and increase in misdemeanors but this is deeper than that. in addition to procedural justice, imagine the process of

bringing people together and getting to the deep distrust between the police and the communities of color that existed for a long time. i will end with a quote from my colleague david kennedy who said when there is one of these incidents we have seen all too often of a young, unarmed african-american man killed by the police, maybe justifiable and maybe not, white america talks about the incident. what does the grand jury do? the black community talks about the history. it's the history that matters. we have to bring that into the conversation constructively.

that is the imperative of the day. >> we will turn now to questions from our panel. i will be calling on people in the order in which they indicated they wanted to raise questions. i am starting with brittany followed by sue. >> thank you so much for your testimony. i have two questions. the first is for dr. nagen. i am a pastor's kid and taught wherever your treasure is stored that is where your heart is. and translated to the work i do in operations and systems whatever we measure that is what we value. my question is around this idea of measuring crime prevention. i want to know how we can viably

measure crime prevention in a way that doesn't support predatory and broken window and i want to know how we can viably policing issues that led to stop and frisk and aggressive traffic stops i see in st. louis county and instead measures that increase policing guardian and -- guardianship. >> with regard to the issue of measuring prevention, i acknowledge as a research, those of you who know the research i do, it is hard to do. but headway can be made on it. it starts with the research larry sherman begun on. if you target places and people at high risk of offending you can see whether the efforts to reduce crime in those locations was effective. targeted strategy allows you to do that. with regard to the second part

of the question, using tactics that don't emphasis arrest. arrest is an inevitable part of police but don't emphasis it. here again, these kinds of proactive strategy that my co-author summarized on a nice website at george mason university they involve problem solving, changes in the physical environment with lighting, or bringing in third parties in like landlords to try to mitigate the places that generate crime and by doing that and avoiding crime and also avoiding having to make arrest because there is no crime and do not emphasize policing which there are large numbers of arrest made for minor crimes. >> thank you.

and my second question is for professor sherman. really interested in your written testimony recommendation number ten talking about an ex executive order on deadly force and that executive order should focus on proportionality of the force used and emphasis on de-escalation before force is a choice that is made. i am wondering if you discuss that a bit more and if that executive order were in existence what would that mean in cases like the killing of rice in cleveland where the shooting occurred two seconds after the officer arrived. >> this idea -- and i am very glad you gave me a chance to give examples -- is very important. it goes back to mayor bradley in los angeles discussing the report on higher education for police in 1979 right after a woman named yula love was killed by the police because she had

not paid her gas bill and when the gas man came to turn the gas off she took a shovel and told him to leave. he wouldn't and she whacked him on the arm with a shovel and when he called the police and they pulled up and she appeared with a knife, they pointed guns at her saying drop the knife she didn't so they shot and killed her. that is an example of an argument that can be made that it was a threat to life but it was unnecessary because the police could have used other tactics to de-escalate the situation. it was disproportionate to the underlying offense which was misdemeanor assault and certainly not worthy of a pre-trial death penalty. more importantly perhaps because there are situations where offenders kill people and the

police in london encountered someone who had just beheaded an 80-year-old woman with a machete and they managed to take that man into custody alive. it would be difficult for the police in the united states to do that. but the police were under this infrastructure i am talking about that makes a huge difference in the letter of the policies but in the spirit with which they are implemented and the expectations from the first day of training that police officers have in the u.k. that their job is to keep the people alive no matter who they are. >> sue, followed by cedrick alexander. >> my question is for professor sherman as well. i was tantalized by hearing the written testimony about putting limits on the police department. lower limits as opposed to upper limits. and one of the things that is protected in the country is local independence and control.

and we have had conversations amongst colleagues about the concept of multiple agencies and the independents and it seems that going to larger agencies moves us away from a close relationship with the community that you seem to get with a small department. it seems that as the department gets larger there is more anonymity the officers have and it creates a distance. i wonder if you can talk about how in the u.k. you maintain or don't maintain that community organization. >> my first jobs at the new york city police department was to evaluate the neighborhood police program which is what is done in police forces in the u.k. and when you take it down to the

neighborhood level it is sort of like the adage of former speaker of the house and that is all politics and policing is local. if you organize the policing to maximize face to face interaction between the police responsible for an area and the citizens they are serving you don't need a small agency to do that. you will get more equity in providing that if you have a larger organization looking at the fairness of distribution for example. so the efforts in the u.k. since the last effort like this, which was a royal commission over scandals of police in smaller departments getting too close to the community leaders, not just corruption but also preference and bias, and it was before britain was 15% black and minority ethnic.

it was like it was in ferguson before. if you have larger entities like st. louis for example, then there is, i think, more checks and balances. and the point i want to make about localism -- two points. one is the proliferation of tiny police agencies is not something we always had. it is mostly since world war ii we had the chance of putting small police officers in departments all over pennsylvania. if you want to cut taxes you merge police department and have a single call center. that is one of the easiest way of saving money and that might

change the game rather than saying the locals have the power and we cannot touch it. it is a decision for 50 state legislatures to make because they create cities. it is creature of the state. they have politics to worry about of course. but if one state or two states want to be bold enough to take the vision to cut taxes and improve the equity in policing by having large police department apartments the whole country will benefit. >> how does the local community exercise control over their policing? >> i think there is a wonderful series of institutions that we see in england and whales -- england and wales including a police complaint division that is looking at these things and

the latest institutions i think we have to say the jury is still out on is electing police and crime commissioners for 42-43 areas. there is a counter part of crime commissioners in all iv other forces. and those elections were introduced out of cycle and only had a 15% turnout so they are controversial. but they replaced a board of 18 locally elected city and council county members who were the board of directors for the police department. so you have the democracy under any model you want to look ought throughout british history. even before 2012 when we changed to the elected crime officials. the state can look at this and if they want to create a more cost effective form of policing that i think will have more checks and balancing.

>> but i would say you are the practitioner who takes this research like others but we're not getting the information. so how do we take this research the you come up with and make it applicable and come alive?

how do we make that transition from academia to where it will evolve jurors something has to have been quickly? i would like to get your thoughts were insights into that.

>> thank you for that question. i will answer in two parts. first of all, the words the national initiative chooses intervention in research and is also the house function of the national initiative is to have a place where people are looking for research were the best practices or the emerging trends in the emerging evidence base can say what do we know? so that is a good step to be translated but it is quite difficult but it is nominally journals that seven people read but they do not develop social skills of. [laughter]

so it isn't just that we talk to each other we don't even talk to each other. [laughter] there is a profound need to establish regular runs of communication not just between law-enforcement and researchers but communities and researchers. there needs to be across communication on the issues. but we saw we head community groups and researchers to have a language for this is all different languages trying to talk about the same thing. he is a philosopher so forgive us if you want to be a philosopher go where philosophers go. and then to translate to be in the same plays.

with a complex there is no long-term process for that spinning think here for that -- >> thank you for the opportunity. i think there is tremendous value to that. much as we focused on community policing we do not just focus on numbers to drive the way we do business. it may not be what we want in the long-term. we need to focus on outcomes rather than outputs. the challenge for us is taking the data and making it applicable, how do we use that in the field, in the way we get the greatest value for the resources that are employed and

also from the justice perspective, what does that mean in the delivery of police services to the communities we serve? going back to evidence based strategies to focus on best practices with a forum to do that by looking in the absence mean one of data as the sole criteria. what are the other options? i would suggest community surveys to determine how the community feels about police and safety so it is a complex conversations and to have certainly we welcome that data but to put it into context without having it drives slowly the way we do business. >> an excellent question.

one is the most recently appointed director with translation chronology. -- translational criminology. universities that have picked up on that challenge in particular from george mason university with the evidence of crime policy there is quite remarkable ways of communicating academic research for this practice but it needs to go beyond that in my -- beyond that. in my written testimony , i emphasized the need we need a much larger national infrastructure for dissemination, not unlike at the national institutes of health. an important part of their

mission is dissemination of that research. there needs to be something comparable here as well. to pick up on the idea of community service, the difficulties of larger organizations, in my testimony we talk about the need for collective systematic data and using it in the evaluation of performance evaluation of the police officers. one thing you could do in this regard the to police departments of small towns of a larger organization, you can still collect information systematically of the reactions of the people in that community and whether they were satisfied. >> >> i should have said

actually just about every police force does do that we do in annual survey so they can pick up the fact that alarm part of -- in one part of the country with muslim neighborhoods, the confidence of police is that low levels and that corresponds to the potential acts of terrorism being organize their. -- organized thre. -- organized there. i did want to say, another answer to dr. alexander's question about research and practice it is to get the police involved in doing research. what we have been doing it

cambridge for almost 20 years now but especially in recent years with the policies we have surgeons like other people conducting experiments and publishing sometimes co-authors of academics and enjoying the enthusiasm to discover new things about how to -- we spend a lot of time in india. the only place asking not to have this kind of help are universities in the united states. >> this is one of my favorite topics. let me see what i can add to

what my colleagues have said. we need independent sources of information about policing independent of the police. a lot of history in the room. in the early 1970's, when federal officials decided to create the first victimization survey. we know some a to crime because we ask residents about their experience with crime. we do not rely on the police to tell us what they report to the fbi. that independent source has benefited us and or mislead over the years. we need a similar nationally known independent survey of the experience of the interactions with the justice system. i don't include just police.

we need that independent source of information. that is not a popularity poll. this is the justice survey. it has to be the way the police ask the question, how my doing? we talked about the importance of this paper i wrote, national coherence. a set of national expectations that you can go to any police department and expect they would do certain things best evidence would require. you go to the hospital and you expect a surgeon to know the latest on how to conduct a medical procedure. it comes along with this policing college.

it is not a two-way street if the two people don't talk to each other. this is building the capacity within agencies to do their own research and to partner with universities. in the medical profession, we have the institution of the teaching hospital where young doctors are spending time -- we have blended these two ways of thinking about the same phenomenon. so we are learning from each other all the time. it is not a dissemination model. it is a collaborative model. infrastructure becomes very important. we need to think about data, operations research. we need to help police agencies

recognize the importance of developing the innovation mentality. we are always experimenting and always open to criticism. >> thank you. >> thank you. the presentations were very informative. sheriff, i heard you talk about corrections to combat recidivism. when he mental health training, waste to influence. i heard you talk about partnerships. a lot of different elements. of the entire criminal justice system that need to get involved in this reform movement. as we have shared recommendations through the

group helping us, i see that come up. we are making suggestions outside the traditional police world. we have often said, we cannot arrest our way out of these types of problems. we need to look at a grander scale. i think we go far outside the traditional police realm. i would like to hear your thoughts on how we transition that from thought to action on a broader scale. >> in looking at the business and the results we are seeing, need to look non-traditionally. the way we have been doing is giving us the results we have today. looking at kids of the earliest age, from the time you're born until the third grade, you read to learn. -- you learn to read.

from the third grade on, you read to learn. kids to start to fall off track at the third and fourth grade we should be outcome. they get into alcohol, drugs and gangs. 70% of the people incarcerated in state prisons are either illiterate or functionally illiterate. the connection is unmistakable. education solutions, nurturing young people at the earliest ages, and setting them up for success. when we have people incarcerated, what are we doing to be able to get them ready to get back out in a different fashion than how they came in to set them up for a greater level of success? we need to look differently than we have been and look at options that were not on the table previously. that is where an analysis, what

are we trying to get to at the end of the day? rather than, how do we do our job a little bit better than we have been doing up to this point? >> this is building on the observation of incarceration policies. if we step back from the policing question, it is important for us, to recognize the entire system has changed enormously over the last 40 years. the professor and i or privileged to be members of the national academy of sciences panel on the consequences of higher rates of incarceration in the u.s. we have come through a time in our nation's history where we

have used prison as a response to crime more than any other time in our history. i spent a lot of time with 20-year-olds today. i asked them questions. what is it like growing up? they are more likely to have a parent in prison, more likely to have somebody under supervision in their family. more likely to be at the receiving end of a more punitive disciplinary system. the young people have a very different personal experience with the justice system. it is a truism to say we should think about how police interact with the rest of it. the police buried burden not of their making. the justice system is a much bigger footprint in the lives of young people.

the police can do a lot of work but they are at the front end of a system. our panel recommended it a significant reduction in incarceration rates, and that will be tossed. an african-american high school dropout today has a 60% chance of spending a year in prison. the police are bearing a burden they did not make. that is unfortunate. >> if i could point out british police are a major player in management. they have succeeded in recent years and diverting somewhere

between 40 and 50% of all of the people who received a conviction , but the process stops in the police station. there is no further prosecution and no chance of going to prison. they have used a variety of programs, but one that has been tested in collaboration with the university of maryland and the project rector is in the room, has completed a trial to see whether they can come up with a probation program starting the day they were arrested. there may be a major opportunity to keep the offenders under the watchful eye of neighborhood police officers who know where they are and you demonstrated they could get bigger crime reductions by more contact with

offenders, not necessarily making arrests. you'd better stay out of trouble and that is something that is reinforced with people coming out of longer prison terms in britain, but not for people with short-term incarceration. many of whom can be diverted at the front end. it is not just a matter of putting people in jail, it is a matter of keeping them out of jail. you should not be bragging about the number of people you arrest. >> i would like to pick up on larry's comments.

five years ago, i published a paper called imprisonment and crime can both be reduced. we argued lengthy prison sentences were not an efficient or effective way of preventing crime. a lot of evidence if you use the police properly, you can prevent crime from happening in the first place. after publishing the essay, i started getting a lot of pushback from people. are they just going to start arresting more people? that is what started getting your in -- getting me more

interested in policing. every year, 11 million arrests in the united states, the less than 20% of them are for felonies. most of them are for misdemeanors and more minor crimes. one thing that has happened, there has been a comparable increase in the jail population. these kinds of arrests, they rarely windup being in prison, they windup being in share of mcdonald's jails. -- sheriff mcdonald's jails. that is why we need to use policing methods that prevent crime from happening so there are no arrests. the second question is geared

toward dr. sherman. when you talked about the numbers and the comparison between great britain and the united states, those numbers are fascinating. a lot further resource we need to do -- research we need to do in that area. you talked about the incident with the beheading. and they were able to take that individual into custody. you made the comment that could not happen in america. i pushback a little bit. quite often, we take people into custody without using deadly force. it happens across the country. we do not hear about those things because it does not satisfy the american media's appetite for violence. and that is my question. what do you feel about the difference of what you see?

you are in a unique position. if they're the same fascination in great britain, if it bleeds it leads? that is what you see on american media. >> i think the size of the audience for the newspapers in britain make them the most zero, barbaric media -- most feral, barbaric media anywhere on earth. one british newspaper picked up on my testimony today. there are many police agencies where there would be outstanding

handling of mentally ill people. which is what this fellow was who beheaded that lady. there is no hope that good news will get reported. we are working with trinidad. they are telling quite a few people -- we are introducing bandages to save their lives. they can have their own evidence that they tried to save the life of someone they just shot. that might be a way of these new technologies being brought together to make it pretty clear that the police are not just trying to kill people. maybe a more concerted campaign to get the word out when it happens. the broad swipe you can accuse me of having taken about how it

be less likely in the u.s. to happen is a the 17,000 police agencies correct. we can drill down in these numbers to see whether the rates of killings of citizens for officer are higher in the smaller police agencies. i think we will have even more evidence to support the idea of having bigger police agencies with more training because dealing with mentally ill people is one of the most complicated -- brain surgery is nothing compared to dealing with a mentally ill person with a knife. because it is so complicated, i want to see a nationally coherent strategy of recruiting training and certifying highly skilled people who can do that work or even if it is only a specialist team.

>> thank you. i have two questions as well. i will start with sheriff mcdonald's. i was interested in your testimony about challenges of this growing population, people in jail. and the need for more dynamic services. we have an increased number of people with mental illness. what role can your deputies play in the adjudication of people who are pretrial? do your people provide insight opinions testimony about their experience with the incarcerated

population? my experience is that is not the norm. i would like your thoughts about whether changing the role of people who have the most intimate knowledge of people who see their progression and lack thereof in response to treatment or education, if we have this population, we get the resources to provide the services, we want to do something with what we learn about that. i would be interested in hearing whether your folks play that role. i will put my second question out there. it picks up with what brady asked about -- britney asked about. i am attracted to this notion of crime prevention. i share this concern that time

-- crime prevention means targeting, engagement with community members that decreases the trust and the legitimacy. when i think about crime prevention, i think about a range of issues, dealing with poverty, dealing with trauma, dealing with services, dealing with a large set of issues that impact behaviors. drug enforcement policies. i would be interested in hearing how you all think we should reconcile the fear that some of us have when we hear crime prevention unregulated. the obvious goal of limiting the number of people we arrest and limiting the number of crimes committed. >> to touch on your first piece relative to the population. the people in their for pretrial -- in there are pretrial.

we work on various intervention methods, trying to provide education, to be able to help someone get a ged, to give them a package moving forward. we have a heavy focus on education and on the mental health piece. to be able to provide whatever it is we can to make -- put them in a better position. about 20% of our population are there because of their illness. when he to be able to lobby for a community-based mental health clinic. we need to work with the courts to focus on mental health so that they can triage people.

be able to focus on treatment in the community that will be better for them in the long run. we focus on best practices. we try to share success stories. i do not know if we do that nationally as well as we could. in -- we have a lot of work to do and we look forward to working with others to be able to show what works and show what does not work. >> are you proactively recording the success you see? to the prosecutor, the judge the defense attorney? do you have a policy around that. >> we do not have a policy per se.

i am still getting up to speed on what we have. we have people who come in from the community who are experts on a variety of different people. pretrial, they could subpoena someone to come in and say, i feel they are in a better position or not. to be able to have a coherent program to be able to address those issues, we have work to do in that regard. >> let me take on your second question. the police are responsible among others, for public safety. you raise a question, what is

the role of the exercise of police powers in the prevention of crime? that is a research question. to what extent does the exercise , does it or does it not result in any behavioral change? there is more research that can be done. waste to exercise the power -- ways to exercise the power in a strategic manner. i do not shy away from acknowledging the police are authorized and expected and deputized by us with our consent

to use those powers in ways will produce safety. what we have not done adequately is to pass -- what are the costs of that exercise of police power. at some point, maybe there are bad things happening. it has to be somehow balanced against a benefit. complicated balance, but we do not even have the data to know the cost of legitimacy. the cost in the willingness of people to cooperate with the police. how does this feed into the movement? we do not have an understanding of some of the costs of the legitimate exercise of police power.

even in the name of a good thing. i was at our institution last night. one of the things that comes out of that report is the imperative of rethinking the criminal sanction in terms of its ability to change behavior. it is not just an automatic reflection. we have to say that retribution is a legitimate social purpose. the director of the office, we are thinking about public safety and trust at the same time. these two things are independent objectives that we hold for the police. we do not understand trust enough.

we know the public safety benefits. we do not know how much the police are contributing to the klines -- to the declines we have seen recently. we can do a lot to get more public safety benefit and get increased. fewer arrests, shorter sentences, fewer people in jail. we can use a lot of resources that roberto was talking about earlier. this is a failure of imagination. it is a failure of expectations. we expect this of our enforcement agencies. all of those public servants can be held to that same expectation

of providing for safety and promoting trust. >> the issue you raised is the central theme of the essay. in that essay, we delineate three important functions of the police. prevention of crime, the perpetrators, and maintaining community trust. we describe them as being independent functions, each important in their own right. there may well have to be trade-offs between you in ways that jeremy was talking about. one thing we avoided doing, one objective does not trump the

other objective. they have to be balanced. we resisted, for example emphasizing too much the argument that if there was greater community trust, the police might be more effective. the reason we want to set that point aside was that we did not want to privilege one objective over the other so that people would have to deal with the trade-offs the police must make in balancing their success each function. >> the question is about how metrics create reverse

incentives. if you do not have a metric about the thing you care about most, i think there is a danger in that. it was designed to be quality-of-life. if there was not a way to look at the ways the trinity cared about policing -- the community cared about policing if there is no metric for that, there is no safeguard about the possibility of it becoming a perverse incentive. >> let's move on to tracy. >> sue asked the question i want to ask, but i did not want to ask it of professor sherman. i want to ask it of you, sheriff. a lot of what you have

recommended is consistent with what we have heard among our sessions. except this idea of the police agencies. my concern was the push back that we might get in recommending something like that among sheriff's agencies. they tend to be small and they are directly responsible to an electorate. i was wondering if you could speak to if you agree with this idea or find it intriguing. what kinds of arguments you think your constituency would respond to? >> i do think it is very

intriguing. i think it bears further examination. looking at the 18,000 police agencies across the america you have that many varieties and sheer numbers of different leaders. i want to look at a much more detailed examination. there are efficiencies we could be game. we see that on a lot of different fronts. the combining of different agencies. if you push back -- that has perpetuated it being the way it is for so long. it is tough to argue with the efficiency argument. or the ability to maintain a standard across the nation.

the push back would be significant from local jurisdictions who want to have that level of independence and to be able to have the run police agency. that they believe will do a better job providing police services than a larger agency might. it is certainly worthy of further conversations, that i do think there will be disparate perspectives on that. >> i would be happy to exempt elected sheriff's from my proposal. several hundred people in the county that of that small of population. when you have a police department, it is generally a city township, or borough.

chuck ramsey will be the last questioner. >> i have a question for professor sherman related to the models. right now, to recommendations you put forth. creating a database. it raises a flag so that other agencies are able to know that. as a screening before hiring that officer. most days, the board -- we have the board that can decertify officers. based on the stakes we have seen , how often do we see officers get decertified?

if not often, what can we do with this recommendation to give us some real teeth so that when officers are not doing our jobs, they are held accountable? >> my primary focus on certification is on chiefs of police. to be executives of police agencies of at least 100 employees. that would go a long way towards this hearing idea. you get good surgery -- with respect to the list of officers dismissed, it does not require that you have certification of the officers in the first place. without having a state having to enact a statewide -- it is a

huge ask in cost. to get something i think of albuquerque, new mexico, which is profiled in the new yorker recently. they had a push to hire lots of officers, they take people who had been fired, and they took people they had rejected. this system is brand-new in the u.k. there was a police officer who was sanctioned for having pushed somebody to the ground inappropriately. he had been dismissed from another police force. that brought the issue up on the radar screen. within the last 24 months, -- it

is interesting that even in britain, the decision to hire a police officer is vocal. the traditional of local control can be maintained even at the same time that you establish a register. any of these agencies can hire people. it would be innovation to have a federal -- that could be consulted by federal agencies and by state and local. if we get that much out of it --

they would have the power to dismiss -- recommend dismissal of a police officer. that would be the kind of thing you could toss out in negotiations to get the bill up to the -- we can try to make some progress on all of these fronts with the hope that we will get some benefit in terms of a higher standard of police attention to this goal of maintaining trust and confidence in the community with every person we hire and every incident we investigate. >> chuck ramsey? >> thank you very much. this has been very formal. this task force has been charged with coming up with

recommendations for the president regarding policing. a lot of it has to do with the recent events that occurred last year. from your testimony as panels that have appeared in prior listening sessions, it is very clear to me that policing is not the only area that needs to be reviewed and looked at. it has been 50 years since a comprehensive look at the entire criminal justice system has done . i do not think asking once every 50 years or so is asking for too much. things have changed so dramatically that it is time. i would like to hear your opinions about that. bringing together practitioners academics, whoever else can have -- add value to the discussion.

probation, courts, reentry poverty. dr. sherman, you have mentioned the courts. is there something better we could be doing? all the major police organizations have all come together making this request. wanda, -- what would you like to see as part of that look? >> you are looking at me so i will go first. a comprehensive look at the

criminal justice system that would include community leaders stakeholders, academics. there needs to be that integrative report. law enforcement and the criminal justice system get package together in the minds of the citizenry. what happens in the legislature becomes the responsibility of the officer. what i would issue as a challenge to that is to say, and this goes back to your point about what is traditional -- we think there are problems in terms of law enforcement's relationship with the community. i worked with issues of discrimination. if you imagine there is discrimination, you have to

imagine it happens in housing context, health care. all of that is upstream of someone -- of where someone have contact with law enforcement. when we talk about accountability and transparency, we never talk about accountability and transparency for state governance. these nontraditional approaches to change or to rectify certain problems within law enforcement. we need to start way further upstream. if you are talking about a look at the criminal justice system, that is fair and appropriate. it needs to be integrated with these upstream issues. part of the issue is what had become traditional policing

they have started the acceptance that we want criminal justice to stay out of the line of sight. i would hope that if there is a call to do this, it would be an opportunity to go in integrative way. communities are able to take empowerment over the rest of it. >> thank you. i'm fully supportive of the national crime commission. i think it is important to all of us. crime is a symptom of dysfunction. police are the only entity you can dell three numbers and get an immediate response and come

out there into an emotionally charged situation with very little information to work with. it has to work really quickly. it is dynamic, it emotional, and it goes back to a couple of root causes. we tend to deal with it and the focus is on the police and we need to be able to have a response -- it starts with early childhood health care and education in all the way through with mentoring and all of the things we value and except -- accept the norm. we need to have a cohesive structure.

we have tried to separate ourselves from others. they dissolve the team and we could not expect to be successful. i think we do need to take a step back and treat what we do as a profession. the analogy of the teaching hospital is critical. we can learn a lot from the health care model looking at the underlying symptoms and providing treatment for the long-term for the individual. >> i think your suggestion is an excellent one. if you look at the evidence on citizen attitudes and confidence , in the criminal justice system in general policing comes off looking great by comparison.

stepping back and taking a larger view as you are suggesting is timely. >> the united kingdom and united states, the confidence in local courts is running about 15% compared to 60's for the police. the 1967 report of a commission appointed by president johnson is something that is shaped in a higher generation. it is striking that the report was far more comprehensive and detailed with respect to the pieces of the criminal justice

system. it was not just the overall report. task force report on probation. so much research behind each one of those task force reports. most of the time when they can make an arrest, they don't. who observes 10,000 individuals? that revolutionized our understanding of the police. it goes to a lack of investment in ongoing policy research that could help to contribute to reforms. i will retract that commission.

i challenge anybody to remember one recommendation because i do not think they did any research. if you do go back to the 1967 report you'll find -- >> really? >> let me at go -- echo some of my fellow panelists observations . i treat us differently, however. you said it is time to take a look at the criminal justice system and i would broaden our scope. we referenced -- the title of

the talk was the tyranny of the funnel. we have intellectual tyranny. we think as the system -- the system as a response for crime. voila --we have justice. it is important to understand the operations of those agencies. the fundamental question, how do we prevent crime? we quickly go to the recognition that we have to think carefully. how do we respond to the harm committed by one of us to another one of us? if you start with the harm, it means somebody has been harmed.

that person may or may not have called the as you know, very influenced by the riding of my wife on this perspective and half of them never report to the police and some are never even put into the assembly line that is the funnel. so how to respond to the harm? so that means something for that trauma experienced for that crime victim is not compensation or restitution the responding to the need to have their life back on track. then the related question how do we respond in ways that recognized to have significant challenges that brought them to that moment? like medical issues to do

exactly a liberty from serious harm to limit that cover as well. but also those two individuals may have something in between them. and they come back and at some point know greater risk of and they come back and at some point know greater risk of re-offending than any one of us. we have we have this question of how to reintegrate into our

society those who have caused those arms have been adjudicated in the been taken away from us for a while? it's not just the system but these big, democratic, societal questions that go to government functions but how we deal with conflict as well. it becomes more complicated when you add this to the equation. we have specialized the system and it has done an enormous harm to our pursuit of justice.

the optimism but i sense not it's not just the system but just from our students but everyone who feels now is the time to do things differently is palpable. >> on that very optimistic note, i think all of us should thank this marvelous panel. and i also want to say i no all of you are extraordinarily busy. they are so appreciative. let me then turned to my co-chair and to all of the panelists or task force members for their final comments. >> a few final thoughts. this is the 7th and last listening session. it has been an interesting experience. we have gotten a lot of feedback from oral testimony,

written testimony, people, people who appeared and asked questions,, and i am confident that will have concrete recommendations for the president on march 2 as he has requested. i am also optimistic that this is just the beginning of a much broader discussion that needs to happen if we really, truly want change. change. as we all know the best opportunity for changes when you have a crisis. we are at that moment in history we can move in one

direction or another, but we know the status quo is not going to get us anywhere. i really welcome the challenge. i think this is an exciting time to be a part of this profession. it is an exciting time to be a researcher. you have that opportunity, but this is time to not only listened to listen to turn this into some type of action. how you make that happen, as that was the lines of communication that the american transplanted but i may have to tweak it a little bit. what we don't need is another commission that does work for two years. there has to be ongoing dialogue. we have to continuously tweak continuously tweak and improve the we're doing but also be sensitive and knowing that what we do has a ripple effect on the rest of the system. that's why we have to be careful. something as simple as not too long ago in philadelphia for a decision was made for some small, minor offenses that by state law we are required to make a physical arrest and now you have to issue citations.

fine, but who we will process and handle the workload? if something as simple as that has a ripple effect, unintended consequences, i think a comprehensive look at everything, the drivers, what happens when somebody enters the final, what happens when they come out and back in? we talk about crime prevention, but what does that mean? how much crime will we accept? these are serious questions, and that is to be consistency. whether that is real or perceived to made is something we have to grapple with and deal with, and it will require all of us to take a hard look at ourselves. initially it may be a little uncomfortable. in the long run it makes for a

stronger and better profession. he we will have helped us a great deal, and i want to thank you for that. we'll start with alexander and work our way down. >> i think you stated it without being redundant. i want to thank you all for being hear and sharing your

experiences as well. i am very optimistic. i think we are embarking upon something that will be very important to this country now because something needs to be done now and as we move toward the future as well. thank you very much. >> thanks to all the panelists who came in today. very informative. good recommendations that we will discuss. this wraps us up, i think. this is this is the last panel will be having. done now and as we move toward the future as well. thank you very much. >> thanks to all the panelists who came in today. now we have a few days to deliberate and make some decisions and get this report to the white house. my hope is that we can do that that the recommendations are strong but they can be seen through and also that we can do

it in a timely way this time is crunched. thank you to all of the panelists and all of the folks working behind the scenes. we have an amazing team of folks who have been assisting us in this process and guiding us along the way eric garner rice, ford, jones, 200 days ago michael brown. these are the names that brought thousands of young and old people from there homes of the last 200 days and beyond.

these are the names they continue to shake me out of my comfort and hold me hope me in the position of urgency, the names that brought me here. and in all of our deliberation and reporting and testifying and wordsmithing and recommending we must remember this is fundamentally about the inherent, i'm negotiable human dignity that all of our systems should preserve and affirm and lives must not be lost for us should preserve and affirm and never threatened, especially for our most disenfranchised and marginalized. to continue to have this conversation. too often the story of oppressed people is one race their deaths require that we turn tragedy into permanent to continue to have this systemic racially equitable

change. we have the power to do good but only if we keep our humanity. i i am appreciative of the chance to take that step and deeply thankful to the people who have made this with possible. >> thank you. we began our hearings in january with the panel and at that panel one of our speakers, witnesses was professor sam walker. in addition to invoking the report we spoke about so much today, he held up the book book, the report of the commission which happened about the same time the report was in response to some of the incidents like the ones that

were counted. it turned it turned out many of the police riots was sparked by some kind of police interaction, interaction, not necessarily a fatal incident but some kind of police action. in addition to being mindful of commission which happened about the same time the report was in the name, i want is to be thankful for particular history that was recounted before, but that is also our jumping off. while much progress has been made, the policing we have today is a function can only have made much too little thankful for particular history that was recounted before, but that is also our jumping off. while much progress has been

made, the policing we have today is a function can only have made much too little progress. it is my hope that we can connect what we're doing on his connect what we're doing on his task force today the history and that we be mindful of those lessons and make a collective decision that it is time to change. and that we be mindful of those lessons and make a collective decision that it is time to change. >> i especially want to thank the panel. i think criminal justice students around the nation,, it would spur conversations for semesters and years to come. one of the things that i think brought us to this task force was but -- was what many of us call the elephant in the room of race professor sherman, i appreciate you bringing the other element -- the only other in the room to our attention. i think that is an issue that we must grapple with. at the end of the day, know matter how and where their

recommendations, we must convince 18,000 leaders to adopt them. i appreciate you escorting that elephant into the room. this has been an incredible discussion. >> i would echo my colleagues. we have engaged in an ongoing dialogue, and i hope this is the start of the dialogue. and for and for the most part, the dialogue has not been about blame but recognition. as professor travis said early the testimony police are the tip of the spear. they bear a burden not of their own making. i am encouraged and look

forward to working together with the rest of the task force to come up with solid recommendations to give the president asked week. i think that really we will be the beginning because we have to recognize our history. they have to be ready to make history, and history, and that is what i look forward to doing. thank you for the opportunity. >> just a quick story. about six months ago i was i was invited to a talk in sweden. i took the flight and was told to make my body adjusts to the time. i was -- i should stay up all day and not go to sleep until my time. i did that and walked around. a much more diverse committee

than i thought. and then i saw something that worried me, a police officer had an encounter with a young mother surrounded by three children who all looked under the age of six. i i cannot understand what was going on, but it seemed like this mother was in crisis about something. i watched what was going to happen and saw something quite amazing. the mother left, went into a store, and the police officer watched the children she went to get something. she then came back out, thanked the officer. and i realized, she had asked him to watch her children while she went into the store. my first reaction was that that would never happen in america. what i am most excited about is

that i am revising that opinion. we have heard from people who have perspective that we can change the identity of policing, the character. maybe that could happen. create communities where mothers with children in crisis feel like a police officer is the 1st person they should talk to. create communities where i am excited about that. i was concerned with absolutely that concern has been alleviated. particularly i want to appreciate this idea of reconciliation because for many of us the injury that has been created cannot be addressed until we talk honestly about how we recover from that

injury. i want to especially thank you for advancing that idea in my colleagues for facilitating a process that has made me much more hopeful about what we can do. >> well, i think that i have experienced the world series, all-star game, and super bowl. my thanks for bringing on his last panel. it could not have ended within a better representation of all of the expertise and knowledge. i think it brings up the., the basis of research and the importance of research in any recommendations we come up with. we have to not give them to the attractive idea of basing their recommendations upon anecdotal paintings of issues.

truth. truth is got to be the basis it has to be an all-encompassing truth supported by research. we need to be aware of the power of perception and how perception can influence the impact of our profession and the ability of us to do our job. o'brien story reminded me of something. i we will give another story to help to reinforce the newfound feelings. on valentine's day back home they're was a burglary in the flour truck that had thousands of bouquets and flower arrangements that were headed out to different obviously recipients. my officers located the truck and found that the air-conditioning was off of the

flowers were in danger of dying. we brought police cars and filled with cars with the flowers, took them back to the florist. that is one day before we could have measured her crime provision efforts by all of the bouquets the government that they. that is the type of people i see. it is good to get caught up in the high-profile mistakes that we do make. we also we also have to reason most police officers went into this profession, to help others. we must reclaim that idea and help make sure they remember those thoughts and recognize that and do not get affected by the cynicism. my thanks to the staff for putting this panel together and allowing me to serve.

>> a few final thoughts. as a washington native and a student of history, i think about the cynicism potentially about a task force set out to solve the problem. i i reflect back to the commission which i think has made a very substantial impact on our field. i teach about the crime commission findings to my students at george mason. they are interested. as some of you may know my husband served as a young a young staff attorney writing

about the police chapter, helping contribute to that end i think it has had some fundamental influence on our field. moving far ahead to today, one of the fundamental questions would be whatever we write out what happens to implementation? i think several of you have mentioned that and of course it is the big question. moving ahead the testimony has been helpful, as has that of other witnesses and hail -- and thinking ahead of what we do in our recommendations and what others do in helping us to grab those questions. the issue about the 18,000 departments of their really goes to the fundamental heart this. the issue about the 18,000 >> once again especially true among let me thank the panelists for coming, for those that are watching and

especially for the contribution of the members. interestingly, we talk about a 90 day task force, but if you look at the process we are following, they're are multiple seasons. for example, as we close this out, i am struck by a couple of things. seasons. i'm sitting hear after 20 years in law enforcement, my own thoughts about things, just the process of public hearings listening to 15 witnesses 50 witnesses and the quality of expertise and practitioners and community leaders that have destroyed so many stereotypes views have changed on the panel, in panel, in this nation just by watching and listening. we have shown how we can have diverse perspectives ranging

from community leaders to long-term police chiefs and how we can come together, build consensus and agree to disagree without being violently disagreeable. now we will go to deliberations and provide a product to the press that everyone has worked hard to do and we will be proud of. regardless of where we ultimately end up in this nation still have an obligation right hear, right now not only come up with this product but deliberate, so improve it, implemented so i have good news and bad news. we're getting we're getting close to presenting a report. the bad news, we still have 18,000 departments. but it has been one of my greatest professional privileges to work with this team and see these professionals migrate americans

come together in such a manner it is something i we will look back on and be proud of. there is a lot of work ahead i

>> call the hearing to order this morning. we are here this morning with secretary jewell and mr. connor, thank you both for being here. we are here to review the president's budget request for the department of the interior for fiscal year 2016. im going to spend a little bit of my time here this morning in opening comments to talk about the many ways in which this administration and the actions are having impact, negative impact in hurting my state. secretary jewell, you and i have had many opportunities to visit one-on-one as well as your trip to alaska, which i appreciate you making last week. and i don't want to make this personal, but the decisions from interior have lacked balance and instead of recognizing th