♪ >> good evening and welcome to kqed newsroom i'm thuy vu. on our program new 2016 laws. the whys and hows of charitable giving, and drone racing. but first, a high school water polo player in lafayette is facing felony charges for a blow that broke an opponent's nose during a game. the case has coaches, athletes and parents talking about the legal ramifications for school sports. joining me to discuss this jill tucker, san francisco chronicle education reporter. hi, jill. >> hi. >> well, this happened in september. during the junior varsity match between lafayette high school and san jose's college prep. what led up to the incident and what was the extent of the injuries? >> well, we're not exactly sure

what came before the incident. the two teams were playing in a water polo match and one of the player had the ball, according to people who have seen a video of the game, and he threw the ball away to another player, and apparently the camera stayed on the two players, the defender from bellerman and the accalanes player and the player's head went under the water and he either was kneed in the nose or kicked in the nose but came up from the water with a broken nose. and you know, according to the people familiar with the case, it was very deliberate action, away from the play of the game, and the young man apparently had a broken nose, required surgery, had you know, some significant medical issues. >> and so therefore contra costa prosecutor filed assault and battery charges. it's my understanding that video

was circulating for awhile but it seems like it has been taken off and you can't really find it online anymore. >> yeah, that's correct. >> okay. doesn't unsportsman-like conduct happen every day though in school sports, professional sports? how does this rise to the level of a criminal case? >> you know, that's absolutely true. anybody who has a kid who's ever played little league, or football or watched professional sports, you see this type of behavior that is you know not part of the play. that is, you know, whether it's a baseball player charging the mound after being hit by a pitch, or perhaps an elbow thrown in a warrior's basketball game we do see that unsportsmanlike conduct and rarely, rarely do we ever see it go to the court. i think what's happening now when we talk to legal experts what they're saying is, everything's on film now. i mean, every parent has a phone, and they're taking video of games, so we have, you know,

something to see exactly what happened. and in this particular case, we had parents willing to pursue it. >> so then what should the standards be? do we need to rethink the culture of sports at school? in professional sports? but particularly at school? because this kind of incident, if it had happened in the school yard or on a street would have been clearly a case of criminal intent, you could pursue it in a court of law, but there are those now who say that, you know, this was a case during a sporting match, it should not -- it should stay within that realm, and not have to go through the criminal justice system. >> this has launched a huge debate because i think there is definitely a culture. when that clock is ticking, and when the players are on the field of play, we have a standard of behavior that's acceptable in professional sports and in youth sports that says it's okay to throw that punch or it's okay to throw that knee, or to trip somebody or step on their head. it's part of the sport.

water polo is very physical game. i think a lot of it we don't see because it happens under water. but in talking to a lot of parents, there's a lot of broken noses, there's a lot of scratches. and i think this really raises the question of whether society wants to changeng that, and are the courts the best place to push that issue. legal scholars are on both sides of that debate. some people say this is a way to change that culture. we don't want our kids kneeing each other in the nose, or elbowing each other in theface. we don't want that. we want them to play sports. but do we want to teach them that hitting each other is okay if the clock is running? >> and it certainly is a tough issue because when they look at professional sports, when professional players do this kind of thing they get fined and penalized but they're not hauled into a criminal court. >> very rarely. >> much to discuss there. jill tucker, thanks for joining us. >> thanks. should san francisco police officers carry tasers? the question is once again on

the table following the deadly shooting of san francisco resident mario woods earlier this month. previous proposals to arm the department with these stun guns was met with vigorous opposition. here now with more on this and other political storiesis scott shafer, senior editor of kqed's politics and government desk. they've been asking for tasters for years. they'll be happy if they finally get them this time around. but there's been stiff opposition in the past. who is opposed now? >> well, now you're hearing from homeless advocates, the coalition onhomelessness, they're afraid these kinds of tasers are going to be misused and street people, people with mental illness, are going to be particularly victimized. the aclu has some concerns. they think that these stun guns are not, you know, a silver bullet so to speak. that you need to change the culture of the sfpd. they don't want to say let's just get these stun guns and everything will be fine. they feel like that could be papering over a bigger problem in terms of use of force and those policies around that. >> the police chief has said that if they had had tasers as

an option in the mario woods case, mr. woods would still be alive today. is there doubt about that? >> sure there's always doubt because things, you know, who knows what might have happened. god forbid you remember in 2009 oscar grant was killed by a police officer who thought he was using his taser. bat might have been a question of training. certainly the police want and many people feel they should now have less deadly options. and tasers certainly fit the bill. >> another big issue in san francisco, the jail. the current jail at san francisco city hall is seismically unsafe. and there is just about everybody agrees it needs to be replaced. this week the board of supervisors refused to allocate $250 million to build a new one, even though the state is offering $80 million to help subsidize it. why do they do that? >> somebody said, i think it was the d.a., this could be the most expensive gift ever. you get $80 million from the state but you have to spend $100 million to build the thing. san francisco is a city that's not too intent on putting people in jail. they want diversion.

they want substance abuse. they want mental health counseling and they thought that the jail as drawn up wouldn't have enough of that so they wanted the city to go back to the drawing board. and they had the d.a., the district attorney, on their side. and that kwaf a lot of cover to opponents of the jail and so the board said, we don't want it. >> it was certainly a blow to mayor lee. >> yep. >> who supported it. the new year around the corner. we have a host of new laws coming in to play and taking effect, including one that's going to change the way law enforcement officers do their job. tell us about that one. >> this one going to require that law enforcement officers keep data. keep track of race and ethnicity of people that they stop, not just when they're driving but even pedestrians and the idea is aimed at racial profiling. we've heard a lot about that the last few years and it's really come into focus with all the video camera tapings of traffic stops that went bad. and so it's going to require that these law enforcement up and down the state to keep data so that we'll know exactly what's happening and some feel

it could be a deterrent if they know they're go g to have to report all of these stops that they make. >> also, another law called the fair pay act. the first of its kind in the nation. what will that do? >> well, you know, california law used to require equal pay for equal work. but this new amended to say, essentially similar work. and the reason for that is that employers were kind of getting around the old regulations and they were saying well this isn't 100% the same. it's not equal work. so this kind of fine tunes it, closes that loophole and it's going to give employees, women in particular, more ammunition to go and get equal pay when they're in jobs and not just focused on their own workplace but they can look across at other workplaces as well. this new law will allow for that. >> it applies even if your job titles are different. >> exactly. >> final i the governor signed a trio of bills all related to medical marijuana. why has it taken so long to do this given that california voters approved medical marijuana 20 years are ago. >> 20 years ago. >> that's right. >> you know, it's been kind of a

standoff between law enforcement and the billion dollar industry. the governor got in the middle and decided they helped negotiate the differences, and so now they finally have this. i think part of it, a big part of this, is that they see that there's going to be a ballot measure next year perhaps to legalize marijuana in california. and so they see these regulations that are going to be created, as sort of laying the groundwork for that. >> sure. in fact i think there are about five ballot measures in circulation. and it will be interesting to see what lands on the ballot. >> they're going to have to get rolled into one. >> all right. scott shafer, thank you. >> you bet. the holiday season is a time for giving. and for many people, that includes charitable causes. according to giving usa, americans gave more than $358 billion to charities last year. individuals accounted for most of it. more than 70%. trailing behind were foundations, bequests and corporations. joining us now to discuss who gives, and how those decisions

are made are tony rodriguez, of guide star, a nonprofit database. pearla nee a charity website and lucy. welcome to you all. >> thank you. >> tony, what should people look for when they decide who to give to? >> i think end of the year is a perfect time to do a little ivtrospective, kind of look back to see the organizations that you've supported in the past. it's also a perfect time to become more pro-active and intentional for the coming year, and so what we like to talk about is make sure that you clarify your values. what is important to you. you might even develop a personal mission statement. and if you're looking for ideas, go on to linkedin or go on to private foundation websites to get an idea. secondly, once you've come up with a handful of nonprofits that you're interested in supporting, focus on their mission. learn about the organization, what their theory of change is, what their outcomes are going to be. how they intend to change and make the world a better place. >> definitely do a little bit of

homework. pearla how is your organization's approach to giving different? >> we think that donors care that their organizations are making a difference on the ground with the people that they want to help. so our organization, for instance, we just released our 2015 list of top rated nonprofits in san francisco. and these are the people's choice awards. these are organizations that the nominated by people who volunteer for these nonprofits, who've been served by these nonprofits or who have donated to these organizations. >> so it like a yelp for charity? >> yes, a yelp or tripadvisor. when you travel to paris you're going to look up a hotel on tripadvisor because other people have tied there similarly for a nonprofit. you want to see what other donors and other clients have said about that organization service. >> so it's very much like how people do typically give. they listen to their friends but in this case they go online to see what their friends or other people who have donated are thinking about that charity. lucy, according to giving usa, most people give to religious organizations. >> mm-hmm. >> in fact, 32%.

education gets 15%. foundations, and human services get about 12% each. do people put a lot of research into deciding where their money goes? i mean that's certainly what tony has advised, but do people actually do it >> you know, most people give with both their head and their heart. especially given what tony said, if you've been giving to certain organizations for a long period of time, unless there's something that either the problem they work on has been solved, or there's something gone wrong a lot of people are going to continue to give to those organizations. most -- the research done about the research that people do shows that only about 10% of toners actually do real research on the organization. >> just 10%? >> yeah, it's a very low number. now there's a couple of reasons for that. there hasn't been until the last decade or so, there haven't been a lot of really good resources that a donor could check. so they were pretty much dependent on their own legwork. >> you know, jump in here. i say that's true but we're seeing some positive trends around research.

we are seeing i guess the money for good report, which is one of the reports that studied donor behavior is showing over the last three reports that it is doubling, went from 3% to 6% to now to 10% around. people are looking for information. and so, i just wanted to put that in there. >> sure. >> i think it is changing quickly. >> there's another thing that's just been launched this week, an economics professor out of yale has launched a whole new process called the impact audit so that the challenge has been there's different kinds of data you can find. there's the kind of information you can get when you actually go visit as pearla suggests. there's the kind comparable financial information you can get. and there's a lot of websites that provide that information. what most people really care about is the organization accomplishing something. and we're just really beginning to get to the place where we have comparable impact information. that allows someone to make a judgment about whether an organization is effective. >> sometimes the research can be very hard to do, right? even high profile seekers can get caught in something they didn't mean to. probably one of the most high profile stories was the three

cups of tea author. and he had claimed to be building all these schools in afghanistan. it turned out to be a sham. but, in fact, even president obama gave $100,000 to his charity. so how difficult is it to pin down how much an organization spends on overhead? how much of an effect they have on the ground, pearla? >> so those are rare exceptions. most nonprofits are not fraudulent and not siphoning away the majority of their money. if you look at silicon valley nonprofits a typical budget is $250,000 a year. and if you visit these organizations you can see, they're not spending a lot on their rent, or on their computers. so when donor ads ask me how can i trust this organization, i tell them go and visit. talk to the executive director. you can go and see for yourself that most of these organizations are really headed by dedicated and passionate staff who are really trying hard to make a difference. >> and tony, how important suld overhead cost be in

determining whether to give? >> you know, all financial information is a valid data point. overhead in particular is challenging. because it's become a singular focus of individuals and donors. it's kind of gotten away from itself. so overhead for those of us that don't know, is essentially just the administrative and fund-raising costs that an organization has to spend. and so to focus on that as a percentage of total expenses or revenue it just doesn't make any sense. you know, when we're talking about nonprofits, the first thing you should be talking about is their effectiveness. what are they doing? what outcomes are they producing? how are they changing the world? then you can consider what are the true costs to achieve those outcomes. so that's where we have to start. >> the whole overhead importance thing is that just an overhead myth? >> yes, so thank you. we've actually got star, charity navigator and the better business bureau has come together to kind of write a letter to the donors of america and a letter to the nonprofits of america and in there we

explain that we should shift the focus to outcomes and change, versus one financial ratio. and so that's really, you know, you hear it commonly, you know, what do they spend on overhead. it's a great opportunity to have a better conversation with that person around, you know, there's so many other things that we should focus on. >> what are some of the best ways that you can measure outcomes, though? what are the metrics that we should be using, lucy? >> there's a number it really depends on what kind of work the organization is going. you're going to have different outcomes if you're an educational organization or if you're an advocacy organization. if you're doing work on housing. and within each of those areas actually there tend to be some very good measures and standards that housing organizations will hold themselves to. or that educational programs will hold themselves to. but what a donor definitely wants to look for in this day and age is easy access to the information from the organization about what it's doing, what it's accomplished, its own self-reported information, it's going to have some validity. there are a few organizations

out there that can look at nonprofits across the country, or across a sector, but there's a million and a half nonprofits out there, given the general low donor demand for this information that's not yet a big market. so there's still going to be some legwork needed. >> if the information isn't easily accessible that's probably a red flag. >> that's a red flag right there. >> lucy want to ask you about the zuckerberg gift, as well. as you know, facebook ceo mark zuckerberg and his wife priscilla chan recently announced they will commit 99% of their facebook shares to social causeci those shares are currently valued at about $45 billion. huge amount, $45 billion. but they didn't set up a traditional private foundation. what did they do instead? >> they set up something called an llc, a limited liability corporation company. llcs are all over the place. we see them not just in this asia of social doing social good but people use them for all sorts of purposes. the first thing to realize is that there was no gift involved.

i mean that quite literally. all the family did was move their resources from one pocket to another. now that in and of itself is neither here nor there. they also made a very important public promise to donate their resources to making change in the world. >> well, they didn't get any huge tax benefits as a result of doing that. so why do you think they did it? >> they did it because the chan zuckerberg family and my family, tony's family, pearla's family, we all have a number of different ways we can use our money to make a difference in the world. we can do it by charitable giving. we did do it through the way we invest, by getting involved in political giving and we increasingly and probably throughout our lives do it by how we shop. whether we buy certain things or don't buy certain things. and what this gift, this act did, the chan zuckerberg initiative did was draw attention because it's so large to the fact that if you really want to make change in the world you want to use all those resources, all those tools that are available. >> but are there concerns here about let's say down the line they could give to a political

cause through their llc, and that is not a philanthropic -- >> no it absolutely isn't. and many of their investments won't be, either. so, the thing is that we have in the u.s. traditionally had two very different values about polit politics, and charity. and when it comes to politics we've said, you can support the political work you believe in, but we want to know who's behind it. whose name is on that money? in charity on the other hand, we've actually celebrated anonymous giving. so what's happened is we've got these two values that are in conflict but we've intermingled the way we fund them. so it is absolutely possible now, for anyone to send money through a not for profit organization, literally their name gets laundered off of it, they become anonymous and the money goes into politics or the work is very political. and it's a real systemic structural problem that we've created that the chan zuckerberg initiative draws attention to. but they didn't create it. >> so that's a fuzzy area.

>> i would add also that you do have the resources the way to make change is to be able to be able to move kind of progress not only philanthropically or charitably, ought also policy, also in a private sector so it's a really smart way, gives them a lot of opportunities to kind of really invest, and donate in many different ways to really accelerate change. >> okay. >> and so we're very enthusiastic. it's a modern way of kind of framing or setting up your giving. >> and pearla just real quickly, how do bay area residents back up? are they good at giving or more work needs to be done? >> more work needs to be done. according to the latest figures we have the bay area is out of 50 cities in the country we're respectively 45th and 48th. san francisco and san jose. so we're not as generous as we think we are. >> that's amazing. despite the enormous wealth in many pockets of the bay area. thank you all for being here today. lucy bernholtz with stanford, tony rodriguez with guide star

and pearla, great nonprofits. pleasure to have you all. this week the faa announced that nearly all rekrcreational uses of drones must measure their flying machines through a website that go live monday. while many drones are purchased off the shelves, one group of enthusiasts are building their own for fun and competition. we take a high flying look at their world. >> you guys ready? okay. okay, okay. my name is ken lew. i'm a product design engineer at a large company in silicon valley. when i'm not working as a product engineer i'm a drone pilot. every drone pilot you see is usually wearing a pair of goggles. the goggles have a wireless video receiver. this allows us to see the image

from the pilot camera as if we were sitting right there. what i really love about flying drones is the feeling of flying. of real flight. and i feel like i'm in the cockpit of an aircraft. i can dance around trees. go around obstacles. fly 100 feet in the air and then dive down. it's a feeling of weightlessness, freedom, and the ability to do whatever i want in the air. my call sign happens to be flying bear. and it comes from the fact that i'm a uc-berkeley grad, i'm a cal bear and i've always said i'd want to be superman. i want to be able to fly. so, i'm flying bear. the drones that we use for racing are very different than the things that can be bought at best buy, or amazon. we make all these from scratch. we select all the right components for high performance racing. i've been able to fly one of these racing drones up to 80 miles an hour. cost for a ring drone is between $400 to $500. the video system, the motors,

the flight controller and the frame. me is about three to four hours. i built it on this frame -- >> every day for my lunch hour i try to go to the park and practice with my friends. >> go! >> one more, one more guys! >> racing with pilots that are highly skilled is important. i learn how to push myself and also learn how to push without pushing too far. >> right athe edge now. >> thanks, man. >> there's so many challenges with drone racing. there are a lot of obstacles on the track. there are really tight turns leading into narrow gates and simultaneously there's a mental factor of trying to race as fast as possible to catch the person in front. a lot of races are single elimination. so if somebody doesn't beat the first pilot, they're done. >> oh, no! >> all right, guys, thanks for coming out for a great day of

practice. see you all tomorrow at sunrise for race day. >> i got one hand. broken motor. >> on november 21st, of 2015, we have the aerial sports league's fall classic race. we have drone racing combat, and freestyle all in the same day at competition there is a lot of adrenaline coursing through my body. i've been at competitions where my thumbs are shaking so hard i can't fly. >> bear in the here. >> whoa. >> whoa! >> i didn't even get to finish because i got hit in the air. >> i hope this still works. i'll try to stay optimistic, and then cross my fingers that i do well.

>> ken lew. >> my wife pam, she gets it. she helps me take photos at the events. she supports me. and makes me better at what i do. >> so this was our fourth qualifying round. and things wept right for me for a change. pam was spotting me, telling me where i was relative to the other pilots which is really important. the 20 points i earn here will hopefully bump me up into the top places and move on to the next round. >> have to go around the track three times. >> each racer is judged by somebody watching the same light feed from the pilot camera. the judge is making sure that each pilot is going through every obstacle and around every flag. >> spinning out of control. >> they don't finish the obstacle, and then they complete their lap, they're disqualified. >> the excitement is palpable. >> finished! >> oh. >> i think we have a winner. >> whoo!

>> that puts us in the finals. five years from now i think drone racing is going to be a very serious sport. with endorsements, professional pilots, with annual contracts. don't tell my boss but if i was offered the right contract, i would quit my day job as a design engineer to fly. >> oh, man who is that in the lead? all right. the amazing ken lew. >> oh! >> oh, no! oh, no. that had to hurt. >> oh. >> i couldn't see it. the sun! when i came around that corner i was going really fast and the sun flare, all i saw was the sun. snuck straight into the gate. so now i'm done. i got last in that heat so i'm not going to move on to the championship race. >> liftoff. >> even though i crashed, that's racing. there's so many factors that go into it. anything can happen that puts even the best pilots into the ground. but i'm feeling good. the event today was a huge

success. i had a ton of fun. >> the world leaders of drone entertainment. >> not my day. >> on to the next one. >> it's always the next race. a special program note, we will be off the air for the next two weeks. we hope you have a wonderful holiday season. and see you here again, in 2016. i'm thuy vu. thanks so much for watching. for all of kqed's news coverage please go to kqednews.org. support for science program something provid support for science program

captioning by vitac, underwritten by fireman's fund announcer: the following kqed production was produced in hi-definition. ♪ >> yes, "check, please!" people. >> it's all about licking your plate. >> the food is just fabulous. >> i should be in psychoanalysis for the amount of money i spend in restaurants. >> i had a horrible experience. >> i don't even think we were at the same restaurant. >> and everybody, i'm sure, saved room for those desserts.