that could help me in operating the jails. as sheriff, one of my main responsibilities is managing the county jails. now i'm not necessarily the person that puts people in jail, but when people get there, through arrests and stay in my jails, it's something that i'm concerned about and i want it ensure that we're doing what we can to help with the racial equity issue. what do we do? why do we collect data? to better understand who is in custody or sentenced in one of our out-of-custody, alternative programs. 85% of the people are pretrial. 15% or less, sentenced to county jail. most of the people are out on pretrial alternatives.

we collect name, age, address, booking number, case number, sf number. we have our own jail management system that somewhat interacts with court management system and somewhat interacts with the other systems in criminal justice and i will echo what christine deberry said. one of the things that i hope will come out of this is that we will gather, identify first, and gather excellent data, so we can make good decisions, and we're not there. and i think that was said by a number of the other people before me. we're not there. i'm hopeful that the justice system will be able to come up and get together and there will be more investment in it, so we

can get the data we need. and one of the things that i'm doing in my budget is my jail management system that collects all this data and more, but also interfaces with other systems, but not as much as we would like. we don't get regular reports that we would like. it's very, very complicated to get a report out of the system. i'm asking in my budget for a new system, which will be a lot more flexible and we'll be able to do a lot that we can't do now. so what -- for what purpose does the sheriff's department use the data? well, on the big -- in the big picture, we share the data to better understand and evaluate who is in our custody or in our programs. last year -- actually, it was in 2016, we were very involved in the reenvisioning the jail with many community members at that and working on that and we were very frustrated at that time by

the inability to capture data that we needed for that. we do this and we work with our criminal justice partners as much as possible, so for the reports that the d.a. talked about and james bell talked about, much of that came from our jail management system. how does the sheriff's department use the data to advance equity? in one way, we use it to identify the different -- the racial disparities at the difference decision making point in our jail. one of the things we're doing is doing research to gather data to inform future policy decisions about what we learn through our research project that involves who gets out on alternative sentencing and who does not. as well as working with the pretrial diversion project, identify wooing gets out on pretrial and who doesn't and why

not. and so those are things going on right now. the new pretrial system, risk assessment tool, has been going on since may, 2016. and it's shown a lot of improvement, but we still don't know how much. and over sustained time, so we'll look at that as well. so on the next page, i gave you the data collected. we're one of the few agencies, where we do collect race and ethnicity and in a robust fashion. we have it so many of the departments depend upon us and come to us to pull our data, for example, the police department asked us to provide data to them for a report they were doing and asked us to provide that because we had that about people who had been arrested. and so, as you can see, there's robust race and ethnicity data. so that's pretty much what i came here to tell you tonight,

but if you have questions, i'm happy to answer them. >> thank you, sheriff hennessy. it's -- although you didn't present something to us before, what you brought today is very helpful, i think, for us as well as for the people that are here with us at the hearing about these key questions that were presented to you. and this -- this hearing, this particular hearing, is partially in response to a request that former mayor lee gave to us before he passed away untimely and left us. as a commission, as an agency, we've been looking at the question of disparity on many levels, including and specifically racial levels and he asked us to begin this review

of racial disparities in that sense and we do have from the mayor's office a representative. so thank you for that and thank you for putting that together. >> okay. >> any questions or comments right now for the sheriff? look forward to having you back to go more deeply into -- >> thank you very much for the work you're doing. >> thank you for being here tonight. next we can go to the san francisco unified school district. thank you so much. and the superintendent is also with us tonight. >> good evening, commissioners, and good evening, members of the audience. thanks for giving us this opportunity to present our data practices and our data use. so i will begin with the first

slide. i want to give you the scope of the data that we collect within san francisco. it begins at the time of enrollment, where we collect all the demographics. as you can see, it increases to the point where we actually look at college and career, not just graduation, but also through college. so we track longitudinally throughout those years. when they're in san francisco, we measure the whole child. so we look at both academic, behavioral, social, emotional and culture climate data for our schools and students. we want to use data as a flashlight and not a hammer.

so we try to make sure that data is used for continuous improvement as, as i said, for a flashlight and not a hammer, but keeping in mind the equity imperative. we use data for evidence-based decision-making and definitely for accountability. so when i'm talking about accountability systems, you know that all accountability systems are designed to measure the district. and similarly we do measure the district. the number one goal is equity. therefore, data has to measure equity. and the second goal is academic achievement, so you can see evidence-based decision making, whether it's right from the classroom level to the district level. it looks at evidence and data and lastly, accountability goal

in san francisco. at this point, i will show you -- let's go a little deeper into the equity imperative. how do we look at equity? the first way we do so is by holding high expectations or equivalent outcomes for every school within the city. so even though you see variable performance of schools within the city, they all are held to the same standards. so when data is looked at, it's all at the same standards that we look at those schools and we look at the disparities that exist. so high expectations are there for all. we also realize that inequity starts at the input level. san francisco unified is a district of school choice, where parents get to choose their schools.

and as a result, right there at the onset of the input variables, you can see differences in student demographics. the segregation, concentration, poverty concentration and race concentration in certain schools versus others. more english language learners, more special ed population. so programs in some schools versus others. other than that, the other input variable that goes into the school is the teacher factor. so even teacher stability and experience is variable across schools. so equity has to begin right in the beginning. so we begin by actually looking at these input factors and giving more support to the schools that have the higher challenges.

now i will move on to evidence-based decision making. in order to really make good decisions, you have it look at data across time. you can't look at it at just one point in time. so in san francisco, we do look at data across time. across multiple measures, as i was telling you about the academic, the behavioral, and the culture climate measures, and across various groups. you can never look at any data point as one number. today if i stood here and told you my graduation rate for san francisco unified is 87%, that really says nothing, but the real data lies when i break it down by sub groups. lastly, more than just presenting the data, the use of the data, is in the dialogue that goes behind the data. so as an example, we have shown

you some conversations that we have with school communities, with principals, school leadership teams around the data. when you ask them, can you determine your school priorities? what are your outcomes, your targets, but for which groups? ask which group questions. going deeper into the dialogue and asking about the practices, linking the practices to the outcomes is, again, the richness of the data, the sense-making of the data, comes through the dialogue from the data. yours is a glance or a glimpse at some reports that are available to the public. we do present right from board meetings and parent forums to definitely most of our data for our school community. so we have the multiple measures

displayed through time. but what i want it assure you is the aggregation of the data. we also look at it by homelessness, public housing, as well as foster youth. we also disaggregate both as an intersection of race and poverty as an indicator. lastly, we want to talk about theory of action. we believe that as we continue to build a professional capacity, to make decisions with data, to be empowered with data, we will see our student outcomes improve and outcomes at a higher level because there will be that deeper information to make

decisions and take actions. so that's our theory of action. lastly, we do partner with others. we share our data. we love to listen and learn as we did in this forum from our partners and from other school district or other city partners. we've given you examples of when and how we partner with the community, as i mentioned, through the forums that we just held in november, with the cities and the measures built into the children and our families document. we also have research practice partnerships where we have a longstanding partnership with stanford. we have currently 28 research projects that are in collaboration with stanford that

have not -- for them, they get the field-based insights and when get the research to apply. okay? last but not least, with the state board and with other california districts, so we also have partnership with all the big, major california districts. and we share our data with them. thank you. >> thank you for being present. any questions right now, commissioners? any comments right now? thank you so much for being with us tonight. >> quick question. i know there's been an increase in anti-bullying efforts. is there any way that our school district is tracking the bullying going on for a variety of reasons in the school system? >> yes. we have a youth risk behavior survey, which has specific questions around bullying and

it's administered and we do report the results. even in our culture climate, surveys that are given to teachers, staff and students, we do track that. >> and it's internally? >> yes, correct. >> thank you. >> commissioner ellington? >> just because the superintendent is here, i would like to ask a quick question. some of these facts we know and we've seen over the past 20 or so years. can you talk a little bit about how this new data or facts presented today inform some of the things you are looking to implement? >> good evening. thank you for having us here tonight. one of the things that i -- i think it's important for a superintendent to do is spend the first three, four months listening and learning, gathering data, present a report to the board on our findings,

strengths of the district and initial impressions, and areas of growth. as you said, we know over time -- that's something we've presented when we look at the data over time. especially the data around african-american youth, the disparities we've seen, we've seen over time. what we're putting in place now is a program called pitch. it really looks at targeting our resources toward african-american youth, resources, professional development, raising the capacity of the adults that are in contact with african-american youth and that's one of the things that we're putting in place now. we're looking at 20 schools, targeting the 20 schools. we have schools that are historically have underserved and then we have high gap schools. so there are schools that if you look at the central number, you would say 75% of the students

are profish -- proficient. but then you look at the data, it's 90% of white and asian are proficient and 20% african-american students. so we're targeting in a laser-like way around the students that we know need us most. one of our core values in the district is equity and social justice. that means that the students that need more receive more. >> i know earlier you mentioned social, emotional and cultural climate. can -- it's an open question, but when i walk into schools, particularly in bayview, there is a visible difference in general appearance and i would assume there's some correlation between that and academic outcomes with that. what are some of the instruments

that you use to measure that? >> the four social-emotional indicators that we look at, mind-set, self-advocacy, social advantages. and, yes, we do see differences across the social-emotional indicators across schools and sometimes even within a school across lace and even across english-language learners, we see a different. in culture climate, we look at a sense of belonging. that sense of belonging indicator is when i see most differences. >> and once again, what we're doing is looking at the schools that -- one of the data points that you will see in your

presentation is that tier 1, 2, 3 schools, and we're targeting more resources to tier 3, and whether it's around socio-emotional efforts or working with the school communities to do just that. it's more resources going to the schools that need more. >> thank you, both. for the record, i want to make sure that everyone knows that dr. matthews is our superintendent. and thank you so much for being here tonight. and ms. khan chief of research and planning. we look forward to working with you more in the future on all of the issues of equity. thank you. next, i would like to invite to the podium, deputy chief connolly from the san francisco police department.

>> good evening, madam chair, director dave is, members of the public. i'm deputy chief for the professional standards and policing bureau, san francisco police department. going to give a brief overview of data collection current and what's on the horizon. it's important to address the questions put forth to the police department. the san francisco police department is collecting demographic data in compliance with 96a city code, became effective in january, 2016. the data is presented in quarterly results and we have se several reports that have been generated. they're available on the website. this reporting mechanism was developed in response to a national dialogue about policing

and community encounters. it's mandated for only san francisco police department and does not include other law enforcement agencies that have policing responsibilities in the city and county. when you look at comparative data, there is none. you have a snapchat of san francisco police department. sheriff department has a different mechanism. the first question -- why do you collect this data? what is the intended outcome? when we look at this data, it's to identify the gender and ethnicity of those that we come in contact with. and what is the purpose? why are we having contact? number two, what do you use the data for or how do you use the data? it's primarily compiled to generate a report in compliance with city code 96a. the 96a legislation was initiated to mandate this

reporting by supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen was a pioneer to look at this collection. this does not exist -- had not existed in san francisco and sporadically across the country in mandating the collection of specific data. kudos to supervisor cohen for creating that mechanism and that legislation. last question is, how do you use the data to advance equity? that's a difficult question. when you are looking at data, how do you use that data and what does that data mean? how do you create mechanisms and training programs to advance equity across all demographics? primarily, it's to demonstrate our transparency. what are we doing and how do we do it? secondly, for accountability.

who are we contacting and what does it mean? to be quite truthful, we can collect the data, but it's disengenuous to look at that and tell you what it means from an academic standpoint. police department has been in negotiations to bring on an academic entity to determine what this data is and we're very close to that. lastly, we use the data and, again, this conversation, there's a great amount of history, but in recent history it's only come up in the last four years, when we're talking about what are place contacts. what does our contact picture look like? as we look at the data mechanisms, we've needed to train our people on what implicit bias and procedural justice means in today's world. and that data is helping us to look at who are the people impacted by our work and how do we train our people to

understand what implicit bias is and how we move forward in creating an equitable environment in procedural justice. on the horizon -- i mentioned that 96a reporting has been around for the last couple of years. san francisco and los angeles created mechanisms in our reporting. we created a mobile app on smart phones ton collect t -- to collect the data. when the state decided they wanted to do the data collection, they met with us and los angeles. and they looked at, okay, what is the method by which you are collecting this data? they liked it. they liked it a lot. they said, you are so good, you even beat l.a. then we didn't hear from them. and then they sent out surveys to all over the state and said, how do you collect data to all

of these departments and what do you collect? and then we didn't hear from them again. the ripa board was formed. racial and identity act of 2015. they started to put that together creating a ripa board and identifying personnel and kamala harris appointed a number of people and it's a collaborative effort to try to put the racial and identity programming together. one of the mandates of the legislation -- what are the mandates of the legislation on the horizon? it's to collect information on all stops made by officers and import the information to the department of justice.

the bill requires that each state and local agency, police officers to report to the attorney general data on all stops as defined and conducted by the police officers and include that information including time, date, location and reason for the stop. the bill further requires the employees 1,000 or more police officers to issue its first report by april, 2019. why does that bring me to this point? in april, 2018, the state department of justice will roll out training on how to collect this data and submit it to the state for the top eight agencies. we're talking about top agencies that we call wave one, los angeles police department, los angeles county sheriffs, california highway patrol, san francisco police officer -- we're number five in the state. riverside sheriff's office, san

bernardino, and san diego police department. we just met with the state. in the ensuing time from the time we first met with them and to show them our models, we met and they showed us the data template that they will roll out. we knew there would be a lot of data collected. in san francisco under 96a, we would collect 18 different attributes or information field. the state took ours, took los angeles's, married them together, and there will be 41 fields of data points collected. within the data points, there's

subsequent opening up blocks of information about multiple identities in terms of nationalities and gender. if there's a perception that somebody wants to identify with multiple ethnicities or genders, that's captured in that way. so there are some challenges ahead of us in terms of what that looks like. when talking about the state system, there's a learning curve. the system we developed in san francisco is not the same. we'll have to learn that system. they have a computer-based, web-based application. we need to build it out. so there will be some bumpy roads in the coming months, not just for san francisco, but for the top eight. and then as the progressive years roll out, smaller agencies will add on to this.

we're like the information guinea pigs, if you will, the system, the collection, and then they will correct it. there will be corrective measures. one of the key components is, we have a quarterly reporting. and that data is ours. under the 953 bill, the data belongs to the state. we set it up and they generate an annual report. they do a comparative analysis and that's supposed to be issued in july, 2019. with that, i will entertain questions. >> i just want to say that it's very exciting to hear that the department is close to getting a contract with an institution that can take this data and show

specifically what it means and we know without that, there can be no understanding of what the department is doing and certainly no reform. can you give us a sense, is it months or -- >> i would say it's a matter of months. interestingly enough, the ripa board issued their first report january 1. it's on-line. one of the board members is dr. jennifer everhart. we had been in extensiove conversations. she's a rock star in her field. trying to get her researchers, it's been a long discussion, but she did help us to formulate the parameters of moving forward. i think in the short term, it will be coming very soon. and it's an exciting time in terms of data collection and looking at a comparative picture

between the top eight because it's not defined by location. it's all over the state. i think it will be an interesting conversation proving forward. i applaud this commission. i think it requires a much more robust discussion in terms of how our collaborative partners are collecting data. the terminology equities, brilliant. i think we can develop a brilliant metric. >> i think i speak for my colleagues and the agency and saying that we're very -- looking forward to be able to contribute to this work of reform that is so necessary for the community and the department and i know you have been doing a lot of work and the police commission has been doing an immense amount of work over the last year and a half, two years, and i think it's now an opportunity for the human rights commission to step in and become a partner with that.

>> absolutely. >> thank you. >> i want to thank you for your leadership and support in this effort. now that we're no longer participating in the joint terrorism task force, what are some of the protocols or procedures when federal agencies and particularly the f.b.i. asks for data? what data can the city give or not give -- >> which task force? >> joint terrorism task force. >> we're not in contact with them. >> now that we're not, when there's a federal agency or f.b.i. trying to get ahead of an immigrant or someone in the tenderloin, what is the process or protocol that the police department is undertaking? >> we're not in contact with them about those matters at all. if there's a criminal matter that the f.b.i. is investigating, f.b.i. -- it's not their jurisdiction, but we continue to work with the f.b.i. on criminal cases. >> okay. >> in terms of our relationship

with immigration, there is none. >> thank you. >> i want to thank you very much for the exciting description you have given us about what's coming down the pipeline. i just was kind of trying to wrap my head around when the data is collected. is this day-to-day policing. is it happening at the station where someone is interviewing and reporting a crime? i wanted to see when -- at what point this data was coming in. >> sure. program that tracks traffic stops is done at the time that the officer makes contact with the individual or individuals. in the event that the officer has to leave, they have the

ability to go back and modify or complete that record. that's under 96a. as we look on the horizon for 953, because it's a web-based application and we won't have the same protocols as the state, we'll be forced to either do data entry in our cars, of which only a portion of the cars have modems, or we have to go back to the station to do the 41-field response. we'll be working with the state as best we can to identify either fixing our application or getting them to roll out that application in the state. those questions came up in sacramento. >> is information -- is there a delay in the information from squad car versus back at the station? is there a loss of information

that takes place? >> that's a legitimate question. if the data is captured, whether it's pen and paper, we still carry pen and paper. if it's in a notebook, it can be entered in. this generation of police officers are much, much more adept to texting and talking, so it's not as cumbersome as you would think. familiarity comes from reputation, right? so as we adjust to new templates, what it looks like and the language, it will be different because the state language in terms of demographics is completely different from our current mechanism. >> thank you so much for that clarification. i was trying to picture it in the day-to-day job of policing

and how dynamic it is. >> it's interesting. cable tv. >> can you give us a snapshot of where the department is on cit training? is everyone getting trained now and who is not getting trained? >> yes, absolutely. it's continuing to evolve and roll out. as of a month ago, we had 819 officers currently trained. the goal is to have everybody trained. can't take everyone off the streets and put them in the classroom. the timeline is by end of 2018 to have everybody trained, if not sooner. >> can you give us a quick explanation of what you are doing regarding bias training, implicit as well as explicit bias that we're dealing with? >> sure. when we started to have discussions about biases and policing and our contact with communities of color, we started to work with the state, state

department of justice, federal department of justice, and started to identify criteria for what that training looks like. there was a number of courses out there, whether it was implicit virus or procedural justice. we married those two courses together. we took the best parts of each and created a robust training program. we still have members continuing to go through. our first effort was to put all of management there, because we wanted to ensure that management understood what their officers are expected to do and hold them to that. that continues to evolve. >> thank you. >> any other questions or comments from the commission? thank you so much. now it's my pleasure to ask neva walker, director of coleman advocates, to come to the podium.

>> good evening. >> good evening, director. >> thank you. madam chair, commissioners, and director davis, we thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight in your interest on data collection. coleman continues to be invested in equity along with data analysis and especially impact of systematic change on individuals in the community. i'm going to have kevin bogus, our political director speak, but before i do that, one quick thing. one of the early things that my mother taught me in elementary school, was the importance of understanding data. she told me, those that own the variables, control the story.

so oftentimes, communities looking for data from departments, governments, and we get a story that sfusd or others are putting out for us. we need ourselves or independent bodies, to be able to read the variables ourselves. get the raw data ourselves. and it's only because we want to also share in the story and understanding exactly what is occurring to make sure that we're getting closer to fixing the systems that are broken, that are challenging our families. and oftentimes, that becomes a hindrance. kevin? >> thank you, commissioners. and so i think for coleman and our work with families, data is a key, fundamental part of it and making sure that that data is something that is understood by people and used to change the outcomes that we see within the public school system.

theres a lot of negative outcomes for students historically, so we want to be sure that whatever is happening is working to help solve the problems. i kind of broke my talking points into three key points around availability of data, accuracy of data, and being -- folks being able to ingest it. a lot of the data that we requested is not available because it's not broken down in ways that are meaningful and helpful to identify the communities that are most negatively impacted. a lot of times that means that we cannot actually get answers to some of the most pertinent questions. there was a situation that we were in a meeting and wanted to know the population of special education students that were of african-american ethnicity or race. and we were not able to get that

information, even though we know it's one of the larger groups and most impacted in that. we've had a lot of issues around accuracy. we've requested data countless times before they had a good, computerized system and gave us 800 documents to sort and sift through to discuss whether it's disproportionate suspensions towards african-americans, and there was. we till have struggles knowing if it's accurate and how do we balance that and have a culture of trust and how we're bringing in the input of families and people being served by the system to see if they're experiences really matches what's reported in the data. i know the school system talked about the school climate survey they have. one of the disadvantages is that

the students most negatively impacted are least likely to take that survey and most engaged and frustrated with the district are not the ones filling out the survey. lastly, accessibility. for us to get access to fundamental data and understand what is going on with students, we have to do a public information request to request that data. when we did it last year, it took us over three months to get that data from the district -- six months to get that data from the district and we had to pay over $600 for that data. so that's not readily accessible for families. a lot of stuff we want to know is the intersection between the different services and departments that serve families and a lot of data is not shared together collectively. so the school district doesn't know it.

the department of public health doesn't know what's happening. so we're not able to get accurate information about the number of students arrested because that doesn't live in the school district. it's with the police department. for us, we feel that families need this cross section of information and matching people's experiences and there's not a bunch of barriers for folks to get the information. whatever we can do to push for equity and metrics around that and standards to hold city departments, the school district, and all the actors in the city. we're really concerned about charter schools and the lack of sharing. they have a very foundational role as an educational institution, but they don't even meet the requirements that are enough for the school district to point out. so to figure out how it takes to

go beyond city departments and everything that affects the lives of the families in the city of san francisco. thank you. >> so it seems like if we had something like ramsey county has, open access to data required to be collected, that would be of great use. >> and having that collected across different fields and areas and comparable to make a useful analysis to deal with the inequity and institutional racism that we have here in san francisco. >> and the other thing that i would add, who is holding the folks accountable and where is the oversight? we work more closely with sfusd, but you can say this about any of the departments -- there is

limitations to what is shared. for us, we have a resolution around suspensions along with a police mou that is clear about how police should be conducting themselves as well as suspensions for our students. even though they know what data should be collected and reported out every year, it's a cat-and-mouse chase, and that's why we end up having to use a public request document because we're not getting the bare minimum oftentimes in a timely fashion. >> you just shared with us tonight some of the things that would be helpful for the community and dealing with the issues that our children face. and so, of course, you know that we always want to know if you have specific suggestions about things that you share them constantly and make sure that we're hearing what you're saying.

>> thank you. >> commissioner ellington has a question. >> real quick. how's it going? >> commissioner. >> haven't seen you in a while. >> i would just -- and i know we'll go through a series of these meetings and talk more deeply about data, but i would like to invite coleman back to give a full presentation on some of the innovative measures you are using and what you are doing with the data and specifically speaking about the data that's not available. it's a shame that it takes three months to get -- six, that's right, data and then you have to pay $600 for it on top of that. a lot of this stuff, i'm sure, through casual stories and the work that you do, you know what's going on.

how do you take the data and prioritize it into what you then advocate for? >> i think for us in a lot of ways, it's matching the story that we see in the data and trying to uncover what isn't there and matching it from the stories from our members, parents, students in the school that are having real-life experiences that are not always captured in the data. for us, a big part of it is, we're doing surveys and focus groups at school sites and trying to gather as much of that information. another part for us that's foundational is, how are we educating as a school community about what data exists and what it means and what it doesn't mean. so we can have a real serious conversation about what needs to happen at the school from an informed position. sfusd's graduation is close to 90%, high 80s. if you look at really particular

populations like latino and african-americans, it's closer to 60% to 70%, which tells a different story about what's going on. and we understand why the school district would want to lift their successes, but for us, we need to shine a light on what is not successful, so we can address them and not from a standpoint of, we have experts that we'll bring in to fix our problems how will we embed the community in crafting the solutions and using a feedback process to make sure that we're moving forward and solving things versus spinning our wheels. >> thank you so much. >> thanks. >> this -- so we've reached the conclusion of our scheduled speakers, but we do have several people from city government here in san francisco and oakland that i want to bring up for public comment first, so we get them on the record. i'd like to invite deana rocha,

advisor to the mayor. we didn't get you on the agenda, but i'm so glad that you are here. >> thank you, commissioners. i just want to say, thank you, it's an honor to stand before you. many of you do so much amazing work and thank you for leading the charge about trying to create better data collection in our city. i want to quickly give you a context. mayor ed lee had a direction and vision. and i want to emphasize that our criminal justice forum, which is our public safety departments, chief and deputies have come together after the department of justice recommendations on a quarterly basis. one of the areas brought forth

is that we have to look at best practices and adapt two major categories when it came to data collection. one, a separation of where we look at justice information to highlight the latino community and be able to understand through our justice department, all of our justice departments, how latinos are being impacted by a criminal justice system. equally so, there's middle eastern and north africans that we want to see more intimately as well and desegregate from the white category, so we understand all people of color and how they're impacted by the justice system. in conversations with mayor lee and director davis, the agreement is that we come and start hearing how exactly you would recommend to move forward. we want to absolutely take this charge very seriously, one,

because our late mayor wanted to see that we are looking at all ethnicities and how we can capture data and get better at trying to understand how we deal with the issues of disparity, coming up with even investment and programs and how we look at the data across the board in our justice system when it comes to incarceration and arrest and coming back to our communities. with that, i wanted to make sure that that was highlighted. i want to thank you, all, many of you have worked with our late mayor and current mayor endorsing these efforts and we want to understand the recommendations that you have here tonight and ongoing. >> thank you. >> next, i would lining to ask darlene flynn, oakland's department of race and equity, if she's still in the room. great. thank you for with being us tonight and staying with us to the end. >> no problem. i'm used to long public

meetings. 5 -- i want to commend you for having this forum and taking the approach and looking at data and equity. there's a complex issue and making it work well for your residents in san francisco will require more change work. this is what i do, as the director of race and equity in the city of oakland, is how do we use data and other mechanisms to bring about structural and institutional change? because it just happened, i want to underscore everything that the leadership from coleman said as being absolutely central to making data work for equity. it's really important who is telling the story and that the story being told by the data or that we might understand by looking at the graphs and so on

is ground truth with community reality and experience. it's a huge disconnect in government, even where we've collected really good data. and people will share with you from the health department and from -- i'm amazed at how much amazing work is being done by public defenders here and people using data well. and disrupting structures perpetuating racial inequity. we can use data to design or identify who needs more services. health departments use data to target resources and think about how to do a better job at helping the community be more healthy. the shift that's coming in public health and in other areas is to look at -- let's look at

what are the causes of those racial disparities in health outcomes and how can we look at what structures need to be changed in order to not make people sick and then we have to make them well, right? that's called moving upstream. we've got to bring the community into the conversation. we're trying to go deeper. to go deeper, we cannot just rely on numbers on a piece of paper. we have to think about community differently, with the expertise that is brought to the table. it was interesting to me about the coleman folks that i don't know or anything about their program, it only took that short statement for me to know that they're on the right track. they're saying to you what needs to be understood. this is a huge shift for government. what you are undertaking is a commitment to institutional and

structural change. and that means we have to be all hands on deck and that means community. we won't get it right if we don't bring the community in. this is a huge anchor to do the type of work i'm launching. i've only been there for a year, but i've done this work before in seattle, washington. it's to think about community's role and expertise when we're trying to solve the problems. and people closer to the impacts are closer to the selections. so while well have expertise, myself included, in doing various kinds of work and institutions, we'll not get it right without resenter and placing expertise and holding community expertise differently, so when they say, this is what we need, that's what we need and we can then look at the whys about why we're not doing it that way. and that will tell us a lot about what needs to change in our institutions, because we've

not been responding to that for a long, long time now, not just san francisco or oakland, but we collectively as government. it's our challenge to recalibrate and change the paradigm. data is a big part of it, but there's a reason we don't have realti realtime, flexible data. it's challenging to us. and the other thing, result-based accountability. and that is that we don't just collect data for data sake, but for the end in mind. if you think about it that way, that's why that organization is looking for certain kinds of data. they know the end they're trying to get. they have a clear picture of what equity would look like in public schools in san francisco and they know the data they need to be able to diagnose why we

don't have that. diagnosis determines treatment and we need data, we need information. it's working at the problem differently. it's the paradigm is flipped on its head. we don't just look at the data and say, we have a terrible problem here. let's throw a program at it. so it changes completely how we do problem-solving. so it's an important concept. i encourage you to get familiar with that. and, by the way, result-based accountability does not require that we have perfect data today. it requires that we start to think differently about why we need data, how we use data and what data we'll ask for and build that data out, rather than relying on the old ways we've done it that don't get us where we want to get. so that's probably what i have to contribute. you have a lot of information

including some of that. final and last, and i know that cheryl -- if i can address you by your first name -- is thinking about this and working on it. one of the difficulties that we have is our ability to hold data as information and to create a climate that's nonpunitive, while we're working with that data. that's a huge cultural shift, as you all know. part of the reason that elected officials and others run away from data is because they're used to working in a punitive environment. we have to build up an environment where we can tolerate it and looking at it in meaningful ways. it's not a short-term proposition, but it's an important part of the equation if we want it to stick, want it to work. any questions, i would be happy -- >> i think director davis has some comments. >> i wanted to recognize that as we talk about the changing landscape, not just in san francisco, but the bay area,

darlene has been a great partner for what that looks like regionally and what happens when people go there. we know we have a lot of people that still consider san francisco home but don't necessarily live here and what does that look like for us to have a regional approach? and with regards to her last comment, i want to recognize that that was a conversation that james bell and i had had specifically around if law enforcement does its job well and numbers go down in terms of crime or with the need for public defenders, if they improve outcomes, then they could get less money. so we have to be aware how we consider the impact of data and how it's nonpunitive in the minds of people. >>