telling you the truth. it is not a closed case because it's ae on appeal because someb else died. but if you could elicit that information, you'd be better off. it should be uniform across all department. i'm not just picking on the m.t.a., this should be uniform across all of the documents. >> i appreciate what you just say to show that the level of difficulty on evaluating open cases. we did have a lengthy discussion within our division and also with the help of city attorney to go through the different criteria on how we evaluate and how to evaluate osha citation on-line, as well. it is very challenging and difficult to review open cases and -- because a lot of times, we don't have enough

information, and contractor will be -- will not be willing to provide that information because it's -- it could be on litigation at the moment if it is an open case. what we had adopted in our proposed process is that we require the contractor to submit an annual cal-osha form 300-a. what the form 300-a required a contractor to do, this is an annual form that is certified by the c.e.o. of the company that is submitted to cash osha annually. this form lists all incidents that happened in the company for the past year and is a certified letter going to cal-osha. what we require a contractor now to do is submit form 300-a as part of the submittal to sfmta and we review the 300-a, form

300-a, identify where the high risk issues or items or activities, and make sure they have them tailor there's a site specific work plan to address all the specific area. with the city agency through the committee effort, we're going to come up with a standardized process. during the standardized discussion, we will definitely be visiting this again and determining if there is a better way of evaluating open cases, but thank you for bringing it up. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. >> supervisor yee: are you done, supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: yes. >> supervisor yee: thank you for that question. i think it was important that we highlight that the form 300 that -- the effort. mr. king, again, it seems like you're the point person that's

coordinating some of the department's efforts. i would like to offer a challenge that we quickly get to the bottom of this, or at least come up with a uniform consistent way of evaluating safety issues for all the city contracts. not -- not an issue, so i appreciate that certain departments have other issues, but -- but in regards to construction safety, it shouldn't really -- it's not about whether it's going to run over a snake or something, this is something else. and i can -- i heard that people from the field, some of the labor groups, are willing to join forces with you. i don't know if they're part of

the -- of the committee, but certainly, we could use that perspective in there if they have other ways to evalua evalu. can you offer a timeline on this? because we kbt afford to loose somebody else's life because we did a poor job in evaluating. >> so number one, i know that you have heard from three departments here, and i know that the public is press is watching. i just want to be clear that we're all on the same page and all on the same team, and we're all committed to safety. sometimes when we talk about the nuances and the details and the challenge, it's not to be evasive with you, it's just to convey the challenge that's difficult to get the information you ask for, and then, how do

you use it, which is what's the point of asking for information if you're not going to use it? when i read the new reports over the past couple months, i got the feeling that it's hard to get that across in a short article. you heard miguel garza talk from yerba buena engineering. miguel helps me write letters about safety with properlies from my department and other agencies about how we can ask standardized questions that are reasonable about safety across all six departments. we're in the middle of that

system and we're in the process of imp willilementing it. we expect, in 2019, to roll it out for all the projects. that's just -- that's just the gathering piece of saying these are issues -- five or six questions we're concerned about with safety over the last six months of this job. what are the answers to them, and the city staff will answer some of those questions, and the contractors will answer some of those questions. so over time, we will have a library of this information, and it will be more useful and more as sesible to you than -- accessible to you than the other over sight bodies. it's going to be the same question.

>> supervisor yee: so i really do appreciate you -- again, the reason why you're here is that we're working in collaboration, so it's not about -- you know, it's not about pointing fingers, it's about how do we move forward, and it sounds like you're moving forward. and i really do appreciate that, that number one, that we're going to have consist sency in terms of the different departments, and that number two, we're pushing through the process. is it going to get us to the persolution? probably not -- perfect solution, probably about, but we'll be in a better place. i'm of the idea that whenever you do, you can always improve on it. i'd like to get an update at some point, maybe, what is this,

in six months, to see you finalize any of this. because it's important for the public to understand that wher ae doing our best, and this is your opportunity to say we are doing our best, and that it's -- you're already piloting some of these issues. actually, from the presentation, i could hear that from sfmta, prince, th for instance, that they're looking beyond what's happening today, and i'm really appreciative. >> supervisor peskin: one comment that mr. king made relative to working with the kroog community. it al -- contracting community. it also came to me that a lot of the -- i was wondering what extent do you involve the building trades. in the citywide safety committee

or in other forms, do you involve any of the trades who are at ground zero as it relates to safety issue? >> i'm not sure if anybody has a better answer than me that are behind me. they've participated in the drafting legislation. they haven't represented themselves as building trades in our safety discussion, but their members are there. >> supervisor peskin: i think you might want to consider inviting them to the table. >> supervisor yee: okay. thank you very much, and i know this has taken quite a long time, and we'd like to go ahead and conclude this hearing. so again, i just want to appreciate the presenters and the different departments and their efforts on trying to improve their systems.

you know, hopefully in six months, we can talk about a system, rather than systems of evaluation. so again, colleagues, thank you very much chair kim. thank you for the time. kbron what we have to do to table this. >> supervisor kim: well, we can file the item or continue it to call of the chair. >> supervisor yee: maybe continue to the call of the chair because i'd like to review this in six months. >> supervisor kim: we will continue it to the call of the chair. i'd like to thank supervisor yee for calling this. many of us were concerned over the summer when we had a tragedy in one of our construction projects. i think that -- you know, i think it's a little confusing, at least what was articulated in the press, but the way it looked, that this company appeared to have some serious

osha violations which weren't caught prior to the contract being awarded, what's concerning to many of us. so i think this hearing was incredibly helpful to understand the process that the departments go through, and what we can do to improve the krog process so that we're keeping all of our worker and see residence debts safe. thank you, commissioner yee, for holding this hearing. i'll continue this to the call of the share. can i do that without objection? thank you. we'll do that without objection. thank you, supervisor yee. at this time, mr. clerk, can you please call item number two. >>clerk: agenda item number two is a hearing on recently published 2017-18 civil grand jury report entitled "our

loveable pets: dogs and public safety in san francisco:. >> supervisor kim: thank you so much, and i want to welcome back laurie campbell, the fore person of our civil grand jury who will make some remarks, and i believe paul friender with the civil grand jury, who will actually present on this item. we did ask virginia donahue to be present in case any members have any questions, and we have commander ann mannix of the san francisco police department. miss campbell? >> i'd like to acknowledge the other jurors that are here

today. thank you so much for coming. i'd also like to recognize the commitment of the jurors. there were several hours of training, and the jury met every week for an entire year. there were committee meetings, conducting interviews, poring over documents provided to the jury by interviewees, and also, the report writing, so thank you so much for the commitment of the juries. the reports that we present today all touch on topics that are of interest to the lives of the citizens of san francisco. we've all heard the question there are more dogs in town than there are children, and if you have the opportunity to browse the website next door, you'd see that discussions of dogs are in the five top of discussions that take place on that website.

open source voting is supported by many constituents including members of the board of supervisors and the sfrican francisco election committee. we're pleased that many of our recommendations -- i'm sorry, that many of the respondents agreed with our findings and also agreed to implement many of our recommendations, and even when there were partial agreement with our findings, there was agreement to implement our recommendations. thanks again to all those that took the time to meet with us and to respond to our questions with thoughtfulness and candor,

and now i'd like to introduce the three persons in the report. paul, grady and rochet. i would just mention rochet likes his term so much on the jury that he is the foreperson of the 2018-2019 jury. thank you very much for your

time. >> good morning to the committee, the chair, and the members of the committee. this report on dogs and public safety was researched and written by a committee of four on the civil grand jury. like all reports, it was reviewed and read by the entire grand jury. it was written following about nine months of interviews, research, and weekly meetings of the committee and some intensive writing near the end of the year. for this introduction, rather than summarizing the report itself, which is not very long to read in its entirety, we would prefer to spend our time discussing and replying to some of the responses to our findings and recommendations. we understand that we have about five minutes for this presentation, so we'll try to go through these fairly quickly.

there are seven areas -- excuse me. we divided them into three basic areas. the first one is public safety. oh, thank you for helping there. so regarding finding number f-6, and recommendation r-5, where we suggested or we found that issuing offleash citations would be effective in reducing off-leash dogs, the agency disagreed wholly with this finding. they recommended to successfully implement a more stringent level of phoenforcement would require more public input. we'd like to know why that would be true.

the issue here has to do with public safety in that regarding dog bites, the majority of dog bites that happen in public are done by dogs that are off leash, so the relationship between leash enforcement and dog bites is a fairly straightforward one. regarding findings f-1 and 2, and recommendation r-1, the response has to do with a budget. we understand, but we did ask for them to study with city administrator if there are any options or alternatives so that the emergency services for a.c.c. don't have to be shutdown

five hours every day.

-- we requested that the f.c.c. should publish the location and other information about dogs found vicious so that this information would be available to the public. the agency disagreed wholly saying that it was an unwarranted invasion of privacy. two points that we were unable to find any indication that anybody in any jurisdiction where this is done, of which there are many, has ever had any adverse reactions. and we did -- we want to challenge the value judgment of placing dog owners' privacy above public safety.

in the area of interdepartmental coordination, there is a vicious dangerous dog unit in the san francisco police department which does not currently have access to the database of dog incidents that a.c.c. maintains. the jury found they should use the protocols to by-pass the san francisco i police department firewall without compromising the security of the police system. now i'm not personally -- i'm

not enough of an expert to understand why that works but we do have one here who can explain that. anyway, the agency disagreed, still citing the firewall as an impassable barrier. but we believe that this would work and that it's important for that officer to have any access to this information without having to wait to call in or to travel all the way over to the a.c.c. site to get the information. the last two points sort of go together. one has to do with communications between the hearing officers of these vicious and dangerous dog hearings and one has to do with the hearing decisions where they find a dog is vicious and dangerous but they hold the hearing in advance. we don't disagree entirely with

the response. in fact, in the case of the communications, the city administrator has said they have, in fact, made those instructions to the hearing officer. however, i believe that they're overlooking a point which is that a.c.c. itself is a party to the hearings. and, therefore, should be restricted from communications that include super supervising d training and discussing the decisions with the hearing officers outside of the hearings themselves. so in the case of the communications, we just wanted to make sure that instruction was made. and in the case of the decisions the a.c.c. will consult with the city attorney on this issue and we don't believe that it should be a.c.c. consulting. it should be an independent representative from the city administrator's office. we did try to get an opinion on

this from a city attorney but since we're not the city attorney's client we really couldn't get much from that. so that concludes our presentation. if there are questions, i'm happy to address them. >> thank you so much, mr. ferdner. okay, my apologies for earlier. and i appreciate the appreciation and we do have questions for committee, but not for you, but for the departments in response to what you have presented today. so i start with supervisor brown and ask mr. donahue to come up. >> okay. these are questions for -- >> chair kim: the presentation that you provided was very clear. so thank you. supervisor brown. >> supervisor brown: thank you, chair kim. i just have some questions because, you know, i love dogs. i've had dogs.

and i have taken my dogs to types of park that are off-leash and, yes, i have voice control, kind of. but never had an issue. and a lot of times when i walk to work i walk through a couple different parks to just get dog love. but i have an issue in my district on hait street. we have a leash law but it's very loose. a lot of people have very large dogs and they put them on leashes and -- long leashes, and then just let go and they drag their leashes around. i have complaints probably every week from the residents. a lot of them are seniors and disabled that are going into the streets to get around the large group of people with their dogs. and so i know that i have worked

in the past with officer ryan that's here that used to be a beat officer up in hait ash bury and with the many situations to address this. it's just very difficult because, you know, the laws are that they give them a citation and they try to give them education and they know and nothing really happens and it just keeps continuing. i think that a.c.c. has been out there many times to try to give that education but it's a really difficult situation because there's so much turnover there. but the dogs are there, different dogs, and different people. but the residents are the ones that are suffering from this. people are trying to get around and like i said especially the seniors and the disabled. can you address this and how can we really address this and be

much more effective in areas like that? >> thank you, supervisor. actually we were just out at haid ashbury yesterday where i believe that there were about 14 people detained in this massive leash law incident. we continue to work with park police station and with officer crockett. when the dogs are actually on-leash but still blocking the sidewalk, i am not sure what the answer is there. and that is something that i can talk with afpd about, what can we do about them blocking the sidewalk. we've gone out and talked to them about leash enforcement and we have gone out many, many times because, you know, there's a mandatory -- there's a neuter for pitbulls and that's clearly one of our priorities. that can be difficult to enforce

because the law says that you have to be in the city for 30 days. and they all know that, you know, they can say they've been there two weeks and we're not able to prove that they haven't. so we keep records of those folks so we can go back and we see them again in 30 days and we can take the dog in. >> i have another question because i notice that a lot of them have really long leashes and they're like eight, 10-feet long leashes that they just kind of let them go. is there a length of leash? >> a mandatory length? >> supervisor brown: to keep them closer to them instead of just letting them -- because they'll have a long leash and go across the sidewalk and into the gutter and back and things like that. i wonder if there's a mandatory length of a leash that could keep them closer to their owner? >> i don't think that there's a mandatory length of a leash. i can look into it. and a common leash length is

6 feet and that's long enough to cover the whole sidewalk. so it might come more under police jurisdictions blocking the sidewalk, but these are very good points that we can look into in your neighborhood. >> i just had a couple questions as well. what is the -- what is the kind of rate of dog bites? i guess that i'm just not familiar with how frequent these incidents happen. >> there are approximately -- let me look up the exact number -- but i think that it's 700 dog bites in the city. >> a year? >> a year. i think that it's around that number. >> and how do these dog bites get reported? >> the dog bites get reported a number of ways. people can report them themselves or we get many reports in from hospitals and doctors' offices. so all of the information on the

bite report is a self-report. so the victim is saying that the dog was provoked or unprovoked -- not provoked -- the dog was on-leash or off-leash. and the on-leash and off-leash designations are particularly problematic because the dog is off-leash but it's in its own house, right? what does off-leash mean in that situation? it's still off-leash. and the dog is off-leash in the off-leash section of the dog park. the dog isn't doing anything wrong. >> i see. >> so that data exists but it is not particularly useful for policy enforcement. and in looking back at it historically at this point nobody remembers -- nobody currently in the department or in the chief veterinarian office in the state of california knows why those designations are still on the forms.

because there's nothing done with them at the state level anymore. >> chair kim: what is the criteria to establish if a dog is considered vicious or dangerous? >> to declare a dog vicious and dangerous a person makes a complaint and they go to vicious and dangerous dog court. >> commissioner koppel: court. >> chair kim: there's a court? >> there's a vicious and dangerous dog court. and the meetings are weekly, generally on thursdays at noon. the first of the month it's tuesday at 4:00 p.m.. the police department investigates -- takes in the report, investigates the report, and the victim is generally there. and the owner of -- the guardian of the biting dog is usually there and they go before a hearing officer who determines if the dog is vicious or dangerous or not. and the hearing officer can put

restrictions on the dog. the hearing officer can say it's not vicious and dangerous. the hearing officer can say that the dog is so vicious and dangerous that it must be euthanized. so the role of the police department is to prevent and investigate the cases. and the role of a.c.c. is to be there with our database, with any back information that we have on this particular dog. and then to implement the hearing officer's decision. >> chair kim: and is this hearing officer under the state court system? >> no, it's the administrative process. >> chair kim: the city's administrative process? >> yes, the hearing officer -- in the beginning of this process, the hearing officer was actually within the police department. that's evolved over time so you don't have the hearing officer and the investigating group in the same department. >> chair kim: so what department is the hearing officer under now?

>> right now he operates out of the city's administrative office. in code the hearing officer needs to be appointed by the police department or the health department. right now it's in the city administrator's office. >> chair kim: where is this weekly hearing? >> 408. >> chair kim: in city hall. okay. and is there a criteria for being deemed vicious and dangerous? >> in the code, the hearing officer weighs the conduct of the dog, the severity of the bite, the department of animal control and care has from a dog behavior perspective issued a set of documents to guide the hearing officer in assessing the information they're given. >> chair kim: and then finally, the chameleon data system -- i was very confused by

the comment by the civil grand jury. so sfpd doesn't have access to chameleon because of a fire wall issue? i just didn't understand. >> it's a more of a -- we have chameleon and we have given them access but -- >> chair kim: there's fire wall issues? >> going forward, even if we somehow changed the process, and that's what we're working towards a little bit, we will never be able to bring outside databases in. we're mandated by the state and all of that because we have very secure, very confidential information on our servers. >> chair kim: so why does that mean that you can't access chameleon? >> so currently i can bring leon up to talk about the process. and the officer responsible for investigations and administration and everything else, that's why we're trying to

fix the process. ryan, can you speak to that. >> chair kim: i understand why the state law has robust mechanisms to protect our current system because we want to make sure that data is secure. it's not clear it me why sfpd can't have access to a different system. >> good morning, supervisors. currently, we do have access in the sense that if we want to have access we have to go to animal care and control to access it there. we don't have it personally like at our desktops or laptops to be able to access that because of the security things that our department won't allow us to have that. >> chair kim: you're not allowed to have chameleon on your own laptops and desktops because it might -- i'm sorry? >> so it's a secondary program. >> chair kim: right. >> that basically if i had access to their system, there's -- i mean, i don't know how to get into the technological part of it, but it would open up a security breach if i was to go into their system

and have it come back. >> chair kim: how does that impact your own data system? >> for m me an easy fix seems tt we could be given -- or to use an independent stand-alone laptop and have the database -- >> chair kim: because the two databases are on the same computer they might infiltrate each other? >> they could possibly use another system to infiltrate the police department -- >> chair kim: because you're on the same laptop? >> without getting -- like i said into too much detail -- >> chair kim: it seems like a very strange -- >> the easier thing if we were given a laptop by a.c.c. to use on their system, just primarily on their system, it would alleviate the security problem. >> chair kim: okay. i don't know how important it is for sfpd to have access to chameleon but it seens onerous

to have to go over to animal care and control to access the data system. so if it's necessary i would support you having a separate laptop to access that system instead of having to walk over to a.c.c. and supervisor brown is also nodding her head. supervisor peskin has a question. >> supervisor peskin: a question for miss donahue relative to the issues around ex-party communications with a hearing officer. can you explain that to us? i think that the contention was that a.c.c. staff should not be having ex-party communications with the hearing officer in advance of the hearing, did i understand that correctly? yes. >> a.c.c. staff does not have communications with the hearing officer in advance of the hearing. there is -- there was a court case in which a hearing officer

had communications and he was not and has never been part of a.c.c. >> supervisor peskin: and so, in other words, the hearing officer affirmatively reached out to a.c.c. staff -- >> no, the hearing officer affirmatively reached out to the participants in the process, not to a.c.c. staff. >> supervisor peskin: and that was outside of the actual hear something. >> that was outside of the actual hearing. the participant was able to document that and that went through the system and was, you know, the hearing officer was reprimanded for the communication. >> supervisor peskin: that doesn't happen anymore? >> hearings -- that should never have happened. that hearing officer is not currently hearing cases. >> supervisor peskin: thank

you. >> one more question. >> chair kim: supervisor brow brown? >> supervisor brown: thank you, chair kim. i have one more question but, first, i get a lot of complaints too about dogs attacking other dogs. and -- and it seems to me that a lot of people that have dogs that will attack other dogs that aren't trained, they'll go from park to park because they -- you know, people get upset and once they've attacked a dog they will leave because they don't want to pay for someone's dog to be cared for. are we tracking that also? >> yes. so the dog bite can be dog to human and dog to dog and dog to cat and dog to wildlife, that is all tracked in the system. so many of the cases that come before the vicious and dangerous dog court, with our dog-on-dog situations and that's all -- when they're reported to us they're all in our database. i am sure that there's a healthy amount of those that aren't

reported. and i don't attend every vicious and dangerous dog hearing. my deputy does. and she's in amsterdam for two weeks so she's not here. but many of the cases, and i'm sure that ryan can comment on this, that come to court are dog-on-dog situations. >> chair kim: okay, thank you so much, miss donahue and commander maddox. i meant to also call items 3 and 4 as well. so we can hear all of the civil grand jury reports together. >> clerk: a hearing on the recently published 2017-2018 grand jury report entitled open source voting in san francisco. and agenda item 4, the published 2017-2018 civil grand jury report, crisis intervention: bridging police and public health. >> chair kim: thank you so much. and for this we have grady ward for the civil grand jury on open

source voting. we will have public comment on all three items together. >> hi. thank you so much, supervisor kim, and -- sorry, chairperson kim and supervisors. i want to first start by thanking the rest of the committee they worked with. this was not a production of myself alone but a really dedicated committee of four people who set out to understand this really complex issue. and our goal in this report was trying to dig past a lot of the rhetoric and idealism and fear around open source voting which tends to come attached with a lot of preconceived notions of what it means and what it would require. and thankfully i think that in doing this we also kind of exposed some general principles of why projects that have support fail to gain traction. and i'm hoping today to focus on those principles so that we can not only learn from the specific

example but hopefully, you know, increase the effectiveness and the efficiency of other projects inside of the city as well. and so we really found that this project had been in a relatively static state for about a decade. it had been in a hypothetical exploration with relatively broad support from city stakeholders. but it hadn't gained significant momentum or traction or really been established as an actual project out of a planned project or proposed project. the dominant two reasons for this were uncertainty and risk aversion. uncertainty, because there was not a clear project owner because this project cuts across several layers of city governance and capability. it was also uncertain in that there was such great uncertainty around timelines, funding and scope, and that there wasn't a reasonable path forward that could be approved or debated

effectively. and the risk aversion piece of this is pretty obvious. switching to a new election system is pretty dangerous if you are not confident that the election system, you know, is totally flawless. and elections also kind of lend themselves to incredibly hard-to-develop software. they're incredibly infrequent. you know, you don't get do-overs and you can't replay an election. and there's almost no tolerance for fault. so because of all of this, the department of elections was really hesitant to take on this project and because of this kind of distribution of responsibility and experience we felt that this project hadn't gained a lot of traction. so that's kind of the overview of what we found. within that there's a couple common themes that i think that we can look to and learn from from the city as a whole looking at any project. the first is that all projects need really clearly defined responsibility structures and

need to have the experience of the city appropriately leveraged to mirror the -- sorry, to have the structure of the city experience mirrored to best suit the project. and the second piece is that outsourcing our decisionmaking is not an effective strategy. so there have been several independent reports, several consultant reports, on whether or not we should pursue an open source voting system or what the realized costs and benefits of that would be. those have generally been pretty inconclusive and the reason for it is that at the heart of it, this is a question about balancing a broad set of priorities, and not about whether or not something is technically feasible or will cost an amount of dollars, right. so we think that those are the kind of generic lessons that we can hope to learn from this project. in terms of the responses that we got on this, the majority of

the responses were generally, you know, agreeing with the overall sentiment of, you know, requiring funding and direction. i think that there are obviously a lot of perspectives in this discussion and arguments and the majority of -- the majority of the responses point towards the fact that san fra san franciscos moving towards this and has taken on the steps that are requisite to actually making this project successful. so that ends my presentation. >> chair kim: thank you so much, mr. ward. we do -- and i forgot to announce at the beginning of the hearing on behalf of the elections commission we do have our director john arts as well as our commission president roger oh, donaldson, and the chair of the open source voting technical advisory committee. and so, colleagues, if you have any questions for our department, also the department of technology director lisa

guril, and antonia legue and mark dell arosa is here to answer any questions on the open source voting system. all right, seeing no questions for our department, i am going to ask that rosha harvey come up to present on behalf of the civil grand jury. i also want to acknowledge that commander ann maddox is here on behalf of the police department as well as our director of behavioral, with the department of public health. >> good afternoon. i'm rosha harvey, the 2017-2018 committee chairperson for this report. and the current foreperson of the 2018-2019 san francisco civil grand jury. i would like to thank chair kim

and the government audit and oversight committee for allowing me to speak about the information discussed in this report. also i would like to thank the members of the civil grand jury for our hard work in completing the report. many san franciscoians have the heartache of seeing our fellow residents in misery when going about our day in the city. often the most vulnerable on our streets who generally have unmet behavioral mental health needs and substance abuse challenges are one step away from a crisis situation and death. the civil grand jury calls attention to the death of mario woods in the summary section of the report to highlight this point. we must ask ourselves, is the status quo of our streets okay. why does a wealthy and progressive city such as ours allow such horrible conditions to fester right before our eyes? these questions in use of force concerns prompted the civil

grand jury to research whether our city and county government had any tools in place to address these tragic concerns of the human condition and to call the city's leadership to account to step up and to show positive momentum to tackle these challenges. to give you a sense of this enormous challenge facing san francisco, on page 5 of our report, we note the call volume to the suicide prevention crisis hotline increased 43% from 2012 to 2017. this is an increase from 28,046 calls in 2012, to over 49,000 calls in 2017. this report is asking for a long-term vision and commitment among city leaders to address the behavioral health and crises that appear to be spinning out of control in such a wealthy and progressive city. the civil grand jury conducted an investigation on the crisis intervention team known as c.i.p. program from

november 2017 to may 2018. crisis intervention just to give you a sense of it is an innovative first responder model started in memphis, tennessee, that couples police-based deescalation with advocacy and public/private health organizations. and we appreciate the efforts of the sfpd with assisting us with our seven-month-long investigation. as noted in our report, the individuals in both d.p.h. and sfpd committed to crisis intervention and operational levels to engage, dedicated and doing commendable work for reducing bad outcomes for people in crisis. (please stand by).

>> -- data collection and data quality to get a better sense of what is needed to make c.i.t. sustainable. we really want this program to work. we also want the sfpd to find out why the c.i.d. working group lacks a formal

our 15 key recommendations on pages 27 and 28 call for standard performance criteria to measure c.i.t. effectiveness, in an urgent call to improve data collection and data quality between sfpd and d.p.h. to ensure that c.i.t. is a use tool to confront the crisis on our -- useful tool to address the crisis on our streets.

before closing my remarks, i want to emphasize the importance of the appendix in the report. appendix c contains a real and raw story about a 12-year-old girl named tina who threatened suicide. this story shows the immense courage of our tenderloin station police officers but expos exposes the operational gaps -- -- it identifies an innovate tiff community police service model used in london, england, by the metropolitan police service for the sfpd city council and government to consider. the goal of this report is to

shed light on its program and become a central health tool to confront the behavioral health crisis on our streets. we must be let this report just another document to sit on the shelf. that would be a huge disappointment. we want people to take this report and advocate for this innovate tiff strategy. given the severity of the crisis on our streets, the jury believes we must work together to make san francisco a safer city. thank you for allowing me to present these remarks to you today. >> supervisor kim: okay. thank you so much, mr. harvey, for presenting these remarks, and they were very illuminating and helpful. i did want to bring commander mannix up who has a presentation on c.i.t., and i did have questions for the civil grand jury presentation. >> thank you, chair kim.

can we bring up the powerpoint? i've prepared a brief powerpoint to go along with my remarks. okay. for those of you that don't know me, i'm commander ann mannix. i oversee the golden gate division of the sfpd, and amongst of t amongst the various units i oversee, i oversee the crisis intervention team, which i call the c.i.t. going forward. again, just the introduction. page two, i want to give you a brief history of what we've done as a department. so 2001 -- in 2000, we started a program called pcit. it was police crisis intervention training. it didn't make the slide, and it was a very robust -- we did that from 2001 to about 2008, and it was along the same lines of what

we offer in our 40 hour course. in 2001, as you can see we implemented the pcit and it went through 2008. in 2002, supervisor am i don't knowy sponsored a resolution urging sfpd to mandate crisis intervention training. 2011, supervisor mirkaimi and campos sponsored a resolution supporting c.i.t. we sent a group out to memphis to see what they were doing, to study what they were doing and to bring what they were doing back to san francisco. and it wasn't so different from what we had already been doing, but we incorporated the best

practices from there. and in 2011, we introduced the behavioral health crisis service reference guide, which today, we're working on it get to that in another slide, as well. what that was was a fold up cheat sheet, if you want to call it that, of available resources citywide, for the officers to carry and to use when they're dealing with people in crisis. and just as the cif grand jury noted, we are in a crisis. nationwide, but we focused on san francisco. so in 2011, we created a bulletin to go along with the response by crisis incident intention trained order. 2016, the p.d. and the d.p.h.

signed an m.o.u. it sets up december -- sunsets did he tell '19, and that was referred to earlier. that references to d.p.h. helps us out on critical incidents, and we are currently working on an m.o.u. that will morph into a greater partnership with the department of public health. so get into next slide, which describes our programs, currently, we teach a 40 hour crisis intervention training program. very comprehensive. we bring in people from the department of public health, from the private but nonprofit sector, all dealing with those struggling with mental health issues. we bring in consumers, we bring

in anybody that can have a criteria. at the end of the program, the officer graduates with a pin that they can wear on their uniform, signifying that they've graduated the class. we've trained 47.2% of patrol. we have a class taking place, and we have one more class scheduled this year, and we go into 2019 awhere we have eight more classes scheduled. perour department bulletin, can he committed to training 20 to 25%, but we're already -- we're already up to 47%, and our goal is to train the entire department in 40 hours, when you move down to the ten hours, ten hours takes off, it's a -- we review the tactics, we review the department bulletin -- or excuse me, bulletins and the general order, and then,

officers get into scenario based training. i've read the reviews for that course, and the cops really get into it and to a person that they've learned a lot just in the ten hours. ultimately, we will train the entire department at both, but we're at 930% trained by the ten hours. we recognize outstanding police work done by officers that encounter someone in crisis and brought that crisis to a successful resolution, so that's our annual awards ceremony. i even have the breakdown of the ranks. today, we have 920 officers trained in the 40 hours. moving onto the next,