commission and the department and recruiting a diverse work force. continue to expand recruitment campaigns and specifically designed to encourage unrepresented applicants to choose a career in law enforcement. develop a course to guide interesting applicants through the hiring and background practice which is can be difficult at times. this brings them closer to understanding what they need to do to accomplish that goal. and data sharing in 2016, and joined the initiative and sharing practices to enhance transparency, identify disparity and build community trust and the use of force reporting policy was expanded to include collecting biographical information and encounters and self-initiated or dispatched.

as far as the mandated reporting requirements, use of force, the abc-953 and early intervention reports and the expect is establishing the encompassing policy under abc 14.21 which is the body worn camera. we expanhandle the ability to certify officers in language other than english which is extremely important. and both steve and i worked at district where is the language is critical where they speak the language or have access to the phone translation for the officers. it makes or breaks that relationship with the public if they can actually tell us their story. this builds trust with our limited english proficient

communities and we have been defrn endeavoring to expand the officers who speak languages and chinese, spanish, russian, and deaf and hard of hearing policy is currently being worked on. in closing, dr. eberheart stated, you don't need to have all the answers before you start to work toward solutions. we are in a transformative time in the san francisco police department. the analysis of the data and subsequent report by the academic partner is the next step to understanding the disparities of the numbers. we have seen in this presentation is a look at the policies and procedures and technology, training, policies and procedures have decreased

the use of force and increased transparency to hypothesize is akin to not with the other findings and the direction for the future. to implement changes in the d.o.j. and the president's 21st century for policing. this has raised the bar for law enforcement agencies across the nation. there is much to do in completing the remainder of the recommendations and the long-term commitment toed a vancement in all -- advancement in all areas of policing. they are committed to the with

the better processes and strategies. to the communities we have committed to fairness, a voice at the table, transparency and most of all, safety with respect. thank you. >> thank you, commander. thank you, chief. do you have anything else to add before we have questions from the commission? >> okay. vice president taylor. >> an i want to start by thanking the chief and captain ford was the unfortunate messenger of the last time we were here and the dispay at numbers was not directed personally at you and i can speak for myself and i was not happy and other members of the commission were not happy with the numbers and they were what they were. one of the questions we asked

last time was why? and i think i said i am less concerned with why than making sure it stops, but it sounds from what we have heard tonight that the answer to the why question is we don't know yet. it sounds like we won't really know until the report in novr gives more information as to -- the report in november gives information to the underlying causes. so if that is the response, it sounds like it is, i want to learn a little bit more about what the department is doing specifically in the interim. the chief talked about best departments and that have been adopted. and if you can talk more about how those best practices are. if there is any sense of how they are going and what kinds of progress is being made with the best practices. and that will be helpful and i have four questions. that is the first one.

>> with the training and when it comes to the procedural justice training. that is only one step of this. i mean, what's been often said is how much is implicit or explicit in this issue. we don't know the answer to that. we know that explicit bias is not driving it. we don't have any everyday to prove that is the case, but implicit bias is a little bit of an unknown. one of the things that i learned in my studies on this subject is training is one of the best ways to increase awareness. it is not about a cure with implicit bias and it's about understanding and managing and particularly not letting that creep into the policing decisions. so in terms of best practices, this is a rapidly growing

training field in policing. most departments now -- well, a lot of departments -- i won't say most -- are implementing some type of training and that is a best practice. we were fortunate of the people in stanford to do the work across the bay in oakland, and we got to see a lot of what they were doing. as a matter of fact, they had work with oakland with 50 strategies to reduce disparities in policing. and disproportionalities in policing. if you go down the checklist, a lot of what was talked about is directly some of those 50. and some of the things were on the map for us, so that is a really good thing and i can rattle down the 50. >> i guess what i am looking at wanting to know, have you looked at other departments with similar disparities and implemented practices and

policies and procedures, and those bad disparities changed? i kind of want to drill down on what other departments are you looking at? did it work for them? are you implementing the similar processes? >> i don't think there is a perfect department with an answer to this, but a lot of departments training use of force and the time and distance and part of this issue is reducing force, period. the other part is addressing the disproportionalities and oakland across the bay is a good example and they have had some success in some areas. and we go to icp and major city chiefs and this topic is ongoing and every conference that i go to, it is in the forefront. and i don't think the answer is there yet, but there are a lot

of questions and a lot of movement and i don't know that there is a perfect answer, but we are doing many things as we stated in this presentation. >> are there departments that have seen the numbers increase by implementing particular procedures? do we know the answer to that? >> so in the presentation with dr. eberhardt, she mentioned oakland and the particular topic with us they changed some of the procedures on their spots where officers were required to document certain things about their stops. they saw significant drop in their stops in terms of their stops. and those disparities that resulted they saw significant drop in that area. she talked about the training and the cultural changes that took place to allow that to happen. so that's one example.

look at the reduction and use of force in terms of the demographics that i mentioned. and look at that as a potential signover some success in this area. >> are we implementing what -- what you mentioned, are we implementing the same practices as oakland? >> some of that we already had -- not everything that they do, but some of that we already have. we're working on some policies and procedures right now we think will add to help us in that area and working with the officers in the union on those. so yeah. we are doing some things. >> all right. and my second question, i guess, the second category, you talked about 911 calls and the disproportionate number of african-americans identified as suspects be i 911 callers. i recognize you don't know the race of the caller, but do you know the percentage of the disproportionately impacted? 40% of calls, 6 # o%, identify

an african-american subject? >> an in the mid 40s. in the fourth quarter report, for 2018, that number was 42%. >> okay. and you mentioned that the use of force numbers are roughly in line with the number of calls for service. >> correct. so in 2018, the use of force percentage for african-americans for the year was 41%. 41% of the use of forces involved african-americans. >> can we drill down on that? i am specifically referring to or thinking about the pointing of firearms. those are the numbers that were really galling to me. that was the 127 african-americans compared to 50 white male and 14 asian and 72 hispanics. and so i would like if the consensus is or if a conclusion is that people

disproportionately call police on african-americans, something goes from the calling of police to the pointing of a firearm. that seems to be just far and away disproportionately against black people. so i don't know if you have done any analysis as to that particular figure, right? is it that people call the police on black people more than anyone else and the number of times in which the police point guns at them is consistent given those numbers, or is it still that cops are pointing guns at black people more than anyone else? that's something that i would -- if you know it, that would be great, but if not, i would like to hear about that. >> i do some of what you are asking, commissioner. firstover all, pointing of firearms, roughly about 60% of use of force. sometimes a little more, sometimes an it will less. in terms of the numbers and i will just go because i have it in front of me, some of the numbers are from 2016, and when we first started this report. the first quarter 2016, out of

-- there were 648 use of forces that involved pointing of firearms. out of 947 total use of forces. so that was actually 68%. of those 648, 307 involved african-americans. so out of the 648, fire arms were pointed, almost half. second quarter, 620 out of 925, and out of the 620 where firearms reported, there were 271, so again, that's approaching 50%. third quarter, let's see. totals. so third quarter, there is -- let's see.

well, 724, if my math is right here. out of those, 340 with the pointing of firearms out of those 340 were pointed at african-americans. so those numbers are pretty consistent. and like i said, i want to reiterate what commander ewing said and we can look at that as a raw number and speculate to why that is and whether it's a level of violence in some of the communities where these calls are happening or whatnot. but we also have to look at these on an individual basis and that is why we wanted to reiterate the process on use of forces whether they are no policy or whatnot. that is really important here. but it doesn't take away from the fact that the disproportionate numbers are there. what we think will help in this regard, we have implemented training -- it wasn't mentioned, but the critical response, critical mindset training that

we just implemented a couple of months ago was a direct result of pointing of firearms. and some of our daily force situations where we felt we can do a better job there. and that training, i think, will change that demographic in terms of the number of firearms pointed which subsequently will impact this area, too. we just started this training a couple of months ago. we have gotten really good reviews from the officers and it's all about command and control. it parallels with the c.i.t. training with some of the concepts where officers have assigned duties on the critical incidents and don't have a line of officers with everybody with the guns pointed. we think that's going to make a big difference. we think our training is among the best in that area.

i think it will be a best practice for us because there's not a whole lot of departments that are doing what we're doing in that regard. >> i would like to drill down just a bit. i think that statistics are powerful. so if it is the case that the disproportionate points of firearms is tied to the type of call so if it's call because of violent situation or someone with a gun, i would like to know that because i think that will -- that's powerful not only for us but for the officers to really understand what -- unpack what is behind it. there is a decision being made at some point to point firearms at black people more than other dem graphics and if it's justified because of the type of calls and and finally, thank you for your trend analysis. what is helpful and is great and heartening to hear the numbers

are going down. that is really good. the pointing of the firearm -- all use of force is important, but something different about pointing of a firearm. if you have the information on the trends for that over the years, that would be helpful. >> it is not broken into 96a by ethnicity in terms o f that category. it's broken down by the type of crime and the type of force applied, but not by race, but we can call that out. i want to point out that one of the steps we took and many don't report that as a use of force and we are one of the few major city department that does in the state and that is a step in the right direction and that gives us the data to determine what to do moving forward. that is huge to me. >> thank you for pointing that

out, too. >> thank you. commissioner elias. >> thank you. thank you for the presentation and thank you, chief scott, for addressing this. i still don't understand why these numbers are so high. and i think it's important for us to know why because if we don't know why, then how do we know what to fix? and the presentation was good, but it doesn't address the why, and i want to talk to you about that. one, you mentioned academic partners and i feel that the academic partners can't be the sole source of analyzing the data, and i am troubled if we are going to solely rely on them and troubled because of what happened with the e.i.s. report and how we worked with the university of chicago and received a report three-plus years later and it was filled with errors. i don't want that to happen in

this situation come november when we receive the report from the university. i do believe that the police department has an obligation to analyze these numbers on their own and figure out why this is happening. i think in the 96a executive summary, it indicates on page two and also addressed in the presentation that the police department has internal mechanisms in which this is supposed to be done. in fact, on page two it indicates that commanders review the reports with district captains a z a means to monitor and identify concerns immediately. these numbers with respect to use of force against people of color have been happening for years. this isn't a new thing. so if we as a police department have internal mechanisms to catch this, why haven't we caught it and why hasn't it been brought to our attention? >> i will start with the first. and the academic and i don't

want to oversell the research piece because it's another set of -- it's more data. but what it will do for us, i believe, is i think it will make more sense of the data because, like i said, we don't have benchmarks to 96a. often times you compare to the general population and that is really not -- that benchmark doesn't help this conversation at all. there's other benchmarks to look at. so what we do know is that the people who do this type of research, they are not new to this either and we think it will help give us better data or analyze the data better and we can take it from there. in terms of why is it still happening? this issue is complex. and this issue is not new, you're right. policing has a history in this country. ewith all know what that history is, and these issues are very difficult issues to turn around.

the thing that when you're in this business, as i have been for 30 years, trying to do the right thing, when you're out there doing the work, often time officers get defensive about this because they feel like everybody thinks we're out there doing wrong, and that's not the case. most of our officers are doing right. this is a bigger issue than individual officer. some of these things that drive violence in communities, that drive gun violence in communities, go way beyond policing. we accept that as we deal with that. what we want to do as much as we can to make sure that bias and implicit bias doesn't drive this. officers get called to a call. the caller see what is they see and we have to go, and as we have seen on many news stories recently, some of the calls are driven by things that are biassed. and then we have to get there

and make a professional determination of what we have and an objective determination, and that is what the training i think will help. i don't think there's an answer in talking to people that have ph.d.'s in this subject, they tell me that there is no perfect answer. there's a process, there's training, and then you have progress. but i don't think you're going to see -- i don't want to set that expectation that we're going to eliminate all the things that factor into this disparities and wealth, disparities in education, disparities in everything. the criminal justice system is full of disparities, full of them, and they go way beyond policing. i am not making an excuse. that's definitely not what i am trying to do. all i'm trying to say is we're doing the right things in my mind to get moving on this issue. >> and i do commend the efforts that are being made. i guess my concern is that if we have internal systems that are

supposed to be monitoring and flagging this, why didn't our internal system flag the fact that people of color are more force is being used against them? why wasn't this flagged earlier if we have an internal system that does this? >> i think the reporting itself is -- like i said, this is not the first discussion that we have had before this commission on this subject. the question always is, how are we fixing it and how are we making it better and what are we doing about it? that process is a long one, i submit. it's a long process. we are better than we were years ago, by far. and it is a long process. that is all that i can say to that. i think this department has been aware of these disparities and these disproportionalities particularly since we have been reporting this data because it's right there for the world to see. i wish i had an easy answer for you, commissioner, but i don't.

but what i do have is that we're doing some things to make it better. >> i appreciate that. i want to turn to the training aspect which was slide six. there were five different categories of training and even the training that i do see, only two of them discuss implicit bias. and there's one eight-hour training where implicit bias is part of that training. the second portion within an eight-hour managing implicit bias and i think that training is aimed more towards dealing with biases as it pertains to the san francisco police department, right? it is not even a bias training that helps police officers deal with bias with respect to their interactions with the community. so i guess my concern is why with respect to the training there isn't more bias training for officers and how to deal with the community. i know that you mentioned the critical response training that was just implemented, and i am wondering where is that training

in this list of training that's on slide six? >> that slide is not all inclusive. we have a -- as you know, we have a lot more training. specifically, if it's a bias training, we just actually approved additional implicit bias training in the department of human resources and d.h.r. is going to help us put that on. so that is been approved. we just have to get the actual training cycle started. that will enhance the amount of training that we're doing. but it's being done. i think that's the important part. i don't know if there is a magic number of hours that we need to do in implicit bias. it just needs to be ongoing, and that is what i have been told by people experts in the subject matter because any training is -- needs to be refreshed. we don't need to just do it and forget about it just like our

tactical training. we have to have ongoing training and refresh what we have learned. and that is the plan moving forward. >> this critical response training that you mentioned, is that going to be implemented with new cadets or is that a mandatory training for officers who are already on the force? >> we are doing officers already on the force and they will be incorporated into our recruit training as well. right now it's starting with the officers that are already in the field. it's advance officers training. >> an hour, two hours? >> do you know how many hours? deputy chief moses is in charge of that. >> that is why they brought you here today. >> good evening. we actually have two versions. so every officer and sergeant in the department is going to be going through a 10-hour block as part of advanced officer training. and then we are also supplementing that course with a 20-hour course that has more

expanded scenarios, and that is going to be available to sergeants and officers as well. >> the critical response training, is there a bias component of it or is it more reactionary and how to deal with stressful situations? >> it is primarily how to deal with stressful situations, but it also has a use of force c.i.t. component to it. and i should also put out and point out that we did give a block of that to all the new captains, lieutenants, and sergeants in the promotional courses as well. >> the other question that i had with respect to oversight, this is slide nine, you indicate that there are internal processes that the department is taking as well as external. and the external ones that are listed, these working with people -- well, the external components are police commission t department of accountability, and the d.a.'s office. we've been working with them in the past, correct?

>> yes. we have. we have but those -- number one, i think the relationships have been enhanced. and i think we forgot to add that d.p.a. is also been working with us on the critical incident review board. it was in their recommendation as well. but my opinion i think those working relationships are definitely -- have been enhanced. they inform a lot of our policies and that role has been expanded as far as working with the policies and the district attorney's office with -- when i first came here, that was a policy or the m.o.u. has been worked on for over two years. but the working relationship between the two agencies has continued to improve. so the relationships have been there. but i think they're better. the d.o.j. assessment pointed

some of them out. as a matter of fact, particularly, in terms of o.i.s.s, they pointed out that notification protocols, the collaboration at the scene, all these things needed improvement. they have been vastly improved. so i think we're in a much better place. >> i guess my concern is that since we have been working with these individuals in the past and this has been an ongoing problem and there is still no real solution that perhaps we should look at other people to work with as well. for example, san francisco bar association has a racial justice committee that addresses these kind of issues and has been very informative with respect to some of the data and how it is collected. and viewpoints that is beneficial in terms of bringing everyone in and getting their ideas and with the external agencies that we have been relying on. >> these slides aren't all

inclusive. i want to emphasize that and in the interest of time, we had to cutdown information, but i an i degree with you. the department agrees with that, and we do have other external partners, not just the ones that we mentioned. public defender, prior to his passing, met with -- we met monthly. and for a number of reasons. when there were issues that came up, he gave input and opinion on what he said and we took some of those opinions and we turned them into actionable items. the district attorney the same thing. and i talked about the i.e.b. relationship. we have members of the s.f. bar and many of the working groups. julie was mentioned on the strategic plan working group and yolanda, and we work with them as well and met with them and members of the commission along with me. ewith're open to all -- we're open to all that.

i hope we didn't lead the commission to believe those are the only folks we're working because we're wide open on this subject and welcome anybody that wants to be a part of this process. >> the other thing that i would like to do to follow up on commissioner taylor's questioning with respect to the 911 calls and how i guess i want to reiterate -- what i would like to see is perhaps a breakdown because even if it's 42% of the 911 calls are relating to people of color, there are several steps that happen between receiving a 911 call and the officer actually using force on this individual. there is a whole series of events that happen, so i don't think that it is -- i don't think it behooves us to equate because we receive more calls and 911 calls regarding people of color has some correlation to the use of force against people of color because in addition to the pointing of the firearm, all the other categories with respect to the use of force are significantly higher when it

comes to people of color. and the only one that isn't and isn't is the category of physical contact. in that category it's white males who actually exceed any other race. >> yes, ma'am. noted that and i want to be clear, the point there was not to equate lesson -- to lessen this topic. the point is depending on what we use as a benchmark, the narrative of those statistics changes. when you benchmark use of force to the population, which is often done, and 4% of this population or less than 4% and 44% and 42% get use of force, and it really paints a different picture. when you benchmark it against who the public is calling on, it paints another picture. the point there is not to diminish one or the other, but the point is this is why we're working with people that know what they are doing on this

because benchmarks matter. benchmark cans skew a narrative. benchmarks can skew a narrative if they're not properly discussed and we really understand what the benchmarks mean. that was the point of that. it wasn't to diminish or say we don't have issues that we have to work on. it's about the benchmarking. >> i would suggest to look that -- i would suggest that we look to oakland with respect to that because dr. ebberhardt did work with them and indicated the data they received and they had to silo it in terms of demographics and calls of service to understand is numbers and i believe our 96a report does not do that very well. it also doesn't track the multiple uses of force with respect to one incident. >> an it does do that piece. but you are right on the other piece. it doesn't -- it doesn't make adjustments for other factors like crime and violent crime and those type of things.

so that is what the team did do with oakland. >> thank you. >> commissioner dejesus. >> just a couple of questions. i did talk to you a little bit offline, but talking about here, statistics are only as good as the information collected. so it helps everybody to get it. i want to talk about the word "other" and a suspect by race or ethnicity and says others. why does sfpd have a high percentage of others? 23.1%. and page seven of the smaller report. the executive report. so why is that so high? and can you tell us do the officers -- are they required to ask person's ethnicity or race? and if not, how do they gather that information?

>> that -- the other -- if you look at the 2016-2017, 2018 report, 2016 you don't see american indian. you see in it 2017, 2018. and you also see -- you also see unknown, other and unknown in some of the reports. sometimes we don't know. sometimes people declare they are either don't declare a race or so sometimes there is no answer. officers under this 853 racial profiling act are now required to log perceived. it is what the officer perceives. but this data is i think a little bit more -- a lot more definitive in terms of 96a. >> i guess the question is, are you allowed to ask them their

race or your perception and if you don't know your perception, that is where you are checking unknown or other? >> i think commander wallace probably can answer that better, but on the field interviews and all that, race is a factor. with the new law, it kind of confuses the issue to be honest with you because we are supposed to use perceived and we changed a lot of our training to be compliant with the law, so it clouds that issue a little bit. >> so when you say perceived, just so people understand, it mean what is an officer is viewing at that time and he makes a determination of what that race is. >> correct. >> you cannot ask a person? >> not under 853, no. >> so the state law if we are doing a traffic stop and i was to have individuals on board, i could not ask the race or ethnicity of anybody in the vehicle. it would be based on my perception. i think there is a significant amount of actually demographics that they slice very thin on

their demographics. we used to use the national and the f.b.i. used to be black, white, etc., and i think it was seven categories. i don't have the exact number, there are numerous categories for the state, and that is something we can supply to the commission so you can see that, but that is all perception. use of force, with the exception of basically an officer taking on somebody in that person escaping, you're generally going to have what that demographic is. maybe in a demonstration where officers online and trying to hold a crowd back, you might not be able to single out everybody's individual ethnicity, but use of force is pretty steady and obviously because you are reporting it and generally the person is in custody, so those are pretty accurate. that is all local. that's not subject to the state stops. >> okay. and then i have another question. and i forgot to bring this one up. page 11 and you talk about types of force by call types, fourth

quarter, 2018, and page 11 on the executive report. and if this were pointing a firearm and part one property crimes and 153 of pointing the gun. i was wondering what kind of property crime where you need to point a gun? and i don't mean to be facetious. i don't understand that. it says person with a gun, person with a knife, suspicious person, and i just -- >> well, burglaries, those are still considered property crimes. those are pretty high level crimes. even on some of the car break-ins, they are still felony crimes, but depending on -- these situations are very situational. that is where the officers and that is where the training comes in. that is where the tactics come in. if you have time and distance, you can afford to do other things. that's what -- that's why we

emphasize the training so much. >> i would be interested to know -- i understand hot and burglaries and if they are car break-ins or vandalism -- you have vandalism as separate here. i am curious from the most serious to the lesser amounts and that is a lot, 153. >> an it really depend on the situation. car break-ins are felonies and we have had a number of those that have ended in violence, including murder. it's nothing to take lightly. the main thing is we want to keep everybody safe, officers and people that we have to come in contact with. but that's where the use of force evaluation comes into play because if it's deemed excessive or unnecessary or unreasonable or not reasonable force, that's where the accountability piece comes in. >> does your data include where you can look in and see exactly is it 5% hot prowls or 2% car break-ins or the type of property crimes?

is there just everything is put under property? >> let me give you an example. if i am going into a warehouse or a house that i have to clear because there is a caller that says there is people inside the house. i am going to have my gun out and search that house. so that contributes -- >> that is not of the 153. what i am trying to get at is do you have a picture of where they are falling in terms of the level of the crime? >> it's not in this report. we can drill down on that information. we can drill down on that. >> that would be great. it's kind of nebulous. but i do understand hot prowl. let's see. and then back on -- staying on there, you have mental health seven -- here. the very bottom of the same chart. traffic-related 13. those are -- are those like violent traffic?

under felony once? >> where are you? >> the same chart. i'm sorry, i just went down to the second to the last one. traffic-related crimes and types of calls and pointing a firearm is 13 for traffic related. i could say the same thing, you can drill down on that. >> yes, ma'am. we can drill down on that. i don't know from looking at the raw data what the circumstances are. we can drill down on it. >> then i was looking at page 12 where it says total arrests central station is the number one for 2017 and number two for quarter four. were they always number one or did they jump or move into number one position? >> it fluctuates from quarter to quarter. it does and i have looked at the three years since we have been doing these reports and it's safe to say that the busier stations and the stations with more violence are usually at the top of the list there.

that's pretty consistent, but it kind of varies from number one and number two. the busier stations are usually at the top of the list in terms of that. >> all right. that is all that i have. thank you. >> thank you. director henderson. >> thank you. i was going to say i think this is encouraging that we're having the conversation based on the report to talk about some of the solutions which are really complicated and difficult to try and implement on the fly. but in my comment and my question that was more speaking to the process and the report itself. just coming from the perspective of having to re-evaluate when i came in all of the periodic reports that get submitted both to the commission and to the public. some of the things that i found helpful especially from the d.o.j. have been the federal government's overview in terms of how to issue and disseminate reports and outlining some of the analysis which i think would be more helpful.

and similar to some of the things that i think we are hearing from the commission and those are some of the standards that i have shared with the chief as well in order to try and be more helpful as we're evaluating right now what these types of reports are going to look like in the future for what that's worth. but i think it gives us a much better approach or at least a quantifiable approach in terms of trying to understand the data in a way that is comprehensive for the commission and the public as well. that was it. more of a comment than anything else. i have shared those outlines with the chief and we have had conversations about it. >> thank you. commissioner hamisaki. >> thank you, commissioner hirsch. >> thank you. good evening, chief. a couple of follow-up questions i think that there are still a few more questions out there. i know you have been sitting through a few. at the beginning of the presentation you talked about a

28% decrease in use of force over the past three to five years. so two years. >> 16, 17, and 18 data. three years. >> is that benchmarked to anything? on the last question you were talking about benchmarking. is that benchmark to detentions or stops or calls or is it just overall? >> that's overall. there are when you -- in the entire report there are -- there is data about detentions. there's data about traffic stops. there's data about self-initiated intentions that have reported crimes. so that is an overall number. >> a right. i guess what i was trying to

understand is what weight to give to that number meaning i know that just about every meeting you come and our numbers are down, year over year, over the past, i don't know, five years, there's been a significant drop in crime and calls. so is the use of force -- is it decreasing -- do you understand where i am getting at? is it increaseses in the interactions or the interactions a dropping and possibly staying the same. >> actually -- that is a great question. the calls for service are actually going up. over from 16 to 18. >> right. in terms of encounters, traffic stop, arrests and all that, the numbers have actually been -- it fluctuates from quarter to quarter, but they have been fairly consistent.

it is not a big difference in those numbers. the calls for service have gone up. prior to 2015, we didn't have -- 2015, yeah, we didn't have the pointing of firearms included in the use of force. these numbers really effect 16 with the 96a reporting and is a more consistent set of data. >> okay. and then the pointing of firearms which as you said is a bulk of the uses of force that are being recorded, just i guess i think it was commissioner elias and i when we were visiting one of the stations, i believe one of the officers expressed some frustrations how they were being recorded because there's certain situations and commander ewing was referring to

this, where it's necessary or even mandatory per your training where you have to -- you should have your firearm out, is that accurate? >> it's -- everything is situational. let me answer this the right way because really nothing is automatic. if that makes sense. >> okay. >> you can have a felony arrest and depending on the circumstances, you may not pull your gun out. if you don't know what you are going into like the example that the commander gave, you are likely going to have your gun out and it would be appropriate to do that. and there are situation where is you should have it out and you don't and somebody gets hurt and you or somebody else, so everything is situational depending on the circumstances in front of you. the training is general guidelines and officers usually follow those guidelines, but i don't want to give the impression that any of this is automatic.

>> so what it was -- how it was brought up to us specifically was in what is referred to as a felony stop. and i don't know the exact procedure, but it was explained that one officer having either his firearm -- >> generally, yes. if you have, let's say a carjack, and the person is believed to be armed. that's a high risk felony stop and you're going to have your gun out on that situation. now, there could be something that i am not thinking of where they might not be the case, but generally you will have your gun out. where the training and particularly the critical incident and critical mindset training comes into play and really good, sound tactics, often times when it is that type of situation, officers will respond to back each other up. and so if you have that situation carjacking and you

have officers that back you up and everybody in that situation need to have a gun out? with the present of mind to pay attention that. that is where the training comes in to help us and the adrenaline is flowing and to coordinate with a number of uses of firearm discharge and all relating to one incident and so with the statistics working together are complicated at times. so i had a thought and an idea

to go through this thinking of commissioner elias and i often do and the wise questioning, we did the training before we were the experienced veterans that we are now. and for people that don't know, force options training is a simulator where you're showing on the screen situations where you may have to use and different types of force and pepper spray, baton, and firearm and there is a scenario that plays out and i believe commissioner elias was blown up by a bomber. i always chose the right option according to a trainer. is there a simulation that is done to test for and concern and

perhaps officers or some officers may have implicit bias against people of color, black and hispanic. is there a simulation that sets up scenarios like that where you're tested against different races? i think it would be. is it something we have used? >> there are. a lot of that type of that simulation is done in research. stanford has done some and done in it research. we have been contacted by some of the institutions for that type of scenario and we don't have an agreement on that type of research yet, but it is out there, to answer your question. yes, it is out there and yeah. sometimes even with the tactical training where you have critical thinking scenario, it doesn't

address implicit bias, but shoot, don't shoot with firearms qualifications and it does help somewhat to address that issue. the research is out there and that type of training is out there. i think it is an emerging area of law enforcement with good possibilities there. [please stand by]

>> so those are things to tell the officers that you have to sort of look at the whole picture. so those are things that you've done. i'm glad to see the numbers are down, but i do think we need some explanation, and i do know the officers work really hard on the street, they're very diligent about this, but i think with the advent of body worn cameras, it's a process. we have to be patient, but we're moving forward, i think that's the positive. >> i just want to make an observation. i've sat through about two

years of these 96-a reports, and for the most part, they're pretty much the same. overall use is down, but the disparity in the racial numbers is the same. you've heard some really excellent numbers from commissioners here. my belief is that the department has the exact same questions that we do, and that you don't honestly have the capablity to answer commissioner elias' question. it's a pufundamental question, but it's the most important question. there are issues that go to quality of life.

every -- >> y >> we are training for folks that are receiving -- like, what is that training -- what does that training look like? >> i'm glad you asked that. working with d.e.m., there has been some conversations on how d.e.m. can address this issue.

actually, i think it was maybe two months ago, the department and d.e.m. did a conversation on this topic for the human rights commission, and so moving forward, i think d.e.m. is planning to put some things in process. i mean, i couldn't tell you tonight as i sit here exactly what their training is, but to your point, i think it goes hand in hand with what they're trying to do, and director carole is on board with that, and they'll move the ball forward. >> commissioner elias: i think it's important to note that the police department, specifically you have taken steps to address what happens when these calls come in and what the police officers can do to deescalate the sort of biased calls that do come in. >> thank you. that also was a part of the presentation that we cut out because that'll come to the commission soon enough. >> thank you, chief. and do you have

>> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> d.p.a. director henderson, we're ready for your report. >> i'll read it into the record. [agenda item read]. >> good evening. so i'm -- i'm just going to speak briefly. in terms of our numbers and our stats for this week, we are at 162 cases that are open versus 140 this time last year. in terms of cases closed, we're at 147 versus 124 this time

last year. open pending cases, we're 297 versus 254. cases sustained, we have 25 cases this year sustained versus 25 cases sustained last year. the number of cases tolled beyond 270 days are 24. of the cases, 17 of those cases are tolled last year. the 270-day is a trigger. the 3304 deadline is 364 days, but we report these numbers, and i report them just when we get past nine months, and they get special attention internally in my office, and people give weekly reports so we know and to avoid losing jurisdiction on any of our cases. for cases that are mediated, we are at five so far this year.

we were at four last year. we've been involved in a couple of things that are ongoing with the d.p.a. right now. our contract has finally been approved with slalom for our case management system. we're excited. that is a big deal for us in terms of our productivity and efficiency. i think it's going to improve a lot of our efficiencies. we had a strategic planning session last week with the consultant before they began reprioritizing some of the areas that we want them to focus on and work with us on both mediation and outreach were part of our big agendas. i think that's where we've seen a lot of the changes that are affecting our numbers in the past year and where i want to try and increase some of our efficiencies. we're still in our budget process with the mayor's office and city hall. there's not much for us to do