hour for the mediation. and that has been very successful for us. officers do come on duty typically. and oftentimes the complaint will have to come either from work or from some place outside of the city. we have made an attempt to make this as efficient as possible by meeting with complaints who have schedules such as 6:00 in the morning or 9:00 at night. and we've also done this for officers to accommodate their schedule. the purpose of the meeting is designed to reach a satisfactory outcome a mutual understanding of what the issue is. so we typically are successful. in fact, smart over the last year and a half that i have been on board, we have about a 98 percent success rate. and i would certainly like to take credit for that, but credit is due to two entities. one is our coordinator director who is not here tonight. but i'll describe in detail what the

things she does in order to ensure our mediations are successful. the other is the central core of our mediations and those are the skilled and trained mediators and as a matter of fact we have a couple or several of them in the audience tonight. without the mediators, we could not function. and it was very surprising to me when i came on board a year and a half ago to learn that all of our mediators are volunteers and they come from as far away as sacramento. and a person who comes to the 6:00 a.m. is usually the person coming from sacramento. they are very dedicated. they are experienced in california. all the mediators have to be trained 40-hour training course is required. but they are also skilled and very experienced. and when she and i first came on board a year and a half ago we were very new to the mediation process and mediation program. i was recruited from the department of justice by paul henderson

who was my boss when i was a prosecutor at the da's office so this is the second round of his supervising my work, i must say. so neither of us really understood how the mediation program worked. but what paul told us very directly is i don't want a gap. i want this to be a highly professionalized program. i want you to hit the ground running. because the director had resigned, actually retired a year and a half before we arrived. now, we were very fortunate, because the program was well-established and it was well regarded. so just like anybody else, you know you stand on the shoulders of people who have gone before you. we were very fortunate in that sense. the liability we had as i said, we did not really understand the mediation process the program what to expect and most importantly, we really did not know the mediators. so we took the opportunity to hold a forum. and we were very fortunate, because we sent out e-mails and got over 100 people to come to this particular

forum so we could describe paul henderson was there, we had somebody from the ninth circuit who runs the federal program in mediators. we had several other people who were professionals in the area, to describe what it is we want to achieve and how we were going to go about it. so that was our first introductions to mediators and showily but surely we began to realize that we could identify a core group of solid mediators who were always available to us. and as you can imagine, schedules mediation is very difficult. you have officers who have schedules, and you have the complaints who have their own schedules. and so putting this together often means that we are scrambling at the last minute to find mediators. so we have to pay them a great deal of gratitude for what they achieve for us. so basically i've really described what the mediation process is and what the program is about.

but what i found is most people wanted to know why do people mediate. what are the circumstances that bring people to mediation. and i struggled trying to explain the factual issues and so forth. and i was lucky enough to encounter i think an illustrative story. it's very large ocean line is crossing the atlantic almost at the port, smooth sailing. when the lookout tells the captain there is a light ahead and we are on a collision course. the captain says signal the other that he must change course 20 degrees. the lookout does so. the reply is no i suggest you change course 20 degrees. the captain is very annoyed by this and again i am a captain of a very large ship change course.

the reply is no better. it says i am a seaman second class, you change course. well now the light is getting closer. the captain is more agitated and he again says this is a very large vessel. catastrophe is about to happen. i am a large ship. the reply comes back i am a lighthouse. i suggest you reconsider. that's exactly what goes on with the mediations that we handle. there are misunderstandings miscommunications, there are assumptions that are made that are really groundless and there are time periods, urgencies limited times where people are interacting, officers and complaints, in a situation that's highly charged. now, i don't want to give you the

impression that we mediate things that are the size of large ships. not in size but certainly importance. it may not have the catastrophic consequences but it certainly does have the import for all the people who come to present their complaint to d.b.a. one of the things that we have learned is it has as much meaning for the complaint has it does for the officers. and when the officers come in, they want to have the opportunity to explain the actions that they took. and they want the opportunity to be heard. the complaint wants an opportunity to explain their perspective and that's where the mediators are facilitating the conversation. i'm going in the wrong direction. so the process is quite straightforward. during the intake process the investigators

do initial screening for the eligibility and suitability of cases that can be referred. the decision is then made by senior investigators in consultation with dpa attorneys. and we have taken it upon ourselves in the mediation program to ensure that we take a case and look at the eligibility. but even more importantly, the suitability meaning are these cases that can actually be resolved? are these parties who are willing to negotiate or to mediate in good faith? most typically they are. and we have set up a goal of turning cases around 30 days to avoid having something to go back to to investigation and then run into the time limits that investigators have to meet. the category of eligibility are discourteous,

neglect of duty unwarranted action, conduct reflecting discredit. and it typically in the discourteousness we will find that complaints feel it's not what the officer did but how he or she did it. it's the abruptness perhaps the interpretation that the encounter was rude, the failure of an officer to give enough time to explain the situation. in terms of neglect of duty, there are issues where officers have been called to a robbery scene a home that's been burglarized, actually and it may take several hours. and in those particular cases, a complaint may not understand that if there is no active offender on-site, that this call may be reprioritized. so those would fall into a neglect of duty category. when we look at unwarranted action,

we have had complaints where bystanders have been asked to move, even though they have every right to stay in a particular place. either it's a demonstration or there's some other activity taking place or there's a vehicle that was been towed without notification, or there was failure to notify the owner that something has been towewd. we had someone report that someone reported their car had been stolen but the information was not put into the system so she was subjected to a a felony stop, which was quite an ordeal, i would say. so there are a variety of different cases. obviously we do not mediate anything involving injuries, racial

slurs or sexual slurs, although i would like to note that throughout the nation, there are agencies that do actually mediate those particular issues. obviously use of force allegations and questions of law and constitutionality. as i mentioned the real benefit to both is the opportunity to be under and heard. one of the things we want to do in the policeman and this may sound lofty -- what we want to do in the system is an attitude and behavioral change. and even though it may be incremental to do it in terms of one mediation at a time, we really take a look at those pieces that can help the parties understand one another. one is restorative justice. now, we are certainly not able to give something tangible to something or repair something that

has been broken, but restorative justice has as much to do with dignity and self respect and the feeling that a complaint really matters to the officer that they come in contact with. in terms of procedural justice, we want to ensure that the mediation is fair, it's impartial it's conducted by people who understand the issues, and we also want to support a complaint's ability to feel empowered. and that's an emotional response where they have the confidence and assurance that they can sit across the table from an officer in uniform and discuss candidly the impact that that action had upon them. and in terms of self determination, that is the ability to make the decision yourself. nobody is going to impose a decision either upon the officer or upon the complaint. this is a moment when they make the

decision, they decide whether or not the meeting has been satisfactory. obviously there's no specific agreement that's required. there's no apology that's required there's nothing tangible that exchanges. but what we have found in observation is that as long as people get to express themselves in a very respectful manner if they feel the other party has heard them, there is a high degree of satisfaction. and i have to say that this is -- one of the things that surprised me is that the officers want the same thing that the complaint does. they want to feel that they are respected. they want to have a sense of dignity about the work that they do. and they want to connect with the complaint and the community as much as the community really does want to connect with the officers. this is very surprising to see toward the end even with the most aggrieved person, someone who comes in who is very, very upset

and maybe has a lot of emotion around it they typically will end up saying to the officer i know you've got a big job to do, i know that we need you we need your services, we need your protection we respect you, you can see the need for connection on both parties. and we find that is a kind of transformative moment for them. when we came on board, as i said, in 2008, we were really given direction to improve the process and the procedures of mediation. we wanted to capture more mediations. we wanted -- there were a certain number of referrals. we wanted to improve the referral process. so we've done that by staying in close contact with the

investigators in the sense that we communicate to them our successes, we talk to them about the capacity that we have and we encourage them to review their cases on a weekly basis, especially at intake, to see if there is something that can be referred to us after it's gone through the initial determination process. in terms of the personalization and the effectiveness, this is where our coordinate is really extraordinary. we call her the mediator whisperer because she has an ability to talk to a complaint and to uncover not only the obvious complaint but what it is their expectations are what they hope to achieve if they are realistic, and also to help encourage people who may be resistant to mediation. and you can imagine that there are a number of people who are fearful. they are fearful of police retaliation. they are fearful of coming in and

that there may be an imbalance of power between an officer and a citizen. they are fearful they won't be able to express themselves. she has an ability to persuade them and explain to them the process. the environment that we provide the support that we would provide. and also our decision to observe all mediations. we have done that because we found it was going to be the only way that we could ensure quality mediations, that we could ensure that the mediators were meeting the standards, the high standards for quality services that we could look at trends, and that we could ensure procedural justice for both parties. and as a result, we have been able to get more people to agree to mediation than we have in the first year that we were doing this. we've also developed some other efficiencies and what we think is more effective for some people and

that is telephone mediations. there are oftentimes people who have come to san francisco they may live in the east bay maybe they are traveling out of town, and we have been able to arrange several mediations by telephone. and those prove very satisfactory with mediators coming to our office officers in our office and conducting mediation through the telephone. we would like to do this through a video at some point. but at this particular time i don't think that we have plans to do that. >> we need you to wrap this up please. >> okay. the last thing i want to talk about is how we are measuring success. we are measuring it in two indices. one is the process. is the process fair? the outcome, is the outcome long-lasting. out come is important in terms of satisfaction and we have a

98 percent satisfaction rate. we've also been able to increase our mediations from 23 from the first year to we will end up the year with about 35 to 36 mediations and a capture rate of about 50 percent. the national average is 30 percent. >> okay. thank you. i spend my days as an arbitrator and mediator and in a good year i have about a 90 percent success rate. so i need some tips for you folks. not right now. but when you say a 98 percent success rate, what does that mean? >> well, there are two -- there's a qualitative success rate and quantititive measurement. because we can observe it, we can determine as we see the process. but we also debrief the officer and the complaint verbally after the mediation. and we also rely upon exit surveys.

exit surveys are a little bit more difficult to gather. people are -- i think they leave and they just don't come back or don't send them back to us. we don't want them to do it on-site because we don't think that's the appropriate way to get a really good sense of whether somebody has been satisfied. >> so the 98 percent means both parties were satisfied. >> yes. with our exit surveys we have not had any either officer or complaint say they were not satisfied. >> okay. thank you. commissioner mazzucco. >> thank you very much. i've always been a big proponent and fan of the mediation process with the dpa. it's worked miracles. and i think all the reviews i've heard throughout the years is both parties do walk away with an understanding. it's great for our officers to learn about what people feel about their interactions. the example i always give is that people don't understand that police officer's first level use of force is their voice. and then they look at hands and all

the different things to do. when they explain to the individual we do this because of officer safety. i think it's great. and i think for the public to understand that and the officers to understand how people feel. obviously more experienced officers are better at dealing with people because they've learned how to deal with people and how they impact them. so again great program great work really appreciate it. and thank you. this was a great presentation and 98 percent success rate is incredible. in fact i'm urging the d.b.a. and the parties to one of the cases i have because i think we would solve the matter. >> we've had great cooperation with chief scott who made it possible for us to go to all the precincts to deliver our address and to have other outreach efforts to explain to officers what the benefits of mediation are. >> okay. thank you. director henderson. >> i want i wanted to thank you again

for the presentation and talk about what a big deal it was to transition beyond the coordination of mediation to translate that into bringing all the mediators in making sure beyond just getting them assigned to the cases that they were all getting the same or similar training to understand exactly what we were trying to do to make sure that we were being as vigilant as we could about maintaining objectivity in the mediations to get done what we think is appropriate. and also to articulate just beyond the numbers of what the measurements were of satisfaction it really is the program that people get the most out of from communities, because they get a chance to actually communicate. and it's our most transparent process for them to really understand what happened to them and why and to talk about that with a real individual who in their minds is accountable for what happened to them and they are able to talk about that.

and to thank the mediators that volume tire their time and the one who came tonight who have been a part of maintaining this process with us. >> thank you. >> thank you all. >> it's a tough job. >> they know what it's like to be volunteer. >> i'm going to -- i would like to take something out of order next. i'm going to ask the youth commission if they have a presentation to make. it's going to be line item 2d, youth commissioner's report. >> good evening. >> hi there. >> how are you all? >> good. how are you? >> i'm fine. thank you. so some things i'm supposed to bring up. the pamphlet which i hear he says he's going to come to the youth commission to work on. so that's what i was going to come talk about.

but since that's going to happen then we'll see how that goes. ideally we would want one universal type thing that we can get out there and hopefully incorporate some training in it with young people so they can kind of grasp all the material. the other thing that they wanted me to bring up is sro relationships and what that looks like. from our understanding, the meeting with yolanda williams i think she's a lieutenant from -- the chief is nodding so she's probably a lieutenant. we hear that s. r. o. s haven't had specific training regarding being in schools and working with young people. and our request would be that that happens pretty quickly especially because they're already in schools. and also that there's some sort of relationship building built

into their rounds at school, because we think that is still very important that young people have a relationship with their neighborhood officers as opposed to just seeing them when something bad happens. >> thank you. do you know about the training the sros go through, if any? >> commissioner, there is training. we are in the process also of renegotiating our mou with the school district on that. so some of that also is in discussions about being in mou about what the training requirements are. but there is some training with the sro. they had to go through once they become sros. and -- >> does the district have input into what the training should look like? or is that coming from the department? what are you negotiating? >> it's not the department training. and the discussions now with the mou

negotiations include what that training should look like and how often. so i don't know what the final product will be, but that's on the table right now. >> okay. anything else? >> no that's it >> okay. commissioner elias. >> maybe i got this wrong but i wanted to ask you i thought you said that the youth commission had seen the pamphlet. >> not yet. >> that was the youth -- >> alive and free. that's dr. marshal's. so the youth commission is already calendared if i'm not mistaken. >> december 9. >> yes. >> thanks. >> vice president taylor. >> i have a question for you because i want to get your advice and perspective on this. why are you laughing? i'm serious. commissioner elias and i have seen the pamphlets as part of our work on the working group governing bias and detention. and one of the things that came to

mind were the issues that i had in thinking about these pamphlets, especially pamphlets for youth, i wanted to make sure -- i'm a woman of color myself, so i wanted to make sure the depictions of youth we see don't reinforce stereotypes about who commits crimes, who should be getting these kinds of pamphlets. so i don't know if i'm being a crazy old lady and thinking too much about these things. but i want to get your perspective when you see it as to the depictions in these photographs and what they evoke for you and what they should be. does that make sense? >> i haven't actually seen the photographs >> i know but i want you to keep it in mind. i don't like seeing a lot of youth of color on -- if you have to do with law enforcement. >> probably youth on the pamphlet in handcuffs. [laughter] again, i would have to see the images.

but i think, like, having pictures of us in handcuffs or something may be triggering. granted, i would like to see pictures of positive relationships with law enforcement and colored young people. that would be nice. >> great. okay. thank you. >> but i don't know where they have those positive relations but you have pictures in the archives. might be a time to brush them out. >> i think you are part of it right now. but i want you to keep that in mind when you look at the pamphlets and i want to hear your feedback when you come back. >> i'll keep that in mind. >> are you saying she might be a crazy old lady? >> you're saying there's a chance that might be true? >> i think everyone is crazy. i might be a little crazy. >> thank you. >> commissioner dejesus. >> so i just want to get clarification.

when you say the sro officer should have training and the chief says they do have training i'm not following what the concern is on the training. >> so yesterday we had a conversation our transformative justice committee, had a conversation with lieutenant yolanda williams. try to make sure i'm not saying people's names wrong. it was that when she had took over the sro program or whatever, and 90 percent of the officers were untrained on a very specific training that related to engaging with the young people in schools, i forgot exactly what she called that training. but -- kind of problematic. >> so that was your concern? >> yes. that was very directly our concern. they aren't trained to interact with youth and they are already in the schools interacting with youth that may be a problem. >> maybe you can find out what lieutenant

williams was focusing on. >> yes chief. i believe what ms. jones is talking about, the understanding teen training, which is part of training that we started doing about a year, a little bit over a year and a half ago. so not all the -- and lieutenant williams was a big part of rolling that training out. so officers, not all officers, but many officers have been trained on that. it was a big issue with the youth commission that really believed that training would be beneficial to the department. so we have rolled that out. and i think that's the training that you are referring to. >> that could be the one, yes. i'm sure you're more aware of what the trainings consist of than me which maybe we should look into that. maybe we should have a conversation of what the trainings look like. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you

>> thank you so much. >> chief, did you have something else? >> policing the teen brain is the actual description of the course. >> the teen brain. >> the teen brain, yes. >> i saw a presentation on that. right. i thought you were saying team rain. >> the dpa was a big part of helping this training be brought to san francisco. >> is that the intent to have all the sros go through that training? >> sros and -- we did a train the trainer portion to get this rolled out. and don't have a count of how many officers have gone through the training but we've had many officers go through the training. >> okay. thank you. okay. next item, please. >> line item 2c. commission reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. the discussion will be limited to

whether to calendar any of the items. >> i don't have a report. any report by commissioners? commissioner dejesus? >> i attended the meeting of language access. and this is really complicated. so i'm just going to try to give you a nutshell version of this. we are having these issues with officers who were born in a country speak fluently, but cannot get certified by the department of human resources if i have that right. and we had -- we had captain jack heart came to the meeting and put $300 out of his own pocket to train one of his officers to get certified by an outside agency so that when they test that they can say i have credentials. but those credentials coming from the outside are not being recognized. don't hold me to all this, but they

are not being recognized by the department of human resources. and we have other officers paying out of their pocket to get individual certification. so this is an issue that's ongoing. you can have somebody from your office who is there so she probably knows better than i do. there was a discussion. and how are we going to move forward. and they came up with a plan. there's a plan in place they are going to move on. but there may be a timeline with the department of human resources setting it up. i say complicated because it's tied up with budgeting too. when you get certified you get stipends. part of the plan is to look into this and perhaps perhaps try to estimate if there's going to be a six month, 18-month gap from the department of human resources getting it together to certify and that maybe we can put in the budget some training for officers to get outside certification while they are waiting to

get certified by the department of human resources. the other thing we have is remember the bakery incident we had in the valley not the bakery -- i'm getting confused. in richmond station, we have a high need for a language that's not certified. and that we are having -- we have hinn -- hindi and arabic. there is a plan going forward and i'll brief you more on it when i get a better handle of the details. two other things though is even though we are working on certification and language interpretation, that is different from translation. and we do have instances where the victims were right in their own language, a statement, and those statements technically, i

think there was a bulletin out that they had to be translated or at least the gist of it to put in the police report. she said he didn't do it. and we had something worked out but it fell apart. so there's no way to translate what a victim statement is. and many times not be incorporated in the report. and that could be a liability actually for us if a victim is saying i was the one who was attacked, and we charge the victim as the attacker because nobody could read the statement, and it wasn't translated. so that's something that was taken on. and right now that's an open issue. there's no way to do that. the last thing we have officers who were being used in the language access field repeatedly, and there's burnout for those particular officers. so this is some of the things they are dealing with. and i just wanted to report on that and when we get the plan in

place i'll tell you more about that. >> commissioner mazzucco. >> thank you. i want to talk about an incident that took place involving our officers in the community that i was a part of. and it tells you how the community works with the officers, we can achieve things. we have a close ront on octavia street and very proud of what happened and there was a homeless person who has been there for quite a while. she is not making a mess or causing trouble or screaming, but the neighbors are worried about her. they've contacted 311 homeless outreach, they are feeding her providing her with blankets jackets. and this one whom marie who is a friend of my wife's was worried about this person. and she wasn't getting results with the usual channels. and she was worried about her. and marie is fighting her own battle

and winning with some health issues. i drove by and saw the woman in the doorstep and she was shivering and i contacted the captain of the northern station and said can we do something about this? the neighbors are concerned. they want to help her. and a car came right away. and the officers were talking to her and she refused to go anywhere. and marie came outside and said maybe if a woman talks to her it will work. and she worked as liaison between the officers and her and she wanted to go to a woman's shelter. she's more comfortable with a civilian than with officers. this woman left and went to a shelter for the first time. so i want to say this is an example of what our police officers do on the street that goes unrecognized and when they work with citizens who were truly concerned and giving this woman soup and blankets we have success in this field. last week i drove by and she was not there.

again in this society we live in and people are saying nasty things the officers do great things working with the community. and i just want to share that with the commission. and thank marie for what she did. she's an incredible strong woman. >> thank you. commissioner hamasaki. >> thank you. thank you commissioner mazzucco for sharing that story. i think that's as commissioners we see that the homelessness issue is an issue that has to be embraced by the whole city. and it's good to hear about all of our friends, neighbors, community and law enforcement being a part of a positive resolution -- not a resolution but at least a step forward of an individual incident. i just wanted to say that i'm glad that this election is behind us, and i wanted to congratulate our new district attorney chase

bodine on his election. and i know that there was a lot of divisiveness that went on during this election between various actions. i stayed out of the whole election. i didn't -- i mean, i voted. so i didn't actually stay out of the election, but now that it's behind us, i think that it's good to see signs that everybody is looking forward to putting that behind us and working to move forward to ensure that our system of justice is functioning in a way that the citizens of this -- and the members of this city have demanded. and the divisiveness that took place, that shouldn't extend down

to the hall of justice. and i'm optimistic that we're looking at a bright future for this city under district attorney bodine and to thank everybody and acting district attorney and former commission president for running a great campaign and for sitting in until the new district attorney takes over. so i'm looking forward to great things. >> thank you. commissioner elias, i have a question for you about something you said. i want to make sure i get it. an officer who is not certified i understand cannot testify in court. does the certification hurt the officer outside of court? the lack of certification? >> so we have an expert on this if

you can answer. a lot of our officers have technically been recertified for life. and we picked that. they have to be certified now. >> let me ask about the non-certified officer. what are the problems outside of a courtroom? >> in the criminal court an officer not be certified >> outside of a courtroom. forget the courtroom. >> part of what's going on is under the general order, officers need to be certified through dhr so it's an administrative violation if they are not certified and the process is to ensure the officer is at a certain proficient level. and that's part of what the working group is trying to do is right now dhr only provides certification for sworn officers in four targeted languages. but the police department has many proficient officers in many languages beside the four certified languages like vietnamese or

arabic. and so they could be certified. and that's part of what we've been trying to do is expand that pool. but they run all officers if they are not dhr certified when they are in court, they run into trying to establish proficiency and certification enables them to get over that hurdle. >> certification right now must come from dhr. can't come from a third party entity? >> that's an interesting question. we are aware other agencies like the department of emergency management they have used outside third party certification agencies. so that's part of what we were exploring with dhr as well. and at the end of the day, we've been talking about it for so many years, and when incidents happen like the orchard bakery incident where there's a need for a certain officer and most certainly the department has those officers but there's a hesitancy to call out those officers because they are not

certified. we want to get the tools to those officers so they can respond as they want to respond. and there's other incidents where there's been a need for arabic speaking officers. and we want certification. so officers feel confident, be it when they are doing their interview or in court they feel like they have the certification behind them. >> thank you. >> the dgo says they have to be certified is an unfunded mandate. maybe you can explain about there's no money to do that. >> well, i would say it's on the one hand dhr certifies in target languages. but for us to expand to go beyond those target languages i think that's been a challenge and the other thing we've been trying to do and again it's our agency and other agencies working with with the police department is to be able to do that certification right at the academy so there's no -- it's going to be more efficient, it's going to be less costly to be able to certify recruits right there and offer right

at the academy this certification so officers know where to go. they are not having to figure out how to get to dhr and take time from recruit officers having to leave the academy to go to dhr to the the certification process so we are wanting a more efficient system. and that was great to have captain hart come to that meeting because now that he's at the academy he is committed to working with the chief and dhr to get these systems in place. >> thank you. next line item please. >> thank you. >> line item 2e commission announcement for scheduling of items identified for consideration at future meetings. action. >> any items from commissioners? seeing none, next item. >> the next police commission is scheduled for wednesday, december 4, 2019. 5:30 p.m. at city hall room 400. the public is now invited to comment on items 2a through 2e.

>> public comment on just the matters we have discussed so far. seeing none, public comment -- sorry. >> is this general public comment? >> not yet. this is just on what we have discussed. good evening. >> i'm not exactly sure all what was discussed or not. >> well, it's important that we do that, because otherwise, if this is general comment i'll ask you to wait >> i'm waiting. but i thank you. >> okay. >> see you in a bit. >> next item then. comments closed. >> line item 3 presentation of the dpa report on general orders, policy proposals second and third quarter 2019 discussion >> good evening. >> good evening. the department of police accountability. i have a powerpoint. it will take me a second to put it in. >> it's here somewhere.

[laughs] >> okay. you are on. >> thank you. good evening commissioners chief scott, director henderson members of the public. director of policy from the dpa. tonight is the night when sfpd and our agency has an opportunity to give you an overview of department work that we've been working on for the last two quarters.

i wanted to briefly talk about our policy role quickly and get some highlights of that work. this is really more for the general public. we are mandated through the city charter to provide policy recommendations on a quartly basis so we provide them through this report and a quarterly report. when we finish investigative reports that's another time we provide findings and recommendations. for the highlights of what we've worked on, we put together a know your rights brochure we made recommendations for an mou between the district and police department. we made recommendations concerning consent searches and we worked on a manual so i'm going to go over those four-years. concerning know your rights brochure when we knew there was a change in state law concerning interrogations

of youth and there was a city ordinance that lowered the age to 17 and below for youth that are in custodial interrogation, they have a right to immediate access to an attorney and need to have access to the attorney before they are interrogated. because of those kinds of changes we wanted to update a know your rights brochure and get that information out. we worked with the police commission. that was the first thing we did. i spent time going to their meetings talking about what they wanted to see, things they wanted to have updated. i worked with a bunch of other organizations. i worked with other youth organizations that provide legal services. i also worked with the public defender's office. so we vetted it through those youth commission and through those organizations to make sure this is going to be a brochure that included the resources that you wanted to have included. and we are making it specific for youth and their parents. so organizations that we worked with the youth commission, the public defender's office, asian law

caucus, strategies for youth, legal services for children and san francisco immigration immigrant legal and educational networks. and some of these organizations agreed to include their resources their phone numbers within this brochure. it's available in six languages. it's on our website. it's a little more difficult to find it on our website. when we redo our website, we want to make sure it's much easier. it's a brochure that we passed out at all our outreach. we have copies here as well. we have it in six languages. we are working on getting it translated into arabic. as i said, we have many brochures here. i've also provided those brochures in our materials to the commission. so that's one of the big things that we did that we rolled out, i believe in may we did that. the other thing we did was we made recommendations both to the police department and to the school district concerning the mou

and we had collaborated with the youth commission some youth organizations on the recommendations we made. and we presented them to a subcommittee of the board of supervisors. and our recommendations included we wanted training and you were all just talking about the strategies for youth training. since 2010 we've been advocating with the youth commission that all officers get the strategies for youth training, because it's about information about the juvenile brain it's about deescalation specific to youth encounters with police. so we've been envisioning this training would be rolled out and all officers would get it in addition to the school resource officers as well. so we wanted that training to be included in the mou. and we made those kinds of suggestions. we also made other recommendations concerning making sure that the procedure now for interrogations of youth that all of that language would be included in the mou including a 24/7, there's a hotline for the public defender's

office so we know that youth parents and police officers know what that number is and they are able to call that number before a youth is actually interrogated. and we made other recommendations making sure that not just youth who are limited english proficient but also their parents making sure there are rules, making sure there are interpreters provided. the prosignificance visions of 7.01 -- provisions of 7.01, we wanted to make sure those aspects are included. to my understanding the mou was in front of the school board last night. so we are hoping that process is moving to a conclusion soon. so a third area that we focused on has to do with consent searches. so historically the police department requires written consent when there's a consent search of a

residence. but building on the 21st century policing, our agency back in 2015 recommended the police department now require written or recorded consent if a consent search of the individual and their person. so we made this recommendation studies across the country are showing consent searches disproportionately impact people of color, and they are not particularly effective as a crime strategy. in fact, what studies are showing the data is showing even our own when the department of justice did a study of sfpd data they found that historically and with the data that individual it is of color, they are searched at a higher rate but the rate of return is substantially less than what a caucasian individuals are. so it's not an effective crime strategy. and in fact really undermines trust. so based on that, we had recommended that there be -- if there's going to be consent searches, and there are departments who are now doing away completely with consent

searches, because the disproportionate impact and the low rate of return. so there are agencyies -- we are ad elevating for -- advocating for a written or recorded consent. it's a proposal under consideration by the chief. we've written a procedure and we are thinking that's going to move forward soon. and then the last thing that we did in the last two quarters was worked on a number of manuals. we reviewed the elder abuse manual the community advisory board manual and the reserve manual. and we appreciate the department's willingness to share those manuals with us and for us to be able to provide that feedback. the last thing that has been really a project of almost three years was we created collaboratively a domestic violence manual. and we are getting close to finishing up that manual and hope it

will soon be in its last stage and be presented to this commission. and that's my presentation. >> thank you. commissioner elias. >> thank you. i wanted to actually commend you on the know your rights pamphlet. i think it's really well put together. and i know that you had shown us this in the working group when sfpd was putting together their know your rights manual for the youth and in speaking with a lot of the stakeholders at the meeting they had indicated how sort of hard you had worked and the sort of collaboration and community input you received to make this pamphlet -- bring this pamphlet together. so i would commend you on your work and efforts for that. because i do believe that the youth are -- they do like it, and they are benefiting from the know your rights pamphlet that you've been distributing. your agency.

thank you. >> thanks. >> thank you. commissioner hamasaki. >> thank you. i just wanted to follow up and say thank you to you and the dpa for continuing to put together some of the most thoughtful policy changes for both the dpa and then also for the commission to consider for our department. i always find that when i reach out to her for questions regarding certain policies, there's always an excellent resource. and i'm grateful for the service that you provide to the department. >> thank you. >> thank you. i'll echo that too. thank you. >> thank you. >> next item, please. oh. we are still -- part 2. >> good evening. >> good evening. >> executive director? director?

executive director? >> oh, my gosh. [laughs] i don't know what's happening right now. i am so sorry. okay. good evening, commissioners. executive director katherine mcguire. good evening director, chief scott public members of the public. i'm here to present sort of the second and third quarter work that we've conducted and with respect to policy. so in the second and third quart we issued 118 department policies and notices, 117 were bulletins and one was a notice. we issued two general department orders,

2.04 and 3.01. as you know, during the second and third quarter department general order 3.01 was passed at the commission and issued by the department later to the department as a general order. and so we are now operating under a new rubric in which we have no -- we do have department bulletins and notices. the department general orders that we had that were in progress during the second and third quarter include the deaf and hard of hearing, department general order. it is a policy that in which it's the policy that members in the course of their official duties when encountering a deaf or hard of hearing individual shall provide a qualified interpreter or appropriate auxiliary aid to ensure

effective communication. this has been developed with input from members of the working group that included the department of police accountability. it's also been discussed or provided to the police officers association in which they had no feedback on it. and then in addition, the california department of justice has most recently weighed in and we are now going to be looping back with dpa and the working group that helped develop this in order to talk through some of those comments that the california doj may have had. additional general orders that we were working on in quarter the and 3 include investigative detentions and prohibiting biased policing as commissioner taylor and commissioner elias are well aware. the executive sponsor working group

on bias under the usdoj recommendations has been working on those particular dgos and providing a substantial amount of input in developing those revised general orders. and so my understanding is that those are nearly complete and will be coming to the command staff to discuss and then if there's feedback of course going back to the bias working group to talk through that. but otherwise we are nearing a point where we can come to this body with those particular dgos. there's an additional list of dgos here including 11.07. this is another item that was in front of the bias working group and has had a substantial amount of review with external stakeholders. and we have started concurrence on

that item and will be finishing that soon as well. we wanted to call out a couple of areas in both ggo2.04 and dgo3.01 in which the department of police accountability is included in communications and sort of talk through a little bit about how we've been conducting ourselves. and this was all consistent with usdoj recommendations so for instance 2.04, really the revisions that happened there included incorporating all of the charter mandated requirements for complaints against officers investigations that are required of dpa. and also includes the sfpd review of the previous quarter's cases and aggregate trends to inform policy and training.

and then in addition to that, reviewing any cases to determine whether any policy, procedures or training needs to be reviewed added or reissued. and i hope that she feels the same. we have fruitful discussions on a monthly basis in my unit. and we've now asked commander sullivan to join us in that monthly meeting. and i believe that your new policy analyst will be joining us as well. so we are going to be a pretty robust series of discussions going forward with all those parties involved as well. and then finally the dpa is also specified in their role with respect to a written communication system that has been newly established. so many of these things were kind of -- we had already kind of put in place as good practices in communicating with dpa. this formalizes timelines ask things

like that and really helps direct us as to exactly when we are mandated to engage dpa and i feel that we are now doing that and more. and so i think that's the presentation. oh. no. this is a agreed slide. i forgot about this story. you asked us in a presentation to note and count up the number of recommendations under the u.s. doj that had policy revisions recommended. we did this review a while back. and kind of did you go it up in some files of an individual who has now left the unit. but we found this analysis. we were trying to track down -- not track down but trying