there was no empirical data for us to do anything differently. what drives us today whether talking about legitimacy cease-fire hotspot policing and on and on are based on theories coming out of academia. in the 1980s we didn't have the body of knowledge. in the 1980s we did what we could do to solve a problem which led to mass incarceration. that has crippled communities that i came from. as i close what we are going to do in the future needs to be based on empirical data. we need to research that is done that we know works and works well that we focus on the right thing to do. [applause] >> there's nothing to control a moderator better than a police commissioner saying i'm watching your body language. [laughter] when i grew up that was a matter of concern. >> thanks, jim. good morning, everyone and good morning, panel members. it's a pleasure to sit here and to listen to you. this panel is speaking directly to the group that deals with the largest number of people in our criminal justice system. my office alone handles 100,000 cases a year. not

but based on empirical data, based on best practices in those things that work for police agencies. now as i say that, within baltimore today we have programs like cspire. i had dinner with david kennedy last night. we were talking about the progress of cspire within the city of baltimore. if you are not familiar with that, overly simplified, what we do is focus on groups -- we focus on groups gangs and individuals in those groups that makes them up. we call them into a room. we bring them from behind a curtain. we sit down and say we no who you are. in that room we have all of my federalers partners, atf, dea, basically come with hammer and veiled glove approach. we tell you we know who you are, in anyone in this gang or group or crew becomes violent we're going to crush the entire group. we want you to step over to the velvet gloves side where we have wraparound services where we can support you, get you out of the life and help you move on and have a fruitful environment. that's oversimplified with what cspire is and it has worked. it has worked in 65 other cities and locations f

. >> and you have the empirical data to support that. >> yes, we do. >> i think the issue for me is thatling me something totally different. >> i don't think i'm mistaken. >> mike's telling me something different, and gerri's telling me something, this young lady's telling me something. they're not good nights for them. >> you're wrong. >> greg have you guys ever dialogued about this as a team? >> honest to god, marcus, i leave that up to mike. i don't have these meetings with them like he does. financial data typically isn't shared with employees, at least not in my opinion. >> do you normally have a good night? >> not considering what we could do on a busy night. we could make 200 bucks apiece. >> and how much will you make on a night like tonight? >> 100 to 120. >> so half. >> for, like--yeah. >> i keep being told, "oh, no, this is a good night." you seem to be the only one that has an issue with it. >> i'm the only one who's speaking up. when you're not here enough to know what's going on, it's really honestly hurtful and insulting because we care about this business just as much as

they went through the same empirical data, the same ant ek doal data. they along with the case management committee both recommended it and yet at the end of the day, even with the supplemental report supporting the continuation of cameras in the courtroom and electronic coverage, the judicial committee decided to not go forward with it. so, i'm not really sure, you know, how much more data we need to convince people. i know that the honorable judge robinson put some statistics in her written report. if you'll look at them, i believe that there are 17 points that were addressed and yet only three of those were over a 50% concern by the people filling out what ever type of questionnaire there was. so, i think, unfortunately, what we see is that it could, it might, it's possible. i think this is all speculative, but the overwhelming amount of evidence shows that it just hasn't happened in the experience of the courts throughout the states and even during the experimental time that they had. >> thank you, sir. just going to take a moment here to enter some

. >> well come a very good question we try to take an empirical data driven approach is much is possible to what is a very complex situation. the data we look at every month or the suicide bombers coming into iraq. we would have from five to 10 a year, up to 30, five to 10 a month in 2011, 2012. sometimes 50 a month. the month before the iraqi elections we had 50. it is coming now when i look at the indicators. i can't tell you if that is a trend or an anomaly. right now it is coming down. we're looking to see reforms the new government is making an abandoned iraqi commitment we will succeed. if you look in the hundred days is abolished the office of the commander-in-chief witches and irritant to the sunnis and centralized all security responsibility in the office of the prime minister. it has terminated almost three dozen problematic security commanders. it has identified as this has had 50,000 go soldiers, which is an anticorruption mechanism. so does taking steps we want to have taken to change the government, congressman. we couldn't say we have to have a new government. we had to ge

. >> well, it's a very good question and we try to take an empirical data driven approach as much asossible to what is a very complex situation. one data i look at every month are the suicide bombers coming into iraq. we had -- we went from to 5 to 11 a year up to 35 went up 30 a month, sometimes 50 a month. the month before the iraqi elections in april we had 50. it is coming down when i look at the indicators. i can't tell you if that's a trend or simply an amomly but right now it's coming down. we're looking to see the reforms that this new government is making and without an iraqi commitment long-term we probably won't succeed. but if you look at what the government has done in 100 dies, , it's abolished the office of the commander in chief which was an irritant to the sunnis and centralized all security responsibility in the office of prime minister. terminated almost three dozen problematic security commanders. it has identified as it has said 50,000 ghost soldiers on the role which is san anti-corruption mechanism. so it is taking steps that we wanted to have taken. to change

they went through the same empirical data. same anecdotal data.ase management committee, both recommendeded it. at the end of the day, even with a supplemental report supporting the continuation of cameras in the courtroom and electronic coverage of the judicial committee decided to not go forward with it. i'm not sure how much more data we need to convince people. i know judge robinson put statistics in her written report. i believe there were 17 point addressed. only three of those were over a 50% concern by the people filling out whatever type of questionnaire there was. so i think unfortunately what we see is it could, might, it's possible. i think this is all speculative. but the overwhelming amount of evidence shows that it just hasn't happened in the experience of the courts throughout the states and even during the experimental time they had. >> all right. thank you, sir. i will take a moment here to enter something into the record. without objection i request permission to submit for the hearing record materials from c-span, the radio and

. >> well, it's a very good question and we try to take an empirical data driven approach as much as possible to what is a very complex situation. one data i look at every month are the suicide bombers coming into iraq. we had -- we went from to 5 to 11 a year up to 35 went up 30 a month, sometimes 50 a month. the month before the iraqi elections in april we had 50. it is coming down when i look at the indicators. i can't tell you if that's a trend or simply an amomly but right now it's coming down. we're looking to see the reforms that this new government is making and without an iraqi commitment long-term we probably won't succeed. but if you look at what the government has done in 100 dies, it's abolished the office of the commander in chief which was an irritant to the sunnis and centralized all security responsibility in the office of prime minister. terminated almost three dozen problematic security commanders. it has identified as it has said 50,000 ghost soldiers on the role which is san anti-corruption mechanism. so it is taking steps that we wanted to have taken. to change

. >> well, it's a very good question and we try to take an empirical data driven approach as much as possible to what is a very complex situation. one data i look at every month are the suicide bombers coming into iraq. we had -- we went from to 5 to 11 a year up to 35 went up 30 a month, sometimes 50 a month. the month before the iraqi elections in april we had 50. it is coming down when i look at the indicators. i can't tell you if that's a trend or simply an anomaly but right now it's coming down. we're looking to see the reforms that this new government is making and without an iraqi commitment long-term we probably won't succeed. but if you look at what the government has done in 100 dies, it's abolished the office of the commander in chief which was an irritant to the sunnis and centralized all security responsibility in the office of prime minister. terminated almost three dozen problematic security commanders. it has identified as it has said 50,000 ghost soldiers on the role which is san anti-corruption mechanism. so it is taking steps that we wanted to have taken. to change

demands a greater response, more intense response than for white bodies, that's a problem and the empirical datat's true because officers come across more people of color in their policing because they're in higher-crime districts and that winds up meaning that they're in more minority districts? do you think that's the explanation in and if so, is that acceptable? >> we can't dismiss that. >> that's not the explanation. >> take on that factor and i'll come to the reverse. >> sure, this is the problem with this discussion. because there are, it's multifaceted. there are definitely issues to be discussed about police brutality. the abuse of power, can you go from civil forfeiture, which is a problem, that cuts across, black, white, yellow, green. that's everyone. to what's going on in high-crime neighborhoods, and in minority communities, why the crime rate is so high, there's a criminologist in the university of missouri, david clinger who did a study over 10 years, there were 1265 homicides in st. louis. 90% of them were black. 90% of them were black on black. >> that's almost the same for whit

the way but to your point art the data is crystal clear about the impact of certain policies on economic growth. we also now see in the united states we have empiricalevidence that supports the data. we have 30 out of 50 states run basically under republican policies and economic growth is better. we are starting to see a real differential between a state like texas and the state like california. that's hard to deny and people feel in their lives very now we come to the question of poverty and i think the data is pretty clear. the data is pretty clear. getting a high school education is an incredible determinant to someone's future earning power. so if someone doesn't have an opportunity to get a decent high school education because they have no choices really to get a good education where they have no chance to have a real teacher in front of a classroom that cares about them than they are going to be stuck in a life where they cannot fulfill their potential and earn as much as they are able to. we know that. the data is clear and i think conservatives on that point need to be crystal clear that liberals and democrats are on the wrong side of this

be careful about how we make empirical inferences and often the way we make empirical inferences despite taking whatever data is available in adding whatever assumptions are needed to draw strong conclusions. that may not seem a red button for most people but for me that's where it gets me really riled up. so i've been arguing is that the credible policy analysis with explicitly express limits to knowledge, try to show how that might be done in my technical work and on the broad notion is to study how policymakers can reasonably and i won't say optimally because that's going too far. that's pushing things but reasonably assess far as i would go to make decisions in an uncertain world then i think that is what alan's paper is focused on. now if we are going to face up to uncertainty, alan was focusing on projections for the future but we have to face up to uncertainty even about the things we think we know about the economy today. so i want to talk a bit about communicating uncertainty in official statistics. so we have all kinds of statistics that summarize the stated economy in these point estimates. these

very careful about how we make empirical inferences, and often the way we make empirical inferences is taking whatever data is available and adding whatever assumptions are needed to draw strong conclusions. and that may not seem a red button for most people, but for me that's what really gets me riled up. and so what i've been arguing is that a credible policy analysis would explicitly express the limits to knowledge. i try to show how that might be done in my technical work, and on the broad notion, is to study how policymakers can reasonably, i won't say optimally, because that's going to far. i think that's pushing things. but reasonably is as far as i would go, make decisions in an uncertain world. and i think that's what alan's paper was focused on. now, if we're going to face up to uncertainty. alan was focusing on projections to the future. but we have to face up to uncertainty, even of other things that we think we know about the economy today. so, i want to talk a bit about communicating uncertainty in official statistics. so, we have all kinds of statistics that summarize the state of the econom

data to show this now. there was a princeton study by martin gilens and ben page. the largest empiricalstudy of actual policy decisions by our government in the history of our government and what they did is they related our actual decisions to what the economic elite care about, what the organized interest groups care about, and what the average voter cares about. and when they look at the economic elite, you know, as the percentage of economic elite who support an idea goes up, the probability of it passing goes up. as the organized interests care about something more and more, the probability of it passing goes up. but as the average voter cares about something, it has no effect at all, statistically no effect at all on the probability of it passing. if we can go from zero percent of the average voters caring about something to 100 percent and it doesn't change the probability of it actually being enacted. and when you look at those numbers, that graph, this flat line, that flat line is a metaphor for our democracy. our democracy is flat lined because when you can show clearly there'

all of the empiricals, i am a great believer in the data, it goes back to my parabola and water example. if you give the women the money for the cash transfer because you are talking about giving it to the poor, more likely, it will be used to put food on the table and save a little bit for the education. all of the empirics show that. so we wanted to give the money to the women and our president supported it. but unfortunately because of the regulation, because of the family cart it is the men who are the head of the family. we couldn't do it. eventually, we started to develop programs where we could actually give the money to women. cash for work during a crisis is not just for men. it has to be for women, too. you cannot just give it only for making roads. it has to also be for women. you have to really think about it and show the economic value for women. we used a lot of the arguments and i think we really appreciate what secretary clinton did in 2011 to put it on the table that it's about the economics. it is about the business. women have that value. it is not just about equality

the studies using the most credible empirical methods find strikingly similar results using a variety of different data sources. matching contribution of 25% increases savings plan participation by roughly five percentage points. modest at best. conditional on participating in a savings plan financial incentives can impact how much individual save, but this does not come from the magnitude is so much as ron the fact that at some.the incentive expires. and many plans the employer provides a match a match but only up to a certain fraction of pay. the savers credit gives eligible low and moderate income households of financial incentive to save for retirement but only for the first $2,000 contributed when financial incentives to save our limited to savings below a certain threshold this threshold becomes a a focal.as individuals decide how much to save. data shows data shows that savings plan participants overwhelmingly choose contribution rates that are either multiples of five or the match threshold. this finding suggests the match threshold may be a much more important parameter than the match rate. th

new census data shows the sunshine state could soon take over the empire state's slot as the third mostcapsule just removed from massachusetts state house. the box put there by samuel adams and paul revere. it will be cracked open next week. that will be great. 70 grand. that's the price tag for a pub date with timothy cardinal dolan here in new york city. he recently auctioned up for a personal tour of old pubs around manhattan's east village. it's well-known the cardinal likes beer. elisabeth? >> so do i. do you ever feel like this around christmas? >> 'tis the season to be jolly despite nothing going your way. >> i'm allowed. i just can't do it all. >> you're a mom. you were made for this. >> no need to dread these crazy christmas moments anymore. we have the ultimate survival guide just for you. she's the author of "scary mommies guide to surviving the holidays," the scary mommy herself, jill. good morning and welcome. so you have over a million followers on twitter and facebook. 30 million page views a month there. we have a lot of ears listening. a lot of moms are panicking this t

deliver the cash transfer program after the rays of the fuel price, all of the empirical's -- i am a great believer in the data goes back to my parabola and water example. if you give the women the money for the cash transfer because you are talking about giving it to the poor, more likely, it will be used to put food on the table and save a little bit for the education. all of the empirics show that. so we wanted to give the money to the women and our president supported it didn't unfortunately, because of the regulation, because of the family cart it is the men who are the head of the family. we couldn't do it. eventually, we served to develop programs where we get ashley give the money to women -- we could actually give the money to women. cash for work during a crisis is not just for men. it has to be for women, too. you cannot just make it for making roads. it has to also be for women. you have to really think about it and show the economic value for women. we used a lot of the arguments and i think we really appreciate what secretary clinton did in 2011 to put it on the table that it's about the economic

the truth is when i look at it empirically i have traditional faith as a roman catholic but you can interpret it according to the data which is to say traditional and nontraditional faith brings happiness to people. the key thing is not ignoring the transcendental forces in life. not becoming a pure materialist. that is what matters the most. i spent a lot of time in india. people were deeply satisfied with their lives. they are religious people with a different religion than i have. what i would suggest is the social scientist it's very difficult to ignore the transcendental elements of life but in doing so you focus way too much on materialism. one of the things i write about is easy formulas for happiness. a formula can't that comes from modernistic light that tells us how to live the good life is wrong. the formula is to use people in love things. that's exactly wrong. a good life is one where we'd love people and only use things. to do that you have to have the transcendental -. >> host: from your book "the battle" house for enterprise will shape america's future the poor man who believes he has successfully cre