Transcripts For SFGTV Government Access Programming 20240713

Chart on the right hand side that demonstrates that. Of the 175 alerts, seven of them were not from any station, they were actually part of the unit. Just a reminder that the iist actually follows the officers so if he was at a station at the time of the alert transfers to one of the other units. The alert will follow that officer so that unit will be showing as having an alert. So when we see something, that officer may have been at a district station at that time when he obtained the alert. So we have seven total for outside of the station. And we have included all the indicators from 2016 to this quarter so we can see in 2016 we had a total of 46,011. The first and Second Quarter is 1106 compared to this year we have 760 indicators for the First Quarter and 683 for the Second Quarter. And when we are looking at the percentages and the numbers, we can see that we are on a downhill spiral, on a downhill grade as far as indicators and larrys for the department alerts for the Department Since we started keeping track. And these are the indicators per member. So what we can see from 2016, 2295 members, 682 had at least one indicator compared to this year we had 2287 as far as officers and 464 members with one indicator. The chart on the bottom, you can see from 2016 to 2019, its been going down as far as the number of indicators for our department. As far as the ten indicators i spoke of earlier these are the indicators broken down by numbers. So mission station total of 96 indicators for this reporting period. We have 76 useses of force nine dpa complaints, one internal affairs three on duty collisions. Every district station is broken down with that being the fewest of the use of force with 11. Park has four dpa complaints, five internal Affairs Investigations one eo complaint a total of 599 indicators for the district stations. This is a breakdown of all the units. And again the indicators will follow the officers, not necessarily by that unit. We have a total of 84. And we can see all the different breakdowns of all the different units. Having seven uses of force but the airport having nine. So nine was the highest number of uses of force outside of the stations for this reporting report reporting period. On the last presentation, it was requested to have some type of personnel numbers corresponding calls for Service Numbers for the alerts and indicators and thats this page here. So we see the station with 42 alerts, 96 indicator they responded to 23,072 calls for service in this reporting period. They are not the highest number of calls for service. And we also dont have the highest number of officers. But they do have the highest number of alerts and indicators. So what we started to look at in the report was we went through the 69 reports and started looking at the number of stops number of detentions, number of Violent Crimes. And what we are finding out in mission stay station is the leader in most of those categories. It has the highest number of Violent Crimes out of all district stations. They also have the highest number of arrests at 911 for this reporting period. For the total stops in the whole district they have 3838 which is the second highest out of all district stations. When we look at the report mission station has the highest number of Violent Crimes. They are just as high as far as homicide and shootings firearm seizures, they are not too far up there but they do have some significant amount of firearm seizures. They do lead in arrests for this reporting period. And they do lead in the uses of force for this period. So next step we took regarding trying to find out why numbers are so high, especially for mission station is we started breaking down the number of alerts per incident. And what we are finding that mission station seems to have a higher number of officers engaged in a single event. So one event being a high risk stop, we had 24 officers in one event. And that turned out to be 24 uses of force because there were three suspects in the car and eight officers out there on the scene. Other stations do have that as well but we are going through the date and we are going to review the reports more closely, trying to determine whether or not this particular station, if theres an issue or if theres Something Else going on. The last panel meeting, we had the Training Division with us. So with the Training Division, what we did is we took the date for all district stations and broke that information down to see how many officers at each individual station took the critical mindset critical reach course. And i have from sergeant that we are going to go ahead and start expanding that program and start inviting other stations especially those with use of force into that course. We are going to address if thats a training issue whether it calls for service or anything in between. So we are going to start looking into those options as well. On the next page it says the critical mindset coordinated response training. I heard its a great program. It is. A lot of positive responses from it. Yes, we have. Its a great class. Its a really good twoday course. Every officer has to take it as far as their continuing professional training, which is one day out of the four days. But they do offer a twoday class. So the sergeant and captain are going to work on expanding that course to bring more station personnel into that class. We are rolling that into our training and just for the rest of the commission, better coordination at the scene better command and control which we hope will equate to less use of force. Weve had some where a lot of guns have been pointed so the better the coordination, we want to see a better outcome in terms of less use of force with pointing of the firearms. I dont know if any commissioners would be interested but it might be helpful if anybody is interested to be able to sit in one or two days of that course. Absolutely. I will definitely discuss that with the sergeant and see if we can facilitate that. Thanks. Go ahead. We have a use of force. And this is a combined for the first and Second Quarter of 2016. We have 73 the 3 incidents with 1346 members, 935 subjects. For 1878 on the applications for use of force. Compare that to what we have for the first and Second Quarter of 2019, we have 518 incidents, 844 members, 600 subjects and 1058 applications. So on the right hand side, you can see the graph. Every single year, we are going down. We are going down on a number of alerts, number of indicators and hopefully we can continue on with this information. And here are the applications of force for the Second Quarter of 2019. Between the first and second, we did have that 29 percent increase. So 211 we had a total of 485 uses of force with firearm. You can see the remainder of the categories, we were pretty consistent with previous reporting period or we actually went down. So the question gets asked what those are, thats deployment of the flash from the tactical unit. It didnt fit into any category to its under other. Our favorite, university of chicago they provided a final report. In the last update, we asked the university of chicago to fix errors and gapes not accounting of internal affairs, officer involved shootings and officer involved discharge cases that were opened and closed at the time of the study. They fixed the errors in the dates but refused to fix. We dont have the back page in our materials. You should be able to fix the screen so we can see the whole page on the monitor. If you zoom it. There we go. Okay. So they fixed the dates. We didnt get the other information fixed. So almost half of our cases were still open. So the information thats not really correct at this time. That includes what i have. Thank you. Could you go back to page 3, which is the flowchart . Yes, sir. This may have been answered at another meeting. But in the center of that page is that box that is the subjective box to me. And it says review by supervisors. And you said that we tried to feel if theres a risk of behavior, at Risk Behavior if theres a pattern taking place. Is that just subjective . Is there some protocol you follow . How do folks make that determination . So the sergeant will be the first line for that officer who receives the alert. The sergeant is more than likely the sergeant which means they do their performance evaluations every six months and that pit sergeant will be with the officer most of that reporting period. So they have a better understanding of how that officer is. Normally their schedules coincide with one another so they work pretty much every day. Now when i review the alert prescribe to getting it out to the chief sergeant, i have the flexibility of looking at it, not knowing that officer. Most of the officers i dont know unfortunately these days. What i get to do is read those officers reports i get to review the body cam i get to see what was the reason for the alert. And then i can see if i see a pattern outside of that immediate street sergeant. How do you decide if you see a pattern . Im trying to really bore into that to understand how you do it. Its on a case by case basis for me. So what i will do is look to the reason of the alert. One officer had five uses of force within a threemonth period. I went out and started investigating as to why that officer has five uses of force. Come to find out, that officer helped every officer that was in a fight and he had to report it. So did i see a pattern of at Risk Behavior . No, i saw a pretty wellgauged officer that was trying to protect wellengaged officer. So in that case i ended up not sending out that alert because i did all the work to review it. Im trying to take on as much work i can to leave the street sergeants to do what they need to do. So i will make that determination and close it out if i feel thats okay. Can you give me an example of where you did feel there was a pattern of at Risk Behavior . There was an initiation we just initiated today. There was a pattern over 18 months of not attending mandatory assignments. And so i reached out to the sergeant directly. I sent it out to that street sergeant, which he concluded he agreed with me that there was Something Else going on. So thats why we initiated the intervention today. Okay. Thank you. Vice president taylor. As you can imagine im going to focus on the 30 percent increase on page 4. Yes maam. I want to as much as you can unpack. Its great the other numbers for the most part went down. But 30 percent is a huge increase from one quarter to the next. And i want to understand, to the extent that you know, if you can unpack why we have such an increase in the pointing of firearms in such a short period of time. I mean what go ahead. No, so thats one of the reasons that we are running the reports are applications with incidents. So what we found out is that we have let me see if i can locate my notes. So for mission station what we looked at is we saw six incidents that showed up on our radar and out of those 6 we had 46 officers with the use of force and out of those 6 incidents we found out it was a high risk felony stop on multiple cases and with having multiple officers and possibly multiple suspects the officers have to report that use of force in each individual person that had their gun pointed at each individual person in the vehicle. So what im starting to find out is that someone these incidents where its high risk felony stop where theres numerous officers and something as far as pointing firearm it may not be the number of incidents that go up, it just may be the number of officers for that incident. And when officers report it correctly that number, in this particular situation with mission station, it was 24 uses of force for that one incident. So just so i understand, was the number you mentioned 46 officers before . Yes, that was for mission station total. Did all of those officers point their firearms. It was six different incidents but yes. So every time the officers go out and because i mean, i take your point you might have a large number of officers in the same incident. But if thats 23 officers in one incident all pointing their firearms at i dont know how many people, one person potentially thats. Three incidents . Yes. This is where the training comes into place for critical mindset. So when we get into that type of training we have a sergeant that comes to the scene. And that sergeant will normally take that person out. If you have eight officers not all eight people have to have their handguns out. So the sergeant will go in the scene t control and remind the officers you can step back. We will have relief if we need to for those incidents. But thats where letting the sergeant in there having the sergeant respond to the scene, we are hoping to see if this is going to be one of the indicators that will bring the number down for use of force. Thats what i was getting at. Not every situation a sergeant will arrive at the scene and what we are stressing is somebody has to take the lead whether or not you have that or not, somebody had to coordinate it. So thats the essence of the course is when theres coordination and control of the scene, we hope we will not have as many officers pointing guns because its coordinated better. Thank you. You know, you mentioned that a lot of this is likely stemming from mission station. And do you know what percentage roughly of this 30 percent increase is because of that particular station or . I do not. I dont have that information for this reporting period. Okay. Elias. Thank you for your report. I have a lot of questions actually. Because to me the cis system seems extremely subjective. And i look back at my notes and i know that the First Quarter the last time you presented was on june 5, 2019 and we asked for some data with respect to this presentation and i didnt see the data that i requested so im hoping you can point it out to me. If you can turn to page 3 for for me. Because i think commissioner hirsch had an excellent point with respect to the subjectivity of this sort of flowchart but the subjectivity starts at the very beginning which is the review by you because the review by you, the first sort of rectangular red box underneath threshold activation is you. So you review it to see if theres a valid alert and then it goes to the station supervisor and they review it to see whether or not theres a pattern and they determine if its valid and then it goes back to you if the supervisor finds that it is valid, then it goes back to you again to review. So i know ive asked last time for you to provide me the numbers for how we get down to the bottom where it says intervention. Because right now, we only have five interventions going on. But i want to know how many cases came to you from the blue box to the to your box. Yes. So out of the 175, 90 cases were sent to the sergeants, 85 of them i ended up closing out in the office. So let me get this straight. There were 175 then they come to you and after your first round of reviews then how many go on to the supervisors . 90. Okay. So you essentially give or take, and math is not my strong suit, but 80 youve already disregarded. 85. Then from 90, from the supervisor back to you again is how many . They all come back to me, all 90 come back to me. Well, okay, so all 90. And then from the 90 that came to you, only 5 warranted intervention . No 5 is what we had previously. We had no initial interventions from this reporting period. So all 90 that came back to you you discarded and put into the closed box. I didnt discard it but i reviewed it again and if i saw any at Risk Behavior then we should initiate the intervention. But i didnt see anything in this reporting period. Out of all 90, all of them you closed out right . Yes. So theres no cases that warrant intervention this quarter, is that what you are saying . Yes. Okay. And you are the only person that reviews sort of this stuff right . Thats correct. Okay. So my other question is why arent interventions automatic . Why are we sort of doing this trickling process all the way down to the intervention so all those steps that you had on the flowchart . So the reason being is if we sent out an intervention for every alert that came out, some of them are invalid in the sense of some of them have cases that have gone into that so what might happen is you might have a use of force you might have a dpa complaint and you might have a lawsuit, all three items being related to the same event. And so all three of those will be counted at one. Now the program cant make that distinction so thats why im going to review it. But as far as the cases for any type of use of force, the example i gave of the officer who had five uses of force it wasnt an officer initiating any of those uses of force, it was an officer backing up other officers. So am i correct in understanding you when you say that example you gave were three incidents one was the citizen complaint, one was the use of force and then i forget what the other one was because those were three separate incidents in terms of the factors, you would not consider that sort of interventionworthy right . Because theres no pattern because it doesnt fit one of the specific boxes . I would consider that one incident. Im looking for a pattern of performance. So if im seeing any type of pattern that is consistent within that reporting period im looking for everything altogether. Now if. Dont you think its problematic if an officer has three different indicators that even though they arent the same sort of incident or group of indicator meaning its not all citizen complaints, not all use of force but there are three different violations in one of these various categories you have determined to be a risk factor, why doesnt that warrant some concern versus a pattern where we have to say, we have to have five different or five citizen complaints, they have to have five officer sort of uses of force . Its not absolute as far as it has to have five of any particular category. What im saying is for all three of those incidents because they are all linked, i would consider that one incident, because when you take the dpa complaint, when you take a lawsuit and take the use of force and all that is combined into one thats going to be one event. If we are seeing repeats of that event in other circumstances, im going to go ahead and my interest is going to be piqued into that officer. With me going out and reviewing it and say i dont initiate an intervention at this moment doesnt mean im closing it out and not paying attention. Next quarter im going to go back and review. And thats what goes on. I review the previous reporting period and the previous alerts. So if i see a pattern where within one year i start seeing a pattern thats starting to develop, i can go ahead and initiate an intervention at that time. So the example you gave with the three different criteria you counted one incident, those three dont have to be related, right . Meaning i guess my concern is you are calling it one incident and theres three sort of violations but those three violations can be on different days and not related to the same sort of facts, right . The incidents that were brought into this one report or this one alert thats something i would take differently than one event causing three different indicators. But you still consider it one incident right . For this particular one, the one we are discussing, yes all three i would consider one. But if an officer has a dpa complaint for one incident, a lawsuit for another one a use of force for another one, i would weigh those separately. They wouldnt be considered one incident in that matter. What does intervention consist of . My concern is i would rather have an intervention and the officer being mentored when they have five plus indicators versus someone who doesnt go to court. So when i send out these alerts its not only for the officer to know that we are watching and that he or she has hit the threshold but its also for the sergeant of that officer to know that, okay, this officer here, whether or not you are aware of it or not he has crossed that threshold for an e. I. S. Alert so it notifies both parties and i have a pretty Good Relationship with most supervisors where i can give them a call and theyll know my concern. And if that sergeant wants to tell me we can go out and start intervention thats fine. But if im just reaching out and i just go inquire and give that sergeant a headsup saying hey look, im concerned about your person, not necessarily to the point of an intervention but im going to be watching him or her and i would like you to do the same. Ive done that numerous times. What does an intervention consist of . It depends on the violation. So in this particular case, if theres an issue with any type of, lets say not going to mandatory training, whatever it would take to help that officer get straightened out, we would do. If it comes to a point where the officer is disrespectful to victims or to suspects thats where the communication comes in. We would cater whatever training we have to them and go to the academy and see whatever it is we had to do to get this officer back to where we want him or her. Other issue is on page 12 where you have sort of the divisions and sort of each area broken up. Because i dont think this is an accurate reflection of whats happening at each station. Because if the incidents follow the officer you know, i was concerned that we have nine incidents nine use of force incidents at the airport. But thats not true entirely because it doesnt capture the actual airport or the instances where use of force happened at the airport. It could be one officer that was transferred from Mission Statement to the airport and theres all nine incidents right. I do understand what you are talking about. So thats when the individual alerts pop up in the computer system. Thats when i start taking a look as far as what that detail was for that officer for that day what assignment that officer was doing that day. I mean, if an officer was assigned to mission for five out of the six and then goes to the airport, you are correct that alert would follow that officer over to the airport. You would agree this flowchart is deceiving because it doesnt accurately reflect indicators by unit because its not by unit, its by officer. Its by numbers, thats correct. Also on page 13, is this another situation where it follows the officers . So meaning the 42 alerts by station is it following the officer or is it following the station. Im sorry. Page 13. Can you repeat your question, commissioner . Im also wondering whether or not this data that you have based on each station is based on the actual station or if its based on the officer like you do on page 12. When we run the report, wherever that officer is, thats where this alert hits. So if, say this officer gets into the station, gets three out of four indicators and that officer happens to transfer to the other station the alert would go onto bayview station. It follows the officer. It doesnt go out and say, we are not going to say it stays over at taravel. If they are assigned to bayview station thats where the alert would be generated from. I think what the commissioner is trying so ask is if you look at this document, is this reflecting that time period, those alerts and indicators are these reflecting what happened at those stations in that time period . Or could this be indicators following officers . It could be indicators following officers. Can you explain to us how that would track . That confuses me. Thats the problem with page 12 and 13, they are defective because it looks it would look like its based on the actual station when these numbers arent based on the station, they are based on officers. Thats correct. Thats a problem. If you have any chart based on where the officer was at the time of the violation . I dont have one for this reporting period. I think that should be added to the next quarter presentation thats done on e. I. S. Because thats important because these numbers although they are beautifully put into a chart they arent actually reflective or accurate of whats happening at each unit. I do want the numbers on the page 3 of the numbers that come into you and which ones you are passing through to the supervisor and which ones you are closing out. Okay. Director henderson . Thank you. I was just going to say the stuff weve been working on for a while both myself and with commissioner dejesus who isnt here, but one of the things that has been really exciting and i think we are talking about today is the benchmark Analytics Group and the stuff theyve been doing exactly in this area in terms of best practices. And im only bringing that up because i think it speaks to the shortfalls and the gaps and the kind of data that we are seeing now, and the path practices and the problems weve been having with the university of chicago. And weve been talking about trying to find the best method to have more accurate correlation between actual behavior and predictive interruptions of behavior and training and stuff. So the stuff that ive seen preliminary has been really exciting from an objective analysis perspective. And an emphasis on the analysis because its more than just the Data Collection its analysis, which i think is really important for us to be able to do this job well. I know theyve been meeting with the department, which is exciting, so at some point, im sure that you will be making a decision about how he wants to continue those meetings or present whatever. But i thought their presentation was, about what they do and how it works, independently from other agencies was phenomenal. And ive seen a lot of predictive type of analytics. Which is the best one that ive seen so far. I wish commissioner dejesus were here to talk about it because i know she was excited about the stuff weve heard from preliminary basis as well. And so im just talking here at this point because i know it speaks to many of the concerns that you were just raising, commissioner elias about the subjective interpretation or the subjective analysis of these numbers which doesnt mean that they are wrong or right but they are subjective without having analysis that can be more transparent and shared internally and externally, based on a good system that i thought that we were trying to get from the university of chicago that didnt quite work out for whatever reason. So anyway, i just wanted to say that. So commissioner hamasaki first. Just director henderson just answered my question but i remember when we last talked about this, some of these same issues and concerns had been raised. I think the core and the heart of this is great. Its a proactive step to try to get out in front of problematic or potentially problematic behavior before it escalates to something where it causes real trouble. But im glad to hear that director henderson and it sounds like commissioner dejesus have been following up on this. Because and no question on you and the job you are doing it sounds like youve been putting a lot of work into this. But i think i would like to see perhaps the program from benchmark analytics if its not a program we want, maybe we can learn from it and implement something similar on our own or find ways to increase we want people to look at this and say wow, i feel great about this, this is keeping our streets and our officers safe and out of trouble. So thank you for all your work. I look forward to hearing about the progress with director henderson and commissioner dejesus as well as with the chief has been part of in this area. Scott. Thank you. We are director hendersons comments, we are exploring other technologies, and actually we have a meeting tomorrow to follow up on that so we will keep the Commission Posted on that. I also want to say too regardless of the technology, there is a Human Element to this. And there has to be. Because this is an Early Intervention alert system. And despite the algorithm that you use at some point somebody has to dig into the alerts and determine whats going on. And ill follow up with your question, commissioner elias about your patterns and your question wasnt about patterns but i think commissioner hirsch and you had similar questions about the subjective part of this. Right. And i can tell you because ive done thousands of these in my prior life in los angeles, you really have to dig into them and look for patterns and concerns. For instance, if you have use of forces that are being triggered by detentions that are questionable, that would be at Risk Behavior. The one thing that wasnt said here that i want to add is that we dont consider counseling informal intervention. Am i correct on that . Thats correct. So theres a lot of counseling thats done that is not considered intervention. Ive mentioned this in the past in front of the commission, we need to rethink that. Because counseling is a form of intervention. And you dont necessarily have to go to training or Technical Training and all that. A lot of times these things can be snuffed out by counseling. And we do a lot of it. I think last year we had 102 counseling sessions. The year before that it was a little bit higher than that. We dont consider those interventions. Yeah, those numbers need to be presented because when we are looking at a situation when we go from 175 to 0 thats a problem without any explanation as to we are not intervening, we are not counseling, what is actually happening. I cant believe all 175 are all false or not worthy of or merit some sort of intervention whether it be counseling or whatever it is you want to do. Absolutely. Understood. I think we can easily get that data for you. And i know we had it for last year and the year before, but its not considered a formal intervention so they are not counted in these reports but it is happening. So i want to point that out and we need to think of that as we rethink the analytics piece of it. He know a lot of this was negotiated. So we had to consider that too. That would be helpful. I think reporting the counseling whatever you call it, you can just call it counseling, it would still be good for us to know that. I do share the concern about the subjective nature of the review. Its opaque to me. I cant tell how you are making decisions or how the stations are making decisions. And you may be doing exactly what the Department Needs you to be doing. Its hard for us on the outside to know that. And if you can be doing a better job at it or theres more of a protocol that could be in place then we auto to look at that. But i appreciate the work and i appreciate your presentation. Thank you. I hope its not lost on all of us that this is still a big step forward from the stuff weve done in the past, that we were really focused on shaking the tree even though it wasnt bearing us fruit, even though we are focusing on inconsistencies on the data we want see, i think that system is going to serve us well when we come up with system to replace what we are doing in the past. Not because we werent trying to get it done but because we were trying to work with the old agency that wasnt giving us the Data Collection the Data Analysis and the data sharing those three components that have to be a part of any Early Intervention system. So, anyway. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else from you chief . That concludes my report. Thank you. Next item, please. Line item 1b, directors report. Report on dpa activities and announcements. It will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. Discussion will be limited to deciding whether to calendar any items for future meetings. Thank you director henderson. Thank you. So we are at 590 cases have been opened so far this year. We were at 511 this time last year. In terms of cases closed, we are at 490, which is higher than last year. This time last year we were at 454 indicates cases that were closed. We have 406 pending cases, which is double, almost double the amount that we had pending this time last year. In terms of cases sustained, we are at 39 sustained cases so far this year versus 36 the same time last year. The cases that are past the 270day measurement, which is our own internal measurement, again not the deadline, we are at 32 cases versus this time last year we were at 24. Im going to take a moment to talk about this because we mentioned it last week. So last week we were at 47 cases. And that number was going up. As i said, a lot of it is because of our new computer system. So i had everyone work on that by hand to pull all of those cases to look to see what we were doing with those cases to try to get them processed. They were able to do it. It really is our system. Its a new system, like i said, a new computer system. So theres a lot of hands that go into our report, particularly when we are closing out cases. So all of the information from all of this investigators that worked on the case, all the legal team, all the supervisors that have gone through the case. But we are down now. And of those 47 cases, 15 have already been submitted for closure. So that was part of why those numbers were going up. They just hadnt been processed. And so thats how we get to the new number of 32 where we are right now. Of the 32 cases, nine of those cases are still being told. We are still not finished doing the hand count of all those cases that were there. So this number is fluctuating. Im just explaining to you why this number is fluctuating because of our new system. The majority of the remaining cases should be closed in the next two weeks is what my team are telling me. In terms of cases that are mediated, we are at 27 cases that have been mediated so far this year. Thats a significant uptick from last year where we were at 18. In terms we talked a little bit last week about i think you got an email from my chief of staff talking about the stuff linked to the information we got from that training. I want to mention, i dont know if it was in the update that you got that we had submitted three proposals to do the trainings. We were asked to make the submission. And they didnt select any of our submissions. But we will continue working with them. We want to continue being a partner with them. In terms of the operations and technology, some of the good news is the api and our aim system is up now. And that just happened this week. Its our system that provides notice with to the department when complaints come in. So within 24 hours of a new case, a new charge or allegation coming in, the department has notification of it. Its an automatic feed which includes a disciplinary history for the officer as well. Weve been sending this information out for the past ten years. But in the old system, part of that process had to be man manual and was done by hand and it was difficult to be reliable because the information would frequently crash and needed to be fixed. So we worked really closely with the Departments Network head im pronouncing it incorrectly kyhwoo. So now that we have a new system, we can do some of the reciprocal Data Exchange with the department as well so thats what we are working on now. But at least the system is up and running, and we are able to get some of our information out through the new system. Lets see. The only other thing i had to add in there as well is that we participated in the launch of the Domestic Violence Awareness Month from last week. And we participated in the bench Park Analytics review, which is the process we were just talking about with iap. There are no cases for the closed session today. And in the audience with me is my chief of staff sarah hawk hawkins in case there are any questions or anybody needs to speak with my staff. Lets take questions. Commissioner elias. I wanted to understand this correctly. You said you had a new system. Its my understanding the dpa has a new system for tracking its cases. Case management. Case Management System. So is there a date that the cases from this date forward are going into your new system . And what are you doing about the old cases . And how are you converting the old cases into your system . All the old cases are going through the new system. So thats part of our growing pains. The new system is set up and running. We are working out the kinks with it right now. So its set up and done. During the the summer that was a partnership we had with the force that were building it. But the operation is still a little tricky. Just because its built, it still has bugs that need to be worked out and things need to be reconfigured in order to make it work in similar ways that it was working in the past that was difficult. It was difficult to navigate. The system ultimately is going to be better but for right now theres still growing pains for retraining all the staff to use the new system to get the information out to work on the information and to get it out at the same time. And thats what we are working on, that part of what the challenge has been. And why there have been some delays so the information is available but trying to get the information into all the same places and to get it out is what we are having some struggles with. Did i say that correctly . That was confusing. If you get a new case and it comes in, are you scanning it in and cataloging it under the categories that would be discloseable under 1421, under pra . He confused everyone more. Good evening chief of staff. To answer your question, the new cases do have tags for all the 1421 categories. Old cases that were transferred into the system that were active may or may not have tags depending on how the data migration works, but Going Forward they will have that. All the cases are currently living in the system. But some of the fields with the force product they developed with a minimum viable product. So its like all the basics of the car but without some of the things that we really were hoping for and they are working with us. Youll get a presentation from them probably next month to explain what the process was and lessoned learned. So do you have somebody going through the old cases that have been migrated to tag them for the 1421 stuff . I believe so. And definitely i think if it was imported, some of the cases were imported in batches. So there were some issues with that migration. So i dont know if that happened with all of them. But all cases that are now there should be tagged or should be able to be tagged. When you say batches are you sort of getting all your cases and putting them into the system or are you prioritizing based on what would be subject to 1421 . They are all in the system. All our cases that are open are currently in the system. One of the issues was that certain documents that we generate couldnt be generated in the system. So that document lives in a separate space. And that was where part of the issue was coming from. But all the dpa cases are in the content Management System called insight and should be able to be tagged or have already been tagged for 1421. When director henderson says hes able to get out some information under the new system, im assuming he is referring to the cases that are in the new system and that you flagged and then 1421 requests have come and you are able to get those out fast. Are those getting out faster . I dont know that theyre getting out faster because we are still going by the requests we received so those are largely Historical Files but the information hes talking about was specifically the stats we presented every week here. Everything we had to do before was running manual reports. So the theory and the goal and we are partially there is insight will be able to run automatic reports. So we log into our dashboard and it will say heres how many percentages of cases are sustainable. Heres how many are open. All this stuff he tells you every week we have to pull manually or we previously did and now that will be automated through the insight system. And i believe and i should let sarah when we presents about insight, shell speak to this more, theres a tagging and searchable function for 1421 but ill have her answer that more fully when the presentation is calendared. I have asked the department and Commission Staff to be prepared to make a 1421 update presentation next month. And so at one of the meetings, probably the second meeting in november im going to ask that we get an update on where the three groups are. Great. Okay. Commissioner hamasaki. I think you just covered my question. I thought there was a discussion, director henderson. Dont go yet. Hold on. You might need to save him again. I barely know what im talking about. No, its not a very complex question. About just presenting and i think we talked about categories, as far as 1421 requests received, requests fulfilled Something Like that. Are you able to present that just those basic statistics . Sarah . Are you asking for those statistics to be presented every week . Wouldnt hurt. If thats something the commission is asking for we could do that. I thought we were going to do that when we had 1421 calendared but we can make that part of the weekly report. Sure, why not. Would that hurt . It would be good. I think we received a letter from the Public Defenders Office this week about and i apologize for not recalling the exact contents but it was related to 1421, i believe. So i know people have been asking so i think it would be helpful to show the degree to which progress is being made. Sure, i can definitely do that and have director henderson add that to the weekly report. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Next line item please. You had Something Else . No. We had a presentation of the strategic report, which im sure everyone is very excited. Well, i read it. They helped me get the powerpoint set up. I talked about it briefly. Dpa asked the commissioner to help us calendar four presentations about work that we mention in the weekly reports but wanted to give you more information about. The annual report was supposed to be the first part of that. We recalendarred that so the full commission could be there for that. Im going to talk to you about the Strategic Plan, which im really excited about. Hopefully the only one in this room. And two future presentations are going to focus on insight and our Mitigation Program because weve had multiple questions about that program come up at various commission meetings. So just a little bit of background. As you know but the audience public might not know, when director henderson was appointed to take leadership of the dpa it was at a time when the agency had been given huge additional responsibilities through voter mandates and a time when the agency itself really needed leadership in terms of facing staffing crises, technology crises and struggling to be able to efficiently fulfill the core mission, let alone taking over the investigation of all officer involved shootings adding audits and growing demands that civilian oversight agencies faced in the context we are in nationally. So when he came on board we had to look at how can we not just do what we need to do but do it more and do it better. So part of that focus on internal reforms and staffing and really drilling down to look at what is our core mission and how do we really define what we are trying to do. So one of the other things we did in addition to the cms was having some facilitated sessions. When we joined the agency, the structure was kind of separate in terms of investigators worked in a silo, lawyers, the Mediation Program was kind of firewalled off. And one of the first things we thought was important to do was to create a model where everyone was working together to produce the best investigations, the best work product to better serve the community and to more effectively represent our policy recommendations. So part of that process was talking to everybody figuring out what was working, what wasnt and what we could do to make everything better. How do i get this powerpoint . Thank you. I am a scarred Trial Attorney so technology is not always my friend. There we go. So first we started by slightly refining our mission and vision. Im not going to read you everything in the powerpoint because i know you can read and some of this is familiar content. But we did refine our mission and our vision. And think about what dpa wants to be, not just internally but in the world. We are at an opportunity where we have a lot more authority than other jurisdictions, and we really want to set the stage for others to be a wellrespected resource and model of civilian oversight. So we needed to valuize what we wanted to do. And we came up in a series of conversations with everybody in the agency from administration to investigators new people, people who had been there for 25 years who told me this is how we do this because this is how weve always done it, we came up with strategic pillars. And these pillars are what across the agency is important to us. We want to work with excellence. When they give a case to us, we want them to trust us. We want to empower our employees by giving them the training and resources they need. When we got the mandates to do the officer involved shootings, a lot of our invest gators investigators had not had exposure to ballistics. So the director helped us get funding to send people to ois training. And also to let our team know that we cared about them and we want them to have the tools they need. We also want to really focus on leveraging data to make decisions. We were talking about that in the context of eis. Its so important in everything, thats the impetus for us getting this new system, so we can look at what we have. Thats why the annual report is so important to look at the case studies and see whats happening. We want to enimprove enabling tools and processes. So we had some really ancient technology and some really ancient work flows like Carrier Pigeons are flying around the office to drop off a document thats printed six times and dropped off six different places. We wanted to move away from that and get our processes more effective. And we want to strengthen internal and external relationships. We are in a unique position with the department and the community. There are a ton of Partner Organizations that has a vested interest in what we are doing. And we want to make all those relationships better. Internally, we want the lawyers and investigators in the Mediation Team to work together. So those are the four things we wanted to focus on across the agency. And then we took those pillars and broke it down to goals per division of the organization. So the first is investigations and i promise i wont read all this text. But we looked at the four pillars and made specific objectives under each pillar. And then we came up with Key Performance indicators. Like how are we going to measure that, right . Its great everybody can make a glossy Strategic Plan with a goal but how are we going to measure what we are telling you we are trying to do. So for example with the Investigations Unit we want an increased percentage of dpa sustained recommendations up held by the police chief or police commission. This goes back to we are producing a good investigation, our recommendations are accurate in terms of what we believe a case is worth. And that is up held throughout the disciplinary process. We also want to have all investigations resolved within the ninemonth time frame. We created a Case Management policy where certain cases our goal is to have them done in six months. We want all our cases to be done in nine months as director henderson reported earlier, we are not hitting that yet but thats our goal. Certain cases officers on disability that wont be able to happen. But there used to be, because of resource issues, kind of a well, the deadline is that so thats when the case needs to be done. And we absolutely have moved away from that thinking in dpa. The legal team, same thing. We want to deliver excellent legal analysis. We have been able to hire a legal team that im incredibly proud of. And we want to use them to, again help with our investigations and to be bringing up the caliber of the work product that we are producing and the presentations we are making to you. So thats important to us, strengthen the relationships, use the lawyers to really help train the investigators on issues like the Fourth Amendment and other issues that come up in investigations. Same thing, we want to use the cms use our tools to be more effective in our work and capture data. What are the trends we are noticing that need to lead to policy revisions . What are the trends we are noticing that maybe eis isnt picking up and what do we do with that . Its something we are constantly thinking about. With regard to policy, we, again want to deliver excellent policy recommendations that are backed by best practices. We want to be able to communicate those in an effective, understandable approachable and adoptable sort of way. And we want those policy decisions to come from data to come from not just an he an he can