>> thank you, all. welcome to the february 12, 2020, meeting. we have a long presentation regarding the budget tonight, so we will have two minutes for public comment. with that, we are ready for the first item. >> clerk: item 1, consent calendar, receive and file action. sfpd/dpa protocol report 4th quarter 2019. >> do we have a report on this or this is just to accept? we don't have anyone from the d.p.a. who can help us? why don't we skip that item and go to the next item for now. >> clerk: line item 2, reports to the commission, discussion. 2a, chief's report. weekly crime trends. provide an overview of offenses occurring in san francisco significant incidents (chief's report will be limited to a brief description of the significant incidents. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the incidents the chief describes for a future commission meeting.) - major events (provide a summary of planned activities and events occurring since the previous meeting. this will include a brief overview of any unplanned events or activities occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. commission discussion on unplanned events and activities the chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting.) commission inquiries (provide a brief follow-up to inquiries made by commissioners during previous meetings to include: police response to nfc championship celebrations throughout the city presentation of the department's collection and analysis of sexual assault kit evidence and reporting of results to sexual assault victims report, per commission resolution 16-28, adopted april 20, 2016 presentation regarding the law enforcement assisted diversion program ("lead") >> thank you and good evening. >> as always, i'll start my report with the weekly crime trends, then i'll touch on significant incidents, major events, provide some follow up on a commission inquiry regarding the n.f.c. championship, our response to the post-game celebrations. then the deputy chief and his team will have a presentation on the analysis of sexual assault evidence. then commander foray will present on law enforcement assisted diversion, as requested by the commission a couple months ago or a month or so ago. starting off with our crime trends for the week, we are down on both violent and property crime. we're 2% down on overall crime, part 1 crime. our property crime was down 2%, which includes our burglary, motor vehicle thefts, larceny, and arson. auto burglaries are down 25% compared to 2017 when the numbers were at an all-time highs. our total violent crimes are down 1%. our homicides, we have three this year compared to five last year. we're up on robberies year to date. we have 18 more incidents compared to this time last year. so this is a point of focus for our department. our sexual assaults are down significantly from this reporting period, down by 22 crimes, which is a 57% decrease. looking at gun violence, overall we're down 11%. we have one shooting in the past week and in total eight shootings resulting in eight victims of gun violence year to date. out of the eight, two were fatal and six have been non-fatal. there is a report that there were no homicides in the past week. we are down from the same time last year. traffic, we are at two vision zero traffic fatales year to date. we did have two major traffic collisions over the past week. one was on the 9th of february at 3:15 p.m. in this incident, a pedestrian ran into the street in front of a vehicle and sustained major injuries but is suspected to survive. the other was in southern district. this is a hit and run that occurred on february 7 at 4:00 p.m. in that case, a suspect vehicle, a truck, ran over the victim's foot and fled. the victim has some pain and is expected to survive and the injuries don't appear to be life-threatening or serious. in terms of largest events, the biggest event is the warriors are in town -- actually, they're not in town. the chase center will be hosting a concert which starts on the 13th and another concert on saturday, the 15th. now i will go into our response to some of the questions that we received from the commission regarding the response to the n.f.c. championship celebrations. i'm going to give you a brief overview. there was some specific questions that some of the commissioners asked. i will address those questions and take any additional questions you have. on sunday, january 19, the 49-ers hosted the green bay packers and won the championship which moved them into the super bowl. the game began at 3:40 p.m. and ended at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the past, we have had spontaneous celebrations after these victories which have required multiple deployments to various districts. we thought that was the case on the 19th and it was. each district station had staffing dedicated to n.f.c.-dedicated events. all of the areas had some levels of increased staffing, both on duty and off duty -- i mean e.w.w., overtime, to address the increase in crowds at bars, et cetera. this increase in staff was to ensure that our regular calls to service were not interrupted throughout the city in the event of celebratory activity after the game. i'm going to go into the actual incident that night because i know the commission was very interested in both the donning of personal protective equipment and use of force. i'm going to go into some detail about that. first starting on the policy of personal protective equipment. all officers are assigned personal protective equipment to include a helmet, face shield, gloves, rode through the district and one motorcycle struck a pedestrian at the intersection of jefferson and levenworth. the tenderloin had staff available, but there were no reported incidents. park traffic concentrated on foot traffic and bars, with both people staying inside the establishments. in the mission district crowds started pouring into the streets with a gathering spot at 24th and mission. also, on mission between 24th and 16th street, there were large crowds of people celebrating after the game. also, the valencia corridor on 16th street. close to 8 p.m. due to the size of the crowd, additional tactical teams were deployed to the area. by 9 p.m. there were 150 to 200 people in the area. the crowds were much larger earlier, but most of the folks left. at around 9:00 p.m. there were still 150 to 200 people in the area. that's what you'll see on the video in a second. the people in the area were posing public safety concerns, including blocking major roadways on mission street and destructive behavior, which included throwing bottles randomly at officers, shooting fireworks, drinking from open containers. the area posing the most hazardous situation was at mission and 24th. by 10:00 p.m. the intersection was littered with debris, including broken glass and officers stayed within 50 yards of the intersection, at which time the remaining crime became more boisterous and volatile, throwing bottles and other objects directly at officers that were lined up 50 yards from them. it was this time the decision was made by the incident commander to disperse the crowd to prevent further disruptive behavior and prevent injury. the personnel began issuing dispersal orders, which you will hear on the video, over a loudspeaker. this is a long-range diverse used to disperse crowds. the order advised the crowd this was an unlawful assembly and instructed the crowds to clear the streets and onto the sidewalk. i want to make note of this. we actually did not ask them to leave the area. we just asked the crowds to clear the streets and go to the sidewalks. as the line of officers began to clear the streets, officers continued to instruct the crowd to remain on the sidewalk. at this time, multiple bottles were thrown directly at officers, making direct contact with at least two officers and one police vehicle. the use of less-lethal options was authorized by the incident commander. it was at this time that three arrests were made. one for intentionally walking into an officer. one for swinging at and striking an officer and resisting arrest. and a third, one for delaying a peace officer in the course of their duties and for resisting arrest. all three individuals were cited and released. so at this time i want to show you the video. i have hours of videos, but these were basically snippets to give you a feel for the atmosphere. >> can you give us a time frame how many hours this is after the game. >> yes, it is on the video. this is shortly around 10:00, i believe, but it's actually on the video. >> [ indiscernible ] -- >> i'm sorry? >> is the time in the upper right corner? >> yes. let me see -- this one is around 10:00, i believe. what is the time on there? >> [ indiscernible ] -- >> this was after the majority of the crowd had left and this was i believe around 10:00. you have 150 to 200 people there. but the majority of the people that had been there earlier celebrating without any violence had dispersed. i'm sorry, if you could start that over, because i think we -- there we go. [video presentation]. >> this video is after the actual bottles -- after the street had been cleared. what this video you're about to see depicts are after some of the fires that remained. there were several trash can fires. all of those fires were put out by officers who had fire extinguishers as part of their equipment. again, we faced these types of situations before, so we were prepared with fire extinguishers. this video shows one fire that was still lingering, just to give you an idea of what was happening. these fires were hit we believe during that episode where the bottles were being thrown and the officers were able to put them out. [video presentation] [video presentation]. >> what time was that? >> this was around the same time. so all this is after 10:00. so once the intersection was cleared, officers began, as i pointed out, extinguishing small fires that had been started. this was even with the bottles still being thrown at the officers. i mentioned one of the issues that we had that particular evening were side shows in various parts of the city. the first sideshow i already talked about, the 20 or 30 motorcycles in the central district that resulted in one person being hilt by a motorcycle. in bayview officers responded to a call of reckless driving and observed approximately 100 motorcycles driving towards san francisco. a large group of these motorcycles were observed on 3rd street driving to gillman park and driving in and out of the park. a number of calls of reckless driving were received. between 7:40 and 8:15 p.m. at 25th and valencia, there were calls of reckless driving, cars honking their horns for over an hour. at 9:20 p.m., there was reports of vehicles doing doughnuts in the streets. as to fires, we had calls related to fires at 9:30 p.m. in the 600 block of mission and at 10:20 p.m. in the block of bartlett. the force you saw in the video was a less-lethal force option. after this option, the less lethal techniques were being used. with all those bottles you saw being thrown at officers, they maintained their discipline. none of the officers went after the individuals throwing the bottles, which is pretty important in this type of situation, but that was a call made by the on-scene commander. basically their mission was to get the streets clear to reduce this situation from being what it was, which is a very dangerous and unsafe situation. as you saw bottles going over the heads of the very heads of the officers that were there to protect. to incidents and that decision was made by the on-site commanding officer. their objective was to clear the streets and keep everybody safe. as bottles and other objects were being thrown, including directly at officers, six officers fired a total -- and this was to commissioner elias' question, six officers fired seven rounders of 40-millimeter less lethal launchers which deployed foam batons. one round was fired towards one individual and two rounds were fired at two individuals throwing milk crates and bottles at officers. one round was fired to an individual throwing a glass bottle. one round was fired at a person who was making a motion as if they were throwing an object. one round was fired at a person seen as throwing a bottle at an officer. there was a use of force, and that was a physical control hold to gain control of a suspect's hand, resulting in complaint of pain to the hand. that subject was assessed at the scene by the fire department and released for further law enforcement processing. they were actually cited and released. no, i'm sorry, i think that person was actually taken to the station. so basically that is the scenario. i believe i've answered all the commission's questions from last week, but i'm happy to answer any further questions that you might have. >> okay. thank you both. >> so i think these pictures -- i mean, it was a long name, but did that game early at 5:00 or 6:00? >> no, ma'am. i think it was about 7:30. >> i thought it was early because the super bowl started much later if i remember. >> yeah, i had it in the report. i think it ended at 7:30. >> i guess the question is at least the people who -- the people i've talked to, are they indicating that you had -- mission street was already closed before they got there. after the game when they went down there, they're claiming it was closed from brine to mission, mission street north bound was closed. they're saying you had valencia down to portrero down to 21st street, which is quite a lot of streets. they're claiming -- the impression i'm getting from some of these people is when they got there, the streets were already in the middle of the street and had closed mission street down. so you're saying the celebration was going on in mission street? now, the people do say there were people walking along the sidewalk on mission street, but when they tried to walk on the sidewalk, they wouldn't let the latinos walk on the sidewalk, but other people did. they're claiming racial profiling. when you were going to handle it, you had people dressed like the tech squad or they were already there. one of the things you said to me is there was side shows going on. from what i hear here is there was one donut going on. i don't know what reckless driving is, having their horns on, but all i heard was one donut. i don't know what reckless driving means. these are vague and pretty broad. the motorcycle, the central and the bayview district, did you have the central district shut down and the bayview district? if you did, what areas did you shut down? did you have the same amount of force in the bayview or central? >> there's a lot of questions. i'll respond. if i miss any, i'll respond. as far as the street closures, the streets were closed prior to the bottles. that decision was made for a couple of reasons. one of the things that we intended to do from the start was to facilitate -- i mean, we expected celebrations. basically we knew that we would be basically giving up the street. when you have that amount of people -- as long as there's people, we closed the streets intentionally to prevent people mixing with cars, which we believe and i believe is the right thing to do. yes, the streets were closed in anticipation that exactly what happened happened, they would spill onto the streets and be excited the 49-ers won. it is not a good idea from a public safety perspective to have the streets open to vehicles with hundreds of people on the streets. we've seen many, many tragedies that have resulted. the side shows were being reported all over the city, including the side shows and the doughnuts and all of that. the sideshows are dangerous in and of themselves. when you make sideshows, it was proactive in order to not allow that to happen in our city. so it was an intentional and conscious decision to close the streets. >> was there a sideshow on mission? >> no, but the thought process there is let's not allow ourselves to be put in that position where people are in streets where cars can drive down and do what was happening. we already had a report. so 80 to 100 motorcycles coming into the city and they did come into the city and they did sideshows. >> what i'm getting at, chief, is people were saying -- if you were going to close down the street -- because you did tell us you had plans in place for the celebration. none of us asked you what plans you had in place. if the streets were going to be closed, a public announcement should have been made here. the low riders like to go into the mission. they were turned away. when they were trying to walk, they say they were being turned down. they said white people were walking there and they wouldn't let the latinos there. they claim it was closed when they got there. so they feel it's racial profiling. they wanted to know -- and i think you were in a meeting with this. the motorcycle gang sounds like they were in the central and the bayvi bayview. so it's really information to the community. if you're not going to allow cars and make the street closed to cars, say that and make it clear, rather than turning it away and having a traffic jam. then it sounds like there were four officers -- and you were expanding the street closures. first of all it was brian down to portrero. >> can we get the chief's response to the racial profiling. >> yes. i mean, on the video you can clearly see in my opinion what happened there. the officers were there to keep people safe. the accusation why people were allowed to walk and be in the streets and latinos were not -- >> do you have any video from the earlier in the evening? >> there's lots of videos, but the officers turned on the videos when the situation started to get volatile. >> so you don't have any video prior to that? >> prior to that people were celebrating and it wasn't volatile. i just want to -- another point i want to make out, we did meet with community members on this. that's an area where we can do better. with the super bowl, we had a similar traffic plan when the team won -- even if they didn't win and we were better with the c.h.p. and m.p.a. and we could have done better then. a lot of these decisions are made spontaneously. the decision to close the street in my opinion was a sound one. we can fix our issues and work on the communications. we did that. with the super bowl, we had a solid communications plan in place. so that was a lesson learned. part of that was sitting down and meeting with the community and hearing their concerns. so i think some good comes out of that in terms of our super bowl preparation. >> that's a point i was trying to make. maybe we had some communication of what was going on it wouldn't have escalated the way it did. >> thanks for reporting back to us and providing video. it would have been interesting to see a little bit more of the body cam footage because i think that is telling. it seemed like it was an ongoing event throughout the night. so this sort of singular camera footage does make it somewhat clearer. you indicated there were two rounds that were shot at individuals that were throwing bottles. i'm trying to understand the reasoning, is it that people who are throwing bottles are shot at but not arrested? >> so what i'm saying is when you're in a line like that, if you don't have discipline -- the worst thing an officer can do is get a bottle thrown at him or her and they take off and start chasing the person throwing the bottle. it breaks down the discipline. the officers were extremely disciplined. you saw all the bottles coming at them. they did, as i reported, use the less lethal eraws to fire them at individuals throwing bottles. whether those individuals were struck or not, the action there was designed to prevent the bottles from being thrown. it was not only the officers that were in jeopardy. what you saw is bottles going over the heads to the people talking to the officers. that was a difficult situation and they did use the eraws, but the specific purpose was to stop the bottles. some of those individuals who had those foam rounds fired at them left and got away. the point there is this was a very disciplined operation in terms of the discipline and the purpose of what the officers were there to do. it wasn't about the bottle throw you go -- throwing, but they were there to keep people safe. >> we're ready for the next item, the analysis of the sexual assault kit. >> deputy azar will make this presentation. >> deputy chief, welcome. >> [ indiscernible ] -- members of the commission, chief scott, director henderson, members of the department, members of the public. i'm pete lazar from the investigations bureau. i'm here due to resolution 16-28, which requires the department to report out on a semi-annual basis the status of the sexual assault evidence kit in terms of where we are, how many kits, if there's any delays and things of that nature. so i'm going to briefly go through the list and give you a status update from the reporting period of july 1 through december 31, 2019. first to start out, in terms of collection and processing -- by the way, this evening i have with me captain sergio chin and lieutenant rachael moran sitting in the audience, along with director sanchez from the crime lab and crime scene investigations in case there's further investigations. based on this report, i want to thank them tremendously for their work. with regard to to collection and processing, first item, number of on-time within five days sexual assault evidence kits collected by trauma recovery rape treatment center and submitted to the crime lab within five days of the incident, there were 160 for that six-month reporting period. next, the number of late beyond five days evidence kits submitted to the crime labs was six. that's generally from outside agency reporting when we get that later. that was six. the next submission of late submissions outside of jurisdictions and kits submitted during holidays, those came from outside jurisdictions, that's why they were late. number 3, number of sexual assault evidence kits processed by the crime lab within 120 days, all 166. item 4, the average turnaround time for sexual assault evidence kits process completion, 23 days. very remarkable. a lot of kits were below 23 days. within 15 days those kits were examined. item 5, number of sexual assault evidence kits outsourced to an outside lab for processing within 120 days, zero. we handle all of our own kits. number 6, number of sexual assault evidence kits resulting in a foreign d.n.a. profile other than the victim/survivor subsequently being entered into codis within 120 days, 82. the number of foreign d.n.a. profiles resulting in a codis match, there were 27. so having a match, 27. item 8 is the number of foreign d.n.a. profiles resulting in no codis profile match, 55. so again the number of sexual assault evidence kits not resulting in a foreign d.n.a. profile is 84, which totals 166, which is our total from above. item 10 has to do with notifications and outcomes. item 10 is the number of victim/survivor notifications made by special victims per the victim bill of rights, penal code section 180, 129. item 11, the number of victims, survivors declined and/or refused notification, there were 21. item 12, number of attempted notifications, being that wrong number, relocation, no call back, re-attempts, zero. the number of outside agency cases, notification to the victim, out of all the cases, 16. item 14, number of sexual assault notice kits with no notification, there was zero. in terms of the case status, item 15, out of all those cases, there are 69 and we have reasons for our inactivated case status. the number of cleared or closed cases, which is item 16, 35. so we cleared or closed 35. item 17, the amount of open cases during that period, 62. item 18, the number of cases charged by the district attorney's office during that period, 15. last item, item 19, the number of cases discharged by the district attorney, one. and again, i want to thank director sanchez, the crime laboratory, and their staff. unlike the conversation we had many years ago, there are no backlogs. we are moving forward. we have a great process. we are a model for other agencies and everyone is working hard when it comes to this particular topic. at this time i'll take any questions you may have. if there are any questions, i'll bring up the director or the captain. >> what are the occasions when an outside jurisdiction would be involved? >> captain chin, if you'll come up. i think what happens is -- he'll clarify this if i don't have this correct. an incident happens outside of san francisco, and then the kit is sent to us to process for that agency 200 people in the area. >> because it's a resident of san francisco? >> good evening, commissioners, chief, director. no. anybody -- so a crime occurred outside of san francisco. anybody can come into sfgh and conduct a sexual assault kit. it doesn't matter if you are a resident or not. >> i see. >> thank you for that presentation. i'm wondering if there is a way we can get the word out. you noted at the end there is no backlog of sexual assault evidence kit. i'm a citizen here like all of us, and i remember getting mailers a few months ago about the backlog of sexual assault evidence kits. i knew from being here on the commission that that was ridiculous and not true. but the average citizen in san francisco did not know that. so i'm wondering if there is a way for you to get that out to the public, because it was concerning and it seemed like this was a big issue and it was a concerning thing that didn't exist. we know that on the commission, but the average person reading that would have been very concerned. >> i'm glad you brought that up. chief lazar, actually we had a leadership meeting and what he's implementing in the new future is the twitter of investigations. so that will go out on a weekly basis from not just special victims, but robbery, burglary, whatever, all the investigation. great point and that's how we're going to get our point across and great news to get our point across. >> i imagine if you googled san francisco and sexual assault, you'll have all those articles from way back where we had a huge backlog, it was shameful. i have to say that the department really went and took care of the backlog and it's really come a long way from that major backlog and all that harsh, but justified, criticism to be a model in the country. i do applaud you for that. i think there would be confusion if you google sexual assault in san francisco, to hear how bad it was. >> i'm glad to have inherited a great process. in addition to social media, this is something i could talk to the director about in our media relations, so when you do google it, the first article is how great things are now. we'll have that offline conversation. >> i was looking at line 7 and line 18. line 7 is the number of d.n.a. profiles with a match is 87 and the number of cases charged is 15. is that 15 out of 27 or was it 15 out of 160 -- >> well, 160 cases total and the d.a. has charged 15. potentially this year we may have charged more, we'll report out on that in six months. that may mean that the investigators are working on the cases, witnesses, evidence. so we're not really discouraged by that number. we just know this is a work-in-progress and we hope to build on that number now. >> so overall do we know what percentage of this 160 or what the total is, do we know -- do you have -- were you able to keep an ongoing tally of what actually is charged? i mean, 15 is small compared to 160. i understand some is ongoing and stuff. maybe there should be a line -- well, i guess -- >> well, we're keeping records on all of it. again, 15 are charged. we could be working -- 50 or 60 or whatever the number is here to those that we're working up or on, we want to make sure we bring a good case to the district attorney's office. and then of course a lot of those profiles, we're waiting for a match in codis and potentially any day we could get a match depending on someone getting arrested for another crime. we're monitoring everything closely and seeing what gets charged and what doesn't. >> thank you both. did you want to say something else? >> thank you very much. >> the final item under the chief's record is lead. >> good evening, president, vice president, commissioners, chief scott, director henderson, lieutenant -- is lieutenant murphy out there? if she's got a minute, i'd love it if she could stay. good evening. i'm here tonight to present information to you at the commission on the lead program that the city and county of san francisco implemented two years ago. for those not in the know, lead is the acronym for law enforcement and diversion. i'm joined by two of my colleagu colleagu colleagues, and i asked lieutenant murphy to stay because i wanted to thank her a little bit and wanted her to hear and not watch it later on tv. lead was first developed in seattle. it was a response in a pretty significant and unique collaboration between prosecutors, defenders, civil rights advocates, law enforcement, and case managers. it was designed in an effort to change the paradigm on the war on drugs. currently there are 38 cities that have lead programs. there are three in california that are already up and running. san francisco is one of them. los angeles and costa county are the others. there are approximately 70 communities in the united states that are either evaluating their own lead programs, developing a lead program, or developing to launch a lead program. again, it was originally designed as a harm-reduction-oriented program to address low-level criminal conduct. so we launched in october of 2017 with three goals. it's a pilot program. it was a two-year program with a $2 million grant provided to the city and county of san francisco. on the bottom of my slide i have some images to help remind me the list of the partners because that list is long in san francisco. they include the san francisco's sheriff's department, glide, the selton institute, the san francisco department of public health, the public defender's office, the district attorney's office, adult probation, and i apologize if i left anyone out. the three goals were to reduce drug and alcohol recidivism, to strengthen partnership collaboration between city and community based services to meet the leads of lead participants, and to improve the health and housing status of lead participants. so to discuss the process, there were two portals where an individual might be -- might enter into the lead program. the first were social contacts and the second were pre-booking referrals. so social contact would involve a police officer either in the tenderloin district or the mission district being in the community every day, knowing who is on the street, knowing which individuals are involved with low-level criminal conduct that meet the requirements or the criteria for lead, and then making a referral. in terms of pre-booking offenses, the list included simple drug possession, 11-550 of the health and safety code of being under the influence, prostitution and loitering for the purposes of prostitution offense offenses. then there was drug offenses, theft, and tampering with vehicles. there were exclusions which would make a person ineligible for lead, and those exclusions included drug sales in a school zone, drug sales to a minor, drug possession of more than 5 grams to a minor. in terms of sales, someone who had a felony conviction in the last five years and individuals who had an open case either for a violence-related crime or a crime involving violence, excuse me, or possession of weapon. so this first graph that we have shows the results of the women and men of the san francisco police department, referrals that they made in these two districts. we had 108 pre-booking referrals that were made, 223 social contacts. our total for the san francisco police department for referrals was 331. now, within these groups for the program and totals to date, we've had 116 misdemeanor pre-booking referrals. 76 of those were made by officers of the san francisco police department. for felonies for the entire program, there were 22 felony pre-booking referrals made, people who were diverted and given a referral. it's important to note that all of those referrals were made by the san francisco police departme department. >> commander, the time frame is from inception? >> yes. >> through what date? >> january. >> my next slide includes results from the san francisco sheriff's department and the bart police. >> i don't offer this in any way as a commentary, it's just that this is what was produced. you'll see the circle graph to the right demonstrates that from these 434 referrals, 76% of those were made by police officers in san francisco. there were two districts where lead was implemented or where we had officers deployed, trained, who were equipped to make these determinations and make referrals. in the tenderloin, 275 referrals were made, in the mission 159 were made. that's total. so that includes the bart p.d., the sheriff, as well as officers from the san francisco police department. >> [ indiscernible ] -- >> pardon? >> yes, ma'am. tender 275 and in the mission 179. the numberers are one metric, but what i would like to point out is the success of this program, the number of these referrals is due to the open-minded men and women of the san francisco police department who offer these individuals and opportunity for a different path. i want to acknowledge the leadership of captain carl fabri from tenderloin, lieutenant rachael moran. she was at mission station as a patrol lieutenant and she jumped in on this right away. there were a lot of people who got referred because of her. lieutenant dean hall from tenderloin and sergeant davin cole who is now assigned to the healthy streets team. so this graph -- these two things represent a snapshot. all of this statistical information related to demographics, race, gender, is captured by the department of public health. the way that that occurs is a police officer makes a referral. a person responds to the call and they complete an intake. once the intake is completed, that information is compiled and a record is kept. what's important to note about these two graphs is that this is a snapshot in time. these are lead participants. so these are not -- this is a group of 156 individuals that was reported out to us on the 27th of last month. this snapshot represents approximately 35% of all the referrals that were made program-wide. so those are the numbers. the reason they fluctuate is people come into the program. they might be housed. their needs are met and they successfully complete or other people come in and they leave. so that number is ever-changing. it's sort of a living number, if you will. part of the lead program was an analysis conducted by the california state university in long beach. we have a number of meetings related to lead. one of them is the policy group committee and includes department heads from all of our partners, everybody who is involved in this program. her last name is malm who is a ph.d. who let the team of other ph.d.s who look at our results. they captured data all the way up through june of 2019, which is where they stopped. to compare us to seattle which is sort of the best-practice standard because they've been at it a long time. a lot of us, including myself and director sutton went to seattle to speak to the people on the ground who were responsible for the implementation of the program from the beginning. one of the people that acted as a mentor to me, his first name is chris and i can't remember his last name. i hope he's not watching this on the internet from seattle, he worked for the public defenders office. we had a lot of conversations over the last two years about what worked. he's a big believer in this program and he came down a lot of times to sit on meetings that included police officers from mission, tenderloin station, lieutenants, people from the department of public health, who are the folks who are really getting the work done. so the folks from california state long beach did a comparison. [ please stand by ] they were at a rate 302 percent higher than their lead counterparts. at 12 months it's more dramatic. they looked at the felony arrest circumstances for people who were lead referrals and people who were system as usual. people who were system at usual were two and a half times more likely to be arrested for a felony, 257 percent more than their counterparts who were referred to lead. felony cases were three and a half times higher greater than their lead referral counterparts. and their misdemeanor arrest citation incidents were six times higher, 623 percent more than their lead counterparts. >> we need to know, 72 percent higher citation rate. that means the folks sent to the lead program had a higher citation rate because that's how it was being addressed but these are the folks that had higher misdemeanor and felony rates? >> yes >> why don't you go through that? >> what this means. >> the folks at california state long beach completed an evaluation. if i recall correctly it's over 130 pages long. they are all ph.d.es who explain this and did this evaluation on the assessment. so to get it in a concise direct response, when they presented this information to us at the policy group, they pointed to these two things as evidence that the goals that were set out for lead in order to decrease recidivism for individuals that were being referred, that this was evidence of those two things. so this slide, i apologize, is probably not as clear as it could be. >> if you could tell us, what is the 72 percent higher citation rate mean for the lead referrals? what happened to them? what does that mean? >> can you explain -- i think i can help, i'm trying. can you explain why, for example, someone would be given a citation of an arrest? i think i get what this is trying to get at. people got citations rather than being arrested and booked. >> right. >> so can you explain the circumstances and what kind of factors go into whether or not someone gets a citation as opposed to being arrested and booked? >> so, again, the best practice standard here is once an officer makes a referral of an individual to lead, the goal is to work with police, prosecutor, public defender, case manager to make certain once that person is in this program that we all work in a collaborative fashion to make sure they don't end up in jail. because their research shows that people that end up in jail don't do as well as those who stay in the program, out of jail. that impact, there's a significant impact that's not good for them for them changing the trajectory of their life if they go into jail. so, again, i apologize, because the 72 percent higher citation rate is about as clear as mud. but the second -- >> i just want to know, does that mean within the six montserrat following the referral to the lead program -- months following the referral to the lead program, they received some citation for some reason. was it related to the initial interaction or was it subsequent? >> it was subsequent, and they were for misdemeanor violations >> so this is how many people got in trouble again? >> yes. but it's citations. >> yes. >> and why were they citations as opposed to misdemeanor or felony. we are going to have to do this one at a time. >> so that information i don't have. these numbers were offered to us as an indication that people who were not involved in lead, this is what i took away from her presentation. that people who were not involved in lead had a 302 percent higher rate of being, coming into contact with law enforcement for committing a disdemeanor. >> i get that part. so they got three times the misdemeanors as the people in the lead program got. and then they got two and a half times the felony arrests that folks in the lead program got, is that right? >> people who were system as usual not referred to lead were two and a half times more likely during that 12 month period to be arrested for a felony. >> and what does the three and a half times mean? >> a felony case. so prosecution of a case that they were arrested for. >> all right. and then the misdemeanor arrest was six times higher? >> yes. >> i guess the only one i personally don't understand fully is the citation and how that's treated. >> i think what this is trying to say is that people who completed lead were more like likely to get cited as opposed to arrested. whatever they did afterwards, they did not rise to the level of danger or concern where they were arrested and booked. they were simply cited out and they could appear in court at a later date so to me that's supposed to signal something positive because the alternative would have been they were arrested and booked because whatever they did was of a more dangerous or volatile quality. >> exactly. the folks who were -- sorry. >> so commissioner elias. >> as someone who actually was there when the

Related Keywords

Mission District , California , United States , Bayview , Bayview District , Valencia , Carabobo , Venezuela , San Francisco , America , Pete Lazar , Los Angeles , Rachael Moran ,