Transcripts For CSPAN Discussion Focuses On Gun Violence Prevention 20160827

On behalf of nij and our director, Nancy Rodriguez, i welcome you to the most recent iteration of research in the thereal world. For those of you unfamiliar, this is a series that nij runs where we Link Research presentations, sometimes research refunded, sometimes research that others have done, with practitioners to emphasize the importance of applied science, and taking science and translating it into the real world so it is not simply an academic exercise and it really is focused on advancing the work in the field. Today we are obviously speaking on firearm violence and injury prevention. We have some great panelists. I have to read something from which i apologize for, but im told i have to. And then we will get started. In the unlikely event of a situation requiring evacuation, the following procedures should be followed. If you hear an alarm from anywhere in the building you should begin evacuation. If you encounter flashing strobe lights but hear no alarm, this indicates you should be alert and ready to evacuate if the alarm sounds. Stay calm and gather any personal belongings. Do not take any beverages or food, unless otherwise directed in calmly, exit the nearest stairwell. When evacuating the main conference room, exit through the door in the back of the room, which is over there. Move away from the building and follow instructions from ojp staff, who will be there. This session is being audio and video recorded. The slides will be available within a few weeks. You will receive an email when the seminars available online. We find that many people like to forward the seminars to people who are unable to attend in person. At the end of the presentation there will be a questionandanswer period. If you have a question, please approach the mic and state your name and affiliation before you ask a question. Because this is being audio recorded, one of the staff will ask you to sign permission allowing us to use your question in the published presentation. If you prefer not to be included, let the staff know. To get the session started i would like to invite im having a senior moment. [laughter] the Deputy Assistant attorney general for Justice Programs, to say a few words. In a thank you, howard. It is a pleasure to welcome so many colleagues from the office of Justice Programs and other components at the apartment of justice, and of course, our national and local partners. We are very pleased you are here with us today. And a special thanks to our distinguished panel and all the contributions you have made to expand our base of knowledge of what works to prevent and reduce violence. Again, thank you, howard, and for nij, Nancy Rodriguez and the nij staff for the terrific work they do to promote the research we need to keep our communities safe from gun violence. Gun crime continues to exact a heavy toll and we still do not know enough about how to prevent them. There is a great need for resources directed at research in this area. I am proud that our National Institute of justice has stepped up over the years to answer that call. Under the leadership of assistant attorney general carol mason, the office of Justice Programs has supported nijs program of violence research. Because one of the most important responsibilities of government is to keep citizens safe. Rigorous study and evaluation will help ensure we are meeting that responsibility. Nij is moving us forward, helping to give Law Enforcement the tools they need to protect the communities from gun violence. A project with the urban institute is looking at gunshot detection technology. And how it affects the response to firearms violence and related crimes. This technology is commonly used in larger departments. Our bureau of justice statistics tells us about 50 of large Police Departments deploy it. But we do not know great deal about its effectiveness. The servant institute project will help close the knowledge gap. Another ongoing effort is a project with the university of californiadavis. Researchers are evaluating californias armed and prohibited persons system, which seeks to recover firearms from prohibited persons. Prohibited persons are people who have purchased the gun legally in the past but who as a result of the conviction for a serious crime or some other highrisk event have since become ineligible to purchase a firearm. The nij Research Project is looking at whether this california system works and whether it reduces the risk of future firearmrelated and violent criminal activity. Beyond social science research, nij is leading the federal governments were to promote Gun Safety Technology. Nij conducted a review of the technologies and submitted a report to the president outlining a research and develop a strategy. One of the reports recommendations was for Law Enforcement to develop baseline specifications for Gun Safety Technology on service firearms. Just a few weeks ago, nij convened a panel of Law Enforcement executives and other stakeholders to review a draft of a slight specifications of Gun Safety Technology on Law Enforcement service pistols. We believe that this is a big step in the right direction. We know from our conversations with Law Enforcement leaders that they want to move this technology forward. Illegal gun use remains one of Law Enforcements gravest concerns. As the president has pointed out, Gun Safety Technology exists, and it is time to put it to use. Reducing gun violence is also about using smart strategies. Communitybased models grounded in evidence. We have seen through projects supported by the office of Justice Programs that we stand a much better chance of keeping communities safe when we use targeted approaches and enlist the involvement of all stakeholders. Dojs Violence Reduction Network Brings local Law Enforcement together with the department of justice Law Enforcement and training and Technical Assistance resources to tackle Serious Problems with cities challenged by violence. By taking an all hands approach and sharing data, evidencebased practices, and tactics across agencies, cities have been able to successfully address some of the most pressing problems. Detroit, for example, would be able to reduce Domestic Violence homicides by 35 in one year. Under our National Forum on Youth Violence prevention, local leaders, federal officials, and stakeholders in a number of cities have worked with each other to target and reduce serious youth crime. Boston, for example, used violence interrupters to intermediate violent street encounters and reported he was able to reduce homicides between 2014 and 2015. The citys largest decline in 16 years. Now, there is a Common Element to these another successful programs, and that is the reliance on data and evidence. There is a reason these programs work, and it is more than a matter of luck. Reducing violence depends on solid understanding of the problem that exists and the approaches that are most likely to yield positive, sustainable results. That is why partnerships with researchers are so beneficial. Im grateful to our panelists for being here today to share their insight about what works, and i appreciate the nij team for opening up this conversation. Thank you all for your interest and for joining us today, and i look forward to the discussion. [applause] im going to introduce all four of the panelists up front and they will come up in order, and in the end there will be opportunities for questions. The first speaker will be david hemenway, who among other things is an old friend of my, but he is also a professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and director of the injury control research center. He is one of the leading researchers in the country on injury prevention, including firearm injuries, and will be giving a general overview on the issue of firearms. He will be followed by charles wellford, Professor Emeritus of criminology at the university of marylandcollege park. He is past president of the American Society for criminal justice for criminology and a lifetime associate of the National Academy of sciences. He will talk specifically about a project hes doing with Prince Georges Police department. The third speaker is susan sorenson, also another old friend, who ive actually known since her days at ucla school of Public Health. She is currently at the university of pennsylvania and has been doing extensive work in particular around family and sexual violence, and she will be talking about some of the work she has done with respect to firearms and Domestic Violence. And then our last speaker is hank stawinski, who is the chief of police of the Prince Georges County Police Department. He is going to be wrapping things up and talking about the Research Presentation and how they are relevant or, for that matter, not relevant to the work they do in the Police Department. I will hand things over to david. David so i was told to give a broad overview in 15 minutes, and what i am going to do is talk about some of the things that we have been working on through the years that may or may not be of interest to you. I will talk quickly about the u. S. Exceptionalism in terms of guns, guns, guns, and then i want to talk a little bit about the importance of surveys and the importance of community collaboration. You have to realize that when we compare ourselves to other high income countries, gun advocates like to compare us to ponder us in el salvador and south africa, where we actually look good. But when you compare us to the other 24 industrialized democracies, we dont look so good in terms of guns and gun violence. Turns out when you compare us to these other 24 countries, we have similar crime rates in terms of gun crimes, violence rates. We are very average country in lots of ways, except about guns. We are very, very different from all these other countries about guns, and what is the big difference . One, we have so many guns, particularly handguns, which most of these other countries dont have so many at all. We have by far the most permissive gun laws of any one of these other 24 countries. Talking about japan and england and italy and canada and so forth. Not surprisingly, we have a lot more gun homicides. This gives you a feeling, comparing the United States to the other peer countries. This is 514yearolds, and what it shows that a child in the United States has a much higher likelihood of being murdered than a child in sweden or new zealand or australia. And it is not 20 higher or 50 higher or twice as high. It is 18 times higher. 18 times higher. If you took all the little kids 5 through 14 years old who were murdered with guns in all developed countries and you laid their dead bodies, 90 of those children would be american children. This if you compare if you look at a different, any age group, young adult 1524 years old, and you can see blacks in the United States of course have much higher rates, but it is not just blacks. Whites, white teenagers in the United States have 20 times the likelihood of being murdered by a gun then teenagers in other countries. No one can understand how little we do. And it is also not just citizens who are dying, it is also police. Police in the United States are so much or likely to be murdered than police in other developed countries. This is comparing the United States with germany. 3040 times more likely that a Police Officer in the United States will be killed violently than police in other countries. We are looking we did a study looking across the United States. Why are Police Killed more often in some states than in other states . The answer is not crime. What is it . Its guns. This gives you a feeling this compares states with a lot of guns compared to states with few guns and we control for a lot of things here. Trying to get the same number of Law Enforcement officers in the highgun states and the lowgun states, and the officer in the highgun states have three times the likelihood of being killed on the job violently than an officer in the lowgun states. Big in the news now is police killings. In the United States, our police kill civilians at a much higher rate than people are killed in other developed countries. I think a big reason is guns. Unfortunately, there hasnt been a study to show that. Why isnt there a study . It would be easy to do except that we dont have nearly enough data. If you use Police Reports and homicide reports, you lose half the data. If you use Public Health records, you lose 40 . It is not that you dismiss them. A good system is the National Violent death reporting system but that has only been in 18 states finally in 32. It is not like randomly the police and violence statistics are missing. If you look at the police numbers, North Carolina doesnt look so bad. Violence numbers in North Carolina dont look so bad. If you look at the actual numbers from the violence report system, North Carolina, police are killing a lot of civilians. So we have a big problem. Let me talk quickly about surveys. We do lots of surveys, we think surveys are really important to understand what is going on. We have done surveys of police in massachusetts. Massachusetts is one of the 2 states where police have discretion about who can carry a gun and most states are mustissue states, if someone wants a permit to carry a gun concealed from if they can pass background checks, the police chief have to give them a permit no matter what the police chief knows about the individual. That is not true in massachusetts. We surveyed 351 towns in massachusetts, we surveyed the police chief, we asked they want to keep discretion, and of course they said yes. Then we asked how often do you deny a permit even if the individual can pass the background check, and the answer was basically, on average, about one or two times a year. Given example of when you deny a permit even though this individual can pass the background check. That is what is sort of interesting here are some examples. Basically, these local Police Chiefs know some of these individuals and why do they know them . They go to their household time for 911 calls and alcohol and opioid abuse. They dont want to give gun permits to these people, but most Police Chiefs in most states have to give the permit. I love the last quotation i asked him why he wanted a gun permit from which most Police Chiefs dont need to do, and he said he was going to take his gun and go to one of my officers homes and shoot him in the head. You dont want to give a permit to that person. That person can readily get a permit. For 10 years from 2010, we were a Youth Violence Prevention Center and we worked mostly in the city of boston. One of the things we tried to do was supplement their data system with lots of surveys, High School Student surveys, kids who dropped out of high school and surveys of adults. We did surveys looking at fear, witnessing, victimization, perpetration of violence. We look at sibling violence, pure violence, dating violence. I think the data was incredibly important. To give one example, this was 10 years ago, we had a High School Student where are you afraid . Check off the things. Where were most kids afraid . Home, school, to and from school, on your street, neighborhood, Public Transportation . What do you think . To and from school . Transportation . What was the answer . If the police know that they can do lots of things about it. If we are able to continue at the center we were able to say this is what happened. Put in more police. Did this really have an effect on fear of students or not . We dont know. Among the many things so many things, over 35 peerreviewed articles and all the things about violence have come out. Here is one thing that might interest you. We asked an adult surveys in boston, what did you think of the police, and adults thought the boys were doing a good job. 17 out of 20 said absolutely. Then we asked High School Students. These are not the bad High School Students. These are students actually in school on the day of the survey. Not only have a not drop out school but they were not truant that day. How much do trust police in your neighborhood . Not a lot. It is very different world for young people than it is for adults. Police can act differently to make it a nicer world for adolescents. Let me talk briefly about community collaboration. This is not about violence, but this is about bicycles. Two years ago in boston, for the first time ever, we had a big report about bicycle safety, and it came from mostly police data. Why were we able to do this . Police worked with academia. I found a doctoral student who helped was a catalyst and getting everybody together to create this report. Found out a lot of wonderful things, how to reducing bike accidents. One of the important findings is there is one area in the city where 60 people were seriously injured without crashing into a car. Why was that . The railway system, the bike wheels got caught. A real easy fix. The key thing was what this report did is it changed the relationship between the bike advocates and the police, which was a very hostile one. What we were able to do was say, look, we are trying to write this report and we need everybodys help with the data. We are all going to Work Together and they worked together to create this report and working together changed everything. Now there was a really transformed the relationship between the police and the bike advocates because of working together on each project. In boston we have wonderful, wonderful agencies. One has been 12 years, recently in operation lipstick. What is operation lipstick . When someone purchases a gun it is overwhelmingly going to be a man. When a woman buys a gun she is disproportionately likely to be a straw purchaser. Too many women in boston are buying and holding guns for their boyfriends. This was a 15year felony, a horrible, horrible thing. They pictured it more as like lying on your Employment Application or Something Like that. And now all these women have gotten together and really changing social norms. It is not just by themselves, but the mayor is involved, the da is involved, and the police are really, really involved. It really is making a difference. More and more women and their boyfriends understanding that if your boyfriend is asking you to buy a gun and hold it for them, what should you do . Get rid of that boyfriend, because that is not a nice person. We have been doing a lot of work, collaboration, working with the Gun Community and the Public Health working with the Gun Community, anybody can work with anybody. We have been working on Suicide Prevention and the evidence is overwhelming that a gun in the home increases the risk for suicide. You can reduce suicide in the United States and a lot of homicides and suicides, half the mass shootings, suicides. You can change the statistics without changing laws or Mental Health and you can get the gun out of the house when a person is going through a bad period. We have been working with gun shops. We have been working with gun trainers, figuring out what can gun trainers do to reduce suicides. Very, very exciting. I have one minute left and i just want to say, i always promised my publisher wherever i go, appropriate or not, i will push this book. While we were sleeping Success Stories in injury violence and prevention. The world has been made safer by reducing injuries and violence. 36 heroes in the book whom you have never heard of who have devoted their life to prevention. Only 20 on amazon. Com. The key thing is what i would like to see is a book about police and Police Officers who have made a difference in preventing crime, who are the real heroes, i think. Thank you. [applause] charles so my name is charles wellford, and is howard indicated, im not currently one of his friends, but im glad to know him. [laughter] charles i am old. Im nancys friend, to be sure. The presentation is funded by nij and this is the front page from a paper that is under review. I want to highlight the three graduate students who have just been exceptional in working on this project with me. Im going to pull things out of that today but also add some of my own thoughts so they are not responsible for any slide after this one. Lots of people involved in this project. I wont name all of them. You see them here. But i do want to emphasize the role the iacp has played. They are the grantee for this project, instrumental in helping us gain access to agencies and state police agencies, and have managed this entire process. Then of course the 2 Police Departments, new orleans and Prince Georges County Police Departments, who showed, i think, great courage in agreeing to be participants in the project. And of course, nij for funding us. As we began the project, we had a particular approach to what we thought was our current understanding of how guns get to criminals, how markets operate. But as the National Research council indicated in 2005, what we know is more conceptual than empirical. We know that guns are sold mostly through legal dealers. They go to people who most of them dont use them in a crime, but 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 years later, that gun shows up in a Police Department recovering it during or after commission of a crime. The Empirical Research we have are mostly from trace studies. Traces are where guns recovered by police are submitted to the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and explosions from now on i will call them atf and they run a National Tracing Center in West Virginia that reports back to the Police Department where the gun originated, who purchased it, when, where, those kinds of things. We have studies that have looked at trace results. These have tended to be in individual communities, not many comparative studies. And they are often in high regulations in communities like massachusetts, illinois, california because thats where many of the best researchers in the gun violence gun Research Area operate. There have been inmate studies which are typically surveys or interviews that are done with inmates. You may be familiar with jim early work in 1984 on armed and dangerous, a Major National survey of inmates and then there is the djf survey of prisoners asking them where they get their guns and individuals have done surveys throughout the year. What we find is that these two types of approaches to studying gun markets dont occur in the same study. They are usually done differently and they are at different times with different samples and that creates some difficulty in trying to get at the two ends of the gun market continue on. The end of sale and the end of criminals using them in crimes. The gap between first legal sale and use is relatively unknown from an empirical, scientific perspective. What we have done in this study which is now coming to an end, we are due to finish up by the end of october, or maybe the first of october, is to select three jurisdictions, two were funded by an ij to us. Chicago came in with phil cooke in the crime land at the university of chicago which we get traced data and we do inmate surveys and we try to interview individuals who were first legal purchasers. This shows you the components, the facing, what we call tracking where we interview individuals who purchased the guns and present interviews in these three jurisdictions. If you can make out the letter grades, this is the center, the lost center pension of gun violence create for these jurisdictions and the regulations. We tried to introduce a notice of variation and regulation with prince georges being a very high regulation jurisdiction, louisiana, new orleans not so much and chicago, reasonably good. We dont claim anywhere in our work that we are able to precisely estimate the effect of these regulations but we do note where there are differences in some of these gun patterns we have looked at. In each of these areas, in prince georges, we collect the trace guns and you see the number for the twoyear time. Period. We do surveys we do interviews with inmates who are serving time for gun used in that jurisdiction through the same two years but we cannot link them to the particular trace for lots of reasons. In terms of tracking, we have identified about 200 individuals we have not finished collecting this but i will report some pulmonary stuff one hundred 80 when individuals who were the first legal purchaser and what they say happened to the gun. At the end, i will tell you what our general conclusions were about this research. First, gun reach out coverage and trace success vary across jurisdictions and in some locations by crime. Second, gun regulation to matter because they seem to be associated with certain characteristics of the market. The portion of guns purchased in a state and a time to recover them which sometimes is called time to crime. We did not find that the variations and regulation were associated with the likelihood of the purchaser and possessor being the same person or the likelihood of the gun being bought by a straw purchaser. First legal owners tell us that guns that end up being used in Violent Crimes are mostly stolen from them or they have sold it to the person who became the offender where they sold it to someone else. In prison, gun offenders cited buying a gun off the streets as the most likely way to obtain a firearm thats used in crimes. Without spending half an hour talking about methodology, i have pretty good confidence in conclusions one and two and in 4. Three, for reasons that i may be able to go into if you have time , we know we have missed things in the interviews of the first legal owners mainly because we could not find them or they are dead or they were Police Officers or something else. Let me briefly give you some nuggets of the actual findings that support these ideas. On gun recoveries, we found that across the jurisdictions, less than 20 of violent gun crimes resulted in a recovery of a firearm. Mostly thats because a below clearance rate for many Violent Crimes. If the crime is not cleared, there is a low probability of a gun being recovered. Firearms are more likely to be recovered after homicides and unlikely following armed robberies. In new orleans, we compared the crimes where guns were recovered and where they were not and there were substantial differences in the types of crimes, the types of victims, the types of offenders and where they occurred within the city. The trace results are very important for Law Enforcement. But they must be treated with the recognition that they are incomplete and the incompleteness can give a distorted or biased picture of what the gun crime situation looks like in any particular jurisdiction. There are unsuccessful cases. In most are stations, using bullet 2, there is variation but about 2 3 75 of guns submitted for tracing are successfully traced. The most common reasons for unsuccessful traces differed only slightly across jurisdictions. They primarily reflect how we have decided to capture and this a gun. Here are some of those. There are mainly administrative reasons like the dealers out of business or there was a problem with the submission, obliteration of serial numbers are certainly important but other reasons for failure tend to be more important. There is a way in which gun regulations are associated. You see the top line which is new orleans. The higher percentage of instate purchases of guns recovered in crimes to the other two jurisdictions, the regulations seem to result or are associated with lower are associated with lower percentage of instate purchases, more outofstate and that makes sense. But this is obviated by the fact that the states may be near other states where regulations are not as strong. In maryland, many guns are purchased in virginia, etc. Usually in a low regulation jurisdiction, the meantime to recovery is about 8. 5 years whereas for the other two jurisdictions, its considerably longer. That means there is more cost involved in these gun situations. It does not make a difference in purchaser processor. In past russias county, 26 of the original purchaser, the legal adjuster, where people use the gun and possess the gun and a crime and 50 in chicago in 19 in orleans. I think that speaks somewhat to davids point about the efforts in massachusetts to address that purchase by people who pass the background check. Is the specific date on movement from first legal sale. This is what the 181 people reported to us. 40 1 said it was stolen and 9 sold or traded for gun store, solar traded at a gun show, 2 sold to the offender. We asked people if they said it was stolen whether they had reported to the police. Most of say they did not so that stolen number could be a socially acceptable way of saying something else. That that is what is reported. In prison, gun offenders, the middle bar is a combination of things that are off the street. That you have bought it, or they traded for it but the gun came off of the street. One of our interviewees said i one of our interviewees said i dont have a manufacturing plant but if you want to know about guns, talk to the white people who bring them in and sell them to our community. That is the predominant thought and many of our surveys. That is for the guns are coming from, those millions of guns that david was talking about that are out there are ending up in the hands of people who commit crimes through theft, purchasing on the street, drug dealers, and others and trading and borrowing. Now to the implications for Law Enforcement, i divide these into two categories. The first to really speak the things that are beyond the total control of Law Enforcement. If guns are being stolen, if guns are being purchased out on the street, then we need enforceable tools to address transfers from legal owners into the unregulated market. Some states including maryland, massachusetts have required that for every transfer, if i buy a gun and as for you to howard, i have to report that or i have to do it through an ffl, some mechanism. As was recently showed in a paper in preventive medicine, in massachusetts, only 30 of the guns that end up in crime were transferred some way into the underground market were reported in the way they should be. Part of that is enforcement issue. I emphasize the enforceable tools to give us a picture of what these transfers are and where they are going and who should have these guns. I think also outside of local Law Enforcement control, there is improvements in tracing. Go out to the National Tracing Center sometime and see the remarkable job that these people are doing in giving trace results back to agents. They are significantly hampered by the way in which we have decided to do systems of information about gun purchases. That is another whole hour of conversation but i think it is important one that we need to keep in mind. The police chief in may of this year, meghan collins, one of the students working on this paper and Carlos Acosta from the county Police Department, we did a paper entitled what police can do to prevent gun violence parco to summarize it in one minute, we said police in the last 15 years have learned how to address crime by collecting better data, analyzing those data, and understanding what drives the crime situation and then addressing those underlying drivers. That is the same strategy that needs to be applied to a gun markets and guns. You see that happening more and more in police by focusing on what might be called trigger shooters are high risk individuals. They are at high risk for committing gun crimes are being victims of gun crimes. Our suggestion in that article is that same approach and focus should be addressing gun markets and how to interrupt them. Once that is done, if you use that approach, these departments will be using the kinds of strategies i have described in our research, surveys, tracing data, interviewing first legal purchasers, or getting access to those databases that states should have that describe secondary transfers and using that to better understand. I cannot tell you how many Police Department i have been to over the last few years in which their use of trace data is their primary source of understanding their gun markets and who use it primarily on an individual case basis. The user to try to solve a case and then or use it for a strategic understanding of what their gun market situation might look like. Once you have taken those two steps, as was said earlier, as david mentioned, there are programs of proven success in crime solutions. Gov and other sources of information about what works. Police can draw upon these. I dont have time to repeat it but i think please can use the strategies, the approach that has worked so well to reduce crime. I dont think we can argue about how much is contributed and discuss whether the strategies used have reduced confidence in the police in certain segments of the community but we cannot deny the fact that this approach of datadriven evidence driven policing is made a difference. I think we can do the same thing in the area of gun markets and gun crimes. [applause] thank you. [applause] hello, i am Susan Sorensen and i want to thank you for asking me to join you today. I must im pleased to have the opportunity to tell you about my work. You saw the title . You probably thought i was going to talk about homicide. Im not. I would be happy to address homicide or policies related to the topic of gun use against women in the queue and day. But now i want to address something else. This panel is titled research for the real world. When it comes to guns, the real world for women is not about death. Or even injury. Its about life, a certain kind of life. The criminal Justice System advocates, researchers, and policymakers need to expand the current focus on death to include life. As a Public Health researcher, i know that survival is the essential basis of health. But it is not enough. Quality of life matters as well. True collaboration, we can make a difference. Philadelphia, by the way is a great way to collaborate and a great place to collaborate. The work i will tell you about today comes from a collaboration with the Police Department of philadelphia. It was work that was begun under commissioner Charles Ramsey and deputy commissioners choice and fox and was completed under a current commissioner, richard rock. We worked with the four largest to mystic violence agencies in philadelphia. This District Attorneys Office and womens law project in the center i direct, the center on Family Violence of a university of pennsylvania. This was work that was with my funded by the john and laura arnold foundation. The work i will be talking about today comes from the new venture fund. I will back up just a bit to say that there were some concerns that the form that officers used when responding to the scene of intimate Partner Violence was not necessarily capturing all the information that it might. There was some concern in the department that they dont want to change. We know it is like changing a form in a bureaucracy. Its a major event. I thought let me see if its a feasible thing. I did ride loans with police and met with residents of the Emergency Shelter for battered women trying to develop a 10 item checklist. We piloted with officers in one district and after it seemed like it could work him i handed it to the form, with input from a lot of people, was developed. It was a front and back form and has lots of information. It was two pages and there is a Department Directive that requires responding officers to complete the form when a victim is on the scene of intimate Partner Violence. That was rolled out citywide and has been in place for a few years now and time is short today so i will focus on the topline findings from that work. In the year 2013 in philadelphia, there were over 100,000 calls for assistance for Domestic Violence. Some were bad actresses and others were gone by the time the officers arrived but once all of those were accounted for and all the other forms of Domestic Violence are removed, we ended up with 35,413 incidents of intimate Partner Violence. In a great majority of those incidents, there was no weapon at all or the weapon was a body part, hands or feet. About 5 of the incidents involved in external weapon. 2 3 of these weapons were knives or bats and a wide range of other objects. 1 3 of these external weapons, only 1. 6 were guns. This is a small percentage but its a big number and i will return to that at the end. I am focusing on the weapons here. But its worth noting that when a gun was used, 85 of the time, it was used against a woman. The gender split was not this unbalanced for the other two types. When there was no weapon used or when there were other external weapons used. How was the gun used . 2 3 of the time it was used to threaten the person. 15 of the time, the person was shot or pistol whipped and 18 of the time, it was another thing like it was stolen during the incident or simply there or Something Like that. This is a key point. The gun is a device to deliver intimidation. That is the central aspect of the control and coercion that is a hallmark of chronic abuse. A common question is why does she stay. She might be afraid of getting shot a few tries to leave. Being threatened with a gun crushes motivation to end the relationship or to even seek greater independence. I told you about gun use. Next, i will show you some frequency data based on the three weapon categories. The present the percentages show what you might be likely to see if the only thing you knew about the incident was the weapon. We did adjusted odds ratios in the paper thats forthcoming and you can check that but right now, the only thing we know is the use of a kind of weapon. The three slides address the scene, the offender, and the victim. As you can see, the blue bar, there is no external weapon, the red bar is a gun and the graybar is another external weapon is used. We can see that the furniture being in disarray, the Property Damage with blood at the scene, in each case the lowest was when there was not an external weapon used in the highest when there was another external weapon used. These are the things the officers saw when he or she arrived at the scene. One thing that was typically not at the scene was the offender. As you can see in both cases of no weapon or note external weapon or other external weapon, about half the time, the offender had fled. However, when a gun was used, over 70 of the time, the offender had fled by the time the officer had arrived. What to the offender do . Again, the blue bar is no external weapon and the red bar being a gun and the graybar being another external weapon. In each case, almost each case, there was more likely to be anyone of these type of behaviors. Also strangling. It was another kind of external weapon, not a gun but they were more likely to threaten if they were using a gun and also, it was more likely to involve a violation of a protection from abuse order or restraining order. What happened in terms of the victim . What did the officers either . You can see the same pattern. Lowest, notes turn weapon, then guns and highest among other external nongun weapons. With the two exceptions on the right side, if a gun was used, the person was much more likely to be frightened, substantially more likely to be frightened, and to be shaking. The bars that are there on the third and forth from the right, injuries are key determinants of health criminal Justice System will proceed but as you can see, those who are threatened with a gun, are less likely to have injuries. They are more likely to be frightened. Women may choose to defend themselves. If he comes at her with a fist or a bat or a knife but not have the courage if he comes at her with a gun. He has to expend some energy and work a bit to hit her or strangle her into unconsciousness. But if he has been drinking and is angry and all attacks is the probate trigger, she is scared. And she is wise to back down. If you want to look at these and Additional Findings like the officers behavior at the scene, i will refer you to a paper that will be posted online in early september. It will be available for free at the journal website. Its the journal of womens health. Recommendations that come out of these data, there could be multiple recommendations i will focus on three. The first is that we must address the role of guns in womens lives as well as their deaths. You only have to threaten with a gun once. It creates a context of fear and intimidation, an environment that is not good for the woman or the children in the home. Even a single, hostile display of a gun can create realistic fear about the risk to herself and her children. It might be associated with leaving. We know from Prior Research that risk of homicide is highest when a woman is ending the relationship and the gun makes that fear all the more palpable. Next, its advisable to document officer compliance with the gun laws. A number of states have laws in place where its authorized and in some cases required officers to remove the gun from a scene under certain circumstances. These vary by state to state. Having information about this on a form that the officer needs to complete, it shows is a reminder three officer and second, its a way for departments to clearly document compliance with the law its a systematic and complete way to record the information. Third, we have some solid policies in place to address intimate Partner Violence and guns but to more fully address gun threat and intimidation, we need to revisit our policies. For example, what might be the implications for intimate Partner Violence of the emerging technologies such as smart guns . We need to consider statutes and Law Enforcement policies that dont rely primarily on injuries. In closing, i will return to an earlier point and leave you with the scope of the problem. It comes from data gathered in 1995 and 1996. Is the only national estimate of the gun use against an intimate partner, number from Research Funded by the cdc. The researchers found that 3. 5 of u. S. Women have ever had an intimate partner threaten them with a gun. Im not talking about using a gun in any way. Just threatening them with a gun. Gun threats more common than threats with a knife. That percentage, 3. 5 , if that holds true now 20 years later, it is as if every adult woman living in san diego, philadelphia, orlando, chicago, the cities hosting the next for International Association Police Chiefs conferences and, as if every adult woman living in dallas, phoenix, san jose, and the District Of Columbia have had an intimate partner threaten them with a gun. As you leave today, look at the face of each woman you meet. Think about they represent. Think about their lives. We can do better by then. Its one please of the puzzle. Thank you. [applause] good morning. My name is hank stawinski. I want to thank the director for having me, howard, for introducing me. I stand before you today as an unapologetic advocate of research and Police Science. I think, for reasons i will do tell briefly, that is really where the future lies. When i am asked about policing and research, my friend charles and i, im reminded of will rogers. Will rogers said, it is ok to be on the right track, but if you just sit there, sooner or later youre going to get run over. And that is where the application of research to the real world is the vital component in contemplating what we choose to take interest in from a research perspective. A little bit of history about my department and my journey. Six years ago, under chief magaw, we elected to restructure the department to be a strategybased, preventionoriented organization capable of producing Strategic Policies and plans that would achieve structural reductions in crime. What we knew looking at this was that crime was overrepresented when we look at indicators in Prince Georges County. Economic, employment, if her structure. There was too much of it. One of the first things we did was to hire our Inspector General who came from doj to help us on this journey. One of the first things we did was go to the university of maryland am it which had not happened before, and speak to an internationally recognized thinker around these issues. We are trying to think conference of leave. Im go to take a moment and talk about that word because conference of and a lot of times is concluded to mean about crime and the hard facts of crime. It was mentioned today about some of the results of the study in boston. And about mistrust and timidity, particularly around young people. Those soft issues of relationships are equal in value to this department and equal in terms of everything to our research. I call it the hard work of small things. Things that you dont hear about on the news, things that you wont hear about in the national press, but conversations that happen in church basements, schools, and on the side of the road are as valuable as the work that these individuals do. When you translate that across an entire department, it accounts for credibility. Credibility is what allows us to take some of these strategies forward. When people understand again, you cannot trust people you dont know. When people understand the Research Basis for some of the strategies and why were doing what we are doing and you explain that as you launch those strategies, then you eliminate misunderstanding and you bring in more collaborative efforts and you can be more successful. You have heard a lot from eminent thinkers in Public Health. And i fully acknowledge that that was not always the case in Prince Georges County. We were not looking at it as a Public Health issue. But what we said six years ago was, lets take this from the perspective of a proven science, epidemiology. Lets look at all of the causes of factors of crime as opposed to what we traditionally have been very good at, which is dealing with offenders. And out of that, we concluded that if were going to take an epidemiological view on things, what we know from that science is there are structural things you can do to impact the outbreak of disease. What i suggest what were in the midst of doing in prince georges johnny townie, is understand crime isnt a giant mystery. That there are underlying structures that these individuals and others out there right now are helping us to identify that can lead to structural methodologies that we can implement and get real results from. It is not entirely ours. I will say sometimes it will not work. But as thomas of us and once remarked, i did not fail in inventing the lightbulb 10,000 times, i learned 10,000 ways not to make the incandescent lightbulb. We learn as much from those failures as we do from some of our successes. It is important to take that risk and to learn, at the very least, you now know what you did not know before. And these can be tremendously beneficial frameworks, not only for formulating effective strategy, but for accounting to the public why certain strategies have not produced the result we would have liked to have seen. Going back to thinking conference of will he, i do talk about daniel board and bill mcmullen. We have 11 investigators assigned to task force of atf fulltime. Their job is to understand how guns are coming into Prince Georges County because of the it of that process, we believe that behind the static of Violent Crime let me take a step back. Her longtime in Prince Georges County, the gun was viewed as a footnote. Another charge added to the principal. We have changed that. The gun now becomes the focus. It is no longer freight. At the end of the day, there are not 10,000 independent actors selling these guns, there are a handful of actors who for a long time have bore no scrutiny whatsoever. They have provided the weapons that people have gone and committed robberies or dealt the drugs, but no one has come knocking on their door. While we are committed to this with the atf and will continue to be committed to it is we believe as we learn who these individuals are through providing the majority of weapons and we start knocking on their doors, were going to impact their behavior. Right now does not matter to them who they sell a weapon too. They have to do no mention calculus of whether or not the purpose person is likely to use a weapon. We intend to shift back calculus. If they learn that selling the weapon to the person who is more inclined to use it will lead to a knock on their door and accountability on their part, then while i wont say at this point we hope to completely eliminate illegal firearms in Prince Georges County, certainly, the people are sophisticated enough to be trading in them will have to change their behavior. And from that change we will see reductions in the number of firearms in the hands of people who are likely to use them in a number of instances. This comes back to something a talk about quite a bit of my department, the ted williams principle. We operate our department in realtime based on data. It looks like that every day. My entire command staff knows what this means. But it is not perfection we are looking for. It is that the notion that data is going to get us to the right choice at every point. Ted williams successfully hit four out of every 10 pitches thrown at him. He is our most accomplished hitter in baseball. That is the same principle in policing. You do not have to get it right 100 of the time, but if you get it right four out of 10 times, you are a superstar. So from the epidemiology perspective, if we conclude that will lead us to a better understanding of an answer to gun violence, we must also conclude that will lead to structures that can be effective and can be applied in different places and be effective in different places, and we can advance the science of policing. This leads to where i will conclude and open it up to conversation. The county executives signature transform a nation neighborhood initiative. At the bottom line, the relationships. We also have to look critically at the environment. We also have to marshal our resources as government and not just deal with any of these issues to be through the lens of policing. We tried that for a long time. We were not successful. When we were able to marshal all of the components around those issues of environment, we made from it is progress quickly. And coming back full circle to the soft issues, what we also did was earn credibility in the community that allows us to go and to police effectively with respect for their views on how policing should be done, but also to introduce new ideas and to experiment with better approaches. The question is, does it work . Heres where i will conclude my portion. When we started this work am six years ago, we had better than 38 thousand instances. Last year we had less than 19,000. Right now we have created a 13 reduction year to date for 2016. We have reduced Violent Crime this year another 6 . For the first 10 years of the 2000s where we had more than 120,000 homicides on average, we now have about 62 on average for the last three years. So does Police Science work . Does research at all you . Value . I will say research is the underpinning of every decision i make as the chief and every decision our commanders make fiscally, strategically, and in terms of the deployment of research to good effect. So i appreciate the work that has been done and i appreciate my good friend charles. With that, i will conclude. Thank you. [applause] at this point, we will open up things for question. I want to make one brief announcement. And that is joining us today in the audience are lead scholars who are midcareer practitioners, police practitioners were particularly interested in bringing evidence and integrating research into Police Departments. Im not going to introduce them all by name, but we are building a timidity of police scholars to help us with this work and on that note i would like to open things up for questions. I want to remind people to come up to the microphone and introduce themselves and where they are from. Then i am going to start with a question. I would like to start with susan on this. Although, i would like everyone to comment on this. I did not recognize this when i introduced her, but susan was part of a panel with the institute of medicine that several years ago put together a report on the state of research with respect to firearm violence and injuries. In the research gaps. I would like to ask all of the panelists starting with susan what they believe are the Priority Areas where we really begin need to begin to focus our research investments. Thank you for mentioning that. There are 70 different places we need work. I think the markets is certainly one. I also think we need to look broadly, as im china do, the nonfederal use of guns. The homicide rates have dropped precipitously in the United States. Nobody is able to really completely understand why that is. Homicide, by intimate partners, has dropped substantially since 1976 through the department of justice recordings. If we try to explain that, there are a lot of broad factors going on. Some of them might have to do with guns. Maybe not. Gun sales have skyrocketed at the same time. I think there are a lot of questions out there, but i think we need to really expand our focus beyond homicide and to these nonfatal uses. Thanks. So the iom report and National Research Council Report laid out recommendations for research. Here are a couple of very set think both of them agreed on and still are issues. One is, some of the reasons research, other than funding which is a problem and we need more of that, of course and every agency could do that that there is these huge data problems that we have in this area that are not unique to crime and other crimes, but with regards to guns, it is just difficult to access those data sets that are there. And when you do, they are of they have things that are missing, gaps in them that we need. So data and focusing on data i think is important. Second, Police Departments around the country and i get a chance with my work atiacp and perf, a chance to see some of this up close, are experimenting with ways to address gun crime. And we dont know much about how effective they are. I think a program of research that would first document what police are doing and then try just like Prince Georges County is doing with task forces, we dont have much resorts, if any, on 10 Fusion Centers and how they are working and what her best models. So that is the second area is the and third, i think the markets that we have just touched on in this project, that that kind of work needs to continue, and i would hope in ij and other agencies might see some value in enhancing work in this field. Ive been an academic along time and done lots of different areas and ive never seen an area such as gun violence where data are purposely not collected, the cdc for example refuses to put a gun question on the Behavioral Surveillance system survey. 250,000 people a year are questioned about all sorts of things about health and that is the one place where we could get good data on the percent of households with guns by state, for example. Theres also lots of areas where we collect data, where researchers are not able to get the data. For example, the concealed carry permits from the state information is really hard for researchers to get data from. Atf. There are a lot of areas that would be great for research. Finally, ive never seen an area where the cdc is afraid to say the word guns. Atf is trying to do something, but it is tiny, tiny money. The nih has done incredibly little. Foundations are afraid to do anything because they dont want the hassle. Even people like my goal in life is to put my questions on other people surveys. I can put all sorts of injury questions on people surveys, but if i try to put a gun question, people researchers in other areas are afraid to put a gun question on because of the hassle they may receive. One of the big problems is that if were going to have lots of guns, we need an arm reduction approach and we know so incredibly little about how to reduce arms. You can just go through a litany of what we dont know. Virtually, no studies on open carry or gun theft or gun training or you name it. You picked the topic. I talk to reporters all the time and i can tell them broad things and when they start digging, i say, well, theyre sort of one study that was done 10 years ago, which is not quite on topic, but a little and that is it. No place else to continue do i believe is like this. I will be very brief. These are important perspectives. My perspective is coming back to prevention. All of the things we just spoke about our sort of downstream indicators. Once the gun is in hand. At Howard University hospital, our Health Officer in prince georges counties, one thing where interested in is chronic stress onyouth. That comes back to how we can use the tni initiative to release that chronic stress and environments in annexes between that chronic stress and the acting out behaviors that lead them to the place where theyre looking for the gun. I think we better understood those dynamics, environment dynamics in communities, we might yield a finer interrupter that prevents that progressing to the place where the gun, the robbery, the shooting, those kinds of things become attractive options. Director of nij. My question is to the chief. David, you alluded presented data on the very divergent perspectives among subpopulations regarding use of the police, especially around trust. So how do we begin or how is this particular climate really complicating and making more difficult for us to even have citizens and the public feel they can convey to agents of the system elements around firearms and or use . My second point, are there strategies that you are aware of in various local jurisdictions that are maybe trying to kind of counter and maybe capitalize on certain subpopulations that may be more vulnerable, whether it be children, whether it be women . I was part of a foreign yesterday, to respond your question, addressing some of those concerns. The example i have been using recently is if i were to give you 333, you would have a significant sum of money and you could feed yourself, feed someone else, clothe yourselves or get yourself some shelter. After give you one dollar, there is a not a lot you can do. 233 Million People in america and less than one million Police Officers. Overwhelmingly, those Police Officers do good work day in and day out. My interactions with our community are overwhelmingly positive. It is the hard work of small things. That is where i try in every opportunity with my community in those forms to come back to the tni initiative. It is that multidisciplinary approach that builds credibility of government because my own experiences in the city of baltimore and elsewhere are that people are not exclusively reacting to policing. They are reacting to governance. A protest is done because you believe that government will address your grievances. Riots are a product of lack of faith in the governance. I think theres a promising strategy there and i have seen others again, it is the hard work of small things. When people know you care about them, it makes a huge difference and that is a difficult message in the context of a National Narrative that does not, i think, represent the vast majority of Police Officers or the vast majority of Police Interactions by focusing on a small subset of things that frankly should not have happened. But the other way i illustrate that is to say that, and im frank with my community, always have been. We do not go to the airport now in fear that the captain of our aircraft will deliberately crash that aircraft, but that happened in the last few years. What we in policing see in some of these instances is that deliberate poor choice, but it doesnt reflect the vast majority of men and women federal, state, local officers who go out and risk your lives every day for complete strangers. And balancing that i think is one of the things that i try to do as a leader so that people do understand where our hearts and minds are. Let me just add two quick things. I agree with those comments. But around the area of gun violence, i dont see in the Research Literature that police have a difficult time when they are approach is seriously gaining Community Support and involvement. You can start back as long ago as operation ceasefire in boston where the Police Worked closely with Community Leaders to develop what turned out to be, and is still i think one of the few wellestablished programs that can reduce gun violence with community involvement. The second point would be, in gun violence, the key crime for me, and i think for many people, is homicide. And while we have had this dramatic decline in homicides in recent years, we have had also a decline in homicide clearances. There are estimated over 200,000 homicides since 1980 that have not been cleared. And these tend to be in segments of the community that we think have the greatest distrust and lack of faith in the Police Department. And i think with no evidence at all, that part of it is their observation of the many, many people in their communities who are killed, and for which nothing seems to be done. So i think a focus on community outreach, the kind of thing Prince Georges County and other jurisdictions are doing, and a focus on clearing homicides could help chip away at this issue of trust and confidence confidence. Arlington, texas, Police Department. I am an nij scholar. Chief, you talked about systemic issues, reference is being brought into your committee. The question is, one, where are those guns coming from . Second, to the panel, is there any research to support that collecting more guns or taking more guns off the street leads to reduction in violent offenses in communities . Part of what were trying to answer is that very question, which is why we are collaborating with dr. Welford. But what were finding and what we found anecdotally prior to getting to a place where we could do Real Research on that was a lot of those are coming through a handful of individuals who are buying them enmass, other places, importing them, and they are a Shadow Organization or shadow network, if you will. The kernel fraternity knows this is where they can go. This comes back to the strategic component that by retracing those who pulled the trigger back to the person who supplied them with a firearm. Those folks have not come under scrutiny before. This work is an ever between ourselves and the bureau of all, tobacco, and firearms defined as individuals and a hold them accountable. The calculus is we can change the behavior of people who find trading in illegal guns appealing and thereby reduce the number of guns in the number of instances of violence. Just to comment on the second part of your question, i dont know of any evidence that links reductions in guns to read through police efforts, and reductions in crime, partly because there is been so little effort. You cant do the research and less that actually is happening where police are making a strong effort to reduce and actually could demonstrate that reduction. I think it is an open question empirically, but logically, it makes perfect sense to me. If you had a committed with no guns, i think there would be less gun crime. I agree entirely. Theres a lot of evidence where there is more guns, theres more death. Interestingly, where there is some good evidence is that reducing guns has been shown to reduce suicide. And i hope agency, something that is a barrier. Using science and research, talking about trace and tracking them prisoner interviews, has it ever been investigated to you, technology on the front end, of tagging guns at the point of purchase or prior to purchase while those guns are out in society where we know if there linked to crimes so they can help us on the tail end to solve it, understanding the deck is stacked against that come any type of legislation . That has not been our focus up to this point because of the whole issue of gun registries and those sorts of, as you point out, large political questions. Our focus right now is on creating results. Im not one to suggest there isnt value to having any conversation, because that is the point of research. At our focus has been on the work that dr. Wellford is doing in the initiatives i mentioned. There was an effort in maryland with the bullet stamping. There was a requirement that every gun that was sold, there had to be a bullet retained that would have the information entered into a database. There was quite a bit of dissatisfaction politically when that was passed. And when it did not produce many hits in a short period of time, which i think the people supporting new it would not happen, you have to build a database up, it was removed and so we dont have it. But i think there is interest, it is just the political difficulty of achieving any of those. Good afternoon. Im with the National Institute of justice. Chief stawinski, he described how you brought an emphasis on research to the operations and strategies of the Prince Georges Police department. Can you say little bit more about how you are working to weave that orientation into the operations and the culture of the department so that it can survive beyond your tenure . That work against underachievement golf. I took the lead on a number of those issues. I will say you this way. We used to structure 30 day initiatives or two initiatives and we would see how they went all stop right now we run the right now we run the department a real time. Every commander understands how i interpret this. Reflects the effectiveness of the lawenforcement agency for community. Mosthing that is important, it reflects the safety of my officers, because the fewer Violent Crimes occurring in Prince Georges County, the fewer opportunities they will face someone with a gun or knife. Im invested for they safety and the communitys safety. I will suggest that you would have a tough time stepping away from how we do that because culturally people see the value, nobody gets into Law Enforcement to fail. We want to succeed. And again, the finest people i know, overwhelmingly want to help. And so, if you use these methods we have been championing, if you run the department in realtime, a few are nimble in the way you deploy resources and you can see those results, it feeds itself. It is not something they do at this point because i or the chief says we have to do it this way. They are adopting this methods because they see value in it and are having success. Frankly, the greatest satisfaction i have is watching people innovate and come up with better ways to do it. None of this is done. As nike had a great slogan, there is no finish line. We are never going to perfect policing. What we do successfully now has a shelf life of a year, maybe 18 months. What is the next thing . And encouraging people throughout the department to be looking at how we do it it and come up with a better way. I think we have run out of time at this point. I want to thank david and charles and susan and hank for some incredibly good presentations. A lot to think about. Id you all to join me in thanking them once more. [applause] you all for coming. [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] next, current and former Police Chiefs discuss Community Policing and Public Safety. Then a form on the future of federal welfare programs. 3 00 p. M. Eastern, republican Vice President ial candidate governor mike pence of indiana speaks at a Campaign Rally in virginia. Tv on cspan 2. 48 hours of nonfiction books every weekend. Here are some feature programs this weekend can i do 00 p. M. Eastern, on afterwards. The president ial candidacy of dollars of is the subject of the syndicated columnist ann coulters latest book in trump which argues that moderates conservatives and democrats should support him. She is interviewed by tucker carlson, editorinchief of the daily caller. I think he is a genuine patriot and he looked around and saw saw so many things going wrong that he could pick. In that opening speech, he said something to the effect of, for we do not stop this now it is going to be too late. On sunday at 7 30 p. M. , urban Radio Networks Washington Bureau moderates racen in america, a discussion on race and relations in politics and american culture, including an examination of the racial incidents, their origins and possible solutions. Antonio martinez, former twitter advisor and facebook product manager, talks monkeys, ook chaos which gives an insider perspective on the Silicon Valley world, and examines the future of Online Marketing and social media. Also the washington posts dan zach reports on Americas Nuclear arsenal. Nicholas irving recounts his omissions in iraq and afghanistan and the sciu Vice President on the movement to increase workers wages. For theok tv. Org complete weekend schedule. And formerent Police Chiefs discuss Community Policing and Public Safety. In addition, former senator talksnica about the impact of local government. This is about an hour and 45 minutes. Thank you very much. Open up thiso executive session by introducing our president and chief executive officer catherine grady. Sinces been with cna 1988. If you look at your biography, you will see she has had quite a distinct career with us. And she, is actually a recipient of the department of navys superior public of Service Award for work that she did during Desert Shield and desert storm. Shes a inspiring leader for all of us and a great supporter of the work that is being done on the justice group. Please come up. Catherine so, let me welcome you to cna. That is my job here today, i am very much looking forward to the afternoon and hearing what you have to say. So, and welcome to this executive session on policing. So, our topic today is the impact of policing reforms on local government. So, first, we are going to define the reforms out of consideration for policing today. And then explore from a variety of local government perspectives, mayors, city managers, other partners in Public Safety what the impact of these reforms is going to be. Very grateful we have speakers here today who can speak to both of these is,