tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN August 24, 2016 10:00am-12:01pm EDT
phenomenal job and play a role in helping getting the genocide declaration in march and has that a variety of things to advance the cause of international religious freedom. in this polarizing political atmosphere we are in right now, it is worth calling out someone who is doing work that both sides agree is a good job. host: j.c. derrick. you can see it online. appreciate your time this morning on the "washington journal." that is going to do it for our show. see you tomorrow morning. in the meantime, have a great wednesday. [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]
>> we continue to keep our eye on what members of congress are up to during summer recess. democrat kathy castor attending a roundtable on sexual harassment in her camera, florida district. republican alex mooney is taking off from romney and heading to moorefield. go to twitter.com/cspan. today, liveime, coverage of several events. in half an hour, discussion of law enforcement's role addressing violence in the u.s. at 1:00 eastern, a look at brexit options from the united kingdom. following that country's
decision to leave the european union. at 6:10, current and former information technology executives and three cabinet level agency's join the discussion on cybersecurity in the energy sector. that is live here on c-span. p.m. eastern, entrepreneurs and policymakers on education innovation. it was a brief look at what you will see tonight. >> but i am excited going forward is leveraging this, the multiple platforms, partnering with many people in the room. collective effort here. in 10 to 15 years, which is not a long time a long scheme of things, we will have a world where if you are in the developing world and you don't have access to school through a smartphone or tablet, you consult educate and prove what you know and plug-in to
meaningful careers. you will be able to supercharge what is happening in the classroom. books, youthe paper will have resources that not only allow you to get the core skills of your time and pace, you will have labs of portfolios, and class time will be free for more human interaction. the artifacts, portfolios, are going to give us richer information for the people we fund andwork and allow more people to enter the top of the pyramid. khan was part of a summit posted by arizona state university and global silicon valley. you can see the event tonight at 8:00 eastern on seas. -- on c-span.
>> 100 years ago, president woodrow wilson signed the bill creating the national park service. we look at the past century of these caretakers of natural and historic treasures. beginning at 10:00 eastern throughout the day, we take you to national park service sites across the country as recorded by c-span. we are live from the national service's most visited historic home, arlington house, the robert e lee memorial at washington national cemetery good join us with your phone calls as we talk to the formal -- former national park service director andy former site manager, who will oversee the year-long restoration of the mansion and grounds. thursday, the 100 anniversary of national park service live from arlington house at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span3.
>> and now to the annual tech cr crunch disrupt new york. the panelists set out to discuss the current economic time in silicon valley and what is next in technology investment and ipos. this is half an hour. >> i'm excited to do this panel. valuations are down. the i.p.o. market for tech companies seems all but shut. there's a lot of nervousness out there and yet how v.c.'s get more capital commitments they've in the first quarter of this year since 2006. if you're wondering what's going on join the club. we're hoping these three savvy investors can help us out today. thank you so much for joining us. >> thank you. >> so chris, you are an l.p. and you're an investor in josh's fund. it seems v.c.'s are returning to their investors faster than historically.
it was standard to raise a fund either three or four years and that might have been conservative and we're seeing excel and founder's fund coming back in two years. what's going on? >> for people who don't know about the voodoo that i do, as an l.p. i'm the money behind the money. so people in my seat fund people like josh and andy and i used to be a princeton's endowment and i work at a fund to fund groups. and we're kind of the sunlight in the sense of the venture world. and all of the energy in a sense comes from us. if the l.p.'s stop showing up the trees will wither. so that sounds grandiose maybe. but one of the challenges the pool of l.p. capital isn't infinite like people think it is. dollars going into venture capital compete at the institutions where these dollars come from against other asset
classes in terms of what the most attractive risk-adjusted return. so one of the challenges that venture faces is that it is further dated options most out of the money that most institutions buy. as a result there's a lot of pressure on venture. and one of the things that's been challenging is you discuss over the last few years, the period of fundraising has shortened. today it is a two-year cycle. the challenge is that investing nirvana for an l.p. is when you got -- when to a point where your fund is mature enough and recycling distributions. the money you send out hopefully each dollar comes back with three of its friends in short order. historically fundraising cycles are four to five years and liquidity cycles were five or six or seven years. so you'd send out dollars and come back and they would fund your subsequent commitments. what's going on now is that as fundraising cycles have shortened, liquidity cycles have gotten longer. and so the way i describe it is
a huge exit sphincter. >> he did say you what thought he said. [laughter] >> and we're feeding this snake and l.p.'s give g.p.'s money and g.p.'s give it to startups and startups get licked and comes -- get liquid and comes back to the l.p.'s and then the cycle starts over again. when you got this exit sphincter and the snake is getting fuller and fuller and fuller we're in brooklyn. so not exactly the shao-lin but for those familiar, there's a song from the wu-tang clan "method man" and one of the methods of torture they talk about i'm going to sew your rectum shut and keep feeding you and feeding you and feeding you. and that's what it's like to be an l.p. because the dynamic you describe is an unsettling long-term dynamic for long-term ecosystem health. >> but why is it happening? i know that -- on the one hand it did seem like startups were raising funding every six months or so.
but critics including bill gurley who i spoke with very recently said these guys are racing back to their investors before their paper gains disappear. is that -- do you think there's -- that's -- >> that's a really important point. because right now, a lot of venture funds are looking amazing on paper. right? and in fact, one thing that's a pet peeve of mine is i get emails every day that say our fund is marked at whatever and somebody said to me the other day we had a bunch of markups. so our fund is at a 3-x cash on cash. no. it's paper on cash. and there's this moment, when i was doing public market stuff before business school we always talked about that you get -- the pit in your stop being a when a trade turns into an investment. something went bad and hold it a long time. similarly i fear as an industry we're headed for this moment where the unrealized because everybody has unrealized gains in the portfolio. and there's this moment where the unrealized becomes unrealizeable. and that's going to be the moment of nausea.
bill is absolutely right. everybody is rushing back and nobody wants to be the last fund in the market when the music stops. it's going to be a game of musical chairs. and from the l.p. perspective, everybody is tapped out. in terms of capital, people have blown through their budgets because things have -- companies have come back so fast. and we're all also just exhausted. and there's this psychic exhaustion among l.p.'s. everybody has been running too hard. and kind of reacting rather than being proactive. >> so andy, your firm union square ventures just closed a $166 million fund. >> we don't really talk about our fund. >> you filed a form with the s.e.c. suggesting as much. and you had last raised a fund in 2012 so you're sticking to your traditional trajectory it sounds like. josh, what about you? you raised your last fund in 2014. $175 million. are you in the market this year? >> so we typically raise -- we target raising every 2 1/2 years. >> ok.
>> that puts us on pace to raise at the end of this year. >> ok. great. i guess -- chris, do you feel like -- you can say no. obviously you would never say no to josh for good reason. but, you know, when i spoke to bill, he also made this point it's very hard for l.p.'s because if you say no you can lose your seat at the table possibly for the duration of your career as an l.p. do you feel that that -- true? >> absolutely true. and it's interesting. because we were just talking about this back stage. the yale investment office which is the exemplar of -- they basically invented the game in a sense from the institutional investments perspective. one of their secrets to success historically is getting off the base one stop too early rather than one stop too late. and -- that takes a lot of courage. and most investors lack courage because they focus too much on career risk. and there's a whole principal agent problem there. and furthermore once you say no to a fund you're forever in that
g.p.'s bad graces. >> right. >> and look, we all have examples. i wrote a blog post a long time ago called the epistemology of investing and what is our justified true belief? and the thing that made me think of that when i wrote it was i said no to the ex-he will -- the xl facebook fund twice. when i was at princeton and when i went to tiff because i left as they were raising. and everything in that moment said that that was -- that was an easy no. and boom, they put up one of the greatest funds ever. and i've been persona non grata there and not explicitly. but let's just say i'm not on their speed dial. >> andy, u.s.c. has famously wonderful returns. but sort of speaking more broadly this is a very funky market. how do v.c.'s turn their paper gains into cash on cash returns? >> well, it's not really up to us. we don't have control over it, right? the companies have control over it. my partner fred has been pretty
outspoken that companies should be going public as a way to get liquidity. more companies should be going public and that's one way to do it and that's one of the issues is the number of i.p.o.'s is dramatically decreased and companies don't get liquid and we don't get liquid and chris doesn't get liquid. >> i'm sorry. i'm having trouble hearing you but josh, what do you think? >> i tend to agree with andy that we're seeing a lack of i.p.o.'s in the market. i think part of that is caused by the fact that there's a massive dislocation between how private markets are valuing companies and how public markets are valuing companies. we're at this rare moment in time, it used to be that private companies would aspire to go public so that they could achieve the public market valuation. we're in the rare moment in time where it's almost the opposite. it's as if the minor league ball players are getting paid far more than the professional all-star m.v.p. major league ball players.
>> right. >> and until that works itself out in the market, it's going to create a really challenging time for these companies that are being valued in the private markets to realize anything near that price in the public market. >> right. >> but if markets are efficient that equilibrium should occur at some point, correct? >> and it looks like we might be seeing some of that correction now in the market. >> right. >> it's interesting because there's a real echo chamber dynamic. and one thing that always strikes me as an l.p. is when you do get these disconnects, it's very difficult to kind of -- glide back to this rational ordering. and as a result, you get -- you get these funky kind of risk-adjusted return inflections where you got kind of private companies, more valued than public companies. and if i were -- if i could wave a magic wand i would invent a way to short private companies. because that would kind of re-create the equilibrium. but the steal prices --
>> public companies trade every day. the good news, they trade. bad news, they trade. private companies typically trade on one of two reasons. when there's good news, and the company wants to fundraise, or when the company needs cash so badly they're willing to trade on bad news and capitulate on price. and what that means then is that you're going to need to see companies end up having to -- some of these companies will have to work through their cash before these private companies trade to sort of where the market should be. i also think that we're at this interesting point where we don't know -- where the industry is trying to figure out are we using the right -- the right comps? are lending companies, a thin tech innovative marketplace and should be valued as such or
should they be valued as lenders? should disruptive e-commerce companies be labeled as real and technology innovators or a mattress company? and they get valued differently based on that. >> right. and even companies that are very clearly creating markets like uber nobody knows how to price. and coastal ventures talked to business insiders maybe friday of this weekend and thought that uber if traded publicly would probably go out at around $25 billion. which is obviously far less than its private company value. do you think there's going to be maybe a watershed moment? sometimes when i talk to i.p.o. experts they're like oh, i think this stock exchange operator bats global went public and maybe that would be it. i believe we may be seeing the first tech company go public this year, this week. i don't know -- i think it's a networking company. acacia communications. are you thinking maybe once uber goes or -- is there like a certain company that everybody is kind of waiting on to open up this market?
not necessarily? >> i'm a c-stage investor so for me i typically fund at the earliest end of the cycle. and i'll leave the sort of prognosticating on what is that watershed moment to the public market investor. >> what do you guys see in m&a? investors also like to point out the fact that these companies, google, microsoft, apple, facebook, have these enormous balance sheets. but they seem like very reluctant buyers. i mean, are you -- are you -- companies talking to these companies and -- >> we're -- there's a high level of activity. i don't know if there's a high level of desire to pay prices that may be divorced a little bit from fundamentals. and maybe there's more of that in the past. and it seems like there's less of that right now.
>> i guess probably also sort of a catching a falling knife sort of thing. why not wait another six months and see where prices are? >> yeah. there are obviously some companies where they buy them for far more strategic reasons in terms of access to technology, access to talent, filling a critical strategic call. or access to customers. so you can look at the what's app acquisition by facebook in that regard. but if it's financially driven, it's obviously going to be subject to the same market forces that the i.p.o. market are going to be subject to. >> and what do you see in terms of valuation? on the west coast at least, it seems like valuations are down a little bit. george zachary of c.r.v. who you interviewed maybe last week was saying the one exception is celebrity investor meaning serial entrepreneurs who are creating companies in the space where they already have some expertise. is that true on the east coast as well? >> we've seen it on both coasts.
we've seen valuations have taken a slight dip. but in the last four years the average valuation has almost tripled so even if it's down 10% or 20% it's still a very attractive time to be an entrepreneur. >> what do you think, andy? >> we don't really track valuations that much. every deal there's a moment in time where -- where there's a companies that desires to have an investor and has a certain price and an investor desires to invest at a certain price. so i don't see any generalizations that it's higher or lower than before. i do sense there's some uncertainty in the market. and so entrepreneurs maybe are more flexible than they have been in the past. but i don't really track valuation. >> and the v.c.'s you don't think are more price sensitive than they have been in the past? >> you know, we look at -- as a firm, we're from -- we don't invest that often. eight to 10 times a year so eight to 10 data points so it
doesn't expand out to generalization. >> you do see -- you see many companies. >> yeah, sure. >> and we're focused on it obviously. but we need to invest in what we any is the right amount of money and get an ownership position that allows us to deliver people like chris their returns. and it happens and sometimes it doesn't happen. >> can you get more for your dollar? and maybe a couple of years ago they're like we'll give you 15% and now take 20%, 25%? >> we don't -- i don't know how you think about it. we don't attempt to try to get more for our dollar. not like a commodity. like the right amount relative to the risk relative to our expectations and -- to deliver our l.p. some money. for us we don't want it to be that much. because that means it comes out of the other side. the entrepreneur side. >> great point. >> but it's interesting. because i talked to a lot of portfolio companies because they see me as -- maybe an honest broker in a sense.
and not one of these sharks from shark tank -- just kidding -- but it's interesting. because in palo alto where i live, valuation expectations had been kind of cranking ever upward. and we're seeing this first kind of chill where we've started to see some tech company layoff and for -- from my seat i invest in a couple dozen funds and i'm a big second derivative guy and not terribly smart but i remember from math class, it's the rate of change of the rate of change i guess. while the market is still going up, the rate is slowing somewhat in terms of markups. that's what we saw kind of in q-4 and q-1. and as we see the kind of market maybe plateau in terms of expectations, i am seeing some investors, the market is not clearing for some companies. right?
so the transaction are starting to get done and hopefully we'll see reset of investor expectations and entrepreneur expectations i should say. and kind of get us back to an interesting kind of return, potential opportunity. >> right. >> the market has gotten choppy over the last couple of quarters. you know, it's also important to realize that you have a whole generation of founders and to some degree funders, investors, who have never been through a downturn. right? like if you've been in the industry for the last seven years, you've seen straight up. so it's also just important that -- i don't think it's ever as bad as people think it is. and it's -- and probably wasn't as good for last seven years in terms of if you look at where the markets are, and most venture firms probably have inflated markets right now. >> and on that topic, josh, identifies seven years. you know, and i'll even kind of say that i think 2008 was kind of a gag. right? most companies -- and i shouldn't say that. most companies have cash for 12 to 18 months at any given time. and that was a very short
downturn. that was more of a slide than a downturn. good times and everybody felt -- i meet with a lot of folks that are raising funds and say in 2008, this is what i did. i did x, y, and z. i remember 2001 and 2002 and i was at princeton then and relearned what -- speaking of math term what asymptote what meant and every quarter grinding down 20% and point two value and asymptoting and a downturn where you had operation risk and all kinds of syndicate risks. that nobody has seen for 15 years. >> and you don't necessarily -- you don't think we're heading into that? >> i don't think we're heading into that. but i think people, if you say -- pump their chests and say i've lived through a downturn have no clue. two generations removed in terms of companies from the last real downturn. >> but at some level it is
different this time. >> yes. >> right? >> yes. >> and part of the challenge is to figure out how it's different or in what way it's different. and i agree. it's a challenge. when you've been in an environment of 10 years of rising asset prices, that's -- that's the rhythm or the cadence that you know. rising asset prices. and when they're not rising anymore, you need to learn new rhythms or new cadences. at the same time in that 10-year period, we all got computers in our pockets. >> right. >> and so the dynamic does -- it does feel like it's different. obviously our job -- our job is to figure out what ways it's different and find the right clearing prices. but at the same time it's not that -- it doesn't feel like the world is falling apart here. >> absolutely. >> right? >> it doesn't feel like the world is falling apart but the question is how different is it? i mean, it seems to me like it's different. but then again you hear investors say, you know, there's this fundamental misunderstanding. even though the opportunity is global and everybody has a smart phone in their pocket, there are still going to be like this very small number of breakout winners. do you guys agree, disagree?
has the opportunity set -- is the size of the winner circle changing or are the winners just getting bigger? i think that's sort of always -- >> yes and yes. at some level, the pleading companies today, who are the incumbents, really didn't exist 10 years ago are incredibly powerful position. they have incredible advantage to them. at the same time the opportunity set seems broader, too. as well. and that's a tough balance to strike. >> i founded my first company, co-funded it in 1992. and right when -- the year before the web browser was invented and saw the internet sort of rise, and i remember everyone talking of how the internet is going to disrupt every portion of daily life. and it really has. and yes, while you now can go global and yes, you now are mobile, i don't believe that we're done creating amazing companies.
but i also don't believe that this time is fundamentally different and this time is 3-x larger than the last time. and the market is going to need to figure out as andy said how to price that. everyone was talking about a speculative bubble when amazon went public and they went public at a value of $500 million. and you now have like jet.com which is the amazon 2.0 which is raising in the private market at a $1.5 billion price. so the opportunities are still there. but i'm not a believer that you're going to see a massive increase in the number of epic companies that are created. >> and from my seat, one thing i'm always cognizant of is the return of any asset is the function of the price you pay and the capital you assume. as we've seen, pricing go up and up and up, in terms of startups, jet is an example or literally you can point at any startup, they're raising -- and one thing that actually always strikes me
as a quick aside if i look at my portfolio, and josh's and my portfolio, first round. and first round has a bunch of companies that would be in the s&p mid cap 400. which is amazing. right? and i see entrepreneurs raise money in the private market to these valuations. and at the end of the day you got to think about now am i going to put the moolah in the coolah? from the valuations right now to the exits and we open up that exit sphincter and the capital comes back to me, are we -- are we getting the kind of return that we expect? or are the returns becoming more pedestrian? what do you need to believe? so if -- as andy says and i believe this, this time it is different, and that you will see larger outcomes. that's great. but all of the losses portend bigger holes. that's what i worry about. >> and there's -- the paradox is that i think that -- maybe i disagree with josh.
i think the opportunity that's much greater than 3-x than it was when you started your first company. it could be 10-x or 100-x. and so i don't think -- that to me is a reality. the question is where do investment returns come from that? and that's uncertain. and then if the investment returns don't come that feed what we need to return to you, what are the implications of that? what are the implications of that to the next generation of funds or generation of entrepreneurs? i don't have an answer to that. i find that to be a key question. for me the question is left those great opportunities, i think there are. >> i'm -- >> fundamentally bigger. >> in the meantime, are you guys -- since the i.p.o. market is shut right now, and m&a is slow, you're series a investors, are you seeing that your follow-on investors are changing at all? i keep hearing about hedge funds and mutual funds retrenching and an opportunity to do -- a couple of funds, menlo, menlo ventures and mayfield raised opportunity funds to attack this perceived or real gap, is it real?
>> it's hard to take one quarter or two quarters and try to extrapolate. we're still seeing that good companies can get funded in the follow-on market by good investors. so yeah. there are -- as the markets have grown, we've seen -- as the valuations have gone up, as more companies have sort of achieved unicorn status, we've seen more investors, nontraditional investors come into the space. but i haven't yet seen the surrender of the existing traditional venture investors. >> yeah. and i want -- i want to go back to something i said. the i.p.o. market is never either opened -- neither opened nor shut. it is what it is. it's a company's choice to go public. and they might not like the process or like the prospects. but it's always open.
and your choice and the challenge that some of us are facing is there's the disconnect between the private valuations and what companies they think they can get and the i.p.o. market. the i.p.o. market is always open. >> we're almost out of time, chris, any last thoughts? >> put the moolah in the coolah, guys. >> thank you so much for being here. >> thank you. >> thanks, guys. [applause] now to washington for a discussion of law enforcement's role in addressing gun violence in the u.s. just getting started, live on c-span. >> on behalf of noj and our director, nancy rodriguez, i welcome you to the most recent iteration of research in the real 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 i'm 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 here 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 direct did 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 o.j. t staff, who will be there. this session is being audio and video at it. -- audio and video recorded. the slides will be available within a few weeks. you will receive an e-mail 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 question-and-answer 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 .ncluded, let the staff know to get the session started i -- i'mike to invite having a senior moment. [laughter] deputy assistant attorney , toral for justice programs say a few words. thank you, howard. it is a pleasure to welcome so many college 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. in a special -- and a special thanks to our distinct channel 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. ofer the leadership
assistant attorney general carol mason, the office of justice programs has supported nij's 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. responset affects the 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 california-davis. researchers are evaluating california's 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 type is event have since -- some other high-risk 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 teacher firearm-related and violent criminal activity. research,ial science nij is leading the federal
governments were to promote gun safety technology. nij conducted a review of the technologies and submitted a report he president outlining a research and develop a strategy. one of the report's recommendations was for law enforcement to develop baseline specifications for gun safety technology on service firearms. nij a few weeks ago, 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 line is's -- law enforcement's
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. community-based 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. doj's 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 evidence-baseda,
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. forum on national using violence prevention, local , andrs, federal officials 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 violence treating counters and reported he was betweenreduce homicides 2014 and 2015. the city's largest decline in 16 years. , 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 an official -- are so beneficial. i'm grateful to our panelists for being here today to share their insight about what works, ij teamppreciate the n for opening up this conversation. thank you all for your interest and for joining us today, and i look forward to the discussion. [applause] >> i'm 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 could 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 will stop -- on the issue of firearms. he will be followed by charles wellford, professor emeritus of criminology at the university of maryland-college 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 he's doing with prince george's police department. the third speaker is susan sorenson, also another old i've actually known
since her days at ucla public school of the -- 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 who isawinski, wo is -- the chief of police of the prince george's 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 have things over to david. -- 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 don't 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 don't 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. , and what14-year-olds 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. -- if you compare -- if you look at a different, any age group, young adult 15-24 years blacks inou can see the united states of course have much higher rates, but it is not just blacks. whites, white teenagers in the united states have any times are likely -- 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. likely that are 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? it's 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 high-gun states and the low-gun states, and the officer in the high-gun states have three times the likelihood of being killed on the job violently than an
officer in the low-gun states. big in the news now is police killings. 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 hasn't been a study to show that. why isn't there a study? it would be easy to do except that we don't 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 doesn't look so bad.
violence numbers in north carolina don't 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 must-issue 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 ofsaid
yes -- 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 with interesting -- here are some examples. basically, these local police chiefs know some of these individuals and why do they know them bac? they go to their household time for 911 calls and alcohol and opioid abuse. toy don't want to give guns these people -- gun permits to these people, but most police chiefs in most states have to give the permit. -- ie the last quotation
asked him why he wanted a gun permit from which most police chiefs don't need to do, and he said he was going to take his gun and go to one of my officer's homes and shoot him in the head. you don't want to give a permit to that person. that person can readily get a permit. from 2010, werom were our use of violence -- we were our use of 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. violence, sibling 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
afraid?-- where are you chec off the things. --erever most kids afraid where were most is afraid? home, school, to a 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. atwe are able to continue 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 don't know. things -- so many peer-reviewed5
articles and all the things about violence have come out. here is one thing that might interest you could 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. that me ask high school students. these are not the bad high school students. these are students actually in survey.n the day of the not only have a not drop out school but they were not true and that day. -- 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 icicles safety, and he came from mostly police data. whenever we able to do this -- 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 everybody's 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. years, recently in operation lipstick. what is operation lipstick? gun ismeone purchases a overwhelmingly going to be in. -- it is overwhelmingly going to be a man. when a woman buys a gun she is disproportionately likely to be a strong purchaser -- straw purchaser. too many women in boston are buying and holding guns for their boyfriends.
a 15-year 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. ,t is not just by themselves but the mayor is involved from 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 a
warning 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 come 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 gunshops. 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.
youeroes in the book whom have never heard of who have devoted her life to prevention. only $20 on amazon.com. the key thing is what i would let this is a book about police and police officers -- 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, i'm not currently one of his friends, but i'm led to know him. -- glad to know him. [laughter] charles: i am old. i'm nancy's 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. i'm 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 won't name all of them. you see them here. but i do want to emphasize the has played.p they are the grantee for this project, instrumental in helping us gain access to agencies and , and havece agencies 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 into -- inen to be 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 orchids operate. -- 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. most ofto people who them don't 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." research we have -- the empirical research we have are mostly from tray 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 communities like massachusetts, illinois, california because that's 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 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 don't 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 is to selectber, 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 , thes, this is the center 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 george's being a very high regulation jurisdiction, louisiana, new orleans not so much and chicago, reasonably good. we don't 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.
, inach of these areas prince george's, we collect the trace guns and you see the number for the two-year time. . period. -- we doveys interviews with inmates who are serving time for gun used in that jurisdiction through the 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 one hundreduff -- 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. coveragen reach out and trace success vary across and in somes
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 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. prison, gun offenders cited buying a gun off the streets as the most likely way to obtain a firearm that's 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. somee briefly give you 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 that's because a below clearance rate for many violent crimes. cleared,ime is not 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. cases.re unsuccessful in most are stations, using bullet 2, there is variation but -75% of guns submitted for tracing are successfully .raced 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 ,ith 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 in-state purchases of guns recovered in crimes to the other two jurisdictions, the regulations seem to result or are associated with lower percentage of in-state purchases, more out-of-state 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.. in a low regulation jurisdiction, the meantime to recovery is about 8.5 years whereas for the other two jurisdictions, it's considerably longer. that means there is more cost gunlved in these situations. it does not make a difference in purchaser/processor. in past russia's 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 david's point about the efforts in massachusetts to address that thehase by people who pass 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 camed for it but the gun off of the street. ees saidur interview i don't 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. hamperedsignificantly by the way in which we have 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. may of thishief in year, meghan collins, one of the students working on this paper -- from thecosta 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 don't have time to repeat it but i think please can use the strategies, the approach that has worked so well to reduce crime. i don't 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 data-driven 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 -- i'm 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. i'm 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. titled research for the real world.
when it comes to guns, the real world for women is not about death. or even injury. it's 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. 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 choice andissioners fox and was completed under a current commissioner, richard rock. with the four largest to mystic violence agencies in philadelphia. attorney's office and women's 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 concernse were some 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 don't want to change. we know it is like changing a form in a bureaucracy. it's a major event. i thought let me see if it's 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. officers in one district and after it seemed like it could work him i handed , with input from a lot of people, was developed. it was a front and back form and has lots of information. and there is as 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. and were bad actresses 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 feet.hands or about 5% of the incidents involved in external weapon.
these weapons were knives or bats and a wide range of other objects. 1/3 of these external weapons, only 1.6% were guns. but is a small percentage it's a big number and i will return to that at the end. i am focusing on the weapons here. but it's worth noting that when a gun was used, 85% of the time, it was used against a woman. was not thislit 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. .his 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 percentages show what you might be likely to see if the only thing you knew about the incident was the weapon. did adjusted odds ratios in
the paper that's forthcoming and you can check that but right now, the only thing we know is the use of a kind of weapon. thethree slides address scene, the offender, and the victim. , 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, whench case the lowest was 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. used,r, when a gun was over 70% of the time, the offender had fled by the time the officer had arrived. what to the offender do? is no the blue bar external weapon and the red bar being a gun and the graybar being another external weapon. case, almost each case, there was more likely to be anyone of these type of .ehaviors 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 to the officer see there? -- what did the officer's either? you can see the same pattern. lowest, notes turn weapon, then guns and highest among other external non-gun 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. energy andxpend some 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 officer's 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. it's the journal of women's health. 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 women's lives as well as their deaths. you only have to threaten with a .un 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, it's advisable to document officer compliance with the gun laws. a number of states have laws in place where its authorized and officersases required
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 , it shows is a reminder three officer and second, it's a way for departments to clearly document compliance with the law . it's a systematic and complete way to record the information. 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 of the emerging technologies such as smart guns? we need to consider statutes and law enforcement policies that
don't 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 .unded by the cdc the researchers found that 3.5% of u.s. women have ever had an intimate partner threaten them with a gun. i'm 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, chicago,hia, orlando, 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. .hink about they represent think about their lives. we can do better by then. it's 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 will door reasons tell briefly, that is really where the future lies. when i am asked about policing and research, my friend charles and i, i'm 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 you're 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. under chiefo, magaw, we elected to restructure the department to be a strategy-based, prevention-oriented 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 george's 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. i'm 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. about mentioned today some of the results of the study in boston. and timidity,rust 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. it the hard work of small things. things that you don't hear about on the news, things that you won't 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 don't know. when people understand the research basis for some of the strategies and why we're 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. fromave heard a lot eminent thinkers in public health. and i fully acknowledge that that was not always the case in prince george's county. we were not looking at it as a public health issue. but what we said six years ago was, let's take this from the perspective of a proven science, epidemiology. let's 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 we're 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 we're in the midst of doing in prince george's johnny -- townie, is understand crime isn't 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. ours.not entirely 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 , at the veryearn least, you now know what you did not know before. and these can be tremendously , not only frameworks 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 atfgned to task force of full-time. their job is to understand how guns are coming into prince george's 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 george's aunty, the gun was viewed as footnote.
another charge added to the principal. we have changed that. the gun now becomes the focus. it is no longer freight. there are of the day, 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. wire -- 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, we're 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 won't say at this point we hope to completely eliminate illegal firearms in prince george's 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 .eal-time based on data it looks like that every day. my entire command staff knows what this means. areit is not perfection we 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. 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 executive's signature transform a nation -- neighborhood initiative. line, thetom 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 gomunity that allows us to 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? 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 2000's 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. 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 lead scholarsre who are midcareer practitioners, police practitioners were particularly interested in bringing evidence and integrating research into police departments. i'm 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 research the state of 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 i'm 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, sinceopped substantially
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 department's around the country -- and i get atiacp with my work and perf, a chance to see some of this up close, are experimenting with ways to address gun crime. and we don't 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 george's county is doing with task forces, we don't 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. >> i've been an academic along time and done lots of different areas and i've 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. wheres also lots of areas 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 .esearchers to get data from atf. there are a lot of areas that would be great for research. finally, i've 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 don't 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, 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 we're 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 don't 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, they're 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. hospital,university our health officer in prince george's 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 they're 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. presented alluded data on the very divergent perspectives among subpopulations regarding use of the police, especially around
trust. or how iswe begin 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. 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 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 there's 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 not, ive that does 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 i'm 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 doesn't 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 don't see in the research literature that police have a difficult time when they are approach is seriously gaining community support and involvement. agocan start back as long as operation cease-fire 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 well-established 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 hadand while s 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 george's 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. j 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 thatesearch to support collecting more guns or taking more guns off the street leads to reduction in violent offenses in communities? >> part of what we're trying to answer is that very question, which is why we are collaborating with dr. welford. but what we're 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 ,ho 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 don't 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 can't 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. there's a lot of evidence where there is more guns, there's more death. interestingly, where there is some good evidence is that reducing guns has been shown to reduce suicide. and i hope agency, [indiscernible] 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? focust has not been our 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. i'm not one to suggest there anyt value to having 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 of time, short period which i think the people supporting new it would not happen, you have to build a database up, it was removed and so we don't have it. but i think there is interest, it is just the political difficulty of achieving any of those. >> good afternoon. i'm 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 department in real time and so every commander understands how i interpret this -- i will be frank. this data is very important. it reflects the effectiveness of the law enforcement agency for a community, but the thing that is most important about the data to me, every fluffy safety of my officers. the fewer violent crimes that are occurring in prince george's county, the fewer opportunities for them to be facing someone with a gun or knife. it is the thinking conference of lee peace. i was suggest you have a tough time stepping away from how we do that because culturally, people see the value. nobody gets in a law enforcement to fail. we want to succeed. the finest people i know overwhelmingly want to help.
haveu use these methods we been championing, if you run the department in real time, if you are noble in the way you deploy resources and you move and you it feedshose results, itself. it is not something that they do because i or chief magaw says this, they see value in it and they're having success with it. quite frankly, the greatest satisfaction i have is watching people innovate now and come up with better ways to do it. at the end of this process, none of this is done. nike had a great slogan of years ago, "there is no finish line" thing? the next constantly encouraging people throughout the department to be looking at how we do it and come will 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 han