tv Police Commission SFGTV October 21, 2020 5:30pm-9:31pm PDT
mute until you are allowed to speak. members of the public, please do the same. make sure any background noise is muted. the number to call in for public comment is for 156-15-0001. access code 1464888598. we will have two minutes for public comment. if you could please call the first one in. >> line item one. consent calendar. receive and take action. >> motion to accept. >> so moved. >> i will second, sorry. [laughter] called the vote. >> the motion to accept the donation from --
>> i wanted to ask a question on that. is that the one where they are resigning or quitting for september's report that we read? is that the same report? [indiscernible] [indiscernible] if this was on the consent calendar, why wasn't it a separate item, i guess? >> can you put it up on the screen? is that a option? >> i think it is the report where they were talking about the discipline cases and the outcomes. >> three out of four the
outcomes -- [indiscernible] i want to know what we are doing about that. i'm not sure it should be on the consent calendar. [indiscernible] i am assuming this report comes before the commission. i wanted to make sure that -- what we are doing about this. did we talk about how to flag it these charges will still follow them if they move. >> we talked about how we have the ability to remand to the chief and the chief pursues the investigation to make a finding. >> and that is all we can do, right? >> that is all we can do. at this point we are waiting on to schedule for when the chief
can come back and report on these findings. we did not want a significant loss, which is we don't -- even though these are no longer within our jurisdiction, the chief coming back and reporting the findings so the public understands what happened -- what is happening -- [indiscernible]. >> i agree. >> go ahead. john made a motion. thank you, commissioner. >> yeah,. i want to make sure this is just on for our acknowledgement. we are not doing anything with this. can you explain what the purpose is for putting this on the agenda? >> it's a consent item. >> all we do is agree or disagree. this is why it should be a separate item so we can have these discussions and have the ability to follow up.
>> we made it clear to the chief that we can't influence a decision one way or the other, but we would want follow-up on these cases and how the investigation is going. >> we won't get that information on a consent calendar. that's all i mean. let's put it as a separate item so we can follow up on it. >> can we put it on the agenda when it comes up for january or december and that will give the chief enough time? and he can give us a status on it. >> chief, we can talk about -- >> i agree that we need to get this back on calendar. i don't know where the chief is in any of these investigations. we can certainly put it back on the agenda depending on the status of the resignation. absolutely. >> okay.
>> commissioner, there is no public comment. >> next. >> i'm sorry. i'm wondering if miss cabrera can give guidance if what happens if a consent item doesn't pass since the commissioner has voted no. >> sure. it is the methodism to have items on the agenda. anyone commissioner can act on this. you can take it apart for the consent agenda. it is just to have something. usually it's something you have already given us. if you want to take it out, you can definitely do that and have a separate discussion about it. >> okay. the trend is kind of broken down
here. everyone can put their name in. if you could mute your microphone, please. i am not entirely sure of the purpose to have this on the consent calendar and what that does. what will we be voting on here? >> it is only meant for items that are routine. something that will not garner a lot at all. it is a mechanism used by most commissions to give something back. however, if it is an item that one commissioner would like to take off the consent calendar because they would like to have a discussion about it, you can do that without waiting for the next agenda. you can take it out of the consent calendar and fully discuss it. >> i think that makes the most sense. these are issues that i think we all want follow-up on. there are things that show up on the agenda and this is one of
them. i'm not even sure what it is or what the purpose is. it makes sense to have a more full discussion once investigation is over. >> you can always put this on as you are needed, which is on a future agenda calendar. there is nothing stopping that from happening. >> great. let's do that. >> okay. >> call the next line item. >> line a temp two. report for the diminished -- commission discussion. [laughter]. >> we need the chat. we need to go to the chat. >> i thought we had already dealt with that. >> we are ready decided we would calendar this for january. is that right? >> we have moved it from the agenda.
>> next line item. >> you have passed to accept the donation of the funds, correct? >> yes. >> call the next item. >> item two a, case report. provide an overview of offences recall -- happening in san francisco. this will include a brief overview of any un- -- [indiscernible] -- occurring in san francisco and having an impact on public safety. [indiscernible] it will be limited to determining whether to calendar for future weeks. the presentation monthly update and the presentation of the collaborative reform initiative.
[indiscernible] chief of staff hawkins is on the call. good evening. i want to start today's presentation with crime trends and then i will go into significant events. we will present the presentation for the month and i will present the monthly update last to close out the chief's presentation. crime wise we are, for the week, down 30%. year-to-date, we are down 24%. let me start with the violent crime. we have had a very busy week with shootings and violent crime we are down for the week. we had a very busy weekend at a very busy week with shootings and a couple of homicides on
friday. when comparing to 2019, we are down 21%. as i said, we had two homicides last week. it is equivalent of a 37% overall increase in homicides. we have -- we ended last year with 41 homicides which is a 50 year low and we are about to eclipse that this year. we have 41 homicides this year and 21 of them have been cleared i want to go into more detail about the gun violence over the past week. friday we had two homicides. in total, there were eight shooting incidences last week which caused injury or death to nine victims. the district with the largest increase in gun violence are equal's i, which is double there
gun related incidents this year. tenderloin, and the bayview. the bayview has nine more shooting incidences and the equivalent of a 29% increase compared to this time last year. the mission had six additional incidences. on the positive side, central has central has a 72% decrease. they only had two incidences this year compared to seven last year. northern district at a 40% district. ten last year and six this year. seven last year versus six this year. the taradale also had a slight decrease. specifically with this friday's incident, there were a couple of shootings that were very concerning an problematic. the first was a multiple victim shooting on the 200 block of williams street and ingleside district.
a vehicle drove northbound and went past -- a passenger fired numerous rounds at the victims who were in the garage. they were having a cookout outside of their garage area. officers were in the area and flagged down by witnesses. four victims in that shooting received -- if anyone has any information, please call our tip line. it was 30 minutes before the one
i talked about. the victim was standing near a vehicle when he was shot one time and hit the torso. officers responded and located the victim. the victim did not survive his injuries and was pronounced dead at san francisco hospital. in addition to that shooting, there was a block in the ingleside district were several people were hit. a victim was flagged down by a vehicle. they transported the victim to the hospital. two other shootings were gang-related. that is still under investigation and we are not, at this time, we don't have any suspects, although we did have leads that we are pursuing. in addition to that, there were -- there was a shooting in the tenderloin area. this one was a robbery gone bad
related to narcotics, we believe the suspect approached the victim who was in the act of selling narcotics. the suspect robbed the victim of his narcotics, pistol whipped him, then shot him in the torso. that victim will survive or is expected to survive. he was transported to the hospital. this occurred on grove street in the tenderloin. it was at eighth and market. we had not made an arrest on that. it was a very busy week. our immediate response was putting resources in the area, particularly where the homicides occurred in the bayview and ingleside.
we called in officers on an overtime basis throughout the weekend to supplement our patrol resources. the captains were involved in the coordination of resources and it did appear to have an impact and after friday we did not have shootings in those areas. we will continue to deploy, but the longer term strategy is to do outreach to the community and get the community mobilized. we need to pursue and identify the individuals who are getting guns on the streets. our deployment has been very robust since friday. we will try to sustain that as much as possible, but it is a very resource and overtime extensive endeavour. it's worth it if we are going to save a few lives and keep people from getting shot. we will keep that going as long
as we need to. in terms of property crime, our issue is still burglary. we are significantly up and burglaries. we have made impact arrests. a few of those individuals are still in custody and some have been released. it's a matter of identifying the prolific individuals that we believe are involved in these crimes and to keep that strategy going and we can hopefully make a dent in reducing the burglaries. all other property crimes are down significantly, including car break-ins which are down significantly from last year and the year before. other major events, and this one that we are about to report on happened on saturday. we weren't able to get it on the agenda. i will be very brief. it was a newsworthy incident. on saturday, october 17th,
they had a free-speech rally that began at the u.n. plaza. individuals attended who were speaking on free-speech. the topic they were supposedly speaking on -- within minutes of the rally beginning, a group through glass bottles, eggs, plastic bottles at the permitted presenters and it quickly turned to violence. one free-speech rally was assaulted. at the time, at that time, the rally was being made a public safety hazard. they shut down the event due to the violence that was occurring. and as the participants left the area, several were aggressively attacked. several people sustained non
life-threatening injuries, including one individual had a broken kneecap. there was also an officer assaulted in that an caustic clump -- chemicals were thrown at some of the participants and some of the officers were exposed to those chemicals as well. the officers were not seriously injured, thank goodness. it was a very tense situation. there was a man arrested in the city of oakland. hate crime enhancement was also filed against this particular individual based on evidence uncovered in the investigation.
that, thankfully ended up, other -- nobody else got seriously injured. it was a very tense and volatile situation. one other thing i want to address is that they are supporting the presenters and the people who are granted to permit on this particular event and it is a misrepresentation of what happened. what happened was you had people who were under attack and whose lives were in danger and our officers were keep people -- there to keep people safe and keep people in a position that is safe so they can extract individuals away from the situation and keep them from being harmed. i want to make sure that that
information -- the record is set straight. our department is there to protect everybody and it doesn't matter what the political affiliations or ideology are. we are there to keep everybody safe. that is exactly what our officer did. the post caused post caused quite a bit of a. it's totally misleading. with that, that is all for this portion of the report. >> thank you. we have time for questions. the rally that you are talking about,. [indiscernible] everyone is familiar with them.
can you give us a sense, chief, because obviously i hear that the boards are coming to our city. that will be concerning to most citizens. this is not a group that advocates for peaceful nonviolence. they have a very inflammatory rhetoric about violence. so, can you explain what the standard is for folks like that getting a permit and if there's anything we can do -- my understanding is that, especially through the election, the plan is for these folks to show up in cities all across the country and intimidate folks to prevent folks from voting. there are reports of people, you know, with guns at polling sights. this is a group that has a very specific image, for lack of a better word. they are not your grandma and grandpa hanging around the park.
if you can explain for us what the process is and how this stuff works? >> yes. first and foremost, this event was a permitted event, so where individuals want to hold these activities, and if they do it the way that it is recommended to be done, they will request from the city and county of san francisco a permit. particularly in a public space such as united nations plaza. that permit was granted. there is no, you know, what they believe in or whatever their ideology or philosophy is. that is not factored in. we don't make that decision. i do know about the process. it is first amendment. it's free-speech. [please stand by]
>> that usually leads to violence. all these things are put into motion. it even -- even on saturday, there was still a violence confrontation, so at that point, we need to make a determination if it was an unlawful gathering and shut it down to keep people safe. on saturday, even after people were extracted, there was efforts to keep it peaceful. those situations are very volatile, but i think the main thing is, first amendment activity is protected in this city. people have a right to express themselves and it, you know, what we don't tolerate is violence and people getting hurt, and we'll never tolerate that. so if people have an idea of
having an event to have those things occur, we're going to put them down, and we're going to do our jobs in terms of keeping everybody safe and try to identify those that are violent and deal with them accordingly. arrest them if we can catch them in the act, and if we can't, do our follow-up investigation in this case and arrest them at that time. taylor thank you. commissioner hamasaki? >> commissioner hamasaki: yes. i think that commissioner taylor mostly covered my concerns.
i saw a number of posts from proud boys about coming to san francisco to revenge what happened last week or over the weekend, so i think it's been an ongoing concern of this commission is these weird groups affiliated with white supremacists and the trump administration that do pose a real clear and present danger, i think, to our city and our county and the people that live here. so i appreciate that you folks are keeping an eye on them, and hope that we're equally prepared if they do decide to return and seek their revenge.
>> thank you, commissioner. we are -- we plan to be prepared for whatever -- whatever happens. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you. >> vice president taylor: thank you. next item -- or if you're done. i assume you're finished, chief. >> yes. commander o'sullivan will present the 1421 monthly update. >> vice president taylor: commander. >> hi. can you hear me? >> vice president taylor: yes. >> okay. so good evening, vice president taylor, commissioners, and chief of staff sarah hawk. i am here to present the 1421 update. as we usually do, we will begin
with some background. officer involved shootings s records relating to the reports, investigations, or findings related to an officer's discharge of a firearm at a person. number two, great bodily injury. records relating to the report, investigation, and/or findings regarding an officer's use of force that result in death or great bodily injury of a person, sexual assault, records relating to a sustained finding that an officer engaged in sexual assault involving a member of the public or dishonesty. records relating to a sustained finding that an officer was dishonest directly relating to the reporting, investigation, or prosecution of a crime or directly relating to the reporting of or misconduct by another officer, including, but not limited to, any sustained finding of percentage, filing false reports, destruction,
falsefying or concealing evidence. so with that said, since january 1, 2019, when the senate bill went into effect, the department has received 198 public record requests. for the period september 1 through september 30, which is our most recent reporting period, the department received five additional public records requests. the department produced 105 new released, and a release is defined as a production of records and/or a determination letter that indicates to the requester that the department has or has not responded to a disclosure of one or more items to a specific officer. two matters were closed, and one additional request was released. i believe that was the mario woods shooting. we have released 37,727 officer
related shooting pages. and this concludes my update. >> vice president taylor: thank you. next -- oh, commissioner elias? >> commissioner elias: thank you for the report, commander o'sullivan. can you also just give a brief update where we are on the on-line portal for the 1421? >> yeah. so we have posted -- i was there most recently this afternoon. we have posted some items there, great bodily injury items. we have also posted officer involved shooting related material. >> commissioner elias: thank you. >> you're welcome. >> vice president taylor: thank you. next item? >> thank you, vice president taylor, and thank you, commander o'sullivan. next is the presentation of the monthly collaborative reform
initiatives or c.r.i. updates, and i will put that on the screen. and while we're getting it on screen, i will mention to the commission, yesterday, the department was asked to give an update to the board of supervisors on collaborative reform, so myself and deputy chief yee and commander flaherty -- commander denise flaherty presented yesterday. it was about a 1:20 presentation, much longer than today. today's presentation, based on our last presentation last month, the piggyback that we received from the commission,
hopefully is very succinct. some of the information is incorporated into this report, and it is the status of what has happened since the last report, and this report is as of october 15, so there has been some movement even since then, and that was six days ago, and there has been movement -- movement since then, but it's not in the report, but i'll describe the progress since october 15. so next -- first slide. this slide represents the four bars that you s-- represents - four graph that you see on the slide represents where things lie, and then, the fifth category, which is progress, means we're actively working on it. of note, if you look at the trend line that substantial
clie compliance, and this is from october 2019 to this october, you see an acceleration really starts in may, and as was stated in last -- yesterday's presentation to the board of supervisors, our cadence and rhythm has picked up. we believe we're going to complete about 120 actually by the beginning of next year, which will put us at about 234, the majority of the recommendations. so as you see this first slide, in september, there were seven recommendations moved into the substantial compliance category. as of october 15, there were six additional recommendations moved into the substantial compliance category. as you move to the right, each category -- i described the prescreening process that we've developed with our collaborative partners, hillard
hines, and the california d.o.j. and for those of you that might not remember, we've steam line -- what we've done to streamline the amount of time that it takes to get these reviews, the collaborators participate in a prescreening conference. when we think we're ready to go and everything has been completed, we'll consult with our consultant, and they'll review it and give us their feedback. and rather than this lengthy process of r.f.i. that we were doing before, we take it back and we fix it right there. so what this has done is accelerated the process greatly, and once -- our experience has been is once they get to that review process, that external validation, we have not had any kickback with r.f.i.s because we've taken care of the concerns. we believe that this is a
positive step to make this more of an expedited process. so 15 -- 15 different recommendations prosecute prescreened this month. as you can see, one in use of force, two in community policing, two in recruitment, hiring, and retention. next slide is the external review and external evaluation. so these are separate categories. we have 15 recommendations that are with hillard hines for general review, and that's the last step before they go to the california department of justice to be found in substantial compliance if they kplee agr agree. so we have 15 with external review and 15 with the california department of justice external review for a total of 30. and when you add the 15 in prescreen, that's 45 recommendations that we hope to
have in substantial compliance once it gets through that external validation process. the next few slides, i'm just going to go category by category in what's just happened in the last month. use of force, one recommendation since the last report has achieved substantial compliance. checks either external review or external compliance. if you want to actually look at what those recommendations are, the recommendation numbers are listed there. use of force is still our -- the category that we've made the most progress on, and we do believe by the time we roll around to next -- in the spring of next year, we'll have, in the upper 80% of the use of force recommendation is actually in substantial compliance, which is very promising. accomplishments, this month, the i.a.d. unit order, the
internal affairs division unit order requiring an annual training and audit of o.a.s. office be conducted by the officer in charge of o.i.d. the trent of the audit is to ensure completely, standardized o.i.d. files are in place. those are the highlights for use of force. the next slide, sergeant youngblood, is bias. as you can see, five recommendations since the last report have been put in either external review or external validation, and the recommendation numbers are listed there for you. five additional recommendations, as i stated before, have been prescreened, so those are about ready to go to external review. we are at basically 20% substantial compliance in the bias category, and we are making significant movement on the -- between the runs that are in external review and the ones that have been
prescreened. so we have a total of 54 recommendations. very important category, as they all are. revised, as they are, we need to move the needle on bias for being a bias free police department, and this category hopefully will get us -- well, it will get us going in the direction that we're going, but hopefully, those recommendations will get us going to the other things that have been problematic. next slide, community policing. community policing, we had five recommendations that achieve substantial compliance since the last report. they're listed there for you. an additional five recommendations are in external review and external validation. we're at 55 is -- 65
recommendations, we're at 20%. that cadence has picked up significantly under the leadership of commander darryl fong. so promising. 1.08 adopt had a lot of recommendations tied to it, so really happy that the commission was able to approve that and move that forward, and that was a major accomplishment since the last reporting period. next slide, accountability. accountabilit accountabili accountability, 11 recommendations are in the external evaluation process. if you want to look forward into what those recommendations are. an additional two recommendations have been reported since the last reporting period. commander flaherty has laid out a really promising plan to get her -- her accountability
recommendation to substantial compliance. this one, we're really looking good on because we've made a substantial amount of compliance. one of the things that i'll take a moment to explain is the compliance measures. there's over 900 compliance measures. each one of the over 200 recommendations has several parts. as we move forward with hillard hines and the d.o.j., is we get feedback on the measures. hin there's a significant amount of work that's been done, and
we want to now start putting things in that context so the public and the commission understand that, you know, there are recommendations that we're not in substantial compliance, but there's a significant amount of work that's been done, and those compliance measures continue to get done and signed off. and once we get to the end of that list, then, we go to that external review, external validation period. so when we did an assessment, working with the consultants and did an assessment of our compliance measures, about two thirds of them have been completed. and some of those are wrapped up in recommendations that have already been found in substantial compliance, but others are already in progress. about two thirds of the 900-plus compliance measures have been completed. so definitely, we have more work to do, but it just highlights the progress. as you all know, some of these recommendations take longer than others. but the sense of urgency is there. we are committed to the 120
that we believe we can get to, and hopefully, there'll be a few more than that as we move forward, but there's those 120. the last slide is just an abbreviated timeline. it's just a timeline of this process, where we started, kind of significant milestones and where we are now. as i said, since october 15, there have been other recommendations found in substantial compliance. so as of today, we're at 86 that we've heard from, the california department of justice. 86 are in substantial compliance. and there are 122 inclusive of the 86, 122 that we have completed, so the balance of the 122 and the 86 are the ones
that are in either external validation or external review. so again, progress is being made, and that progress is being separated from the first year of this work, and we're committed to finishing every one of the 272 recommendations. so that is the report from this month. i'll take any questions that you have. >> vice president taylor: thank you. commissioner elias? >> commissioner elias: thank you for the update, chief, and i was able to watch your presentation before the board yesterday, and as i indicated earlier, you did a fantastic job. one of the things that i'm going to ask the next time you report is that i think you should also report to us what steps the department is taking to be self-sufficient, and what we're going to do when hillard hines and the d.o.j. are no longer here. yesterday, the board was very concerned with the $1.25 million that's been paid to them, and the additional
$600,000, and they indicated they may not be able to be with us through the long stretch. so i think it's important for us to show the public or the department to show this is what we've learned from the experience and this is what we're going to do once they're gone because they're not going to be with us forever, so i think these are things that you should address during the next presentation. >> thank you for that. that is really important, and i talked about that pretty extensively yesterday, but i'll incorporate that into this report, as well. >> vice president taylor: thank you, chief. >> thank you. >> vice president taylor: next item? >> clerk: next item, d.p.a. director's report. report on recent d.p.a. activities and announcements. d.p.a.s report will be limited to a brief description of d.p.a. activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether
to calendar any of the issues raised for a future meeting. presentation of d.p.a.s use of force data audit. >> [inaudible] i'll start out with a brief overview of our stats. as of this point in 2020, we have opened 665 cases. that is in comparison to 598 at the same time in 2019. we've closed 718 cases as compared to 518 in 2019. we currently have 377 cases pending, compared to 392 in 2019. we have 29 cases that are past the 270-day point compared to 32 in 2019. of those 29 cases, 16 are tolled, which means that there are pending civil or criminal actions involved. other cases are delayed because they require extensive
investigations. to date this year, we've mediated 32 cases. at the same time last year, we had mediated 27 cases. we currently have 36 cases that are pending before the chief, and 13 cases that are pending with the commission. moving onto our 1421 update, with regard to officer involved shootings category, we've disclosed eight separate cases totaling roughly 17,500 pages of records. in the category of great bodily injury or use of force with great bodily injury, we've disclosed 51 cases, all of these are available on our website through our on-line portal. and members of the public can make requests there or review our previous disclosures at that location. in terms of outreach, yesterday
and today, we participanted with s.f. youth offenders in a virtual panel. on the 22nd, we are hosting a local government panel event. also, on october 22, we're hosting an oversight investigator panel series, which will include investigators were d.p.h., park police, and oakland. on the 27, we are hosting mediation 101 for community members, and on the 29, we're hosting our annual mediation conference that will involve our mediators involved in our program. recently, we submitted a program for students in the master of public policy and master of public affairs to apply. if our policy proposal is
accepted, we will have people working on starting in spring of 2021. we have up next our audit presentation, which will be handled by steve flaherty from our office. flaher . >> good evening, commissioners. my name is steve flaherty, and i'm the director of audits for the department of police accountability. [inaudible] with the office of city controller city auditor's divisio this audit was conducted in accord jaens with generally accepted government auditing standards.
these standards require we pla -- we believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for the findings and conclusions in tonight's presentation. next slide, please. issuance of the final report was preceded by the issuance of an interim report in december 2019. this report focused on the police department's 96-a and early intervention system quarterly reports, their compliance with reporting mandates, and their alignment with best practices for reporting data. the results of the interim report were presented at the police commission on february 5 of this year. tonight's audit, the final report, is divided into three chapters with a total of 18 findings and 37 recommendations for the police department to improve and strengthen its use of force and reporting data complex processes, its analysis of the collected use of force data, and the reporting of the use of force data.
it also contains six appendices, the results of an officer mindset survey concerning use of force, data from district supervisor interviews, examples of how use of force data can be analyzed, and lastly, the police department's written response to the audit. next slide, please. as an overview of tonight's presentation, we will recap the scope and objectives of the audits, discuss the audit's methodology, and our post audit follow up and address any questions you may have concerning the reports. next slide, please. this audit was performed to fulfill t fulfill [inaudible] we selected this topic because accurate and
competencesive data is necessary to provide transparent and he on use of force to the public, assistant policy decisions, and factors that contribute to the officer's decision of use of force. next slide, please. the overall objective of the audit was to assess the effectiveness of the [inaudible] next slide, please this slide provides an overview of our audit methodology. the audit of review of data from 2017. our analysis was based on a statistically significant random sample with a 97% confidence that reviewing the entire population would the same results within a 5% margin
of error. to assess whether unreported force occurred, we reviewed a sample of 269 out of 188 incidents from 2017 with substance resistance but no reported use of force. we verified the incidents, discussed in the media, the use of firearms discharged by the firearms review board. we verified that all incidents in the statistically signature sample -- significant sample of use of force log pages for the department's ten district stations were in the use of force database. we selected a sample of 300 -- of 1,364 total incidents with reported uses of force for 2017 so assess the accuracy of recorded data. we also requested and received a court order from the san francisco juvenile court e enabling the audit team to include juvenile records for testing.
this includes that data is statistically diverse. we also interviewed 19 sergeants and nine lieutenants who supervise officers of the ten district stations and two specialty divisions on their understanding of use of force policies and procedures and experience in evaluating use of force. we issued a survey to all active sworn officers of the police departments. of the 2,000 plus department members to whom the survey was sent, we received 428 responses, which is roughly 18% of the department. next slide, please. this slide provides an overview of our audit find beings. the audit had three main findings that provide a basis for the report's three chapters. our first is with the exception of a few errors, officers report force reasonably and
accurately in accordance with their department's protocol. the next few slides, we'll go into further detail on each finding. next slide, please. for the first main finding, in chapter 1, we report that the police department has an effective approach for collecting use of force data, but that the department needs to improve its guidance and processes to achieve better accuracy and completeness. based on our testing, we found four sources of errors that led to force being underreported, overreported, or partially reported. [please stand by]
insights drawn from the supervising officers-shall of the officers -- the uniformed officers that responded to our use of force mindset survey, 61% disagreed that the use of force policy is clear. the audit also found that the police department does not enter 3% of the use of force incidents into the use of force
database. the police department did not produce up to 6% of the required use of force documentation, including use of force evaluation forms, station force log pages, and force log entries. this is covered in finding 1.4 on page 38. the department did not explain why it could not find any of the missing pages or log forms for the incident where the department reported a use of force occurred. for the missing log entries, there were no corresponding entries in the use of force database, however, it was impossible to know if use of force incidents occurred in these weeks. the question has come up --
however, when the department reports force broken-down by different demographics or categories, either could result in this misleading information. the low error rates only moderately detract from the department's external use of force reporting. because use of force is an early indicator in the department's use of force reporting system, each trigger can be an early flag of an e.i.s. alert. underreporting could cause an officer who should have been flagged to be overlooked and not receive the guidance and supports that are needed. conversely, over reporting could generate false alerts
that then must be reviewed by supervisors, taking time away from their other duties. the record does not acknowledge that after our audit period, the police department did issue a new policy requiring officers to report the physical will control holds used to overcome any physical resistance regardless of any injury of faint or pain. next slide, please. with that, i'll hand it over to cat to discuss the next few
slides. sorry, cat. are you there? >> sorry. i was muted. so the second chapter of the report focuses on what the police department did with this data when it's collected, and what was found is that the department can do more analysis in certain areas. so the first one i'm going to touch on is monitoring department wide compliance with policy. for example, there's a lot of different aspects of the policy that could be monitored through the data department wide. and through its evaluation process, the department does monitor compliance with these things on a case by case basis, but it doesn't -- but there is no way to report out that compliance to this commission or to any other stakeholders on a department wide level.
the policy requires that the officer reports the force to his supervisor immediately, the supervisor evaluates the force, and then, it goes to the second in command at that station for review, and then, it goes to the commander. then, it gets routed to various places, including the risk management office, where it is entered into the database. so the timeline on this affects how quickly it gets entered into the database, and it can impact whether or not it meets cutoff for public reporting and whether or not it's included in
the database for the early intervention system. so this is something that could be collected easily across the department because we're already reporting the data. so the way that officers respond to the scene, in our statistical sample, only 1% -- oh, sorry. and the ratings with supervisors and rear -- superior officers review the incident. and the rate at which supervisors and officers and superior officers complete evaluations by the end of watch, which is set out in the policy. and our findings looking at our statistical sample is that 1% of the evaluations that we looked at did not have the two reviews. it did not have both a
lieutenant and a captain signing the document. 22% of the reviewer's signatures were not dated, so we have no idea of how much time elapsed between the incident occurring and the review happened. in our analysis, we were able to do that because we ma'amly recorded, as part of our review, the signature information, but the department would not be able to easily do this because that review and significant data is on the form, but it is not entered into a data basis to facilitate analysis and identify trends.
next slide, please. for example, a question -- a research question you might ask of this data is what relationship do levels of force and resistance have on subject analysis or injury? in spokane, washington, the police department worked with a company to do analysis on their data, and they developed a couple of measures that look at this issue. so one of them is a force factor. the force factors are score based on the proportionality of force to resistance. so a high force factor would be that higher level of force was used than the level of resistance would typically warrant and a low force factor would belower force was used than the level of resistance.
they took this factor that they calculated based on the levels of resistance and force reported, and they also looked at how that intersected with the injuries a suspect sustained and the injuries that officers sustained. and logically found that more injuries happened when there was a high force factor with subjects. and this is a -- something that's important to point out because a lot of the information that gets reported out by use of force is numbers in total, but it's not looking at intersections of what that data really means. so one of the barriers that the department has with doing this kind of analysis is staff that it needs -- it requires staff needing to code the data and analyzing the intersection between these data points. next slide, please. the final area we wanted to discuss is to gain insights
into the role bias plays in force. so some examples of questions that we could pose are disparities and severity of force correlate to subject's demographic. so not just looking at, is one population more strongly impacted -- does one population experience more force but also is the level of force applied in that population more severe than in other populations? another example we found -- and these examples are in the reports detailed in the appendices of the analysis examples, and they're coming from some national agencies that do a lot of statistical research and reporting out on
these issues. so the second issue is are officers more likely to use force before being attacked when faced with a subject of a particular demographic group. where this came from is a study that looked at a few different locations. but one example, for instance, was in houston, and they looked at whether latinx officers and white officers were more likely to use force and did not find a statistical difference. but when they looked at when those officers were sent into neighborhoods that were predominantly latinx neighborhoods, that white officers were far more likely to use force. these are incidents that i talked about in the last slide that applied into the world of bias. and the final example i have here is what role do officers play in their use of force, and
it's kind of related to the last one in that not just looking at reporting out the rates of the officers and the rates of the subject but how do those play together? what are those intersections? and so the barrier system of this analysis is some of the data is not systematically collected. one population is the population with mental disorders, and the police department collects whether or not someone appears to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol but does not track developmental disabilities and that kind of information. and staff is needed to code data and analyze the intersections between data points as previously mentioned. next slide.
>> so in chapter 3, we discuss the police department's publicly issued use of force reports. the department found that the audit reports need improveme s improvements. the exhibit shown on the slide is from the interim report. from that report, you might remember that 96-a met some of the best practices for reporting, but the e.i.s. did not meet any of those requirements. chapter 3 is largely similar to the e.i.r. report that we presented in february, but they're also different. it features different examples of how jurisdictions provide use of force data to the
public. some of these visual examples are seen on exhibit 26 on page 64 of the reports. we provide visual examples of use of force data sets made available through open data portals in other cities. also include the incident dates, the call type, and the type of force used in the incident. they also include the subject's race, ethnicity, and these are listed on page 68 of the report. the third difference between the interim report and the final report, this chapter, the
police department did not fully comply with its urequirements regarding use of force reporting. they do not contain any analysis of the data in the reports. further, the police department has not provided an annual use of force report to the police commission as required by d.g.o. 5.01. with regard to the monthly reports that were required, these were posted in 2017. an average of 74 days after the month of the report had ended. the monthly use of force reports contain only raw data of select few extracted from the database. although not in the scope of the data period, it appears that the police department stops reporting the required use of force reports after
2018. so the audit made 37 recommendations to the police department. the police department's response to the recommendations is tached to the reports. the police department concurred or partially concurred with all 37 of the recommendations. d.p.a. and the police department regarded 27 of the recommendations as closed, meaning, they considered the recommendations and made the changes. in emergency ro
in terms of next steps, the controller's office and d.p.a. will work with the police department. the police department will be requested to communicate in writing the status of the implementation of the corrective actions to d.p.a. and the controller's office. we'll be happy to come back in six month time and present on that if you'd like. >> vice president taylor: yes, thank you. sorry. i thought you were -- >> we'd be happy to answer any questions you do have on the audit. >> vice president taylor: we'll be asking you to come back as the department reports back on the recommendation. if you'd come back and report to the commission, that would be very helpful. commissioner elias. >> commissioner elias: thank you. it is clear that this audit is extensive, and i appreciate the controller's efforts in getting this to us. i note this report was from
2017, and you were going to come back in six months and report to us, but i'm hoping that y when you come back in six months, the data that you'll be reporting on is more recent. would that be a fair assessment? >> in terms of the follow up, it'll be on the status of the follow ups' recommendations. in terms of the more detailed field follow up in the future, that is something we would like to do. >> commissioner elias: okay. and the -- i notice that when i read your powerpoint as well as the 100-page report you had indicated, you spoke a little bit about missing data sets from the department, and i'm wondering what those missing data sets were and why they weren't provided to you? >> sure. >> would you like me to skip to that page? >> sure. i apologize. my camera is not working. it nearly crashed the
presentation, but go ahead, cat. >> so they were saying that they could not provide them. at some point, some of these documents definitely existed. the evaluation forms are the source data for the database, so for the entry to be in the database, the evaluation form had to be completed and submitted to the information office, but at some point, it was moved and is not available. since then, my understanding is that the risk management office now attaches the digital copy of those documents to the file -- to the record in the database so that can't happen again. as far as the log pages in the log entry film -- so when we say log pages, we asked for all the weeks of logs for all the
stations, and some of them could not be provided. some of them, we did find in d.p.a.s records, and they just had an x. for them to indicate that there was -- x through them to indicate that there was no use of force that week, so they were just sending a blank page. so we suspect that the majority of the log pages may be in that category of there was no use of force reported at that station, and one of the recommendations is to ensure that all stations indicated to the risk management office indicated that no use of force occurred, so there's an explanation as to why there's no use of force log pages for that week. the other ones that are missing, and the entries that we found in the database did not have log entry, we do not know why they were missing, but as far as the missing entries
go, if you look in the department of justice recommendations, there's a recommendation to basically digitize this process and getting rid of the log because it's dumb atiff. we do not recommend that because we were finding discrepancies of the system, and that digitizing of this process has happened yet. there was an indication from the department of justice that this log on top of the evaluation form is source of a duplication of efforts, and the evaluation form is the more important piece. the logs have very, very little information in them. those are the only things that are missing. there were some places that did
not have entries in the database. is that the part you -- would you like me to discuss that in a little more detail? >> commissioner elias: no. i want to circle back to what you had initially said. when you said the realtiuation form, you're speaking about the supervisory forms after a use of force. when there's any use of force, the officer reports it, and then, that report goes to the supervisor, and the supervisor has to conduct an evaluation form regarding the officer's use of force. >> correct. >> commissioner elias: and that form, which i have reviewed, and i see that it's on your powerpoint on page 6, it indicates that there are 1369 supervisor evaluation forms. and on that form, there is data that indicates whether the supervisor found the officer's conduct to be in policy or out of policy or if it was
appropriate or not appropriate. and so one of the questions that i had asked the department is out of those forms, how many times have supervisors found that the officer's conduct has been in policy or out of policy? and unfortunately, they didn't have those numbers readily available, but i think that speaks to your audit and some of the concerns that you've raised in your audit, which is we're collecting the data, but we're not understanding it or having it in a centralized place, which is something that i've been working with the department on. i hope that the next time you come to report to us in six months, some of the changes that we've been working on will be implemented, and i'd like you to report back on those to make sure that we're going in the right direction. >> sure. i can also speak to that in. our testing, the answer is
zero. [inaudible]. >> zero evaluation forms were marked as not in policy. however, there is a caveat. that mark off was changed through the course of the evaluations because it had a yes or no option initially, and the problem was that the timeline required for getting this form through the process is very, very fast. and in some cases, like, with bigger incidents, making that determination is not something that they can do on the fly. it's something that requires more people to be involved, so the form has an option of yes in policy, no, not in policy, and pending investigation.
the ones that we did review with the subject matter experts aligned with that, but there's also -- that's not necessarily the best place to collect that piece of information because some of these investigations of the bigger incidents can't be done in the timeline of when that form has to be completed, and that's why it's under the formal investigations. >> commissioner elias: and maybe, chief, you can speak to those missing data sets and the changes that the department is going to make or has made to address some of the issues that are raised in this audit by d.p.a. and the controller's office. >> thanks, commissioner. so yes. the first thing that was just mentioned is the -- what cass
mentioned about the three categories, on having the form under investigation, that's consistent with the use of force changes with the commission -- the leadership -- that's actually changed in the policy, as well. so that form will be consistent with the policy that's being to be implemented, which is a good thing. in terms of the -- the recommendation, i think it's recommendation 5, which we agree with, and it's just a matter of making it happen. i think it goes in line with the work that commander o'sullivan is doing through risk management so actually have -- not only to collect information, but to have a dashboard and database to be able to report out on that information. so that's definitely in progress, in the works, and subsequent reports by the controller's office, we can confirm that that's been done.
>> commissioner elias: i'd just like to make sure when d.p.a. and the controller's office comes back in six months, i know we changed the policy information when it comes to us othus -- use of force. i think it's really important that we're looking at that data. -- out of the 1600 evaluation forms, and not one of them was found out of policy, mathematically, that's a little strange to me, so i want to make sure that that's an area that's covered. on that question, chief, it seems as if the issue was investigations were still pending. so if that's the case, we should make that a little bit clearer when you come back with this new change. it would be good to know, if
that makes a little more sense. i don't want to interrupt you if you're not done, but it sounds as it -- >> vice president taylor: i don't want to interrupt you if you're not done, but if you are, i'll call the next line item. >> clerk: item 2-c, commission reports. commission reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raced for a future commission meeting. >> vice president taylor: i don't see any hands. next item -- oh, commissioner elias?
>> commissioner elias: there's three things that i would like to agenda -- to put on the commission calendar. the first one, i will do, the veronese report, so if we could get that set for january, just for a status, i'd like that added. additionally, i'd like the d.g.o. 5.003 agendized for the first week of december. that'll give us time to work out the language. there's a disagreement in the language, but we need to get it moving, and we need to get it on calendar, so i'm going to ask to have that calendared in december because it's just been too long. the third thing is i'd like to agenda ey agendize is the public defender's letter to the commission on september 20, 2020. i'd like to agendize that so that we can address that letter in public and in the open, so
these are the three things i'm asking be agendized. >> vice president taylor: commissioner dejesus? >> commissioner dejesus: so if i read it right, the thing regarding officer involved shootings and closed sessions. if i read it correctly, the last item said we don't necessarily have to have it in closed session, we could have it in closed session, so i would like to agendize we can do that, if we wanted to do that, and how we would go about making those o.i.s.s in open session. >> vice president taylor: okay. anyone else? i see no other hands, so next line item. >> clerk: public comment. public comment on-line item 1.
at this time, the public is welcome to comment on-line item 1 -- sorry, line item 2. 415-655-0001, access code 146-488-8598, press pound, and pound again, then star, three to enter the queue. >> vice president taylor: okay. do we have any members of the public to speak on item 2? >> clerk: there are no public commenters in the queue.
caller. you have two minutes. >> hello. can you hear me? >> hi. this is paulette brown. my son was murdered august 14, 2006. still looking for justice for my son. i still haven't found out the way to -- you guys can use the overhead, and i don't know if the public can be able to use that, so i don't know to go about that. i also misplaced the number you gave me last time, and i was wondering if i could get it back. >> vice president taylor: i'll probably it to the commission staff, miss brown. as for the overhead, there's no way we can do that for the live meetings. unfortunately, we don't have a mechanism for that. >> oh, okay. because i just wanted to show you the information of the things i was speaking about in
our last conversation concerning the feds. so okay. well, if you can just give me that number again, and maybe yours, so i can talk with you offline. >> vice president taylor: there's nothing -- not anything that i'm going to be able to do about this, but i gave you the number for federal law enforcement, and i would really urge you to use it. but i would provide that to the commission staff again and make sure that you have it. >> how do i get it then? >> vice president taylor: i'll provide it to the commission staff. sergeant youngblood, do you want to get it -- i don't know if you've ever spoken to sergeant youngblood, miss brown. >> yes, i have. >> vice president taylor: okay. we'll get it to you. >> okay. if you'd put a shoutout about my son, i'd appreciate it.
>> vice president taylor: if anyone else has any information on aubrey's murder, please call the tip line at 415-475-4444. >> thank you. >> vice president taylor: thank you. >> clerk: we have one more caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> okay. that means me. it's not very clear. i tried to get in under item number two, but my other phone apparently doesn't work with your system. but i did file a complaint. i'm a senior citizen. never been arrested, never filed a complaint before, and a couple of comments about that. first of all, i listened to the meeting a week ago, and the
d.p.a. director seemed really pleased that so many cases had been cleared, which seems to me to be the wrong approach. he should be boasting about the number of problems resolved, and so he seems to be off base on that. i filed a complaint, received a disposition notice, which said i had ten days to respond. problem was, i did respond within ten days and was ignored by the d.p.a. in reading the disposition notice, i noted that it was dated four days before it was sent to me, so that reduced the
response time by almost half, so that seemed to be almost a shenanigan there. i'd like to still be able to respond to the disposition. many of the complaint items i made, i mentioned were not addressed in the disposition, and speaking of excessive force, one of the issues was -- >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hello? >> clerk: good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi. my name is danielle harris. i'm a managing attorney with the s.f. public defender's
office. i watched the press conference of this last monday, and watched the video of the officers shooting an inventoto vargas, and then them yelling and screaming at him as he lay dying. i understand it will take months, if not years, before a final determination is announced. the decision has already been made that this homicide, a person killing a person, is within policy. if the police can fail to make even a single calm attempt with an obviously unstable person and instead provoke him aggressively and kill him,
there's something wrong with the policy. we need urgent policy overhaul. commissioners, chief scott, my office stands ready to do that in any way so that no family goes through what so many have, no untrained police officers go through what so many have, and the public is no longer traumatized by these events and divided so thoroughly. i look forward to continuing the conversation. thank you. >> vice president taylor: thank you. chief lieutenant hawkins, i think you had a comment? >> yeah. the previous public commenter, you can call our office and ask
for sarah hawkins, and i will connect him with the investigator who handled his case so that we can address the issues that he raised this evening. >> vice president taylor: okay. do we have any other callers? >> clerk: we have one last caller. >> hi. it sounds like many commissioners had the opportunity to watch the conversation yesterday between chief scott and the board of supervisors. as part of that overall presentation, [inaudible] in black community made a presentation that revealed that looking at per capita data, sfpd is heavily targeting black residents of san francisco, especially use of force but also with arrests and, you know, stopping people while driving. and i was hoping that today's result, this body was going to take a moment to calendar a presentation and discussion of
that really important information even as the c.r.i. process rolls forward, if those basic facts don't change, this body and the agency is failing. so i'm asking you, what will you be doing with that data? thank you. >> vice president taylor: thank you. next comment? >> clerk: that was the end of public comment. >> vice president taylor: okay. next line item? >> clerk: line item 4. public comment on all matters pertaining to item 6 below, closed session, including public comment on item 5, vote whether to hold item 6 in closed session. anyone would like to make public comment on items 5 and 6, please press star, three now or dial 415-655-0001 and enter
146-488-8598. and there is no public comment. >> vice president taylor: okay. next line item? >> clerk: line item 5, vote on whether to hold item 6 is closed session. san francisco administrative code 67.10, action. >> vice president taylor: is there a motion? >> motion -- >> commissioner brookter: second. >>. >> clerk: all right. on the motion to hold closed session -- [roll call] >> clerk: you have five yeses.