Particular category. What im saying is for all three of those incidents because they are all linked, i would consider that one incident, because when you take the dpa complaint, when you take a lawsuit and take the use of force and all that is combined into one thats going to be one event. If we are seeing repeats of that event in other circumstances, im going to go ahead and my interest is going to be piqued into that officer. With me going out and reviewing it and say i dont initiate an intervention at this moment doesnt mean im closing it out and not paying attention. Next quarter im going to go back and review. And thats what goes on. I review the previous reporting period and the previous alerts. So if i see a pattern where within one year i start seeing a pattern thats starting to develop, i can go ahead and initiate an intervention at that time. So the example you gave with the three different criteria you counted one incident, those three dont have to be related, right . Meaning i guess my concern is you are calling it one incident and theres three sort of violations but those three violations can be on different days and not related to the same sort of facts, right . The incidents that were brought into this one report or this one alert thats something i would take differently than one event causing three different indicators. But you still consider it one incident right . For this particular one, the one we are discussing, yes all three i would consider one. But if an officer has a dpa complaint for one incident, a lawsuit for another one a use of force for another one, i would weigh those separately. They wouldnt be considered one incident in that matter. What does intervention consist of . My concern is i would rather have an intervention and the officer being mentored when they have five plus indicators versus someone who doesnt go to court. So when i send out these alerts its not only for the officer to know that we are watching and that he or she has hit the threshold but its also for the sergeant of that officer to know that, okay, this officer here, whether or not you are aware of it or not he has crossed that threshold for an e. I. S. Alert so it notifies both parties and i have a pretty Good Relationship with most supervisors where i can give them a call and theyll know my concern. And if that sergeant wants to tell me we can go out and start intervention thats fine. But if im just reaching out and i just go inquire and give that sergeant a headsup saying hey look, im concerned about your person, not necessarily to the point of an intervention but im going to be watching him or her and i would like you to do the same. Ive done that numerous times. What does an intervention consist of . It depends on the violation. So in this particular case, if theres an issue with any type of, lets say not going to mandatory training, whatever it would take to help that officer get straightened out, we would do. If it comes to a point where the officer is disrespectful to victims or to suspects thats where the communication comes in. We would cater whatever training we have to them and go to the academy and see whatever it is we had to do to get this officer back to where we want him or her. Other issue is on page 12 where you have sort of the divisions and sort of each area broken up. Because i dont think this is an accurate reflection of whats happening at each station. Because if the incidents follow the officer you know, i was concerned that we have nine incidents nine use of force incidents at the airport. But thats not true entirely because it doesnt capture the actual airport or the instances where use of force happened at the airport. It could be one officer that was transferred from Mission Statement to the airport and theres all nine incidents right. I do understand what you are talking about. So thats when the individual alerts pop up in the computer system. Thats when i start taking a look as far as what that detail was for that officer for that day what assignment that officer was doing that day. I mean, if an officer was assigned to mission for five out of the six and then goes to the airport, you are correct that alert would follow that officer over to the airport. You would agree this flowchart is deceiving because it doesnt accurately reflect indicators by unit because its not by unit, its by officer. Its by numbers, thats correct. Also on page 13, is this another situation where it follows the officers . So meaning the 42 alerts by station is it following the officer or is it following the station. Im sorry. Page 13. Can you repeat your question, commissioner . Im also wondering whether or not this data that you have based on each station is based on the actual station or if its based on the officer like you do on page 12. When we run the report, wherever that officer is, thats where this alert hits. So if, say this officer gets into the station, gets three out of four indicators and that officer happens to transfer to the other station the alert would go onto bayview station. It follows the officer. It doesnt go out and say, we are not going to say it stays over at taravel. If they are assigned to bayview station thats where the alert would be generated from. I think what the commissioner is trying so ask is if you look at this document, is this reflecting that time period, those alerts and indicators are these reflecting what happened at those stations in that time period . Or could this be indicators following officers . It could be indicators following officers. Can you explain to us how that would track . That confuses me. Thats the problem with page 12 and 13, they are defective because it looks it would look like its based on the actual station when these numbers arent based on the station, they are based on officers. Thats correct. Thats a problem. If you have any chart based on where the officer was at the time of the violation . I dont have one for this reporting period. I think that should be added to the next quarter presentation thats done on e. I. S. Because thats important because these numbers although they are beautifully put into a chart they arent actually reflective or accurate of whats happening at each unit. I do want the numbers on the page 3 of the numbers that come into you and which ones you are passing through to the supervisor and which ones you are closing out. Okay. Director henderson . Thank you. I was just going to say the stuff weve been working on for a while both myself and with commissioner dejesus who isnt here, but one of the things that has been really exciting and i think we are talking about today is the benchmark Analytics Group and the stuff theyve been doing exactly in this area in terms of best practices. And im only bringing that up because i think it speaks to the shortfalls and the gaps and the kind of data that we are seeing now, and the path practices and the problems weve been having with the university of chicago. And weve been talking about trying to find the best method to have more accurate correlation between actual behavior and predictive interruptions of behavior and training and stuff. So the stuff that ive seen preliminary has been really exciting from an objective analysis perspective. And an emphasis on the analysis because its more than just the Data Collection its analysis, which i think is really important for us to be able to do this job well. I know theyve been meeting with the department, which is exciting, so at some point, im sure that you will be making a decision about how he wants to continue those meetings or present whatever. But i thought their presentation was, about what they do and how it works, independently from other agencies was phenomenal. And ive seen a lot of predictive type of analytics. Which is the best one that ive seen so far. I wish commissioner dejesus were here to talk about it because i know she was excited about the stuff weve heard from preliminary basis as well. And so im just talking here at this point because i know it speaks to many of the concerns that you were just raising, commissioner elias about the subjective interpretation or the subjective analysis of these numbers which doesnt mean that they are wrong or right but they are subjective without having analysis that can be more transparent and shared internally and externally, based on a good system that i thought that we were trying to get from the university of chicago that didnt quite work out for whatever reason. So anyway, i just wanted to say that. So commissioner hamasaki first. Just director henderson just answered my question but i remember when we last talked about this, some of these same issues and concerns had been raised. I think the core and the heart of this is great. Its a proactive step to try to get out in front of problematic or potentially problematic behavior before it escalates to something where it causes real trouble. But im glad to hear that director henderson and it sounds like commissioner dejesus have been following up on this. Because and no question on you and the job you are doing it sounds like youve been putting a lot of work into this. But i think i would like to see perhaps the program from benchmark analytics if its not a program we want, maybe we can learn from it and implement something similar on our own or find ways to increase we want people to look at this and say wow, i feel great about this, this is keeping our streets and our officers safe and out of trouble. So thank you for all your work. I look forward to hearing about the progress with director henderson and commissioner dejesus as well as with the chief has been part of in this area. Scott. Thank you. We are director hendersons comments, we are exploring other technologies, and actually we have a meeting tomorrow to follow up on that so we will keep the Commission Posted on that. I also want to say too regardless of the technology, there is a Human Element to this. And there has to be. Because this is an Early Intervention alert system. And despite the algorithm that you use at some point somebody has to dig into the alerts and determine whats going on. And ill follow up with your question, commissioner elias about your patterns and your question wasnt about patterns but i think commissioner hirsch and you had similar questions about the subjective part of this. Right. And i can tell you because ive done thousands of these in my prior life in los angeles, you really have to dig into them and look for patterns and concerns. For instance, if you have use of forces that are being triggered by detentions that are questionable, that would be at risk behavior. The one thing that wasnt said here that i want to add is that we dont consider counseling informal intervention. Am i correct on that . Thats correct. So theres a lot of counseling thats done that is not considered intervention. Ive mentioned this in the past in front of the commission, we need to rethink that. Because counseling is a form of intervention. And you dont necessarily have to go to training or Technical Training and all that. A lot of times these things can be snuffed out by counseling. And we do a lot of it. I think last year we had 102 counseling sessions. The year before that it was a little bit higher than that. We dont consider those interventions. Yeah, those numbers need to be presented because when we are looking at a situation when we go from 175 to 0 thats a problem without any explanation as to we are not intervening, we are not counseling, what is actually happening. I cant believe all 175 are all false or not worthy of or merit some sort of intervention whether it be counseling or whatever it is you want to do. Absolutely. Understood. I think we can easily get that data for you. And i know we had it for last year and the year before, but its not considered a formal intervention so they are not counted in these reports but it is happening. So i want to point that out and we need to think of that as we rethink the analytics piece of it. He know a lot of this was negotiated. So we had to consider that too. That would be helpful. I think reporting the counseling whatever you call it, you can just call it counseling, it would still be good for us to know that. I do share the concern about the subjective nature of the review. Its opaque to me. I cant tell how you are making decisions or how the stations are making decisions. And you may be doing exactly what the Department Needs you to be doing. Its hard for us on the outside to know that. And if you can be doing a better job at it or theres more of a protocol that could be in place then we auto to look at that. But i appreciate the work and i appreciate your presentation. Thank you. I hope its not lost on all of us that this is still a big step forward from the stuff weve done in the past, that we were really focused on shaking the tree even though it wasnt bearing us fruit, even though we are focusing on inconsistencies on the data we want see, i think that system is going to serve us well when we come up with system to replace what we are doing in the past. Not because we werent trying to get it done but because we were trying to work with the old agency that wasnt giving us the Data Collection the Data Analysis and the data sharing those three components that have to be a part of any Early Intervention system. So, anyway. Thank you. Thank you. Anything else from you chief . That concludes my report. Thank you. Next item, please. Line item 1b, directors report. Report on dpa activities and announcements. It will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. Discussion will be limited to deciding whether to calendar any items for future meetings. Thank you director henderson. Thank you. So we are at 590 cases have been opened so far this year. We were at 511 this time last year. In terms of cases closed, we are at 490, which is higher than last year. This time last year we were at 454 indicates cases that were closed. We have 406 pending cases, which is double, almost double the amount that we had pending this time last year. In terms of cases sustained, we are at 39 sustained cases so far this year versus 36 the same time last year. The cases that are past the 270day measurement, which is our own internal measurement, again not the deadline, we are at 32 cases versus this time last year we were at 24. Im going to take a moment to talk about this because we mentioned it last week. So last week we were at 47 cases. And that number was going up. As i said, a lot of it is because of our new computer system. So i had everyone work on that by hand to pull all of those cases to look to see what we were doing with those cases to try to get them processed. They were able to do it. It really is our system. Its a new system, like i said, a new computer system. So theres a lot of hands that go into our report, particularly when we are closing out cases. So all of the information from all of this investigators that worked on the case, all the legal team, all the supervisors that have gone through the case. But we are down now. And of those 47 cases, 15 have already been submitted for closure. So that was part of why those numbers were going up. They just hadnt been processed. And so thats how we get to the new number of 32 where we are right now. Of the 32 cases, nine of those cases are still being told. We are still not finished doing the hand count of all those cases that were there. So this number is fluctuating. Im just explaining to you why this number is fluctuating because of our new system. The majority of the remaining cases should be closed in the next two weeks is what my team are telling me. In terms of cases that are mediated, we are at 27 cases that have been mediated so far this year. Thats a significant uptick from last year where we were at 18. In terms we talked a little bit last week about i think you got an email from my chief of staff talking about the stuff linked to the information we got from that training. I want to mention, i dont know if it was in the update that you got that we had submitted three proposals to do the trainings. We were asked to make the submission. And they didnt select any of our submissions. But we will continue working with them. We want to continue being a partner with them. In terms of the operations and technology, some of the good news is the api and our aim system is up now. And that just happened this week. Its our system that provides notice with to the department when complaints come in. So within 24 hours of a new case, a new charge or allegation coming in, the department has notification of it. Its an automatic feed which includes a disciplinary history for the officer as well. Weve been sending this information out for the past ten years. But in the old system, part of that process had to be man manual and was done by hand and it was difficult to be reliable because the information would frequently crash and needed to be fixed. So we worked really closely with the Departments Network head im pronouncing it incorrectly kyhwoo. So now that we have a new system, we can do some of the reciprocal Data Exchange with the department as well so thats what we are working on now. But at least the system is up and running, and we are able to get some of our information out through the new system. Lets see. The only other thing i had to add in there as well is that we participated in the launch of the Domestic ViolenceAwareness Month from last week. And we participated in the bench Park Analytics review, which is the process we were just talking about with iap. There are no cases for the closed session today. And in the audience with me is my chief of staff sarah hawk hawkins in case there are any questions or anybody needs to speak with my staff. Lets take questions. Commissioner elias. I wanted to understand this correctly. You said you had a new system. Its my understanding the dpa has a new system for tracking its cases. Case management. Case Management System. So is there a date that the cases from this date forward are going into your new system . And what are you doing about the old cases . And how are you converting the old cases into your system . All the old cases are going through the new system. So thats part of our growing pains. The new system is set up and running. We are working out the kinks with it right now. So its set up and done. During the the summer that was a partnership we had with the force that were building it. But the operation is still a little tricky. Just because its built, it still has bugs that need to be worked out and things need to be reconfigured in order to make it work in similar ways that it was working in the past that was difficult. It was difficult to navigate. The system ultimately is going to b