The term zero tolerance has been used as a pejorative term to criticize broken windows, and appropriately so. Broken windows wasnt zero tolerance. Zero tolerance, first of all, implies a zealotry about you will have no discretion. And the second thing is, it says you dont have any discretion which is exactly what we want to avoid which sets up a high arrest thing. But let me just talk about, zero tolerance can be a useful tool at times, at particular locations around particular problems. But you have to be very specific about that. Think, for example, of just a very simple example, school buses. We simply understand that the risks of people passing school buses is so great and the consequence is so great that we dont want any discretion about that. We want to send out a message you pass a school bus thats discharging or getting children, youre in deep, deep trouble. So and i could give you other examples of that. So zero tolerance is antithetical to the whole approach of broken windows. And then i want to just pick up on one thing that tom said which is very interesting. I am of a different generation. I came up in a different generation. But im still hanging around. But the interesting thing was, and this rang a bell when he raised this, the problem in the subway nownno[yppzn a very dift problem than it was. Time our concern was minor offenders and getting them under control. Now, there are still some aggressive panhandlers, still some stuff going on, but we can deal with that without too much trouble and without increasing the number of arrests. It turns out in the subway now are some very sad human beings. Emotionally disturbed, very ill, and what we have is a whole difference approach. Now, our concern is how do we get the agencies who should own this problem to take over and own this problem as they should . Because this is not a police problem. These individuals are not criminals. Theyre hardly even disorderly. I mean, theyre laying on the ground where are the social Service Agencies . So my, as i work with bill again, part of my respondent is to get the other my respondent is to get the other agencies to meet their responsibility. So thank you for giving me the opportunity to twist your question. [laughter] professor, you know, when i went to Police Commissioner brattons swearing in hes going to speak tomorrow morning he said there was two goals he had as Police Commissioner, one was to get the community to embrace the Police Department because of all their significant help, and also to get the members of the service to be proud of the work he found when he came back after 20 years the members of the new york city Police Department were not proud of their successes. Could you speak a little bit about those two issues . Sure. Well, i think its true, and what commissioner bratton was talking about is a really us from rating point from the perspective frustrating point from the perspective of the police. Here youve achieved these amazing, historic gains in safety, yet youre facing an angry community. And so the question we have to ask is, why . And what george said just a minute ago, there are different issues at different points in time, and if the level of fear of crime was the same today as it was in the 1970s, people might be focused on fear of crime. But the police are in some ways victims of their own success, and people feel more secure now, and theyre looking for a different kind of relationship with the police. Thats the bad news, but its also good news because we know so much about how to create that kind of relationship. As chief tracy was saying, we have they have done a lot to create it in chicago. So we know it can be done. The other part of it thats interesting is the question of the Police Officers. When i first started talking about these kinds of ideas, the whole point was the Police Want Public cooperation. If you treat the public in a particular way, you get that cooperation. But in the different Training Academy programs that we put together, the officers would come in and say, well, no one ever treats me fairly; that is, i never get listened to, i never get anything explained to me, my supervisor doesnt care about my concerns. So youre telling me to do all these things for people on the street, and fun of those things happen none of those things happen to me. We have recognized that fair treatment is also something that needs to be inside the internal dynamics of Police Departments. And this speaks to officer dissatisfaction because we know now, weve done research on the internal dynamics of Police Departments, job satisfaction, job performance, whats the main factor that drives the way the police feel and what they do . Its whether they think that they get fair treatment within the context of their own Police Department. So both of these issues are issues that we can address. Unfortunately, we know a lot more about how to address them. Chief, youre not off the hook. One of the things that you speak about is the principles that youve adopted and the procedures youve put in place in both new york and chicago are very successful in combating violent crime. Since weve been so successful, a lot of us now are dealing with crimes i dont want to say we didnt have the luxury of dealing with before, but we can address now. We have identity thefts and fraud, the cases that we are now investigating. Some of the strategies, the come stat, those things that you put in place in new york and chicago, can they be used for some of these newer crimes at your department and other departments are now having to deal with . Yes, absolutely. And just, i just want to answer the internal legitimacy real quick. I didnt hit on that, the meritocracy of changing the politicization of the chicago Police Department helps out with the internal legitimacy, because we have done those surveys of officers, and theres still a belief that you have to know someone to get promoted. And thats not the place. And were trying to build that. Were slowly weve been there three years, but the meritocracy put in place is going to go a long way, internal legitimacy first is going to help us with our experience legitimacy. But getting back to what we can do listen, we still have a long way to go in chicago. Its just the tip of the iceberg. We do have the luxury to look at some of these other crimes as were reducing the shooting victims and the murders, but thats our main priority, and were supplementing with these other strategyings. Weve had an opportunity, some of the districts that we go into, you know, not all of them are the violent areas, and were able to look at some of the lower level crimes that are affecting these people in these neighborhoods. Thats their biggest priority. With dna testing, burglaries, the way we can recover prints now, we can identify some of these burglars dna with sexual assaults. Weve come a long way, and we want to make sure that we give a good look, we insure that were not letting those things go with the new technology. Were training people, and were making sure that were the best trained Police Department as best we can be to address these crimes and make sure that we stay with technology. And when we see a slide in that, when we i call it low hanging fruit, youve got a print and you know who the burglar is, or you have dna and you know who that person is, send the fugitive out immediately, and we go after these people to pick them up as quickly as possible. We can get ahead of it with the technology, and theyre identifying bad guys that you want to get them as quick as possible because they usually dont stop at one. Especially with robbery, burglaries, criminal sexual assaults. Thanks. George . Let me just add one thing. A lot of chiefs are running scared, however, and this is personally to counter what tom said. And that is, if you have a thousand murders and a ten increase during the year, youve got a 1 increase, big deal. If youve got a hundred murders and you get ten additional, you have a big increase. A lot of cheechs, theres this a lot of chiefs, theres this feeling amongst chiefs, and i would be interested whether district and other kinds of attorneys are feeling this as well, and that is that maybe our gains are fragile, they might be easy the lose, the media are going to be eager to pounce on them when we do. And so its hard to back away from tactics that might seem extremely, let me use the term aggressive, to deal with the serious crime. And this is especially the case because violence, homicide has been so the sticky in so many communities in so many neighborhoods. We have some folks with some microphones in the audience if anybody has any questions for any of our panelists. Come on, youve had an hour to think of one. [laughter] the [inaudible] comment on the training thats going on in Washington State on moving from a warrior model to a more guardian model and what you all think about that . Anyone want to take that one . If i knew anything about it, id try it. [laughter] you expand on it . What type of training were talking about . Articulate a little more . Yeah. Theyre changing the Law Enforcement training from being kind of warrior, military model to more kind of focus in on guardian, empathy, try iing to, essentially, bring some social work practice into the Law Enforcement a little bit. I think that that approach which i dont specifically know anything about seems consistent with what were saying about trying to do more to communicate to the public a reassuring presence of the police to build cooperative relationships with public. So it sounds like its consistent with whats happening in a lot of departments. Were seeing the police being much more interested if having a cooperative in having a cooperative relationship and trying to be the kind of presence that doesnt frighten people, but rather, reassures them. Which, again, i would say is very consistent with a broken windows approach about the goal of policing. I think just to comment about that too, the old model of training used to be the preemptive use of confrontation, net and aggressiveness, and that is threat and aggressiveness. And that is take command of a situation. Command presence. I think that has, that starts out the entrance of an interaction between a citizen and a Police Officer if it starts out with that kind of confrontation, its going to go downhill from there, and especially with youth. And i think this is part of the new training thats coming up in that you dont have to start out with preemptive use of aggressiveness. And if situation warrants it the situation warrants it, you do have to take control of the situation, but deescalate it. Once you have everything under control, bring it down, tell the people why you stopped them, give them that respect, and thats what were trying to train. As Police Officers, we know every situations dangerous, so we have to take corral of it, but control of it, but immediately deescalate as soon as you have it under control. Quick question. There have been some remarkable progress in terms of policing, bringing research and, you know, crime analysis and problemwarranted policing, chief tracy, you talked about some of those issues as well as the Community Policing approach all coming at the same time with broken windows. But one of the challenges, how do you actually apply that to the officer on the street when the kind of day daytoday activity tends to be the random control, car patrol and also for the officers their metrics tend to be very much kind of output rather than outcome focused. How many stops, how many arrests, how many citations, c summons and the rest. Let me just clarify, a beat officer is in a car, not walking the beat. That would be foot patrols. They control a certain geographical area. In the beginning we talked about disbanding these specialized units, and actually, we still have discretionary resources at area levels. So we didnt take that discretionary resource away. We just reduced it and put more of the deployment within the districts taking down the calls for service and actually giving them more resources, keeping the guys and gals in the same geographical area of responsibility. Having that supervision to insure that they stay there, thats going to help them out a lot because theres less call for service. And at the same time, theyre really not we really dont measure them by how much activity we have. We actually measure them what type of crime has happened and what are they doing to address it. I mean, if were having drinking, what are we doing about administrative notice of violations to correct that behavior . What are we doing about if we have robbery suspects . What are we doing, are we stopping the people at the right place at the right time for the right reasons . So when we look at the metrics, we also look at metrics to make sure theyre on base, theyre not just gives us numbers because thats what were looking for. Were doing stop, question and frisk, the burglars are out there at 8 00 to midnight, 8 p. M. To mid nierkts but theyre doing all the stop and frisk at 8 a. M. To 12 noon, thats the wrong time to be doing it. Our measurements are focused on the conditions and doing it at the right time. So weve allowed a more Proactive Police work, and weve pushed that accountability down to the commanders so theyre not waiting for centralized direction, but we look to see them they have, they have deployment tailored to their needs, and we give them the resources, but we also give them the authority to go out and address those conditions. And i think thats how were measuring it, and thats where were seeing our success. It is true that a really important issue has been identifying other kinds of metrics. So Police Chiefs are encouraged to give awards to people who build Good Community relations or have them be officer of the month or do surveys so that they can tell which officers have unhappy customers, basically, which officers have districts where there are complaints. And, you know, try to diversify the metrics for evaluation. Because it is an issue that comes up that officers who are good at other things feel that theyre not necessarily getting the attention of someone who makes a lot of arrests. That can all be fixed at a command level, as chief tracy is saying. Anyone else . It sounds like the, at least the main argument thats being advanced for the reduction in crime rates is the Public Perception of procedural fairness. Could you talk more about the causal link between those two things . Well, i wouldnt want to try to claim credit as the maybe force reducing time [laughter] but thank you. [laughter] i think that the argument is that over time there are several ways in which building up trust can be valuable. One, its very clear that people who view the Police Support the law as more legitimate are less likely to commit crimes. So as we build a community where people believe in the legitimacy of Law Enforcement, that has a longterm effect on the crime rate because people arent committing crimes. Thats true both for people in general and also for people with a criminal history. Chief tracy talked about a program thats actually being done in chicago with people who are violent gun offenders coming out of prison, and we can see reductions in recidivism when people are given a form of treatment that creates a more legitimate sense of law s. So thats one way. But i think other really is the David Kennedy approach, the Andrew Pap Kris toss approach, make it clear even in violent communities a very small group of people are actually committing most of the violence. So if you can gain the trust of the general community, you can ask that community to help you to isolate and confront those people. And thats a strategy thats been successful in a lot of cities to, and chief tracy laid out what youre doing. But basically, youre trying to use the community as a resource to identify those people, to help you isolate them. So thats legitimacy as a broader resource in the community. And i think both of those things are helpful in fighting crime. But i would, i mean, there are a lot of factors involved in fighting crime, but thats one factor that has definitely been shown to be important. This idea of a small number, theyre referred to in the literature and im sure you know this, the 5 or 6 ers. And that is a very small amount of fenders commit offenses. The most interesting thing identify run into lately is this holds for traffic offenders as well. Theres a strong correlation between areas of collision and high levels of crime. If you, if you overlay one on the other which, again, suggests a target or an approach that could be very successful but would also be prone to misuse. And a point that i want to make with broken windows or whatever were talking about, all of these strategies or tactics i would use instead, all of these tactics are powerful tools that, if wisely used, can get you enormous benefit. But at the same time, they can with used in very negative ways as well, so they have to be used very, very judiciously. It would seem to me when you talk about stop, question and frisk, i would want to see a departments guidelines for how are you managing, how are you getting officers thinking about this . Because it is important that these things be done right because if theyre not, you run into the issues that tom was talking about. And even when youre aggressive, youll hear bratton tomorrow. He wont tell this story, but theres a wonderful scene [laughter] theres a wonderful scene in which you see theyre going to bust down a door to arrest somebody for some reason. And theyve got, and they got the special unit there, and they look highly military, and theyre getting ready to in. And all the neighbors, of course, are around watching. And all of a sudden the camera focuses on this guy Walking Around shaking peoples hand. And theres bill bratton going out as chief, explaining to the residents whats going on, why theyre doing this, why is it important. And at one point you see a guy talking to bill and then pointing at another house down the block, providing information. Once you do this house, if you want to go down the block and do that house [laughter] be our guest. So