Thank you so much, dr. Goff. Our next witness is jim mcdonald who is the sheriff for l. A. County. Welcome. Thank you very much very honored to be here today. Thank you for allowing me to address you today. Nearly three months ago, i was sworn is as l. A. Countys elected sheriff. The first person in over a century elected from outside of the Sheriffs Department. I took command of a Law Enforcement agency facing many challenges. I also took command of an agency flown below the radar for years, not always acknowledged for the cutting edge work and expertise. I speak to you today as both a new sheriff with an agenda driven by a need for a change as well as somebody who has become fiercely proud of the Organization Im now privileged to lead. The Los Angeles Sheriffs Department is the largest Sheriffs Department in the country and the second largest policing agency in the nation. We serve a county spanning over 4,000 square miles with a population of over 10 million people. We also run the nations largest jail system, police 42 of l. A. s cities and protect the safety of the nations Largest Court system. Today, i want to focus on what managing complex Law Enforcement organization as well as a large jail system has taught us about the challenges and opportunities facing policing. Well, we clearly need more resources and support. Were equally in need of fresh thinking and new strategies that can enable us to rethink the job of policing and learn from each other as we do so. The l. A. Jail system provides housing for up to 20,000 inmates and seven facilities. We are facing many challenges. Our inmates include rival gang members, our inmates security and threat levels. Most of our facilities are antiquated. Past poor management resulted in unacceptable inmate abuse and recidivism rates are far too high. Many in our custody need to be separated from society. For too long and too many, jail has become a default placement and the latest step in a recurring cycle. While ive seen these challenges, ive also seen how far weve come. We have Education Programs that enabled over 300 inmates to secure High School Diplomas last year. Were also increasing drug treatment programs targeting the homeless for housing assistance. Enhancing reentry planning. These efforts are happening despite the environment in which we work not because of it. Yet we can and we must do more but we cant get there alone. We need federal help including support for new correctional Treatment Facilities rather than jails where we simply warehouse offenders. We need Flexible Funding streams that enable us to address medical and Mental Health funding for those in our charge and resources to expand education, vocation and reentry planning that can chart a Better Future for those returning to the community. In los angeless jails were also running what amounts to the largest Mental Health facility in the nation. We house over 3500 inmates in need of Mental Health services yet jails were not built as Treatment Centers or with longterm care in mind. Were addressing challenges in patrol. They lack Mental Health training and a dearth of Mental Health teams for contacts with the mentally ill. We need crisis intervention training so deputies working the streets know how to respond to mentally ill and whenever possible divert them from the Justice System. Support for teams and communitybased Resource Centers where we can create a comprehensive response to those in crisis and strategies that focus on alternatives to incarceration. Finally we need to focus on our next generation and those exposed to trauma and violence. Too many youth are exposed to a level of violence equivalent to that of a war zone. While the young person may not have been physically struck, we know their brains are permanently damaged by violence. Law enforcement needs to strengthen communities so they are and feel safe. We must realize our responsibility does not end when the yellow tape comes down. Violent crime has many victims and we must do more to support them. We must recognize every interaction we have shapes the future both of individuals and of our community. Most trained to interact with young people in crisis and those trauma impacted. We need to taylor or response to age and characteristics of the individual and need to help support an environment in which our children can learn develop and thrive and move away from punitive approaches that push young people out of schools and into our Justice System. Our Founding Fathers wrote governments derive powers from the consent of governed. As this timeless message reminds us whatever authority we have is granted us and derived from our community. Community oriented policing is not something we do on the side, its how a department should operate. We must police when and not nearly in the communities we serve. Peace officers dont tend to ask for help. To do what is expected of us in todays challenging times, we must acknowledge we need help. Im here today to thank you for your work your wisdom and help and welcome any questions at the end of this you may have. Thank you for this opportunity. Thank you so much sheriff. Dr. Daniel nagin our next witness and a professor at carnegie mellon. First of all let me indicate how gratified i was to receive this invitation to be on this distinguished panel. 250 years ago enlightenment admonished better to prevent crimes than punish them. I recently coauthorized and he say titled reinventing american policing a sixpoint blue print for the 21st century. In it we lay out an ambitious blueprint for reorienting the goal. An important objective i have policing, maintenance of high levels of credibility and confidence in the communities they are sworn to protect. Both objectives form the bedrock of effective policing in a Democratic Society. U. S. Criminal justice over the past four decades institutionalize many characteristics of todays criminal Justice System. For Law Enforcement, the function of arrest became a central measure of performance. Even ideas like broken windows policing that were preventive came to be applied in ways that police knew best zero tolerance and arrest for even the most minor crimes. Police practice towards Crime Prevention and improving Community Trust requires important changes in the functions, values and operations of Law Enforcement. The sixpoint blueprint we lay out is grounded in decades of research and two principles. Principle one is that Crime Prevention not arrest is paramount. Crimes averted not arrests made should be the primary metric for judging police success and meeting their objective to prevent crime and disorder. The second principle is that citizen reactions matter. Citizen response to the police and their tactics for preventing crime matter independent of Police Effectiveness in this function. Principle one follows from zakarias observation better to prevent crimes than punish them. It is costly to all involved, society at large who must pay for it the individual who must endure it and also the police whose time is diverted from Crime Prevention. Rolling Crime Prevention arrest signals failure of prevention. If a crime is prevented in the first place, so is the arrest and ensuing costs of punishment. Principle one does not suggest we should stop making arrest. Important function of Police DespiteCrime Prevention bring them to justice. Further police cannot possibly prevent all crimes. However, over the past three decades steady accumulation suggests proactive prevention more effective than reactive arrests preventing crime. Proactive focus efforts on people, place, times and situations that are a highrisk of offending. Proactive policing stands in sharp contrast reactive approaches and tries to address the problems before they beget further crimes through a variety of strategies that do not often do not emphasize arrest. Thus in this first principle we suggest greater emphasis on proactive and preventive deployment strategiesed than arrest based strategies. Principle two emphasizes police in democracies are not responsible for preventing crime but maintaining their credibility with all segments of the citizenry. The objective of maintaining Citizen Trust and confidence means that the reabsences of citizens to the police is important to judging their effectiveness independent of their success in preventing and solving crimes. While Citizens Trust and confidence may facilitate Police Effectiveness in preventing crime, we treat trust and confidence as important in its own right because the overriding objective should be of policing should be a safe Democratic Society not a safe police state. In emphasizing the importance of citizen confidence and trust in the police, we are fully cognizant that Police Citizens encounter may be hostile through no part of the Police Officer. These encounters may involve people who have committed or in the process of committing crimes and may involve real threat to safety of Police Officers and innocent bystanders. However, even in these circumstances, the person responsible for hostile interaction does not forfeit his or her status as a citizen even if his or her behavior provides legal basis for arrest or even lethal police response. In putting forth these two principles were cognizant of the difficulty of what must be done to achieve them. Three functions of police, crime, bringing to justice credibility to police are each significant in their own right and also highly dependent on one another. However, recognition of the difficulty of what must be done to advance these principles should not be used as an excuse for dismissing their excuse as quixotic. Ive summarized six items. Let me say briefly the first is prioritizing arrests prioritizing Crime Prevention over arrest and second citizens for monitoring citizen reaction to police and reporting back to public officers. The other items elaborate upon innovations in training organizational incentives and management items in the National Structure on these goals. Thank you. Thank you very much. As ron davis noted, weve had over 150 witnesses at our listing sessions but i think our next witness has come the further of anyone who has come before the panel. Dr. Lauren sherman is a anan loren sherm, from United Kingdom. Thank you. I hasten to add im will a professor at the university of maryland. Its my bicontinental resident status that leads me to note that while the doctor is quite right, we dont know how many people were killed by police in the United States in the year 2013, estimates range from a low of 461 reported to the fbi and estimates of over 1,000 compiled for newspaper clippings. In that same year the other country i live in the state of england and wales within the United Kingdom and thats an important point, the number of People Killed by police in england and wales that year was zero. 55 million people, 140,000 police, thousands of armed situations thousands of situations to which armed police responded, not one person killed. This is a comparison that is crying out for an explanation. Maybe my explanation doesnt sustain the level of policy conclusions that im going to suggest to you but i think its inescapable that theres a massive difference in the infrastructure of policies and institutions governing police in wales and infrastructure governing the United States. I think we have to have a conversation at the institutional level that transcends specifics of training and other options but does start with the fundamental policy difference in terms of deadly force. The policy in the uk is similar at law to the u. S. Which is essentially you can kill in defense of life. But the ride along with that policy in wales is essentially that if you are killing somebody for an offense that they are not willing to be arrested for that is essentially trivial then youre doing the wrong thing. Even the moment you pull the trigger you may be in defense of life. You put yourself in the position where you had no choice. Thats not allowed in the uk, neither is the idea of continuing a confrontation that may not be necessary to apprehend somebody so deescalation as well as proportionality are key principles. What i would like to recommend in my remaining time is a serious of federal, state and local actions that could, in effect, test the hypothesis of whats done in the uk and how they would work at this country. First the federal level president issue four executive orders. First executive order would be for 120,000 employees of federal Law Enforcement agencies to adopt the english standards of proportionality and deescalation in shooting more restrictive than defense of life. Second, i think the president should create a National Policy of policing certification of a threemonth course anybody who would serve as a police chief of a Certified Police agency in the United States. Third, the president would ask the college to issue standards that are compiled from the 50 state post boards. Actually theres no 50 of them yet but thats a recommendation to the states to finish that job. And forth that the federal government establish a register of people dismiss from federal Law Enforcement agencies which would be accessible to anybody screening applicants for employment in police nv agencies at federal, state local levels. For the states, i think they should adopt something since 1856, Inspector General of police had power to decertify Police Agency so they would lose all of their national funding. That certification would be something the states could require and similarly they could require the chiefs of police of agencies that are, in fact creatures of the state local government. They would have to meet some certification if there wasnt one made available wiby the National Government one would be made available. Standards like deadly force standard i recommended would be part of the post board authority. In england and wales we have statewide independent Police Complaints commission which gets around issues of local commissions. States could do that have registered officers, contribute to the federal register. Most radically i think, its very important a lot of killings of citizens by police come from small agencies and i think we need to go with a minimum of 100 employees for each Police Agency, adequate standards for vetting candidates for training, certifying and disciplining them at the level you see with extraordinary success in places like new york city that used to kill upwards of 80 people a year and now killing an average of less than 10. That doesnt happen with small agencies being able to change the way it can in a big agency where you have training and supervision. I have similar recommendations for local agencies but i think for your consideration of these specific ways in which actions could be tape now that could have a big impact in saving the lives of young people in the United States in unnecessary tragic, illegitimate, albeit possibly legal confrontations with police. Thank you. Thank you so much, dr. Sherman. Our final witness on this panel is president Jeremy Travis of John Jay College of criminal justice in new york city. Thank you. Thank you very much for introduction cochair ramsey members of the task force. Im delighted and honored to have been asked to appear on the last witness on the last panel and to be on this panel with my colleagues. I have one thank you and three recommendations. The thank you is to often thanks to the department of justice for opportunity provided by a grant provided to John Jay College leading a consortium of Yale Law School ucla urban institute to launch National Initiative for building Community Trust and justice. Were thinking today about looking forward. This is in my estimation one of the most important undertakings of the justice department. On behalf of my colleagues, a member of my consortium, Brian Stephens on the Advisory Board. I want to express my appreciation. First meeting of the Advisory Board las