 are a lot of bills that relate in some way to some equity, or it could be green-daring, you know, and the public. Is there a thought on how we could identify which bills are important for passing or having an interesting test? We were talking a little bit about that part of the agenda. And it doesn't have to be so rigid that we don't, because if we look at all of the different committees that are represented, you know, just in the room at the moment, and the fact that Kaia's comment at the last meeting sparked a bill that we were working on that sparked a reach out from you directly back to the committee. And hopefully, you know, that discussion will start to move that bill to look different and more responsive to the question, you know. But if we hadn't had that discussion at all, you know, even though we're taking the testimony. So, can I say, one of my concerns is I listen to my family and what's on the agenda. I would fight. I don't want people to just hear bill numbers, and this is where it ends. And I think that would not serve the purpose well that we, I'm going to make sure we get to hearing from people and not just kind of be like reporting out of these are the bills that are in this committee and that committee. There must be a way to do that efficiently so that we get that people have the information when we don't. If I can clarify, I think, as we were talking about in the last, the last public caucus the concept around the bill tracker actually was more for the external public to have a sense that these are some of the bills that relate to these issues. So, similarly to how we had one, you know, I create one for the different kind of five-pot caucuses that are in the broader state, and for the women's caucuses, it was to be able to help people say, oh, I had no idea that there was a bill about accommodation for pregnant women or whatever, you know, like I had no idea that there was a bill. So, you won't kind of have a little bit of a pulse on that. And if it comes up as an important crossroads to a dialogue, I'm sure it will be intersected, but I think the thought was just to get that information there but not necessarily for this to be a sort of, let's go through and check most of all of the stuff that's either on a wall or as a movement per se, generating me. So, from my perspective as a member of the public, it would be helpful for the VAC piece doesn't need to happen here as much as it needs to live somewhere. So, that was the thought, and with that, that was one of the duties of the intern that would come in or this supporter would help to try to identify the type of interaction. And help us, you know, by having that repository. Sorry. Thanks. Thanks for coming. Of course. It would also be very helpful, you know, I've been working on a bill with Tire, with Coach, to have this as a forum to get further input on where, I mean, this bill is gonna change pretty significantly, but that would be really good to get input and this may be a good forum for that. So, and that's the hope, you know, of this, just like Marybeth, you know, putting any problem before us, you know, that's, you know, come to her attention, it might be that it's hanging on the wall in some committee, and sometimes it needs a little inertia to get it off the wall, and this is what this group can actually make happen. So, you know, that's the action part, but until we hear that, and then we hear from, you know, our friends and neighbors, you know, going, yeah, I'm just thinking about that, correct? You know, and all of a sudden, you know, we start that, I'm sorry, filter, whoop, okay. So, see, as I get older, it gets worse, but I'm scared when I'm with that. Yeah. Yeah. I can tell. Yeah. I can tell. I can tell. I can tell. I can tell. I can tell. I can tell. I can tell. I can tell. I can tell. I can tell. I can tell. I can tell. It's not me and Kyra, and I remember someone in her top. It's my name. Oh, yeah. Yeah. But I think we have an opportunity, you know, to really, it's the ultimate goal now. So for next week's agenda, there's gonna be some space for talking about the intern position. Yeah. Will that encompass, like, what are our expectations, and what does the orientation training look like, or what are we... We had the notes from that initial discussion and what we can do is put those last two and actually with the, just the re-announcing of the next meeting, we'd have three sets of events basically, you know, that would go out and hopefully that will help clarify, you know, some of the discussion. And there was a thing in our mailboxes, I know we've got it upstairs, and it was from UVM about their intern, about the program. So we'll try to follow up with this. I think, yeah, maybe we should talk about the intern for that. I think as far as the internship center, it's, I would say that we should rely on that as far as finding an intern because it's definitely, to my understanding, the idea is that it's people who are not necessarily in my career or don't miss the way to get here but working to help from the research surrounding certain but just in possible, there'd be a student for who would be a really good fit but I don't think we should count on it. And I think to me, I guess the intern piece, it seems to me like if somebody is able to take, if one of the affiliated organizations or something is really able and willing to take it on as far as I'm going to figure out how to make it happen to be an intern, it would be a really positive and good group, but it doesn't, like, if that's not something that comes forward, I'm wondering, it seems like a relatively difficult to implement piece and I'm wondering if, you know, have a contingency plan about an intern or, or maybe other people have more thoughts about how the intern piece comes into play. I thought that we would talk about that it might be a couple of people and they would be actually your charcoal to just have all come at the same time. And I may be honest with you about that, but it sounds like there were two different understandings. No, that's why I was going to send out the minutes from that initial discussion because part of the initial discussion was we're really not sure what that's going to look like but we did talk about what might happen, you know, as far as it could be two people but having a budget, you know, and working on, you know, funding, you know, that budget because, you know, like I said, you know, at that meeting, you know, it's not cool to just expect that, you know, because they're getting credit or not getting credit and they're doing it for the experience or whatever that we should, you know. I guess just to say, I think your idea of, like, in women's caucus, we do exactly what you just described. We have so many from the commission on women, like an intern there, take notes and then some of them are networked. They kind of switch off and they take notes and get them back to us and it works out really well and then we send it out to everyone. And there's, you know, there's a little bit of accountability around, you know, and it's not one person. It goes back and forth. Sometimes my experience is that sometimes it's helpful to have somebody put a proposal in front of a group rather than having a whole group. I mean, I would at least have to bring everybody together and spend even half, you know, a significant chunk of that hour with all the opportunity to hear from each other to spend it talking about how to do it, how to have an intern. I mean, that for me would not be the satisfying outcome of getting this caucus together. I don't know. I mean, I'm not going to volunteer and I'm not going to volunteer anybody else, but I'm thinking, is there some way to kind of under-feat people based on what other caucuses are due or what's been said, maybe bring a proposal forward that might kind of be able to more quickly come to a decision rather than... Are you making a motion to form an internship subcommittee? I'm not a working group. I'm a task force. I wanted to, because we also... I'm studying. I'm studying. I'm studying. I'm studying. I wasn't doing that because we decided we're not using our hands. Oh, we are. I wouldn't have made that motion. But I'm just throwing it out there as maybe a way to proceed more efficiently for this group to get to the need of what we really, at least what I would like, which is interacting with each other and thinking with each other. So that's form a subcommittee. There's an idea. I'm a little bit... I'm sorry. It was the last time I was in Iowa. And the first time, obviously, we had... It was the 24th of August. We had something else going on. Did you pick a candidate? No, sir. It was the round one. I just wanted to briefly just give you an idea. Has there been a formation of the other constructs of what we're doing here? I mean, is there a mission statement? Is there a... No, there is. There's not. Okay. I'm just trying to get my head around. My thought as an activist, as a community activist, and also as a coordinator of the alliance, is I envisioned once the legislature was figured out what they were doing, then what we would do is we would come in, come in and present to you and tell you about some of the issues and tell you about some of the policies that we put forward and we update you on some of your statuses, because clearly, just because you're a legislator, you don't need to understand where they are. And we get some feedback and we collaborate and talk about how we can move forward. So, does that fit within the framework with what has already been discussed? And this is the main point. Would it be more appropriate to have a broader discussion on a committee, rather, that would have a broader responsibility on defining the vision and mission of what this group is doing so we can create a proper framework as opposed to just talking about it in turn. Everybody's looking at me like crazy. What I'm hearing right now, though, is that we need to do a little bit more organizational work soon. And so what I'm wondering, based on what I'm hearing, is maybe we have a few working groups that in the next week, a group meets about the mission vision, a group meets about the interns, maybe another group looks at bills and we come back and it's like proposal, proposal, proposal. I just wanted to stress very strongly, though, that the long-term vision should not overshadow very tactical, short-term initiatives that we want to get done because then there will just be analysis, paralysis, and we won't get anything better. But if you're on the long-term vision, you don't know what steps you need to make. Yeah. And I'm not a volunteer for anything. You're just a volunteer. You're just a volunteer. You're just a volunteer. So I guess... I guess... I'm talking about filtering. You know, I'm talking about filtering. Brian, Brian, we're going to have to get one done. Oh, he's good. So, I think some of this is actually... it will be helpful if we can get all of the information that we've had over the last three days and just share it with everyone. Your idea about possibly having a couple of people each look at a couple of those topics would be helpful for us all as well. And as far as the... because that will answer those questions about not, you know, let's say, using a lot of the group's time, you know, doing that... that part of the show. So we've got Lucie. Lucie is going to be willing, right? For you to help write a proposal on the internship? Um, no. I don't know. I just thought I'd try. So, are we talking about putting this out to... well, and I say no just because I really don't have any vision on this. This is why I brought it up, because I really don't have vision on it. For me, right now, to be perfectly honest, if I were to have to do that, it sounds like less work to be the intern myself than to organize getting an intern, which I think is a reasonable thing to have. So this is why I'm not here. If somebody, I don't know if the right person to have vision is a legislator, or the right person to have vision is somebody from an advocacy organization that wants to step up. But yeah, if it was on me, I would just do the intern work and it sounds less exhausting. Yeah. I applied for two interns. I basically said, I didn't apply for two. I just said I'll take interns, and they sent me two people to interview, and they said you can have more than one, and I was going to interview these two interns to see what they were interested in, and I have like 60 plus bills, so I was just going to be like, you follow these, you do this, but I'd be happy to, if I could find one, do that process to have them be our social equity intern. I'm not sure, but I'm just saying, I already applied, and I emailed them and I said, can we meet, and I haven't heard back in two days, which is not promising, but I'm just saying that I'd be willing to help on some kind of internship effort with others. I'd be willing to help on any other working groups, wherever I'm at. So in order to delegate and move things along, because one of our partners being in about five, 10 minutes anyway, so if if Lucy, if you wouldn't mind working with Brian and I, oh wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, she just said, she just said she'd rather be the intern than work on this group, than work on this group, than work on this group, than work on this group, than work on this group, but we just have to say no, this is the quote we have in the boat now. So Lucy, you've been amazing about taking notes. You've been able to be a president for all of this. Coach's recommendation is that we put some sort of like minutes together to be able to support everybody else who's on this list to understand what's up. Would you be able to coalesce those? I think it would be better to have a high level summary and maybe just a meeting that might help just to coalesce this is where we're at. So then you can put up a call to help support Brian, so maybe not in the room, it would be highlighted to you. Exactly. And then do you, minutes from today, minutes from the last three meetings? Yeah, impossible, yeah. Just recognizing that the goal is to get somebody else to do it. That's the goal and the long term goal. And should there be another group that's visioning the vision and whatever? I think there's folks ready to stuff up. I mean, I'm happy to be part of that. I can only be a month later on Tuesday before the next week. Well, I think some of that can be done, you know, remotely. Just because when you look at that 30,000 foot view of notes that we'll have, hopefully that will help bring some of that together. And I'll try to see if I can get the notes from the the first meeting that we had. Yeah. Turn on the chairs. I hear that. So that we have those as well and that, hopefully. I definitely don't want to vision our mission by myself. Because that would be weird. So, I know I'm there's been a sense of the mission, I think, the mission is kind of hanging in the air from the discussions that have taken place from the meeting and where River, from the meeting that we last had with everyone in the room. I don't feel like it's a new shot, but I think you should kind of try to bring into one paragraph or so. No, Charlie, explain it to me. That's why I'm here. Well, but I hear you. Yeah. Could somebody maybe review I don't need to give work to someone. I'd be happy to do it. Could someone review the notes and create a draft mission for me? I'm happy to do that. Okay. And I'll work. Okay, great. That seems better. So, I think we have our charges together. I'll reach out and the Ben and Jerry's as well since, you know, we have a relationship kind of established already. And if anybody here has any thoughts about an organization that might consider supporting, you know, this kind of an effort. Right now, so Curtis, the partnership was 200 and Stepan was 200. I'll give Tabitha a call and Gilter to join you know, those who go. We're a social justice center. I just wanted to say that I have a long process of history and fundraising and communication and also a good connection with the community foundation folks. I know them all. So if there's any way I can be helpful there. Great. So one last thing was there a decision just to get down my notes on whether or not to invite the agency of education next week or other three. I think it was obviously to hold off on it. If I can, what I would like to do is actually go back to the coalition and see, I mean, it might be more helpful for us to start with a letter requesting for a clarification to see how something to start with. But actually, other questions. So the next we have a whole community meeting or say next week. Yeah, Thursday. The time is weekly. Yeah, but the themes will be flexible in the sense that I would hope that vision if we could get to a rotational piece where the we'd reach out and make sure that our colleagues in the House and the Senate can be here at least one or two of those. And so we do try to work out with Mark that on those off weeks would be, we'd still have joint, this joint gathering, but it would be more from an educational perspective. Because they've been doing some good work and it would be great for other people to just kind of hang out and check that out. What we had said last week was that what we would change. What we had said last week was that we would be every other week with like every alternating meeting between legislators and the bigger community so that the bigger community would be once a month that legislators would be every two weeks and we can change that but that's what we had said last week. So can you figure that out? I would add I'm sorry is this what you're talking about? So the legislative series is, some of you probably heard about it we started with Hidden in plain sight of the truth about systemic racism and tonight we have making the justice system work with data. So this is a forum about the history of race data collection in the state as well as the state of implementation and depending legislation that's currently on the wall just to let you know we're also doing a statewide tour, a community tour and we'll be in your community we were in there last evening in fact it got so good that one of the folks that was there came with me tonight so this is my friend Jason sitting back here he's came for the next session this evening and also we'll be in St. Albans on the 29th and Hartford on the 5th of February and the 4th of March we'll be home in Burlington because you know it's the 4th of March that will be town leading right area Bennington, we'll be down to Bennington on the 18th of March and the 2nd of April in the 15th of April St. Johnsbury and the 20th of April in Middlebury I know many of you are thinking it would be nice to have some coordination out front and I do apologize in advance but we were really trying to rush against up on the calendar so we will be reaching out to you and please reach out to me and to the nation for some synergy on the ground in terms of collaborative efforts to get something out so tonight you are welcome to stay around after we close here if you're interested in data are you recording? are you available? no no I'm too busy to record I'm too busy to record well no I just can't save you yes I have a personal issue with a word ally I don't have an issue with you can you please say that one more time because there's a lot of things happening we had a conversation about language earlier and one of the words I brought up was the word ally I was implied by people who might be allies so I have a personal issue with those who might apply the word ally so I don't have an issue with the word ally it's hard to explain I just wanted to make sure the only one I didn't have can I say it? can I say that word? yes yes okay good can we get information on the series yes the the legislative series is on the legislative calendar but I can oh each of the forums they all map back to some of the policy that the Justice Alliance is working on from PR2 which you just passed 145 to 0 H478 which is the reparations bill to S119 H464 which is the use of force bill to H284 which is the race data collection bill that encompasses the remainder of the justice system so what we've done is we put together a series of forums that present the facts and the details in a lot of the perspective that we were able to gain from community as we've presented these forums over the last four or five months up in the Chittin County area so we're just bringing them to the legislature just basically inform some of the decision making processes that are happening here and also hopefully we're kind of we're hoping that the broader community comes in and participates as well so we haven't been making a lot of progress but we're certainly trying to begin to push that effort hopefully in the next session of participation let go thank you so we can figure out what we started with the chairs I think we've come we can say we've finished the third of three components of the we've gotten this thing passed through the first biennium through both chambers which I think is thoughtful we've also we've got some work to do some listing on H478 we'll continue to speak to the members of the alliance about our strategy there we've got a good one, we've already got coach scheming with us as well so I think we'll get it'll be entertaining no matter what happens it'll be entertaining I want to welcome Jason who I'm just here from Denmark he's just hanging out with us very last night on our statewide series which is the hidden play side of the system of racism which is pretty good we'll be in other communities as I just indicated previously I wanted to speak a little bit about H482 H284 which is a justice system data collection which we're really glad to have our alliance partners at ACLU to go on to the table last year so that kind of really as well we're really drilling down into how much the bill itself we'll talk a little bit about the bill mostly I'll just talk about concept in terms of data collection which earlier this week we had some very specific conversations about the state's attorney's responsibility would be responsibility in the data collection here and I'm proud to say that she is extraordinarily supportive of this bill and we've already began the process mapping out strategies where why we began collecting data in the largest state's attorney's office in the state so we're super excited about that we'll be circling around and having we've yet to begin to reach out to folks like Brian Greerson or folks like perhaps folks like who's the new corrections is it something that so certainly we'll want to I think a strategically coach or probably better for us to maybe pop into the racial disparities in the criminal and judicial justice system advisory panel have us sit down with the whole team and I'm proud to say also that we do know that the criminal did produce a report and they just dropped that report about a month, month and a half ago it did include some data collection points that intersect with some of the stuff that we're doing is 200 things that I'll make you aware of at least we're not and we'll talk a little bit about this stuff is that there is a use of force bill appropriate use of force de-escalation and cross-cultural awareness the policy and training as well as integrating a component of race data collection that is associated with the what if and what use of force was used that is that is H-464 is currently under testimony today testimony began on that today I do believe Susana Davis came out and offered some testimony on that today as well as I think we'll be taking out testimony tomorrow they are looking right now for folks who are most impacted by force obviously folks who are directly impacted by use of force, law enforcement as well as those concentric circles that go around supporting communities and those folks obviously well maybe not so much not so obviously but it's a challenge you know it's a challenge you know if you've been impacted if you've been traumatized there's nothing you're not going to see a line of folks about to do it around the corner folks line have to come and talk about it so we realize that admittedly are not equipped to provide that wrap around support that is really required for folks who would need that kind of who would need that kind of encouragement and support and protection frankly because these are very serious issues that we're talking about so I think one of the things that we've learned in this because we're carrying such a heavy load with the alliance agenda is that this kind of precludes us to really be able to do the job that we really would like to be doing in those areas but still we're encouraged because there's still a story to take back to the legislature that basically indicates as the conversation I had with Boyan yesterday is that look there is another testimony to this and that is the testimony of the thousands of lives that were impacted that you will never hear from because they've also been silenced so again proud to have Falco here from ACLU as well I think the the last piece there I think we talked a little bit about 464 well not the last piece but S119 is a mirror it's over in the senate it's the same bill and I hear rumors despite the fact that it has been taken up in house government operations that our senator Sears is considering taking up S119 at the same time so that covers data collection that covers use of force PR2 that covers reparation the last bill is more of a bill that is systemic racism anti-racism bill we'll talk more about that one but it is a short bill so it's not a whole lot to talk about right now because you know how short bills go it could be everything it could be nothing so I'm just going to leave that there's a couple of points of interest that we've had across the other study session has made S54 keenly interested in S54 we want to believe strongly feel strongly that the despite the efforts made on S54 to date the we're still very concerned about the bill we're very concerned about some of the language that's in the bill some of the language that's not in the bill I think there's some serious racial equity and repair and shortfalls in the bill we're talking about taxation and regulation in Canada just for so you know we're acknowledging all of the efforts that have been made to dominate minority businesses and so forth but the bills just basically failed to aggressively take the matter of equity head on and providing a robust framework to offset those disadvantaged categories so we're taking a close look at that the bill in Illinois very, very powerful it's been on the street now for just a little over three weeks and it's already changed the trajectory of the lives of literally thousands of people in the state of Illinois there were 12.1 million people in Illinois and they were somehow they still were somehow able to figure out how to create an automatic expungement I guess language within this particular bill for low level crime so I'll leave that there but I just wanted to welcome you to this whole idea of this data collection I'm sorry this where are we, use of force? oh my goodness, let me go over it we'll talk through it anyway we'll talk a little bit about what do I have here use of force oh, I think I might have the wrong presentation let me just see what I can find I'll keep talking to you as I look so instead of digging for that presentation right now what I'm going to do is just pat him when I ask you to come up because what I was going to do was I was going to do that presentation on the front end and then allow Pat to go on the back end you know what I'll do instead of by powerpoint what I will do is I'm just going to talk you through some of Dynamics 2 data collection I'm going to give you a little bit before you show the dashboard maybe take them to the crime research group's website and show them what the current state of the data are and that would give some kind of framework on sure, fantastic so Pat's going to go about 45 minutes and I'm going to talk to you probably for about a minute or five minutes as far as the background so as far as the background is concerned one of the things that I've learned and Billy we're a part of this effort in the Burlington County area maybe back about 7, 8, 9, 10 years ago and the Uncommon Alliance was around and Susie was away it's actually an honor to have you in the room right now because I realize that you were definitely in the midst of all of those discussions well, many of those discussions that happened regarding the Uncommon Alliance when Chief Shirley was then the Chief of Police in Burlington and I heard Chief Ripple was in South Burlington at the time and then there was the UDL Chief and I think the other one was the Lemuski Chief these four Chiefs what they decided to do was they began to take people of color serious about their complaints about being stopped on a regular basis there was many many complaints that were being brought to then Attorney General Surrell's attention all to no avail so what we did is we started a grassroots effort in the community I shouldn't say we because I wasn't there what they did is they started a grassroots effort in the community in the community and in the City of Chippin County and they began to voluntarily collect data these four agencies that I just named very quickly the state police which is the largest police force in the state which comprises 33% of all of our law enforcement agency officers and they covered 90% of the landmass of the state they quickly jumped in so we had four agencies the largest two agencies in the state and three other Chippin County agencies all collecting data disclaimer I am a police commissioner in Burlington so what happened was this data became public Stephanie Segway who is a great friend of ours who had a lot to do with this race traffic stop gas port that you're going to see in a few minutes she became involved and began to help correlate the information with a professor named Nancy Brooks and what was released eventually was a report and that began the entire process it would be mature to the point where there would be legislation from it came also the fair and partial policing policy development and not to say it did not pre-exist because previously it was residing on the Attorney General's office the model policy was there was talk of moving into the law enforcement advisory board's office there was all kind of conversation about it but then migrant justice would become involved so it would take unto itself a life of its own fair and partial policing policy but here's the deal just to understand where we are is that multiple iterations of this data collection policy under the title of 20, title 20, 2366 would occur our legislature our judiciary branch and house and senate would take multiple staffs that fleshing out what race data collection what track and race data collection looks like in terms of title 20, 2366 as well as fair and partial policing policy which is under the same statute and then title 20, 2358 which is the implicit bias training so that's where all of this kind of grew from and I just want to keep you mindful of the fact that over all of this there is an overarching umbrella that we will continue to come back to and beat drums on until the cows come home is this concept of civilian oversight of law enforcement civilian oversight of law enforcement because we can do all of this stuff great but if the police ignore it and they choose not to collect data if they choose not to do it consistently if they choose not to turn it in if they choose not to train their folks and so on and so forth so I'm going to keep that frame because it's a proper framing because I think it's really the essence of some of the issues that we're challenging today so I will say that to date I think well let me just back up it would be probably 2016 when the state police after having released one year of data and having started in somewhere about 2011 2011 okay it wouldn't be until 2016 that the state police would actually release five years of data happening in 2016 I know because I was in Loyalton when it happened so were you 2016 so they actually since dating down to Northeastern University where Mr. Jack Professor Jack McDevitt and that data was actually kept from us despite the requirements to release it and it was actually reviewed by the professor and there were reports that were released and then finally the data were released we've had challenges with collection of data since its inception and I think Pat will lead to just the problematic nature of the condition of race data collection to this very date now Pat you can just go ahead and come prepared because I think I'm done now but what I'll tell you about after Pat here's this presentation and we'll be pushing up against right about 7 o'clock we originally planned about 7.30 we may be out by 7.15 what we'll do is we'll have a conversation about the proposed legislation that is currently on the table regarding race data collection as well as we may even cross over and talk a little bit about a proposed policy that Senator Babe Ruth just put forward that is pretty interesting it talks a little bit about a character of stick mostly a stick whereby funding could potentially grant funding could potentially be held back from law enforcement agencies so I'll tell you a little bit more about all that and more Pat thanks for coming Pat I can never remember how to say his name properly I want to say Attila thank you thank you so this presentation I want to cover things that are currently produced but it comes from a different angle I've given this a couple of times to a couple of other groups around the state and it continues it's an evolving deck so I'll talk about my kind of viewpoint on why we should be looking at race data with respect to traffic stops and across the country and then in Vermont and then the challenges we're seeing with the data are not really there yet even though we're getting a high rate of reporting from state agencies and then we'll guide into the dashboard which is where I crunched the data that's been coming in from Vermont's law enforcement agencies and put it up on a website to make it accessible to everybody and I'll be showing a lot of screenshots for that so a little bit I apologize for death by PowerPoint and then some future things that we had planned for the dashboard and then a bunch of references at the end so I will share this slide deck it's got a ton of links to some of the references that I had and resources that I had if you said it before I'm super sorry but I don't remember who you were for or what is your role that's good so it was just about a year ago I contacted Mark Hughes to sort of tune me into the things that he had going on with his justice for all organization at the time and started the racial justice alliance it was something I moved from Vermont two years ago from New Jersey I was concerned with seeing a lot of racial inequities happening in the state it surprised the hell out of me so I wanted to get involved with something there my background is in IT I worked in a number of large corporations for my career I'm basically retired now but I have degrees in computer science I was on data analysis database building, data warehouse last 21 years we do a Packard so I had all the skillset that since I retired 5 years ago looking for a good place to focus my skills I was talking with Mark and I said gosh I have no experience or really information for the haunting of the halls of the state house and being on legislators but I would really like to bring my data analysis skills to bear and Josh just tragically stated tragically stated it actually popped out so I've been working on the dashboard you'll see since Mark awesome good question, thank you alright that's my name so nationwide the US public has contact with police officer you're about 20% of American citizens have contact with police officers and the vast majority of those are through traffic stops and accidents so it's kind of our vision our viewpoint as citizens when we face contact with an officer that's usually alongside a road so that's you know if there's disparities in the area of traffic stops that's kind of affecting a lot of us and during the 70s through the 80s and 90s the nature of traffic stops changed dramatically and with respect to in the name of the war on drugs and the war on crime traffic stops used to happen when some obvious safety or traffic violations was happening or there was an accident the police would get involved during the 70s, 80s and 90s that kind of turned around and traffic stops began to become at least half the time in the investigatory looking to see make sure there aren't drug couriers happening, things like that so there was a major switch happening there the New Jim Crow is a great reference to work on this change and not out in many other contexts okay so in light of that starting in North Carolina is credit for being the first to really do traffic stop data collection in this country North Carolina passed legislation in 1999 to do traffic stop data collection and the initial bill they have collects a much broader than Vermont does to this day so they're really the benchmark for traffic stop data collection although you can see whoops here's a there's a group called a standard police project that is gathering and collecting data from all over the country from state patrols as well as municipal law enforcement agencies in one place so we do nationwide comparison of race data across traffic stops in the country and you see they've got about half the states involved here and Vermont's in there but Vermont only has not even what we have today available to us they don't have in Stanford yet I do want to mention this book I was the first to get credit whoops they have 22 million 22 million traffic stops in the database it's going to push them 20 years now and they've never done an analysis of the data that was just piling up so this researcher by the name of Frank Baumgartner wrote this book called Suspect Citizens and if you really want to go deep on traffic stop they can have it collected right that is the definitive word of it I read it with interest so North Carolina they update their website I think it's monthly with the latest data monthly just last week we got available to us Vermont citizens and the legislature got available to us Vermont's 2018 traffic stop it just came to us last week they released their latest data every month on their website here for everyone California's got a pretty good program and they got nice graphics and then I mentioned the Stanford so this is a good starting place to see what else is going on around the country and in that shell Mark already mentioned that in 2014 legislation did get passed in Vermont to mandate the collection of law enforcement data in the state from all state, local, county, municipal law enforcement agencies were at this point required by September 1, 2014 to produce traffic stop data which includes age, gender and race of the driver the reason for the stop if there was a search why there was a search was there anything found in the search and whether there was a warning issued or a ticket or an arrest or nothing at all so this is all language from that is really an amendment to this section of the law that was passed in this time so this did not solve all the problems but it was a great step forward in 2014 so challenges I just mentioned there are long delays it's not entirely clear why it is but the current bill is being interpreted basically by September of the following year the law enforcement agencies need to provide the data so it's a nine month of a lag every year and then I'll show you a flow chart handed to this group called Crime Research Group that massages the data both compliant but also minimally compliant shall I say they tend to filter out any additional data that the agency provides and just limits the data to the minimum so that creates delays we do have some age season states that are still providing no data or very hard to use data a lot of times it will be lacking the data time will stop so here's our 2018 data and all we know is it happened sometime in 2018 so there's a lot of interesting analysis we could do with the date of the year and the time of day that's not enough for many things I've kept careful notes as I tell this data as to what's missing from which law enforcement agency I'm feeding that back to Crime Research Group hopefully they can help us respond to that file formats this is getting better but I just just in the past two weeks I've brought in the analyzed the 2018 data now that it's available and it's 23 different to file formats so every law enforcement agency many law enforcement agencies have their own files they deliver it's usually Excel Excel file and there's 23 distinct formats that I have to adapt to giving the file a side or how they write up the data and the columns the orders of columns what columns they provide and the values they put in the columns so if you think of race data as being black, Asian or Hispanic if you say black you could say African you could say B you could say ELK African but it kind of sounds like our responsibility to create what's it called like a plank fill a lot of that so if you think it's a legislator the law should be much more specific in terms of the format that they should be provided like field by field value by value and Dr. Suguino who did the original analysis has put together a memo with Nancy Brooks to which I contributed to specifying much more clearly what we needed to state this is what we're dealing with now moving on some law enforcement agencies have very small amounts of data it's not their fault they're not stopping they're very small four officers or six officers are constable so they only provide a few rows of data it's just we can't really do an analysis on it because it's not can't do statistically significant analysis it wouldn't be valid to call to point to that that this would be inequitable and I already mentioned often the fields are blank but they're not coded properly this is just a chart to show how things are improving as Mark said anything until 2016 and then started getting back filled it's only in 2017 where we got nearly all of the 78 Ramanuj I think that's all with two or something in 2017 finally they reported something sometimes it was a handwritten sheet with a PDF scan and then the 2008 bar is just was able to fill that in the past few days so you see the Vermont State Police is pretty consistent it goes down but it's just because they've consolidated their barracks so they've been just the green bars of the Vermont State Police they're in there they're reporting to the police it tends to be the shared departments that are a little lag behind in some of the police alright I'm an urge I like flow charts so primarily this is a little frustrating to think about all the file formats because all the data is basically the story of these two systems in Vermont there's one called Spillman one's called Boutford those are the systems the police have on them they're screens and they fill them out and it goes into these central systems for their own reporting analysis and in fact we're now getting Spillman data coming through right to us so there's some 20-90 just so they're coming through the Spillman on Angle which is great check that one off about half the agencies are one format this seems Voutford works somehow they all get chewed up when they go to the different agencies and through the primary sources so we wind up with a logical concept where Angle will also someday we'll just get two files to process instead of 23 so these central systems run by some vendor each 78 law enforcement agencies fill those out and send them over to this group that puts them on the website you can go to this website it's a public website and download their cell files and again there's got a series of them and then initially Stephanie Seglino used for their month and Nancy Brooks Cornel created the database with an internship and they did a different initial analysis in 2016 they published a paper called driving black and brown in Vermont created a bit of a splash they published that in the early dimensions of 2017 they made quite a bit of press racial bias going on in traffic stops in Vermont so that was a database the date and analysis they found in 2016 when I came on the scene last year there was three years worth of data sitting there waiting to be analyzed and assimilated so I got the database from Dr. Seglino and started my own I took all of her data and some rows of traffic stops and I started importing what had happened since from the primary search group and I got 2017-2018 and this is in a database that I've created it's a single MySQL database and I've moved it up to a cloud server now so it's safe and robust and as of last week we got 880-2000 traffic stops recorded in Vermont since 2011 it may sound like a lot but remember the North Carolina is 22 million but this is not where you start to do some real statistics on but this is Vermont this is Vermont statistically isn't there a point where like a thousand more isn't going to change the result that's true I mean it's really starting to level out although I do have some trend analysis you can see how it changes year by year year by year and also it's very on a statewide basis the numbers tend to be pretty consistent if you look at the aggregate but if you compare one of the law enforcement agencies to the next there's why like if you compare all the traffic stop rates and all the law enforcement agencies in Chittenden County or in any county in the state it's all over the map the percentage of traffic stops and people go with that and so from this day to day I wrote a bunch of web code to produce these free charts and thank you for your questions this helps alright so the dashboard I talked a little bit about the history here the day has been around it's been sitting in Excel files it's not useful to do certainly any broad rush analysis Mark mentioned the professor at Northeastern University Jack McDevitt and analyzed all Vermont state police but he didn't go there when it came to taking all those individual law enforcement agencies and trying to aggregate and do a Vermont-wide analysis it took some like obsessive, retired to do all that work and then so so the raw data isn't that useful up there on the website so I talked to Mark Hughes and he said, gee could you put up a chart you know let everybody let every citizen of Vermont pick their local law enforcement agency and view their the data there could you summarize it across the years and get trends and could you make them such that any racial violence violence or profiling would plop plop okay, I think that's it so on November of last year we had a meeting over in Burlington where I rolled out the initial version of this dashboard and it's out on the VermontRacialJustice.wordpress.com on the home page scroll down the home page and you can get to this on it and and browse it to your reader and again I have a summary across all years for state police and shared department and other police agencies and I have your your trends for all of those and I find they have a comparison you can't help the comparison within each county of the agency so yeah it's a it's a long word okay well if you go to this website it's the data itself available it is not it's not good so you want to play with these files I want the possibility to yeah it's on my list it's on my list it's not good it's not good it's not that satisfying so I'll show you on most of these charts 36 time I'll show you one but the data I capture here around stop rates so one the initial thing you want to ask is are a person of particular racial growth being stopped more often than how they're reflected in the population so if 1% of Burlington are black drivers and they get stopped 2.8% of the time that's suspect there's something going on so that's the first thing you look at and then there's two ways of looking at that I'll describe and then there's a percent of stop there male drivers because studies have shown that black male drivers are stopped more than white male drivers as a percentage of them and then once the person is stopped that's when it gets really interesting once a car gets stopped what percentage of stops are resulting in a search and are the disparities there yes if there's a search is there a contraband actually found no not nearly to warrant all the searches so I'll show you those stops resulting in a arrest or a technical warning so those are the basic charts you'll see with different slices and vices as we go through here for different models so here's the first one so to go to that the top link when you go to that web page and you ask for a summary this is the summary and any of those summers you pick and then all of them are on agencies and this is the one that's got pretty consistent because we've got so much data now so we don't have white drivers here because white drivers would the bar chart would be off the slide but these would give very flat so white is like 99% 96% and there's not 95% but these are the interesting ones in Vermont so about 1.8 1.8% of drivers but they're stopped at 2.7% of traffic stops for white drivers Pat, can you tell us what qualifies a driver in his research how are you getting at who a driver is at census as opposed to census as opposed to this number of 1% of drivers yeah that's a problem and this view is a little problematic as a result of that so your first reaction will be well let's use census figures but studies have shown that even though Black residents of the community may be 3% and drive less than 3% of the drivers may be Black or Hispanic groups tend to be driving less than whites as a demographic so census is not perfect we use it where we have to better and what we've used in most of this data is department of more department of more vehicles traffic accident data to capture some of the racial makeup of the person driver of all accidents it's not consistent but it's closer because you can kind of understand that if the percentage of people getting in accidents well that's probably a pretty close percentage of drivers unless you can imagine why one demographic would be worse drivers but that's kind of the benchmark for the the standard for determining the blue but it's not perfect it's not perfect and Sebastian will do whoops I'm going to back up one oh he has and before we're going further so you'll notice the data talks about white, Black Hispanic and Asian this is problematic so we've got to track the race of the driver but I think we all know race is a cultural fiction and you can't define it clearly right you try to rigorously define race in a way it's a fair question some ethnicities we know are subject to bias in racism like the Spanish people that's not the Spanish it's not generally considered a race it's considered an ethnicity just Arabic peoples and other ethnicities so but officers perception of the driver's race is what matters when it comes to considering whether they're going to act in the bias plane so what counts here is what the officer puts in a little check box so we kind of so because officers today or anywhere else don't ask the driver what race you consider yourself to be they just there's check box as there all could be who the heck knows how they figure that out and but that's the day we have and we have pretty good confidence that we're correlated with any sort of bias that's going on right so that so the traffic stop data we get it has six race categories white, black, Asian, Hispanic Native American and unknown you don't you won't see Native American in this data because there's a consistent way to cross everywhere not enough data to even look for it's it's a category that police have put there but they rarely check off that or whatever reason they just don't want to go there we don't have enough data to report Native American so we don't unknown it's not helpful so we don't look for that so if you wind up before white, black, Asian, Hispanic it's what we have is it useful to say anything I mean I've lived through this because I know right so I mean I don't know it's helpful to comment at all why the design is as it is because I mean this this was the decision that we did not want police officers asking people what roadside or what race they do I mean that was actually coming out of the road yeah it creates a hold of itself people would say we well I'm just saying I'm just trying to explain and it came out of initially the voluntary the police agencies that said they were going to collect this data on a voluntary basis Burlington, South Burlington UBM, Winooski initially and working with a consultant to talk about how can we create data because we want data to go along with all the stories that we've heard and that so a lot of this was built on their experience in those agencies and then the state police began to do it and it was just determined that we did not want officers asking that question but it has inherent flaws and what did I tell you I mean I asked numbers of years back boy I would love to have somebody do a study if there's a way to do a study of going back and comparing what the officer perception is with what the self-identified identification would be by those who had been stopped I mean how consistent or inconsistent is that in there it's never been done and there were reasons I mean I'm trying to remember all the reasons why I wasn't done but they're pragmatic and again you raise these questions of trying to try to engage people in a conversation they might not want to be part of but that's part of what led to it being officer perception as opposed to anything else because that's what it's a star it seems to be quite a concern I'd be curious is that what happens in other jurisdictions does that recall I think this was basically built on whether how that was being pointed out I think it's also really important to remember how this all started because again it was there and this was specifically a community of color in Burrington and frankly it had much to do about black people quite frankly and as what I may have not been there but I know Act 134 in 2012 represented with the Wadi was where this entire thing kind of mushroomed and I think that yeah from records that I was able to see is a lot of conversation about this whole idea of discriminatory practices against specifically people of color, black people specifically and there was also some I'll share some more with you a little bit but some talk of the remainder of the justice system we'll talk more about that later but somehow or another we kind of started to just focus on police but as we started to talk about police it was really important that not only do we not have a requirement of folks to this conversation about what color are you but also we didn't want it on licenses either at that point I don't think that's ever changed I don't think it's on license it depends on some an interesting aside in North Carolina they decided when they're talking about passing this legislation there were actually two groups that came into alignment the probe of people concerned with racial disparities and the people where we were defending the police they said we're going to collect this data and we're going to do it right so that we can show definitively once and for all there's no bias there's no disparity so there was a whole other cohort in the legislature legislature they were survived so moving along this is just a point on any of the dashboard bars you can hover over there in your mouse or click on it and it will give you the numbers so you can see where that percentage came from in this case across all Vermont across this time period 2010-2018 we had 819,000 stops recorded and then 22,288 of those stops involved like drivers so that's just to show you those tooltips over there this is just this fond view is called the racial disparity index sounds like a big word scary word but it's just to show it divides this this number by this number this number by this number stops divided by the population to show that the whites they're 99% of the drivers 99% of the drivers I don't know so it's not I'm sorry it's pretty easy but the blacks if you divide 2.2 and 1.7 I'm sorry I'm talking to you guys 2.7 divided by 1.8 so that just shows you there's a disparity there and it's pretty big for blacks Asians, yes, are consistently stopped at a lower rate that even whites science doesn't apply and Hispanics without typically more than even blacks as a percentage of them here's so to kind of come down off of the Vermont summary I'm from Windsor County so I picked the the Royal Timbericks Vermont State Police and you see that some law enforcement agencies have more dramatic results than others so for Royal Tim there's a disparity there for blacks three times, there's about three times compared to the driver percentage and Hispanics almost four times for what the parts of particularly the highways with the 991 that are covered by and these are the numbers behind it alright so moving along to some of the other data we talked about searches so if you are stopped what is the percentage of time that your vehicle is searched by race so you can see here this is another disparity that pops out on blacks I searched at a rate nearly four times what whites are Hispanics are high so those officers presumably they're working the theory is that they're more likely to find something or think of your reason why did you stop people to cover to search their car to search their car on a higher rate where it gets really interesting is to say okay there's a tool to say about how you got the three times courses where it gets really interesting is okay so are they finding things in the car that resulted in arrest and there's a lot of their search are they finding things that are worthy of arrest no they're actually what we call a hip rate for finding contraband it actually turns out to be low so this shows my no means are officers justified in a higher search rate because they're not finding any other delay so this is across all of Vermont we're seeing here and you know your mileage may vary depending on what law enforcement agency you're working at but some of them are pretty dramatic and you had to think about what blacks in this family said 10% roughly 9 out of 10 people who are stopped and have a car search have nothing and what's the impact what's the impact of that how do they feel about the police when they're stopped and searched and searched and searched arrests and tickets arrests are a bit of a similar story this is across all of Vermont blacks are arrested at a higher rate the Spanish are arrested at a higher rate tickets are kind of across the map are kind of not a significant difference between and I didn't even put warnings in there warnings tend to be pretty much consistent although some studies have shown get more warnings and tickets for low minority groups also because it justifying some justification did the stop in the first place alright getting toward the end here these are the trends this is an interesting one for the drama so you can see DSBL all of Vermont state police are looking at these two charts again the search rate and the head rate for the arrests so the search rate is interesting here so the search rate so the white search rate the red bar of the white search rate is very flat all the time and the black search rate was going up and up and up until they I could say until the reporting of the data started coming I could say that but in any case it's been going down and it's kind of hard to read but finding things is still pretty consistently lower although it does tend to jump around these tend to be pretty small numbers which is why it jumps around we don't have hundreds of thousands of these numbers so they do tend to be a little more variable from the year alright and I did mention you can compare law enforcement agencies within your favorite county again I live in Windsor county and this is the disparity index so someone like Roy Watson stops blacks you can pick your county and pick your race and it will pop the chart up for you in Windsor county black drivers so Roy Watson we talked about being three times three times the rate how much they drive you can see some are worse and some are better and all of them are over 100% so that's another set of charts that's the 7th one on the page but I can find a little county over there and see a similar thing I can do that this is a similar chart for arrests you know the date is small and this is just a show the date is small for some of these so sometimes you'll see no percentage at all and they'll be announcing if there's fewer than 20 stops we won't show the date at all so sometimes 0% or the 0 if it doesn't show anything then there's not enough data to show it's not statistically significant it will be unfair to show it so thank you for your work and I appreciate your service the frustration just as a person of color this really brings to heart that angel coming garbage in garbage out and it's really hard to disseminate data that is not consistent and I was happy to hear that you were part of that memo coming from this book book's consortia the information speaks for itself when you do that but in order to really get to a meaning part of the question consistent I know very well what you're talking about and I could expand on even what we proposed and what doctors have proposed based on what I've learned from what's gone on there's a lot more that wouldn't be onerous to the public we don't want to make we don't want to make it trying to stop applying for a mortgage we've got to make it doable but you're right about the quality of data it's got ways to go I have some good questions internet data and just being about the other forms of data that aren't considered in H2A4 and some of the comments we're hearing about the file formats and other things that just is a practical consideration I mean you can hear some of the legislators thoughts on this I feel like mandating in statute the specific file formats and stuff is way too granular yeah you can tell me about that but in terms of mandating does that mean something that you think about doing the rulemaking or so as we think about and want to make sure it's uniform but also not being overly restricted in statute which is really hard to change or adjust to I'm just going to add there's something that I think as we're having these conversations we're thinking about it's a practical matter can you repeat the last part where you just said over-prescripted is that what you said? well I think you can speak this when sometimes in statute there might be really good intentions but they're also for very good reason as you're starting to see how this is implemented practically there might be a need to make a small tweak to how something is being implemented or something like that then there might be a need to go through the entire legislative process again which is overly cumbersome and wouldn't allow for some of those those changes to be made they more I guess without having to go through that so I think that's just something I'm interested in trying to think about what the best way is could it be made as a matter of regulation? I don't know how it works yes, that would be more like a rule but then that also but it may not even necessary I don't know I'm fine I'm five years out of this I'm chair of the Judiciary Committee when we did this I sponsored the legislation I were chair? yes, for 10 years yeah I don't mind saying that's why this happened because in fact I'm thrilled with what you're doing because I can tell you if it weren't for Stephanie Seguino we wouldn't have had any of the analysis we have the initial analysis of the state police we had to appropriate money to get the state police to do an analysis and I'll just point out one thing that happened along the way the initial state police analysis when we looked at it we went no, this is not going to work because when you look at the way it's higher higher stops for blacks lower for Asian, higher for Hispanic and compared to whites they combined everything together into one category and we go like the implication of that or the consequence of that is that in fact you don't get to see the higher disparities for black men for Hispanic men and so it took another whole push to try to get the state police analysis to disaggregate that and basically we had to basically say if you don't do that if you don't agree to do that you will not be getting your funding to do this because we're not willing we're not interested in having bogus analysis once we've finally tried to get data and then have a bogus analysis so it's like one piece after the other having to be pushed and pushed and pushed I'm kind of lost on my drink but I was just starting to oh in terms of how to achieve it you do not, I mean again to try to put a form to try to put a form is just a mistake because just for what you said they need to want to change that to get through the whole process of getting a bill through this place is a big deal but what I'm remembering that we tried to do I don't know if this what I'm remembering was trying to get the criminal justice training council or an entity that had some influence or could actually had levers over all of the law enforcement in the state for them to try to impose or facilitate whatever you want to do but at some level require law enforcement to have more consistent data and frankly it took a long time to get the reporting of data from the Sheriff's Department from the local police departments the state police and the five were always the leaders in this but it's so so you don't to try to put something granular in the statute it seems attractive at a certain level but it's not and even regulation but I have to I mean I'm not in that world the way I was five years ago but trying to find some middle ground of how to get the department in there and of course where nobody wants anybody at the central point of anything to tell people what to do whether it's schools or police or hospitals or anything else so God help us when we're trying to get something done consistently across data bases it's a big challenge and I don't know what I would say I came to sit on this because I was much wanting to hear what the proposals are in terms of like I said I had to step back as I got asked to take on other responsibility but statutory granularity on this is not that's not something that is actually being currently the the I don't want to it's my point there's a book that I was talking about and the data and law data and aggregated data nationwide so before we go to the bill first I want to acknowledge and thank Pat for his work and also we've got another one the same as Jeremy we've been trying to rope in other folks who are interested in data into the alliance as well so the alliance is working really hard and this is one of the areas where we're working but it's indirect alignment with all of them that we're doing because it does converge if you think about so this is really if you walk this back to its origination this is right out of active before and this is right to the heart of title 2023-66 and 2023-28 and it speaks consistently to all of the work that we've been doing to include Act 9, the racial equity director I think that one of the things that I appreciate about the work that we're doing is even in United Nations this report that I'm holding from the General Assembly Human Rights Council I think it's pretty clear the working group urges member states to adopt a human rights-based approach to data by providing a disaggregation self-identification transparency privacy participation in accountability and collecting and storing data so this is from the United Nations they also said that the working group urges states to analyze, disseminate, publish and publish reliable statistical data at national and local levels and to take all other related measures which is necessary to assess the situation of individuals and groups of individuals who are victims of racism racial discrimination xenophobia and related intolerance so the work that we're really doing sometimes the necessity is obfuscated because of we are as the racist nation that we are in a lot of ways our federal policy is not reflective of global standards like the United Nations which we walked out of last year the other one of the kind of tenets that we've been operating off of us is the accurate and complete the fact that accurate and complete consistent data are required for fear and for all of us so that's really what this is all about if you recall Bill back in with the Uncommon Alliance the whole genesis of what we're talking about was black people being discriminated against by law unfortunately that's where we started what we found in the course of our work at 9 when we finally decided well before at 9 what we figured out with at 54 was thanks to the hard work of many of our I'm going to plug this one here what's your name what's your name this one here Brenda Segal I was trying to pop up the I think you need to slide that whole yeah he wants to show you what we found excited to see it uh oh I don't think I'll be surprised but I think you know he's really absolutely he's not so bad I don't know so while he's working on that I'll just say that the what we discovered in Act 54 was is you know as we were putting together this racial disparities in the criminal and juvenile justice system advisory panel we were also putting together an attorney general and human rights commission's task force so this whole conversation about data that's broader in a couple of different ways one reason why it's broader is because it was always intended that we would be looking at the entire criminal justice system not just law enforcement so if you look at if you look at Act 54 Act 134 in 2012 Susie's original intent was is that we were going after prosecutors but we're going after them but we were you know we were looking to collect data across prosecutors and judges to include the correction system as well that was her original intent we recall that really crappy report that came back from this crime research group on sentencing and incarceration I call it the $20,000 report because it's infamously the only $20,000 we've ever spent on this kind of work but that report was horrible we asked for the law enforcement advisory board to provide us recommendations on reporting incidents and they came back to report at the end of that year and said they didn't have time to do it we'll never revisit it this is all as a result of Act 134 we also looked across into other areas of the justice system looking for data but what happened sequentially in 2014 and 2016 through Act 147 and Act 193 respectively every time we came back to addressing Act 20 and 2366 increasingly we focused more and more on law enforcement and law enforcement alone what our initial challenge was our initial goal was really if you really think about it those who were there there was an attempt to just prove that there were disparities that was the initial attempt and I think we must always and we can never forget because I think what would be harmful for us at this point is as we're past that now we're no longer trying to prove that there are disparities because with Act 54 what we discovered with the attorney generals and the Human Rights Commission's task force was that there were racial disparities in housing in education in employment and health services access to include economic development as well as the criminal justice system this is what that might be used as the other adapter there so this is what that report indicated and that's the that's the exact reason why the following year we would pass Act 9 and we would ultimately end up hiring Susana Davis to do the work so we have sometimes we have to remind ourselves why we are where we are I want to where's that I want to show you just briefly this is the crime research groups website now all we're talking about right now is we're just talking about race we're talking about traffic data right now for law enforcement my view there are data across the the remainder of the criminal justice system to include prosecutors and judges and corrections and we have not even touched yet there is no, there's nothing mandating that data be collected all we're talking about is one very very small minuscule piece of this race data collection component and that's only in the criminal justice system so we haven't began to talk about housing and education in employment and health services access and all of the data points high impact high discretion data points which will need to be collected across those systems in where those data will be designed so this is that conversation but let's just go for the sake of this conversation and just take a very quick look and the reason why this is important because I'm trying to explain the magnitude of it's really difficult to manipulate this name without understanding this is just first of all illustrating the difficulty in finding the data first you have to find out that there's this side cause of crime research group then you find out where it was and you go to data downloads okay what do we do from here folks so there's this race tracking data here there's another click okay so now what we have is we have 15, 16, 17 and 18 so you can see already how problematic this is because there's we could immediately distinguish our inability for a comparative analysis or even trend analysis at this point but let's just get happy and go over in 2017 and this is what we get in each one of these are spreadsheets at least the ones that are in green and this is how you get to your data let's just say hypothetically we're going to go to my political cause I like Tony Fakos so this is what we come up with you would be able to simply download an Excel spreadsheet that's it that's all you get are you getting my point that is the condition that we are in you know so we may we may not want to overly prescribe but we do want we want a certain amount of specificity when we talk about publicly available you know what I mean? we don't choose our battle so to date what we're looking at now is the fact that for a second that this right here that's Rajni this right here this dashboard that we put together is the alliance this is the only tool available in this state to provide any data comparative or trade analysis on those 79 agencies for those five years hard stop that's the significance of the work that we're doing but it also illustrates it illustrates the work that must be done okay it illustrates the fact that with a $6.2 billion budget we've got to figure out how to make some wiggle room because those data are that important not just for law enforcement but also for the rest of the justice system you were going to say something about data collection and I want to use you as a segue because you want to talk about that Bill should I talk about it? yeah let's get into that I'll give you just a very quick summary of what's under consideration right now so how's judiciary or testimony that just last week I believe so so there's a bill that was introduced last year by a number of members of the committee that is looking for data collection that is disaggregated by race from the state's attorney's judiciary and DOC this was 464 284 oh 284 and that would require annual reporting from those agencies about their findings to the legislature so that's in the simplest form that is what the bill would require and it's something that what is internal analysis for each agency they have to provide the data and then report it back and provide what that is and provide a report and so I think one of the things that's been really interesting over the last few years the council state government as part of the judiciary investment project has been working very closely with DOC specifically at analyzing their data which has been a really really intensive process but it's also yielded some very interesting results that is helping us understand better how our system is working especially when you're looking at the high rate of returns to prison for revocations when you're also also about to illuminate so it's about 8% of all admissions to prison in the census population are revocations so that's something that was new that's something we probably should have known but it's new because they're able to do that in-depth analysis and work with DOC so I think that's a good indicator of some of the value we get in this data that's awesome because they're technicalities that are returning majority people to prison so that's just a quick update on that bill I know how the judiciary took very kind of quick initial testimony from some of the stakeholders saying that we need more resources to accomplish on this so that's one of the many parts that might take hold into the justice ring that's been billed is going to be introduced tomorrow morning by Senator Judiciary I've not seen any drafts of what that might look like no one has I think other than Senator Sears at this point he's not out there at this point I don't know how that's going to get rolled out but they're working on moving that bill very quickly and they're going to be introduced tomorrow out of committee by the end of next week so that gives me an update so I just want to give folks a quick update on that bill so it's how the judiciary is looking at it and I think depending on what happens with the justice ring that's been billed it might be taken up again especially in conjunction with what might come over from the side who did they who testified in the House when it was introduced me was the Sheriff's and State's attorneys to the Judiciary and DOC and they all literally got out there together to testify they understood why people were requesting maybe you can help supplement it if I characterize this incorrectly at all but they understood why people wanted that data but they also said that it would require resources to do what was being asked of that bill did you say it turns out that it's not a problem that's part of it so we also I've had some conversations with Maxine as well as Barbara as well as Coach and others and it seems like there's certainly some interest in the House judiciary and I think when Maxine said Maxine's out this week Coach there's an oversight that's selected in the President so what she indicated was is that they were actually they were indeed going to hold waiting for a Justice Reinvestment to find out where they would come out of I think that my concern, Coach, is that with Justice Reinvestment 2 is not really getting strong indication that data is going to be necessarily although I think it's definitely a radar, I don't know that it's central to policy suggestions that I've heard over there. So it is central in the recommendations they put for it one of their four main recommendations is that we need better data collection their focus is more specifically on DOC and they said that's because that's the data set that they were working with and I think I understood a lot of the limitations that they were facing in terms of actually trying to get to what they wanted to get to and when we talked to them, we put out that there are similar limitations across the system but that they were they thought they were less able to speak to those because they were not able to see that data so it was one of their top one recommendations that we needed for data capacity they asked specifically the recommendations for more data capacity with a DOC and to help support that work with Reinvestment funding that was an area where we said we could make that recommendation be expanded or made in that case so I'm not exactly sure as anyone I think at this point what exactly that recommendation is going to be and I think it's also going to be a conversation that doesn't need appropriations to make some form or another as well Coach, has there been any conversation about some kind of build some kind of centralized data infrastructure capacity to facilitate some kind of shared resource maybe some kind of buyback structure where just like all other IT is kind of farmed down to the state, here's this massive centralized backend database that aggregates, correlates and provides that presentation level data across all agencies depending on how they want the structure as opposed to every agency just saying I need to secure independent appropriations I'm not aware of anything and the thing is it goes back to what Bill said earlier when he was doing this directive work in judiciary people really like their silos and mobile control people are still pissed off about that and when you think about that generalized statement what the interest in creating a unified database because I I understand where we need to go with that we've dealt with the same thing with education and human services why aren't we pre-k having consistent data so that we could better perform our work just like we need better consistent data to do the work around racial justice and social justice in general the reason I ask that question is because I can assure you whether it's Rick Gotham or whether it's Mike Shirley or whether it's John himself or Matt or whomever the primary pushback we're going to get and we already know who's going to pay for it it's about time who's going to go in because first it's a manual exercise without a manual exercise so somebody's going to have to go in and figure out what are those high impact high discretion decision points within those particular agencies who's going to go in and collect those data and how's it going to be formatted and then how's that process ultimately going to be mapped back to an automated process to maybe a back end so all of that stuff requires a lot of planning and technology to so what that means is the only way we're really going to be able to circumvent that well maybe not the only way but one of the major ways that we could potentially circumvent that is let's find a common denominator let's find out where all of this stuff what are we really doing this for and I keep ending up on Susan and Davis's desk because that's the reason why we started all of this work to begin with is this is about going to mitigate systemic racism across all state government agencies as Act 9 says but in getting to that point that Pat brought up in his discussion along the way is let's get back to basics consistency you know regardless of whose desk it resides on if there's a bunch of crap coming to the desk we're not going to be able to disaggregate that data the way that you know Pat was talking about you know we've all built databases okay and one of the things that we know is that if you design the fields and you train the folks on what we want in those fields when we get ready to pull out the queries we can get just about anything we want so it goes back to what Pat was talking about was the design and so probably right now just listening to the testimony that we've been getting the state police and next are probably the most consistent database you know that we have you know it's national every officer that enters any data into that side of the system doesn't need that same way the state police the coach I think what we're talking about now is because we have to be able to separate the conversation so that's why the state police down is better so what we have to do is we have to be able to separate the conversation on infrastructure so there's an infrastructure conversation but then there's a business process conversation the infrastructure as far as infrastructure is concerned a database is a database a network is a network is a network so there's that there's a cloud so all of that stuff remains when you start talking about standards as far as the applications are concerned how data gets from an application to a back end database that really when you start getting into those standards you really start to talk about business processes like with the police what we've decided is those business processes are titled 202366 did you stop did you search and did you define those for them at a very high level whereas with the state's attorney's office at least what we're proposing now and this is obviously open for debate because obviously what we're going to do is get a bunch of testimony and get this all fleshed out hopefully but there's questions like the number of percentage of cases that resulted and accepted please the lesser charges identified by original charge charged by or individual in the age race gender and so forth the number of percentage of cases in the state's attorney's office so these are all those fields and when you get to corrections it's in here when you get to when you get to housing we'll have to define those so these are all those are all business what I'm talking about as far as data is concerned I'm talking about the infrastructure because that's where you're going to get the pushback one I mean as far as the this right here we can define these as far as you know what are the high what I mean by high impact high discretion is again we're talking about implicit bias we're talking about systemic racism right what we discovered was with the police that there were certain data points that we would be able to collect that if we and we don't want all of them because that's analysis paralysis what we want is we just want some of them so we can first initially it was to prove something was there but now so we can begin to continue to look back at that data on a recurring basis providing that it's consistent to determine if we're making progress but Mark I guess the point that I was trying to get at there is that we spend millions of dollars on that infrastructure and in spending hundreds of millions you know it's millions okay for Vermont okay you know we haven't done a hundred weeks because I know because you can tell by the crap they come back but the the point being no well but the thing is if you buy stuff on the front end what's going to come out is crap on the other end so you know that's the point that bothers me a little bit sure and it isn't I understand what you're saying you know too much data just as bad as not you know that piece I like the concept of looking at what is our goal and what are we attempting to achieve from that piece and I guess in the ask we're already funding those systems and I think it's having people like Pat and Stephanie to look at and utilize that and take the resources that we have within the state like having people like you and Dr. Squeenow saying okay this isn't you know super high tech I mean it's a question of collective will I guess yeah I think it's a bit mark not just civilian oversight and others who have some expertise who are willing to engage see that's where the rubber is throw because every time that we vast you know one of the agencies doesn't matter housing you know education or whatever we end up with stupidness here's one of the things though and I'll close with this and maybe take maybe a couple final questions for us to not do this here's what it's costing us we're currently not doing this okay so here's what it's costing us is because our strategic in our collective approach to addressing systemic racism is as follows what we've decided to do and I think our best example is public safety in specifically law enforcement and we've decided to do is a series of things and it makes sense and it's also effective first of all when somebody knows that you are effectively collecting data when they know that you're paying attention their attitude changes their actions change we just saw that depicted on a graph here earlier when people know that somebody's watching just by virtue of the fact that they know that you're watching it's psychological but it's logical that's not necessarily a good thing you can go the wrong way it could go the wrong way but before we talk about the wrong way let me just talk about make the point first I'll offer you an opportunity to chime in so that's just and it's actually a side note so it's really not the central theme of what I'm trying to articulate what I'm really getting ideas is there is a policy initiative underway with our law enforcement there is a massive effort underway to implement policy across all 79 agencies we call it the fair and impartial policing policy it is the other part of title 20 2166 2366 there is the range data collection part but within that same paragraph there is something that talks about fair and impartial then there is this training component not only have we talked about the idea of academy training but also one time block training as well as in service training so there is a massive investment that's in play right now to every 79 all of the 79 agencies why to augment this approach that we're doing to do what to address systemic racism the data piece is just a measurement but if you can't measure it you can't manage it and what you're doing with all of this money back here on these other two fronts I have no idea but it's not effective because we are over here on the outcome not only can we not measure it in housing, education employment, health services access in other places but we can't even measure it in law enforcement because nobody is collecting the data research, nobody can do a comparative analysis only nobody can do a training analysis only except us you're going to say something? there's a few assumptions but I experience that once I become aware of my subliminal biases that I might start overreaching so I can imagine a future where the cop won't pull over access but even though he has the instinct to pull over and then let the criminal go when in reality that would have been a hit I think we're sorry to interrupt you I just think we're so far from that Bowman and I think we really have to fight to get to that equitable place I understand the pendulum swing but I mean we're so far from the moment where black people are not impacted by police officers before everybody jumps on Jason this is not funny I'm not jumping I am not jumping on you that was my first reaction to what you said but also I was going to say about analysis I don't know if that's what you were talking about I was thinking that when the agencies know that they're going to be held accountable it's less likely that it's going the other way it's more likely that they are checking themselves more than they would be in terms of health I think the lack of accountability has been a massive issue across the country and probably world bias just speaking to that piece I'll come up here so people don't have to think it hurts my neck so when I was on the Burlington school board we really kind of laid down the law around issues of disparities because we were seeing such disparity in the discipline of youth and then what happened was I was on the diversity and equity committee parents started coming to the committee representing different new American communities setting to us the teachers are letting our kids get away with it too much and really what do you mean and so we heard what you were talking about which is there were some teachers who were calling children monkeys like that you know what I mean well on one hand but on the other hand there were teachers letting children of color get away with it so much that it was actually undermining the parents' efforts at home to discipline them it made me the point you said sometimes when you challenge people about something they overcompensate and so really what came out of that was a discussion about what how should we raise children as a community and how do we support families and so ultimately I don't think it was a bad thing to call people's attention to it you just have to be there to support those workers when and so if we're going to do this we need to pair this with training of workers like police and court workers and teachers and everyone else so that just supporting ongoing training like some of the teachers had said to us when you bring us in and you do one diversity training to check a box and that's it then there's no guidance on how to interpret it and what I always thought would be good is if we had some way to work with the union or some way to work with the teachers to have supervision like social workers do where they get to meet in small groups generally and like process things like oh I did this with this kid what would you have done so I'm just putting it out there see one of the things that I'll share with you in this works I think in all areas of let's say public you know the domains and when you mention like social work best practices are best practices education police work what have you if something is working really well you know in in an agency within that spectrum why aren't we replicating that and that's what you know kind of gets to me because you know we know it's working and if you've got an engine that runs really well why would you make an engine that will be here not run you know it's a very simple metaphor but that's like the brush your teeth metaphor you know nice that one you know we don't go around telling people we just brush our teeth once a year no it's not we tell them you need to floss and you need to oil pull and you need to scrape your tongue and then you need to we pushed up against you that I was going to try to get you out here and send this to your team but I think that's that rest of the story you know that's what you were talking about as we start to disaggregate you know what we have versus what we want we start to see that occur absolutely thanks one thank you I just want to say that this conversation is incredibly important it's why we chose it for this legislative series so thanks for all who come out you know thanks to the legislators I mean definitely for coming out and showing up to be back the next legislative series coach is on the so we'll be back here in this room on the 13th of February that'll be there'll be reparations so reparations in Vermont reparations in Vermont is that a thing so 13th of February thank you all