Public Safety Committee (PSC) Meeting Transcript – 9/22/2025 Title: ATXN-1 (24hr) Channel: 1 - ATXN-1 Recorded On: 9/22/2025 6:00:00AM Original Air Date: 9/22/2025 Transcript Generated by SnapStream ================================== Please note that the following transcript is for reference purposes and does not constitute the official record of actions taken during the meeting. For the official record of actions of the meeting, please refer to the Approved Minutes. [2:04:45 PM] It is September 22nd, 2025. It is 200 for this meeting. We are meeting at city hall, located at 301 west second street, Austin, Texas. And we have a quorum present. Present is mayor Watson, vice chair Laine and myself. And we will now go to public communication. >> We do not have any speakers today. >> Perfect. Colleagues, item two, five and six are related, and two of these require us to go into executive session. For this reason, I will be changing the order as long as there's no objections. Starting with items one, three, four and seven, leaving items two, five and six to the end and I will return to the dais after executive session to close out the meeting. Is there any objection? Alrighty. The first action will be to to approve the minutes from the special called public safety meeting on June 2nd, 2025. I will accept a motion to approve these minutes. Made by the mayor. Seconded by vice chair Laine. Without objection. Meeting minutes are approved. [2:05:45 PM] Meeting minutes are approved. The committee will now take up item three. A briefing on Austin on Austin. First pilot program for response to high acuity calls using a multidisciplinary team. Thank you all for joining us. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam vice chair, mayor Watson, I'm doctor Marc Escott. I serve as the chief medical officer for the city of Austin. And it's our pleasure to present to you our Austin field integrated response support team, or Austin first team, which is designed to provide multidisciplinary response to high acuity mental health crises. But before I begin, I'd like to introduce our collaborators, our our team who's been working hard on this, starting with chief Luckritz. Thank you doctor. Thank you, doctor Escott. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, mayor and council member. It's an honor and a pleasure to be here and to to be able to join my colleagues [2:06:45 PM] be able to join my colleagues here presenting to you what an amazing program that everyone has come together to, to build. You know, just a few comments from my perspective. And, you know, this program is really the the pinnacle of a lot of work that's come together from truly some amazing colleagues that are all sitting behind us here that are the true workhorses behind what we've been able to put together here. It really builds off of existing partnerships. All of these entities have worked together in some capacity or another over the past few years, and really had some amazing successes in the different work that we've done. It was the strength of these organizations and brings them together and allows us to really use those strengths and capitalize on those things that make each of us very unique. Since since I've been here past few years, you know, the directive that I have heard is really focusing in on those social determinants of health and really figuring out how we can get to the root cause of some of the problems that we have, both in ems and in our public safety partners here. And this really is the logical next step. And so and [2:07:46 PM] logical next step. And so and I'm really looking forward to the seeing this program move forward and the partnerships that we're going to continue to grow over the coming months. With that, I'll turn it over to don Hanley from integral care. >> Good afternoon, mayor Watson. Thank you for having me. Council members, thank you for having me. I'm the chief operations officer and vice president for integral care. We're the local mental health authority here in Austin, Travis county. And thank you for your ongoing funding of of our expanded mobile crisis outreach team. In my mind, this is an iteration of that work that we've been doing together with our first responder partners with ems and APD since 2013, and in this particular project, we're able to focus on a specific population where I think we bring all of our expertise together around some high intensity calls, and we'll talk more in detail about that. But we're just grateful to be at the table, happy to work alongside my my colleagues and our experts in the field and really putting mental health first with a care and compassion, compassionate response. And I will hand it [2:08:47 PM] response. And I will hand it over to our chief. >> Thank you. Don. Committee chair. Mayor, council member. Pleasure to be here. I look forward to this. Pilot. As you know, the city is always looking for holistic approaches to either deal with mental health, deal with the unhoused crisis, all of those things. And this is it. This is a team that I'm really excited to see the data at the end of this pilot and see where we go from here. Is this something that can be integrated? Can we make it bigger? Can we make it, you know, sustainable where we're doing good work? And I'll tell you, we've got a great team here. It's fantastic to work with all of these people here. I feel very proud. And the workers in the back thank all of you. You guys have done all the heavy lifting and I appreciate it. So I'm really excited. Once this pilot gets started and we're back here in front of you talking about our successes and maybe our losses and what we learned. I'll turn it over to doctor Escott. >> Thank you, chief, and I'm going to move forward with our slides here to intro our program. So I think everyone's [2:09:49 PM] program. So I think everyone's aware of. >> Both. >> The local and national challenges that have been experienced in dealing with individuals that are experiencing a crisis. You know, the significant adverse events associated with law enforcement response, but also with ems response. And our goal here is to develop a plan to deploy a team to minimize the risk of those adverse events across our community. It's also not surprising that law enforcement agencies, ems agencies, physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists around the country have made statements like this that our mental health crisis needs to be focused on patient centered, person centered responses and ensure that it's individualized and that we, you know, provide that multidisciplinary response to ensure that we're meeting all the the various needs. So first, some of the challenges that we have, we all know that when you call 911 in this [2:10:49 PM] when you call 911 in this community and many other communities, now you have choices. So the initial triage is the person who's making the call. The question is, do you need police, fire, ems or mental health? And these are the various outcomes or the various paths that individuals may take that ultimately are experiencing mental health crisis. Some of those will, you know, go with the fourth option and go straight to the mental health clinician at c3 may go to ems because the complaint is something which sounds like it's a medical in nature. Or the person says that they want ems. That may result in ems responding alone, ems plus fire, ems plus fire plus police or through our community health responses through our c4 program. And similarly, calls may go to APD and then be determined that there's some mental health component, either prior to dispatching or after officers arrive. And then other components are added. So this [2:11:51 PM] components are added. So this is part of the challenge that we have. And part of our goal, part of this, this multidisciplinary team is regardless of how it comes in, there's a representative on this team from each of those paths. So as you all recall, in 2019, the city received a report from the meadows institute regarding our responses to mental health crises. The goal of that report was to ensure that we have rapid responses and improve both the safety of of our patients and the safety of the community through enhancements in that response effort. So some of the things which have been implemented since the meadows report, the APD chief's mental health program and response advisory function, mental health training for our call takers and dispatchers, mental health integrated dispatch, sustainability of zo. Expansion of m-cat, collaboration with APD crisis intervention team and our [2:12:52 PM] intervention team and our community health paramedic program through atc, ems, as well as the community outreach in collaboration with name. As a result of some of these interventions, in particular the addition of call center clinicians, or c3, and this data represents January 2019 through February of 2025. We had a decrease in emergency detentions, 44 to 62%. Decrease in arrests, 37 to 58%, and average on scene time of our law enforcement officers by 51 to 66%. So significant improvements since the the implementation of some of the elements of the meadows institute report. Also, it's important to understand the multidisciplinary team, the the team that we have, the team that we see up here is already part of the response. So, you know, part of what they do. You know, my office, my team does the clinical guidelines and credentialing and provides the [2:13:52 PM] credentialing and provides the oversight over the clinical services as well as quality improvement. Ems has the community health paramedics, long term case management, our chip responders, which is our mental health community health paramedics, and our c4 program, which triages those lower acuity calls integral care, obviously has the program, the c3 program. So our dispatch, the 908 crisis helpline, as well as the co-response with with APD and now APD, all officers receive 56 hours of mental health training and de-escalation. They also run the crisis intervention team and the cares team. So here's some of the data that has been collected between 2022 and 2024. This is after the meadows institute report. So during that time period, APD which which staffs the the public safety answering point, which is where all the calls come in to 911 process, 867,430 calls. [2:14:52 PM] to 911 process, 867,430 calls. Of those, 11% of those were identified as mental health related. So this may be mental health related because the person said it was mental health related. The call taker identified a mental health incident or it ended up being a mental health incident at some time during the call. Of that, 97,171 calls, 15,310 or 16% went directly to integral care. And that c3 program, of those that were received, 86% were resolved without police involvement. At all, 7039 of those were m-cat were deployed. 85% of those responses resolved without an arrest or a transport to the er. So it was successful diversion away from from those two places, atc, ems handled at least 19,000 of those calls. There may be there are likely additional calls, [2:15:53 PM] are likely additional calls, and of the ones that went to APD, 11,226 resulted in a pod or a peace officer emergency detention. So ultimately, why are we doing this pilot? Well, the our responses to low and moderate acuity. Individuals in crisis has worked quite well in terms of the successful diversion, the avoiding of the air transport, avoiding of arrests. But where this team identified the gap is our high acuity incidents. So these are individuals that have a severe or a severe crisis. There may be a high risk of harm and, you know, some sort of imminent danger. Now, I'll be clear that, you know, this team, this three person team is not going to go in when there's a gun. They may play a role in that scene, but we'll have other primary response. But these are this team is designed to respond to those where there is concern for violence or there's active [2:16:55 PM] for violence or there's active agitation. That indicates a significant risk for harm or escalation. So we brought together this multidisciplinary team and all these people behind us to identify data sources, to process the data, to analyze the data, and come up with recommendations for how we should proceed to address this gap. So that team has recommended that we have a multidisciplinary team that involves a paramedic, a mental health clinician from integral care, and an officer from APD, that all three of those individuals respond together in a single vehicle. They recommended pilot dates and times, as well as location, that we conduct continuous quality improvement, as we historically do in our ems system, and that the responses are both identified by the call taker through dispatch, either APD or ems, or the team [2:17:55 PM] APD or ems, or the team themselves. Identify calls to either be added on or when they encounter individuals who meet the descriptions of high acuity, they can self initiate calls. So after processing the data, it was clear that our our cluster of high acuity incidents was located in the George sector, the downtown sector, which is bounded by mopac, lady bird lake, I-35 to the west, or sorry, I-35 west, mlk, and Enfield road. Here's a map of that. So it's it's the downtown area. So our plan, our plan is to launch this team in mid-october. It'll be one unit Monday through Thursday, and the initial hours of 8 A.M. To 6 P.M. Now, these may seem like unusual days and times, but when we look at the integral care data as well as the APD data, these are where the highest numbers are in terms of. [2:18:56 PM] highest numbers are in terms of. Pods, as well as calls for mental health emergencies. We will do this in a six month duration. For the pilot phase, we will process the data and present the results to to council and to city management. So this team has identified core values of safety, collaboration, dignity, compassion. Again this is patient or individual focused and a holistic approach. By bringing together this multidisciplinary team, the impacts are to enhance or build on this collaborative approach that we've had to have this integrated, multidisciplinary team, which should help us to increase the opportunity for de-escalation by adding the component of our mental health clinician as well as paramedic, all responding together. We also intend to optimize the care pathways. So part of the beauty of our partnership with integral care is it allows us for robust ability to do the follow up to ensure that we're [2:19:58 PM] follow up to ensure that we're tracking individuals that we encounter and that we're intervening and preventing the revolving door that we've seen year after year in terms of mental health crisis. We also want to ensure that we are efficiently utilizing resources, improving public trust and again, decreasing adverse outcomes of these interactions. So our goals, again, minimize the use of force, ensure patient safety, reducing those repeat calls, improving the care linkages across the continuum of care, and ensure that we're providing that whole person care. So the wraparound services that we know are important factors in these crises, our roadmap, again, we've created this team. We have initiated the training process. We've got some additional training coming up in October. We will launch the pilot in the George sector. We'll evaluate the data as it comes in, and then we'll recommend a report back to council regarding recommendations for future expansion. So some information [2:20:58 PM] expansion. So some information briefly on the training that has happened so far. So first off, our pilot team, our individuals from APD, atc, ems as well as integral care are experts. These are experienced individuals who have been responding in and working in this mental health crisis space. We had our initial training on September the 4th of 2025, six individuals from APD. So this represents people assigned to the team as well as backups, in case they are unable to participate in the team at any stage. They're on vacation or out sick or something. Five from atc, ems, two from integral care, as well as a number of supervisors from each of the entities involved. So some of the topics that were covered, legal considerations. We talked about capacity and consent for treatment. We talked about some of the updates from the last legislative session associated with the peace officers [2:22:00 PM] with the peace officers emergency detention. We reviewed atc, ems, and APD policies in this space, covered de-escalation, trauma informed care scene safety information about sedation, if that's necessary. And then this team went through a series of scenarios of of different circumstances that they may encounter and then held debriefing session. Some of the presenters, my staff, my physicians and myself, APD officers from negotiations, hostage negotiations and crisis intervention team, as well as some of the integral care trainers and clinicians. Additional training October 2nd and 16th. These will cover sops, dispatch procedures and auto dispatch. Some decision making, how errors happen and how to prevent errors in decision making, as well as some additional scenarios and case reviews. We'll have an ongoing training plan, which include case reviews of cases that this team is responding to, some [2:23:01 PM] team is responding to, some additional scenario based training, quality improvement based training, as well as wellness and debriefing, collaborative communication and trauma informed care. In addition to the response team itself, our APD and ems teams are working on refining the the call taking and triage processes. They're working on how to tag these calls that individuals are responding to so that we can better try to identify those mental health related calls early on in the future. So these communication personnel will obviously be trained on those those new procedures when it is complete. Some things that we're tracking, our response times, our scene times, the staffing requirements repeat interactions. So if we have frequent utilizers, obviously we want to track those and identify how better to intervene to prevent that that [2:24:02 PM] intervene to prevent that that repeat interaction tracking dispositions and outcomes, injuries to personnel, any adverse events, as well as diversions from arrest or jail, emergency detention and emergency room visits. In addition to those things, we have assembled a community advisory group which will consist of downtown Austin community court, downtown Austin alliance, the homeless strategy office, the sobering center, and individuals with lived experience. This. This group will advise us on strategic planning, identify any blind spots in our our response plan. Ensure that we maintain that connection with the community, that we maintain transparency and ultimately that we have feedback, positive or negative. Our next steps of this project is to evaluate this pilot phase. You know, we'll continue to receive that that feedback from the community advisory group and then discuss scaling. That scaling may be scaling into different sectors. It may be [2:25:03 PM] different sectors. It may be scaling into additional hours of the day or additional days of the week, but that's going to be based on the data analytics so that we can ensure that we're scaling appropriately. And again, ongoing outcome improvement sorry, ongoing quality improvement and training. With that, I'll pass it over to you, Mr. Chairman. Again, this Austin first and our goal is to turn crisis into care. >> Thank you. Thank you very much for the presentation. Colleagues. We have any questions? >> Yeah I might yeah. Let me I'm not sure it's a question. It's more just asking for a description. That's a great presentation. And and I'm very pleased with the movement on all that. Having said that, tell me how you see a typical day working on something like this. And when it's all said and done, what do you think we're going to what's the what's the outcome we expect? Let me ask it that way. Instead of stuttering around it. >> Thank you. I'll give you a [2:26:05 PM] >> Thank you. I'll give you a response and and then ask my colleagues here if they have something to add. The typical day is this team come together checking in and and going out on the streets. >> Together. >> Together. This is a three person team in a single vehicle. They will have access to the APD computer system and to the ems computer system. They may be sent on a call. If they're not sent on a call, they're going to be actively reviewing both the APD computer aided dispatch system as well as ems to identify. Is there a call that may benefit from us either taking over as the primary, or at least providing mentorship and direction to to folks that may have less expertise in this area? In addition to that, they're going to be driving around this sector. They're going to be looking for individuals who may be experiencing a mental health crisis that may be agitated. So [2:27:05 PM] crisis that may be agitated. So if they can intervene, de-escalate things before it even becomes a call itself. >> Okay. Yes, please. >> Chief mayor, I think it's important to note, too. One of the things is public safety partners we've talked about is this small group of people that are are high utilizers. And so as they're looking and not just being dispatched, but being proactive in the work and identifying and, you know, three people from around main headquarters comes to my mind, yeah. How can we reach out and see what needs to be done for this person? Not waiting for a call to come in, not waiting for them to be lying on the street. How can we do that? And I think this is a great team where we can start looking at those high utilizers again, we talk about that 80 over 20 principle. It is a very small number. And so I think this is a good group that can start looking at that. And we can really start making some movement on some care for these people. >> That's great. Yes, chief. >> I think one of the things for us that we've talked a lot about is that this is. >> This is a pilot. And as we've seen in so many other [2:28:07 PM] we've seen in so many other things we've done, I reference back to what we discussed during budget, some of the changes we made in the ems department last year with how we respond with single units and recognize some synergies and some changes that we wanted to do and how we identified them. And I think that this project, this program, this pilot will have a lot of those things. Same things happen where as we evolve over the coming months, we will continue to refine the individual strengths of the different organizations and see where those synergies are and identifying what how best to utilize this, this team and what we propose here today may not be the final outcome that we propose in six months, depending on how it is that that this evolves, it's going to be a learning experience. But it's you know, we're confident in what the outcomes are going to be. >> Along those lines. Do you want to say something? >> Yes. I was just going to add that on one of your earlier slides. I think it was slide seven. It really shows the existing outcomes of our of the of the c3 work being fully integrated with our first responders. More than 50% are right about 50%, you know, the diversion. So that's kind of [2:29:07 PM] diversion. So that's kind of looking across the the kind of globally what we're serving now with this particular team. It's it's more focused. So what we would hope to see is similar outcomes with this group that doesn't typically respond. Right. So it's a more intense service. We're having that follow up. We have the experts there on the scene. So it's not waiting. It's not where's the follow up. It's all in real time kind of happening and getting people connected. Hopefully we're going to still continue to reduce those inpatient admissions, but get them into that outpatient ongoing care, which is what's going to help stabilize. And then through our chip and through the existing wrap services that we already have, kind of pulling those services in. So this is kind of not the group that's going to carry them for care, but it's the group that's going to intervene, stabilize and then make that handoff. >> That's helpful. And so I want to follow up. And because I think I hear what you're saying, I just want to make sure as you're as you're going along, you're anticipating [2:30:08 PM] along, you're anticipating already because of the history that we're dealing with. And you know what? What we hope this brings us. So you're anticipating certain types of outcomes. And is that part of the analysis that you indicated. Is that what you're going to do is on a routine basis, say, let's try this or let's try that so that when the time when we get the six months down the road, we will have actually piloted. This is a pilot, but we will have piloted, piloted a number of, of of approaches. >> Yes, sir. And I should say there is no roadmap for this particular thing because it's not been done before. There's plenty of jurisdictions around the us that has co-response, but they don't respond to these kind of incidents because they're high acuity. So part of what we're doing is we are [2:31:10 PM] what we're doing is we are generating an initial plan. And part of the reason for the 100% review of cases is so that we learn lessons early, and we have an opportunity to tweak things to make it better as we go, so that by the end of the six months, hopefully it. >> You figured out a whole. Yeah. Yes, sir. So, so but maybe I missed something and just didn't know or I just don't understand when you say other jurisdictions have done things, but this is different because it's because it's high acuity. Acuity. I think I understand what that means, but tell me, make sure I do. >> So there are other jurisdictions that respond with the three groups that we have with the mental health clinician, a law enforcement officer, and a paramedic. Generally, those respond to low acuity and moderate acuity cases because the high acuity is they're dangerous, right. So part of what our team has done is they've trained each other, [2:32:10 PM] is they've trained each other, right. We've ensured that our paramedics and our mental health clinicians, you know, understand, risk, that they're appropriately trained, that they you know, our goal is that the paramedic and or mental health clinician are going to take the primary. They're going to be up front the vast majority of the time. If there is evidence that things are escalating and there's a safety issue, that's when the APD officer may take the lead. But it's to ensure that we have that balance. And, you know, these are some of the circumstances where the other jurisdictions don't respond to those. It's generally a traditional law enforcement response. >> Got it. Well, thank you all. And thanks everybody that's been involved in this. It it's it's welcome. And I appreciate the level of thought that's gone into it. And I'm excited about what it ends up teaching us. So thank you Mr. Chairman. >> Vice chair Lee. [2:33:11 PM] >> Vice chair Lee. >> Thank you. Thank you so much for this presentation. I really love seeing the collaboration. I also I'm glad that we're seeing a pilot on high acuity cases. I think not only will that improve our response for those cases, but we'll learn lessons by tackling that. That will help our response to low and medium acuity as well. So I really appreciate you all working on this in this way. Have we previously I know there was information in the presentation about the successes of managing low and moderate acuity, mental health crisis crises. Have we previously had a presentation or access to data that would help us to see in greater depth the successes? And also, I am always interested in the extent to which these this data has been disaggregated. I want one of my key concerns is making sure that our services are reaching our entire city, and that doesn't start with the pilot program that starts. But it does mean continuing to [2:34:12 PM] it does mean continuing to analyze the successes of the things that are going well and where there are opportunities for improvement. Thank you. >> Thank you, vice chair. We are working on a response to the council resolution from last year, which should be coming soon. Part of the challenge that we have with the data is that part of the data is an integral care. Part of the data is an APD, part of the data is an ems. So the beauty of this collaboration, all these people behind me is to help sort out how do we get that data together so that we can more accurately track cases we can identify and, you know, disaggregate data appropriately so that we can provide better public policy based on better data. >> Do you have a feel for when that might be available? I'm not looking to rush anything. >> Response or the data integration. >> The ability to look at the [2:35:12 PM] >> The ability to look at the data, such as we currently have on those low and moderate acuity cases. I mean, if if it requires additional time, I'm totally fine. I just. >> It will require some additional time. The full integration will require much more time, but my hope, I think our hope is that by the end of this pilot phase, that we've got those data streams together. >> Okay, so at that point we would get a report on the results of this pilot and also the low and moderate acuity results. >> Doctor Escott, if I may. So we have done some presentations on the mobile crisis outreach team, our integrated work, our seated in 911 are the c3. I think just not too long ago here at a public safety meeting, we were doing an update on that project. We can certainly bring that back. And we do quarterly reports because our turned into the city on that data and how we're doing in that area. And I [2:36:14 PM] we're doing in that area. And I think that might answer your question there. So you can see kind of what we're doing. But what we're presenting today is slightly different than that. And so that data will come forward. >> If we could just chat at the end for a few minutes, that would be great. I am also wondering, is integral care our only mental health provider partner? Are there other partners for the other parts other counties that are part of Austin? >> So integral care is the local mental health authority for Austin and Travis county. So we are serving the city and the county and this is our only area. >> Okay. So all of Austin and all of Travis county, correct? Okay. Great. I have a question about this. I think it was page nine. Slide nine, the one that looks like this. And it has some data. Yes. Numbers. So I see at the far right 13,143 calls resolved without police involvement, 7039 responses. If I add that up, it's about 20,000, and it comes out of a [2:37:15 PM] 20,000, and it comes out of a box that has 15,000. Can you help me understand where those numbers at the far right. Yes. Relate to the other numbers. Okay. >> I can start if you want. So the the total that were referred to c3 is the 15, three, ten of the 15, three, ten, 86% of those were resolved without police incident, which may include the 7039 responses. Did I say that right, don? >> You did. So some a lot of those calls are actually resolved on the phone. So we don't have to dispatch a team. So these are only the calls. So if you look at the the first box you'll see the total number of calls coming in. Then you see the number of calls that they think are related to mental health. And then the portion that actually is diverted over to the c3 clinician. It's not all of the calls in the universe. It's a subset. And we wait for dispatch to go through a [2:38:16 PM] dispatch to go through a screening, determine which calls they want c3 to take. C3 picks them up. So this is a subset of that data. And the majority of them are like I said earlier were are resolved on the on the phone with the individual. And then we do follow ups. Or we can dispatch our own mobile crisis outreach team to respond in the field, which is why the 24 over seven funding to take that field response 24 over seven is so important. That will allow us to even grow that number larger. >> So 13,000 plus 7000 being 20,000 and being 5000 more than the 15 310 that we see in the other box. Is that because the 15, three, ten is only calls that required dispatch, but then the ones to the right include both with and without dispatch. >> So they could have taken they'll take the call and then they're going to dispatch the field team. So it's counting in both boxes. >> Okay. It's just surprising to me that 20,000 being more than 15,000. >> It can be. Yeah, it can be in both. [2:39:16 PM] in both. >> Yeah. >> It's a duplication. >> All right. Okay. >> All right. >> Thank you, thank you. You also mentioned still working on some of the triage and dispatch procedures, which I think is great. Obviously they'll need to be continually refined for some time, but how far out do you think you are until you've kind of arrived at a set that is 90% how you want it, or some sort of substantially complete level? >> Well, thanks for the question. Part of the challenge that that we have is that on the ems side, there's a scripted triage process. So it's easier for us to tell, you know, low moderate to high acuity on that. The challenge we have is, is triaging and the other pieces. So part of identifying, they call it a keystroke, I think where they are the call takers can press a button and Marc it as a mental health call. The team is responding to. Part of doing [2:40:17 PM] responding to. Part of doing that is to piece back together what are the circumstances that led to this team responding, right, so that we can better map what's likely to lead to a mental health call? I'll tell you from the APD data that one of the the highest rates of mental health call is APD call for trespass. >> Sure. >> Right. So it's not always intuitive that this is a mental health call until you identify the pattern. >> Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you for your answers to all my questions okay. >> Council member duchen. >> Thank you. Can you guys hear me? Okay. >> Yes, sir. >> Perfect. So I just had two questions kind of following up. One was about the data and going back to that same slide. So it looks like roughly about half of calls don't get a dispatch to ems, to integral care to APD. Are those considered to be low acuity [2:41:18 PM] considered to be low acuity calls. Is there even a category lower than low acuity calls that we're measuring for calls that can be sort of just addressed over the phone, if that's what's happening? >> So again, part of the challenge that we have is that the data lives in different silos at the moment, right? So we know that ems gets at least 19,000 calls that were coded as mental health. Some of the calls because the mental health related calls may include individuals that had effectively a diagnosis of mental health. That's a different data set, right. So it's likely to be more than the number that were identified by the triage process as mental health. In addition to that, we don't currently have a way to identify redundant counts between APD and ems if both of them responded. So this is part of the dirtiness of the data at this stage that we're hoping to [2:42:18 PM] this stage that we're hoping to resolve. With this collaborative team behind me, so that we can provide you a better flowchart in the future. That's very clear. This number went to secondary triage to integral care ems or APD. And then this is all the interactions that happen after that. >> Okay. Thank you for clarifying that. And I'll look forward to the future data set that you guys will be able to produce. The other question I had, and I may have missed it in the very beginning part of the briefing, and I couldn't quite tell from the presentation. But how did you all arrive at this conclusion that there is this gap, either by the data that you've got, even though it's imperfect or through anecdotal reports from your different silos that you're talking about, how do we figure out that that's where the gap lies in the high acuity calls? >> So part of that is, is based on what's been identified as [2:43:19 PM] on what's been identified as best practice for responses, which is a three person team. But when we look through our data and our results, when we have a two person team, you know, with with ems and not responding to a significant portion of these calls or m-cat alone, in some circumstances, we're doing very well in those circumstances. In the circumstances of high acuity, which is more likely to get an APD only response, at least initially. That's where we felt the gap was, because they are not benefiting because of the the risk nature. They're not benefiting from having the ems component and the mental health clinician component. You know, in some circumstances, it's it's difficult to tell which one of those three is needed, right? Because what may be appear to be a mental health crisis may be a medical emergency, or it may be a combination of those things. It [2:44:21 PM] combination of those things. It may be a individual with substance use in addition to mental health. So having that three person team in those high acuity circumstances cuts out the the challenge that we have with response in normal circumstances, which is APD or law enforcement agency, shows up, they make contact, they make a determination if and when the scene is stable, and that's when the other responders are invited into the scene. This helps to eliminate that because they're all traveling together. >> Both to the council member council member lane's point earlier regarding the dispatch and to your point as well, you know, one of the real strengths of this that we hadn't had in the past is bringing all of these entities together in one vehicle with co optics on everything. You know, historically, you know, ems knows what ems gets and APD knows what APD gets and etc. You know, and so on. And so both as we think about, you know, how we. Model this in the [2:45:24 PM] know, how we. Model this in the future, as well as how it is that we're going to determine how dispatching works. You now have three people in a vehicle that have optics on everything and can provide feedback internally in real time to what they're going to respond to, but also feedback to the pilot to say, we're not getting dispatched to this type of call or we're not getting dispatched to that type of call, or we did get dispatched to this type of call, and it was not the type of thing this necessary. And so so it really does help us move forward both from a data collection, from understanding and protecting all three entities, focusing on their strengths, protecting the officers, protecting the paramedics and so on, as well as helping us really frame what the future looks like for mental health response. >> One thing. >> That makes sense. Sorry. >> Go ahead. One thing I'd like to add is maybe a starting point for the tracking is not all the calls that we take at c3. Can we dispatch or handle? We go through and do an assessment. Some of those look like they're more intense and they need law enforcement response. Or maybe we do [2:46:25 PM] response. Or maybe we do suspect there's some medical. So this team, this would be the perfect opportunity to hand that to this team where they get that that in-person response from all the experts around, all the issues. >> Okay. That makes a lot of sense to me. And I'm looking forward to the results. And I appreciate all the work you guys have been. It sounds like this is a very thoughtful approach. You've looked at the gaps in the APD data and responses, and are trying to figure out how to get better eyes and data, as well as better responses. So I'm looking forward to what you come back with in six months. >> Thank you. >> Thank you. Any more questions? >> Can you do it? Can you get us data? Six month data faster than six months? You know you're going to be asked for that at some point. Yes, sir. >> And we'll be communicating with city manager's office along the way to ensure that we're tracking it. >> This is great. >> Absolutely. Thank you. Oh. >> I just also wanted to really [2:47:26 PM] >> I just also wanted to really thank you. This is so helpful to understand the picture across all of them. And also this work is so valuable. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. >> And thank you for the presentation. Thank you colleagues. Without objection, council member qadri. Yes, that we bring back up item number one, and he'd like to vote on those minutes. >> I, I move, I move, I move. The council member qadri be shown voting in favor of item number one, as it will not change the outcome of the vote. >> I was gone too. Can you have me reflect? Can you please have me reflect that? Also. >> Let's do a separate motion then. Since I've already done qadri. Sure. >> So move. >> That all and then I'll. I'll make a separate motion. Council member duchen at the appropriate time. >> Okay. And so yeah, we'll show council member qadri is voting yes on the minutes. >> Great. Thank you chair. And thank you, mayor. >> Mr. Chairman, I would also [2:48:28 PM] >> Mr. Chairman, I would also move that council member duchen be shown in voting in favor of item number one. It will not change the outcome of the vote. >> Second, and council member duchen is shown as approving the minutes of the meeting. Colleagues. >> Thank you, madam chair. >> Colleagues. Now we will go into item four, the briefing on reexamining Austin's police use of force, including follow up from our may 19th, 2025 public safety committee briefing on the same topic. Welcome, doctor Engel. >> Good afternoon. >> Good afternoon everybody. >> There you are. >> Thank you chief. Good afternoon, mayor and council members. It is such a privilege and a pleasure to be back here in your beautiful city. I'm robin Engel. >> Currently right. [2:49:29 PM] >> Currently right. >> Behind you. Oh thank you. And they're directing me on how to be able to run the show here I'm robin Engel I'm with the Ohio state university. You might have heard we have a football team. Oh, I'm not supposed to say that here. Oh, I was just kidding. >> Wow. It's been a while since I've seen a witness lose credibility so fast. >> Well, in fairness, I am new. >> There's nothing fair you can do at this point. No. You're done, you're done. >> And I and I have a longhorns hat. >> Well, yeah, well, you know, you started wrong. >> You know, I'm all. >> It's going to take you a while now. >> Too soon. I see that. >> Doctor Engel. The only way you could have made that worse is if you were going to talk about the cowboys right now. So as long as we can refrain from that, we'll be all right. >> Well, I think it might make you feel better that I'm a Bengals fan. And so I had a rough week. >> Yeah, yeah. >> We'll take it. You'll take that. You feel a little better now okay. Very good. Well thank you so much for having me back [2:50:31 PM] you so much for having me back today and chief for you as well. I did want to come back to the committee and give you an update. You may recall the last I left off, I had spoken to this committee. I believe it was may 19th and gave you an update on what we had done as a part of a use of force review. So what I have planned for you today is an update on where we are on a series of recommendations that I made at that time. So my presentation will be relatively brief. These are are literally the topics that I would like to cover here today. So just very briefly, that summary of the briefing will go into the status of our use of force task force that was created as a part of those recommendations, some policy recommendations for the use of force that we've been working on and update on where we are with training, accountability and oversight mechanisms, data collection and reporting. And then overall, our process and timing moving forward. So with that, I'm going to try to [2:51:31 PM] that, I'm going to try to reestablish my credibility moving forward. >> Give it your best shot. >> I will do my best. I know I'm digging out of a hole there. So I'm going to wow you right now. Just as a reminder, a summary of what we brought forth to this to city council. Before, I had done a series of interviews, meetings with representatives from the office of police oversight. I spent some time observing officers out in the field, did a thorough document review of use of force policies, training, etc. From APD, and then also a data review. That data review actually caused me some concern. I wrote a memo and sent to the chief with a series of summaries and recommendations. Those summaries, you may recall, I noted that there were some inconsistencies across APD and all aspects of use of force reporting, accountability, oversight, and training. While these things obviously were [2:52:31 PM] these things obviously were there and were present and issues. But we developed a plan for moving forward. So how we would address those inconsistencies, in particular, there were significant issues with the data reporting, the reliability and validity of that data and the statistical analysis that had been done to date, and potentially a likely overreporting of use of force, which was an interesting prospect, but related to to the data. And as I explained to the council at that time. So for chief Davis, I provided her with 11 recommendations, the first of which was to create a use of force task force from members within Austin police department, but also a member from apo, so that we could take a deep dive into these issues. Collectively, that committee was put together, that task force. We put that together in the spring. And when I was here in may, that committee members had already been named. That task force has 12 members. [2:53:32 PM] task force has 12 members. There are three co-chairs, myself, assistant chief Mike Rogers, I'm sorry, Mike chancellor and assistant chief Lee Rogers, chair of that committee. We have 12 members representing training force, review unit, internal affairs George sector. We have patrol officers that also serve on this all ranks special investigations unit, some folks from planning and research. And then of course representative from apo. That task force met through the spring and early summer. And one of the things that we started to work on immediately was a recommendation of a series of policy changes related to use of force. And so that's where I'll spend a little bit of my time today with you folks talking about what some of those recommendations are, just to just to tell you right now that use of force policy and changes to it are still in draft form. They've been circulated to a number of, of influential stakeholders to [2:54:33 PM] influential stakeholders to give us feedback on that draft, and we'll be moving forward with it relatively soon in the next few weeks. Chief, any comments on that? >> No, you're doing just fine. Okay. Terrific. >> What one of the first things that we did, if you take a look at this powerpoint, you'll see the current general orders. There are general orders 202 was called response to resistance followed by firearms leg restraints control devices, taser inquiry reporting and review. And then finally in our to our audit group for general order 212. So all of these policies were separate, although they sat in the suite of general orders 200. But they were separate policies. One of the things that we've done is we've consolidated these now all under one policy. Now, while it's obviously heavy and thick policy, if you will, the reason for consolidation was so that we could really focus and recenter the entire suite of policies on the most critical [2:55:35 PM] policies on the most critical pieces for use of force. And that is non escalation and de-escalation tactics. And that way this comes across in every single aspect of of this new use of force policy. We did make also minor changes in language throughout. I was pleased to see that the bulk of these policies individually, the core components that meet best practice, were already there. It was really just a matter of bringing them together, streamlining them. And as I said, making these updates to the language, but that recenter on de-escalation and non escalation in many cases goes beyond the policy itself. And this is the core and critical component of it we want to reinforce in policy. But these are activities that need to be reinforced on the streets by our first line. Supervisors reinforce across training not just a single de- escalation training, but across all trainings. It needs to be literally top down and [2:56:36 PM] to be literally top down and throughout the agency. And I'm going to talk about how we plan to do that as well. There's also a new conceptualization and a recategorization on the use of force. I mentioned to you previously that you had four different levels of force, and that force, when it was a level of force, what it meant was that it was just triggering the accountability and oversight mechanisms within the police agency. And so depending on which level it was, there was a different accountability flow and oversight function. We looked very specifically at each level to make sure that the accountability and oversight function was appropriate for that level of force. And we focused very specifically on our least severe uses of force, including empty hand control techniques that do not involve injury or continued complaint of pain. And we have now reconceptualized and reorganized these specific different types of force so [2:57:38 PM] different types of force so that we can put the the impetus back to that first line supervisor, our sergeants specifically, so that they have oversight as well. And it doesn't just go to the force review unit. And I'll explain the the reasoning behind some of these changes as we move forward. And then finally, that focus on oversight, accountability and transparency is is throughout. So let me give you just a thought here on the de-escalation piece specifically, this is the cat training. Icat stands for integrating communications assessment and tactics. It was training that was produced by the police executive research forum, originally introduced in 2016. In 2016, when they first came out with this, there was actually no research to support whether or not this was an effective change in the ways that we trained officers. Many agencies across the country moved forward with de-escalation tactics and [2:58:39 PM] de-escalation tactics and strategies, not really knowing what the impact might be, but we were hopeful. Well, since that time, my research team, actually, and at the university of Cincinnati then, does that make you feel better or not? Still not okay. I'm trying. Okay. Did you know anyone down here in Texas? I'll move. I'll get you. So. But our research team actually studied this specifically. What you see on your screen here is called the critical decision making model. And the most important difference for people that are watching at home or for council members specifically, is that it used to be across the country, that use of force was on a continuum. So a hierarchy. So if you had a level of resistance shown to you, you could use a level of force above that resistance. And it went up, up, up as a result of the resistance that was shown. The difference here is that this is a circular model. So it's not the problem with use [2:59:40 PM] it's not the problem with use of force. Continuums is it's very easy to go up the continuum. It's harder to come down the continuum to de-escalate. So with de-escalation models and thinking about it a different way, we're teaching officers and they talk about spinning the model, meaning you collect information, you're assessing that situation, your threats and your risk. You consider your police powers and agency policy, identify options and determine the best course of action. You act, you review, you step back and reassess. And these are how now officers are trained and they have been trained in cat training over the last few years. But we're really doubling down on this particular training because we know and understand at the core of this use of force training is the sanctity of human life, that everyone goes home safe. This is about police ethics. It's about APD's values, proportionality of use of force. And we're continuing to reinforce this through training [3:00:40 PM] reinforce this through training policy. Now, this particular the the graphic that you actually see is embedded. It is inside the policy. The expectation is that officers will de-escalate situations where feasible. And so we're really working on this specifically with our language as well. The reason I'm so passionate about this, and I know that the chief is as well, is the as I mentioned, the first study that we did was with the Louisville metro police department. This was back looking at their ecc implementation of cat training in 2019 through 2020. This was what we called a stepped wedge randomized control trial design. So in essence, the agency had different divisions of officers. Those divisions were randomly assigned to be trained first. We looked at that training and compared those officers that had been trained to those that had not yet been trained, and we did this for each step along [3:01:41 PM] we did this for each step along the way until all officers were trained. And what we found in that study was a 28% reduction in use of force incidents, a 26% reduction in citizen injuries and a 36% reduction in officer injuries. As a result of this particular training. Now, some people will say, well, that was one agency and it was some time ago. Policing has changed dramatically since 2020. Where are we now? And I'm so proud to say that we have just completed a new study with the Indianapolis metro police department, and with this study that was just released just a few weeks ago, we implemented the same research design, a randomized controlled trial design with a very large agency and looked at the impact of cat training. This cat training had been slightly modified, but there was a holistic approach by this agency focused very specifically on first line supervision. And in addition to [3:02:41 PM] supervision. And in addition to the training and embedding this in policy. And we see a significant reduction again in subjects that had force used against them a 20% reduction in the first 12 months and then staying consistent that 18 month follow up period, 18% reduction and the same thing with subsequent important and how it relates to the work of the task force. You say, okay, these studies are great, but let's bring this back directly to what we're doing with with Austin pd. One of the things that we found in this study, we would survey officers before they were trained at immediately following the training. And then 4 to 6 months later, as they were in the field using the training. And what we found was that most officers and this is in both agencies, regardless of their demographics, their experience or their views, they were highly receptive to cat training. But there was still, [3:03:42 PM] training. But there was still, of course, some variation across officers in terms of their receptivity. Why, again, this is so important is because the officers that showed the most receptivity to that initial training, when we asked them six months later about their use of de-escalation skills in the field with a person in crisis, they had a 50% higher probability. If they were the most receptive to the training, those with the least receptivity to the training had a less than 5% probability of indicating that they were using de- escalation tactics during that encounter with a person in crisis, it's 50% probability of using it. If you had high receptivity and a five less than 5%. So 4.5% probability if you were least receptive. Now here's the most important part for Austin police department as we move forward from this science, what predicts whether or not someone is receptive? [3:04:43 PM] or not someone is receptive? Number one, and it wasn't their demographics, it was actually if they believed their first line supervisor supported the training as well. So the more supervisory support that they perceived for this training, the more positive their own individual attitudes were towards it and the more likely they were to use it in the field. So for Louisville, they perceived support for icap from the supervisors led to more favorable attitudes and the key components of the cat training in Indianapolis that perceived supervisor reinforcement of the training in the field there, 1.7 times more likely to then self-report that they were using those skills. So this first line supervisor is so absolutely critical to everything we understand about the the impact of de-escalation training. But we still believe there's an untapped potential here for first line supervisors. And again, Louisville metro and [3:05:43 PM] And again, Louisville metro and Indianapolis have shown us what that looks like. We asked the first line supervisors what their activities were. How often do you talk with your subordinate officer about the use of cat skills? How often do you do this, how frequently? And what we would hope to see in this graph is that you would see a lot of yellow, often or frequently, doing these types of activities to reinforce. But in fact, we find that that's actually much more unlikely, like never or seldom in particular, how often do you counsel your subordinate officers about not using cat skills when they should have? Only in the case of Louisville metro, only about 7% said they often are frequently do that. Well, we thought this was Louisville metro and again, this was back 2019 to 2020. Perhaps there have been changes since then. So with the Indianapolis study that we just recently concluded, we asked [3:06:45 PM] recently concluded, we asked the same questions. And you'll see there's not much movement here. Again, this is untapped potential of the first line supervisors. They're still experiencing these significant reductions in officer use of force. And we know that officers are more likely to use de-escalation tactics and skills if their first line supervisors support it. But we also know that there's more ways for those first line supervisors to support it that they're not tapping into. So the potential here is really dramatic. I think moving forward. And this in Austin police department is a great way to tie all of these things together. So in conclusion, the cat training that APD officers are already receiving and they're getting enhancements in this cat training, this can be shown to reduce use of force and subjects that are injured. We know that the content and the delivery of this training really matters, and that trainees receptivity is critical. We also know that a [3:07:45 PM] critical. We also know that a focus on first line supervisors could have the greatest, both immediate and long term, impact on changing the culture and the understanding of use of force. So holistic approaches, policy supervision, managerial reinforcement, all of these things are going to improve impact. And so we need to continually build this evidence base so that we can better understand these things and make sure the agencies are self-assessing what we've done with the permission of, of chief Davis, is to move this forward here and really think about then back to my discussion topics here. What are we going to do with that training and how can we further enhance the cat training that is currently ongoing for officers and APD. But also what can we do about first line supervisor training and a new training is being developed right now. Chief might be able to to speak to that a little bit about what the training [3:08:45 PM] bit about what the training academy is up to. >> Yes. So all sergeants will come back for a one week of training. And so this is a week of, you know, certainly things that are for my goals and for the things that we are pushing forward. And this is it is how we move toward icat more importantly, what their role is. And I've said this from the very beginning. There is in a police department, there is no greater role than that of a frontline supervisor. Everything that I push from the top, it cannot get done if they don't have the buy in there. And so it is incredibly important that this work continues and that we have those frontline supervisors, their buy in, and not just their buy in, but knowing the why, why we're doing what we're doing and to see those reductions in, again, use of force officer injury. All of those things matter when you care about your people and you're sending them out there to do a job that's best for the city as well. >> Thank you, chief. And so that is one of the reasons why it may seem counterintuitive when you think about you have a force review unit, every use of force except for the most [3:09:47 PM] force except for the most serious, which go to a special investigations unit. Internal affairs takes those on. But there's a force review unit that sees the vast majority of use of force cases. But what we've done is taken the first line supervisor out of that oversight, inadvertently, with the process that we currently have. So thinking about those least the least serious interactions that are considered currently as uses of force and thinking about them as reportable incidents that are still reported, they're still tracked. But we give that information to that first line supervisor and have the first line supervisor as the individual that is initially investigating that particular incident, that reportable incident. And so we're really building back the importance and the potential of that first line supervisor. So all of these are things to come that [3:10:48 PM] these are things to come that are in process at this point. I'm so pleased to tell you a little bit about the data collection and reporting, because we have been able to clean up a lot of the errors and problems that we had in the in the use of force data. There is an analyst that is in your research and planning section, doctor Sheena kang, who is amazing. She has been doing tremendous work, and I asked her to take a look at the Kroll report, their initial use of force analysis. My team led that analysis. I wasn't on the Kroll team, but rather had been hired to do that part. And we have now recreated that for the 2024 data. So you'll have a robust mechanism of annual reporting that has also been automated, so that in 2025, you will automatically be able to get that rich information that that goes beyond the current reporting and explains actually [3:11:49 PM] reporting and explains actually what those trends and patterns look like. And it'll give more information back to both APD but also to the community. So all of that is moving forward. I think it great, great work that's being done internally that I'm overseeing as we move forward. So in terms of process and timing, we have a lot before us. We'll I'll be meeting again with our task force tomorrow morning, laying out the next series of path moving forward and trying to make sure that when that new use of force policy is in place, that we have the appropriate training in place as well, working directly again with with apo and director Mccann has been advised on a lot of this work as well and working in partnership. We've also briefed city legal. I spent I went this morning and met with Travis county district attorney's office. I've met with assistant city manager John fortune and now, of course, [3:12:49 PM] John fortune and now, of course, briefing with you folks. So with that, I'm happy to take any questions that you may have. >> Thank you, doctor colleagues. >> I just want to say thanks. And and I particularly appreciate the data about first line frontline and supervisors and the role that they play and all that. And I'll say that my impression is a very positive impression of how the chief is from the very top is reinforcing the concept of de-escalation and how we approach even what are somewhat routine events where we have large groups of people together. I've watched that up close and personal and and I think that's just part and parcel of this whole approach. So I want to say thanks for what you're putting together. But, chief, I also just want to say thank you to you for what I've already see as your leadership in this [3:13:50 PM] see as your leadership in this area. >> So we can still be friends. >> I can like your work. >> Well, thank you. >> I'll take that. I can like your work. >> And I'll walk away quietly. Thank you. >> Chief, thank you all so much for the president. Oh, I'm sorry, councilmember duchen. >> Thank you. Chair. I just have one question, and it's. Well, first of all, let me say I agree with the mayor's comments, very encouraged by how rigorous you all have been with collecting data and trying to assess how to how to move forward in a way that encourages de-escalation and additional training. The question I've got is actually about technology, and I'm wondering if it's come up as part of it because it's come to my attention that my understanding is we have swapped out the tasers for some officers with a sort of more accurate, superior taser device. I'm curious if any of the research that you've come [3:14:51 PM] research that you've come across or or as it comes to our data set for use of force incidents in the past, have in any way been connected to having a less effective taser. And that's my clumsy characterization. There's probably a better way of saying that. But if technology is a piece of why officers may have escalated because the taser didn't do the work that we hoped it would do, and so then they escalate it to the next step. Is that something you all have looked at, and is that something that would come up as part of this or other research that you're digging into? >> Well, I can speak about the research both nationally and some of the work here as well. And then I'll turn it over to the chief. I believe what you're talking about is the change from the taser seven to the taser ten. The taser ten is an updated model, and the chief can speak to the specific differences in the model. I also believe what you're referring to is sometimes when you when you rely on the taser [3:15:52 PM] you when you rely on the taser and you then are in close, you use the taser. And if the taser is ineffective, you've now closed that gap potentially. And now you have to go hands on. And in which case you're more likely to be injured as an officer, and potentially the subject's more likely to be injured as well. And so with the taser ten technology, you can be both further away. So you and it's also considered more effective. I'll let the chief speak to that specifically so there'd be less likelihood of getting into close and then having to go hands on and then be injured. And in fact, the some of the work that is coming out across the country is finding exactly that reductions in officer and and subject injuries as a result. Chief. >> No. Absolutely. Robin. But it's good to note, too, that axon is phasing out the sevens. So we will all have the tens just because the sevens are being phased out. But to robin's point, it absolutely reduces officer injury and actually injury to to to people [3:16:53 PM] actually injury to to to people as well when they're able to use them. >> Thank you. Is there any way to and thanks for helping me understand the details there. Is there any way to, as you're going through this to tease out if there were incidents that we had that are that were sort of classified in a certain way or were taser related incidents that. That may be going forward, those incidents would have been addressed in a different way. That is to say, is there a way to to look at data and say, this technology potentially caused an escalation as apresult of it being not as effective as current technology? And I guess how much of that is driving part of outside of the training, outside of the reporting from today is driving part of the de-escalation discussion? >> Well, I can speak to not necessarily your data specifically, but there are other studies that I've conducted with other agencies where we're able to look at the [3:17:53 PM] where we're able to look at the effectiveness. So you could have a use of force report and the effectiveness of that particular tactic, and whether or not the officer perceived that tactic as effective. And those cases taser was often considered the least effective measure in terms of a control tactic or tool, because it had a higher failure rate, particularly in climates where there are, you know, heavy jackets, colder climates. Right. You're not getting the the probes that will penetrate. So there was, you know, concern about that specifically. I can also tell you in one agency where I worked, we found that female officers were more likely to use tasers. Tasers were more likely to fail, and those female officers had a higher injury rate than male officers because they were then again forced to go hands on. When you have a few other options, the great thing about the critical decision making model as part of the cat training is that you're constantly, if you will, spinning the model, thinking about time, distance, cover, [3:18:55 PM] about time, distance, cover, other options. And that's part of that de-escalation piece, including a less lethal options. Options. Right. So for example the taser but other options as well. And so training officers to think that through I think will also benefit in addition to having better stronger technology to use. >> Yeah I agree I think it's important to note too, is this is when you look at using cat, it is not for people with guns. And so, you know, you talk about de-escalation. We're talking about with knives, with bats, with those with with fists, those type of things. And so what does that look like again, cat and this training, it's all going to come down to the training we're going to have at the academy. Part of our our officers have already been through that. But as we're pushing it through again and having those sergeants come back in for this one week training, these are things that are going to be reiterated and that training is going to be through scenarios on how we move forward. But if you can slow down and you think about a swat officer, right, that's [3:19:56 PM] swat officer, right, that's kind of the epitome of you think of, okay, the officer swat what they do, that is what they do. They slow things down, they look around, see what they have. And if we're able to do that and kind of isolate a situation and just give it the time, you know, that we can de-escalate something, that's what we want officers to recognize is there is a way to de-escalate even some serious, you know, a serious perpetrator, if we can get time and distance are on our side and we're able to do that. And so that's where this training comes in. >> And the final thing I'll just note about technology. There are quite a few agencies that are moving to bfr programs, drones as first responder programs. And as part of that, sending the drone when the call for service first comes in so that you can get eyes on before officers arrive, it gives them that additional time to understand what those dynamics are, so that you're not rushing into a situation that you don't know or can see all of what's happening. And we are in the middle. Well, we're just beginning. We're not in the middle. We're just in the beginning of a study with ten large agencies across the country to understand if that's [3:20:58 PM] country to understand if that's actually impacting officer safety. We know anecdotally that it is that it is making not just the officer safer, but again, the subject safer as well, because the officers approach with more information readily available to them. So we often don't think about drones as an officer safety measure, but it most certainly is, at least again, anecdotally demonstrating that impact and will have now more information moving forward over the next year, year and a half of what the what that impact looks like in a more scientific way. >> And I'm very much looking forward to those results. Thank you for helping me better understand that and clarify that. >> Great. Thank you. >> Colleagues. Any other questions? >> Thank you. Thank you. >> Colleagues. We'll now take up item number seven. And that is to identify identify items to discuss in future meetings if anybody has anything. If y'all wanted to daylight now and or you can email me and or [3:21:58 PM] and or you can email me and or the district three chief of staff without any items on item number seven, the committee will now go into a closed session to take up two items items five and six, which concern personnel matters. I will be back out to adjourn us after we're done. We are now in. We're now going into closed session. Thank you. >> Recommend to the city [4:00:23 PM] >> Recommend to the city council that the city council reappoint the following individuals as judges of the of the municipal court in downtown Austin community court. In the following way. Presiding judge judge sherry statman, downtown Austin community court judge Michael coffee. And it is also a recommendation of the committee. This as part of my motion that judge coffee be reappointed as an associate judge of the Austin municipal court. The following associate judges would be our recommendation judge Brian J. Guerra. Judge Barbara Garcia, judge Alfred Jenkins. Judge Patrick Mcnelis, judge George Thomas, and judge Stephen Vigorito. Substitute judges that we would recommend are judge Kelly Evans, judge Christine Harris Schultz, judge Gordon karchmer, judge Randy Ortega, judge Olga Selig, judge Pamela judge Stanley Kerr, judge Susanna marangolo, [4:01:23 PM] Kerr, judge Susanna marangolo, judge Ron Meyerson, judge Ryan turner, and judge Ken Vitucci. I would move that the public safety committee make those recommendations to the entire Austin city council. >> Moved by the mayor and seconded by the vice chair. Without any objection. Approved. >> Very good. Thank you. >> Alrighty, colleagues, there being no further business to come before the public safety committee, the Austin city council. Without objection, this meeting is adjourned at 402. Thank you everyone.