Unveiling the Truth Behind Mayor London Breed’s Budget Increase for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office

Recent news reports have celebrated an 11% budget increase for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office, amounting to $32.5 million. At first glance, this appears to be a significant investment in public safety, aimed at addressing chronic understaffing and other challenges. However, a closer look reveals that this increase is not as substantial as it seems and highlights a broader strategy of civilianizing law enforcement rather than prioritizing the recruitment of trained officers.

Breeds Lopsided Budgeting

 

The Real Numbers Behind the Budget

Out of the reported $32.5 million budget increase, a significant portion is allocated to specific categories that do not directly enhance the department’s core staffing and operational needs. Here’s the breakdown:

  • Union Contracts: $14.3 million
  • Overtime: $6.4 million (compared to current FY24)
  • Grant Programs: $4.1 million (mostly for CalAIM)
  • Capital Projects: $4.7 million
  • Jail Food Costs: $1 million
  • Interdepartmental Workorders: $0.5 million
  • CBO Contracts: $0.75 million
  • Transport Vehicles: $0.7 million

This means that the remaining portion allocated to genuinely new investments is minimal when considering the overall budget.

Misleading Public Perception

The administration’s presentation of this budget increase might lead the public to believe that there are significant new investments aimed at enhancing the capabilities and staffing of the Sheriff’s Office. However, this perception is misleading. Here’s why:

  1. Routine Increases Masked as New Investments:
    • The $14.3 million included in the budget is a result of standard contract negotiations. These are expected adjustments and do not represent new or innovative investments to attract new applicants or improve current working conditions.
  2. Overtime Expenses:
    • The increase in overtime funding, while necessary, does not address the root cause of understaffing and merely patches over the immediate need for additional hours. This does not contribute to long-term solutions or improvements in the working conditions for deputies.
  3. Specific Program Funding:
    • Funds allocated to specific grant programs, capital projects, and other targeted expenses do not translate into direct enhancements to the department’s primary functions.

Breakdown of the Budget Allocation

The proposed budget of $323.6 million for the Sheriff’s Office is $32.5 million higher than the previous fiscal year. Here’s a detailed look at where the additional funds are being spent:

  • Union Contracts: $14.3 million
  • Overtime: $6.4 million increase compared to the current FY24
  • Grant Programs: $4.1 million, primarily for CalAIM
  • Capital Projects: $4.7 million for capital, COIT, and COP projects
  • Jail Food Costs: $1 million increase
  • Interdepartmental Workorders: Approximately $0.5 million increase
  • CBO Contracts: $0.75 million cost-of-doing-business allowance
  • Transport Vehicles: $0.7 million for two transport buses

Civilianization: A Silent Defunding Strategy

A particularly alarming aspect of the proposed budget is the continuation and expansion of civilianization efforts. According to the budget proposal:

Continue Safety Ambassadors and Civilianization to provide non-law enforcement response. The proposed budget continues and expands civilianization efforts and alternatives to law enforcement. This includes funding Police Service Aides, citywide Public Safety Community Ambassadors, and retired Police Officer ambassadors. It also continues to fund the City’s Street Response Teams, which provide non-law enforcement responses to 911 and 311 calls for people in behavioral health crisis and people experiencing homelessness”​.

Analysis and Implications

  1. Reduced Law Enforcement Presence:
    • The shift towards civilian roles for tasks traditionally handled by law enforcement officers diminishes the overall presence of trained officers on the streets. This can lead to slower response times and reduced capability to handle emergencies effectively.
  2. Undermining Law Enforcement Effectiveness:
    • Civilianization efforts, while beneficial in some non-critical areas, can undermine the overall effectiveness of law enforcement. Trained officers possess the necessary skills and authority to handle a wide range of public safety issues that civilians cannot.
  3. Public Safety Perception:
    • Treating law enforcement as a secondary priority in the public safety framework sends a message that their contributions are less valued. This could diminish the public’s trust and confidence in the city’s ability to ensure safety and security.

A Missed Opportunity for Meaningful Change

If Mayor Breed was truly pro-public safety, she would have stopped feeding the overtime budget and instead dedicated money to strike out the first step in pay. This would allow the Sheriff’s Office to advertise a higher starting rate to attract more applicants. By not addressing this fundamental issue, the administration missed a critical opportunity to make a substantial impact on recruitment and retention within the Sheriff’s Office.

The Need for Genuine Investment

For San Francisco to effectively address its public safety challenges, there needs to be a clear and transparent commitment to investing in trained law enforcement officers. Here are some steps that could make a real difference:

  1. Transparent Budget Reporting:
    • Clearly separate routine contract negotiation increases and overtime allocations from new budget investments to provide an honest picture of financial commitments.
  2. Develop New Recruitment Incentives:
    • Introduce signing bonuses, enhanced benefits, and career development opportunities specifically designed to attract new law enforcement officers.
    • Eliminate the first step in pay to offer a higher starting salary and make the position more attractive to potential recruits.
  3. Invest in Long-Term Solutions:
    • Focus on improving working conditions, providing competitive salaries, and offering comprehensive support programs to retain current staff and attract new recruits.

Moving Forward with Honesty and Clarity

As we move forward, it is crucial for the administration to present budget information transparently. Only then can we have honest discussions about what is needed to support our law enforcement officers and ensure public safety in San Francisco. The city needs real, substantive changes to overcome its current challenges and meet the expectations of the community.

By addressing these issues head-on, we can work towards a future where San Francisco’s law enforcement agencies are fully staffed, well-supported, and able to provide the highest level of public safety services to our city. Let’s ensure that every dollar allocated truly makes a difference.

Mayor London Breed’s Controversial Defunding of San Francisco’s Law Enforcement

In the heart of San Francisco, a maelstrom of controversy has emerged, centered around Mayor London Breed’s persistent efforts to curtail the city’s law enforcement capabilities. From her early career as a member of the Board of Supervisors to her current mayoral tenure, Mayor Breed’s commitment to dismantling the criminal justice system has remained a focal point. Despite her intentions to reform, recent actions have evoked questions about the implications of her approach on public safety and the city’s security landscape.

A Legacy of Reform:
Mayor Breed’s crusade against the traditional incarceration system, stemming from personal experiences with incarcerated individuals, has been a driving force behind her political career. Her 2015 declaration to dismantle the system of mass incarceration signified a radical departure from conventional policies, setting the stage for a series of transformative changes within San Francisco’s criminal justice system.

 

Shifting Priorities in San Francisco:
San Francisco has long been recognized for its progressive criminal justice approach, emphasizing rehabilitation over imprisonment. However, the city’s recent shift toward diverting criminals from traditional incarceration has sparked public outcry. The surge in open-air drug dealing and drug-related fatalities has highlighted the limitations of this lenient approach, leading to a palpable sense of insecurity within the community.

Ambiguous Stance and Public Backlash:
Amid mounting pressure, Mayor Breed’s attempts to increase law enforcement presence have been met with skepticism. Despite minor increases in the jail population, street-level crime rates remain alarming, calling into question the city’s commitment to public safety. The city’s reputation as one that uses leniency without firm enforcement has intensified public frustration and concern.

The Defunding Declaration and Contradictory Actions:
Mayor Breed’s 2020 endorsement of the nationwide movement to defund the police marked a significant turning point in San Francisco’s law enforcement landscape. Despite subsequent attempts to present herself as pro-public safety, her decisions to freeze deputy sheriff and police hiring in 2022 and allocate $120 million from law enforcement to the African American community in 2021 indicate a consistent trend of budget cuts and reallocation, casting doubts on the city’s ability to maintain law and order.

The Sheriff’s Office’s Struggle:
The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has found itself in a precarious position, grappling with diminished resources and a surge in criminal activity. Mayor Breed’s persistent budget cuts and policy shifts have strained law enforcement capabilities, leaving the city more vulnerable to crime. The reduction in law enforcement officers and the introduction of civilian-led crisis teams have brought into question the effectiveness of Mayor Breed’s reformist approach.

 

Civilianization of Law Enforcement and Its Implications:
The city’s embrace of civilian-led initiatives has drawn attention to the broader ideological conflict between reformist agendas and the imperative of upholding public safety. While proponents argue for a more community-oriented and empathetic policing approach, critics highlight the inadequacy of such strategies in addressing the complex challenges of urban safety, as evidenced by the continued prevalence of crime and insecurity on San Francisco’s streets.

Silent Defunding and Unaddressed Police Shortages:
Board of Supervisor Safai exposed Mayor London Breed for quiet cutting.  Recent revelations have shed light on Mayor Breed’s discreet budgetary maneuvers, including the failure to increase the Police Department’s recruitment budget despite multiple requests from Police Chief Scott. This inaction has left the SF Police Department with a significant shortage of 700 officers, highlighting the consequences of silent defunding on law enforcement capabilities and public safety.

 

Mayor London Breed’s fervent commitment to reforming San Francisco’s criminal justice system has resulted in a contentious and turbulent period for the city’s law enforcement agencies. While her advocacy for reform and resource reallocation aligns with progressive ideologies, the adverse impact on public safety and the growing concerns about the city’s security underline the pressing need for a balanced approach that prioritizes both reform and the maintenance of law and order. As San Francisco continues to grapple with rising crime rates, the imperative for a comprehensive and sustainable strategy that addresses both community needs and public safety remains paramount.

Home Detention “a Fugazzi, a Fugazzi”

In the city and county of San Francisco, the criminal justice system has become the subject of increasing scrutiny and skepticism. Critics argue that the consequences for criminal behavior appear to be nothing more than an illusion, a “fugazzi,” because the system lacks effective monitoring and enforcement. This article delves into the troubling aspect of consequences that seem unreal because of inadequate monitoring, highlighting the challenges and their implications.

The Illusion of Electronic Monitoring

One of the most prominent issues plaguing San Francisco’s criminal justice system is the illusion of effective electronic monitoring. At first glance, it may appear as though individuals on electronic ankle monitoring are being closely supervised. However, the reality paints a very different picture.

  1. Overburdened deputies: Shockingly, one to two deputy sheriffs is assigned to monitor a staggering 500 criminals on electronic ankle monitoring. This workload is simply unmanageable, rendering the supervision of these individuals inadequate and ineffective.
  2. Escaping accountability: The consequence of such an imbalanced caseload is that many individuals on electronic monitoring can easily exploit their freedom and continue to engage in criminal activities without consequence. This creates an illusion of accountability rather than genuine supervision.

The Unseen Outstanding Warrants

Outstanding warrants are another area where the illusion of accountability reigns supreme. While there is a unit responsible for seeking out and apprehending individuals with outstanding warrants, the numbers don’t add up.

  1. Understaffed unit: The Warrants Service Unit operates with just five deputies, which is grossly insufficient to effectively manage and address the growing number of outstanding warrants.
  2. The accumulation of warrants: Due to the lack of resources and personnel, the unit is unable to promptly locate and apprehend individuals with outstanding warrants. This results in a significant backlog, which further erodes the credibility and effectiveness of the system.

A Consequence Mirage

The consequences of criminal behavior in San Francisco, such as pretrial diversion, electronic monitoring, and outstanding warrants, seem like a mirage because of a lack of real monitoring and enforcement. This has several notable implications:

  1. Erosion of public trust: As the public becomes increasingly aware of the ineffectiveness of the system, trust in the criminal justice system is significantly eroded. When individuals perceive that there are no meaningful consequences for criminal behavior, it can lead to disillusionment and a lack of confidence in the system’s ability to protect the community.
  2. Escalating crime rates: The absence of robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms can embolden individuals to continue criminal activities with a reduced fear of being held accountable. This can lead to an increase in crime rates and potentially harm public safety.

San Francisco’s criminal justice system is grappling with an alarming issue: the consequences for criminal behavior often appear to be an illusion, a “fugazzi,” due to a lack of effective monitoring and enforcement. The overburdened deputies and understaffed units in charge of oversight and apprehension have created a situation where individuals can exploit the system with impunity.

Addressing this problem is not only a matter of restoring public trust but also ensuring the safety of the community. Adequate resources, funding, and staffing are essential to transform these illusions of consequences into a reality where accountability is swift and certain. Without such changes, the mirage of consequences will continue to undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system in San Francisco.

Mayor Breed’s budget worsens the unconstitutional conditions of San Francisco County Jails

PRESS RELEASE

Mayor Breed’s budget – released yesterday –worsens the unconstitutional conditions of San Francisco County Jails at San Bruno and at 7th Street for inmates’; conditions which cause long term chronic illness, and increases the lack of safety for both inmates and deputies. The City is currently being sued for these unconstitutional conditions. Both the San Bruno Jail (County Jail 3) and the 7th Street Jail (County Jail 2) are in violation of Building Code, Title 24, and cannot meet California Regulations. Staffing is already woefully short, forcing the jail to regularly lockdown all prisoners, denying inmates out of cell time, and creating in essence solitary confinement. This is all unconstitutional. Recently the Mayor denied a longevity proposal that would retain needed deputies that are now going to retire but gave longevity incentives to Police and Fire. Yet, Mayor Breed’s budget cuts another 3% off the Sheriff’s budget, while increasing the police budget by 9%. The increase in police hiring is to encourage new arrests. New arrests will increase the inmate population and any increased inmate population will only make the unconstitutional conditions at County Jails worse.

Right now, we have inmates who have been incarcerated for years. At least 60 inmates have been incarcerated for over 4 years. These jails have no outdoor facilities, and so all inmates are housed 24/7 under fluorescent lights. With lockdowns, inmates are forced inside their cell without exercise, without showers, without meaningful human interaction and contact, at times for 24 hours or more. Studies show that forced isolation is one of the worst things that can happen to inmates. Stressed out and mentally ill inmates are a danger to themselves and to deputies.

The lawsuit, Norbert v. CCSF , 3:19-cv-02724 is set for trial on August 8, 2023. San Francisco has no defense for why our jails violate the building code. And the plaintiffs in Norbert claim that denying human beings – long term – outdoor sunlight causes chronic illness, including diabetes. One of the plaintiffs, M. Brackens has developed diabetes while incarcerated in San Francisco County Jail.

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriff’s Association wants to do our job, and do it in a way that treats inmates humanely. The Sheriff’s Department Mission Statement says that the Sheriff is committed to the “constitutional detention” of inmates. The Mayor needs to allocate enough funding so that all inmates receive constitutional conditions of confinement.

We were forced to close 850 Bryant Street because it was so dilapidated that there were regular raw sewage spills in jail cells. That cost the City $2.1 million in a lawsuit.

San Francisco needs to provide jails that meet all building code and constitutional standards. And the Sheriff’s Department cannot do so, if the Mayor keeps cutting the Sheriff’s budget so there’s not enough staffing, and sufficient capital investment in the jails themselves so that the jails meet constitutional standards.

Ken Lomba
President
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
415-696-2428

Safeguarding Officer Safety and Crime Prevention: Assessing the Implications of Assembly Bill AB93

Assemblymember Isaac BryanAssembly Bill AB93, introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, has ignited concerns among law enforcement professionals due to its potential to heighten safety risks and contribute to increased crime rates. This blog post aims to shed light on these pressing issues, emphasizing the profound ramifications of AB93, which could jeopardize officer safety and impede effective crime prevention efforts.

  1. Exacerbating Safety Risks: AB93, if enacted, could significantly amplify safety risks faced by law enforcement personnel. By imposing the requirement of a signed form prior to conducting searches, the bill introduces time-consuming administrative tasks that divert officers’ attention from immediate threats. This heightened safety risk could create hazardous situations where officers are vulnerable to physical attacks, the retrieval of weapons, or the destruction of critical evidence.
  2. Escalating Crime Rates: One of the primary concerns surrounding AB93 pertains to its potential impact on crime rates. The mandated delays resulting from the form requirement may enable individuals involved in criminal activities to evade detection, remove evidence, or continue engaging in unlawful behavior. This could result in a surge in crime rates and pose a direct threat to the safety and well-being of communities.
  3. Undermining Law Enforcement Effectiveness: The proposed provisions in AB93 have the potential to undermine the overall effectiveness of law enforcement efforts. The increased administrative burden imposed by the bill may redirect valuable resources and impede proactive crime prevention strategies. This, in turn, could compromise officers’ ability to respond swiftly and proactively to emerging criminal trends, thereby weakening their capacity to maintain public safety.
  4. Balancing Accountability and Public Safety: While ensuring accountability within law enforcement is crucial, it is imperative to strike a balance that prioritizes public safety. AB93’s provisions must be critically evaluated to prevent unintended consequences that hinder law enforcement’s ability to protect communities and deter criminal activities. A comprehensive approach is vital, considering the potential impact on crime rates and the intensified safety risks posed to officers.

Assembly Bill AB93, introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, poses significant implications by heightening safety risks for law enforcement officers and potentially escalating crime rates. The requirement of a signed form before conducting searches may jeopardize officer safety and impede effective crime prevention efforts. Striking a balance between accountability and public safety is paramount to safeguarding communities and ensuring the optimal functioning of law enforcement agencies. It is essential to carefully analyze the potential consequences of AB93 and seek comprehensive solutions that prioritize officer safety and effective crime prevention strategies.

Stop these BAD IDEAS, VOTE THEM OUT!

Crime is spreading like an Epidemic!

Crime is getting worse in San Francisco which is really hard to believe. This Northern California city welcomes around 25 million visitors annually. Who would imagine thefts in this beautiful city are spreading like an epidemic.  

The reported numbers of car break ins doubled over the years from 10,000 in 2006 to 25,000 in 2015. It is a big area of concern for everyone living in this city.  According to the published report for burglaries, there is a massive loss of over $13 million dollars to the car owners. Moreover, car owners have to bear a huge repair cost of approximately $350 for replacing broken car windows.

In some areas city leaders are able to address burglaries and other crimes. There is a decreasing trend in those cases based on the reported crime data. But in the case of Property Thefts and Car Break-Ins incidents, the number of reported crimes is still very high. So what do you do? Are there any preventive steps to protect yourself?

Over the next couple days, we will be posting some preventive tips to protect yourself from becoming a victim of property theft in San Francisco. Although the police and deputy sheriffs are taking necessary actions, there are some preventive measurers that can protect you from being a victim. It is better to tackle the problem jointly and reduce crime in the city.

Tip #1 Elect a District Attorney that will hold these criminals accountable. We need a District Attorney that will turn San Francisco around from currently being known as lenient on crime with no consequences to a City that will hold criminals accountable by giving first time offenders rehabilitation options but repeat offenders, organized criminal rings will be held accountable in the justice system.

It’s time for someone that will fix our broken criminal justice system. It’s time for someone new and independent, it’s time for a prosecutor who is the real deal. It’s time for Leif Dautch for District Attorney.

“Paid for by the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association PAC.  Not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a candidate.  Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.”

郵寄或喺11月5號,投選Leif Dautch李多福為地檢官。

喺三藩市,搶劫,爆竊及其他罪案已經失控。

Leif Dautch李多福正競選地檢官,佢將追捕攻擊長者,兒童及小生意嘅犯罪組織。

佢喺耶魯及哈佛法律學院畢業,檢控超過300宗州及聯邦法庭案件。

佢嘅計劃同經驗,獲三藩市縣警協會及加州財務長馬世雲支持。

郵寄或喺11月5號,投選Leif Dautch李多福為地檢官。

廣告由三藩市縣警協會支付。

本廣告非地檢官候選人,或地檢官候選人控制之委員會付款或授權。

財務披露請瀏覽sfethics dot org。s-f-e-t-h-i-c-s dot org。

SFDSA 2019 Endorsements – Vote 11/5

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association went through a rigorous process to arrive at its endorsements.  The SFDSA political action committee thoroughly researches candidates and invites candidates to participate in a questionnaire addressing important public safety and district issues.  After completing the questionnaire candidates are selected to take part in a PAC interview.

Leif Dautch for District Attorney

The following candidates have been vetted by our Political Action Committee and their endorsements were ratified by our Board of Directors. These are the best choices for the November 5th election.

Please vote by mail or on November 5th for the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association Endorsed Candidates!

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association is the labor union representing deputy sheriffs and senior deputy sheriffs in the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department.

“Paid for by the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association PAC.  Not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a candidate.  Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.”

Why San Francisco Car Break-Ins are so high?

The exciting city of San Francisco is Northern California’s financial, commercial and cultural heart. It welcomes over 25 million visitors each year. Geographically the city spread across for only 47 miles but it is densely populated. Housing tons of attractions, visitors are attracted like a magnet to explore them. It is also known as the richest city in the US with a yearly budget of around $13 billion. However, it is a surprising fact to know about San Francisco Car Break-Ins which are on a rising trend. The reported Car Break-Ins, San Francisco is averaging around 70 on a daily basis. So is there a safety concern which the city leaders are unable to address? We need to dive deeper and find out why San Francisco Car Break-Ins are so high.

Some Statistical figures for the past few Years about San Francisco Car Break-Ins

There are some notable statistical figures available for the past few years about San Francisco Car Break-Ins. Date backed in 2006, the reported incidents were around 10,000 but in 2015 it jumped over 25,000. That means the Car Break-Ins incidents almost doubled and getting worse over a period of time. The reported burglaries caused around $13 million loss to the car owners.

Additional Expense to people living in the city

Whenever there is a Car Break-In, most of the time the windows are smashed out. If you have any valuables inside, it gets stolen. This comes as a sudden surprise expense to all the car owners. Repair costs are also expensive which can be around $350 to replace the windows. Also, imagine an unexpected situation when you park the car safely and find its glass smashed after being parked. It is definitely a cause of greater inconvenience to the people living in the San Francisco.

What are the preventive measures taken so far for reducing San Francisco Car Break-Ins?

The possible identified reasons for the increasing number of car Break-Ins in the city is because of light punitive measures. This crime is not considered as a serious offence and the offenders received light punishment in most cases. It’s time for someone that will fix our broken criminal justice system. It’s time for someone new, it’s time for a prosecutor who is the real deal. It’s time for Leif Dautch for District Attorney.

“Paid for by the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association PAC.  Not authorized by a candidate or committee controlled by a candidate.  Financial disclosures are available at sfethics.org.”