The Bronco Build: A New Parade & Community Vehicle for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office

Protecting San Francisco—the charitable nonprofit supported by the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA)—launched a special project to create a dedicated parade and community-engagement vehicle for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO): a classic Ford Bronco built to represent San Francisco with pride at parades, car shows, and public events.

Why we’re doing this

Right now, the Sheriff’s Office typically participates in parades using in-service vehicles or rentals. Meanwhile, many public safety organizations showcase vintage vehicles that communities love—classic police cars, restored fire apparatus, and iconic rigs that families instantly recognize and walk up to.

San Francisco has never really had a widely recognized “vintage Sheriff’s vehicle.” Over the years, SFSO fleet history has mostly been practical and utilitarian. This project is about building something different: a crowd-friendly vehicle designed specifically for positive community interaction.

Inspired by “Deputy”

The idea was inspired by the television series “Deputy” (FOX, 2020), which featured a sheriff’s-office Bronco-style patrol concept that stood out as both classic and approachable.

We set out to create a San Francisco version: not a movie prop, and not a modern patrol unit—but a parade-ready classic that looks great, photographs well, and helps the Sheriff’s Office connect with residents in a relaxed, family-friendly setting.

From purchase… to bodywork… to the vision

The photos show the full journey so far—from the Bronco at purchase, through bodywork and paint prep, to the transformation into a clean, uniform finish. We also used AI concept imagery to visualize how the final Bronco could look once it’s officially decaled and equipped—helping keep the end result aligned with the original concept.

Project timeline and gifting plan

Protecting San Francisco expects our portion of the build—vehicle acquisition and bodywork—to be completed by December 31, 2025. After that, the Bronco will be gifted to the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office, which will complete the final department-specific steps, including official decals and an emergency light bar.

Credit where it’s due

This concept came together through teamwork and shared vision. Credit goes to SFDSA President Ken Lomba, Vice President Terry Uyeda, Parliamentarian Juan Garrido, and Sheriff Paul Miyamoto for his suggestions and approval of the project—helping move it from idea to reality.

A special thank-you to Buddy’s Auto Body & Restoration

We also want to recognize Buddy’s Auto Body & Restoration for the paint and body work in support of this community-engagement project.

About Buddy’s Auto Body & Restoration

Buddy’s Auto Body & Restoration is a family-run shop focused on bringing integrity and customer service back into auto repairs, with capabilities that range from collision repair to custom paint and restoration work. They emphasize being able to work on any make and model, take on custom ideas, and assist customers through the insurance process when needed. Buddy’s Auto body & Restoration

Why it matters

Community engagement doesn’t always happen during emergencies—it happens in everyday moments: a handshake at a parade, a conversation at a car show, a kid taking a photo beside a Sheriff’s vehicle. This Bronco is being built for those moments.

We’re excited to share progress as the build continues—and we look forward to seeing the SFSO Bronco out in the community, representing the Office with pride.

Deputy’s Rapid Response at ZSFGH Likely Prevented Mass Casualty Stabbing — But Security Plan Still Keeps Deputies Out of Most Crises

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Deputy’s Rapid Response at ZSFGH Likely Prevented Mass Casualty Stabbing — But Security Plan Still Keeps Deputies Out of Most Crises

Deputy Sheriffs say DPH’s BERT model minimizes law-enforcement presence and relies on unarmed security in a vertical city of high-risk patients

Deputy Saves ZSFGH Ward 86 from Mass StabbingSan Francisco, CA — The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) is calling attention to the heroic actions of a Sheriff’s deputy at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital (ZSFGH) and renewing its warning that the hospital’s current security model is designed to keep deputies out of most violent incidents while relying on unarmed security and clinical teams.

On December 4, 2025, a stabbing in Ward 86, ZSFGH’s HIV clinic, left UCSF social worker Alberto Rangel with multiple stab wounds. Despite rapid intervention and lifesaving efforts, Mr. Rangel later died from his injuries.

SFDSA President Ken Lomba says that while the deputy could not undo the initial wounds, his rapid intervention almost certainly prevented additional victims.

“What people aren’t being told is that our deputy didn’t just confront one dangerous situation — he likely prevented a mass-casualty stabbing inside that clinic,” Lomba said. “Ward 86 is a high-volume HIV clinic. If the assailant had been able to move freely down the hallway, we could be talking about multiple staff and patients stabbed. The only reason that didn’t happen is because a deputy was close enough to intervene within seconds.”


Unarmed security at the entrance, no fixed deputy post in the 80/90 complex

Under ZSFGH’s current security model, Building 80 – which houses the Ward 86 HIV clinic on the 6th floor – is part of the connected 80/90 complex, with its main public entrance on 22nd Street. According to our union members assigned to ZSFGH, that entrance is staffed by an unarmed private security guard seated at a desk, and DPH relies on additional private security guards who patrol the building’s interior. There is no fixed Sheriff’s deputy post in Building 80.

SFDSA later discovered, through its staffing records, that Building 80 previously had a Sheriff’s cadet post, but DPH eliminated that post in July 2025, leaving only unarmed private security at the public entrance and in the hallways.

In the connected Building 90, ZSFGH operates Ward 93, an Opiate Treatment Outpatient Program (OTOP) methadone clinic on the third floor. Public information lists Ward 93 as a methadone clinic serving adults with substance-use disorders, and our union members report that DPH assigns a private armed security guard inside Unit 93 who is not permitted to leave that unit. That means the one armed security presence in the 80/90 complex is effectively locked to a single clinic, while the rest of the building — including the path to Ward 86 — is covered only by unarmed guards and a greatly reduced number of deputies.

On December 4, a stabbing occurred in the 6th-floor Ward 86 hallway, where UCSF social worker Alberto Rangel was repeatedly stabbed and left in critical condition. An individual was later arrested on suspicion of carrying out the stabbing. Based on information from our members, the individual possibly moved past the unarmed security presence at the 22nd Street entrance and through the 80/90 complex to reach the 6th floor.

The only sworn law-enforcement officer in Building 80 at that time was a Sheriff’s deputy temporarily assigned there solely because DPH had requested protection for a doctor who had previously reported threats from the same individual. When the stabbing began in another area in a hallway, that deputy responded, intervened to stop the attack, helped secure the individual, and allowed medical staff to begin lifesaving care.

“This was not a building with a strong law-enforcement presence,” Lomba said. “It was an unarmed guard at the lobby desk, a handful of roving security guards, no fixed deputy post, and a deputy in Ward 86 only because a doctor had already been threatened. In the end, the only person who physically restrained the suspect and stopped the stabbing was a sworn deputy sheriff.”


A missed opportunity at City Clinic and delayed law-enforcement notification

San Francisco City Clinic, located at 356 7th Street in SoMa, is a DPH sexual-health clinic that does not have any assigned Sheriff’s deputy post. According to public news reports, on the same day as the Ward 86 killing, hours before the stabbing, the same individual went to City Clinic looking for a specific doctor he had been threatening. A clinic director hid the doctor, told the individual the doctor was not there, and then heard the individual say he would go to Ward 86 at ZSFGH to find that doctor later that day. The clinic and the hospital are roughly two miles apart, yet there is no public indication in those reports that either SFPD or the Sheriff’s Office was contacted at that point so law enforcement could attempt to locate or intercept the individual before he reached Ward 86.

Under DPH’s own Threat Management policy, multiple threats combined with a stated plan to go to a specific location to find a targeted provider appear to meet the definition of a “High Risk” case—the very category where the policy warns of imminent danger of serious injury or death and directs staff to notify both SFSD and SFPD. SFDSA is therefore asking DPH to explain why law enforcement was not called from City Clinic when staff had both credible threats and advance notice of the individual’s stated destination, and why the Sheriff’s Office was only brought in shortly before the attack instead of at the earliest warning.


Unanswered questions about DPH’s own threat policy

Through a public-records request under the California Public Records Act (CPRA), SFDSA’s counsel obtained DPH’s Threat Management flowchart, which outlines how threats are supposed to be classified and handled. According to that document, cases are classified as “High Risk” when there are multiple threats of violence and evidence of a violent plan directed at a specific person or location. In those situations, the policy says there is a high probability of imminent danger of injury or death, and the response should include contacting both the Sheriff’s Office and SFPD.

Public news reports about this case describe an individual who threatened staff over a period of time, went to San Francisco City Clinic looking for a specific doctor, told the clinic director he would go to Ward 86 at ZSFGH to find that doctor, and then later allegedly carried out a stabbing in Ward 86. Taken together, those facts appear to fit the very “High Risk” scenario DPH’s own Threat Management policy describes: multiple threats combined with a clear plan to seek out a targeted provider at a specific location.

DPH’s Threat Management flowchart, as produced to SFDSA, states that when a situation is classified as “High Risk,” both the Sheriff’s Office and SFPD should be notified. In this case, a doctor at Ward 86 had already reported threats from the same individual, and DPH specifically requested that a Sheriff’s deputy be assigned to protect that doctor on the day of the stabbing.

SFDSA is calling on DPH and its security leadership to answer two basic questions:

  1. How was this case formally classified under DPH’s Threat Management policy — Low, Medium, or High Risk?

  2. If it was treated as High Risk, were both SFSD and SFPD notified in accordance with that policy — and if not, why not?

“DPH’s own document, which we obtained through a CPRA request, says multiple threats plus a violent plan aimed at a specific person equals High Risk and should trigger calls to both the Sheriff’s Office and SFPD,” Lomba said. “The publicly reported facts about this case look exactly like that scenario. The public deserves a clear answer: did DPH follow its own High-Risk protocol before this attack — yes or no?


A security model built to keep deputies out of the room

SFDSA says the tragedy in Ward 86 must be understood in the context of a security plan that intentionally reduced sworn staffing and routed most crises away from law enforcement.

In a series of plans and presentations to the Health Commission, the Department of Public Health (DPH):

  • Proposed cutting 11.4 deputy positions at ZSFGH, reducing deputies on the hospital work order from 30 FTE to 21 FTE.

  • Created a Behavioral Emergency Response Team (BERT) made up of psychiatric nurses and psych techs to respond to behavioral crises, perform de-escalation, administer medications, and manage restraints.

  • Chose to support BERT with non-uniformed cadets and private security personnel, rather than strengthening sworn coverage on high-risk units.

  • Reported that in the Emergency Department and other areas, over 80 percent of BERT activations now occur without any law-enforcement presence, and cited that as a success metric.

  • Stated that law-enforcement intervention could “have the unintended effect of escalating a situation” and described reducing the presence of deputies in DPH facilities as an explicit goal.

“DPH didn’t just trim numbers; they rewrote the model so that deputies are kept out of the room as much as possible,” Lomba said. “They built a system where psych staff, cadets, and unarmed guards are expected to handle the early, most dangerous seconds of an attack — and then deputies are supposed to show up later and clean up the aftermath.”


Not just one building — a vertical city of high-risk patients

The Association says this “response-only” approach is especially dangerous at ZSFGH because of how the campus is built and what it handles.

Zuckerberg San Francisco General is not a single hallway with a front desk. It is a dense, multi-building, multi-story campus of high-risk services:

  • San Francisco’s only Level-1 trauma center,

  • The City’s only 24/7 psychiatric emergency department, and

  • The primary safety-net hospital for many of the City’s most vulnerable residents, including people experiencing homelessness, serious mental illness, and substance-use disorders.

Multiple towers and specialty buildings — trauma and emergency, medical-surgical units, HIV and infectious-disease clinics like Ward 86, psychiatric emergency, acute psych, and high-risk outpatient programs — are stacked on top of one another and connected by elevators, stairwells, internal corridors, and secured passageways.

When a call comes in from an upper floor or a remote clinic, deputies must navigate multiple floors, secured access points, and crowded hallways before reaching the scene.

“On a campus like this, ‘response-only’ isn’t a theory problem; it’s a time-and-distance problem,” Lomba said. “Every minute of delay is more time for a stabbing, strangulation, or assault on staff to continue. When you cut deputies here, you don’t just pull them off one doorway — you thin sworn coverage across an entire vertical grid of trauma units, psych, and clinics all at once.”


Built on narrow statistics and flawed comparisons to LA and Alameda

DPH has repeatedly cited hospitals in Los Angeles County and Alameda County as models for its hybrid BERT and security approach. SFDSA argues those comparisons are fundamentally flawed:

  • LA and Alameda distribute trauma and psychiatric emergencies across multiple hospitals and trauma centers, with sheriff’s deputies and local police departments able to surge to incidents across a wide geographic area.

  • San Francisco concentrates most of that burden on one campus — ZSFGH — for roughly 1.5 million people in San Francisco and northern San Mateo County.

  • In the external systems DPH references, sworn law enforcement remains a core part of a co-responder model. At ZSFGH, the implementation has focused on reducing deputies and measuring success by how often BERT can operate without law enforcement present.

At the same time, DPH built its equity case on a narrow slice of data:

  • Internal memos and public statements highlighted that roughly half of use-of-force incidents in one reporting period involved Black patients, and that a high share of ED use-of-force involved Black patients compared to their percentage of ER visitors.

  • ZSFGH’s own annual reports, however, show that Black patients are about 12–15 percent of the hospital’s overall patient population, not 48–70 percent.

  • DPH has not publicly released the full breakdown of who is in the ED, PES, and psych units by race, or how many of those force incidents involved fights, weapons, or psychiatric restraints.

“DPH took a small number of high-risk incidents and used that percentage to argue deputies themselves were an ‘equity problem,’” Lomba said. “They never showed the full picture of who is in those units, why staff called for help, or how many times deputies prevented serious injury or death. That narrow statistic was then used to sell a plan that civilianized security and kept deputies out of the room.”


What SFDSA is demanding now

In light of the Ward 86 killing and the documented design of the ZSFGH security plan, SFDSA is calling for immediate changes:

  1. Restore and expand assigned deputy-sheriff posts on high-risk units and posts at ZSFGH, including Ward 86, the Emergency Department, Psychiatric Emergency Services, and critical inpatient floors, with a fully staffed sworn patrol presence on campus.

  2. End the experiment of replacing deputies with cadets, private security, and BERT-only responses in areas where staff routinely face weapons, severe psychiatric crises, and violent assaults.

  3. Publish a full, unit-level analysis of use-of-force and patient demographics, so the public can see the true denominators behind DPH’s equity claims, including ED/PES/psych race breakdowns and the reasons staff call for help.

  4. Establish an independent safety and equity review of the ZSFGH security model, including BERT, cadets, private security, and deputy staffing, with full participation from frontline unions representing deputies, nurses, physicians, social workers, and other hospital staff.

  5. Adopt a true co-responder model in which BERT clinicians and deputies respond together to the most dangerous situations, instead of sending clinicians and non-sworn staff in first and treating law enforcement as a last resort.

“The deputy in Ward 86 did everything right and likely prevented more people from being stabbed,” Lomba said. “What failed that day was not the deputy — it was a security plan that deliberately kept most deputies away from high-risk units in the first place. That plan has to change before we lose anyone else.”


Media Contact
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Phone: (415) 696-2428

Internal DPH Memos Show ZSFGH Security Plan Was Built to Keep Deputies Out

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Internal DPH Memos Show ZSFGH Security Plan Was Built to Keep Deputies Out

Deputy Sheriffs’ Association says DPH cut sworn staffing, misused equity data, and spent more on an unproven BERT / private-security model before fatal stabbing of UCSF social worker

San Francisco, CA — The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) is releasing internal Department of Public Health (DPH) documents showing that security changes at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital (ZSF GH) were deliberately structured to keep law enforcement out of most patient crises — even as weapons seizures, assaults, and workplace-violence incidents remained high.

On December 4, 2025, a UCSF social worker was fatally stabbed multiple times in Ward 86 at ZSF GH. A nearby deputy intervened, disarmed the attacker, and allowed staff to begin life-saving measures, but the victim later died. SFDSA President Ken Lomba says this tragedy is the predictable outcome of a policy that treated deputies as a problem to be reduced, not a safety partner to be strengthened.

“DPH used the language of ‘equity’ and ‘best practices’ to justify a security experiment that removed deputies from high-risk units and posts and replaced them with BERT clinicians, cadets, and unarmed guards,” said Lomba. “Their own memos brag that almost nine out of ten behavioral emergencies now happen with no law enforcement present. On Ward 86, we saw the real-world result of that decision.”


DPH’s own memos: cut deputies, keep them out of the room

In a June 14, 2021 Safety Services Staffing Plan Proposal, DPH proposed to:

  • Reduce Sheriff’s deputies at ZSF GH by 11.4 positions (about 14.5 FTE including backfill), and
  • Add 31.9 FTE of Psychiatry Nurses and Licensed Psychiatric Technicians, plus 2.5 FTE Care Experience Health Workers, to form a Behavioral Emergency Response Team (BERT).

The same plan specifies that non-uniformed cadets would provide clinical support in patient intervention, function as “healthcare ambassadors,” and conduct campus patrols.

A later August 28, 2023 Security Staffing Plan Update to the Health Commission reports that:

  • The plan would reduce deputies by 11.4 FTE and add 29.4 FTE of BERT staff to create a 24-hour BERT program in the Emergency Department.
  • DPH proposed supporting BERT with non-uniformed cadets trained as “healthcare ambassadors,” not with additional deputies.
  • By early 2023, BERT was fully implemented and, instead of calling law enforcement, staff were calling BERT to thousands more “risk behavior” events than the Sheriff’s Office, with over 80% of BERT activations — and nearly 90% of Emergency Department BERT activations — occurring without any law enforcement present.
  • In July 2023, the 11.4 FTE of deputies was officially removed from the ZSFGH work order, reducing deputies from 30 FTE to 21 FTE.

At the same time, the update memo notes that 46.5 FTE of “healthcare trained private security officers” were installed as hospital ambassadors at ZSFGH campus entry points.

“At the one campus that handles most of San Francisco’s stabbings, shootings, and psychiatric emergencies, DPH chose to send BERT and cadets into the room and push sworn deputies farther away,” Lomba said. “That is not a co-responder model — that’s a model designed to keep law enforcement out of the picture until after violence has already occurred.”


An expensive experiment, not a safety upgrade

DPH has sometimes framed these changes as modernization or rationalization of security. Their own FTE and cost figures tell a different story.

According to DPH’s Safety Services plan and subsequent updates:

  • At ZSFGH, DPH proposed to reduce the Sheriff work order by 11.4 deputy positions (about 14.5 FTE), while adding 31.9 FTE of BERT psych nurses/techs and 2.5 FTE care workers.
  • By August 2023, 29.4 FTE of BERT positions were funded, and 46.5 FTE of contracted “healthcare trained private security officers” were in place at ZSFGH campus entry points.
  • In their own cost comparisons, DPH shows that a small number of deputies and cadets account for several million dollars in annual cost, while dozens of private security officers are added on separate contracts, illustrating that DPH shifted money away from sworn and cadet roles toward a much larger private-security footprint.

At Laguna Honda Hospital, DPH’s example of “efficiency” makes the trade-off clear:

  • 8.4 FTE of deputies cost significantly more than 34.6 FTE of private security officers, who were then used to provide 24-hour monitoring in multiple locations.

Taken together, these documents show that DPH did not simply “save money by replacing deputies.” The department reduced sworn coverage and then layered on:

  • Dozens of BERT clinical positions,
  • Dozens of contracted private security officers, and
  • Cadets or other non-sworn “ambassador”-type roles.

From SFDSA’s perspective, this amounts to an expensive and unproven security experiment: one that trades sworn patrol and rapid response for a more complicated mix of clinical teams and unarmed guards, while leaving fewer deputies immediately available when violence erupts.

The Association is calling on the City to disclose the full annual cost of the BERT-plus-private-security model at ZSFGH and explain why that funding was not instead used to fully staff a sworn patrol division and fixed-post deputies in the highest-risk units and posts at the hospital.


Misusing equity data to justify cutting deputies

DPH also relied on a single statistic to justify reducing deputies: that about 46% of use-of-force incidents against patients in one reporting period involved Black/African American patients.

SFDSA does not dispute that racial disparities are real and serious. However, the way the data are presented raises concerns:

  • The figures in DPH’s materials do not provide the racial breakdown of patients in the specific high-risk areas (ED, PES, inpatient psych) where most force is recorded.
  • The same Safety Services plan acknowledges that deputies assisting with patient restraints and defending staff against attacks drive a large share of force incidents, yet this context is not clearly presented when the “46% Black” figure is cited.

Despite these limitations, DPH used this disparity as one of the key reasons to reduce the Sheriff’s work order and expand BERT and non-sworn roles.

“If DPH truly wants equity, the answer is not to quietly pull deputies out of high-risk units and hope the numbers look better,” Lomba said. “The answer is to be honest about what is driving these incidents and to fix it in partnership with staff, patients, and the communities we serve.”


ZSFGH is not comparable to LA or Alameda

In its own Security Model responses, DPH repeatedly cites Alameda Health System and Los Angeles County hospitals as “comparable” to ZSF GH and as justification for its hybrid BERT / non-sworn model.

SFDSA believes this comparison is misleading:

  1. One overloaded campus vs. multi-hospital systems
    • Alameda and LA counties distribute trauma and psychiatric emergencies across multiple hospitals and trauma centers, with sheriff’s deputies and city police departments available to surge to calls.
    • San Francisco relies on one safety-net campus — ZSFGH — as the City’s only Level-1 trauma center and only 24/7 psychiatric emergency department for roughly 1.5 million people in San Francisco and northern San Mateo County.
  2. Co-responder vs. “keep deputies away”
    • DPH’s own descriptions of Alameda and LA highlight hybrid security models that include healthcare security officers and county sheriff’s deputies as partners.
    • At ZSF GH, by contrast, DPH cut deputies by roughly one-third and used BERT plus cadets and unarmed private security to handle most risk-behavior incidents, with success measured partly by how often law enforcement is not present.
  3. Existing record of violence at ZSF GH
    • ZSFGH’s own annual reports emphasize that healthcare workers are almost four times more likely than workers in most other industries to experience workplace violence and that the hospital has had to invest in BERT and security upgrades to address persistent safety issues.

Not just one building — a vertical city of high-risk patients

Not just one building — a vertical city of high-risk patients
When DPH reduced deputy positions at ZSFGH, they did not simply pull deputies off “one hospital building.” They thinned coverage across what is effectively a vertical city of high-risk patients.

ZSFGH is a dense hilltop campus made up of multiple multi-story towers and specialty buildings — trauma, medical-surgical units, HIV and infectious-disease clinics, psychiatric emergency, acute psych, and high-risk outpatient programs — all stacked on top of each other and connected by elevators, stairwells, skyways, and long interior corridors. Nearly all of San Francisco’s Level-1 trauma care, 24/7 psychiatric emergency, and safety-net inpatient care is concentrated on this single site.

When a call comes in from an upper floor or a remote ward, deputies have to navigate multiple floors, secured access points, and crowded hallways before ever reaching the scene. On a campus like that, “response-only” policing is not a theory problem, it is a time-and-distance problem: every minute of delay is more time for a stabbing, a strangulation, or an assault on staff to continue.

Cutting deputies in that environment does not just mean fewer uniforms in one lobby. It means fewer sworn officers available to cover an entire vertical grid of vulnerable units — from the Emergency Department to Ward 86 to psych and ICU floors — at the same time. That is the reality DPH chose to ignore when it redesigned security around BERT, cadets, and unarmed guards.

“You cannot treat a single, overloaded trauma and psych emergency hospital in San Francisco like just another line on a spreadsheet next to Alameda and LA,” Lomba said. “Those systems built co-responder models with deputies and clinicians together. DPH’s implementation at ZSFGH went in a different direction: fewer deputies, more complexity, and more distance between sworn officers and the highest-risk units.”


What SFDSA is demanding now

In light of the internal memos, equity data, cost figures, and the fatal Ward 86 stabbing, SFDSA is calling for:

  1. Immediate restoration and expansion of assigned deputy-sheriff posts on high-risk units and posts at ZSFGH, including Ward 86, ED, PES, and critical inpatient floors, with a fully staffed sworn patrol presence on campus.
  2. An independent safety and equity audit of ZSFGH’s security model — including BERT, cadets, private security, and deputy staffing — with full participation from frontline unions representing deputies, nurses, physicians, social workers, and other hospital staff.
  3. Transparent incident reporting, including detailed breakdowns of workplace-violence events and use-of-force by unit, incident type (crime-related, psychiatric, medical), clinical factors, and who requested the response, so that decisions are based on full context rather than partial statistics.
  4. A true co-responder model, where BERT clinicians work with trained, equipped deputies on the most dangerous calls, rather than being sent in instead of law enforcement.

“These memos show that the stakes at ZSFGH were always high: concentrated trauma, psychiatric emergencies, and a vulnerable patient population,” Lomba said. “What changed was DPH’s decision to move deputies out of the way and measure success by keeping law enforcement out of the room. After this tragedy, the City cannot pretend that model is working.”


Media Contact
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Phone: (415) 696-2428

Media Package Link

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association responds to stabbing of social worker at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEF

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association: Stabbing of Social Worker at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Was Predictable — and Preventable

Union calls on City leaders to restore deputy sheriff staffing on high-risk units after years of documented assaults and ignored warnings

San Francisco, CA — On December 4, 2025, a 31-year-old UCSF social worker was repeatedly stabbed by a patient in Ward 86 at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital (ZSFGH) and left in critical condition and has since died from his injuries.. The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (DSA) says this tragedy is exactly what deputies and staff warned would happen when the Department of Public Health (DPH) cut deputy sheriff positions and shifted to a “response-only” security model.

“This was not a random, unforeseeable incident,” said DSA President Ken Lomba. “ZSFGH’s own data show years of serious assaults and weapons on campus. Deputies, nurses, and social workers told DPH that pulling deputies off high-risk units/posts and replacing them with unarmed cadets and distant response teams would get someone seriously hurt or killed. On December 4, that prediction came true.”


A uniquely high-risk safety-net hospital

Zuckerberg San Francisco General is San Francisco’s only Level 1 trauma center and the city’s only 24/7 psychiatric emergency department, serving roughly 100,000 patients a year and treating nearly 4,000 severely injured trauma patients annually, including gunshot wounds, stabbings, and other violent assaults.

Unlike Los Angeles County or Alameda County, which spread trauma and psych-emergency patients across many hospitals, San Francisco relies on one safety-net campus for residents of San Francisco and northern San Mateo County. That means gunshot victims, stabbing victims, high-risk psychiatric emergencies, and people in severe crisis all converge on a single crowded hospital, placing an unusually heavy safety burden on deputies and clinicians working there.

ZSFGH’s own internal data show that violence has been a persistent problem:

  • Between January 1, 2020 and September 30, 2021, ZSFGH recorded 748 workplace violence events, including 303 incidents in the Emergency Department and 215 in psychiatry units alone.

  • The hospital’s Security Annual Report for FY 2020-2021 notes that deputies responded to 13,339 patient-related security calls, confiscated 3,394 weapons and contraband at Emergency Department screening, and investigated 23 moderate or high-risk workplace-violence threats.

  • ZSFGH’s FY 2024-2025 Annual Report shows that even after new training and prevention initiatives, the hospital still averaged six physical assaults with injury each month across just five high-risk areas, barely below the prior-year baseline of seven assaults with injury per month and far above the hospital’s target of fewer than four.

Despite these red flags, DPH moved forward with a restructuring that reduced deputy sheriffs on campus and clinics, expanded unarmed cadet roles, and relied more heavily on distant response teams and behavioral-health staff to manage escalating violence.


December 4, 2025: Exactly what staff warned would happen

On December 4, 2025, hospital staff had already raised safety concerns about a patient and requested deputy protection for a doctor at Ward 86 who had received threats. While the deputy was in a nearby room providing security for the threatened doctor, he heard a disturbance and saw the same patient in the hallway repeatedly stabbing a 31-year-old UCSF social worker with a kitchen knife, inflicting multiple wounds to the neck and shoulder.

He immediately went into the hallway, restrained the suspect, and allowed medical staff to begin CPR and lifesaving measures.

Research on close-range knife attacks (often summarized as the “21-foot rule”) shows that an assailant can cover about 21 feet in roughly 1.5 seconds—about the same time it takes a trained officer to perceive the threat and react—meaning a determined attacker can deliver multiple stab wounds in the one to two seconds before even a nearby responder can physically intervene. In a response-only model where deputies are stationed elsewhere on campus, that delay is far longer. By the time help arrives from another building or floor, a victim may already have sustained fatal injuries.

“This is exactly why we opposed a ‘civilian roving response team’ model for a hospital like ZSFGH,” Lomba said. “Knife attacks happen in seconds. If a deputy is on the opposite side of the campus when an employee is attacked on an upper floor, the response time is so long that the employee could be dead before help arrives. On December 4, a deputy happened to be close enough to intervene—and even then, the social worker suffered life-threatening wounds.”


The deputy who saved a life

The DSA recognizes the responding sheriff’s deputy as a hero for his actions on December 4. While providing security for a threatened doctor in Ward 86, he heard a disturbance, saw the social worker being repeatedly stabbed, and immediately intervened, restraining the attacker and securing the scene. His rapid response allowed medical staff to begin CPR and other lifesaving measures within moments, giving the victim a fighting chance to survive injuries that could easily have been fatal.

“This is exactly what deputy sheriffs are supposed to do on high-risk units: be close enough to stop an attack in progress and protect frontline healthcare workers,” Lomba said.


DPH was warned in 2022

In 2022, during a video-conference meeting with DPH and ZSFGH leadership, DSA President Ken Lomba objected to Security Director Basil Price’s plan to reduce deputy sheriffs and rely more heavily on cadets and civilian staff paired with social workers.

Lomba explained that the proposed security model was copied from Los Angeles County and would not work in San Francisco’s environment, where there is only one Level 1 trauma and psych-emergency hub and far fewer sworn officers available across the city. In contemporaneous notes and texts summarizing his comments to DPH leaders, Lomba warned that reducing deputies would:

  • Turn ZSFGH into a “reaction-only” scene,

  • Leave staff and patients exposed during the first critical seconds of an attack, and

  • Create scenarios where “if a deputy is on the opposite side of campus and an employee gets attacked or stabbed on an upper floor or roof of SFGH, the response time would be so long the employee could be dead.” 

Lomba’s concerns echoed what deputies and security staff had been documenting in workplace-violence and crime reports for years: moving deputy sheriffs off units and treating ZSFGH as a campus that can be secured by unarmed cadets and roaming response teams would increase response times and leave employees unprotected during the most dangerous moments of an attack.

Nonetheless, DPH proceeded with a model that reduced deputy sheriffs on campus, leaving fewer deputies responsible for a large hospital campus and stationed farther away from high-risk wards—including Ward 86—while publicly emphasizing new training, behavioral-health teams, and technology upgrades.


ZSFGH’s own reports acknowledge ongoing assaults

In recent annual reports, ZSFGH acknowledges that workplace violence “continues to be a serious challenge” and that healthcare workers are nearly four times more likely than workers in most other industries to experience workplace violence.

The hospital highlights a campus security assessment, weapons detection systems, de-escalation training, the Behavioral Emergency Response Team (BERT), and an Assault Governance Task Force, and sets a goal of reducing assaults with injury in high-risk areas.

Yet the FY 24-25 data show that even after these initiatives, staff are still suffering, on average, six assaults with injury every month in just five high-risk areas—a level of violence that underscores the need for immediate, on-scene protection, not only after-the-fact response.


What must change now

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association calls on DPH, the Health Commission, and the Mayor to take the following immediate steps:

  1. Restore and increase deputy sheriff positions on high-risk units, in behavioral-health settings, vehicle/foot patrol and in HIV/positive-health clinics, rather than relying on distant response teams and unarmed cadets.

  2. End the experiment of replacing deputies with unarmed cadets and civilian staff in roles that routinely face violent, armed, or unstable patients. Cadets and civilians can play a valuable supportive role, but they cannot safely substitute for trained, sworn law-enforcement officers in high-risk environments.

  3. Convene a joint hospital safety task force that includes deputies, nurses, social workers, physicians, and patient advocates to design a security model grounded in real-world response times, the physics of close-quarters attacks, and the hospital’s own workplace-violence and crime data.

  4. Fully integrate workplace-violence and security metrics into hospital governance, including transparent reporting on assaults, weapons confiscated, and use-of-force, and clear accountability when staffing or policy decisions increase risk.

“ZSFGH’s own reports show a hospital that has been struggling with workplace violence for years while trying to manage an extraordinarily high-risk patient population,” Lomba said. “Our deputies are proud to protect this campus, but they cannot do it from across town or across campus. The City must put deputy sheriffs back where the danger is—on the units, in the clinics, and at the front doors—before another nurse, doctor, or social worker pays the price.”

Until ZSFGH recognizes that violence can unfold in seconds and structures security around prevention and immediate intervention—not delayed response, frontline staff and patients will remain at unacceptable risk.

Editor’s note: This statement was originally issued while the victim was still in critical condition and was updated December 7th after his death was confirmed.


Media Contact:
San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
415-696-2428 • SanFranciscoDSA.com 

Media Package Link

A Step Forward: Sheriff Moves to Advance Administrative Code Proposal

We’re pleased to report a positive development in our long-standing effort to update San Francisco’s Administrative Code to include clear recognition of the Sheriff’s Office. After months of internal review, the Sheriff’s Department has now taken a significant step forward.

Sheriff Refers Proposal to City Attorney

SF Sheriff Admin Code
SF Sheriff Admin Code

On September 24, Undersheriff Katherine Johnson informed us that the department’s legal team has completed its review of our proposed Administrative Code amendment. The Sheriff has now directed that the matter be sent to the Office of the City Attorney for formal drafting of legislative language.

“Once that is completed, someone will follow up with you.”

– Undersheriff Katherine Johnson

We commend the Sheriff’s Office for advancing this process and look forward to the next stage of collaboration.


What This Means

This action brings us closer to correcting a structural oversight: the absence of the Sheriff’s Office in the Administrative Code. Unlike Police and Fire, the operational responsibilities of San Francisco’s elected law enforcement agency are not formally codified in city law.

Our proposal seeks to fix that by defining the functions the Sheriff’s Office already performs under Penal Code § 830.1(a), the San Francisco Charter, and longstanding public safety practice. These include:

  • Jail operations
  • Law enforcement services
  • Court security
  • Emergency and mutual aid response
  • Civil process enforcement
  • Transportation of persons in custody

By placing these responsibilities in the Administrative Code, we strengthen institutional clarity and ensure legal consistency across the City’s public safety departments.


A Shared Path Forward

This step confirms that the Sheriff’s Office recognizes the value of codifying its role — not only for operational stability but for long-term transparency and accountability. We stand ready to assist the City Attorney as they begin crafting legislative language that reflects both the constitutional authority and the day-to-day realities of the Sheriff’s Office.

We believe this shared path will benefit the people of San Francisco and provide a stronger foundation for the professionals who serve under this Office every day.


Message to Our Members

To the members of the SFDSA: your voice, your work, and your service matter. This action is a direct result of continued advocacy and persistence. We believe this change will support your work and reinforce the legal structure behind your service.

To the public: we are committed to ensuring that our city’s elected law enforcement agency receives the same legal foundation as other departments. This is about fairness, function, and future readiness.


What’s Next

We will continue to monitor the drafting process and provide monthly updates to our members and the public as the City Attorney prepares formal language for introduction to the Board of Supervisors.

Our next public update will be issued in October 2025.


Thank you to Sheriff Miyamoto and his team for this important step forward. We look forward to working together in good faith to complete this process.

For questions or feedback, contact us at president@sanfranciscodsa.com

Why We’re Going Public: The Fight to Define the Sheriff’s Role in San Francisco Law

After over a year of stalled progress and unanswered letters, the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association is officially going public with monthly reports on our efforts to correct a long-standing legal omission in San Francisco’s Administrative Code — an omission that affects every resident’s public safety and the future of the Sheriff’s Office.

Admin Code Missing SFSOThe Problem: A Department with No Definition

While the San Francisco Police and Fire Departments are fully defined in both the City Charter and the Administrative Code — with operational duties, funding mechanisms, and emergency roles clearly outlined — the Sheriff’s Office is not. This omission is not only outdated, it’s dangerous. It leaves our city’s elected law enforcement agency out of the very legal framework that governs how city departments operate and cooperate.

This is not about politics or power grabs. It’s about codifying what the Sheriff’s Office already does, aligning it with Penal Code § 830.1(a), the San Francisco Charter, and state law.

What We Did

In collaboration with legal experts and legislative advisors, we proposed new Administrative Code language that would establish a simple section titled:

SEC. 2A.26 – Office of the Sheriff

This section mirrors the structure used for other public safety departments and affirms what the Sheriff’s Office already does every day — operate jails, conduct law enforcement duties, transport prisoners, serve court orders, and respond to emergencies. It brings transparency, consistency, and legal protection to a department that is vital to San Francisco’s safety.

We presented this language to both the Sheriff’s Office and Supervisor Matt Dorsey’s office earlier this summer. Supervisor Dorsey and his staff received it constructively and expressed openness to the effort.

The Silence — and the Delay

Despite our outreach and clear language confirming that the proposal does not restrict or redefine the Sheriff’s constitutional authority, we have received no written response from the Sheriff’s Office since July 7. Verbal confirmation was given that their attorneys are still reviewing it — but no timeline, no counter-proposal, and no forward movement has followed.

That silence is why we’re taking this to the public.

August 15: Public Reporting Begins

As of August 15, 2025, the SFDSA will release monthly public updates on the progress — or lack thereof — regarding this Administrative Code amendment. These updates will document all outreach, responses, delays, and resistance. The public has a right to know why San Francisco’s elected Sheriff remains undefined in city law while other departments are explicitly protected and empowered.

We hope these reports will spur action, not division. We remain fully willing to collaborate with the Sheriff and any City Supervisor ready to help fix this foundational oversight.

Why It Matters

This is about more than legal language. It’s about fairness. It’s about ensuring San Francisco’s Sheriff’s Office — a department that touches thousands of lives daily — is no longer left out of the city’s own governing code.

The status quo leaves room for confusion, manipulation, and political interference. Defining the Sheriff’s Office in the Administrative Code brings clarity, stability, and accountability — not just for the department, but for the residents we serve.


🔔 Next Public Report: September 15, 2025

We encourage all community members, policymakers, and media to follow this process closely. Transparency starts here.

If you’d like to support this effort or have questions, please contact us at 415-696-2428.

San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association Launches First-of-Its-Kind AI Recruitment Agent on X

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

@AskSgtKen

San Francisco, CA — July 22, 2025 — The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) has officially launched its groundbreaking AI-powered assistant, @AskSgtKen, on the social platform X (formerly Twitter) — making it one of the first publicly known real-time AI recruitment agents operated by a U.S. law enforcement labor association.

Built by SFDSA President Ken Lomba, AskSgtKen is not a scripted chatbot. It is a fully autonomous AI agent powered by natural language processing, capable of answering public questions, sharing safety briefings, and guiding interested candidates through the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office hiring process — all in real time and with human-like conversation.

“This isn’t a menu-based chatbot. AskSgtKen is an intelligent, adaptive AI that interacts directly with the public 24/7,” said Lomba. “It’s a tool designed to build transparency, drive recruitment, and bring modern innovation to public safety outreach.”

AskSgtKen is unique among law enforcement tools in three critical ways:

  • It runs on a public-facing social media platform (X) — not hidden behind a website.

  • It uses real artificial intelligence to understand and generate unscripted responses, not pre-written menus.

  • It was launched by a labor association — a rarity in public safety and union organizing.

From daily safety briefings to community trivia and detailed recruiting guidance, AskSgtKen brings a new model of digital engagement to the public safety space. It represents the SFDSA’s forward-thinking approach to connecting with San Francisco’s diverse communities and helping guide qualified individuals into meaningful careers as deputy sheriffs.

This launch follows SFDSA’s broader strategy of modernizing communication, enhancing transparency, and recruiting the next generation of law enforcement professionals through ethical and innovative tools.

Follow and engage with @AskSgtKen on X here: https://x.com/AskSgtKen


About the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA)

The SFDSA represents the sworn deputy sheriffs of San Francisco. Dedicated to protecting the city and supporting its members, the Association advocates for fair working conditions, community engagement, and forward-thinking public safety solutions.


Press Contact:

Ken Lomba

SFDSA President

415-696-242

Open Letter to the Board of Supervisors and Mayor Elect Daniel Lurie about SFSO Critical Infrastructure Needs

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 16, 2024

SFDSA Calls for Urgent Action to Address County Jail Conditions, Copies Mayor-Elect Daniel Lurie

San Francisco, CA – Today, the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA), led by President Ken Lomba, sent an urgent letter to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, calling for immediate action to address the critical infrastructure deficiencies at County Jail #3 (CJ3) in San Bruno. The letter highlights the severe impacts on the health and safety of deputies, civilian staff, and inmates and was also sent to Mayor-Elect Daniel Lurie, seeking his leadership in resolving these long-standing issues.

The SFDSA emphasized that CJ3 remains out of compliance with Title 24 of the California Building Code, which mandates proper outdoor recreational areas providing at least one hour of sunlight daily. Currently, small, concrete-enclosed areas with minimal roof openings exist, but they are wholly inadequate, compromising inmate health, increasing safety risks for staff, and inflating costs for the City.

Key Concerns Raised in the Letter

  • Improved Safety for Deputies and Staff: Proper access to sunlight reduces stress and aggression among inmates, leading to better behavior, fewer violent incidents, and a safer work environment for deputies and civilian staff.
  • Deputy Health and Cost Savings: Addressing unsafe and stressful conditions would reduce deputy absenteeism, medical leave, and workers’ compensation claims, saving the City substantial overtime and healthcare costs.
  • Compliance with Legal Standards: CJ3 fails to meet the minimum outdoor exercise requirements outlined in Title 24. The SFDSA’s recently filed amicus brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit underscores the urgency of this issue, advocating for immediate reforms to ensure compliance and protect the well-being of all stakeholders.

SFDSA’s Call to Action

The SFDSA urged the Board of Supervisors to:

  1. Allocate funding for the construction of a secure outdoor recreational area at CJ3 to meet legal standards.
  2. Begin planning for a modern, rehabilitation-based jail facility that prioritizes safety, wellness, and efficiency.
  3. Adopt policies and programs that promote wellness for both inmates and staff, reducing long-term costs and enhancing public safety.

Engagement with Mayor-Elect Daniel Lurie

Ken Lomba, President of the SFDSA, expressed optimism about working with Mayor-Elect Lurie to implement meaningful change. “The safety and well-being of our deputies, staff, and inmates cannot be ignored any longer,” said Lomba. “We trust that Mayor-Elect Lurie will demonstrate the leadership needed to address these systemic issues, ensuring compliance with state standards while creating safer, healthier facilities for everyone involved.”

About the SFDSA

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association represents over 620 sworn deputy sheriffs dedicated to maintaining public safety while advocating for improved working conditions and operational standards.

For media inquiries, please contact:
Ken Lomba
President, San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Office: 415-696-2428

SFDSA Files Amicus Brief: Exposes City’s Neglect of Jail Staffing and Failure to Build Modern, Safe Facilities

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 12, 2024

San Francisco's Neglect of the Sheriff's Office

 

San Francisco, CA – The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) has filed an amicus curiae brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, shining a spotlight on the City and County of San Francisco’s failure to provide proper staffing and invest in modern, safe jail facilities. Years of neglect have left deputies and inmates in unsafe, outdated conditions, creating a crisis that demands immediate action to protect public safety and uphold state-mandated standards.

A Crisis of Neglect: Staffing and Facilities Ignored

“For far too long, the City has ignored its responsibility to provide adequate staffing and build modern facilities for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office,” said SFDSA President Ken Lomba. “This neglect jeopardizes the safety of deputies, inmates, and the public we serve. The City must stop dragging its feet and take action to address these dangerous deficiencies.”

The SFDSA’s brief highlights the consequences of the City’s refusal to modernize outdated facilities and meet California’s Title 24 Building Standards, which mandate daily sunlight exposure for inmates. These substandard conditions exacerbate violence, increase deputy stress, and result in higher operational costs, all while violating basic legal requirements.

Key Issues of the Brief

The SFDSA underscores several critical failures by the City:

  • Outdated Facilities: Existing jails lack essential features, such as adequate outdoor exercise areas with sunlight exposure, which are crucial for inmate health and safety.
  • Increased Violence: Poorly designed, overcrowded facilities lead to higher rates of violence, putting deputies at risk.
  • Staffing Shortages: Chronic understaffing forces deputies to work in unsafe conditions, leading to burnout, stress, and reduced morale.
  • Missed Opportunities for Modernization: While other cities invest in state-of-the-art facilities to enhance safety and efficiency, San Francisco’s neglect forces deputies to operate in a system that fails everyone.

Acknowledging Excellence in Advocacy

The SFDSA extends its gratitude to attorney Stuart Price of Price Caspino LLP for his excellent work in preparing and filing the amicus brief. “Mr. Price’s dedication to this case and his commitment to ensuring a safer environment for our deputies and inmates is exemplary,” said Lomba. “His advocacy brings much-needed attention to this critical issue.”

A Call for Immediate Reform

The SFDSA’s brief demands that the City provide at least one hour of daily sunlight exposure for inmates at San Francisco County Jail #3, as required by law. It also calls for immediate investment in modern facilities that meet current standards and address the safety needs of both deputies and inmates.

“San Francisco must stop neglecting its legal and moral obligations to ensure safe, modern facilities for the Sheriff’s Office,” said Lomba. “Investing in proper staffing and infrastructure isn’t optional—it’s essential for safety, efficiency, and public trust.”

About the SFDSA

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (SFDSA) represents the deputy sheriffs and senior deputies of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department. Since 1952, the SFDSA has been committed to advocating for the safety, welfare, and professionalism of its members while ensuring the highest standards of public safety.

For media inquiries, contact:
Ken Lomba
President, San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association
Phone: 415-696-2428

SFDSA’s Relentless Campaign Amplified London Breed’s Failures Like No One Else

The SFDSA ran the most aggressive and far-reaching campaign against London Breed, ensuring her failures dominated the public narrative. While other groups hesitated to directly confront Breed’s record, the SFDSA fearlessly led the charge, making her leadership synonymous with the city’s most pressing crises. With precision, strategy, and bold execution, the SFDSA amplified Breed’s shortcomings to a larger audience than any other organization in the race, setting the tone for the entire mayoral election.

What makes this victory even more significant is that the SFDSA was the only public safety union to endorse Daniel Lurie as a candidate for mayor. This bold and independent move proved pivotal in securing his victory, positioning the SFDSA as a leader in shaping the future of San Francisco.

London Breed's Destruction of San Francisco

Exposing Breed’s Failures and Championing Change

The SFDSA’s campaign focused on holding Breed accountable for six years of ineffectiveness. By emphasizing her mismanagement of critical issues—like the fentanyl crisis, homelessness, and the defunding of law enforcement—the SFDSA became the loudest and most impactful voice in the election.

  • Unmatched Endorsement Strategy: While other public safety unions avoided directly challenging Breed, the SFDSA endorsed Daniel Lurie, a candidate whose platform aligned with our mission to restore public safety and accountability in San Francisco.
  • Dominating the Narrative: Viral nicknames like “Fentanyl Breed,” “Defunder Breed,” and “Homeless Czar Breed” became shorthand for her administration’s incompetence, shaping how San Franciscans viewed her leadership.

This bold decision to endorse Lurie and attack Breed set the SFDSA apart as a driving force for change, influencing public opinion and the course of the election.


Daniel Lurie: The SFDSA’s Vision for Leadership

The SFDSA’s endorsement of Daniel Lurie wasn’t just a political move—it was a commitment to addressing San Francisco’s most pressing challenges. Lurie’s platform focused on:

  • Restoring Public Safety: Increasing staffing for law enforcement and addressing the city’s spiraling crime rates.
  • Fighting the Fentanyl Crisis: Implementing meaningful reforms to curb overdoses and hold drug dealers accountable.
  • Solving Homelessness: Pursuing innovative and effective solutions to get individuals off the streets and into supportive housing.

By endorsing Lurie, the SFDSA sent a clear message: public safety and accountability must be at the heart of San Francisco’s future.


SFDSA’s Multi-Pronged Campaign Strategy

The SFDSA executed a highly focused campaign that leveraged both modern and traditional outreach tools to ensure its message reached San Francisco voters.

Social Media Campaigns with Over 2 Million Views

The SFDSA’s social media campaigns were a game-changer. With over 2 million views, our posts and videos ensured that San Francisco voters repeatedly encountered our messaging in various forms.

  • Targeted Messaging: Ads and videos zeroed in on Breed’s most glaring failures, linking her directly to rising crime, the fentanyl epidemic, and homelessness.
  • Viral Impact: The SFDSA’s online content didn’t just inform—it sparked outrage. Nicknames like “Fentanyl Breed” trended locally, driving conversations across social platforms and further embedding her failures in the public’s mind.

Mailers That Left No Room for Doubt

We sent out approximately 300,000 mailers citywide, detailing Breed’s disastrous record.

  • Farrell-Focused Mailers: Two versions promoted Mark Farrell, emphasizing his strong stance on public safety and fiscal responsibility as a direct contrast to Breed’s weak leadership.
  • Anti-Breed Messaging: The remaining mailers honed in on her failures, ensuring that voters were armed with the facts about her inability to govern effectively.

Online Videos and TV Commercials

The SFDSA didn’t stop at social media. Professionally produced online videos and TV commercials reached voters on multiple platforms.

  • Unflinching Criticism: Videos showcased Breed’s failures in stark detail, leaving no ambiguity about the consequences of her policies.
  • Expanding the Conversation: By reinforcing these messages on television and online, we ensured Breed’s shortcomings were part of every voter’s conversation leading up to Election Day.

Partnering with Breexit.org

Recognizing the need to expand our reach even further, the SFDSA became the largest donor to Richie Greenberg’s Breexit.org, an anti-Breed PAC dedicated to exposing her failures and unseating her.

  • Collaboration for Maximum Impact: While Breexit.org provided an additional platform for anti-Breed messaging, our significant contributions helped amplify their efforts, ensuring the message spread widely.

No other organization matched the SFDSA’s commitment to exposing Breed. Our partnership with Breexit.org further underscored our leadership in the fight to unseat her.


The SFDSA: A Bold Voice for Change

What sets the SFDSA apart is that we stood alone in holding Breed accountable while supporting Daniel Lurie as the candidate to lead San Francisco into a new era.

  • Unique Endorsement: As the only public safety union to endorse Lurie, the SFDSA demonstrated both foresight and commitment to bold, necessary change.
  • Relentless Advocacy: The SFDSA’s campaign was uncompromising in exposing Breed’s failures and elevating Lurie’s vision, providing voters with the truth that no one else was willing to share.

The Result: A New Era for San Francisco

Daniel Lurie’s victory marks a turning point for San Francisco. With Lurie as mayor-elect, the city now has a leader ready to prioritize public safety, tackle the fentanyl epidemic, and implement meaningful solutions to homelessness.

The SFDSA’s campaign was instrumental in this outcome. By exposing Breed’s failures and promoting Daniel Lurie as the city’s best hope, the association not only influenced the election but also demonstrated the power of strategic advocacy in shaping the city’s future.

As San Francisco moves forward, the SFDSA remains committed to working with Lurie to ensure that public safety, accountability, and reform remain top priorities. This campaign wasn’t just about defeating London Breed—it was about setting a new standard for leadership that truly serves the people. And we delivered.