Tag: San Francisco Sheriff’s Department

The Case for Entry-Level Signing Bonuses for New Recruits

In the dynamic world of law enforcement, it’s essential to continuously seek innovative approaches to bolster our teams. Building upon the recent discussion of signing bonuses for experienced officers, let’s consider the potential impact of offering an entry-level signing bonus, set at a competitive $35,000.00, for aspiring law enforcement recruits. While this proposed bonus may not match the scale of those provided to lateral hires, its potential in attracting and cultivating a dedicated and enthusiastic new wave of recruits cannot be overlooked.

entry level sign on bonus

 

The introduction of this entry-level signing bonus serves as a testament to our commitment to nurturing a diverse and resilient law enforcement community, one that prioritizes the safety and well-being of our neighborhoods. By attracting and supporting a fresh influx of recruits, we anticipate a significant increase in the number of deputy sheriffs and police officers. This surge in manpower holds the promise of heightened public safety and enhanced care for our communities.

Moreover, as we welcome more staff into our ranks, we anticipate a reduction in overtime and a decrease in the exhaustion experienced by our current deputies and officers. This shift not only promotes a healthier and more sustainable work environment but also ensures that our dedicated law enforcement professionals can carry out their duties effectively and with a renewed focus on serving our communities.

As we contemplate this proposal, it is evident that our dedication to exploring innovative recruitment strategies remains unwavering. By extending a helping hand to the next generation of law enforcement professionals, we are taking vital steps toward building a more secure and safer tomorrow for the communities we serve. San Francisco needs to implement Sign On Bonuses Now!

Cost Neutral Sign On Bonus Program: The Smart Way to Cut Recruitment Costs

In the fast-paced world of law enforcement, we’re all too familiar with the challenges of securing top-notch talent while balancing the books. As we navigate this landscape, one tactic gaining traction is the introduction of cost-neutral lateral officer signing bonuses tailored to recognize the value of all ready trained Deputy Sheriffs and Police Officers. By cutting out the costs tied to academy training, wages, and benefits, often stretching over 6 to 9 months, we can redirect these savings into an enticing signing bonus program for lateral officers which have all ready been trained and have experience, boasting an impressive $75,000.00 similar to Alameda’s Police Sign On Bonus.

Skipping the expenses typically associated with conventional academy training, including instructor fees, equipment purchases, and administrative overhead, frees up a significant chunk of the agency’s budget. Not to mention, bypassing the need to pay wages and benefits to new recruits during their training phase adds to the pot of saved resources. This move acknowledges the skill set and know-how of experienced officers, making long-drawn training periods obsolete and, as a result, bringing in substantial savings for the agency.

By funneling these funds into an attractive signing bonus package, our law enforcement agency positions itself as a competitive and appealing career destination for seasoned professionals. This $75,000.00 sign-on bonus stands as a testament to our recognition of the expertise and dedication of our lateral officers. It’s a powerful motivator for experienced officers to consider making the shift to our team. Their inclusion not only fortifies our operational capabilities but also nurtures a dynamic and diverse work environment brimming with specialized knowledge and honed skills.

With a firm commitment to fiscal responsibility and the nurturing of a high-caliber workforce, the strategic introduction of cost-neutral signing bonuses signals a significant shift in our recruitment approach. By shrewdly redirecting savings from omitted training costs, we demonstrate our unwavering dedication to attracting top-tier talent and bolstering our operational prowess, all in the service of upholding the highest standards of public safety and community well-being.  San Francisco needs to implement Sign On Bonuses Now!

Mayor London Breed’s Strained Relations with Sheriffs Fuel Taxpayer Costs and Public Safety Imbalance in San Francisco

Mayor London Breed’s contentious relationship with the Sheriff’s office in San Francisco has not only sparked a series of lawsuits but has also triggered a financial burden on taxpayers, amplifying concerns about public safety and the welfare of incarcerated people within the county jails. The repercussions of Mayor Breed’s alleged hostility towards the Sheriffs have become increasingly evident, as budget cuts and staffing shortages have resulted in deteriorating jail conditions, mounting legal battles, and a glaring imbalance in the city’s public safety funding.

The degrading conditions within the county jails have prompted a wave of lawsuits filed by prisoners, highlighting the pervasive issues of poor living standards, compromised safety measures, and the absence of adequate healthcare provisions. These legal actions underscore the distressing impact of the Mayor’s purported animosity towards the Sheriff’s office, revealing a systemic neglect of fundamental human rights and a failure to uphold the basic standards of inmate welfare.

Compounding these concerns, the chronic understaffing of deputy sheriffs has not only jeopardized the safety of law enforcement personnel but has also significantly hindered the Sheriff’s office’s ability to ensure the well-being and security of incarcerated people. With the Mayor’s persistent cuts to the Sheriff’s budget, the hiring process has slowed down, at times even halting, exacerbating the strain on an already burdened system and amplifying the risks faced by both inmates and deputies.

 

As a result of these troubling circumstances, the city has faced mounting legal fees and settlements, as lawsuits filed by inmates continue to surface, with many resulting in successful verdicts against the city administration. The financial implications of these legal battles have created a substantial burden on taxpayers, underscoring the urgent need for a comprehensive reassessment of the city’s approach to public safety funding and correctional facility management.

Furthermore, the stark contrast in budgetary allocations, with the Sheriff’s office facing funding cuts while the police and fire departments enjoy increased financial support, has raised questions about the Mayor’s priorities and the equitable distribution of resources. This unbalanced approach to public safety budgeting has not only widened the gap between various law enforcement entities but has also significantly strained the city’s resources, forcing taxpayers to bear the brunt of mounting legal costs and compromised public safety standards.

In light of these challenges, it is imperative for city officials to prioritize the restoration of a balanced and collaborative approach to public safety funding and jail facility management. Addressing the grievances between the Mayor’s office and the Sheriff’s office, along with a comprehensive overhaul of budget allocations, is crucial to ensuring the effective functioning of the jail system and the overall well-being of all residents in San Francisco. Only through a concerted effort to bridge the gap and foster a unified approach to public safety can the city begin to mitigate the financial strain and uphold the rights and dignity of its residents.

San Francisco’s Criminal Justice System: A Balancing Act with Limited Resources and the Mayor’s Funding Failure

San Francisco’s criminal justice system is grappling with a multifaceted crisis, characterized by a significant imbalance in resource allocation, challenges in monitoring pretrial diversion and electronic monitoring, and the persistent issue of outstanding warrants. A critical element that exacerbates this problem is the Mayor’s apparent failure to adequately fund the Sheriff’s Office, which is tasked with managing these critical aspects of the criminal justice system. This article delves deeper into these issues, highlighting the impacts of inadequate funding on the functioning of the system.

A Strain on Sheriff’s Office Resources

San Francisco’s Sheriff’s Office plays a pivotal role in overseeing pretrial diversion programs, electronic monitoring, and the apprehension of individuals with outstanding warrants. However, the Sheriff’s Office has been grappling with resource shortages that severely hamper its effectiveness.

Electronic Monitoring Oversight

Perhaps one of the most glaring issues is the overwhelming caseload faced by a mere one to two deputy sheriffs per shift responsible for monitoring 500 individuals on electronic ankle monitoring. This stark imbalance between the number of offenders and the personnel assigned to oversee them has several consequences:

  1. Inadequate supervision: The limited number of personnel makes it exceedingly difficult to ensure effective supervision and compliance with the terms of electronic monitoring. This raises concerns about the potential for offenders to exploit these conditions or reoffend without proper oversight.
  2. Rehabilitation and reintegration: The objective of electronic monitoring programs, which is to support rehabilitation and successful reintegration into society, becomes questionable when the sheer caseload makes individualized attention and support nearly impossible.

The Overburdened Warrants Service Unit

The Warrants Service Unit, tasked with actively seeking out and apprehending individuals with outstanding warrants, operates with just five deputies. The implications of this understaffing are far-reaching:

  1. Limited apprehension capacity: With a minimal workforce, the unit struggles to locate and arrest individuals with outstanding warrants in a timely manner. This undermines the credibility and effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
  2. Accumulating warrants: The challenges faced by the Warrants Service Unit contribute to the mounting number of outstanding warrants, leaving many individuals unaccounted for and the public at risk.

Mayor’s Failure to Fund

2023 San Francisco budget

It is imperative to address the core issue: the Mayor’s apparent failure to allocate adequate funding to the Sheriff’s Office. This funding deficiency exacerbates the problems within the criminal justice system, resulting in an imbalanced workload for deputies, an ever-increasing number of outstanding warrants, and the erosion of public trust.

The implications of this funding shortfall are clear:

  1. Reduced public safety: Inadequate funding of the Sheriff’s Office directly impacts the safety of San Francisco’s residents. Insufficient resources hinder the effective supervision and apprehension of offenders.
  2. Strain on law enforcement: Deputies are faced with insurmountable caseloads, making it nearly impossible for them to fulfill their responsibilities effectively. This, in turn, affects the quality of rehabilitation programs and the timely apprehension of individuals with outstanding warrants.

San Francisco’s criminal justice system grapples with severe challenges, primarily due to the lack of funding for the Sheriff’s Office. The Mayor’s failure to address this issue has far-reaching consequences, leading to imbalanced workloads, a growing number of outstanding warrants, and a loss of public trust. Addressing this problem requires a fundamental reevaluation of resource allocation and a commitment to bolstering the Sheriff’s Office’s capabilities. It is crucial to bridge this funding gap to ensure that the criminal justice system can meet its core objectives while safeguarding the interests of the community.

San Francisco Sheriff’s Office Takes Bold Action as Mayor Breed’s Strategies Fall Short in Drug Crisis

In a stunning turn of events, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has emerged as the driving force in the fight against the escalating drug crisis, as Mayor London Breed’s strategies continue to fall short. With the city grappling with drug-related issues, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto has taken decisive action, unveiling a courageous plan to deploy 130 additional deputies to the troubled Tenderloin and South of Market (SoMa) neighborhoods.

SF Sheriff Tenderloin Initiative
SF Sheriff Tenderloin Initiative

While Mayor Breed’s approach has faced criticism for its ineffectiveness, Sheriff Miyamoto has stepped up to lead the charge in tackling the deep-rooted drug problem. With resolute determination, the Sheriff’s Office has presented a comprehensive strategy to address drug dealers and individuals openly using drugs in public. The deployment of additional deputies, starting this month, signifies a seismic shift in the battle against crime and substance abuse.

Sheriff Miyamoto, flanked by concerned citizens and law enforcement officials, announced this groundbreaking initiative outside City Hall. With unwavering resolve, he highlighted the urgent need for effective action in combating the city’s drug crisis. The Sheriff’s Office, guided by a steadfast commitment to public safety, is now taking the reins in the quest to find real solutions.

While the Sheriff’s Office courageously assumes a leading role, it is no secret that Mayor Breed’s strategies have fallen short of expectations. The current approach has been marred by limited success and persistent challenges. Public health experts have long decried the idea of relying on incarceration and criminalization as effective means to address substance abuse disorders.


However, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office’s proactive stance offers hope for a different path forward. By increasing law enforcement presence and targeting drug-related offenses, they aim to restore order and offer a helping hand to those struggling with addiction. The Sheriff’s Office’s unwavering dedication to the community’s well-being is a testament to their commitment to creating lasting change.

Nevertheless, significant hurdles remain in this uphill battle. Both the San Francisco Police Department and the Sheriff’s Office confront staffing shortages that hinder their ability to effectively address the city’s safety concerns. Police Chief Bill Scott emphasized the importance of receiving adequate funding and support from elected officials to overcome these challenges. The commitment of city leaders to address staffing issues will be crucial in achieving tangible progress.

As the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office takes bold strides in confronting the drug crisis, it is evident that their approach stands in stark contrast to Mayor Breed’s faltering strategies. With their specialized training and unwavering dedication, the Sheriff’s Office deputies will fearlessly patrol the streets, tackling criminal elements head-on and extending a lifeline to those lost in the grips of addiction.

While the Sheriff’s Office shoulders the burden of this monumental task, it is vital for the community to rally behind them. Together, we can bring about meaningful change, ensuring a safer and healthier future for San Francisco. Let us unite in support of the determined men and women of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office as they lead the charge to reshape our city’s destiny in the face of a daunting drug crisis.

Mayor London Breed’s Covert Defunding Tactics: Undermining the Sheriff’s Department

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Mayor London Breed’s strategic defunding of the Sheriff’s Department in San Francisco has ignited concerns among law enforcement officials and citizens alike. Operating under the radar, these silent defunding measures, such as the denial of the longevity incentive proposal on May 15th, 2023, and disproportionate budget cuts, are adversely impacting the department’s staffing levels and compromising public safety. Let’s examine these covert actions and their potential ramifications on the Sheriff’s Department.

Denial of Longevity Incentive Proposal

One glaring example of Mayor Breed’s covert defunding strategy is the denial of the longevity incentive proposal. On May 15th, 2023, Mayor Breed rejected this proposal aimed at retaining experienced deputies eligible for retirement, and she also failed to come to the table with a counter proposal or offer any alternative ideas to address the issue. This lack of engagement and proactive effort from the mayor demonstrates a concerning disregard for the retention of deputy sheriffs and exacerbates the ongoing staffing crisis within the Sheriff’s Department. The loss of 50 to 110 deputies due to early retirement further strains the department, leading to increased workloads, reduced efficiency, and compromised public safety.

Budget Cuts and Disproportionate Allocation

Mayor Breed’s budget decisions further illustrate her covert defunding tactics. While slashing the Sheriff’s Department budget by 3%, the mayor simultaneously increased the budgets of other public safety departments, such as the police by 9% and the fire department by 3%. This disproportionate allocation sends a troubling message about the mayor’s priorities and undermines the Sheriff’s Department’s ability to effectively carry out its duties.

Unused Funds and Overtime Reduction

The mayor’s claim of utilizing unused funds from vacant positions and reducing overtime within the Sheriff’s Office raises questions about the allocation of resources. If these funds were available, they could have been redirected to support initiatives like the longevity incentive proposal, thereby mitigating staffing shortages and reducing the need for overtime. However, the failure to do so implies a disregard for the long-term sustainability of the department and places an unnecessary burden on the existing workforce.

Implications for Public Safety and Financial Efficiency

The consequences of Mayor Breed’s covert defunding tactics extend beyond understaffing. Insufficient staffing levels compromise response times, limit the department’s ability to proactively address emerging challenges, and hinder the delivery of essential services to the community. Moreover, the reliance on overtime to fill vacant positions not only strains the budget but also places an additional burden on the dedicated deputies who shoulder the increased workload.

A Call for Accountability and Transparency

In light of these concerning developments, it is crucial for concerned citizens, deputies, and community stakeholders to hold Mayor London Breed accountable for her silent defunding strategies. The Sheriff’s Department plays a vital role in maintaining public safety, and it deserves the necessary resources and support to fulfill its duties effectively.

Additionally, transparency and open dialogue are imperative in addressing these budgetary concerns. Citizens must demand clear explanations and justifications for the disproportionate budget cuts and the denial of proposals aimed at retaining experienced deputies. By fostering transparency, the community can actively participate in shaping a fair and effective criminal justice system that prioritizes public safety.

Mayor London Breed’s covert defunding tactics targeting the Sheriff’s Department in San Francisco have serious implications for public safety and the well-being of the community. The denial of the longevity incentive proposal on May 15th, 2023, without offering any alternative solutions, and the disproportionate budget cuts jeopardize the department’s staffing levels, hindering its ability to maintain law and order effectively. It is essential for citizens and stakeholders to voice their concerns, demand accountability, and advocate for the allocation of resources that align with the department’s needs. Only through open dialogue and collaborative efforts can we ensure a robust and secure future for the Sheriff’s Department and the community it serves. By holding Mayor Breed accountable for her silent defunding strategies, we can work towards a fair and effective criminal justice system that prioritizes public safety and upholds the principles of justice and equality.

 

Media Contact:

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

The Impact of Operant Conditioning on Criminal Mindsets: San Francisco’s Lenient Approach under Scrutiny

open-air-drug-marketOperant conditioning, a psychological concept that examines how behavior is influenced by consequences, has far-reaching implications in various aspects of our lives. In the realm of criminal justice, the application of operant conditioning principles can have profound effects on the mindset of offenders. This article delves into the concerning issue of San Francisco’s lenient approach to offenders who violate the conditions of their electronic monitoring and the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project. By exploring the inadvertent reinforcement of wrong behavior through operant conditioning, we shed light on the significant impact this leniency has on the criminal mindset and its implications for public safety.

Operant Conditioning and Criminal Mindsets: Operant conditioning, as developed by psychologist B.F. Skinner, posits that behaviors are shaped and maintained by their consequences. In the context of criminal behavior, the principles of operant conditioning can play a pivotal role in reinforcing or discouraging criminal actions. When offenders consistently experience minimal consequences or repeated chances without facing severe repercussions, they inadvertently learn that their wrong behavior can go unpunished. This forms the foundation for the development of a criminal mindset, where individuals perceive that their actions have little accountability or deterrence.

Leniency in San Francisco’s Criminal Justice System: San Francisco’s lenient approach towards offenders who violate electronic monitoring and the San Francisco Pretrial Diversion Project is a cause for concern. Instead of imposing substantial consequences for violations, offenders are granted multiple chances and minimal penalties. This leniency inadvertently reinforces the wrong behavior, undermining the principles of accountability and deterrence. As a result, offenders develop a distorted perception that their actions carry no significant consequences, contributing to a culture of impunity.

The Reinforcement of Wrong Behavior: The lenient application of operant conditioning in San Francisco’s criminal justice system inadvertently reinforces wrong behavior among offenders. By repeatedly granting chances and minimal penalties, the system fails to establish a strong connection between criminal actions and negative outcomes. Offenders perceive that their actions have little impact on their freedom or future, further entrenching the belief that criminal behavior can go unpunished. This reinforcement of wrong behavior creates a vicious cycle, leading to an increase in criminal activity and posing a threat to public safety.

Implications for Public Safety: The lenient approach driven by operant conditioning principles in San Francisco has significant implications for public safety. When offenders perceive that their actions have minimal consequences, it erodes the deterrent effect that a robust criminal justice system should have. The lack of accountability not only emboldens offenders but also sends a detrimental message to the community, instilling a sense of insecurity and a loss of trust in the justice system. As a result, crime rates escalate, innocent lives are shattered, and neighborhoods suffer the consequences of a flawed approach to rehabilitation.

Moving Towards a Balanced Approach: Recognizing the detrimental impact of operant conditioning on criminal mindsets, it is essential to adopt a more balanced approach in San Francisco’s criminal justice system. Striking a balance between rehabilitation and accountability is crucial. Implementing structured consequences that are proportionate to the severity of offenses can create a stronger deterrent effect. By ensuring that offenders face meaningful repercussions for their actions, we can break the cycle of wrong behavior and foster a greater sense of accountability and responsibility.

The inadvertent reinforcement of wrong behavior through leniency in San Francisco’s criminal justice system, driven by operant conditioning principles, poses a significant challenge to public safety. The development of a criminal mindset, wherein offenders perceive little accountability or deterrence, perpetuates a cycle of wrongdoing. It is imperative for policymakers, law enforcement agencies, and community stakeholders to address this issue. By adopting a more balanced approach that incorporates accountability, proportional consequences, and a commitment

High Crime in San Francisco and the Benefits of Owning a Protection Dog

San Francisco, like many other cities, faces the challenge of crime in certain neighborhoods. In such areas, residents often seek ways to enhance their security measures and protect their homes and families. One effective option is owning a protection dog, which can serve as a deterrent to intruders and provide a sense of safety. In this article, we will explore the high crime rate in San Francisco and discuss the benefits of owning a protection dog. Additionally, we will highlight some of the best breeds of dogs that are commonly used as protection dogs.

Protection Dogs

High Crime in San Francisco: San Francisco has faced challenges with crime, particularly property crime, in certain neighborhoods. According to recent data from the San Francisco Police Department, there has been an increase in crimes such as burglary, theft, and auto theft in some areas of the city. These incidents can cause residents to feel vulnerable and anxious about the safety of their homes and families.

Benefits of Owning a Protection Dog: Owning a protection dog can offer several benefits, especially in high-crime areas like San Francisco. Here are some advantages of having a protection dog:

  1. Enhanced Security: A well-trained protection dog can serve as a visible deterrent to potential intruders. The presence of a protection dog can deter criminals from attempting to break into a property, as they are less likely to risk encountering a trained and vigilant dog.
  2. Effective Crime Prevention: Protection dogs are trained to alert their owners to potential threats, such as intruders or suspicious activity. Their keen senses, such as heightened hearing and scent detection, can help prevent crimes from occurring or escalating.
  3. Companionship: In addition to providing security, protection dogs can also be loving and loyal companions. They can offer companionship and emotional support to their owners, which can be particularly comforting in high-crime areas where residents may feel anxious or unsafe.
  4. Peace of Mind: Knowing that you have a trained protection dog can provide peace of mind for homeowners and their families. Protection dogs can provide a sense of security, knowing that they are trained to protect their home and loved ones.

Best Breeds of Dogs for Protection: Not all dog breeds are suitable for protection work, as temperament, size, and behavior traits vary among different breeds. Here are some of the best breeds of dogs commonly used as protection dogs:

  1. German Shepherd: German Shepherds are known for their intelligence, versatility, and loyalty. They are often used as police and military dogs due to their ability to be trained for various tasks, including protection work.
  2. Belgian Malinois: Belgian Malinois are highly energetic and intelligent dogs that excel in protection work. They are known for their speed, agility, and strong work ethic, and are often used in police and military roles.
  3. Doberman Pinscher: Doberman Pinschers are known for their loyalty and protective instincts. They are intelligent and trainable, with a natural ability to guard their home and family.
  4. Rottweiler: Rottweilers are powerful and protective dogs that have a natural instinct to guard their family and territory. They are known for their strength and courage, making them effective protection dogs.
  5. Boxer: Boxers are strong and athletic dogs that can excel in protection work. They are known for their loyalty, intelligence, and protective nature.
  6. Great Dane: While not as common as some of the other breeds on this list, Great Danes can also make excellent protection dogs. Despite their large size, they are known for their gentle and friendly nature, but can also be protective when needed.

Protection DogIt’s important to note that while these breeds are commonly used as protection dogs, not all individual dogs of these breeds may possess the necessary temperament, training, and behavior traits to excel in protection work. Proper training and socialization from a young age are crucial to ensure that a protection dog is well-behaved, obedient, and capable of handling potential threats in a controlled manner.

Conclusion: In high-crime areas like San Francisco, owning a protection dog can provide an added layer of security and peace of mind for homeowners and their families. The presence of a well-trained protection dog can deter intruders, prevent crimes, and offer companionship and emotional support. However, it’s important to carefully consider the responsibilities and requirements of owning a protection dog, including proper training, socialization, and ongoing care.

If you’re interested in owning a protection dog, it’s recommended to work with a reputable breeder or professional dog trainer who specializes in protection dogs. They can help you choose the right breed and individual dog that fits your specific needs and lifestyle, and provide guidance on training and care.

Remember that owning a protection dog is a significant commitment, and it’s important to be prepared for the responsibilities and challenges that come with it. However, for those who are willing to invest the time, effort, and resources into proper training and care, a well-trained protection dog can offer invaluable benefits in enhancing home security and providing peace of mind in high-crime areas.

SFPOA’s “SFO Training” Debunked

The San Francisco Police Officers Association (SFPOA) has recently raised concerns on Twitter about advanced officer training requirements for San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs to work at the city’s airport, SFO. However, upon closer examination, it is clear that the training in question is not as difficult or time-consuming as the SFPOA suggests.

SFO Airport Police

The “training” referred to by the San Francisco Police Officer Association is the California POST Aviation Security Training, a one-week, 40-hour course available to all law enforcement officers, not just the SFPD. The course covers the history of aviation security, introduction to the airport environment, criminal threat to the aviation industry, agencies and jurisdictions involved in airport security (such as the TSA, FBI, CBP, and USSS), legal aspects of aviation security, and the responsibilities of law enforcement officers working in an airport setting.

This training is not particularly difficult, and can easily be completed by San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs to meet the requirement to work at SFO. By allowing the SFPD to shift some of the police officers currently working at the airport back to the city, it will alleviate the staffing pressures on the SFPD and allow for a more efficient use of resources.

One solution is to grandfather in any SFPD officers close to retirement at the airport, and then work with the Sheriff to create a phased staffing plan that would allow for a percentage of police officers at the airport to return to SF to patrol in the City. This phased approach would ensure a smooth transition and allow for adequate staffing at the airport while also relieving pressure on the SFPD.

In conclusion, the minimum training requirements for San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs to work at SFO are not as difficult or time-consuming as the SFPOA suggests. By allowing the SFPD to shift some of its officers back to the city, it will alleviate staffing pressures and allow for a more efficient use of resources. The SFDSA will work with the Sheriff to create a functional staffing plan and assist with recruiting to ensure a smooth transition.

SFPOA Makes Childish Attack on SFDSA

On January 14, 2023 at 8:12 PM, the San Francisco Police Officers Association (SFPOA) made a statement that was misleading and contained falsehoods. The SFPOA claimed that the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) cannot staff the jails, but this is not true. According to mandatory guidelines, SFSO Deputy Sheriffs are required to staff the jails.  The SFSO staffs the jails on voluntary overtime or mandated overtime. The SFSO is working to increase recruitment and reduce overtime, and has made significant progress in recruiting new Deputy Sheriffs.

The SFPOA also claimed that the SFSO lacks the training required to perform their duties. This is also untrue. The SFSO has the same POST training certifications as police officers and more. The only additional training required by the California Peace Officers Standards of Training is an Aviation Security Training course, which is only a 40 hour course. The SFPOA is presenting this as a significant hurdle, but it is not.  Additional training can be easily accomplished. See our current list of training in our article “San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs are highly trained individuals.”

The SFPOA also stated that the SFSO lacks the training to respond to a terrorist attack. The SFDSA strongly disagrees with this claim. In the event of a terrorist attack, the SFPD will turn to the SFSO for assistance. The SFSO has a long history of responding to large scale emergencies such as riots, the Loma Prieto Earthquake, and forest fires. The SFSO also responded to the recent COVID-19 pandemic and worked 24/7 to protect the public.

SFPOA Childish Attack with false info

 

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) has a dedicated Emergency Services Unit (ESU) that includes a Special Response Team, a Crisis Negotiation Team, and a Radio Telephone Operator Team. These teams respond to emergencies within the Department, City, and County of San Francisco, as well as mutual aid requests from other jurisdictions. The ESU also includes a Mobile Field Force (MFF) that is trained to respond to major critical incidents, including Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive (CBRNE) devices. The MFF is led by a Platoon Commander, an Executive Officer and is divided into four squads.

The San Francisco Police Officers Association (SFPOA) has misleadingly claimed that it is not possible for Deputy Sheriffs to work at the airport. However, the SFPD arrest data at the airport is minimal, with an average of approximately 300 arrests per year, and approximately 130 SFPD officers (staffing data from 2020). Additionally, the SFPD has 27 Sergeants at the airport, which is an unusual ratio of 1 supervisor to every 5 police officers. It is clear that the level of arrests at the airport is low and it would be a misuse of City resources to have SFPD at the airport. We will provide updated data as it becomes available.

As stated on Twitter prior to the SFPOA’s misleading post, it is possible for the SFSO to staff the airport. First, we can grandfather in any PD Officer close to retirement. Second, a percentage of the police officers at the airport can return to SF to patrol. And third, the SFDSA will work with the Sheriff to create a functional staffing plan and assist with recruiting. This can be done in a phased approach, not overnight.