Addressing the Inefficiency of the Sheriff’s Hiring Process Compared to the SFPD

July 31, 2024

The San Francisco Sheriff’s Office (SFSO) is currently facing significant challenges in its hiring process, particularly when compared to the more streamlined and efficient practices of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). The inefficiencies within the Sheriff’s hiring process have contributed to prolonged recruitment times and hindered our ability to attract and retain qualified candidates. It is essential to highlight these issues and propose actionable solutions to address them.

Inefficiency in the Written Exam Process

One of the primary areas of inefficiency within the Sheriff’s hiring process is the written exam. The Sheriff requires candidates to take the NTN (National Testing Network) exam, which is not as widely accepted as the PELLET B exam used by the SFPD and many other law enforcement agencies across California. The PELLET B exam offers several advantages:

Acceptance by Multiple Agencies: PELLET B scores are accepted by numerous law enforcement agencies, allowing candidates to use their existing certified scores from other jurisdictions. This eliminates the need for candidates to take multiple written exams and streamlines the application process.
Accessibility: There are more testing locations for the PELLET B exam throughout California, making it more convenient and accessible for candidates.
Efficiency: Offering both the PELLET B and NTN exams would provide candidates with more options and streamline the hiring process, making it more efficient and candidate-friendly.

Despite these clear advantages, the Sheriff has refused to fully adopt the PELLET B exam, opting instead to continue using the NTN exam. This decision has resulted in unnecessary barriers for potential candidates and has contributed to longer recruitment times.

Comparison of Hiring Timelines

The inefficiencies in the Sheriff’s hiring process are further highlighted by comparing the recruitment timelines of the Sheriff and the SFPD. The SFPD has managed to streamline its hiring process, achieving recruitment times of 6 to 8 months. In contrast, the Sheriff’s recruitment timeline ranges from 9 to 18 months, significantly longer than that of the SFPD. This extended timeline is a major deterrent for potential candidates and hampers our ability to fill critical positions promptly.

Use of Technology in the Interview Process

Another area where the Sheriff lags behind the SFPD is in the use of technology for interviews. The SFPD has embraced modern technology by conducting interviews via video conferencing platforms such as Zoom. This approach not only speeds up the hiring process but also makes it more convenient for candidates who may have scheduling or geographical constraints. In contrast, the Sheriff still insists on in-person interviews, which are time-consuming and less flexible. Adopting video conferencing for interviews would be a significant step towards modernizing our hiring process and reducing recruitment times.

Implemented Suggestions

While the Sheriff has accepted our suggestion to waive the online test fees for the NTN exam, this partial measure does not fully address the underlying inefficiencies in the hiring process. Waiving the fees is a positive step, but it falls short of the comprehensive changes needed to make the Sheriff’s hiring process more efficient and competitive.

Authority to Hire Above Entry Step

Another inefficiency in the Sheriff’s hiring process is the refusal to hire above the entry step, despite having the authority to do so. In 2022, Employee Relations Director Ardis Graham confirmed that the Sheriff has the power to hire above Step 1 to attract more entry level applicants. However, this authority has not been utilized, further hindering our entry level recruitment efforts. Hiring at Step 2 would make the Sheriff more competitive and attractive to potential candidates, yet this strategy remains underutilized.

The current inefficiencies in the Sheriff’s hiring process are a significant barrier to attracting and retaining qualified candidates. By adopting the PELLET B exam, offering both test options, utilizing video conferencing for interviews, and exercising the authority to hire above the entry step, the Sheriff can streamline its hiring process and reduce recruitment times. These changes are essential to ensuring that our department is adequately staffed and capable of meeting the demands of our community.

It is time for the Sheriff to take decisive action to address these inefficiencies and implement the necessary changes to improve our hiring process. The SFDSA remains committed to advocating for these improvements and will continue to push for the adoption of more efficient and effective recruitment practices.

How Mayor London Breed Defunded the Sheriff’s Office

July 20, 2024

San Francisco’s public safety has been in a precarious position due to Mayor London Breed’s approach to handling the city’s law enforcement agencies, particularly the Sheriff’s Office. Despite growing concerns about understaffing, rising violent incidents in jails, and the critical need for better resource allocation, Mayor Breed’s decisions have led to what many see as a strategic defunding of the Sheriff’s Office. This article delves into the details of how this has unfolded.

Civilianizing Police Positions

One of the key moves by Mayor Breed has been the civilianization of police and deputy sheriff positions. By replacing sworn officers with civilians in various roles and introducing so-called “ambassadors” without police powers, the Mayor has significantly reduced the number of operational deputies and police officers. While the intention is to increase the presence of mental health professionals and address crime as a mental health issue, this shift has left police officers and deputy sheriffs struggling to cope with the escalating demands of their jobs. This reallocation of responsibilities has effectively reduced the number of police and deputies available to handle the core functions of law enforcement, further straining the already overstressed system.

Denying Critical Funding Requests

The Mayor’s budgetary policies have directly impacted the staffing levels within the Sheriff’s Office. In recent years, the number of deputy sheriffs has been declining, leaving the department dangerously understaffed. The latest figures indicate that there are currently only 611 deputies, a number far below what is needed to ensure public safety and manage the city’s jails, courts, and booking facilities effectively.

A clear example of this is Mayor Breed’s denial of the Sheriff’s request for $500,000 specifically allocated for recruiting new deputies. This refusal to fund essential recruiting efforts has further exacerbated the staffing crisis, leaving the department unable to attract and retain the personnel needed to function effectively. Without adequate funding for recruitment, the Sheriff’s Office cannot compete with other law enforcement agencies offering better hiring incentives and support.

Pausing Hiring and Promotions

In June 2020, Mayor Breed took the drastic step of pausing all police and sheriff’s hires and promotions to conduct an audit of law enforcement exams to root out bias. While addressing bias is important, this move has significantly hampered the already strained Sheriff’s Office. The pause put on hold exams for hundreds of potential jobs and promotions, leaving 636 people eligible to become deputy sheriffs without the opportunity to be hired or promoted (SF mayor pauses police,…). This strategic pause has created a bottleneck in the hiring pipeline, delaying the entry of new deputies into the force and exacerbating the understaffing issue.

Progressive Justice System and Jail Closures

Mayor Breed’s focus on a progressive justice system has also contributed to the current challenges. She has been a strong proponent of closing jails and opposing the construction of new ones, aiming to reduce incarceration rates. In 2015, she led the effort to reject an $80 million grant from the State Public Works Board to build a new jail, favoring alternatives to incarceration such as mental health treatment and substance abuse programs (San Francisco superviso…).

As a result, San Francisco’s jails are now overcrowded and often on lockdown due to the high number of inmates, many of whom are violent offenders. The facilities were not designed to handle such a high concentration of violent individuals, leading to increased incidents of violence within the jails and making it even more challenging for the understaffed Sheriff’s Office to maintain order and safety. The progressive justice system has also led to several issues:

Lack of Sunlight: Inmates who do not receive adequate sunlight are at risk for vitamin D deficiency, which can lead to weakened bones, fatigue, and a weakened immune system. Additionally, the lack of natural light exposure can contribute to depression and other mental health issues.
Limited Recreation Space: Physical activity is essential for maintaining physical and mental health. The lack of recreation space in overcrowded jails leads to a sedentary lifestyle, increasing the risk of cardiovascular diseases, obesity, and other health problems. Mentally, the absence of regular exercise can exacerbate stress, anxiety, and depression.
Reduced Rehabilitation Opportunities: The shortage of deputies has resulted in inadequate security for rehabilitation programs, including educational classes, vocational training, and religious meetings. Without sufficient deputies to ensure safety and security during these activities, many rehabilitation programs are curtailed or canceled, depriving inmates of critical opportunities for personal development and reintegration into society.
Crowded and Inadequate Facilities: The remaining jails were not built for maximum security and are ill-equipped to handle the increase in administrative separation inmates and protective custody inmates. This overcrowding and inadequate infrastructure compromise safety and security, both for the inmates and the staff.

Additionally, the overcrowded conditions and lack of deputies have severely hindered the ability to provide necessary supervision during rehabilitation activities such as educational classes, vocational training, and religious meetings. Without adequate security, these programs are often curtailed or canceled, depriving inmates of crucial opportunities for personal development and rehabilitation.

Public Safety Buildings Built Citywide

Despite the critical need for facilities and resources for the Sheriff’s Office, Mayor Breed has prioritized other public safety projects over addressing these needs. Significant investments have been made in building and renovating multiple public safety facilities citywide, including:

A new San Francisco Animal Care and Control headquarters, completed in March 2021 with a budget of $76.4 million (San Francisco Animal Ca…).
The new Fireboat Station No. 35, completed in February 2022 at a cost of $51 million (Fireboat Station No. 35…).
The new SFFD Station 49 (Ambulance Deployment Facility), completed in May 2021 with a budget of $50.1 million (New SFFD Station 49 (Am…).
The Ingleside Police Station Replacement, an ongoing project with a budget of $53 million (Ingleside Police Statio…).
The 9-1-1 Call Center renovation, an ongoing project with a budget of $9 million (9-1-1 Call Center | Pub…).
Disaster response facilities, including the renovation of Kezar Pavilion, with a budget of $137 million (Disaster Response Facil…).

While these projects address various public safety needs, the lack of comparable investments in the Sheriff’s Office highlights a clear disparity in resource allocation. This selective investment strategy suggests a bias and a lack of support for the Sheriff’s Office, further undermining its ability to function effectively.

Lack of Hiring Incentives and Public Support

Mayor Breed’s administration has also failed to implement any hiring incentives to attract new deputy sheriff applicants. Unlike other law enforcement agencies that offer signing bonuses, competitive starting salaries, and comprehensive benefits packages to attract talent, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office has been left without similar support. This lack of hiring incentives makes it challenging for the Sheriff’s Office to compete in a highly competitive job market.

Despite the pressing need for more deputies, the Mayor’s office has not provided adequate funding for recruiting efforts or offered any substantial incentives for new applicants. The lack of urgency in addressing the hiring crisis is evident, as there have been no public statements or campaigns initiated by the Mayor to attract new recruits to the Sheriff’s Office. This oversight, combined with a misleading presentation of the budget figures—inflated by $13 million from contract negotiations—creates an illusion of increased funding and support that does not translate into tangible improvements for the deputies.

Shift in Policy Due to Public Pressure

Mayor Breed initially supported the “Defund the Police” movement, cutting $120 million from the budgets of both San Francisco’s police and sheriff’s departments in response to demands from Black Lives Matter protesters (Behind London Breed’s ‘…). However, as crime rates surged and public dissatisfaction grew, she shifted her stance, requesting more funding for the police to address rising crime, including open-air drug dealing and retail theft. Despite this shift, the Sheriff’s Office continued to face significant budgetary constraints and lack of support.

Public Safety Concerns

Public safety concerns have been on the rise since 2021, with a survey indicating that 70% of San Franciscans feel the quality of life has worsened over the past few years due to increased crime and public safety issues (San Franciscans concern…). Property crimes and violent crimes have seen significant increases, and the general public’s dissatisfaction has grown, highlighting the need for more robust law enforcement support and resources (Here’s what San Francis…).

Mayor London Breed’s approach to managing the Sheriff’s Office has led to a significant reduction in its effectiveness and resources. By civilianizing positions, neglecting critical staffing needs, pausing essential hiring and promotions, focusing on a progressive justice system, denying essential funding for recruiting, failing to make public statements to attract new applicants, and not implementing hiring incentives, the Mayor has effectively defunded the Sheriff’s Office. The result is an overstressed, understaffed department struggling to meet the demands of public safety in San Francisco.

It is imperative for the city’s leadership to reassess their priorities and provide the necessary support to ensure the safety and security of both the deputies and the public they serve. Without a strategic and balanced approach to resource allocation and support, the challenges facing the Sheriff’s Office will continue to grow, putting the safety and well-being of San Francisco’s residents at risk.

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

San Francisco Sheriff’s Office Faces Severe Staffing Crisis Due to Protracted Hiring Process and Lack of Support from City Leadership

July 16, 2024

San Francisco’s Sheriff’s Office is grappling with a severe staffing crisis, exacerbated by an inefficient and prolonged hiring process that takes significantly longer than neighboring departments. Despite a clear need for more deputies to ensure the safety and functionality of the city’s jails, bureaucratic delays, administrative hurdles, and a lack of support from city leadership have hindered recruitment efforts.

Prolonged Hiring Process

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) boasts a hiring timeline of 6 to 8 months, a stark contrast to the 9 to 16 months it takes the Sheriff’s Office to hire a deputy sheriff. According to Sheriff Paul Miyamoto, getting applicants through the office’s background check process alone can take between four to five months. When combined with San Francisco’s notoriously slow civil service hiring process, the total time to hire a new deputy often exceeds a year (San Francisco Needs 4,0…)(Why S.F.’s workforce sh…).

This discrepancy raises questions about the efficiency of the Sheriff’s Office’s internal processes. If a comparable agency like the SFPD can complete its hiring in 6 to 8 months, the extended timeline for the Sheriff’s Office suggests that the problem lies within its own department and decisions. This inefficiency hampers the office’s ability to attract and retain qualified candidates, exacerbating the staffing crisis.

Impact on Jail Conditions

The consequences of this staffing shortfall are dire. San Francisco jails are overcrowded and understaffed, leading to increased violence and chaos. Inmates, many of whom are mentally ill or addicted to drugs, are often left without adequate supervision or support. This has resulted in frequent lockdowns and violent confrontations, further straining the already limited resources of the Sheriff’s Office (SF jails_ Chaos is the …)(San Francisco doesn’t g…).

Former Assistant Sheriff Michael Marcum emphasized that jail inmates are part of the community and deserve better treatment. The lack of adequate staffing and resources not only affects the inmates but also the deputies, who are forced to work excessive overtime to cover the staffing gaps. This reliance on overtime is financially unsustainable and leads to burnout among deputies (San Francisco doesn’t g…).

Inefficiencies and Bureaucratic Hurdles

The current hiring process is riddled with inefficiencies. For instance, background investigators often require three people to verify an address, which is an undue consumption of time and resources. Additionally, there is a limited number of vehicles available for investigators, leading to further delays as they share cars to complete their tasks (240716 Letter to Sherif…).

The Deputy Sheriffs Association has proposed several solutions to address these issues, including employing outside vendors to assist with background investigations, prioritizing high-quality candidates, and offering higher starting pay to new hires. Despite these suggestions, the bureaucratic delays continue to impede progress (240716 Letter to Sherif…).

Lack of Support from City Leadership

Mayor London Breed’s administration has been criticized for not providing sufficient support to the Sheriff’s Office. Despite the pressing need for more deputies, the Mayor has not approved any money for recruiting efforts. During contract negotiations, there were no proposals for hiring incentives, and efforts to eliminate the first step in pay to attract more applicants have been delayed (Letter to Ardis Graham,…)(Mayor London Breed’s Co…)(Letter to Mayor, Sherif…).

The Mayor’s recent budget proposal, while claiming to invest in public safety, has disproportionately favored the SFPD over the Sheriff’s Office. The proposed budget includes funding for four new police academy classes and significant investments in public safety technology, but fails to address the critical staffing shortages in the Sheriff’s Office adequately (Mayor London Breed Prop…). The department that truly got defunded was the Sheriff’s Office and the Sheriff did nothing about it.

Additionally, the Sheriff has the authority to hire entry level deputies at a higher pay step with the approval of funds by the controller, but this has not been implemented effectively. The failure to utilize this provision has further hampered recruitment efforts (Letter to Ardis Graham,…)(Mayor London Breed’s Co…).

San Francisco’s Sheriff’s Office is in the midst of a staffing crisis that threatens the safety and well-being of both inmates and deputies. The prolonged and inefficient hiring process, combined with a lack of political will and budget constraints, has exacerbated the situation. Immediate action is needed to streamline the hiring process, implement proposed solutions, and ensure that the Sheriff’s Office can recruit and retain the necessary staff to operate effectively. Without these changes, the cycle of understaffing and over-reliance on overtime will continue to undermine the safety and functionality of San Francisco’s jails. The city’s leadership must prioritize these reforms and provide the necessary support to address this urgent issue.

The Progressive Justice System in San Francisco: A Marxist Experiment in Failure

July 11, 2024

San Francisco’s progressive justice system, designed to create a more equitable society through extensive reforms, has instead led to catastrophic outcomes. The parallels between these policies and Marxist ideology are undeniable, and their failures are stark and undeniable. The city’s approach has exacerbated homelessness, addiction, and crime, creating a public safety crisis that continues to spiral out of control.

An Explosion of Homelessness and Drug Addiction

Despite the city’s substantial financial investment, homelessness in San Francisco has skyrocketed. From 2016 to 2021, spending on homelessness surged by over 500%, reaching $1.1 billion in 2021 alone. Yet, the homeless population grew by 64% during this same period (Hoover Institution) (The San Francisco Standard). This alarming rise highlights the ineffectiveness of the city’s strategies, which echo Marxist ideals of extensive social support without accountability or practical results.

The progressive justice system’s approach to drug addiction, focusing on harm reduction rather than recovery, has led to disastrous outcomes. San Francisco now has one of the highest drug overdose rates in the country, with 80 deaths per 100,000 residents. In 2021, the city saw 806 overdose deaths, a 24.5% increase from the previous year (The San Francisco Standard). Providing clean needles and safe injection sites has not addressed the root causes of addiction but has instead facilitated ongoing substance abuse and public health crises.

Skyrocketing Crime and Public Safety Concerns

San Francisco’s policies of decriminalization and leniency for nonviolent offenses, deeply influenced by Marxist views on systemic oppression, have led to soaring crime rates. Proposition 47, which reclassified certain nonviolent crimes from felonies to misdemeanors, has resulted in increased repeat offenses and a pervasive sense of lawlessness (The San Francisco Standard).

The rise in property crimes, such as shoplifting and car break-ins, has left residents feeling unsafe and disillusioned with the city’s governance. This aligns with Marxist critiques of the existing legal framework but demonstrates that the progressive approach has failed to implement effective alternatives to ensure community safety while addressing systemic issues.

Financial Mismanagement and Ideological Failures

The “homeless-industrial complex” in San Francisco is a glaring example of financial mismanagement reminiscent of failed Marxist economic policies. Billions of dollars are funneled into nonprofits and government agencies without producing significant results. Instead of alleviating homelessness and addiction, the funding perpetuates these crises, with resources often being misallocated or poorly managed (The San Francisco Standard).

This mismanagement mirrors Marxist critiques of capitalism, where resources are viewed as being controlled by a few, leading to inefficiency and inequality. However, in San Francisco, the shift towards a collectivist approach has not resolved these problems but has instead created a new form of inefficiency and misallocation of funds.

The Ideological Underpinnings

The failures of San Francisco’s progressive justice system are deeply rooted in its ideological foundations, which bear striking similarities to Marxism:

Systemic Blame: Progressive policies often attribute homelessness and addiction to systemic failures, such as economic inequality and lack of social support, rather than individual circumstances and choices.
Redistribution of Resources: Significant financial resources are allocated to addressing homelessness and addiction, much like Marxist ideals of redistributing wealth to achieve equality.
Collectivist Solutions: The focus on harm reduction and decriminalization represents a collectivist approach, aiming to support the community as a whole but failing to address individual needs effectively.

San Francisco’s progressive justice system, with its roots in Marxist ideology, has failed spectacularly. The city’s experience demonstrates that while systemic reform is essential, it must be coupled with practical, individualized solutions. The focus on systemic blame, extensive resource redistribution, and collectivist solutions has led to a worsening of homelessness, addiction, and crime. To create a safer, more equitable society, policymakers must balance the need for systemic change with effective, targeted interventions that address the root causes of these complex social issues.

The progressive justice system in San Francisco, an experiment in Marxist principles, has proven to be a catastrophic failure, highlighting the need for a comprehensive reassessment and a move towards more practical, effective solutions.

The Progressive Justice System in San Francisco: A Case Study in Failure

July 10, 2024

In recent years, San Francisco has been at the forefront of implementing progressive justice reforms aimed at reducing incarceration rates, addressing systemic inequalities, and promoting social justice. However, the outcomes of these policies have sparked significant debate, with mounting evidence suggesting that the progressive justice system in San Francisco has failed to achieve its intended goals. Instead, these policies have exacerbated homelessness, addiction, and crime rates, creating a public safety crisis that continues to worsen.

Rising Homelessness and Addiction

San Francisco has seen a dramatic increase in homelessness despite substantial financial investments aimed at tackling the issue. From 2016 to 2021, the city’s spending on homelessness increased by over 500%, reaching $1.1 billion in 2021 alone. Despite this, the homeless population grew by 64% during the same period (Hoover Institution) (The San Francisco Standard). This paradoxical outcome raises questions about the effectiveness of the city’s strategies.

A significant portion of the homeless population in San Francisco is comprised of individuals struggling with addiction. The city’s approach to drug addiction, heavily influenced by progressive policies, focuses on harm reduction rather than recovery. While harm reduction efforts, such as providing clean needles and safe injection sites, aim to minimize the immediate risks associated with drug use, they do little to address the root causes of addiction or promote long-term recovery. Critics argue that this approach effectively maintains the status quo, allowing addicts to continue their destructive behavior without meaningful intervention (The San Francisco Standard).

Escalating Crime and Public Safety Concerns

The progressive justice system’s emphasis on decriminalization and leniency for nonviolent offenses has also contributed to rising crime rates. Proposition 47, passed in 2014, reclassified certain nonviolent offenses from felonies to misdemeanors, leading to a significant reduction in penalties for crimes such as shoplifting and drug possession. While the intention was to reduce incarceration rates and alleviate overcrowded prisons, the unintended consequence has been an increase in repeat offenses and a sense of impunity among offenders (The San Francisco Standard).

San Francisco has one of the highest rates of drug overdose deaths in the country, with 80 deaths per 100,000 residents in 2021. Despite having the largest per-capita budget for harm reduction in the nation, overdose deaths continue to rise, highlighting the ineffectiveness of current policies. In 2021, the city recorded 806 overdose deaths, a 24.5% increase from the previous year (The San Francisco Standard).

Financial Mismanagement and Lack of Accountability

The “homeless-industrial complex,” a term used to describe the network of nonprofits and government agencies involved in managing homelessness, has come under scrutiny for its inefficiency and lack of accountability. Critics argue that billions of dollars are being funneled into this complex without producing tangible results. Instead of reducing homelessness and addiction, the funding seems to perpetuate these issues, with resources often being misallocated or poorly managed (The San Francisco Standard).

Policy Recommendations and the Path Forward

To address the failures of the progressive justice system, a shift in policy is needed. Here are some recommendations:

Emphasize Recovery: Instead of solely focusing on harm reduction, policies should prioritize long-term recovery and rehabilitation. This includes increasing access to treatment programs, recovery-based housing, and job training centers.
Strengthen Law Enforcement: Reassessing leniency measures and ensuring that laws are enforced can help reduce crime rates and address public safety concerns.
Improve Oversight and Accountability: Establishing transparent oversight mechanisms for the allocation and use of funds can help ensure that resources are effectively used to tackle homelessness and addiction.
Community-Based Solutions: Involving local communities in the development and implementation of policies can lead to more tailored and effective solutions.

The progressive justice system in San Francisco, while well-intentioned, has failed to deliver on its promises. Rising homelessness, addiction, and crime rates, coupled with financial mismanagement and a lack of accountability, highlight the need for a reassessment of current policies. By shifting the focus to recovery, strengthening law enforcement, and improving oversight, San Francisco can begin to address the root causes of these issues and create a safer, more equitable city for all residents.

Mayor London Breed’s Dangerous Move: Civilianizing Law Enforcement and Undermining Public Safety

June 21, 2024

Mayor London Breed’s recent push to expand the use of civilian ambassadors in place of traditional law enforcement officers has sparked significant concern among public safety advocates. By hiring Transit Ambassadors instead of increasing the number of law enforcement Fare Inspectors, Breed is advancing a strategy that many argue undermines effective law enforcement and jeopardizes public safety in San Francisco.

The Rise of Civilian Ambassadors

The San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) recently announced job openings for Transit Ambassadors. These roles are designed to provide customer service and promote safety on public transit, aligning with Mayor Breed’s broader initiative to replace traditional law enforcement officers with civilian roles across various sectors of the city.

Ambassadors vs. Fare Inspectors: A Critical Difference

The new Transit Ambassador positions are fundamentally different from the existing role of Transit Fare Inspectors. Fare Inspectors, who hold limited peace officer powers under California Penal Code 832, have the authority to issue citations to fare evaders—a crucial function given that fare evasion has surged to over 20% of riders. This increase in fare evasion is a serious problem that significantly impacts the SFMTA’s budget, reducing the income necessary for maintaining and improving transit services.

The Dangers of Civilianization

Mayor Breed’s expansion of the civilian ambassador program presents several critical issues:

Lack of Enforcement Power: Transit Ambassadors do not have the authority to issue citations or make arrests. Their role is limited to providing information and promoting compliance through education. This lack of enforcement power could undermine efforts to curb fare evasion, which is already a growing problem that threatens the SFMTA’s financial stability.
Public Safety Risks: The shift towards civilianization in law enforcement roles raises serious questions about public safety. Fare Inspectors are trained to handle confrontations and enforce laws, whereas Ambassadors are primarily focused on customer service. The presence of Fare Inspectors can deter potential fare evaders and ensure a safer transit environment.
Erosion of Law Enforcement Effectiveness: By replacing trained law enforcement officers with civilian roles, the city risks diluting the effectiveness of law enforcement efforts. Fare Inspectors not only enforce fare compliance but also play a crucial role in maintaining order and safety on public transit. Their absence could lead to increased disorder and crime.

The Broader Impact on Law Enforcement

Mayor Breed’s approach to civilianization extends beyond the transit system. This strategy reflects a broader trend in San Francisco’s law enforcement policy, where civilian roles are being prioritized over traditional law enforcement positions. This shift raises concerns about the long-term implications for public safety and the ability of law enforcement agencies to effectively perform their duties.

Tough Talk on Crime, but Do Actions Match?

Mayor Breed frequently talks tough on crime, asserting that criminals will be held accountable. However, her actions paint a different picture:

Inaction on Sheriff’s Office Recruitment: Despite the critical need for more deputies, Mayor Breed has not taken significant steps to increase recruitment for the San Francisco Sheriff’s Office. There have been no substantial efforts to enhance the wages and bonuses for sheriff’s deputies, unlike the measures taken for the police department.
Civilianization Over Law Enforcement: Instead of bolstering the ranks of trained law enforcement officers, Breed has focused on expanding civilian roles. This approach aligns more closely with the policies of former District Attorneys Chesa Boudin and George Gascon, who advocated for reducing traditional law enforcement in favor of civilian oversight and intervention—a stance often criticized as part of a socialist agenda.

A Call for Pro-Law Enforcement Policies

It is crucial for city leadership to prioritize effective law enforcement and public safety over the expansion of civilian roles. While the role of Transit Ambassadors can enhance customer service and community engagement, it should not come at the expense of enforcing laws and maintaining public safety. Expanding the number of Fare Inspectors, who possess the authority and training to handle fare evasion and other violations, would provide a more balanced and effective approach to managing the city’s transit system and overall public safety.

Mayor London Breed’s push for civilianization through the expansion of the Transit Ambassador program represents a significant shift in San Francisco’s approach to law enforcement. This strategy raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of fare enforcement and the broader implications for public safety. The decision to prioritize Ambassadors over Fare Inspectors could ultimately compromise the safety and security of all residents. It is essential to recognize the value of traditional law enforcement roles in maintaining order and ensuring public safety. Investing in trained law enforcement officers, rather than expanding civilian roles, is crucial for the well-being and security of San Francisco’s communities.

Mayor Breed’s tough talk on crime must be matched by actions that support and enhance law enforcement capabilities. Anything less risks aligning her more with the controversial policies of Chesa Boudin than with a genuine commitment to public safety.

The Unaddressed Crisis in San Francisco’s Jails: Accountability Starts at the Top

June 17, 2024

In recent months, the deteriorating conditions in San Francisco’s jails have reached a critical point, prompting widespread concern and media attention. The escalating violence, severe staffing shortages, and the influx of mentally ill and drug-addicted inmates have created an environment of chaos and danger. Despite these alarming developments, Mayor London Breed and Sheriff Paul Miyamoto have failed to address these issues with the urgency and solutions required.

The Gravity of the Situation

The situation in San Francisco’s jails is dire. Lockdowns are increasingly frequent as deputies struggle to manage confrontations with inmates. The jails are overcrowded with individuals suffering from mental illness and substance abuse disorders, creating a volatile atmosphere. Deputies are being attacked and hospitalized, highlighting the risks they face daily. This environment is not only unsafe for staff but also undermines any attempts at rehabilitation for inmates.

Leadership Failures

Mayor London Breed and Sheriff Paul Miyamoto bear significant responsibility for this crisis. Their lack of decisive action and failure to implement effective solutions have allowed these conditions to worsen.

Inadequate Staffing: The staffing crisis in the Sheriff’s Department is well-documented. Despite being aware of the workforce shortage, there has been no effective plan to recruit and retain deputies. Qualified candidates are being lost to other jurisdictions due to slow hiring processes and inadequate incentives. This failure to staff up has left existing deputies overworked and unable to maintain order and safety.
Lack of Comprehensive Planning: The increase in arrests, particularly of drug users and individuals with mental health issues, was foreseeable. Yet, there was no comprehensive plan to manage the resultant surge in the jail population. The lack of foresight and preparation has resulted in inmates being housed in inadequate facilities with insufficient support and programming.
Neglect of Inmate Rehabilitation: Programs that could help rehabilitate inmates and reduce recidivism, such as education and mental health services, are suffering due to staff shortages. The reduced number of deputies means fewer classrooms and fewer opportunities for inmates to engage in constructive activities. This neglect hampers efforts to rehabilitate inmates and prepare them for reintegration into society.

The Call for Accountability

It is clear that Mayor Breed and Sheriff Miyamoto have not prioritized the safety and well-being of San Francisco’s inmates and deputies. Their inaction and lack of strategic planning have contributed to the current crisis. The chaotic conditions in the jails are a direct result of leadership failures at the highest levels.

San Franciscans must demand accountability. The well-being of inmates and deputies should be a top priority, not an afterthought. Mayor Breed and Sheriff Miyamoto need to:

Implement an Immediate Staffing Plan: Expedite the hiring process for deputy sheriffs and provide competitive incentives to attract and retain qualified staff.
Develop Comprehensive Care Plans: Establish robust mental health and substance abuse programs to address the needs of the inmate population.
Ensure Proper Facilities and Resources: Invest in adequate facilities and resources to support inmate rehabilitation and safety.

The current state of San Francisco’s jails is unacceptable. It reflects a broader neglect of the criminal justice system and the people within it. For the safety of our community and the integrity of our justice system, it is imperative that Mayor Breed and Sheriff Miyamoto take immediate and decisive action to resolve these issues. San Francisco deserves better, and it starts with holding our leaders accountable.

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

June 5, 2024

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

The Real Numbers Behind the Budget

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

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

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

Misleading Public Perception

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

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

Breakdown of the Budget Allocation

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

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

Civilianization: A Silent Defunding Strategy

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

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

Analysis and Implications

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

A Missed Opportunity for Meaningful Change

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

The Need for Genuine Investment

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

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

Moving Forward with Honesty and Clarity

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

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

Addressing the Extreme Shortage of Deputy Sheriffs: A Call to Action

May 24, 2024

In a recent open letter addressed to Mayor London Breed, Sheriff Paul Miyamoto, Board of Supervisors President Aaron Peskin, and the Members of the Board of Supervisors, the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association (DSA) has proposed a critical solution to the severe understaffing of Deputy Sheriffs in our city. The proposal, submitted on May 23, 2024, aims to eliminate the first step of the salary schedule for Deputy Sheriffs (positions 8302 and 8504), intending to attract more applicants and, importantly, to secure higher quality candidates.

The Urgent Need for Action
As many of you are aware, our Deputy Sheriffs are operating under dangerously low staffing levels, leading to unsafe conditions for both our Deputies and inmates. Despite the DSA’s proactive efforts to assist with recruitment through advertising funded by our own association, the current pay scale for entry-level Deputies remains a significant barrier. Comparable agencies in the region offer substantially higher starting salaries, making it challenging for us to compete for top-tier talent.

Learning from the Police Department
The San Francisco Police Department has successfully addressed their recruitment challenges by increasing their starting pay, which has proven effective in attracting more applicants. Additionally, the Mayor’s Office supported this effort by implementing a $5,000 signing bonus for new police recruits, distributed as $2,500 upon completion of the Field Training Program (FTO) and an additional $2,500 upon successful completion of the probation period. This incentive underscores the importance of competitive compensation packages in attracting new talent. Currently, we lack such a signing bonus, making it even more critical to remove the first step of our pay scale to attract new applicants.

The Impact on Quality of Life and Safety
The understaffing crisis not only endangers our Deputies but also severely impacts the quality of life for inmates. The shortage of staff has led to more frequent lockdowns, disrupting rehabilitation programs, educational classes, legal interviews, and family and friend visitations. More alarmingly, violence has increased within the jails, exacerbating stress and frustration among inmates. This situation is unacceptable. San Francisco’s jails once served as a model for others, but now they face the same challenges and issues typically associated with prisons.

The Proposal
Our proposal recommends the removal of the first step in the salary schedule. By doing so, we aim to make the Deputy Sheriff position more competitive in the job market, thereby improving our recruitment capabilities and attracting more qualified candidates. This strategy has proven effective for the San Francisco Police Officers’ Association, and we are confident it will yield similar results for our Department.

A Test of Commitment to Public Safety
The implementation of this proposal is more than just an administrative change—it is a test of our city leadership’s commitment to public safety. By offering a more attractive compensation package, we can enhance our ability to recruit and retain the best candidates, ultimately ensuring a safer and more effective environment for both our Deputies and the communities we serve.

The time to act is now. The DSA has laid out a clear, actionable plan to address the extreme shortage of Deputy Sheriffs. We urge city leadership to take immediate action on this proposal to safeguard the well-being of our Deputies and the individuals in our care. The coming weeks will reveal where our leaders truly stand on the issue of public safety.

Will they implement this critical change and demonstrate their commitment to protecting our community, or will they allow the status quo to persist, further endangering the lives of Deputies and inmates alike? The answer will speak volumes.

Stay tuned and stay engaged. The safety of our city depends on it.

Ken Lomba
President, San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs’ Association

Undersheriff Freeman said Sheriff Miyamoto has NO PLAN!

May 21, 2024

On May 14, 2024, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors convened a meeting on the impacts of lockdowns in the San Francisco County Jail.

Of particular concern is the health and well-being of deputy sheriffs and the impacts on the inmate population as a result of jail lockdowns. The presenters at the hearing included the Sheriff’s Office, Deputy Sheriffs’ Association, Sheriff’s Inspector General, and Public Defender’s Office.

While each presenter and subsequent questions by the board members warrant merit for further discussion, it is the Sheriff’s presentation that requires further examination. It is very important to keep in mind that this hearing was called due to the voluminous and violent attacks on deputies and the jail lockdowns that were caused by the aforementioned.

One would expect the Sheriff to present a plan that expedites the hiring of deputies in large numbers, details a training strategy to minimize attacks on deputies, states how he will modernize the deputy recruitment plan, and address the significant deficiencies in the county jail infrastructure.

We did not hear that.

Instead, the Sheriff spoke of hiring more discharge planners, securing funding for more behavioral health personnel, and purchasing more body-worn cameras. Each of these initiatives has merit in consideration of county jail operations.

But, they completely miss the point and fall well short of what is needed to address the crisis in the San Francisco County Jail. Deputies are under constant assault and risk of great bodily injury and possibly death. Inmates do not feel safe and lack adequate living quarters to include access to outdoor recreation.

The Sheriff’s presentation offered no solutions to these most pressing issues. So the public, the deputies, the inmates, and loved ones of both are left wondering, what is the Sheriff’s Office plan? The Sheriff’s Office has about 175 vacant deputy sheriff positions. What is the plan to fill the vacancies?
No plan.

The SFSO has an outdated, understaffed, and underfunded recruitment operation. What is the plan to address this?
No plan.

The county jail facilities are decrepit and do not provide adequate living spaces, nor sufficient outdoor recreation. What is the plan to address this?
No plan.

Too many deputy sheriffs are assigned to non-jail assignments. Not enough deputies are assigned to background investigations and personnel to support hiring efforts. What is the plan to rectify improper resource allocation?
No plan.

Overtime expenditures are consistently high including involuntary deputy overtime that causes exhausted deputies. Command-level staff are allowed to accrue overtime exasperating skyrocketing costs. What is the plan to decrease overtime spending?
No plan.

During the hearing, the Sheriff was asked if he had the funds in his budget to fill the deputy vacancies.
The answer was yes.

The question was followed by, so if you could hire the bodies, you have the funds to pay them?
The answer was yes.

It begs the question, why are these vacancies not being filled? What motivation could exist to subject deputies and inmates to such unsafe staffing levels?

Key to addressing all of these issues is leadership and the courage and strength to advocate. The Sheriff is an elected Constitutional Officer and a Chief Executive Law Enforcement Officer. The authority of the office must be used to educate, advance, and solicit the needs of the
agency.

The Sheriff must speak forcefully and directly at every opportunity to the electorate, the Board of Supervisors, and the Mayor about these mission-critical needs:

● Fill the deputy vacancies
● Fund a robust SFSO recruitment program
● Fund a fully staffed SFSO background investigation unit
● Fund the training needs of the Sheriff’s Office
● Approve significant capital improvements to the infrastructure of the county jail

Each of these is required to ensure a safe, humane, and secure county jail.

That must always be the priority of the Sheriff.

Matthew Freeman
The Undersheriff (Ret)
San Francisco Sheriff’s Office