December 3, 1996

Honorable Barbara Kaufman, President
and Members of the Board of Supervisors
City and County of San Francisco
Room 410, Veterans Building
401 Van Ness Avenue
San Francisco, California 94102

Dear President Kaufman and Members of the Board of Supervisors:

Transmitted herewith is the Budget Analyst"s Phase I Management Audit Report of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). In Fiscal Year 1996-97, the SFPD has been allocated $202,978,094 in General Fund monies, the largest amount of General Fund support of all City Departments, exceeding even the entire Department of Public Health, the largest single Department in the City and County. This Phase 1 report encompasses an examination of police services provided by the Field Operations Bureau and the ten district stations, shift scheduling practices, overtime spending and certain critical support activities. As such, this report covers the largest and most visible of SFPD"s operations. Over 62 percent (approximately 1,300) of the department"s 2,092 authorized sworn officers are employed in these activities. These officers have the greatest amount of contact with the general public and represent the point of service delivery for the SFPD"s "Community Policing" philosophy.

Phase 2 of our management audit will continue to examine administrative functions within the Department and will focus on services provided by investigation and special enforcement units of the SFPD.

In total, this report presents 11 findings which contain 47 recommendations. Our recommendations are detailed in each of the 11 finding sections in our report. If fully implemented by the Department, these recommendations would result in an estimated $6.9 million in annual reduced costs and increased revenues for the City and County of San Francisco"s General Fund. In addition, many recommendations will produce improvements to operations and increased efficiencies that will result in quantifiable benefits with an estimated value of $4.5 million annually. The total benefits to be realized through the proper implementation of the recommendations presented in this report are at least $11.4 million annually.

As part of this study, we reviewed information compiled by the Federal Bureau of Justice Statistics which are published in Law Enforcement Management and Administrative Statistics, 1993: Data for Individual State and Local Agencies with 100 or More Officers. From this report, we compared San Francisco with statistics for 30 of the largest police departments in cities throughout the United States. Some of the significant comparative information is summarized below:

• San Francisco is one of 31 agencies throughout the United States which employs over 1,000 police officers. San Francisco compares favorably with these jurisdictions, employing an average of 25 police officers per 10,000 residents. The other 30 jurisdictions employee an average of 22 police officers per 10,000 residents.

• San Francisco spends nearly twice as much per resident on law enforcement services than do the other large jurisdictions. San Francisco spent approximately $250 per resident in 1993, compared with an average of $134 per resident in the other jurisdictions.

• San Francisco employs a higher percentage of women and minorities than the other 30 largest jurisdictions, at 13 percent female (compared to an average of eight percent for the other jurisdictions) and 33 percent minorities (compared to an average of 18 percent in the other jurisdictions).

• San Francisco operates fewer police vehicles than do the other 30 jurisdictions, with approximately 25 total vehicles per 100 officers compared with an average of 53 total vehicles per 100 officers in the other jurisdictions, or 52.8 percent less in San Francisco.

• San Francisco operates special units for all, or 100 percent of reported categories of youth and family problems. Many of the other 30 jurisdictions also operate such programs, for an average of reported categories as follows: child abuse (80%), domestic violence (53%), drug education in schools (95%), gangs (76%), juvenile delinquency (86%), and missing children (74%).

In other areas, including the use of civilian employees, San Francisco compared less favorably in that there are fewer civilian employees in relation to the number of sworn employees in other police departments. This issue, and others, will be reviewed in depth as part of our Phase 2 Management Audit which we anticipate will be completed in the Spring.

Our report notes numerous accomplishments of the San Francisco Police Department. The new Chief of Police has established overtime quotas for each of the Bureaus and divisions within the Department, which was one of our early recommendations communicated informally to the Department. We estimate that this policy change, if properly implemented by the Department, will reduce paid overtime by 43,564 hours per year for a total cost reduction of approximately $1.7 million per year. In addition, SFPD management has acted quickly and responsibly to correct deficiencies we found with respect to purchasing through the department"s revolving fund and inventory management and control.

Our management audit report is organized into six sections. Appended to our management audit report, beginning on page 131, is the written response of the Chief of Police. A summary of our findings, conclusions and recommendations follows.

District Station Deployment

As a part of the Budget Analyst"s management audit of the San Francisco Police Department, we researched the deployment policies and practices of the Field Operations Bureau"s ten district stations. With over 1,300 personnel, the district stations are the units within the Department with the greatest and most consistent exposure to the general public. In performing this review we found:

• Police Department command staff have not developed standards or an effective process for assigning police officers to each of the ten district stations. As a result, district station Captains have mixed success achieving the minimum staffing levels which they believe are appropriate for their districts. Further, workload disparities between district stations are significant, requiring officers in some areas of the City, such as the Potrero and Central Districts, to respond to twice the number of high priority calls per officer than do officers in other areas of the City.

• Police officer deployment practices at the district stations, the temporary reassignment of officers to other duties, and patterns of officer absenteeism are also problematic. Because of these and other factors, per officer workload is highest at the district stations during evening and weekend shifts when service demands are greatest. Additionally, because of seniority rights established in the labor contract with the Police Officers Association (POA), evening and weekend shifts are generally staffed with the least experienced officers.

• Based on our attendance data, we found that at seven out of ten district stations, the two days of the week with the highest percentage of staff taking sick and other unanticipated leave days were Saturday and Sunday. At all ten district stations, Saturday was one of the two days of the week with the highest percentage of sick and other unanticipated leave days.

• Including both sick days and reassignment days, Saturday consistently has the highest percentage of officers absent from their regular duty in nine out of the ten district stations. The rate of such absences ranges from 15 percent in the Northern Station to 28 percent in the Tenderloin Station.

Our review of this area concluded that the Police Department should modify current officer deployment and shift assignment practices, and closely manage police officer sick leave use in order to achieve a more effective and balanced allocation of police officer resources. Allocating staff in a manner that corresponds more closely with crime activity would be equivalent to adding nearly 28 additional police officers during periods when police coverage is currently at its lowest, thereby producing a benefit of an estimated $2.0 million per year.

Police Officer Scheduling

The SFPD"s current practice of scheduling district station police officers for four-day ten-hour shifts each week (4/10 scheduling system) impacts staff availability and productivity and increases costs. Under a five-day, eight-hour shift scheduling system (5/8 scheduling), the district stations could provide significantly more police coverage (defined as the number of hours or shifts actually worked by sworn employees during a given time period) with the same number of employees, and could achieve higher staff productivity.

Additionally, 4/10 scheduling results in higher than necessary overtime expenditures for special events and court appearances. Under a 4/10 system, officers are more likely to incur overtime expenditures than under a 5/8 system, since there is a greater likelihood that officers will be called in for special event duty or for court appearances on their regularly scheduled days off. Our review of Police Officer Scheduling found that:

• The current 4/10 scheduling practice (four, ten-hour shifts per week) at the district stations results in less police coverage than would be provided under a 5/8 scheduling system (five, eight-hour shifts per week). Under a 5/8 system, such as the schedule employed by the City of Los Angeles Police Department in two of its three Police Districts, the Police Department could improve service levels that would otherwise require an estimated 40 sworn officers, at an estimated benefit of $2,414,670 per year.

• Staffing inefficiencies occur because 4/10 scheduling reduces backfill coverage for certain types of absences, such as holidays and training. In addition, 4/10 scheduling results in an average of 30.9 fewer officers scheduled to work per shift compared to the 5/8 scheduling system. During FY 1995-96, the district stations incurred 35,497 hours of court overtime largely because under a 4/10 system officers have more days off and therefore receive overtime to make court appearances on days off. Lastly, 4/10 scheduling results in increased court and special event overtime expenditures of an estimated $840,494 per year.

• Police Department management should meet and confer with the Police Officers Association to convert to a 5/8 scheduling system, and/or to implement potential improvements to the existing 4/10 system.

Overtime

In FY 1995-96, the Police Department incurred $16,154,870 in overtime expenditures (including $2,582,538 in holiday overtime). Although SFPD management has met and conferred with the Police Officers Association to negotiate limits on the accrual of voluntary overtime, such as Special Law Enforcement Services (where outside funding sources, such as movie companies, pay for police officer services at overtime rates) and Grant Funded activities, the current practices described in this report have not changed since calendar year 1995, the last full year for which overtime pay records are available.

Special events are the single largest reason for overtime in the Police Department. In FY 1995-96, the Department logged 103,858 overtime hours for special events, which represents 35.8 percent of all of the SFPD"s General Fund non-holiday overtime hours (excluding Special Law Enforcement Services or SLES).

Investigative Overtime

Investigative overtime represents the second most significant source of General Fund overtime for the Police Department. Investigative overtime usage has increased by an average of 12.6 percent per year since FY 1992-93. Our review of Investigative Overtime found that:

• At approximately 20 percent of overtime costs, investigative overtime represents the second most significant source of General Fund overtime expenditures for the Police Department. Investigative overtime usage has increased by an average of 12.6 percent per year since FY 1992-93.

• Investigative personnel work a standard eight-hour, five day work week schedule, even though a portion of their work takes place during evening and weekend hours.

• Investigators receive two hours of overtime pay for being on-call during off-duty hours, despite the fact that Civil Service rules only authorize two hours of straight time pay for on-call duty.

• Introducing flexible time for investigators and paying investigative standby pay at straight time rate rather than the overtime rate of pay, as permitted by Civil Service, would result in annual reduced costs to the City of at least $504,304 in overtime expenditures.

Court Overtime

Off-duty court appearances are the third most significant reason for police overtime. The Police Department logged 53,774 hours in court overtime during FY 1995-96, which represented 18.5 percent of all General Fund non-holiday overtime hours in that year. Our review of Court Overtime found that:

• Although court overtime expenditures have declined by 30 percent since FY 1992-93 due to progressive policy changes implemented by the Police Department, court overtime continues to represent the third most significant reason for police officer overtime in the SFPD.

• Officers receive two hours of overtime for court standby, which is contrary to Civil Service rules which stipulate that 2.5 hours of straight time pay should be paid instead of two hours of overtime.

• In addition, San Francisco has not implemented Proposition 115, which could result in a significant savings in court overtime expenditures for the Police Department. Proposition 115 authorizes individual police officers to present the reports of other officers as hearsay evidence at preliminary hearings, reducing the number of officers required to attend court.

• Paying court standby pay at the straight time rate -- in accordance with Civil Service rules -- and implementing the provisions of Proposition 115, should result in reduced court overtime expenditures for the Police Department of an estimated $964,398 per year.

According to the Police Department, prior to 1984, court standby pay was paid in accordance with Civil Service rules. However, the Police Department advises that, after the approval of a 1983 Charter Amendment which authorized the payment of sworn overtime at the rate of time and one-half rather than at the straight time rate, the Police Department started paying the two hours of standby pay also at the overtime rate. This change in practice was not authorized by, or consistent with the intent of the 1983 Charter Amendment and is directly contrary to existing Civil Service Rules.

Separate budgeting of court standby pay in the Police Department"s annual premium pay budget would permit the Department to more easily track the use of court standby hours.

Arrest Overtime

The Police Department incurred 32,687 overtime hours for arrests in FY 1995-96, of which 13,021 hours were incurred by police officers working in the district stations. Our review of Arrest Overtime found that:

• Although arrest overtime represents only 11.3 percent of all General Fund overtime for the Police Department, arrest overtime hours have increased by 41.2 percent since FY 1991-92.

• Arrest overtime at the district stations is incurred primarily when arrests occur at the end of a police officer"s shift, because the performance of arrest-related duties often requires several hours of a police officer"s time.

• A written policy directive should be implemented by the Chief of Police to require that district sergeants, when possible, delegate arrest-related duties to officers who have sufficient time remaining on their shifts to perform such duties without incurring overtime. Based on this directive, district captains should set a goal of reducing arrest overtime by at least 25 percent. The district captains should regularly monitor field sergeant adherence to this directive, and Field Operations Bureau Administration should report back to the Chief of Police with results of this change in policy one year after implementation. Successful implementation of this recommendation would result in annual reduced overtime costs of at least $114,836 per year.

High Overtime Earnings by Individual Officers

According to SFPD management, many police officers who earn high amounts of overtime are regularly scheduled to work on the night shift and weekends. As a result, these officers can earn significant overtime when required to attend weekday and daytime court during their off hours. Individuals who are scheduled on holidays, work special duty, volunteer for a significant number of special events (including Special Law Enforcement Services funded events) or are assigned to grant activities can also earn high amounts of overtime. Based on our review of overtime records, special event overtime (or Extended Work Week--EWW), is the largest single reason overtime is paid to police officers, representing approximately 36 percent of all overtime paid in FY 1995-96. Also, over $3.1 million annually is paid in SLES overtime using non-City funds and such funds are the source for many high earners of overtime. Although specific records are not maintained by the Department, it is also likely that Investigative overtime and EWW overtime is a major contributing factor to high overtime earnings paid from City funds by individual officers. Our review of this area found that:

• Police officers who work a high number of overtime hours can become fatigued, increasing the potential for using poor judgment during the performance of their duties. Using poor judgment can impact the safety of the police officer, his or her co-workers and the public, and can result in increased officer injury and workers compensation costs for the City.

• In calendar year 1995, 403 sworn employees regularly worked in excess of 48 hours per week. Of these, 61 sworn employees earned between $30,000 and $40,000 in overtime wages and 18 sworn employees earned over $40,000 in overtime wages, for a total of 79 employees earning in excess of $30,000 in overtime wages in one year. One individual earned more than the Chief of Police. In addition, 13 high ranked sworn employees, including the ranks of Captain, Commander and Deputy Chief, individually earned between $9,750 and $34,000 in overtime pay each in Calendar Year 1995.

• Although overtime pay data is only available for 1995, these practices have not changed. However, the management of SFPD is now meeting and conferring on setting limits on voluntary overtime pay, such as Special Law Enforcement Services (SLES) in contrast to non-voluntary overtime such as court time. The Police Department should establish limits on voluntary individual overtime for sworn employees and should more closely monitor overtime earned by civilian employees. By establishing overtime limits, the likelihood of police officer fatigue and overtime expenditures would be reduced.

Individuals who work a significant number of overtime hours can earn relatively high salaries when compared with their co-workers. These individuals can become dependent on their higher salaries, competing vigorously with their co-workers for overtime assignments when such assignments become available. Accordingly, by providing a culture of unfettered acceptance and opportunity for individuals to increase their salaries substantially over base levels, the City may be inadvertently encouraging its employees to overwork themselves and to manipulate the work scheduling system to achieve personal economic advantage. Working a high number of overtime hours can become a person"s primary employment goal, regardless of how an excessive work schedule may adversely affect his or her personal or professional life.

Of the 79 employees who earned in excess of $30,000 in overtime wages, there were 16 police officers, sergeants and inspectors who earned total salaries in excess of $100,000 in CY 1995. The total earnings for these individuals exceeded the base annual salaries for lieutenants, captains and commanders, which were $68,821, $80,812 and $95,488 respectively in 1995. Four of these individuals earned more than $117,515 per year, which is the salary of a deputy chief. One sergeant earned more than the chief of police, who earns $126,694 per year. That sergeant, who was the top overtime earner in CY 1995, was assigned to the Vice Unit in the Investigations Bureau and earned approximately $66,405 in overtime wages, for a total annual salary of approximately $130,485.

Five officers worked between 59.1 percent and 73.8 percent of their 2,088 regularly scheduled hours in overtime (2,088 hours per year includes holiday, vacation, sick, and other leave hours), or an average of between 23.7 and 29.0 hours of overtime per week, for all 52 weeks in the year. Based on our analysis and as documented in Section 1 and Section 2 of this report, regular and overtime hours worked by these individuals exceeded the average number of total hours worked by other police officers in the Department by a minimum of between 174.0 percent and 190.5 percent in 1995 (nearly twice as many hours).

We did not evaluate the specific reasons why these individuals were permitted to work such high amounts of overtime. Certainly, as with other police officers in the Department, some of this overtime was necessary and unavoidable due to the nature of the individuals" assignments and workload. However, in the professional judgment of the Budget Analyst, working overtime hours to the extent reported for the top overtime earners in the Department can lead to worker fatigue and low morale.

The San Francisco Administrative Code establishes the maximum number of overtime hours that can be worked by Miscellaneous (non sworn) employees as 16 percent of regularly scheduled hours (approximately 334 overtime hours per year). There is currently no limit on overtime for sworn employees. Upon examining the Controller"s overtime report, the Budget Analyst identified 580 sworn employees (28.5 percent of the workforce in 1995) and ten Miscellaneous employees with overtime hours in excess of 16 percent of regularly scheduled hours, or more than 334 overtime hours per year.

By establishing overtime limits, the likelihood of police officer fatigue would be reduced, and police officer and public safety would be enhanced. Additionally, potentially unnecessary overtime would be eliminated in the amount of at least an estimated $220,000 annually.

Overtime Policies and Practices

During our review of police overtime expenditures, we identified several policies and practices which reduce the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the Police Department. These policies and practices, which are described in further detail below, include: (1) paying police officers ten hours of overtime when working special events on their regularly scheduled days off, regardless of the actual number of hours worked; (2) limiting the authority of commanding officers when changing a police officer"s schedule; (3) paying overtime to individuals at the rank of captain and above; and, (4) paying overtime wages on the same day or during the same week that a police officer takes leave. Our review of Overtime Policies and Practices found that:

• The Police Department has many policies and practices that result in a higher use of overtime than is necessary given current practices in other City departments, other jurisdictions, and Federal Fair Labor Standard Act (FLSA) provisions.

• Police Officers who work on their regular days off to provide police coverage for special events are customarily paid ten hours of overtime, even if less than ten hours are worked.

• Commanding officers cannot change a police officer"s schedule more than three hours to staff a special event or to attend court while on-duty, increasing the probability that overtime will be paid.

• As previously noted, upper level managers are currently entitled to receive overtime wages for extra hours worked. In fact, 13 high ranked sworn employees, including the ranks of Captain, Commander and Deputy Chief, individually earned between $9,750 and $34,000 in overtime pay each in Calendar Year 1995.

• Although not required by the Fair Labor Standards Act, police officers are often paid overtime wages on the same day or in the same week during which they take leaves of absence.

• Police Department management should meet and confer with the Police Officers Association (POA) to revise or eliminate the policies and practices identified above. If fully implemented, the recommended changes included in this section would result in significant reduced overtime costs of up to $1,957,200 per year, and a reduction in the amount of compensatory time-off currently being earned by police officers.

In practice, police officers who are required to work on their days off for the purpose of policing a special event are often authorized to receive ten hours of pay at the overtime rate, regardless of the number of hours actually worked.

In fact, the January 1996 Controller"s report on the City"s top overtime earners included 11 captains and two commanders on the list of employees who earned in excess of ten percent of their total wages in overtime, resulting in $274,371 in overtime expenditures during CY 1995 just for these 13 employees. Moreover, of these 13 employees, seven worked in excess of 16 percent of their regularly scheduled hours in overtime, resulting in individual overtime wages of up to $34,000 per year. Based on a report from the Controller"s Office, 5,441 overtime hours were incurred by high ranked sworn employees in FY 1995-96, resulting in annual overtime expenditures for these employees of $321,220.

As senior managers, these employees are not held to specific work schedules and should not be treated as hourly employees. Any overtime work required of such employees is already reflected in their high annual salaries. In other City departments, high level management or administrative positions (classified as "Z" employees by the Human Resources Department) are exempt from the payment of overtime wages. In a survey of overtime payment policies in ten other California police departments (Alameda, Fremont, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose and Santa Rosa), the Budget Analyst found that only two of these police departments (Oakland and San Jose) paid overtime to Captains and none paid overtime to higher ranked sworn employees. In addition, eliminating overtime for these high ranks would set an example for lower ranks and would increase scrutiny of overtime use by officers of lower rank.

The Charter establishes the basic week of service for sworn employees at 40 hours and provides that, for service performed in excess of the basic week of service, the employee shall be compensated at the rate of time and one-half. Additionally, pursuant to General Order Manual Section 11.01, San Francisco police officers are entitled to overtime compensation for any work performed in excess of a normally scheduled work week (40 hours) or a normal watch (eight or ten hours per day). Thus, a police officer who is paid for 40 hours a week is paid at the overtime rate for any additional hours worked beyond his or her regularly scheduled hours for one day, even if he or she takes time off during that week and actually works less than 40 hours. For example, a patrol officer who takes a compensatory day off, thereby reducing his or her actual work time from 40 hours to 30 hours, is compensated at the overtime rate if he or she works an additional shift on another day during that same week.

In a random sample of attendance and overtime records for four pay periods during CY 1995 for 529 sworn employees of all ranks throughout the Police Department, the Budget Analyst identified 755 instances in which officers took authorized leave and received overtime wages during the same seven day period. These employees were paid an annualized estimate of $5,243,366 in overtime wages for an estimated 131,511 overtime hours worked. If the number of hours of leave had been deducted from the normal work week of 40 hours, these employees would have been paid at the overtime rate for only 36,711 of these 131,511 hours, or 72 percent less overtime hours. The remaining 94,800 hours would have been paid at the straight time rate. If the Police Department had paid for these 94,800 hours at the straight time rate of pay, and for the remaining 36,711 hours at the overtime rate of pay, as is authorized by the FLSA, annualized expenditures would have been $3,981,991, or $1,261,375 (24 percent) less than the estimated expenditures of $5,243,366.

Furthermore, in the same sample, the Budget Analyst identified a number of instances when officers took authorized leave and accrued compensatory time off (in lieu of overtime wages) during the same seven day period. On an annualized basis, these employees accrued an estimated 35,189 compensatory hours at the rate of 1.5 times the number of overtime hours worked (23,459.1 hours). If the number of hours of leave had been deducted from the normal work week of 40 hours, these employees would have accrued only 27,341 hours of compensatory time off (15,695 hours at the straight time rate plus 11,646 hours at the rate of 1.5 times the 7,764 hours of actual overtime worked), or a reduction of 7,848 hours of compensatory time. This reduction in accrued compensatory time off would result in fewer leave days taken throughout the Police Department, and would be equivalent to the addition of nearly five sworn employees at no additional cost to the Department, producing an estimated annual benefit of over $285,000.

The Budget Analyst identified 102 instances at the district stations in which officers took authorized leave and received overtime wages on the same day. For example, one officer took two hours of compensatory time off during his regular shift, but then received overtime wages at the rate of 1.5 times the straight time rate of pay for four additional hours worked beyond his regular shift on that same day. Similarly, we identified many instances where officers took an entire day off and received overtime wages on the same day.

Special Event Deployment

Special events impact the operations of the district stations by diverting police officers from their normal duties, and requiring that other police officers work high amounts of overtime on their scheduled days off. For every hour of special events that occurred in FY 1994-95, an average of 38 hours of police coverage were provided by the Police Department. Our review of Special Event Deployment found that:

• requiring that follow-up reports be completed for each special event, the Police Department could ensure that an objective assessment of the level of police coverage provided at each special event takes place, which can be used in the future as the basis for planning special event deployment. Additionally, the amount of both on-duty and overtime officers assigned to providing special event coverage could potentially decline.

• Forming a special event unit under Field Operations Bureau Headquarters would lessen the drain on district stations resulting from special events and would reduce special event overtime expenditures by at least $927,149 per year.

Based on our analysis, we found that, in FY 1994-95, the Police Department deployed sworn employees at 506 special events (excluding UN 50 and Special Law Enforcement Services or SLES events). Each event lasted an average of approximately 1.28 days, for a total of 649 special event days. The average duration of each event was 8.3 hours or 6.5 hours per event day. The SFPD provided 159,897 hours of police coverage for special events, consisting of 88,894 on-duty hours and 71,003 overtime hours. This is equivalent to approximately 96 sworn personnel devoted to special event coverage on a full-time, annual basis. Of these 96 personnel, approximately 53 police officers are diverted from other duties in order to provide police coverage for special events.

Additionally, we found that for every hour of special events, an average of 38 hours of police coverage were provided by the Police Department, consisting of 21 on-duty hours and 17 overtime hours. For every special event covered, an average of 316 hours of police coverage were provided, consisting of 176 on-duty hours and 140 overtime hours. This is equivalent to between 32 and 40 police officers per event. The General Fund cost of deploying officers to cover special events was $5,149,719 in FY 1994-95, including on-duty time and overtime.

Accordingly, special events present a significant drain on police resources, especially at the district stations. As noted in Section 1 of this report, the deployment of on-duty officers from the district stations takes away from the ability of the district stations to provide sufficient staff to perform regular police duties, such as responding to calls for service. Furthermore, the overall response of the Police Department to special events appears to be excessive. For example, there are many instances where we observed that there were many more police officers in attendance at a special event than event participants. Moreover, many of these officers are being paid overtime wages. As noted in Section 3 of this report, special event coverage is the single largest reason for overtime in the Police Department.

Our analysis demonstrated that the Special Operations Division (SOD) provided 60,885 on-duty hours and 24,142.5 overtime hours, or a total of 85,027.5 hours of police coverage for special events during FY 1994-95. This is equivalent to approximately 51 personnel devoted to special event coverage on a full-time, annual basis. Of these 51 personnel, approximately 36 employees are diverted from other duties at SOD.

Special Event Cost Recovery

According to recently developed reports, the Police Department provided police coverage for 706 special events in FY 1995-96, for a total cost of $7,303,564 to the Police Department. However, the City was reimbursed by outside parties for only $3,157,296, or 43 percent of total costs, resulting in a net cost to the General Fund of $4,146,268. Our review of Special Event Cost Recovery also found that:

• The Police Department provides police coverage at many special events at little or no cost to the event sponsor. Further, the San Francisco Giants and the 49ers pay only 31 percent of the cost of providing police coverage at 3 Com Park.

• The Police Department has waived the payment of Special Law Enforcement Services (SLES) administrative overhead for certain organizations without proper authority. Such waivers must first be approved by the Board of Supervisors. Additionally, payments received for SLES administrative overhead do not accrue to the General Fund, as is required under the Administrative Code.

• The Police Department should prepare a report for the Board of Supervisors containing policy options which could further offset the high cost of providing police coverage at special events.

• Additionally, the SFPD should negotiate with the 49ers and the Giants to improve existing agreements for providing police coverage at sporting events in an effort to increase the level of cost recovery. Such negotiations should take place prior to the opening of the planned Downtown Ballpark and any replacement facility for 3Com Park at Candlestick Point.

• Lastly, the Controller"s Office should perform a financial audit of the Special Law Enforcement Services Fund as part of its current review of revolving funds.

• Implementation of the policy options in this section would generate additional revenues to the City of between $503,607 and $1,268,899 per year.

San Francisco Administrative Code Sections 2.75-1 through 2.75-5 govern the cost recovery procedures for athletic events. Under these sections, the Department is authorized to collect 100 percent of its costs associated with such events, such as Bay to Breakers, the San Francisco Marathon, Bridge to Bridge 5K & 10K Walk/Run, and 12 other annual events. San Francisco Police Code Sections 366 through 379 contain provisions related to Police Department cost recovery for parades. According to the Police Department"s Special Events Management and Planning Unit (SEMPU), because parades represent cultural statements akin to First Amendment expressions, police coverage is provided for each parade at no cost to the parade sponsor.

However, SEMPU further advises that parades should be distinguished from celebrations, which are often held concurrent with or following parades. Examples include concerts; the Independence Day, Halloween and New Year"s Day celebrations; grand openings; festivals; and, other events. Celebrations are often sponsored by organizations with non-profit status, and they typically generate significant revenues through concession sales. However, the Police Department is not authorized to obtain cost recovery for police coverage provided at celebrations.

In FY 1995-96, the Department collected $3,112,906 in Special Law Enforcement Services (SLES) payments (including the 22.6 percent for administrative overhead). However, the Police Department has waived the payment of SLES administrative overhead for several organizations, such as movie production companies, without Board of Supervisors approval. Additionally, none of the SLES Fund administrative overhead payments received by the Police Department have been deposited into the General Fund, as is required under the Administrative Code. These funds have instead been retained by the Police Department in the SLES fund. The Police Department argues that by retaining the overhead payments in the SLES fund, cash flow problems are averted. Based on the total amount of SLES payments received by the SFPD in FY 1995-96, the estimated amount of overhead retained in the SLES fund could be as much as $703,517, but is probably less because the Police Department inappropriately waived the overhead charges to some organizations. The Controller should conduct an audit of the SLES fund to determine the total amount due to the general fund for overhead payments which have been retained by the Police Department.

Furthermore, even though SLES funds are intended to recover the entire cost of providing police coverage for a particular event, the actual cost of providing police coverage is in many cases higher than the amount collected. For example, each year the Police Department reaches separate agreements with the San Francisco Giants and the San Francisco 49ers regarding the level of police coverage to be provided at each baseball and football game, respectively. Under these Memorandums of Understanding (MOU), these two teams are also not required to pay administrative overhead, as is required of other private or non-profit organizations which utilize SLES services. Moreover, each team is only required to pay for police coverage that is provided inside the stadium. Thus, the cost of providing police coverage on game days outside the stadium (in parking lots and on nearby streets) is absorbed by the General Fund. In FY 1995-96, the Police Department provided 29,788 hours of police coverage for 97 sporting events at 3 Com Park, including 86 baseball games and 11 football games. The total cost of providing police coverage for these 97 games both inside and outside the stadium was $1,105,361. Of this amount, only $340,069 or 31 percent was paid for with SLES funds received from the Giants and the 49ers. The remaining $765,292 in expenditures were paid by the General Fund.

District Station Vehicle Availability

Vehicle allocations to the bureaus and divisions are generally made by SFPD management based on the needs expressed by the district station captains and commanders of the various special enforcement and administrative units within the Department. After reviewing these requests, historical vehicle assignment practices, and the current number of operable and available vehicles, vehicle assignments are made by management for all bureaus and divisions within the Department. Management decisions to purchase additional or replacement vehicles depend upon the results of this analysis and the annual budget process. Our review of District Station vehicle availability found that:

• The San Francisco Police Department had approximately 560 marked and unmarked sedans, vans, wagons, and pick-up trucks in FY 1995-96. Nearly 43 percent, or 240 of these vehicles were assigned to the District Stations.

• A review of district station vehicle inventories indicates that the number of assigned vehicles do not correspond with the district station captains" perceptions of vehicle need or actual use patterns. When vehicle inventories are compared with minimum staffing assignments at the District Stations (e.g., marked patrol car beats, undercover officers, watch supervisors, and command staff), some stations operate with a surplus, while others operate with a deficit of vehicles. Further, the reliability of vehicles assigned to each district station varies significantly based on average vehicle mileage and age.

• The Department should implement a standardized vehicle assignment methodology which ensures that police officers at the district stations can work in the most effective manner possible. In addition, vehicle mileage and reliability should be regularly monitored by location to ensure that each district station is able to maintain a vehicle inventory which is appropriate for accomplishing its law enforcement objectives.

For example, the Central District, which has the highest number of surplus vehicles also has:

• A high proportion of late model vehicles;

• the second lowest average total miles by vehicle among all of the district stations; and,

• the fourth lowest number of average annual miles per vehicle.

At the same time, the Richmond and Ingleside districts, which have some of the largest vehicle deficits among the district stations, have a vehicle fleet with some of the highest average total vehicle miles. These two districts also accumulate the highest average number of annual miles per vehicle, suggesting that the vehicles at these locations are generally driven more regularly, and for longer periods and distances. Combined with the deficits in total available vehicles, it is likely that these locations have a more difficult time maintaining sufficient available vehicle equipment for all of their police officers than do other district stations.

By implementing our recommendations on allocation of police vehicles, the Police Department would be better able to assess vehicle needs by location within the Department, and distribute available equipment in a more equitable fashion.

SFPD Materials and Supplies Purchasing and Inventory Management

A critical support function for SFPD field operations is the provision of materials and supplies ranging from weapons and ammunition to routine office supplies. The management audit examined this function in detail in order to evaluate the extent to which SFPD units receive sufficient support in a timely and efficient manner. In performing this review we found that:

• The SFPD is unable to determine the current dollar value of its materials and supplies storeroom inventory, cannot document the last date a physical inventory was completed, does not track its inventory usage, and has no written policies and procedures regarding inventory re-order points.

• SFPD field units are not provided with specific procedures regarding appropriate supply levels and have not been provided with a catalog of supply items available from the central storeroom.

• Supply requisitions are completed by unauthorized persons and no formal policy exists for segregation of ordering and receiving functions.

• The Revolving Fund was used inappropriately as an expedient purchasing method for any material or supplies purchase of $200 or less, including routine supply items purchased by the Property Room that should be procured through City or Department blanket purchase orders.

• Many Revolving Fund purchases were made repeatedly for the same items or from the same vendors, indicating that the Department should develop Department blanket purchase orders or other purchasing arrangements with these vendors.

• The $200 per invoice per day limit was frequently circumvented by placing several smaller orders on separate invoices, or ordering more frequently in amounts costing exactly $200 or less.

• Some purchases made through the Revolving Fund exceeded the $200 per invoice limit (exclusive of tax and shipping charges), and these purchases were approved and paid by the Fiscal Division.

• The Revolving Fund was being used inappropriately to circumvent the centralized supply functions, for the purchase of items that should be procured through the Property Room, or through the MIS Division.

• Improvements to procurement and distribution of inventory and elimination of inappropriate purchasing through the Department"s revolving fund would produce total benefits of $264,000 annually.

Since the SFPD lacks written policies and procedures that describe appropriate supply levels and re-ordering protocols, units often submit unnecessary supply requests. The Property Room estimates that, on an annual basis, a total of 4,750 requisitions are completed, consisting of approximately 700 monthly requests and 4,050 "emergency" requisitions. Emergency requisitions issued often contain routine items. For instance, "emergency" requests include items such as hanging folders, tabs, batteries, magnetic paper clip dispensers, stamp pads, wall calendars and similar items that should be requested during the normal monthly requisition process. Department staff estimates that of the 4,050 "emergency" requests issued, only 22 percent (900 requests annually) are special orders that are required to be completed within one day.

Based on the findings and conclusions outlined above, the Budget Analyst has presented 47 detailed recommendations in this management audit report. The detailed recommendations are presented at the end of each of the sections and subsections with a summary of the benefits of implementing the recommendations.

The Budget Analyst would like to acknowledge and thank the management and staff of the Police Department for their cooperation during the course of this management audit. Without their willing assistance, our task would have been much more difficult.

Respectfully Submitted

Harvey M. Rose
Budget Analyst

cc:
Supervisor Alioto
Supervisor Ammiano
Supervisor Bierman
Supervisor Brown
Supervisor Hsieh
Supervisor Katz
Supervisor Leal
Supervisor Teng
Supervisor Yaki
Clerk of the Board
Mayor Brown
Fred Lau, Chief of Police
Edward Harrington, Controller
Steve Agostini, Mayor"s Director of Finance
Ted Lakey, Deputy City Attorney