In addition, as of July 1, 1997, the SFPD assumed responsibility for the Bureau of Airport Police, which added 153 authorized airport police classifications to the SFPD. The costs of the Bureau of Airport Police are supported by San Francisco International Airport revenue.

In FY 1997-98, the Police Department has been authorized total appropriations of approximately $228.5 million, which includes grant and special projects funding of approximately $3.1 million, and approximately $19.1 million in Airport revenue to support the Airport Police Bureau, a function that was taken over by the SFPD in Fiscal Year 1997-98. General Fund appropriations are approximately $206.3 million, or 90.3 percent of the SFPD"s $228.5 million budget.

Based on our performance audit, there are many areas where we believe the Police Department should be commended on its performance. Most importantly, the SFPD appears to be close to fulfilling the requirements of a long standing Consent Decree that has placed the Department under Court supervision since 1979. According to the Consent Decree Unit, the estimated annual savings resulting from vacating the Consent Decree would be at least $275,000 annually, plus additional savings in professional services of an undetermined amount.

The remainder of this transmittal letter presents a summary of our findings, conclusions and recommendations by subject area.

Investigations

As defined by the State Department of Justice (DOJ), an offense is "cleared" for crime reporting purposes when at least one person is arrested, charged with the commission of the offense and turned over to the court for prosecution or cited to juvenile authorities. However, the clearance rate is not an accurate measure of a jurisdiction"s success in prosecuting and convicting suspects, because cases that are cleared by the Police Department are not necessarily prosecuted by the District Attorney"s Office. A better measure of the City"s performance in prosecuting and convicting suspects is how many of the cases assigned to Inspectors result in the formal filing of charges by the District Attorney"s Office against a suspect arrested by the Police Department.

For example, while 69 percent of the assigned suspect cases (cases in which there is no initial arrest) are cleared by the Police Department, only 27 percent of such cases are prosecuted by the DA. Additionally, while all rebookings ^[1] (cases in which there is an immediate felony arrest) are cleared by the Police Department, only 53 percent of rebookings are prosecuted by the DA. Overall, only 42 percent of all cases assigned, investigated and cleared by the Police Department result in prosecution by the DA.

The DOJ"s statistics show that San Francisco"s felony filing rate is also relatively lower than the felony filing rate in other jurisdictions. Based on DOJ statistics, only one-half of the felony arrests presented by the Police Department to the DA result in the filing of formal charges against a suspect, compared to the overall filing rate of 74 percent for all jurisdictions Statewide. This lower filing rate may be in part because of the high crime and felony arrest rates in San Francisco as compared to other California jurisdictions. However, the San Francisco DA"s Office has a conviction rate (the number of convictions as a percentage of filings) which is comparable to the conviction rate in other jurisdictions. Thus, although the San Francisco DA turns down many more cases for prosecution than other jurisdictions, the conviction rate in San Francisco, which would be expected to be higher, is no higher than in other large California jurisdictions.

Through our field work, we identified several conditions and practices of both the Police Department and the DA"s Office which may be contributing to San Francisco"s low prosecution rate. These include:

Interaction between the Investigative and Patrol Functions

Investigative units that deploy Inspectors to crime scenes have an average filing rate for felony rebookings of 78 percent, versus the average of 50 percent for other investigative units, thereby demonstrating that the presence of Inspectors at crime scenes may contribute to the higher filing rates of certain investigative units.

Since most crime incidents occur during non-business hours, the Homicide and Sex Crimes Sections and the Juvenile Division have on-call Inspectors who respond to incidents during evening and night-time hours. These three sections, plus the Night Investigations Unit, have greater interaction with patrol personnel and involvement in the preliminary investigation process, and also have among the highest DA filing rates for rebookings.

However, in the 11 other investigative units, in which investigators do not attend the crime scene immediately after the crime has occurred, there is minimal interaction between the investigative and patrol functions. As a result, patrol personnel do not have a comprehensive understanding of the investigative process and Inspectors are excluded from preliminary investigations.

In order to improve the interaction between investigations and patrol, Inspectors should be available to provide assistance to patrol personnel on a 24-hour basis and, when necessary, to respond to crime scenes. Additionally, the Department should resume the rotation of patrol Sergeants through the Inspectors Bureau in order to provide them with a first-hand view of the investigation process.

Workload and Organization in the Investigations Bureau

Investigative units do not have workload standards, nor do managers monitor the relative caseloads of investigative units. As a result, there is an inequitable caseload distribution among the investigative units of the Police Department. For example, investigators assigned to the Narcotics Division"s rebooking unit each handle an average of 200 rebookings per month, versus an average caseload of less than one rebooking per month for Inspectors in the Homicide, Sex Crimes and Fencing Sections.

Through our field work, we discovered that there appears to be a negative correlation between caseload and the DA"s filing rate for rebookings. For example, the units with the highest caseloads for rebookings - Narcotics, Auto, Burglary and General Work - have relatively low filing rates for rebookings by the DA. In addition, there is some correlation between the length of time a case remains open and the likelihood that it will be accepted by the DA for prosecution, and cases which are closed quickly are less likely to be accepted by the DA. Moreover, based on discussions with staff from the DA"s Office, Inspectors sometimes pressure Assistant DAs to file or discharge rebookings quickly so that the Inspector will be able to complete the case within the 48-hour time limit.

The combination of high caseloads and the 48-hour time limit for rebookings has resulted in a focus by Inspectors on closing as many cases as quickly as possible, regardless of whether the case is discharged or accepted by the DA, and often as a priority over expending additional time and resources to assist in the prosecution of suspects.

In order to eliminate the inequitable workload distribution, the General Investigations Division should implement a cross-training program, create a Rebookings Unit and adjust staffing levels for the investigative units based on relative caseloads.

The proper implementation of our recommendations could potentially result in a reduction in investigative overtime of $240,000 per year, if efficiencies are realized.

Police Report Writing

Although the Police Department"s report writing has improved in recent years, according to the District Attorney"s Office, report-writing deficiencies are still one of the factors contributing to the high number of cases turned down for prosecution by the DA"s Office.

According to the DA"s Office and a study by the Coro Foundation, some factors contributing to poor report writing are the reversal of report-writing techniques learned in the Police Academy and the Department"s past and current recruiting policies. While Police Academy classes stress the importance of complete and thorough reports, according to the DA"s Office, other members of the Police Department tend to encourage recruits to be as concise as possible in writing reports, essentially advising them to forget the report-writing techniques learned at the Police Academy.

We performed an independent review of a random sample of 40 incident reports for cases that were rejected by the DA. Although the reports appeared to be of fair to good quality, we found that many reports were missing critical elements such as descriptions of the steps of the Police Officer"s investigation and personal observations. In addition, there was often no corroboration of the reporting party"s statements that would normally be achieved by attempting to locate potential witnesses.

In order to improve the quality of Police report-writing, and further reduce the impact of reports on the DA"s ability to file formal charges in cases, the Police Department should expand and improve report-writing instruction at the Police Academy and consider, as a policy matter, implementing less restrictive residency and higher education requirements for new officer recruits. Additionally, the SFPD should request that the DA"s Office develop a formal system for returning any substandard Police reports back to the Police Department for review, evaluation and corrective action.

The DA"s Standard for Charging Cases

Pursuant to California Penal Code Section 836, peace officers are authorized to make an arrest based on probable cause. As such, the Police Department must believe that there is more evidence for than against the prospect that the person sought is guilty of a crime, yet reserving some possibility for doubt.

There is no statutory standard to be used by the District Attorney for filing charges against a suspect arrested by the Police Department. However, the San Francisco District Attorney"s Office does operate under charging standards established by the California District Attorney"s Association. According to the District Attorney"s Office, the DA"s interpretation of these standards is equivalent to the provisions contained in Penal Code Section 1096, which states that the guilt of a suspect must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Although PC Section 1096 is intended to be used as a jury instruction when a criminal trial begins, in San Francisco, the DA applies this standard much earlier in the criminal justice process. As such, the San Francisco DA"s Office must be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" within 48 hours of the suspect"s arrest (the time limit for filing formal charges against the suspect), that the suspect is guilty of the crime.

The reasonable doubt standard is not typically used by District Attorneys in other jurisdictions to file charges against a suspect, and some District Attorneys in other jurisdictions have adopted a less rigorous standard of proof which must be met before filing charges against a suspect.

Although meeting the reasonable doubt standard is necessary to convict a person, it is not necessary to meet this standard in order to place a person on trial. Using such a high standard in making the decision whether or not to file formal charges eliminates the possibility of gradually being able to build a case against a suspect. As such, the DA may not be prosecuting some cases that perhaps could be prosecuted if additional time were provided in order to expand the investigation, develop the case and collect additional evidence and information.

As a result, prosecutable cases are possibly being discharged by the DA because they do not meet this high standard. In addition, given that the Police Department is making arrests based on the probable cause standard, and the DA is prosecuting such cases based on a much higher standard, it is inevitable that conflicts should occur between the Police Department and the District Attorney as a result of the DA"s decision not to proceed further with a case.

The DA should give some consideration to establishing a more flexible policy for filing charges which would encourage Assistant DAs to review all the options before making a decision whether or not to file charges against a suspect.

Penal Code Section 849(b)

California Penal Code Section 849(b) authorizes peace officers to release arrested persons from custody due to insufficient grounds to file a complaint against that person (Section 849(b)(1)), or because that person was under the influence of alcohol or drugs and no further action is desirable (Sections 849(b)(2) and (3)).

Based in part on statistics published by the State, the San Francisco Police Department has been criticized by the District Attorney"s Office and other City agencies for its under-utilization of PC 849(b). However, the SFPD does not report all 849(b) releases to the State, as confirmed by a tabulation of 849(b) release forms by the Budget Analyst"s Office.

The DA further advises that the Police Department should issue more 849(b)(1) releases, as the DA receives a large number of arrest cases from the Police Department in which there are insufficient grounds to file charges. DA staff advise that such cases could be discarded by either the arresting Police Officer, his/her commanding Sergeant or by the Police Inspector assigned to investigate the case, before they even reach the DA"s Office for review.

Because the 849(b) form used by the SFPD does not provide space for Police Officers to record the reason for which an arrested person is being released from custody, it cannot be determined what proportion of 849(b) releases in San Francisco are issued due to insufficient grounds (Section 849(b)(1)) or because the detainee was under the influence of alcohol or drugs (Section 849(b)(2) and 849(b)(3)).

Police Department staff interviewed by the Budget Analyst have indicated that Section 849(b)(1) is most likely not widely used by the San Francisco Police Department. This is because the arresting Police Officer, his/her commanding Sergeant (who must approve each arrest), and/or the Police Inspector assigned to investigate the case may not feel qualified to make the decision of whether there are sufficient grounds to prosecute a case. According to Police Department staff, they would prefer to leave this decision to the DA, who has specialized training and expertise in this area.

As long as the Police Department is able to substantiate that arrests are being made based on the probable cause standard, it is appropriate for the Police Department to leave the decision not to prosecute a case to the District Attorney. However, the Police Department should improve its tracking and reporting of Section 849(b) releases to the State.

Record-Keeping and the Case Review Process

Through the Budget Analyst"s field work, we found discrepancies in the data provided from different data sources, especially with regard to the disposition of cases. These inconsistencies indicate that the Police Department may not be tracking and recording workload and performance statistics accurately. For example, the number of 849(b) releases reported to the State does not reflect the actual number of 849(b) releases issued by the Police Department based on our review of 849(b) files. Also, the data maintained by the DA"s Intake Unit on felony rebookings accepted by the DA did not match data provided by the Police Department regarding the disposition of felony rebookings. In some units, such as the Narcotics Division, data regarding the number of rebookings performed and the disposition of rebookings was not available at all. The Police Department"s records reflect a higher overall clearance rate than our sample and a higher DA filing rate than our sample and the DA"s records.

All assigned cases are reviewed and signed by the commanding lieutenant of each investigative section before being closed and filed. However, there is minimal, if any, follow-up discussion or evaluation of all cases in general once they have been closed and filed. Although each investigative unit maintains statistics on the number and disposition of cases assigned, there is currently no broad discussion or evaluation of cases which are cleared but which were not accepted by the DA for prosecution.

As such, the Investigations Bureau needs to improve record-keeping by maintaining more accurate and comprehensive statistics, particularly on the disposition of cases.

The Police Department should also establish a formal, documented case review process that involves staff from Investigations, Field Operations and the District Attorney"s Office, in order to increase the future likelihood of cases being accepted for prosecution. Evaluating discharged cases, including both rebookings and suspect cases, would provide a means of assessing performance and of determining whether improvements could be made in order to increase the likelihood of cases being accepted for prosecution in the future.

Required Staffing, Temporary Disability and Modified Duty; Modified Duty and Industrial Disability Retirement

The SFPD defines modified duty as assignments in which a temporarily disabled employee performs work outside his or her normal duties that accommodates his or her medical restrictions. The decision to place an officer on modified duty status is made upon certification by the treating physician and is subject to the availability of a suitable modified duty position that is consistent with the physician"s recommendations. A description of our findings based on the review and analysis of these issues follows.

The current policies and practices of the SFPD do not establish a specific number of modified duty positions but do set, at 365 days, the maximum length of time an officer can be assigned to modified duty. This maximum time of 365 days on modified duty was established in November, 1997 by the approval of General Order 11.12. General Order 11.12 defines the SFPD"s policies for accommodation, through the assignment to modified (light) duty of Police Officers who are disabled by injury or illness.

Modified Duty assignments are the result of work and non-work related injuries that require Police Officers to restrict their activities because they are unable to fully perform the required duties of a Police Officer. However, those officers who are injured in non-work accidents must request modified duty. To accommodate the need for such assignments, the Police Department maintains Modified Duty positions that can be held by sworn personnel. Such positions are generally administrative in nature. Details regarding the use of Modified Duty are discussed later in this section.

The Department currently has 121 sworn positions that were added to the budget over and above the Charter-mandated level of 1,971 "full duty" sworn positions to accommodate officers on Modified Duty or disability leave. Based on our analysis of actual need for temporary modified duty positions and a provision for the average number of full time equivalent positions required for temporary disability, we recommend eliminating 66 of the 121 positions currently budgeted to accommodate officers on modified duty and disability leave. The elimination of such excess sworn positions can begin one year from November, 1997 due to the implementation of the SFPD"s General Order 11.12. General Order 11.12 is described in further detail below.

According to the SFPD"s revised modified duty policy, if a member has sustained a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major activities on the job, and has been performing in a modified duty assignment, his or her situation must be evaluated after 365 days. As a result of this evaluation, the member should either: (1) return to his/her regular assignment; (2) request a reasonable accommodation; or (3) request a recommendation for Industrial Disability Retirement.

State laws regarding Workers Compensation are more liberal than the "reasonable accommodation requirements" set forth in the federal ADA regulations. We also found that the federal ADA regulations do not necessarily apply to the accommodations made for officers on modified duty assignments. In most cases in order to have a claim under ADA, the Department will have already stated that there is not a modified duty assignment available that would meet the needs of the "disabled" officer, and the Retirement Board has turned down the officer"s request for an Industrial Disability Retirement (IDR). In such cases, it is incumbent upon the Department to clearly demonstrate why there is not a suitable assignment and press the Retirement Board to approve the officer"s request for the IDR.

While the SFPD provides steps to place an injured employee in a modified duty position, on a temporary basis, we found that there are an increasing number of officers who are on modified duty beyond 365 days. Based on interviews with representatives in the Medical Liaison"s Office, we also found that attending physicians, who are designated by the injured officer, are inconsistent in their recommendations for returning injured employees to work. Additionally, there is no designation of the person responsible for questioning a member"s ability to perform that might result in differences in evaluations. Finally, there is no written analysis that the Chief of Police can use as a basis to make a decision on assigning modified duty positions. This is problematic as the Chief could continue to assign officers in modified duty positions regardless of the cost to the Department.

In recent years, a combination of a prevailing legal decision, the Police Department"s practice of assigning sworn officers to performing civilian duties in modified duty assignments, and the Police Department"s past policies and practices have effectively increased the number of modified duty positions which are both filled and available. As a result of the Retirement Board"s policy on Industrial Disability Retirements and the existing case law, the SFPD has been forced to place officers in Modified Duty positions, regardless of the cost to the Department, when the Retirement Board did not grant Industrial Disability Retirement.

In the past three years, 138 applications for Industrial Disability Retirements have been filed. Of those applications, 31 (22 percent) have been denied. Of the 31 denials, 21 (68 percent) were denied because the Retirement Board found that the officer could perform a modified duty assignment.

As a result of past practices, and the Department"s willingness to make accommodations for officers requiring modified duty assignments, several sworn officers have performed civilian duties for a number of years. The SFPD"s new General Order 11.12 establishes clear guidelines and policies regarding the types of accommodation that will be made and are consistent with established State laws.

The Department has identified 77 administrative assignments. Modified duty officers typically perform only 12 of the 77 administrative assignments, identified by the Department. However, at the time of the survey, 29 of the 77 assignments were being used for modified duty.

In our review and analysis we identified a Sergeant who has held a modified duty position in the Records for over 17 years; a Police Officer who has held a position in the Warrants Division for over 11 years; and another Police Officer held a position in the Fencing Unit for 13 years. With the new General Order in place and the implementation of the new Workers Compensation Claims Management System, long-term modified duty assignments, such as those described in this paragraph, will no longer be possible.

Since completing our fieldwork, the SFPD has installed and implemented a new Workers Compensation Claims Management System. This system is designed to track workers compensations claims and provides management with reports on the number of active claims, length of claims and status of each officer on modified duty.

Based on our detailed analysis, the elimination of 66 of the 121 positions currently used for modified duty and temporary disability leave represents savings to the Department of at least $4,223,208 (66 positions x $63,988 per position) without reducing the current level of police services. The elimination of these positions should be phased in over a three-year period.

Minimum Sworn Staffing and Civilianization

As a result of the restrictions imposed by Proposition D, approved by the voters in June, 1994, that established a minimum level of full duty sworn personnel, the Police Department is not currently in compliance with the other provisions of Proposition D. The SFPD does not currently comply with the civilianization requirement to permit an increase in the number of sworn personnel dedicated to community policing and other police activities.

In fact, the Police Department has undergone a process of "reverse civilianization," in which an increasing number of sworn personnel are performing clerical, administrative and other functions that do not require peace officer status. Meanwhile, there has been a trend towards greater civilianization in other large police departments in California and nationwide.

As a result, the Police Department is incurring as much as $2.24 million per year in excess personnel costs by using sworn personnel to perform administrative, technical support and/or other non-police functions. This practice can also have a demoralizing effect on existing civilian employees who are being paid less for performing similar functions. Additionally, hiring civilian employees with greater expertise in functions currently being performed by sworn personnel would improve productivity.

Fully implementing the provisions of Proposition D, through civilianization of non-police functions now performed by sworn personnel could result in additional costs to the City of as much as $8.7 million annually because offsetting reductions in sworn staffing would be prohibited, despite the fact that such reductions would not affect the current level of sworn staffing actually performing police duties.

The Board of Supervisors should consider, as a policy matter, submitting a ballot measure to the electorate to amend Charter Section 4.127 (Proposition D) in order to facilitate the civilianization of sworn positions in the Police Department. Civilianization would enable the Police Department either to (a) realize savings of up to $2,242,618 per year without reducing the current level of police services; or (b) use this savings to hire an additional 46 Police Officers dedicated to community policing, patrol and investigations.

Although the current level of 2,021 sworn officers is higher than the minimum required staffing level of 1,971 full duty sworn officers, we calculated in Section 2 of this report that the equivalent of 17 full-time equivalent (FTE) sworn personnel are assigned to modified duty and an additional 28 FTE sworn personnel are on temporary disability leave, for a total of 45 FTE sworn personnel who are not performing "full duty" assignments. Although Charter Section 4.127 does not clearly define "full duty", it seems reasonable that sworn personnel on modified duty or temporary disability leave should not constitute "full duty" officers. If one subtracts the approximately 45 FTE sworn personnel on modified duty or temporary disability from the total of 2,021 sworn officers currently on the payroll, the result would be 1,976 "full duty" officers or five more than the 1,971 sworn staffing level specified by the Charter.

In addition, the SFPD"s FY 1997-98 budget provides funding for 131 FTE sworn personnel from overtime pay. If these 131 FTE sworn personnel funded by overtime are added to the 1,976 "full duty" officers as described above, the total FTE "full duty" officers increases to 2,107, or 136 more than the 1,971 "full duty" officers specified in the Charter.

Although the Department is currently in compliance with the minimum staffing level established by Proposition D, the SFPD has not been successful in allocating additional staff to police duties or in civilianizing sworn positions. In fact, an increasing number of sworn personnel are performing clerical, administrative and other functions that do not require peace officer status. This has occurred in part because of past budget cutbacks which, due to public pressure to maintain a strong police presence throughout the City, resulted in the elimination of civilian positions rather than sworn positions. As a result, according to the Police Department, there are an insufficient number of civilian personnel available to perform all of the administrative, clerical and other support functions necessary, and sworn personnel are being used instead. The Police Department reports that it has made use of its modified duty officers to perform some of the necessary administrative and support activities that otherwise would be performed by civilian personnel.

In addition, because of the sworn staffing minimum imposed by Proposition D, civilianization would result in additional, rather than reduced, personnel costs for the Police Department. For example, in most jurisdictions, civilianization results in a cost savings, since sworn positions are usually replaced with lower cost civilian positions. However, in San Francisco, because Proposition D mandates a minimum staffing level of 1,971 sworn officers, the Police Department cannot replace sworn personnel with civilian personnel. Instead, under a strict interpretation of Proposition D, civilianization can only be achieved by adding new civilian positions to the budget to assume the administrative and other tasks currently being performed by sworn personnel, and then reassigning those sworn personnel to police functions (such as community policing, investigations, patrol, etc.), thereby resulting in increased rather than reduced personnel costs for the City. Because of a combination of (a) the cost of adding new sworn positions to the budget in order to comply with Proposition D and (b) other budget priorities in the Police Department and throughout the City, the Police Department has been unable to add new civilian positions to its budget.

The largest increase in sworn personnel since April, 1994 has been in the SFPD"s Administration Bureau (30 percent). There has been an increase of only 9.3 percent in the Field Operations Bureau - Patrol Division, a 6.4 percent increase in the Field Operations Bureau - Special Operations Division and an 13 percent increase in the Investigations Bureau. As such, the Police Department is not in compliance with the provision of Charter Section 4.127 that requires all new full duty sworn officers hired after FY 1993-94 to be dedicated to neighborhood community policing, patrol and investigations.

According the Police Department, one reason for the large increase in sworn personnel in the Administration Bureau between April, 1994 and March, 1998 was the transfer of Police Officers on temporary disability leave or modified duty assignment from field units to the Administration Bureau in order to improve supervision of these officers. Additionally, the Department maintains that all new Police Officer recruits who finish basic training at the Police Academy are initially assigned to community policing duties at the district stations.

Although the number of authorized civilian positions (including both vacant and filled positions) has increased by 13 since FY 1994-95 (from 433 authorized positions in FY 1994-95 to 446 authorized positions in FY 1997-98), there has been a reduction of 69 authorized civilian positions (13.4 percent) since 1990, from 515 positions in FY 1990-91 to 446 positions in FY 1997-98. During the same time period, the number of authorized sworn positions increased by 119 (6.0 percent), from 1,973 sworn positions in FY 1990-91 to 2,092 sworn positions in FY 1997-98.

Based on law enforcement management and administrative statistics published by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Justice Statistics, we found that there appears to be a trend towards civilianization in police departments nationwide. For example, for the 31 largest police departments in the U.S. which have at least 1,000 sworn members, the average percentage growth in the number of civilian employees was 12 percent between 1990 and 1993, versus only a three percent increase in the number of sworn employees and a four percent increase overall. On the other hand, in San Francisco, the number of civilian employees decreased by 23 percent and the number of sworn employees remained unchanged between 1990 and 1993.

In addition, based on the DOJ"s statistics, an average of 78 percent of employees were sworn in 1993, a decrease from 80 percent in 1990, in the nation"s 31 largest police departments. However, in San Francisco, the number of sworn employees as a percentage of total employees was 83 percent in 1993, an increase from 79 percent in 1990.

Our survey of 10 other large California police departments also showed a trend towards civilianization. Based on documents submitted by six of the 10 police departments surveyed, we found that the SFPD is following the opposite trend than most of the other jurisdictions surveyed.

The number of sworn employees as a percentage of total employees decreased in all except one (San Diego) of the six jurisdictions that responded to our survey, whereas the proportion of sworn personnel has increased in San Francisco. In addition, while the percentage of civilian employees has grown at a greater rate (28 percent) than the overall average increase in the number of full-time employees (16 percent) in the six other police departments surveyed, in San Francisco, the number of civilian employees has declined by 11 percent, despite an overall increase of two percent in the total number of employees.

In addition, we also found that approximately 12 percent of sworn employees in the San Francisco Police Department are assigned to administrative and technical support activities in the Administration Bureau, whereas an average of only five percent of sworn personnel are assigned to similar duties in the other police departments surveyed.

The SFPD has a much higher percentage of sworn employees performing administrative and technical support activities than the six other jurisdictions surveyed (36 percent in the SFPD versus the average of 16 percent in the other jurisdictions).

Our survey of six other police departments, including Los Angeles, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose and Santa Ana found that:

In a survey completed by the Police Department in the spring of 1997, the Police Department identified 189 sworn employees who were assigned to performing primarily administrative and/or clerical tasks. After an independent review and analysis of the functions being performed by sworn officers in the autumn of 1997, the Budget Analyst identified a total of 183 sworn positions which could potentially be civilianized. However, we found in Section 2 of this report that up to 26 sworn positions should be reserved as modified duty positions. Thus, of the 183 sworn positions currently performing non-police functions, the Police Department could convert up to 157 (183 less 26) to civilian positions.

Therefore, we have concluded that the Police Department is incurring $2,242,618 in excess salary and fringe benefit costs by using sworn personnel to perform administrative, technical support, duplicative and/or other non-police functions.

Because of the approval of Proposition D, it would not be possible for the Police Department to replace existing sworn positions with new civilian positions if the total number of full duty sworn positions fell below 1,971. Thus, civilianizing all sworn positions now performing non-sworn duties would result in significant additional costs to the City, since it would not be offset by savings from a reduction in the number of authorized sworn positions. As such, full compliance with Proposition D would cost the City an additional $8,706,904 per year, based on the estimated annual salary cost of $7,016,039 plus $1,690,865 for fringe benefits for these 157 civilian positions. On the other hand, the City could save up to$2,242,618 per year through civilianization if Proposition D were amended to facilitate the civilianization/elimination of these 157 civilian functions which are currently being performed by sworn personnel, without reducing the current level of police services.

In addition, there would be an increase in the number of authorized civilian positions from 446 to 603 positions, or an additional 157 civilian positions.

We recommend a total reduction of 223 sworn positions, from the current level of 2,092 to 1,869. This reduction can be achieved through a combination of civilianization and elimination of modified duty positions that we conclude should not be necessary following full implementation of the SFPD"s new General Order 11.12. Despite this recommended reduction, there would not be a reduction in the current level of police services. This is because (a) the 157 sworn positions identified for civilianization in our report are currently performing non-police functions and would be replaced by civilian positions; and (b) the remaining 66 positions were originally placed in the budget because of the reported need to accommodate officers on temporary disability or modified duty who were therefore not performing their regular, full duty assignments. Thus, the number of officers who are responsible for responding to calls for service and other police activities would not decrease.

The SFPD currently has a higher number of sworn officers per 10,000 residents and a lower number of crime incidents per sworn officer than the average of the other six jurisdictions that submitted detailed survey responses. Additionally, the SFPD also has a higher number of officers responding to calls for service and a significantly lower number of crime incidents per officer than the average of the six other surveyed jurisdictions. The proposed reduction in the total number of authorized sworn positions would not affect the number of officers responding to calls for service or their workload.

As such, given the significant cost to fully comply with Proposition D, the Board of Supervisors may wish to consider, as a policy matter, submitting a ballot measure which would amend Charter Section 4.127 in order to facilitate the civilianization of sworn positions in the Police Department. Rather than recommending a specific number of full-duty sworn positions, this Charter Amendment should allow for the civilianization of existing sworn positions, as identified by the Police Department and Budget Analyst in this report, without resulting in additional personnel costs and without reducing the current level of police services. Additionally, this Charter Amendment should provide that any savings resulting from civilianization accrue to the General Fund. As a result of this Charter Amendment, the civilianization of the 157 sworn positions identified in this report would result in a savings of up to $2,242,618 per year to the City.

A second option would be for the Police Department to civilianize the 157 functions identified in our report and to use the savings realized from civilianization to hire additional Police Officers. The $2,242,618 in potential annual savings identified by the Budget Analyst could then be used to hire 46 new Q2 Police Officers, based on a starting salary (including fringe benefits) of $48,906 per year. These additional 46 Police Officers could be assigned to police duties, such as neighborhood community policing, investigations or patrol. Exercising this policy option would also require the approval of a Charter Amendment by the voters. As noted above, rather than recommending a specific number of full-duty sworn positions, this Charter Amendment should allow for the civilianization of existing sworn positions, as identified by the Police Department and Budget Analyst in this report, without resulting in additional personnel costs and without reducing the current level of police services. Additionally, in accordance with this policy option, this Charter Amendment should also provide that any savings resulting from civilianization be used to hire new Police Officers to perform community policing duties. This policy option would not result in any additional costs or savings.

Additionally, the Budget Analyst recommends that the civilianization of the sworn positions identified in this report be implemented through attrition, as positions are vacated by existing sworn personnel. According to the Police Department, the civilianization of these sworn functions would take from three to five years to implement.

Special Event Overtime

As part of Phase 1 of the Performance Audit of the San Francisco Police Department, we reviewed and analyzed police overtime expenditures, policies and practices and had five findings and 27 recommendations designed to reduce police overtime expenditures by as much as $6.7 million per year, including up to $2.2 million in reduced expenditures and increased revenues related to special event overtime. According to the Police Department, the Budget Analyst"s recommendations regarding overtime quotas for individual units and court overtime for preliminary hearings have been implemented. However, the Police Department reports that most of the other recommendations have not been implemented because they are subject to meet and confer requirements with the Police Officers Association (POA). As of the writing of this report, the results of such meet and confer discussions were not available.

As part of Phase 2 of this performance audit, we reviewed police overtime expenditures again in order to update our analysis, especially with regard to special event overtime. Extended Work Week (EWW) or special event overtime reflects overtime paid to officers who work beyond their scheduled shifts, or work on their scheduled days off to provide special event coverage. Special events include street fairs such as the Fillmore and Haight Street Fairs, demonstrations by labor organizations or political groups, athletic events such as Bay to Breakers and the San Francisco Marathon, large celebrations such as Cinco de Mayo and Carnaval, parades such as Chinese New Year and the Gay and Lesbian Freedom Day Parade, 49ers and Giants games, and other events such as funerals and dignitary visits. In Phase 1 of this performance audit, we learned from district captains that the deployment of on-duty officers from the districts takes away from the ability of the districts to provide sufficient staff to perform regular police duties, such as responding to calls for service. In addition, special event coverage is the single largest reason for overtime in the Police Department.

Although other categories of Police overtime declined or remained steady during FY 1996-97, special event overtime increased by 41 percent in FY 1996-97. Special event overtime has fluctuated over the past four years, representing between 27 percent and 41 percent of all paid overtime hours. In FY 1996-97, special event overtime represented approximately 46 percent of all paid overtime hours.

In FY 1996-97, the Police Department incurred $13,115,539 in General Fund overtime expenditures (not including $2,742,532 in General Fund holiday overtime pay), which represents an increase of $524,192 (4.2 percent) in General Fund overtime expenditures from the FY 1995-96 level of $12,591,347 (excluding $2,582,538 in General Fund holiday overtime pay). According to the Police Department, this increase results primarily from an increase in special event overtime. Special event overtime represented an estimated $5,980,630 (46 percent) of the Department"s $13,115,539 in FY 1996-97 General Fund overtime expenditures.

In FY 1996-97, the Police Department deployed sworn employees at 853 special events (excluding the Mayor"s Conference, which resulted in 23,310 EWW overtime hours and 9,660 on-duty hours of police coverage). For every special event in FY 1996-97, an average of 260 hours of police coverage were provided by the Police Department, at a cost of over $8.2 million annually. The SFPD provided 221,983 hours of police coverage for special events, consisting of 86,063 on-duty hours and 135,920 overtime hours. This is equivalent to approximately 125 full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel devoted to special event coverage on a full-time, annual basis. Of these 125 personnel, approximately 48 employees are diverted from their regular assignments in order to provide police coverage for special events. Furthermore, we determined that officers from the district stations provided an estimated 95,852 (43 percent) of these 221,983 hours, consisting of 23,622 on-duty hours and 72,230 overtime hours. This is equivalent to approximately 54 FTE personnel devoted to special event coverage on a full-time, annual basis, including 13 FTE personnel who are diverted from their regular assignments at the district stations.

Forming a special event unit under the Special Operations Division would lessen the drain on district stations resulting from special events and would reduce special event overtime expenditures by as much as an estimated $1.1 million per year.

In addition, the Board of Supervisors should consider a policy option that would improve the Police Department"s ability to recover the full cost of providing police coverage at certain types of special events, thereby generating as much as $650,000 in additional revenue to the City annually.

Other SFPD Functions Reviewed During our Performance Audit

In Appendix 1 of our report, we present an analysis of Management Staffing and Supervision of Sworn Personnel. Overall, we found that, based on a survey of other large, urban police departments in California, that the SFPD does not appear to have higher levels of upper management ("command") staffing or excessive supervisory staffing in relation to the number of police officers in the Department. We also found that the organization and ratios of supervisory personnel were consistent with the organization of most paramilitary models of organization.

In order to compare SFPD"s organizational structure to other police departments, we surveyed the police departments of the 10 largest cities in California (other than San Francisco). The Police Departments surveyed include Anaheim, Fresno, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, San Jose, and Santa Ana. We received responses from six of the 10 police departments. Based on these responses, we found the management and staffing configurations of the San Francisco Police Department to be quite similar to the organizational structures of other large California police departments.

Although San Francisco has the highest number of district police stations per square mile and the second lowest population per district station compared to the other police departments surveyed, the SFPD is quite similar to the other police departments in terms of its command structure at district police stations.

Although San Francisco has higher supervisor to staff ratios than the average of the six other jurisdictions, the SFPD still falls within the range of Sergeant to Police Officer, Lieutenant to Sergeant and Captain to Lieutenant ratios of the six other police departments.

In addition, the SFPD indicates that the optimal Sergeant to Police Officer ratio is one to seven or eight Police Officers. The Sergeant to Police Officer ratio in San Francisco is one to 6.7 Officers, which is only slightly higher than the optimal number.

As such, it appears that the San Francisco Police Department has sufficient supervisory positions to manage line staff, and there does not appear to be an excessive number of higher level management/supervisory positions relative to line staff, when comparing San Francisco to other jurisdictions.

Appendix 2 of our report is a Criminal Justice Glossary prepared by the Budget Analyst to provide readers of this report with definitions of terminology that is sometimes unique to law enforcement.

Appendix 3 of our report provides a summary of other areas reviewed. These include the Consent Decree, the Crime Lab and the Special Operations Division.

Based on the findings and conclusions outlined above, the Budget Analyst has presented 29 detailed recommendations in this performance 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. Our recommendations are listed below.

1.1 Interaction between the Investigative and Patrol Functions

The Police Department should:

The Deputy Chief of Investigations and the Deputy Chief of Field Operations should:

I.2 Workload and Organization in the Investigations Bureau

I.3 Police Report Writing

I.4 The DA"s Standard for Charging Cases

I.5 Penal Code Section 849(b)

I.6 Record-Keeping and the Case Review Process

2.1 Required Staffing, Temporary Disability and Modified Duty

The SFPD should:

2.2 Modified Duty and Industrial Disability Retirement

The SFPD should:

3.0 Minimum Sworn Staffing and Civilianization

The Board of Supervisors should consider the following policy options:

4. Special Event Overtime

The Board of Supervisors should:

Finally, a written response from the Chief of Police is appended to our report, as well as comments from the Budget Analyst regarding the response. The Police Department concurs fully or partially with 25 of our 29 recommendations. We have also appended a written response to our findings concerning Modified Duty from the Executive Director of the Employees" Retirement System. In essence, the Employees" Retirement System states that we have not considered the cost of reducing positions available for long term modified duty and increasing industrial disability retirements for Police Officers who legitimately qualify for such retirement benefits.

First, the Employees" Retirement System has not provided us with any estimate of the cost to the Retirement Fund due to increased industrial retirements. Second, in providing actuarial estimates for several recent proposals to improve retirement benefits for certain employee groups, the Retirement System has consistently stated that the system is very well funded. The City has not had to pay any employer contributions for nearly two years. Further, the Retirement Board does not expect the City to pay any employer retirement contributions for at least fifteen years into the future " barring severe shortfalls in the investment returns to the System.

Lastly, the Budget Analyst believes that the City should grant, with gratitude, disability retirement to any Police Officer who is no longer able to perform police duties because of a bona fide injury or illness.

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 performance audit. Without their willing assistance, our task would have been much more difficult.

Respectfully Submitted,

Harvey M. Rose

Budget Analyst