The Budget Analyst of the City and County of San Francisco has performed this Phase 2 Performance Audit of the San Francisco Police Department pursuant to direction received from the Board of Supervisors under the authority granted by Charter § 2.114.

Project Scope

The scope of the Performance Audit of the San Francisco Police Department was to be comprehensive. Our Phase 1 report provided an examination of police services provided by the Field Operations Bureau and the district stations, shift scheduling practices, overtime spending and certain critical support activities. That report covered the largest and most visible of SFPD"s operations. Over 65 percent (approximately 1,300) of the department"s 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.

Our Phase 1 report provided findings grouped into the following major categories:

Phase 2 has focused on services provided by investigation and special enforcement units of the SFPD. A large part of this report, and our work on Phase 2, has therefore centered on the Department"s Investigations Bureau, the second largest unit of the SFPD. We have also reviewed administrative functions in order to assess potential savings and efficiency improvements that could be achieved by converting sworn positions that perform non-police duties to civilian positions. We have also covered workers compensation and temporary disability, a high cost area for any public safety department.

In addition to the findings and recommendations described in this report, the Budget Analyst also examined other key areas of the SFPD"s operations. These areas include 1) the Consent Decree, which has forced the Department to operate under Court supervision since 1979, 2) the Crime Lab, a large and important support unit within the Investigation Bureau, and 3 the Special Operations Bureau. We have also reviewed and analyzed the level of supervisory and management staffing in the SFPD, and compared these levels to other large urban police departments in the State of California.

Methodology

This Phase 2 Performance audit of the San Francisco Police Department was performed in accordance with standards developed by the United States General Accounting Office, as published in Government Auditing Standards, 1994 Revision by the Comptroller General of the United States. Accordingly, this performance audit included the following basic elements in its planning and implementation:

Entrance Conference: An entrance conference was conducted with the Chief of Police and with the command staff of the Police Department to discuss the performance audit scope, procedures, and protocol.

Pre-Audit Survey: A pre-audit survey was conducted to familiarize the performance audit staff with the operations of the Police Department, interview upper management, and collect basic documentation regarding Police Department operations. As a result of the work completed as part of this pre-audit survey, areas of Police Department operations requiring additional review and analysis were identified.

Field Work: Field work was conducted in the specific areas which we determined would be included in this Phase 2 study. Middle managers, supervisors, and line personnel were interviewed to obtain details regarding Police Department operations. In order to complete the analysis contained in this report, we also conducted extensive sampling of Police Department records. Practices in other large police agencies throughout California were also reviewed regarding specific aspects of their operations. In each section of this report, we describe the specific methodology employed to develop our findings, conclusions and recommendations.

Analysis and Preparation of Draft Report: At the conclusion of the field work phase of this study, we conducted detailed analyses of the information collected. Based on these analyses, we prepared our findings, conclusions, recommendations, and estimates of costs and benefits from implementation of our recommendations. This analysis was incorporated into a draft performance audit report, which was then provided to the SFPD for review.

Exit Conference and Preparation of the Final Report: An exit conference was held with the Chief of Police and other upper managers of the Police Department to review the details of the report, and to identify any areas of the report requiring clarification or correction. Based on this exit conference, and further discussions, we considered the comments and clarifications provided by SFPD management and this final report was prepared and issued to the Board of Supervisors.

Current Organization and Operations of the Police Department

The SFPD receives the greatest amount of General Fund support of all City Departments, exceeding even the entire Department of Public Health, including San Francisco General Hospital and Laguna Honda Hospital, the largest single Department in City and County Government.

The SFPD is managed by a Chief of Police, who is appointed by the Mayor and reports to a Police Commission. The Mayor may recommend removal of the Chief of Police, subject to ratification within 30 days by the Police Commission. The annual budget for the Police Department is approved by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors.

The Department"s permanent authorized sworn positions include:

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.

Management Organization

The Chief of Police is assisted by the Assistant Chief, who has direct responsibility for Public Affairs and Risk Management Services, and supports the Chief of Police with the day-to-day management of the Department. The Department also has three Deputy Chiefs who manage the Field Operations Bureau (FOB), the Investigations Bureau, and the Administration Bureau. A fourth Deputy Chief position was created this Fiscal Year to head the Airport Police. In addition, one Commander position serves as second in command of the Field Operations Bureau, and one Commander position is in charge of the Special Operations Bureau. A third Commander position was created in the current Fiscal Year to assist the Deputy Chief in charge of the Airport Police. The creation of the new Deputy Chief and Commander positions for the Airport Police was offset by the deletion of two management classifications, the Chief and Deputy Chief, Bureau of Airport Police.

FY 1997-98 Authorized Expenditure Appropriations

In FY 1997-98, the Police Department has been authorized total appropriations of approximately $228.5 million, which includes grant and 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 of the SFPD"s $228.5 million budget. The total FY 1997-98 Department funding by appropriation category is displayed in the table below.

Table 1

Total Expenditure Appropriations

San Francisco Police Department - FY 1997-98

Appropriation Category	Amount	Percent
Salaries	$165,219,988
Mandatory Fringe Benefits	27,769,718
Subtotal Salaries and Fringe Benefits	$192,989,706	84.5%
Non Personal Services	6,620,001
Materials and Supplies	3,392,203
Capital Outlay	3,396,825
Services of Other Departments	16,453,574
Subtotal Non Salary Operating Costs	29,862,603	13.1%
Annual and Continuing Projects	1,856,252
Work Orders	1,718,666
Subtotal Annual Projects and Work Orders	3,574,918	1.5%
Grants and Special Projects	2,052,000	0.9%

Grand Total Police Department Appropriations $228,479,227 100.0%

Mandated Sworn Staffing Levels

The passage of Proposition D in June, 1994, mandated Uniform staffing of 1,971 full duty officers by the end of Fiscal Year 1994-95. In order to staff 1,971 full duty Police Officers, the Department must employ a greater number of personnel because a certain number of Police Officers are on permanent light duty, temporary light duty, temporary disability and other forms of leave that prevent them from working as full duty officers. Based on an analysis of historical trends, the Chief of Police has determined that, on average, approximately 45 Police Officers are assigned to permanent light duty, and approximately 65 Police Officers are on temporary light duty, temporary disability or other forms of leave, for a total of 110 Police Officers that could not reasonably be classified as capable of performing at a full duty level.

Based on these estimates, a policy decision was made by the Chief of Police that 2,082 total Police Officers (1,971 plus 111 to make up for the estimated number of officers that are unable to perform full duty) would be required to employ 1,971 full duty officers and meet the mandates of Proposition D. Since that policy decision was enacted in Fiscal Year 1995-96, ten additional sworn positions were added through grant funding, resulting in total authorized sworn positions that number 2,092. At the present time, the Deputy Chief for Administration is increasing the monitoring of disability claims and light duty assignments, while developing a new light duty policy. By reducing the number of additional sworn staff needed to comply with Proposition D, and civilianizing positions where appropriate, the Department can save significant expenditures in future operations, while still improving the level of police services.

As reported in our Phase 1 performance audit, mandated staffing was an area of emphasis for Phase 2. Section 2.1 and Section 3 of this report address our findings and recommendations concerning the current authorized strength of the SFPD and Charter-required mandated sworn staffing.

Organization of this Report

As stated above, much of our work in Phase 2 of this performance audit addressed the Investigations Bureau and the issue of mandated sworn staffing. In this connection, we have also reviewed policies and procedures for modified duty assignments, workers compensation, and opportunities to civilianize current sworn positions that are performing duties that do not require sworn status. In addition, because the SFPD continues to significantly overspend its budget for overtime salaries, we have revisited the issue of Special Event overtime.

Our report is organized into the following sections.

Accomplishments of the San Francisco Police Department

As part of our pre-audit survey, we evaluated a wide range of activities throughout the Police Department to assess overall performance and to identify areas requiring further review. Based on our initial assessment, there are many areas where we believe the Police Department should be commended on its performance.

Acknowledgments

The Budget Analyst would like to acknowledge and thank the management and staff of the Police Department for their cooperation during this performance audit, including Chief of Police Fred Lau, Deputy Chief for Administration William Welch, and Captain of Planning Tim Hettrich, and Sergeant David Herrera. We would also like to thank Captain Kevin Dillon, Lieutenant Tom Bruton and all of the Detail Lieutenants in the Investigations Bureau who assisted us in this study and Commander John Portoni of the Special Operations Bureau. Without the assistance and cooperation of all members of the SFPD who we worked with, our task would have been extremely difficult.