overtime was at an all-time low, overtime nearly tripled over the following six years. overtime specifically for arrests and investigations. but arrests went down by 30%. so just seeing that relationship and kind of moving in an unexpected direction, suggested to us while there probably are internal control gaps on this kind of overtime. so we evaluated the internal control environment at the department, where we looked at the city policy requirements, the department requirements and then other requirements -- or guidance provided by the u.s. department of justice and the international association of chiefs of police, to kind of figure out are there gaps in the policy, and number two, to the extent that the policy is in place, how could it be made better. so here's an example of the

department not always following its own policy. this is a chart showing the number of times we observed people working more than 14 hours in a day. and again it was at a -- you know, it was at a low in 2010, but then increased 65% over the next seven years. so there were 4,000 people working more than 14 hours a day in 2010. and then close to 10,000 people working more than 14 hours in 2016-2017. and that's a policy they have on the books, right. >> okay. do we know why? are there -- did we examine why is that? why are they working over 14 hours a day? >> we looked at it at a high -- basically statistical analysis. we didn't look at every case. >> okay. part of that was because the overtime cards, that were documented, the preapproval of

that overtime, were not available. they were not filled out. did not have all of the information on them that they should have, per the department policy. even to the extent, within our sampling of the overtime controls on pre-approval, would not have given us the information to answer that question. that's an extremely important answer to know why people are working overtime and whether or not it contributes to public safety reasons. i feel like i need to know more around that. and we can get into that later. just to hear that there is overtime, that's fine. but at the same time, i mean, i can follow up with the department. but it's important i think to know why. >> so actually, supervisor, the department is going to present right after. so you can ask that question. my other question is -- then i'm assuming we don't know how many individuals this means that was working 14 hours. >> this is not unique individuals. it could be the same. >> supervisor fewer: yeah. >> one thing i'll say, though,

we consulted with other criminal justice experts in doing this analysis, including former police chiefs on this very issue. and one of the things, you know, that was pointed out to us, when we were showing them the preliminary results was that this kind of -- overtime specifically related to arrest investigations part of the reason that's the most controllable, because the activities that push you to shift -- extend your shift, related to arrest investigations, can often, not always, be transferred to someone else coming on the next shift. so you're not -- you can transfer -- the task can be completed in regular hours without overtime. so, i mean, that is -- so we made three recommendations, three kind of buckets of recommendations. one was specifically related to shift extension. and controls around that. one related to internal -- enhancing the existing internal reporting that the department was doing. and then one related to

cost-benefit analysis of overtime, you know, when it's most appropriate. so on bucket one, the department doesn't have any updates. although they agreed with almost all of these recommendations, with the exception of requiring this kind of shift extension training and guidance, you know, as a performance management issue. but the rest -- the department agreed with. they have not implemented the controls related to shift extension. they have reportedly enhanced their internal reporting. and they have not -- they don't do cost-benefit analysis, which i checked a week ago. which brings me to the next slide. so the overtime update now, in the current budget, there was a $1.3 million enhancement, 500,000 for reform training,

$530,000 for cleaning up civic center. and now there's a $2.4 million enhancement, most of which is related to foot beat. and then there are other resources in the budget to address the warriors' stadium, additional foot beat for the housing authority and police in union square. so with that i'm happy to answer questions. >> supervisor fewer: okay. supervisor stefani. please, reminder, that many of the technical questions about everyday police operations really should be directed to the police department. >> supervisor stefani: definitel y. thank you for the reminder, chair fewer. what year is this data from? what years? >> so depending -- it all went through 2018. not the full -- so like the -- >> supervisor stefani: i need to know when the data was from? >> the patrol data went through march 2018. the overtime went through i

think january of 2018. >> supervisor stefani: the overtime data. >> that's right. >> supervisor stefani: was 2018? >> yes. it went through 16-17? >> supervisor stefani: i just would like to know when the data. >> let me get back to you. >> supervisor stefani: it's very important when we considering the budget. i think it's really important to have updated data on this. >> yeah. i know, i can do that at the budget hearing. the overtime budget has increased each year. >> supervisor stefani: yeah. right. thanks. >> supervisor fewer: we can get also from the chief the current overtime budget for 2018-2019. >> we have it right there. >> supervisor fewer: which he will probably have in his presentation. president yee. >> president yee: thank you, chair fewer. thanks for the report.

as you know, myself and maybe a few other supervisors, not all of them, but we really pushed this whole issue about civilianization last year. and when it was budget time, there was the discussion at the time was we've done all we can with the low-bearing fruit. and so at the time i think there was about 20-ish that were converted into civilian positions. and so and about 200 positions left. i think the did you'dy was to look at, at least initially, to look at the next set that could possibly be civilianized. i'm actually pleasantly surprised that we didn't find at least 50, which is really a lot more than i suspect at

considering the first grouping was much smaller. my question then becomes, you know, the 50 that were identified, was that from the total number that were left or still some left to look at? >> there are still -- do you want to answer that? >> president yee, in regard to the civilianization process, as we know from the report, we did do a broad review of the entirety of the non-airport functions within the police pol, to get to that 50 count. there were more detailed analysis to complete it, in particular in the investigations bureau. so i think that is the last and

largest single tranche of review we need to work on in the year ahead with the police department. and with the consultant they have on board working with the staffing analysis. >> president yee: potentially a few more? >> i believe there are. the police department would probably concur as well. there's more specialized analysis that needs to occur in investigations to call this review complete. >> president yee: i'm really glad that we're pursuing it. i want to thank chief scott also, this has been working with you and figuring out what -- which ones are the ones that are able to convert. so, you know, the good news out of all of this is that in -- what we've done is allow for, up to now, it's going to take a few years, up to now identifying another -- basically a total of about 70 police officers that were doing civilian-type jobs,

to be actually out on the streets again. so i think not only myself, i think the residents in san francisco can deeply appreciate that. >> supervisor fewer: yes. any other questions. oh, supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: yes. thank you. a couple of questions. so on page 3 of your report. so how are staffing levels at the different departments, if they're not related to the calls of -- for service, how are they determined? >> i think maybe -- well, what we found in the audit was that there were a variety of factors considered. there's whole process where like the captains work with the

chiefs to identify staffing levels. >> supervisor ronen: this is a question for the department? >> yes. i will say the conclusion at the time they weren't using calls for service to drive their staffing numbers. it's absolutely part of our audit finding. >> reporter: that remains true today. that's a major concern for me. then on page 9, so getting into -- getting a little deeper into the scheduling and what, you know, the fact that we have an atypical shift scheduling matt fornasiere mat here in san francisco and recommendations 3.2 and 3.1, which i know the department does not agree with, but if they were implemented, what are we talking about in terms of cost savings and/or additional officers available at any given time? do we have that quantity quantified? >> so we noted in the -- they did shift their schedule out of

conscious -- and for 500 officers in 2011. >> they reported to the board as though they had 66 extra f.t.e.s at no additional cost. >> supervisor ronen: 500 officers in 2012. >> i wouldn't necessarily scale that. i mean, because there's other factors to consider. there's other kind of factors driving this item. >> supervisor ronen: okay. if you were able to quantify that at all, i don't know if it's possible, given the data that you have available, i know you're going to come with the report for the department budget next week. so if that could be included in there, i think that would be very helpful. >> one thing in terms of -- redoing the schedule would require -- it required could confer. and it would require one, too. it's not in the immediate

budget. >> supervisor ronen: i understand that. if we're ever going to get there, we have to start somewhere. i feel like this is an issue that came up last year. and there's been -- it doesn't seem like there's been a lot of movement on that. so it just -- it's something that sticks out to me as why do we have this unique scheduling in san francisco that other cities don't use, when it costs more money and means that there's less officers on the street keeping us safe, right. >> right. >> supervisor fewer: i think definitely, supervisor, too, i think definitely we can actually memorialize that in a recommendation. but again i think this is a meet and confer issue that takes -- >> supervisor ronen: absolutely. i understand that. >> supervisor fewer: we could document that recommendation. >> supervisor ronen: i understand that that won't make a change in this year's budget. but to be armed with that data for next year's budget or, you know, the next time that the

contract is up, i think it's really important. and it's way overdue that we -- that we take this seriously as a city. i think we've been letting this go, you know, letting the status quo continue because it's a practice that somehow got embedded in our system. but doesn't make fiscal or logical sense in any way, shape or form. i know it will be a long process to change. if we're able to do it for 500 officers in 2012, we should be able to do it for the rest of the department. so the more we could kind of have some consistency over the years on that point i think is important. and then in terms of the civilianization update, so is the bottom line here, you know, i know that there's a plan -- this year i think it was to civilianize 35 positions this year? sorry, i'm looking at an old

power point i got from the department. trying to find that. >> yes. >> supervisor ronen: 25 positions for this year and then 15 in '19, '20 and 15 -- or ' 20 in fiscal year '22. what's your thoughts about that? i mean, it seems pretty slow to me. but i'm curious on, you know, do you -- have you had a back and forth with the department about whether or not that's a realistic and fair schedule? >> i have -- we started talking to them about that. i think they think it's a fair schedule. and, you know, there was -- 25 positions were created this

year. and except for the six that needed new classes, they're all in recruitment or filled. so just looking at that versus the 15, suggests perhaps to the extent especially that they don't need new job classes. you could accelerate it. the question -- but i think the issue is that the budget is currently balanced, right. if you were to add civilian positions next year, you'd have to substantially modify the budget, in order to be able to fund them next year. >> supervisor ronen: and that -- and you're going to -- you'll make that concrete for us in the give and takes. >> we can take a close look at that. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. >> when i was saying -- when we found in the audit that they didn't use calls for service, i heard someone behind me say that's not true. i spoke too quickly. at the time they used calls for service, but were not looking at the amount of time spent looking

for calls. it's a slight distinction, i don't want to misrepresent what had been occurring. does that make sense. they were looking at the number of calls, but not how much time it took to actually deal with them. >> supervisor fewer: okay. i think that's important distinction. quite frankly. so without further awe -- adieu, thank you very much. i don't it make everyone else more confused. so now to clarify everything, let's bring up our chief of police. chief william scott. >> thank you, supervisor. chair fewer, and let me get my things together here. so if it's okay with the committee, we will start with the presentation and then we can answer some of the questions as well that came up from the b.l.a. presentation. >> supervisor fewer: sure. that would be great. >> okay. and i'd like to start, first of all, by thanking the b.l.a. for

their report, as was stated, we do agree with a lot of the rations. there are a few that we disagree with. we do we with a lot of recommendations they have. i'd like to thank them for their report and hopefully we can continue to work with them. because i do think there are some issues that we need to drill down on and some levels of detail that we have to work together to get some understanding, for some of the questions that you all have as well. so we look forward to that. okay. so president yee, vice chair stephanie and supervisor mandelman and ronen, thank you for allowing to us present to you this morning. we're going to start and i'm going to try as best i can to get through the power point in five minutes. >> supervisor fewer: if you need more time, just request it. no problem. >> okay. i'm going to walk you through our s.f.p.d. budget priorities for the current fiscal year.

our mission and strategic pillars are the same as they were last year, collaborate, improve responsiveness, measure and communicate. in a nutshell, what we worry about is safety with respect. strategic pillars basically underlying and highlight moving towards safety and respect for all. next slide. our operational priorities violent crime, property crime, homelessness and harm reduction. we've had some success over the last year, we want to continue this work. we continue to see a reduction in crime, year-to-date homicides are down 14%, aggravated assaults down 19%, theft from vehicles understand car break-ins down 15% and burglaries is down 13%. these budget investments that we're asking for will allow us to continue this work. our investments for fiscal year 19-20, the goal next year to get as many officers as possible out on the streets.

we'll repurpose existing salary savings to increase the number of officers on the streets. we believe the fastest way to do this is overtime and civilianization, but we need to continue to put up recruits through the academy. we need to ensure the staffing levels to meet the demands of the city's public safety needs, both are proactive and reactive to the conditions on our streets. first, we want to use $2.8 million in salary savings for overtime to maintain and increase our foot beat presence. and we need the flexibility of overtime, many of the proactive strategies that were successful this last year, such as burglary, operations, burglary from vehicle operations, addressing burglaries, apprehending violent offenders. to date, we've been staffing overtime to budget -- we're staffing overtime to budget and not to need. so the reality is we really need to staff to the needs of policing our city as opposed to just staffing to the budget.

we also want to use existing budgets to civilianize the 15 positions this year, as a part of a three-year plan to convert 50 overall positions to civilian positions. new investments in this budget request are one is the union square ambassador program. now i don't want to get too caught into the name. i know we have an ambassador program already in the city. but the concept is to hire back retired officers, to increase the presence in the union square area and around the powell street station. this is the area that we would like to pilot this program. these ambassadors would be non-armed, they will be a force multiplier and the eyes and ears of the area. they receive 110,000 visitors per day and 5,000 visitors per hour. with the increase in tourism and work-day populations, the area we believe needs more support. this is a cost-efficient program to put extra eyes and ears and

extra presence in the area during peak periods. also on a new investment front, transparency laws that were passed last year have required us to do a large amount of work to reach and achieve the mandates of transparency. this will require no less than 300,000 hours of work to be in compliance. we have the needs for both civilian staff and technology to be in compliance with these new laws. the next investment is our family trauma counseling program. and then we want to do this in conjunction with the department of public health. the impact of violent crime to families and communities require both an immediate and long-term response. when a violent incident, particularly a homicide occurs, our city provides excellent wraparound services to the families of those homicide victims. last year we started a series of meetings with surviving family

members of homicides and we identified a gap. as time goes on, those services tend to wane and the families are left wanting. we find the numbers need a continued level of support that currently does not exist. and that support needs to be collaborative between the department of public health and the san francisco police department. when our investigators sat in on the meetings and provide updates to the families after homicides occur, often times these families are in need of the service. [bell ringing] we would like to partner with d.p.h. to have counselors available as they visit with families to address and have a more trauma-informed approach. and we believe that will be an added benefit and the right direction for our city to go, after the loss of a loved one to these families. the last new investment is inclusionary training, as a part of our ongoing training and a part of our collaborative reform initiative, we provided training to managers, leaders of our department. we want to roll the training out

to the entire department. [bell ringing] we provided bias and implicit bias training. crisis intervention training and this training is a key part of the collaborative reform initiative and it made a positive difference in policing our city. we would like to continue this work. civilianization. we continue to identify and convert positions with duties currently being performed by sworn officers to non-sworn personnel. so we do agree with b.l.a.'s report that civilianization is not only necessary, but it is an efficient way to put officers back on the streets. following the report last year, and in partnership with the controller's office, the san francisco police department identified 50 positions to be civilianized and we'd like to do that over the next three years. this is in addition to the 25 positions that we civil civilianized this year. by fiscal year 21ship 22, we will have converted 129

positions to civilianization. we are currently reducing the academy recruits over the next two years to fund the civilianization. and we wanted to take advantage of the current -- to civilianize these positions. last year, the three hiring -- our hiring plan called for the following. 50 recruits this year and 25 positions budgeted to the conversion to civilianization. 50 recruits next year with no civilians budgeted and 45 recruits in fiscal year 20-2021 with no civilians budgeted. in this year's budget, in working with the mayor's office and the mayor, we reduced next years a recruits recruits from 5 and we'd like to civilianize 15 positions, giving the total of 50 officers that will be added to our patrol force. and fiscal year 20-21, the number of recruits will be

reduced from 45 to 30, with 50 positions being civilianized. and then 20 civilian positions planned for civilianization in the following fiscal year. that would be 21-22. with this plan, as i said, we will civilianize 75 positions in total. i want to explain a little bit more. we believe it's wise to -- these positions. realistically, 15 positions to civilianization is very manageable, because of our hiring process, that includes exams, backgrounds and in some cases we have to create positions. within the region and state, the candidate pool for our recruits is very limited. and this is a national problem that i'll point out and illustrate later. without a consistent hiring plan, to limit a pool of candidates, will seek employment for other agencies. and we strongly believe that if we don't have a consistency in filling -- putting candidates in

the academy, we will lose those candidates to other departments. with the constant flow of new sworn officers, there's a minimal operational impact while these officers are being trained and transitioned into a our workforce. in the last thing is transfer of knowledge. civilianization does require a transfer of knowledge, those sworn officers in those positions have to transfer and transition that knowledge base to the civilian workforce that will replace them. that does take time and has to be done strategically. foot beats. police visibility. our next slide. this year we worked hard to manage our resources and increase our foot beats. but we don't believe this is sustainable. going at the current rate we're going. we have tripled our foot beats in our neighborhoods since 2016. we now have at least 144 officers walking the beats in any given week. repurposeing $2.8 million in salary savings will allow us to get officers on the streets

quickly. this is a one-time funding and samary savings that will be repurposed for this fiscal year. fund proactive, operations such as for break-ins and violent offenders. the next slide i want to talk about, some of the new laws and transparency and what that means to our police department. last year's senate bill 1421 and assembly bill 748 passed into a law and required that police departments release full investigation files and full-body footage camera into a mandated timeframe. these records are retroactive. the legislation was passed without any state funding to support the police departments across the state. we currently have requests for more than 13,540 current and retroactive personnel files. we will be required to digitize decades of records, paper, video

and voice recordings. and we also need to identify these records and redact the information that cannot be legally released. a.b.748 has not gone into effect yet, but it will on july 1st of this year. we expect that these requests will be in the hundreds when the law goes into effect next month. we asked 23 positions through working with the mayor's office, this budget provides for 11 of those to be funded. our goal is to be compliant, but without these resources that we're asking for, we'll have to rely on existing resources, including sworn-in civilians to do this work. and we believe we will open ourselves up to civil liability, if we're not compliant with the law. in addition to scrutiny from the public and others for failure to comply. in a nutshell, we have to get this work done. it is the law. it's for the right reasons. and i truly believe that it will

be helpful to public safety, once we get in a position to be able to fill these requests. but we have to get this work done. next slide. our civilian position changes. currently we have 412 civilian positions. this budget will add 63 civilian positions this year, within the city and the airport. for the city civilian positions, we plan to add the 11 that i just mentioned to support the new transparency laws and convert an additional 15 sworn positions to civilian. for the airport our request adds 37 new civilian positions to the airport. overall expenditures, this slide just breaks down our overall expenditures. our budget, 85% of the budget is salaries and benefits. this often leads the department struggling for resources for such things as capital improvements, equipment and

technology. so with the lion's share of our resources with salary and benefits, we don't have a whole lot of dollars for everything else that needs to be done. we believe this budget request is fair and reasonable to support those initiatives. so thank you for your time. and for allowing me to present. and i'm happy to take questions and answer questions regarding the b.l.a. report. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. okay. any questions. supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much, chief. >> thank you. >> supervisor ronen: so i have a few questions. looking at the page it 75 of the mayor's budget, it says in total that you're adding 158 positions for fiscal year 2019-2020. could you just break down what all of those positions are? i know you did some in here. but it doesn't add up to 158.

>> supervisor, my name is carolyn welch and i can help answer that question. so it's f.t.e.s. it's not position count. >> supervisor ronen: or. >> okay. last year we added 50 sworn at 25 f.t.e.s and 31 civilian at roughly 10 f.t.e.s. so those annualize and new f.t.e.s in that chart. so the last year approved positions. >> supervisor ronen: how many? what is that together? sorry. >> i don't have the math. and the airport also added partial-year adds for both sworn and civilian. okay. can i just stop right there and say to the mayor's budget director for all of the departments, it's just not very helpful to have this data right here that's not been spelled

out. and nobody is really including -- i mean, supervisor mandelman kept asking about vacant positions, which is really kind of key information. and then if we're adding tee f.t.e.s, we want to understand what those are. none of the budget presentations have been clear on either of those points. >> yeah. >> supervisor ronen: for any department listening and coming before us, that's just so basic. i kind of can't believe it hasn't been part of anybody's budget presentation. but if we can make sure that that happens, that would be really helpful. then we don't have to spend the time, you go back, get the information, et cetera. so >> so we just want to make the distinction, new positions in this budget that's proposed are 35 sworn. >> supervisor ronen: that's mostly for the airport? >> no. the general fund is 35 sworn and 26 civilian.

11s.b.1421 and 15 civilianization. >> supervisor ronen: okay. the s.b.1421 are not the 15 you're planning on? >> correct. >> supervisor ronen: great. okay. >> the airport has adds. i don't know if you want to know about the specific airport adds. >> supervisor ronen: actually this is -- super helpful. from the general fund this year, 35 sworn, 26 civilian, 11 for s.b.1421 and sa civilianization. >> correct. >> supervisor ronen: super helpful. thank you. so next question i have about 1421. so walk me through a little bit -- it's very confusing. d.p.a. is asking for five positions. you're asking -- you originally were asking for 23 and then 11 of those have been funded by the

mayor. who are these people that are going to be reviewing the files? what are they going to be doing? what's d.p.a.s role as opposed to sfpd's role. is there any other city departments involved? if you could walk us through. >> sure. sure. so each department maintains its own files. so d.p.a. has its own records from their investigations. the san francisco police department has its records on officers involved. the categories we're talking about are officer-involved shootings, use of force with great bodily injury, dishonesty, sustained dishonesty complaints and sustained sexual assault complaints against officers. so if any of those files fit into those categories, each department might have their own separate files. so d.p.a. investigation is separate from the police department's. they may get a request for their

investigation. at the same time we would get a request from whatever records we have for that particular officer. other entities that are subject to this would be -- any agency that does -- could be involved in the use of force like sheriff 's. because they investigate. the police commission has requests, because they adjudicate these cases. so they also have to release files upon request. those that are legally permissible under this law. and so everybody -- i mean, everybody has to staff up to fulfill these requests. >> supervisor ronen: okay. >> it's -- i think -- i mean, i don't know if your question is about coordination. but we don't have access to the d.p.a.s record. they don't have access to ours they're responsible for theirs, we're responsible for ours. that's why we're asking for separate funding. >> supervisor ronen: that's helpful. i wasn't fully understanding that.

so what is -- what would be redacted from the files? what, under law, is it required to be redacted? >> so there is -- there are -- well, let me just start with if you -- a file is asked and let's say there is multiple officers involved in this investigation, but let's say i'm the officer that's subject to the file being released, because i am the officer that got involved in the officer-involved shooting or i'm the officer that the dishonesty complaint was sustained against. the law is designed to protect, you know, the officer's identities that may not have anything to do with the incident at hand. also we have issues with having to protect witness addresses, witnesses in some cases, juveniles identity, information that cannot be released like california law enforcement

communications -- i mean, telecommunications system information. that has to be redacted. criminal histories, those types of things have to be redacted. all of the files we're talking about, many of which are voluminous, we have to go through every page and make sure that we're not releasing information that's legally prohibited to be released. and that is where the majority of the work is. it's identifying the file, number one. then going back and you have to look through everything in that file to make sure you're not releasing information that you're not suppose to be releasing. >> supervisor ronen: i see. the position, the lawyer position, couldn't the city attorney handle that? >> the city attorney -- the attorneys -- so we have a legal team. and the city attorney's office did -- we have a general counsel that gives us advice. but the lawyers, i mean, many of these issues are legally

complicated issues. >> supervisor ronen: i'm wondering why -- so is the attorney going to be part of the police department or part of the city attorney? >> the police department. we already have attorneys on staff, as part of the police department. we want to grow that so we have attorneys that are actually addressing the legal issues within the department. and then we'll have -- we're asking them for legal assistance as well to be a part of this process. >> supervisor ronen: i see. sfpd has attorneys hired under your budget and not under the city's budget? how many attorneys? >> four i believe. four. yes. >> supervisor ronen: i didn't know that. >> yeah. their roles, they present the disciplinary cases to the police commission. so a commission-level case gets charged, they present the cases. they also present for evidence releases, if there's court hearings for evidence releases and that type of thing, they

present and handle those type of issues. they defend the department's position on appeals and that type of thing, on disciplinary issues. so we do that in-house legal team. mostly discipline-related. >> supervisor ronen: any discussion about what a to include this team in the city attorney's office, as opposeed to sfpd? >> we had a series of meetings. the city attorney's office, the police department and the city attorney did not want to -- they didn't think it was appropriate for the city attorney's office to be the entity that processes all of this information. they gave advice. but their advice to us is that each department was responsible for its share of this work. and so that's what we're working from. >> i'm just wondering if there's a -- a real or a perception

issue of us funding all of these positions for police to redact files, that for the first time are made public. and that may be you deal with some of those issues by having a little bit, you know, separation between the people in charge of making that call on what should be redacted from the department itself. >> there is some consultation on those type of issues with our general counsel, in terms of redactions and what needs to be redacted and what's the public record and what we can release. there's some consultation. but in order to sustain the work, we need a team that includes attorneys to really get -- it's going to be a lot of work that we're going to be very challenged to fulfill all of these requests. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> president yee: thank you.

so, chief scott, since you've been on board, as you know, i've been working with you and others of my colleagues to really focus on the staffing needs of the police department and also, you know, to help -- what are some ways to get through that staffing. so civilianization is just one component of that. >> right. >> president yee: and i know that the controller's office has done some studying in terms of staffing and it was -- it got us to a certain point and when you -- i don't remember if i started this process, it was the police staffing task force, before you got on board or right after you came on board. probably around the same time. so it's been about two years of this process.

>> yes. >> president yee: and so i'm glad to see that this passed less than a year, that the police department, the police commission has taken on the task force and have brought in a consultant to really look at staffing and looking at best practices and you have set up the committee and so forth. i know initially the commissioners were not that involved for some reason. and they're slowly getting more involved into the process, because after it's going to be under their commission that the report will come out of. so i met with, as you know, your staff and the consultant and even though i was hoping that

they would have something by now, they have some things, but not in any really written draft form. i'm still hoping that maybe we can have a hearing just in terms of an update for my colleagues to hear what they have done. but since, short of that then, can you explain to the budget committee sort of the process that is going through and where it's at and where we're hoping to get a full report. because again this is one of these things, my hope was that this task force, with the consultant, with everybody weighing in, we could get to real numbers of active police officers that san francisco really needs to do its job. and. >> yes.

i'm going to ask our executive director. she can give us a very detailed update on where we are and answer question anies. >> good afternoon, supervisors. katherine mcguire, executive director of the strategic management bureau. yes, we are working with matrix consulting and. they are in the process -- i believe they're right in the middle, they have kind of -- finished a framework for methcology framework for investigations. they are in process of -- they've drafted something that's now being vetted with and will be vetted with the task force for field operations, not to include patrol. very quickly behind that, special operations will be rolled out and then administration. we are -- so draft results will be provided in late summer,

early fall. and then we will be talking to all of our stakeholders about -- well, vetting the methodology with the task force as we approach that, those draft results. and then also working with all of our external stakeholders and leaders in the city to talk through those results, as well as the final deliverable being an interactive tool that the department will be able to take with us and continually update, regarding needs from now until -- into the future. and that will be delivered by the end of the year. >> president yee: and are they up already? >> i'm sorry. >> president yee: the interactive tools, where people can give input and stuff, is that operating? >> yeah. it will be an internal tool to the police department, that we will -- we'll have assumptions built into the tool that we will allow inputs. so those assumptions will be

inputs that we all can agree on how they work and what we should change. in order to make sure that we're meeting staffing levels that are necessary for the priority of san francisco and the department. >> president yee: one of the questions i didn't ask before is eventually it seems like we will have some trained officers, that are doing desk jobs, that probably won't go away. and so in considering that, i mean, when they come up with the total numbers of police officers that we need, they should take that into consideration as part of the number. otherwise you're going to be short all the time. >> yes. of course. yes, matrixes is looking at that as an element of their analysis as well. >> president yee: thank you. again i was hoping that we would have gotten this report for this

budget season. and, yeah, it would have really informed us of how to support the budget to make this happen. >> yes. i agree. >> thank you, chief fewer and chief scott for being here today. i want to clarify the calls for service, because it was really unfortunate to hear -- to say you weren't using calls for service, to hear that you were. but just not "time" -- time or whatever. i would like clarification on that. i wonder if calls for service impacts staffing levels at vary stations. >> we are in -- what was pointed out by the b.l.a. report was that there's -- there are national benchmark standards, if you will. there's a range of how much time a patrol officer should spend on cost of service.

and it really goes from about 30% to 50% as kind of the national standards. the more call -- the more time -- the more time during your day that you spend for calls of service, the less time you have available for things like community engagement, administrative type of work that you have to do as a part of your daily job. also was pointed out, the more time you dedicate for calls of service, the less officers it takes to do that. because you're spending more time for calls of service. we set our benchmark at 30%. and this was as a result of working with the controller's office, who did -- completed a very thorough analysis for us. and they identified where they were, we believe that 30% is within the national standards of best practices and it allows us to do the other part of police work, that patrol officers have to do and that's be out in the

community and engage. we're stopping and talking to business owners and residents and like that. you have to have time to do those tasks. in order to build trust, we have to dedicate time to that. we do have that standard now. it's 30% is what we've set. we've also created within the last year a field deployment unit, which we never had before. and not to this level. and that is their job. their job is to track, to track the effectiveness, to track our deployment, to make the employment recommendations to the staff. and this unit has gotten off to a really great start. they work with the controller's office and the b.l.a. we believe we're going to be better for the systems that we put in place, in terms of tracking calls of service and actually identifying the time that we want to spend on calls. >> supervisor stefani: okay. thank you for that. with regard to civilianization, i know there's much agreement up

here between supervisors in terms of civilianizing some positions, of course. my feeling is so that we have more police officers out on the streets, foot beats, all of that. and it sounds like, from your presentation, that civilianization is suppose to increase sworn officers on the streets, but it's not actually happening. but i'm wondering if you can -- i might be hearing that wrong. if you can further explain that. >> so it will -- it will re-assign officers, who are doing non-patrol duties. it gives us the ability to now put those officers in patrol capacity. so it will increase the patrol of forces, it's not going to increase the size of the department. that -- in terms of sworn officers. that's why what i said earlier was it's really still important that we continue to hire officers, because civilianization is a repurposing and we can get more officers on

the streets. we still have to put officers through the academy in order to keep the department healthy and to have enough officers coming through the pipeline, to do the job that needs to be done. i wanted to provide a little context, if you'll allow me. i brought two -- and there's many, many published articles. but i brought two articles that i'd like to give to the committee and i'll put it on the overhead for the public and everybody else. and it illustrates what i'm talking about in terms of how this plays together. these articles speak to the recruitment challenges in law enforcement right now. one is from april of last year, one is from december of last year. and how this plays together when we talk about civilianization and whether or not we're going to hire people through the academy. we are probably, in my almost 30 years in law enforcement, it's never been this competitive to get recruits. it's down across the nation.

"the washington post" article, all you got to read is the first page, they talk about retention and recruitment and the challenge across the country. this region and this city is in the same position. that we are really, really having some challenges recruiting. and all of the departments are recruiting for the same candidate pool. the other thing, with the other article, governing -- actually it was the other one. sorry. yeah. so the other article talks about departments engaging in bidding wars and basically this speaks to supervisor ronen's question about the work scheduling and all. we definitely want to be as efficient as we can be. but one of the things that we have to consider, when we are talking about work schedules and benefits and all that, is it's a very competitive market out right now. and when recruits and people that are interested in law enforcement are looking at which departments they want to work for, all that stuff comes into

play. a you -- if you have a departmet that offers a work schedule that favors people in the profession, and we don't, we're not getting the recruits. [ please stand by ]

>> you have to be consistent. you know, if we go six months without an academy class, it's not going to be a good thing for this department and public safety in the city. >> supervisor stefani: and one last question about sb 1421 because i understand the requests are enormous, and i'm just wondering who handles the public records request and does sb 1421 fall under public records request in your department right now? >> it does. and our legal team, they handle the public records request, so it does. i mean, it is a public records request. it's just a whole nother -- it's just a whole nother thing.

if it were one or two, it would be like any other request. but we have volumes and volumes of records. and then, we have to identify which records apply to this change in the law. and that has to be researched because we don't have these files sitting in a room. those officer-involved shooting cases, they're a little bit easier to obtain, but they're retroactive. the records from 1980 have been requested. we have to see if we have them. that takes time. and then, they have to be digitized, and that takes time. and then, we have to fill out a release, that takes time. >> supervisor mandelman: i'm

not trying to take too much time because i know that people are getting hungry. but first chief, i know you have a hard job building trust and morale inside the department and outside the department. but i want to ask you about some of the performance measures in here, and what they -- and what they mean. so on page 276, we've got some goals. i don't know what it means that we're one minute slow on priority a calls and four

minutes slow on priority b calls. can you refresh my memory about what a priority k5d call and what priority b calls are, and how they should be impacted over the past year. >> sure. so priority a calls are where the subject or individual is at scene, maybe fights where the crime is happening now. >> supervisor mandelman: and what is the 240 average? -- 240 seconds. >> it's 240 seconds, which is four minutes. one of the things that we believe occurs is to look at

the 240 seconds and determine whether that's the right goal for san francisco today. when new goals are set, there's a lot of differences in the landscape, the traffic, the congestion, the population, and we really need to account for that. so that's something on the forefront for us, is to really sit down and work with d.e.m. and others to determine if these are realistic goals for today. every jurisdiction has their own response time goals. a four-minute response time is good for priority b, but getting there could take sometime. that gets into the question, are we deploying properly? do we have enough officers