SFPD Community Policing Strategic Plan

On behalf of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), I would like to express my deep appreciation to the many individuals and organizations that made this Community Policing Strategic Plan possible. It was truly a collaborative effort, with approximately 100 community and SFPD members attending and contributing to at least one of the fifteen meetings held over a year of development. 

These individuals represent neighborhood interests, community organizations, advocacy groups, city agencies, and everything in between. The Plan reflects outreach to over 500 representatives of organizations across the city and more than 100 sworn and civilian SFPD members of all ranks and assignments, with 2,000 hours of research, analysis, facilitation, and behind-the-scenes work to bring it all together. 

The dedication of everyone involved with the process resulted in a framework that the SFPD will use to guide us moving forward, and represents a huge step in our commitment to community policing practices and values. 

At its best, community policing is officers and community members working together, building partnerships, and establishing trust to improve our communities, and this process has been exemplary of that vision. Thank you once again to everyone involved.

Commander David Lazar 
Community Engagement Division

The SFPD Community Engagement Division, led by Commander David Lazar, convened an Executive Sponsor Working Group (ESWG) comprised of SFPD and community stakeholders to create the Department’s first Community Policing Strategic Plan. The Plan was developed in response to the 2016 United States Department of Justice (DOJ) Collaborative Reform Initiative (CRI) which provided an assessment of SFPD policies and practices. The review recommended a strategic plan that identifies goals, objectives, and measurable outcomes related to community policing for all units (Recommendation 40.1).

“The SFPD does not have a comprehensive, strategic community policing plan that focuses priorities, resources, programs, and activities for the department. Community policing involves partnerships, problem solving, and organizational transformation. In order to be a true community policing department, the SFPD needs to ensure the entire department is following the tenets of community policing systematically and strategically. The SFPD needs to bring the community to the table in order to establish comprehensive community policing resources, programs, and activities.” – DOJ CRI Report, page 231.

Between Fall 2017 and Spring 2018, the ESWG developed the vision and values that define community policing for San Francisco, and the goals, objectives, and metrics to implement that vision. The ESWG supplemented their own experiences as officers and community members by reviewing national community policing best practices and obtaining feedback through surveys of SFPD members and community-based organizations. The San Francisco Controller’s Office (Project Team) supported this important effort by designing the planning process, facilitating planning meetings, conducting research and analysis, and summarizing each phase of the planning process into the components of the Strategic Plan.

Strategic Plan Overview 

The Strategic Plan outlines the vision, goals and objectives for community policing, current department practices, and an overview of next steps to implement the Plan. The appendix provides key information on considerations and strategies for implementation, existing and possible new metrics and data sources to monitor ongoing efforts, a detailed list of current practices, and the inputs that contributed to the Plan, including best practice research and survey findings. It also provides an overview of the planning process and list of participating organizations. 

Community Policing Implementation and Oversight 

This Strategic Plan provides a roadmap for ensuring that community policing values are integrated into all SFPD practices. Ultimately, Department leadership will determine which elements to prioritize and dedicate resources to, and the timeline over which they will be implemented. Progress towards achievement of the Plan’s goals and objectives will be tracked with increasing accuracy using the data sources and metrics proposed in this Plan as a starting point. The Plan will guide revisions to Department General Orders and manuals, and will contribute to the development of a new Department-wide strategic plan. The Community Engagement Division will form a Community Policing Advisory Group, comprised of members of the ESWG that developed this Plan, to monitor its implementation.

The following Vision and Values statement reflects a collection of central community policing concepts from existing SFPD documents, national best practices research, community policing surveys, and the Executive Sponsor Working Group. It will be used as a guide for the Department and its officers in their work, ensuring that community policing values are interwoven into all aspects of the SFPD. Laying out the Department’s Vision for how they will serve the community, and the Values that drive that service, increases transparency with the community and ensures consistency across divisions and districts.

Vision and Values

The SFPD is committed to creating a safe, healthy, and vibrant community. Our spirit and work is guided by a guardian mindset, and we recognize that our role as protectors is rooted in empathy, understanding, and mutual respect. We partner and engage with community members and organizations to collaboratively identify and problem-solve local challenges and increase safety for residents, visitors, and officers. 

All members of the SFPD embody the following values, and in doing so strive to earn the community’s trust, support, and confidence:

• Respect
  • We respect the cultures and histories of the neighborhoods and communities we work in.
  • We treat all people equally and with dignity, without regard to actual or perceived race, color, ethnicity, national origin, age, religion, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability, socioeconomic status, or any other trait. ƒ
• Partnership
  • We proactively nurture relationships with and empower all San Francisco community members to take an active role in public safety and find solutions to local issues. ƒ
• Honesty and Transparency
  • We develop and maintain honest and transparent communication with the communities we serve. ƒ
• Responsibility and Accountability
  • We have the courage to take responsibility for our actions and be held accountable by ourselves and others.

Source Documents 

The specific sources used to develop the vision and values statement are listed here:

• 2017-18 Community Policing Executive Sponsor Working Group
  • Successes, Gaps, Challenges, Opportunities, and Vision/Values Brainstorming Sessions, July – September 2018
  • Best Practice Research September – October 2017
    • A summary of this research is available in Appendix E
  • Community Policing Surveys, October 2017 – January 2018
    • An overview of survey methodology and results is available in Appendix F
  • Goals, Objectives, Strategies Brainstorming Sessions, February – April 2018 ƒ
• Feedback Sessions with SFPD Captains (3.20.28) and Chief (5.9.18) ƒ
• SFPD Guiding Documents:
  • 2018 SFPD Strategy 1.0 open_in_new (PDF file) (opens in a new window): The Department’s Strategic Plan
  • 2011 SFPD General Order 1.08 open_in_new (PDF file) (opens in a new window): Community Policing
  • 2007 SFPD Community Policing and Problem-solving Manual
  • Department General Order 5.17: Policy Prohibiting Biased Policing

The community policing goals and objectives that follow were developed by the Executive Sponsor Working Group based on best practice research, community policing surveys, and personal knowledge of San Francisco communities. They provide the Department insight into the community’s policing priorities, and provide a framework to guide development of specific strategies and effectiveness measures (See Appendix A for suggested new strategies, and Appendix D for current strategies). Existing data sources and metrics that can be used to measure success of these objectives are included under the relevant objective. The Project Team could not identify existing metrics for all objectives. In those instances where none are listed, refer to Appendix B for a list of possible metrics to use in implementation of the Strategic Plan, brainstormed by the Executive Sponsor Working Group.

GOAL 1: COMMUNICATION

Honest, transparent, and empathetic dialogue between the SFPD and San Francisco community. 

Objective 1.1 Create a diverse set of communication channels between the SFPD and community. 

The SFPD is available to share and receive information and feedback across a range of communications channels that are equally accessible to all community members. Existing tools are widely promoted, and new ones developed in conjunction with the community to meet all their needs.

Objective 1.2 Respond to requests for service and information in a timely and transparent manner.

Open and rapid communication builds trust and faith towards the SFPD from the community. Even when officers are unable to immediately respond to non-emergency situations, community members expect and deserve a positive experience interacting with the Department.

Objective 1.3 Solicit conversation, input, and collaboration from historically underrepresented groups.

Marginalized populations across San Francisco have lost their trust in the SFPD. Specific outreach to these groups, coupled with active listening and expressed investment in repairing relationships will not only help to restore this trust but also improve community opinion about the Department.

Objective 1.4 Transparently communicate, publicize, and educate community about SFPD goals and policies.

The San Francisco community is frustrated by not understanding how the police department functions, and lack of progress on visible issues such as drug use and homelessness. A focus on transparent communication and education regarding Department policy will increase understanding by, and expectations from, the community.

GOAL 2: EDUCATION

SFPD both trains and is trained by the communities it serves.

Objective 2.1 Train the community to empower them to improve community safety. 

Effective community policing shares responsibility for community safety between the police and community members. The Department should share their expertise with the community so that they may work side-by-side to create and maintain safe and vibrant neighborhoods.

Objective 2.2 Invite third party and community instructors to contribute to SFPD training.

Community members and organizations possess extensive subject and neighborhood-specific expertise that the Department should incorporate into its training curriculum. Bringing in diverse voices from outside the Department plays a vital role in officer development and understanding of issues traditionally considered beyond the scope of officers, but which are becoming routine in their work.

GOAL 3: PROBLEM-SOLVING

Increase safety through collaborative working partnerships between SFPD, community members, and organizations to identify and address local topics of concern.

Objective 3.1 Officers can connect individuals to resources when call for service is outside their scope. 

Police officers are often the front line for dealing with any community issue, regardless of topic. However, both the community and the SFPD want officers to be free to focus on safety, and equipping officers with the skills and knowledge to direct issues to the proper services when needed will play a big role in freeing up officer time.

Objective 3.2 Collaboratively identify and develop responses to local issues and concerns with individuals, community-based organizations, and city services. 

Successful community policing involves officers and community members working together to identify and address community concerns, focusing on root causes rather than reactive solutions. This system acknowledges that all parties share responsibility for problem-solving and that there are systematic forces driving many issues, only some of which are under the Department’s control.

Objective 3.3 Utilize a formalized problem-solving model across district stations. 

The SFPD is dedicated to working side-by-side with community members to resolve local issues and improve the quality of neighborhood life by using problem-solving frameworks. Committing to a structured approach to address the root causes of important community challenges builds trust between officers and community members, and creates time for officers to invest deeply in the communities they serve.

GOAL 4: RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING

Strong, trusting, and respectful relationships between SFPD and all facets of San Francisco community. 

Objective 4.1 Increase visible officer presence and proactive, positive engagement with individuals outside of calls for service. 

Officers should be accessible and approachable to build individual relationships with those in the communities they serve. Not only do strong relationships build trust and goodwill, but they are a prerequisite for effective problem-solving. It is always easier to build relationships in good times than in crisis, and putting effort into them in daily work has far-reaching positive outcomes.

Objective 4.2 Provide unbiased, dignified, and equal treatment and access to resources to all community members. 

Access to SFPD attention and services is the right of everyone in the City, including those in under resourced communities or who only speak a language other than English. All community members should feel that they receive the same treatment by the Department as any other individual in the city, which will require an explicit investment in relationships with historically marginalized groups.

GOAL 5: SFPD ORGANIZATION

SFPD organization and operation leads community policing efforts and demonstrates a guardian mindset. 

Objective 5.1 Develop policies, priorities, and procedures that are consistent across SFPD stations and bureaus and support neighborhood-specific plans. 

The Department of Justice report found great programs being implemented at district stations across the City, but no consistent standards or message to unify them. Community members should be able to expect a reliable level of community policing effort and activities, while still allowing enough flexibility for district stations to tailor their activities to the local community.

Objective 5.2 The SFPD is adaptable and committed to continuous review and improvement.

Community policing necessitates ongoing self-reflection and external review to maintain effective programs and relationships in communities that are ever-changing. Police departments are traditionally slow-moving organizations, and the SFPD can set itself up for success by devoting itself to consistent, thoughtful, and rigorous review.

Objective 5.3 Include civilian and front-line officer perspective and input in decision-making and policy development processes.

Inherent in community policing is a partnership between the community and Department. Excluding on-the-ground perspective of community members and officers from high-level conversations would ignore the real-world experience necessary for effective problem-solving, and demonstrate a lack of investment in the community.

Objective 5.4 Support restorative justice goals.

Committing to restorative rather than punitive justice is an important step in addressing root causes of community issues. It also demonstrates the Department’s commitment to a guardian mindset, in which an officer’s role is to support, rather than occupy, the community.

Objective 5.5 Support officers with sufficient resources. 

Officers serve as both the face of the City and the responsible party for community safety. To meet these expectations effectively and sustainably, they must be given the appropriate physical, emotional, and institutional support from the Department.

Objective 5.6 Recruit SFPD members who reflect the city’s diversity and know the communities they serve.

When officers can identify with the communities they serve through a shared upbringing, experience, or locale, the SFPD is seen more as a guardian organization than as an imposing force of outsiders. A Department that is reflective of the community makes it easy to connect and work with community members, and engenders faith that the SFPD truly cares about understands local problems and their underlying causes.

Objective 5.7 Integrate community policing values in recruitment, training, and professional development of SFPD members.

Building community policing into the values and culture of the Department will require focused and ongoing effort throughout the career of every officer. Commitment to positive, productive relationships with the community should be emphasized and woven into the daily work of all SFPD members from the beginning of recruitment to the day they retire. 

Objective 5.8 Deployment strategies maintain consistency in practices and continuity of the community’s relationship with the SFPD. 

Staffing decisions should take into consideration their impact on relationships with the community. Officers’ skillsets and experience should be used to develop bonds with individuals, and those connections should be treated with respect when considering assignments and transfers.

Objective 5.9 Support groups historically underrepresented in police departments in professional development.

The policing profession has moved to include a diverse group of individuals, from having historically been dominated by white men. Standards of promotion, and other professional development opportunities, should reflect that shift to provide leadership and learning opportunities that empower officers of all backgrounds to rise through the ranks.

Objective 5.10 Hold officers accountable for their actions and embodying community policing tenets. 

Every member of the SFPD should feel responsible for the work they do, including both recognition for the positive and accountability for the negative. Ownership for the Department’s actions goes a long way towards earning the trust and respect of the San Francisco community, and lays the foundation for open and lasting relationships.

Background and Sources 

As the Department of Justice (DOJ) report notes, “the SFPD engages in a range of successful activities, programs, and community partnerships that support community policing tenets” (xii). The Project Team reviewed current district station and Community Engagement Division community policing practices and the DOJ’s recommendations to see how they align with the Strategic Plan objectives. This assessment is a first step in identifying how current efforts support community policing objectives and where gaps remain. Additional divisions, such as Recruitment Unit and the Police Academy, were not included in this assessment and will be included in a more comprehensive review of current practices as part of Strategic Plan implementation. 

Summarized below are the sources reviewed for this initial assessment. Appendix D provides a detailed cross walk of the following sources and the community policing objectives. 

District Station Community Engagement Activities & Community Engagement Division Programs 
At the end of 2017, each District Station Captain compiled a summary of all community engagement activities their station participated in over the previous year. In addition to those station-specific efforts, the Community Engagement Division of the SFPD runs citywide programs that are also designed to bring officers and community members closer together. Appendix D.1 and D.2 

Minimum Community Engagement Activities 
Recommendation 40.5 from the 2016 DOJ report directed the SFPD to develop specific goals for community policing engagement. Accordingly, the Department created a list of fourteen minimum activities that all district stations must participate in, to create consistency across the city. Appendix D.3 

DOJ Recommendations 
The SFPD is committed to implementing all 272 DOJ recommendations. Progress is ongoing, with the status of implementation in various stages from completed to pending other actions, such as budget authority or meet and confer with labor. Regardless of implementation status, all recommendations from chapter four of the DOJ report (Community Policing Practices) have been categorized by the 21 community policing objectives so that there is a clear understanding of how the reform effort furthers community policing goals. Appendix D.4

Summary of Current Practices 

The SFPD conducts hundreds of community-oriented events every year across all ten district stations. The majority of these are oriented towards the goals of building relationships and communications channels with the community through means such as meetings, newsletters, and participation in local events. While this summary does not represent all current practices of the SFPD, it depicts a trend in the Department’s community policing priorities, and highlights objective areas that may require increased attention and effort.

Of the 21 objectives identified in the strategic planning process, the majority of existing practices at district stations support the following five objectives:

• Communication 1.1 Create a diverse set of communication channels between the SFPD and community.
  • The list of events in this category largely consists of community meetings, newsletters, and Coffee with a Cop. ƒ
• Communication 1.3 Solicit conversation, input, and collaboration from historically underrepresented groups.
  • The SFPD pursues relationships and partnerships with organizations representing traditionally marginalized groups, and these partnerships make up the bulk of current practices supporting this objective. ƒ
• Education 2.1 Train the community to empower them to improve community safety.
  • Safety presentations at schools and community organizations make up most of the existing programs that work towards this objective. ƒ
• Problem-solving 3.2 Collaboratively identify and develop responses to local issues and concerns with individuals, community-based organizations, and city services.
  • Current problem-solving collaborations are largely focused on Community Policing Advisory Boards (CPAB) and merchant groups. ƒ
• Relationship-building 4.1 Increase visible officer presence and proactive, positive engagement with individuals outside of calls for service.
  • Existing formalized opportunities to build relationships with community members are focused on community giveaways, youth mentorship, and partnerships with individual organizations.

Summary of DOJ Recommendations 

The 60 recommendations in chapter four of the DOJ report support 13 of the objectives in this Plan. They largely focus on addressing a major gap in current department practices: building community policing values into the structure of the SFPD as outlined by goal 5: SFPD organization. The recommendations particularly emphasize the following objectives:

• SFPD Organization 5.1 Develop policies, priorities, and procedures that are consistent across SFPD stations and bureaus and support neighborhood-specific plans.
  • Nearly 25% of the community policing recommendations are related to codifying and disseminate best practices across the Department
• SFPD Organization 5.2 The SFPD is adaptable and committed to continuous review and improvement.
  • The report emphasizes continued measurement and review of community policing practices to ensure effectiveness of strategies ƒ
• SFPD Organization 5.5 Support officers with sufficient resources.
  • Data capabilities and staffing needs are major limitations of community policing work, and, the DOJ report advises several improvements so that officers can do their work with quality, up-to-date information ƒ
• SFPD Organization 5.7 Integrate community policing values in recruitment, training, and professional development of SFPD members.
  • 13 of the DOJ’s community policing recommendations are related to emphasizing the importance of community policing values by integrating them into SFPD professional development.

As the SFPD continues to develop its community policing capabilities and efforts, ensuring that new strategies work towards success of all 21 newly defined objectives will greatly increase the Department’s effectiveness and demonstrate commitment to a holistic view of community policing.

Community Policing Implementation 

The Strategic Plan establishes a consistent approach for how the SFPD achieves its community policing vision. Led by the SFPD Community Engagement Division (CED), policies and plans will be developed to determine specific strategies that achieve the goals and objectives outlined in the Plan. CED will also track the activities and impact of community policing strategies over time. 

The following actions describe the major steps suggested to implement the Strategic Plan:

Develop Community Policing Action Plans 

To comply with DOJ recommendation 45.1¹ , each SFPD division and district will create a Community Policing Action Plan based on guidance provided in the Strategic Plan. During the development of these plans, CED will work to ensure that action plans collectively support the Department’s overall efforts to meet the community policing objectives outlined in the Plan. The Department will also need to analyze available resources to prioritize strategies across divisions and districts. These plans will be updated annually or bi-annually based on ongoing evaluation of strategies and updated departmental guidance.

The following steps are involved in developing action plans:

1. Outline the division or district’s current practices related to community policing and align to each relevant objective in the Strategic Plan.
2. Determine a new set of strategies to most effectively meet the community policing objectives relevant to the division or district. This can include existing practices proven to be effective, as well as new and improved ones. Review Appendix A for ideas and guidance.
3. Develop action plans to implement strategies, including timelines and resources.
4. Determine metrics to track activities and outcomes of the division or district’s community policing strategies. See the Monitoring Activities and Impact section below for details.

¹Recommendation 45.1: The SFPD should expand community policing programs throughout the entire agency and ensure each unit has a written strategic plan embracing community policing and measurable goals and progress, regardless of the unit’s specialty.

Form a Community Engagement Advisory Group 

Consistent with DOJ Recommendation 39.3² , CED will form an advisory group to provide ongoing guidance and oversight related to implementation of the Strategic Plan and general community policing policies and activities. This group will include members of the Executive Sponsor Working Group who are interested in continuing their work with the SFPD. This group will meet quarterly and be comprised of approximately fifteen participants.

Revise Department General Order on Community Policing (DGO 1.08) 

The existing DGO (created in 2011) will be updated to reflect current guidance and priorities from the Strategic Plan. This is in line with DOJ Recommendation 41.2³ . 

Update Community Policing and Problem-Solving Manual 

The existing department manual (created in 2007) will be updated to reflect current guidance and priorities from the Strategic Plan. This is in line with DOJ Recommendation 41.1⁴. 

Develop a Communications Strategy 

CED will work with SFPD leadership to develop a communications strategy to publicize the Strategic Plan. The Plan will be communicated both internally to SFPD members and externally to community stakeholders and the public. Communication will be key to promote transparency and to generate awareness and participation in turning the Plan into action. The Plan and related policies and guidance will be disseminated across the Department through leadership, staff trainings, and peer-to-peer interactions. The CED Advisory Group can assist in communicating the Plan to the community by leveraging their networks as well as attending community meetings like the Chief’s Advisory Forums and Community Policing Advisory Board meetings. 

Monitoring Activities and Impact of Community Policing 

The Community Engagement Division currently guides community policing activities for the Department. Moving forward, it will work with divisions and districts to track the activities and impact of community policing by leveraging existing departmental metrics and creating new metrics at either the objective or strategy level. This will allow the Department to understand which programs and strategies are most effectively fulfilling the Department’s community policing goals and how the Department should direct its resources going forward. 

The SFPD currently collects and reports data from a variety of existing sources related to community policing, as outlined in SFPD Community Policing Goals, Objectives and Existing Metrics. This section outlines proposed expansions to existing data sources and development of new data sources, so that a more robust set of metrics can be tracked to understand community policing activities and their impact. 

A list of possible new metrics is available in Appendix B. SFPD divisions and districts can use this list as a starting point when developing metrics and data collection tools for their individual Community Policing Plans.

²Recommendation 39.3: The SFPD should establish a Strategic Planning Steering Committee composed of representatives from the community and various sections of the department within 90 days of the issuance of this report. This committee should collaborate to develop policies and strategies for policing communities and neighborhoods disproportionately affected by crime and for deploying resources. 

³Recommendation 41.2: The SFPD should work with the Police Commission to draft a new community policing order that reflects the priorities, goals, and actions of the department. 

⁴Recommendation 41.1: The SFPD should work with the newly convened Strategic Planning Steering Committee (recommendation 40.2) to draft a new community policing and problem solving manual for SFPD members within 12 months of the issuance of this report.

Expansion of Existing Data Sources

The following are existing SFPD data sources related to community policing. They could be expanded to better monitor progress on the goals and objectives outlined in the Strategic Plan.

• Training Data 
  SFPD tracks all trainings taken by SFPD members. Training data can be expanded to track both SFPD trainings offered to the community and trainings provided by the community to SFPD members. This should include the demographics of participants and the specific community policing topics offered. ƒ
• HR Data 
  SFPD tracks basic demographic information of its employees. However, additional HR data can be collected, such as previous experience with community policing and related professional development activities. ƒ
• Station Data 
  SFPD district stations collect a wide range of data at the district level. SFPD could use this data to increase consistency of officer assignments as a means of improving relationships with the community.

Development of New Data Sources

During the development of the Strategic Plan the ESWG brainstormed possible new data sources for the SFPD to consider which would enhance the monitoring of the Department’s community policing strategies.

• Community Engagement Log 
  District stations collect data on community meetings and events to varying degrees and formats. A new data collection template could be developed to provide consistent guidance to all district stations on what activities and outcomes to track. Examples include tracking the following: participation by underrepresented groups, issues raised by the community, and level of officer involvement in community meetings and events. These logs can be electronic instead of paper-based to increase the ease of documenting and analyzing data.
• Communications Log
  SFPD uses a variety of tools to communicate information to the public, such as district station e-newsletters, social media posts and SFPD website updates. While these efforts are documented to varying degrees across districts, developing a new data collection template would provide consistent guidance to district stations on what activities and outcomes to track. Examples include logging all types and frequencies of communication activities, or the number of unique visitors to the SFPD website.
• Referral Data 
  Every day, SFPD officers provide individuals they encounter with referrals to services. The Department could monitor the frequency of these recommendations in relation to total engagements with community members to demonstrate the utilization of non-police services to address problems.
• Surveys 
  By asking stakeholders directly about their perceptions and experiences, surveys allow police departments to gauge the effectiveness and impact of their efforts. The following are examples of surveys that could be conducted to track various community policing strategies.
  • SFPD Community Survey 
    DOJ Recommendation 47.1⁵ recommends that SFPD conduct surveys to gauge the public’s perception about their relationships with, efficacy of, and treatment by the SFPD. It would provide opportunities to include other questions related to community policing.
  • Customer Survey 
    Gauges individuals’ satisfaction with interactions with SFPD officers, whether by phone, online, or on the street.
  • Participant Survey 
    Refers to surveys directed towards community members that have ongoing involvement with SFPD, such as a Community Police Advisory Boards and Chief’s Advisory Forums, or other relationship-building and problem-solving venues. This survey aims to gauge participants’ satisfaction with their involvement.
  • Staff Survey 
    Gauges SFPD member perspectives on community policing, including the effectiveness of current strategies, status of current police-community relations, and support and recognition for community policing efforts.
  • Training Survey and Post-Training Survey 
    Gauges satisfaction and behavior change for both SFPD member and community members participating in community policing trainings, as well as the trainers. Includes surveys taken immediately after a training, as well as a post-training survey 3 or 6 months later.

⁵Recommendation 47.1: The department should conduct periodic surveys to measure whether the SFPD is providing fair and impartial treatment to all residents and to identify gaps in service (see recommendation 46.5).

As part of the strategic planning process, the Executive Sponsor Working Group (ESWG) brainstormed a list of considerations and strategies for achieving each objective, with the goal of adding to or improving the Department’s current community policing practices. The considerations provide insight on general challenges and approaches for implementing each objective. The strategies provide ideas from both the ESWG and community and SFPD surveys on how to implement each objective.

This list reflects a brainstorm rather than a specific set of recommended strategies. The purpose is to allow each division and district to create their own Community Policing Action Plan based on their knowledge of current practices and capabilities, and using the overall guidance set forth in the Strategic Plan and by CED. To finalize the strategies outlined in these plans, the Department will need to analyze the budget requirements and resources available for implementation. By identifying strategies in these plans, the Department will be able to develop metrics that more specifically measure the effectiveness of these strategies.

GOAL 1: COMMUNICATION

Honest, transparent, and empathetic dialogue between the SFPD and San Francisco community. 

Objective 1.1 Create a diverse set of communication channels between the SFPD and community. 

The SFPD is available to share and receive information and feedback across a range of communications channels that are equally accessible to all community members. Existing tools are widely promoted, and new ones developed in conjunction with the community to meet all their needs.

Considerations

• Do not limit communication to the internet, or to English
• Good communication is particularly important in times of crisis, but the mechanisms should be in place before that
• Solicit input from community in developing effective communications
• Dedicate some communication channels to relationship-building
• Specific to meetings:
  • Should be held in community locations as well as district stations
  • Officers and leadership should both participate
  • Community may expect more than SFPD can provide in the moment
  • Participating officers should:
    • Have local experience and knowledge
    • Have the skills and desire to interface with the community
    • Be prepared for community emotions, questions, and concerns
    • Follow-up with information and check-ins as needed

Strategies

• Promote existing communications tools
• Allow officers to share contact information directly with community members
• Call back victims of crime to provide information, additional service, service referrals, and if possible collect additional information
• Significantly expand capabilities of SFPD to respond to and interact with monolingual residents, e.g. increased bilingual officer training, streamline deployment of bilingual officers, etc.
• Potential modes of communication
  • Internet
  • Newsletters
  • TV
  • Social media
  • Community networks (e.g. faith, community benefit organization, local business networks)
  • Phone calls to individuals
  • Communication while on patro
• Work with local organizations and individuals as liaisons between officers and community
  • Assign community a point of contact within station
  • Host community walks with the CPAB
• Provide opportunities for community to talk directly to front-line officers, such as:
  • Coffee with a Cop
  • Scheduled Meet-and-Greets
  • Meet the Beat events
  • Peace on the Streets essay contest ƒ
• Hold community meetings:
  • Meeting types should include, but not be limited to:
    • Formal Town Hall meetings ƒ
    • Youth-specific forums
  • Leadership and front-line officers should both conduct and attend community meetings.
  • Timely follow-up and dissemination of information after community meetings or significant events shows commitment to relationship
  • SFPD members should speak at local organization meetings, and invite them to speak at SFPD meetings
  • Allocate officer time to attend and conduct follow-up from community meetings

Objective 1.2 Respond to requests for service and information in a timely and transparent manner.

Open and rapid communication builds trust and faith towards the SFPD from the community. Even when officers are unable to immediately respond to non-emergency situations, community members expect and deserve a positive experience interacting with the Department.

Considerations

• Requests for service should include any interaction with a community member, including questions, requests, complaints, or calls for service
• Expectations of timeliness may vary between the community and SFPD, and should be transparently defined ƒ
• Community members want to be kept informed as they are being assisted, not only after the fact
• Officers should maintain empathy when interacting with the community regardless of circumstance

Strategies

• Create a dedicated non-emergency response unit
• Create clear guidelines for non-emergency staffing assignments
• Publicize case processing and response protocols so community can understand how their calls are processed ƒ
• Follow up on all calls and complaints with explanations for actions and responses, even if original concern was not fully addressed

Objective 1.3 Solicit conversation, input, and collaboration from historically underrepresented groups.

Marginalized populations across San Francisco have lost their trust in the SFPD. Specific outreach to these groups, coupled with active listening and expressed investment in repairing relationships will not only help to restore this trust but also improve community opinion about the Department.

Considerations

• Avoid using PD jargon - use everyday language that the community can identify with humility, apology, and contrition, where appropriate, are important aspects of these efforts
• Understand and be mindful that some people (such as people of color, poorer individuals, LGBT community, and more) are speaking from prolonged pain in community and may be hurt, angry, or mistrustful

Strategies

• Look to existing neighborhood networks (e.g. faith communities, local businesses, neighborhood organizations) to build connections
• Broadly publicize and fully utilize Chief’s Advisory Forums as liaisons to the SFPD
• Acknowledge and address the negative aspects of the history of policing, doing so will build trust in the sincerity of the Department’s efforts
• Implement a Truth and Reconciliation Program for families impacted by officer use of force
• Conduct specific outreach to vulnerable populations, such as:
  • Individuals experiencing homelessness
  • Individuals suffering from addiction
  • Individuals involved with gangs
  • Communities of color
  • Public housing
• Assist isolated groups with participation in the policing process, e.g. driving seniors to community meetings
• Participate in activities with groups that the Department needs better relationships with, e.g. eating meals with homeless individuals

Objective 1.4 Transparently communicate, publicize, and educate community about SFPD goals and policies.

The San Francisco community is frustrated by not understanding how the police department functions, and lack of progress on visible issues such as drug use and homelessness. A focus on transparent communication and education regarding Department policy will increase understanding by, and expectations from, the community.

Considerations

• It is important to acknowledge that there is a disconnect between what the community sees the SFPD do and what it does, and understanding the cause of that divide will enable effective communication
• Transparency of operations, decision-making processes, and what is and is not within the purview of the SFPD builds trust and understanding from the community
• SFPD leadership should lead the way in demonstrating the value of transparency

Strategies

• Publicize Department data more broadly than it currently is, such as:
  • Crime statistics
  • Arrests
  • Trainings that SFPD members receive
  • Department goals
• Lower barriers to communication by providing multiple pathways and office hours
• Be transparent about what the SFPD can and cannot do, particularly through the SFPD Citizen Academy and by offering Force Operations Simulator trainings to the public
• Continue to message the separation of law and immigration enforcement
• Offer community trainings focused on working with the SFPD and managing community crises
• Ensure newsletters and social media updates are frequent, accessible, and widely publicized
• Update SFPD website to be user-friendly and enable easy access to information

GOAL 2: EDUCATION

SFPD both trains and is trained by the communities it serves. 

Objective 2.1 Train the community to empower them to improve community safety.

Effective community policing shares responsibility for community safety between the police and community members. The Department should share their expertise with the community so that they may work side-by-side to create and maintain safe and vibrant neighborhoods.

Considerations

• Topics to offer the community might include, but should not be limited to:
  • Disaster preparedness
  • Crime prevention
  • Know Your Rights
  • Current laws
  • SFPD policies
  • Safety practices
  • Explicit and implicit bias
  • Community ownership
  • What SFPD can and cannot help with
  • SFPD organizational structure, officer roles, data capabilities
  • How to respond when threatened
  • When to use 311
  • Racial profiling
  • Active shooter training
  • Traffic safety
  • Self defense
  • Property security measures such as surveillance cameras and car security best-practices
• Some programs should focus on youth education
• How can SFPD support efforts to train the community, without always leading them? Supporting community-led trainings might free up resources and balance the power dynamic with the community
• Much of this information already exists, but many community members do not know it or cannot find it; it needs to be made more accessible
• Trainings have the added benefit of increasing transparency, building relationships, and providing opportunities for the community to be heard
• With a long list of potential topics, it is important to think critically about what is most salient and practical to teach the community
• Open and honest dialogue is more important than being right
• Use community meetings to identify topics that are important to the community and the best way to convey information

Strategies

• Partner with outside programs that have training capabilities and expertise
• Support and promote 3rd party classes
• Invite citizens to walk around with beat officers
• Tailor training content to the neighborhood and audience
• Support neighborhood groups in training each other
• Designate neighborhood experts within SFPD
• Increase number of ALERT volunteers
• Increase participation in Reserve Officer program

Objective 2.2 Invite third party and community instructors to contribute to SFPD training.

Community members and organizations possess extensive subject and neighborhood-specific expertise that the Department should incorporate into its training curriculum. Bringing in diverse voices from outside the Department plays a vital role in officer development and understanding of issues traditionally considered beyond the scope of officers, but which are becoming routine in their work.

Considerations

• Topics for which to bring in community trainers might include, but should not be limited to:
  • Procedural justice
  • Disaster preparedness
  • Cultural competency
  • Mental health
  • Addiction
  • Bias
  • Community engagement
  • De-escalation
  • People experiencing homelessness
  • Domestic violence
  • CPABs
  • Specific groups and communities officers are assigned to
  • Best practices
  • Noncompliance with ICE
  • How and why to communicate more openly with communities
  • Issues specific to vulnerable populations, such as:
    • Deaf community
    • Youth
    • Native American
    • ASL (sign language)
• Reach out to instructors that have specific expertise and local knowledge
• Make sure information reaches the whole department, and is integrated into operations and behavior

Strategies

• Include in trainings community organizations and individuals with firsthand experience of the training topic, such as:
  • Youth
    • Strategies for Youth: Policing the Teenage Brain
  • Those affected by violence
  • Individuals experiencing homelessness
• Reevaluate and regularly update training curriculums
• Work with community organizations to recruit local instructors

GOAL 3: PROBLEM-SOLVING

Increase safety through collaborative working partnerships between SFPD, community members, and organizations to identify and address local topics of concern.

Objective 3.1 Officers can connect individuals to resources when call for service is outside their scope.

Police officers are often the front line for dealing with any community issue, regardless of topic. However, both the community and the SFPD want officers to be free to focus on safety, and equipping officers with the skills and knowledge to direct issues to the proper services when needed will play a big role in freeing up officer time.

Considerations

• City services should have community liaisons, which would ensure that SFPD is not triaging all issues and free up their bandwidth
• Officers have a lot of work beyond even their patrols, and do not have the capacity to be a first point-of-contact for all social issues
• Captains often bear the workload of problem solving, but that work should be done by officers working directly in the communities
• Education and transparency will ease tensions when the community is frustrated about an issue that might be beyond the Department’s scope
• These resources, including City services, should be accessible 24/7 because issues can arise at any time
• Of course, services may be expensive but will likely result in savings that might offset the cost, such as officer time
• Police involvement in issues should be reduced where possible or not needed

Strategies

• Use technology to ease connecting individuals to resources, e.g. a searchable app with services by type and district
• Focus on the needs of youth and getting them to the support they need
• Attach functional services to policing – representatives with service organizations could walk the beat with officers, e.g. DPH’s Crisis Intervention Team patrols with officers
• Formalize working relationships with community organizations, e.g. those that provide mental health and homeless services ƒ Equip officers to be able to readily offer resources to community members
• Expand 311 dispatch to improve response times for issues often left to police, but are under purview of other agencies ƒ Coordinate between 311 and 911 to filter out non-police work and send to other agencies
• Assign SFPD officers dedicated to problem solving
• Identify and address gaps in hours and functions of service offerings
• Respond to calls regarding homelessness in partnership with SFHOT
• Partner with City agencies and contractors to expand available resources
• Use existing City institutions and their grants, services, and organizations lists to identify local resources that can be offered to community members
• Sponsor resource fairs with local organizations
• Leverage other city agencies’ partnerships with local organizations – use to help find local resources
• Finalize model for Healthy Streets Operations Center

Objective 3.2 Collaboratively identify and develop responses to local issues and concerns with individuals, community-based organizations, and city services.

Successful community policing involves officers and community members working together to identify and address community concerns, focusing on root causes rather than reactive solutions. This system acknowledges that all parties share responsibility for problem-solving and that there are systematic forces driving many issues, only some of which are under the Department’s control.

Considerations

• Topics for problem-solving should be decided alongside community members to make sure efforts are focused on areas of shared concern
• Ongoing relationships are crucial for effective problem solving
• The goal is for the community to ultimately be able to take care of itself
• It is difficult to incentivize individuals to consistently show up for meetings or problem solving when there is not an acute issue

Strategies

• Encourage groups to articulate what they need to be comfortable and effective interacting with the Department
• Implement a communications structure dedicated to problem-solving efforts
• SFPD should continue to support and participate in programs that promote problem-solving, such as:
  • Unified command
  • Peace on the Streets essay contest
  • Partnerships with local businesses to create employment opportunities
  • Block captain programs
  • Operation Outreach
• Host community forums to hear the concerns of community members
• Proactively reach out to partner with relevant organizations
• Publicize problem-solving efforts to bring in diverse viewpoints, using means such as (but not limited to) newsletters, televised public service announcements, and newspapers
• Create a citywide team to coordinate local responses to similar issues
• Support the expansion of Castro Community on Patrol (CCOP) and Neighborhood Watch groups
• Assign point-of-contact officers for community organizations
• Partner with and support individuals to increase use of private surveillance cameras
• Utilize merchant associations and neighborhood networks to distribute information and bring in problem-solving partners

Objective 3.3 Utilize a formalized problem-solving model across district stations.

The SFPD is dedicated to working side-by-side with community members to resolve local issues and improve the quality of neighborhood life by using problem-solving frameworks. Committing to a structured approach to address the root causes of important community challenges builds trust between officers and community members, and creates time for officers to invest deeply in the communities they serve.

Considerations

• While a frame is important, it should allow flexibility because problems should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
• Policy-setting bodies should be included in problem-solving conversations
• Problem-solving only works with buy-in from both leadership and the community
• Problem-solving efforts should contain a marketing strategy to create buy-in from both police and community members ƒ
• Consistency in policy and commitment from both leadership and staff at district stations is key to an effective working relationship with the community
• Support the community in organizing themselves. This will empower them and magnify their voice when working with the SFPD

Strategies

• Dedicate time for officers to work on problem-solving
• Every district should maintain a CPAB that reflects and represents the community
• Utilize a problem-solving framework, such as the Scanning, Analysis, Response, and Evaluation (SARA) model or Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED)

GOAL 4: RELATIONSHIP-BUILDING

Strong, trusting, and respectful relationships between SFPD and all facets of San Francisco community. 

Objective 4.1 Increase visible officer presence and proactive, positive engagement with individuals outside of calls for service.

Officers should be accessible and approachable to build individual relationships with those in the communities they serve. Not only do strong relationships build trust and goodwill, but they are a prerequisite for effective problem-solving. It is always easier to build relationships in good times than in crisis, and putting effort into them in daily work has far-reaching positive outcomes.

Considerations

• “Outside of calls for service” are casual interactions or those unrelated to a specific crime incident
• Good relationships can lead to being granted the benefit of the doubt, and already having allies, when trouble arises
• It is easier to build relationships in good times than in crisis
• Evaluate systems that support and restrict good relationships, e.g. avoid auto-response emails that read “THIS IS AN AUTOMATED EMAIL – DO NOT REPLY”
• Staffing and funding availability is a huge barrier
• Staff is so busy that they may not realize when not providing positive service because they are running from one call to the next
• Any strategy implemented should consider the intended audience
• Special attention should be given to youth and families
• Some events should be focused on building relationships with local organizations, businesses, and relevant city departments, while others are focused on individuals
• Simply giving things away, such as events around Thanksgiving and the winter holidays, seems surface-level and should be paired with more meaningful relationship-building activities
• Officers have family and personal obligations that should be respected with regards to time and event attendance demands
• Time doing community policing work and relationship-building should not take away from other critical areas of duty

Strategies

• Emphasize the importance of interactions with individuals as early as the first day at the Police Academy
• Explicitly address positive behavior in all trainings – officers should treat people with respect and build-in compassion and guardian mindset to all of their work
• Increase number of foot and bicycle beat officers
• Officers should proactively introduce themselves to local merchants and individuals
  • Providing identifying information (business cards) and shift information to community members when interacting builds trust
  • At events, officers should mingle and avoid talking only to other officers
• SFPD members should seek out face-to-face interactions in the community
• Continue to participate in programs to facilitate individual interactions, such as:
  • Walking school bus
  • Chaperone field trips
  • Civilian ride-alongs
  • 4 Corner Fridays
  • Positive reinforcement for helpful community members
  • Assign officers in youth organizations, schools, and family centers
  • Participate in positive activities within juvenile hall
• Utilize stations as resource centers for community members
• Formalize the community liaison job description and responsibilities
• Solicit community input for spending community engagement budget
• A survey should be automatically sent in response to any content submitted to SFPD
• Conduct and attend community events
  • Officers that attend community events should reflect and be known by the community
  • Host and attend giveaways, such as the following, in conjunction with other relationship-building activities
    • Turkey and holiday gift bags
    • Toy drives
    • School bags at community center
    • Hunters Chest
  • Host and attend events, such as:
    • National Night Out
    • Cayuga Park Eggstravaganza ƒ
    • Park events
    • Barbecues
    • Blood drives
    • Neighborhood holiday events
    • Community Engagement Nights
    • Shopping with a cop
    • Activities that create unexpected dialogue, e.g. "The Human Library"
    • Breakfast with officers and community members
    • Tour of police facilities
    • Recruitment and job fairs
    • Volunteering with community programs
  • Host and attend activities with youth, such as:
    • Camping trips
    • Sports
    • Tutor students
    • Movie Night
    • Long term projects, e.g. restoring an old car
    • Youth-specific job training and education
    • Tutoring or mentorship programs
  • Establish guidelines for participating in events, such as:
    • Paid time for officers to attend community events in plain clothes
    • When at community events, it is less intimidating when officers do not carry guns. This gives the impression that they are there to meet the community, rather than patrol the event.
  • Host events for monolingual residents, such as Chinatown Night Out
  • Send specialized units such as Mounted, Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD), or Hondas to community events
  • Host joint events with community
  • An officer from Community Engagement Division should attend events along with local station officers
  • Officers and their families can participate in events while off duty, showing the community that they are not so different

Objective 4.2 Provide unbiased, dignified, and equal treatment and access to resources to all community members.

Access to SFPD attention and services is the right of everyone in the City, including those in under resourced communities or who only speak a language other than English. All community members should feel that they receive the same treatment by the Department as any other individual in the city, which will require an explicit investment in relationships with historically marginalized groups.

Considerations

• Authentic interaction, communication, and exposure to different groups are known to decrease bias
• Talk directly to vulnerable populations and ask them how to best interface with them – all groups and individuals will be a little different
• Build in work for officers that brings the day-to-day grind back to a human level and remembering that in the end the job is about helping people
• Different districts and populations need different resources and attention, a one-size solution will never work

Strategies

• Host know your rights workshops alongside representatives from the District Attorney and Public Defender
• Examine the roll of officers in parole and reintegration, such as:
  • Training on how to interact with parolee populations
  • Create a division dedicated to building these relationships
  • Regularly spend time with parolees, halfway houses, social service recipients, and other groups that officers are generally separated from
  • Update the Department General Order mandating SFPD cannot associate with convicted felons
• Ensure translation services for all outreach, marketing, and community engagement
• District stations identify key local demographics with whom to focus their relationship building
• Plan events that cater to different groups to bring them into the fold
• Focus efforts on communities with low trust for SFPD
• Hold events in all districts, and in many areas within each district, to increase access for everyone
• CPABs should reflect district demographics as well as hard-to-reach populations
• Include transitional aged youth (TAY) on CPABs
• Involve youth in decision-making
  • Partner with Department of Children Youth and their Families and SF Unified School District
  • Conduct youth forums
• Market and expand Police Activities League (PAL) programs in partnership with schools and community organization front-line staff
• Expand, and promote using community liaisons, summer jobs programs
• Publicize that station community rooms are available for community use, and use to host the community and provide resources (for example, technology literacy)
• Find and build relationships with specific community leaders
  • Utilize the informal “The 100” list of community leaders
  • Approach them respectfully and ask for help in building relationships
• Training at the Police Academy should include interacting with various communities

GOAL 5: SFPD ORGANIZATION

SFPD organization and operation leads community policing efforts and demonstrates a guardian mindset.

Objective 5.1 Develop policies, priorities, and procedures that are consistent across SFPD stations and bureaus and support neighborhood-specific plans.

The Department of Justice report found great programs being implemented at district stations across the City, but no consistent standards or message to unify them. Community members should be able to expect a reliable level of community policing effort and activities, while still allowing enough flexibility for district stations to tailor their activities to the local community.

Strategies

• Include community member input on CPAB membership
• Form a Community Engagement Division advisory group

Objective 5.2 The SFPD is adaptable and committed to continuous review and improvement.

Community policing necessitates ongoing self-reflection and external review to maintain effective programs and relationships in communities that are ever-changing. Police departments are traditionally slow-moving organizations, and the SFPD can set itself up for success by devoting itself to consistent, thoughtful, and rigorous review.

Considerations

• Reform should be data and best practice driven, transparent, inclusive, accessible by everyone, and involve community input and outside evaluation
• Develop a strategy for deciding who is included in review process
• Continuous review will require staff time that is already spread thin
• Review process will have to be thoughtful and consistent, and avoid being surface-level

Strategies

• Utilize outside evaluators
• Solicit ongoing input from community members and local partners
• Update old Department General Orders
• Officers should conduct self-evaluations to provide a detailed picture of what their daily work consists of ƒ Community interactions should be promptly followed by evaluation surveys
• Implement a Staff Inspection Unit to conduct internal assessments, i.e. “audits,” of the Department’s practices

Objective 5.3 Include civilian and front-line officer perspective and input in decision-making and policy development processes.

Inherent in community policing is a partnership between the community and Department. Excluding on-the-ground perspective of community members and officers from high-level conversations would ignore the real-world experience necessary for effective problem-solving, and demonstrate a lack of investment in the community.

Considerations

• This will be difficult without buy in from all parties, particularly Department leadership
• The San Francisco Police Officer’s Association should not be involved with determining Department policy

Strategies

• Solicit input specifically from officers that work directly with marginalized groups
• Develop a formal system to capture, measure, and report community issues
  • This is particularly important when issues arise that are outside purview of the SFPD
  • Utilize specific points of contact in the community to describe issues
  • Follow-up with involved parties after issues are resolved
• Implement an internal survey to get line-level feedback on SFPD policies

Objective 5.4 Support restorative justice goals.

Committing to restorative rather than punitive justice is an important step in addressing root causes of community issues. It also demonstrates the Department’s commitment to a guardian mindset, in which an officer’s role is to support, rather than occupy, the community.

Considerations

• Pursue alternatives to arrest where appropriate, both at an institutional level and through the individual decision-making of officers
• It is difficult to balance strict enforcement versus commitment to justice reform
• Who will pay for services and programs for individuals diverted away from the justice system?

Strategies

• Divert suspects to social services through Lead program where appropriate
• Utilize Veterans Court and Mental Health Court to avoid incarceration where possible
• Use monitoring programs to ensure programs and individuals achieve restorative goals
• Utilize social services over enforcement

Objective 5.5 Support officers with sufficient resources.

Officers serve as both the face of the City and the responsible party for community safety. To meet these expectations effectively and sustainably, they must be given the appropriate physical, emotional, and institutional support from the Department.

Considerations

• Officers cannot fix problems without proper support, both for their own work and to provide to community members when possible
• Board of Supervisors and City government should provide adequate funding for the Department to meet its goals

Strategies

• Provide officers time and space to decompress between calls
• Build in time to daily schedules for officers to interact with people
• Body Worn Cameras should automatically download footage to save time
• Resources available should include:
  • Improved IT capabilities
  • Mental health services for communities AND officers
  • Dedicated down time for officers between difficult assignments
  • Sufficient staffing levels
• Increase event and community policing funds
• Make officer appearance more approachable
• Use monthly Captain Meetings to coordinate resources across districts
• Improve technology to support communication with the public
• Evaluate services City agencies currently provide to focus on most effective solutions
  • Recommendation to City government: organizations receiving City funds should provide a contact who can be accessed at any time of day so that officers can connect community members to the resources they need
• Increase resources for officer stress management, such as implementing an anonymous Department of Public Health comprehensive health survey
• Convene a Technology Advisory Board
• Invest in IT and services to reduce time spent on paperwork and admin
• Bring in mental and physical health specialists to the stations to ensure officers are taking care of themselves
• Hire more officers to match population growth
• Expand capabilities of SF Police Foundation

Objective 5.6 Recruit SFPD members who reflect the city’s diversity and know the communities they serve.

When officers can identify with the communities they serve through a shared upbringing, experience, or locale, the SFPD is seen more as a guardian organization than as an imposing force of outsiders. A Department that is reflective of the community makes it easy to connect and work with community members, and engenders faith that the SFPD truly cares about understands local problems and their underlying causes.

Considerations

• There are different interpretations of diversity; some already consider the SFPD diverse
• Diversity includes life experiences
• Recruitment goals require buy-in from leadership; some think it is already happening
• Achieving diversity does not mean lowering recruitment standards
  • Plus, standards may not have been effective or accurate in the first place
• Beware of bias against women, People of Color, the LGBTQAI community, and more
• There is not enough money for training and extra support for historically underrepresented groups

Strategies

• Recruit:
  • Officers from around the Bay Area who will understand the greater community
  • Multi-lingual individuals
  • Directly from communities where officers will work
  • Individuals who are native to San Francisco
• Partner with local organizations to recruit from a larger pool and increase applications
• Analyze applicant pool vs. successful candidates – where do they differ and why?
• Support underrepresented groups in hiring process
• Conduct a middle school career class
• Conduct focus groups with underrepresented communities about why they do or do not want to join SFPD, and the challenges they face in joining if they choose to apply
• Research the barriers to application and retention for underrepresented groups
• Conduct specific outreach to underrepresented communities
• Use internal diverse populations to recruit from underrepresented communities
• Relax some recruiting criteria for community members with certain qualifications, such as background in community-led efforts
• Include civilian perspective on hiring panels

Objective 5.7 Integrate community policing values in recruitment, training, and professional development of SFPD members.

Building community policing into the values and culture of the Department will require focused and ongoing effort throughout the career of every officer. Commitment to positive, productive relationships with the community should be emphasized and woven into the daily work of all SFPD members from the beginning of recruitment to the day they retire.

Considerations

• Recruiters must have the skills to identify and attract the right candidates
• Applicant pool often self-selects, so attention is needed to broaden the pool
• Recruitment drives the applicant pool, so work needs to happen early to find great candidates
• Building one-on-one relationships in the recruitment process can determine outcomes
• Expanding trainings is expensive
• Veteran officers’ needs and perspectives are different than new recruits
  • They face issues like burnout
  • Trainings will have to consider individual behaviors and experiences
  • Personal experiences may lead to resistance to training, because they feel like they already know what to do
• Trainings should be reoccurring, because community policing skills are perishable
• Officers should have support and leeway to use good judgement and decision-making in their day-to-day activities ƒ
• It is difficult to measure commitment to community policing, because the work is not as visible or concrete as making an arrest
• Time use allocations and community policing requirements should not distract from solving crime and protecting residents
• Rewarding community policing through assignments and promotions tells staff that community policing matters ƒ
• Incentives for good community policing should be tailored to match the officer – everyone’s motivations are different
• Trainings should include community-based experience and focus on experiential learning

Strategies

• Consider commitment to and desire for community policing in the recruitment process
  • Create standard questions to identify preexisting disposition towards community policing, e.g. via a behavioral interview
  • Specifically look for cultural competency, local knowledge, and language skills
• Emphasize community policing in all trainings, and implement specialized topic curricula for both new and veteran officers.
  • Training topics should include, but not be limited to:
    • Unconscious bias
    • School shooting plans
    • Use of force
    • Community policing
    • Native American Community
    • American Sign Language (ASL) community
    • Active listening
    • Specific groups and communities officers are assigned to
    • Formalized Foot Patrol training
  • Community policing trainings should be continuous over the course of an officer’s career
• Continue to utilize cadet program to integrate recruits with the community
• Implement mentorship programs within SFPD so veteran officers can instill importance of community policing values
• In all trainings, ask: “How does this further our CP goals?”
• Use Department of Human Resources model of training videos to achieve broad impact
• Encourage and reward good community policing practices through opportunities and acknowledgement.
  • Provide acknowledgement for good community policing through professional development opportunities, awards, and benefits
  • The Chief should highlight community policing values through his own actions
  • Encourage both spontaneous and formal peer to peer acknowledgement
  • Review promotional practices to ensure that the standards support and reward community policing
  • Promote programs like Leadership SF and special assignments across the Department to increase diverse experiences

Objective 5.8 Deployment strategies maintain consistency in practices and continuity of the community’s relationship with the SFPD.

Staffing decisions should take into consideration their impact on relationships with the community. Officers’ skillsets and experience should be used to develop bonds with individuals, and those connections should be treated with respect when considering assignments and transfers.

Considerations

• Long-term assignments to build relationships in the community should not hinder promotion opportunities
• Officers with the most experience should be staffed in most difficult stations, such as those that deal most with homelessness, mental health, and addiction
• Captains currently move every 2 years or so, just when relationships are solidifying
• During staff turnover, create accountability between old and new at a station to maintain relationships with community members via ‘warm handoffs’
• Decisions to move officers should be transparent to the community, which may be invested in the relationship ƒ
• Consider officer skillsets such as language ability, ability to work with vulnerable populations, Crisis Intervention Training, and understanding mental health when distributing assignments

Strategies

• Officers should conduct warm handoffs to new staff when they leave stations
• Officers who have left a station might remain in communications channels with the community for a little while to support warm handoffs
• Extend tenures of officers at station assignments to allow time for relationships
• Rotate staff assignments within stations less frequently to allow time for relationships to be built
• Develop a transition plan when staff leaves an assignment or station
• Provide the community with advance notice of staffing changes

Objective 5.9 Support groups historically underrepresented in police departments in professional development.

The policing profession has moved to include a diverse group of individuals, from having historically been dominated by white men. Standards of promotion, and other professional development opportunities, should reflect that shift to provide leadership and learning opportunities that empower officers of all backgrounds to rise through the ranks. 

None listed. ESWG did not have sufficient time to brainstorm strategies and considerations for this objective.

Objective 5.10 Hold officers accountable for their actions and embodying community policing tenets.

Every member of the SFPD should feel responsible for the work they do, including both recognition for the positive and accountability for the negative. Ownership for the Department’s actions goes a long way towards earning the trust and respect of the San Francisco community, and lays the foundation for open and lasting relationships.

Considerations

• Accountability and responsibility are for both positive and negative actions – officers should know they’ll get credit when they do something good, and that the onus is on them for inappropriate conduct

Strategies

• Make public apologies and own up to shortcomings when relevant, and then correct them
• Train supervisors to identify misconduct and intervene

The following list of metrics was developed by the Project Team and Executive Sponsor Working Group. It is a resource for SFPD divisions in developing measurements of fulfillment of the objectives laid out in the Strategic Plan. Metrics are categorized by the objective they support and the mechanism by which the data would be collected ("Data Source"), and indicate whether the data is already being reported ("Existing Metric"), or if the metric is new and would require new or updated data sources ("New Metric").

Goal Name: 1 - Communication

Goal Name: 2 - Education

Goal Name: 3 - Problem-solving

Goal Name: 4 - Relationship-building

Goal Name: SFPD Organization

This graphic summarizes the strategic planning process, and describes major milestones, tasks, and deadlines of the Plan’s development, alongside the major project stakeholders.

Strategic Plan Development - Phases, Task and Stakeholders

Below describes community policing practices currently undertaken by the SFPD. This list represents a subset of Department strategies focused on District Station activities, Community Engagement Division activities, and projects related to the Department of Justice (DOJ) Report. The tables are organized by Strategic Plan objective in order to demonstrate where objectives are being met and where gaps are. The Department will conduct a complete review of all SFPD divisions (e.g. Human Resources, Recruiting) in order to have a comprehensive understanding of current practices and to determine which objectives will require additional resources and attention to be met.

Overview of Current Strategies Tables:

• D.1: District Station Community Engagement Activities pages D-2 through D-31 
  At the end of 2017, all district stations sent CED a summary of community policing activities undergone over the previous year.
• D.2: Community Engagement Division Programs page D-32 
  CED administers a variety of programs to foster officer/ community member interaction, which have been chronicled here. ƒ
• D.3: Minimum Community Engagement Activities page D-33 
  In response to DOJ Recommendation 40.5, the Department developed a list of fourteen community engagement activities that all district stations must engage in every year. ƒ
• D.4: DOJ Recommendations pages D-34 through D-39 
  All recommendations related to community policing (Ch. 4) in the 2016 US DOJ report have recently been or soon will be implemented.

D.1: DISTRICT STATION COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

Station: Bayview

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Law Enforcement Safety Days- (FebruaryApril and October-November)
Activity Category: Station Events

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Principal's Breakfast Event
Activity Date: February
Activity Category: Station Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Second Sundays - A free two-hour community event with monthly themes. The community will have a chance to mingle with officers in the community room at Bayview Station
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Activity Category: Station Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Reading Partners- Weekly (restarting in January)
Activity Category: Station Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Wilderness Program
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Activity Category: Station Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Annual MLK March with MLK School, 3R1 on Third
Activity Date: January
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Family Literacy Day, 3rd on Third
Activity Date: February
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Annual Black Cuisine Festival, 3rd on Third
Activity Date: March
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Sunday Streets, Annual Stop the Violence March, Book Fair, 3rd on Third
Activity Date: April
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Book Fair, Annual BBQ Cook Off and Resource Fair, Annual Peace Rally, 3rd on Third
Activity Date: May
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Play Streets, 3d on Third
Activity Date: June
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Play Streets, Annual Circus Festival, Peace Hoops, 3d on Third
Activity Date: July
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: National Night Out, Movie Night, Play Streets, Back Pack Giveaways, Peace Hoops, 3rd on Third
Activity Date: August
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Movie Night, Neighborfest, Play Streets, 3rd on Third
Activity Date: September
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Movie Night, Neighborfest, 3rd on Third
Activity Date: October
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Turkey Giveaway, Thanksgiving Meats, 3rd on Third
Activity Date: November
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Unity Parade, Toy Giveaway, Tree Giveaway, 3rd on Third
Activity Date: December
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Frequency: Bi-monthly
Activity Category: Station Events

Objective: 1.1, 5.8
Activity: Community Liaison Officers

Station: Central

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): Top of Broadway Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): North Beach Merchants Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Newsletter
Activity Frequency: Weekly
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social media: Twitter
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Safe Shopper Awareness
Partner Organization(s): Union Square Business Improvement District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Neighborhood safety
Partner Organization(s): Russian Hill Neighbors
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Neighborhood safety
Partner Organization(s): Nob Hill Association
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 2.2
Activity: Academy Community Immersion Program
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Homeless outreach and support
Partner Organization(s): North Beach Citizens
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Adult and Youth support services
Partner Organization(s): Telegraph Hill Neighbors
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Video Surveillance Camera Program (350 cameras installed)
Partner Organization(s): Union Square Business Improvement District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Quarterly meetings with loss prevention agents of various merchants in Union Square area to keep flow of communication going.
Partner Organization(s): Union Square Business Improvement District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: An ambassador program is run and foot beat officers meet with the ambassadors monthly to discuss crime trends.
Partner Organization(s): Fisherman's Wharf Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Developing, scheduling and organizing a two-day program for the Community Youth Center Ambassador's for their deployment in the Portsmouth Square and Willie Woo Woo playground.
Partner Organization(s): Community Youth Center (CYC)
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Meeting - CPAB
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): CPAB
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Hosts pumpkin and turkey giveaways each year that officers participate in.
Partner Organization(s): Chinatown Community Development Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Hosts cooked meals for Thanksgiving to elderly at the Lady Shaw Senior Center. Officers volunteer to deliver meals offsite.to homebound seniors that cannot attend the event.
Partner Organization(s): Self-Help for the Elderly
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Year-round youth programs
Partner Organization(s): Salesian Boys and Girls Club
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: "Cops read to Kids" Program: School Resource Officer Tray Courtney will read to school children on a regular basis at Garfield Elementary, Spring Valley Elementary, Gordon J. Lau Elementary, and Jean Parker Elementary schools.
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: "Walk to School" Program: Officers from Central Station will walk approximately 1 mile with children from Gordon J. Lau Elementary School, John Yehill Chin Elementary School, Jean Parker Elementary School, the Chinese Education Center, and Spring Valley Elementary School to demonstrate responsibility and the importance of pedestrian safety
Partner Organization(s): Gordon J. Lau Elementary School, John Yehill Chin Elementary School, Jean Parker Elementary School, the Chinese Education Center, and Spring Valley Elementary School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: "Bike to School" Program: Officer Troy Courtney will bike with kids from Yick Woo Elementary School to demonstrate bicycle safety.
Partner Organization(s): Yick Woo Elementary School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Fishing Program: Near the end of the school year, officers from Central Station will take students from Francisco Middle School fishing.
Partner Organization(s): Francisco Middle School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Angel Island Hike: Approximately 1-2 times a month, Officer Courtney will accompany students from Gordon J. Lau Elementary, Yick Woo Elementary, and John Yehill Chin on a hike to Angel Island.
Partner Organization(s): Gordon J. Lau Elementary, Yick Woo Elementary, and John Yehill Chin
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Sailing Trips: 3-6 Sailing Trips are scheduled in the spring with students from Francisco Middle School and officers from Central Station.
Partner Organization(s): Francisco Middle School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Annual National Night Out
Activity Date: 8/1/2017
Partner Organization(s): Salesian's Boys and Girls Club
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Officers from Central Station have taken youth to from North Beach Housing and Ping Yuen Housing to Presidio Bowl.
Activity Date: 2/21/17, 3/29/17
Partner Organization(s): North Beach Housing, Ping Yuen Housing
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Officers from Central Station accompanied youth from Ping Yuen Housing on a trip to the Exploratorium
Activity Date: 7/19/2017
Partner Organization(s): Ping Yuen Housing
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Officers celebrated Black History Month with youth from Ping Yuen Housing
Activity Date: 2/25/2017
Partner Organization(s): Ping Yuen Housing
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Approximately 60 children attended a meet and greet with SFPD officers at the Tel Hi Center (660 Lombard)
Activity Date: 7/31/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Two field trips with the Tel-Hi Preschool to Central Station were conducted with approximately 30 kids on each field trip.
Activity Date: 8/2/17, 8/10/17
Partner Organization(s): Tel-Hi Preschool
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Halloween parties were held separately with youth from Ping Yuen Housing, North Beach Housing and the Kai Ming Preschool where officers from Central Station decorated and carved pumpkins with the youth.
Partner Organization(s): Ping Yuen Housing, North Beach Housing, Kai Ming Pre-school
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Officers from Central Station will be holding a holiday party/toy giveaway with youth from Ping Yuen Housing
Activity Date: 12/20/2017
Partner Organization(s): Ping Yuen Housing
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Officers from Central Station will accompany youth from Ping Yuen Housing to go Ice Skating
Activity Date: 12/22/2017
Partner Organization(s): Ping Yuen Housing
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Officers from Central Station will have a holiday party with youth from North Beach housing on 12/19/17 and then have a toy giveaway on 12/20/17.
Partner Organization(s): North Beach Housing
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Turkey giveaway event
Activity Date: 11/20/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: In an effort to bridge the gap between the youth and police, any giveaway provided to the Department (e.g. tickets to the Pier 39 Aquarium etc.), approval is obtained from the Police Commission and Officers from Central Station take the youth on an outing.
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Throughout the year, officers participate in and provide security for numerous events, including but not limited to; the Chinese new Year's Parade, Flower Fair Parade, St. Patrick's Day celebrations, North Beach Fair, 4th of July Celebrations, Autumn Moon Festival, 10/10 parade, Fleet Week celebrations, Pride Parade, Italian Heritage Parade, Halloween, and New Year’s Eve.
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1, 1.3, 2.1, 4.1
Activity: On an annual basis, on the first Tuesday in September, the Chinese Chamber of Commerce sponsors a National Night Out, hosting a meeting in Portsmouth Square where dinner is served, and a message of personal safety, pedestrian safety, language access, and reporting all crimes.
Activity Frequency: Annually
Partner Organization(s): Chinese Chamber of Commerce
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Date: 10/4/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Chinese New Year's Parade
Partner Organization(s): Chinese Chamber of Commerce
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1, 5.8
Activity: Manages the Ping Yuen Housing. Central Station housing officers participate in multiple community and youth outreach events throughout the year.
Partner Organization(s): Chinatown Community Development Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 2.1, 3.2
Activity: Attendance in the bi-monthly luncheons in an effort to provide information to the Hotel Security Directors.
Partner Organization(s): Hotel Security Director's Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 2.1, 3.2
Activity: Board and Security Directors Meetings
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): Union Square Business Improvement District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: none
Activity: 10B Officer Assignments
Activity Frequency: Daily
Partner Organization(s): Union Square Business Improvement District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: none
Activity: 10B Program
Partner Organization(s): Top of Broadway Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: none
Activity: Hosts the annual Autumn Moon Festival Street fair on Grant Avenue that officers provide security for.
Partner Organization(s): Chinatown Merchants Association
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: none
Activity: Hosts community health fairs that officers provide security for. Hosts an annual Halloween festival.
Partner Organization(s): Chinatown YMCA
Activity Category: Community Groups

Station: Ingleside

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Ingleside District-Wide School Notification Platform via Everbridge
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Newsletter
Activity Frequency: Daily
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Twitter
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Website
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Facebook
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Community Liaison Officers
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Community Empowerment Network/Resilient Neighborhoods
Activity Category: Community Training

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Academy Community Immersion Program
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Multi-District Anti-Violence Collaborative Group
Partner Organization(s): Mayor's Office
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Multi-District Anti-Violence Collaborative Group
Partner Organization(s): Field Operations Bureau
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Multi-District Anti-Violence Collaborative Group
Partner Organization(s): Community Engagement Division
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Multi-District Anti-Violence Collaborative Group
Partner Organization(s): Northern Station
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Multi-District Anti-Violence Collaborative Group
Partner Organization(s): Bayview Station
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Multi-District Anti-Violence Collaborative Group
Partner Organization(s): Reverend Burch & Faith Community
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Multi-District Anti-Violence Collaborative Group
Partner Organization(s): DPH
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Multi-District Anti-Violence Collaborative Group
Partner Organization(s): Phoenix Program
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Multi-District Anti-Violence Collaborative Group
Partner Organization(s): SF Hope
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Meeting - CPAB
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): CPAB
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Principal's Breakfast Event (September)
Partner Organization(s): CPAB
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Reading to youth
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): Visitacion Valley Middle School

Objective: 4.1
Activity: National Night Out
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Pumpkin giveaway (Halloween)
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Turkey giveaway (Thanksgiving)
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Toy Drive (Christmas)
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Herz Playground Easter Egg Hunt (Easter)
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Peace Parks Initiative

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Ingleside Station Memorial Day
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.3, 3.2
Activity: Multi-District Anti-Violence Collaborative Group
Partner Organization(s): Brothers against guns
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 1.3, 3.2
Activity: Multi-District Anti-Violence Collaborative Group
Partner Organization(s): United Playaz
Activity Category: Partnerships

Station: Mission

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Panel Discussion
Partner Organization(s): Mission Girls Club
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Newsletter
Activity Frequency: Weekly
Activity Category: Community Outreach and Information

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Activity Category: Community Outreach and Information

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Website
Activity Category: Community Outreach and Information

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Twitter
Activity Category: Community Outreach and Information

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Coffee with Parents/Principal
Partner Organization(s): Flynn Elementary School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 1.3
Activity: Gang Liaison
Partner Organization(s): SFSVIP - Street Violence Intervention Program
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Safety Presentation
Partner Organization(s): Dolores Day School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Class Safety Presentation
Partner Organization(s): Bryant Elementary School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Safety Presentation
Partner Organization(s): Immaculate Conception Academy
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Safety Presentation
Partner Organization(s): George Moscone Elementary
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Safety Presentation
Partner Organization(s): Saint Peter's Elementary
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Safety Presentation
Partner Organization(s): Dolores Academy
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Cyber Bullying Presentation
Partner Organization(s): Marshall Elementary
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: SFPD Mission SIT
Partner Organization(s): Eureka Valley Neighborhood Association
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 2.2
Activity: Academy Community Immersion Participation
Activity Category: Community Outreach and Information

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Mission Station Resource Fair 2017
Activity Date: Jun-17
Partner Organization(s): SF Rec and Park
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Mission Station Resource Fair 2017
Activity Date: Jun-17
Partner Organization(s): SF PAL
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Mission Station Resource Fair 2017
Activity Date: Jun-17
Partner Organization(s): Boys and Girls Clubs of America
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Mission Station Resource Fair 2017
Activity Date: Jun-17
Partner Organization(s): SAFE
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Mission Station Resource Fair 2017
Activity Date: Jun-17
Partner Organization(s): The Garden Project
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Mission Station Resource Fair 2017
Activity Date: Jun-17
Partner Organization(s): Mission Neighborhood Centers
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Mission Station Resource Fair 2017
Activity Date: Jun-17
Partner Organization(s): NERT
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Mission Station Resource Fair 2017
Activity Date: Jun-17
Partner Organization(s): PG&E
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Mission Station Resource Fair 2017
Activity Date: Jun-17
Partner Organization(s): Girl Scouts
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Mission Station Resource Fair 2017
Activity Date: Jun-17
Partner Organization(s): Boy Scouts of America
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 3.1
Activity: Mission Station Resource Fair 2017
Activity Date: Jun-17
Partner Organization(s): Exploratorium
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 3.2
Partner Organization(s): CPAB
Activity Category: Community Outreach and Information

Objective: 4.1
Activity: A Women's Place Drop-In Shelter (211 13th St)
Activity Date: Valentine's Day (February 2017)
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Provided Valentine's Day Gift Bags
Activity Date: Valentine's Day (February 2017)
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Easter Basket Give-Away: Easter baskets prepared by students from St. Philip's
Partner Organization(s): St. Philip's School
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Easter Basket Give-Away: Delivered to Providence Baptist Church in Bayview
Partner Organization(s): Providence Baptist Church
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: BBQ with the kids (SF Carnival)
Activity Date: May-17
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: MEPI Summer Learning Parfait Challenge
Activity Date: Jul-17
Partner Organization(s): Mission Education Program INC.
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: MEPI Summer Learning Parfait Challenge
Activity Date: Jul-17
Partner Organization(s): SF Sherriff's Department
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: MEPI Summer Learning Parfait Challenge
Activity Date: Jul-17
Partner Organization(s): SFFD
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: MEPI Summer Learning Parfait Challenge
Activity Date: Jul-17
Partner Organization(s): The Mayor's Office
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: National Night Out (Mission Playground)
Activity Date: Aug-17
Partner Organization(s): w/Community Engagement Division
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Mission Station Pumpkin Patch w/MEPI (Garfield Park)
Activity Date: Oct-17
Partner Organization(s): Garden Project
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Mission Station Pumpkin Patch w/MEPI (Garfield Park)
Activity Date: Oct-17
Partner Organization(s): Community Engagement Division
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Mission Station Pumpkin Patch w/MEPI (Garfield Park)
Activity Date: Oct-17
Partner Organization(s): Park and Rec (Wall climb)
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Mission Station Pumpkin Patch w/MEPI (Garfield Park)
Activity Date: Oct-17
Partner Organization(s): Provided lunch to attendee's
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Thanksgiving Turkey Give Away
Activity Date: Nov-17
Partner Organization(s): The Mayor's Office and APRI
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Thanksgiving Turkey Give Away
Activity Date: Nov-17
Partner Organization(s): Valencia Gardens Housing Development
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Thanksgiving Turkey Give Away
Activity Date: Nov-17
Partner Organization(s): Bernal Dwellings Housing Development
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Thanksgiving Turkey Give Away
Activity Date: Nov-17
Partner Organization(s): Mission Station Housing Unit
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Mission Station Toy Drive (Mission Police Station)
Activity Date: Dec-17
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Sports and conditioning program (Wed-Fri)
Partner Organization(s): Mission Education Program INC. (MEPI)
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Summer Field Trips
Partner Organization(s): Mission Education Program INC. (MEPI)
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Mentoring and peer counseling
Partner Organization(s): Boys and Girls Club
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Foot Beats
Partner Organization(s): Castro Street Merchants
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Christmas Tree Lighting
Partner Organization(s): Castro Street Merchants
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Initiating sandlot program
Partner Organization(s): Boys and Girls Club
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Harvey Milk Presentations
Partner Organization(s): Castro Street Merchants
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Día De Los Muertos 2017
Partner Organization(s): Marigold Foundation
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 5.6
Activity: Castro Street Fair - Information Booth
Activity Date: Oct-17
Partner Organization(s): SFPD Recruitment
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 1.1, 1.4
Activity: Panel Discussion
Partner Organization(s): Eureka Valley Neighborhood Association
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Date: Feb-17
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Date: Mar-17
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Date: Mar-17
Activity Category: Community Engagement Events

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Assist with Job placement
Partner Organization(s): Mission Language & Vocational School, Inc.
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: SF Low Rider Counsel
Partner Organization(s): Calle 24 Latino Cultural District
Activity Category: Community Groups/ Stakeholders/ CPAB Members

Station: Northern

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Activity Category: Station Events

Objective: 3.2
Partner Organization(s): SF Safe
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Permanent Foot beats

Objective: 4.1
Activity: National Night Out

Objective: 4.1
Activity: CPAB Event - Halloween Kids Movie Night
Partner Organization(s): CPAB

Objective: 4.1
Activity: CPAB Event - Backpack give-away
Partner Organization(s): CPAB

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Grillin' on the Moe
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Buchanan Beatification Events and BBQs
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Turkey give-away
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Various street / neighborhood fairs
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Fillmore mini-park events
Activity Category: Community Events

Objective: 4.1
Activity: School Resource Officers

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Success Center
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Faith based community
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Frequency: Every other month

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Ella Hill Hutch
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Hayes Valley Neighborhood Group
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Brothers against guns
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Black to the future
Activity Category: Partnerships

Objective: 1.3, 3.2
Activity: Anti-violence project
Partner Organization(s): Brothers Against Guns
Activity Category: Problem-Solving

Station: Park

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Quarterly meetings
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Quarterly meetings
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Quarterly meetings
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Newsletter
Activity Frequency: Weekly
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Twitter
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Social Media: Teaching public Safety to students
Activity Date: 1/12/2018
Partner Organization(s): Urban High School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Community Public Safety Meeting
Activity Date: 4/10/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 2.1
Activity: National Smoke-out Day
Activity Date: 4/20/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 3.2
Partner Organization(s): CPAB
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Haight - Ashbury Street Fair
Activity Date: 6/10/2018
Partner Organization(s): Haight- Ashbury Merchant Association (HAMA) Quarterly meetings
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Merchant Monday - Binery - 1727 Haight St
Activity Date: 9/10/2018
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Cole Valley Fair
Activity Date: 9/24/2018
Partner Organization(s): Cole Valley Improvement Association (CVIA)
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Santa on Cole Street
Activity Date: 12/1/2018
Partner Organization(s): Cole Valley Improvement Association (CVIA)
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Haight - Ashbury Street Fair
Activity Date: 6/10/2018
Partner Organization(s): Haight-Ashbury Improvement Association (HAlA)
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: ii. Cole Street Fair
Partner Organization(s): Xian Yun Academy
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: iii. Haight Street Fair
Partner Organization(s): Xian Yun Academy
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Read a Loud Day at Chinese Immersion School (CIS)
Activity Date: 4/7/2018
Partner Organization(s): Chinese Immersion School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Chinese Immersion School's Bike, Roll, and Walk to School Event
Activity Date: 4/18/2018
Partner Organization(s): Chinese Immersion School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Read a Loud Day at Chinese Immersion School (CIS)
Activity Date: 5/15/2018
Partner Organization(s): Chinese Immersion School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Escort Chinese Immersion School to Golden Gate Park
Activity Date: 5/22/2018
Partner Organization(s): Chinese Immersion School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Fun Fest at Grattan Elementary School
Activity Date: 5/6/2018
Partner Organization(s): Grattan School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Annual Sock Drive
Activity Date: 11/30/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Toy Drive
Activity Date: 12/16/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: SF Delta Professional Soccer Team at Kezar Stadium
Activity Date: 3/24/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Unity in the Community (Tailgate Party prior to the SF DELTA game)
Activity Date: 3/24/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Read a Loud Day at Chinese Immersion School (CIS)
Activity Date: 4/7/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Chinese Immersion School's Bike, Roll, and Walk to School Event
Activity Date: 4/18/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: The Kids' Games at Kezar
Activity Date: 5/6/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Fun Fest at Grattan Elementary School
Activity Date: 5/6/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: North of Panhandle Neighborhood Association (NOPNA) Block Party
Activity Date: 5/6/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Read a Loud Day at Chinese Immersion School (CIS)
Activity Date: 5/12/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Bay to Breakers
Activity Date: 5/20/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Escort Chinese Immersion School to Golden Gate Park
Activity Date: 5/22/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Haight - Ashbury Street Fair
Activity Date: 6/10/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Pink Saturday Twin Peaks
Activity Date: 6/23/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Oyster Fest
Activity Date: 6/30/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: SFPAL Fishing Trip
Activity Date: 7/23/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: National Night Out
Activity Date: 8/1/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Opera in the Park
Activity Date: 9/9/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Cole Valley Fair
Activity Date: 9/23/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Pumpkin Patch giveaway event
Activity Date: 10/24/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Meet the Beat
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Forest Knoll Block Party
Activity Date: 5/6/2018
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Peace on the Streets - Essay Contest
Partner Organization(s): Inner Sunset Park Neighbors (lSPN)
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Peace on the streets
Partner Organization(s): Xian Yun Academy
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Peace on the Streets (Essay Contest! Bicycle Give Away)
Activity Date: 12/9/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Corbett Heights Neighbors
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Duboce Triangle Neighbors Association (DTNA)
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Hayes Valley Neighborhood Association (HVNA)
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): North of Panhandle Neighborhood Association (NOPNA)
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): USF
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): CCSF John Adams Campus
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Independence High School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Wallenburg High School

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Rooftop Middle School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Clarendon School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Lycee Francais
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): McKinley
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): New Traditions
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Rooftop Elementary School (443 Burnett Ave)
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): San Francisco Day School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): St. Brendan's School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Station: Richmond

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Newsletter
Activity Frequency: Weekly
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Twitter
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Website
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): Next Door
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): SF Safe
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): Sacramento Street Merchants Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): Clement Street Merchants Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): Geary Street Merchants Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): Balboa Village Merchants Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): Planning Association for the Richmond
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): Richmond District Neighborhood Center
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): Community Youth Center
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): JCC (Jewish Community Center)
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): Pacific Heights Residents Association
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): Sea Cliff Neighborhood Association
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): Seal Rock Safe Group
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings - Partner
Partner Organization(s): 25th Ave Corridor Group
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 2.1
Activity: School Presentation
Activity Date: 4/13/2017
Partner Organization(s): Kai Ming Pre-School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: School Presentation
Activity Date: Oct-17
Partner Organization(s): Roosevelt Middle School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: School Presentation
Activity Date: Oct-17
Partner Organization(s): George Peabody Elementary School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: School Presentation
Activity Date: Sep-17
Partner Organization(s): 11. Zion Lutheran
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: School Presentation
Activity Date: Oct-17
Partner Organization(s): 12. Alamo Elementary School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: School Presentation
Activity Date: Oct-17
Partner Organization(s): 13. Presidio Middle School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: School Presentation
Activity Date: Sep-17
Partner Organization(s): 14. George Washington High School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: School Presentation
Activity Date: Sep-17
Partner Organization(s): 15. ABC Preschool
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: School Presentation
Activity Date: Oct-17
Partner Organization(s): 16. Mother Goose School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: School Presentation
Activity Date: Oct-17
Partner Organization(s): 17. St. Thomas
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: School Presentation
Activity Date: Sep-17
Partner Organization(s): 18. Lafayette School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: School Presentation
Activity Date: 17-Oct
Partner Organization(s): 19. Pacific Academy
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Active Shooter Awareness
Activity Date: 6/15/2017
Partner Organization(s): Jewish Family and Children Services
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Bicycle awareness
Activity Date: 6/21/2017
Partner Organization(s): Wheel Kids Bicycle Club
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Active Shooter Awareness
Activity Date: 8/18/2017
Partner Organization(s): JCC (Jewish Community Center)
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 2.1
Activity: 1Dl Public Safety Town Hall
Activity Date: 9/14/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 2.2
Activity: Academy Immersion Participation
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Meeting - CPAB
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): CPAB
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Meeting - CPAB
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): CPAB
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Bike to School Day
Activity Date: 4/19/2017
Partner Organization(s): Laurel Hill Nursery School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Bike to School Day
Activity Date: 4/20/2017
Partner Organization(s): George C. Peabody
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Station visit
Activity Date: 4/27/2017
Partner Organization(s): Zion Lutheran
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: 5k run
Activity Date: 4/26/2017
Partner Organization(s): San Francisco Unified School District
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Annual Spring Fair
Activity Date: 4/29/2017
Partner Organization(s): Argonne Elementary
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: School Assembly & Race
Activity Date: 8/4/2017
Partner Organization(s): Argonne Elementary
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Touch a Truck Event
Activity Date: 5/13/2017
Partner Organization(s): Star of the Sea
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Annual National Night Out Event
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Touch a Truck Event
Partner Organization(s): Junior League of San Francisco
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Sutro Elementary cleanup day
Partner Organization(s): Comcast Cares
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Annual Spring Fair
Activity Date: 4/29/2017
Partner Organization(s): Argonne Elementary
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Touch a Truck Event
Activity Date: 5/13/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Shared School Yard Project
Activity Date: 5/20/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Sandlot Program
Activity Date: 5/17 - 9/17
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Sunday Streets
Activity Date: 6/11/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Autumn Moon Festival
Activity Date: 9/23/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Numerous Block Parties Throughout the year
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Balboa Boo Fest
Activity Date: 10/28/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Cable Car Pull
Activity Date: 12/2/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Winter Wonderland
Activity Date: 12/22/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Played a Street Hockey game with the children (5/24/17)
Partner Organization(s): Richmond District Neighborhood Center
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Comcast Cares Day
Activity Date: 4/22/2017
Partner Organization(s): Sutro Elementary
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Richmond Community Health Festival
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Turkey Giveaway
Partner Organization(s): Westside Housing (11/20/17)
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Station: Southern

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): The East Cut Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): Central Mid-Market Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meetings with Zynga, Pinterest, Airbnb, Adobe
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): Tech Companies
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Newsletter
Activity Frequency: Weekly
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Twitter
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Website
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Activity Category: Plans for 2018

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Newsletter
Activity Frequency: Weekly
Activity Category: Plans for 2018

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Coordinate with YBCBD for crime trends
Partner Organization(s): Yerba Buena Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Safe Shopper Awareness
Partner Organization(s): Yerba Buena Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Meeting with board of directors
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): Yerba Buena Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Traffic safety enforcement prioritizing child safety
Partner Organization(s): Presidio Knolls School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.2
Activity: Academy Community Immersion Program
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Security meetings with Yerba Buena Gardens and Metreon
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): Yerba Buena Gardens
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Meeting for crime trends and security strategies
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): San Francisco Security Directors Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Meeting - CPAB
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): CPAB
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Meeting - CPAB
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): CPAB
Activity Category: Plans for 2018

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Attend Principal's Breakfast Event in September
Activity Category: Plans for 2018

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Alliance Gala honoring Southern Station
Activity Date: 10/18/2017
Partner Organization(s): Yerba Buena Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Art Program during summer months
Partner Organization(s): Gene Friend Rec Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Basketball with SOMA Collaborative during summer months
Partner Organization(s): Gene Friend Rec Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Basketball game
Activity Date: 5/25/2017
Partner Organization(s): Bessie Carmichael Elementary School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Back to School Event
Activity Date: Aug-17
Partner Organization(s): Bessie Carmichael Elementary School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Family Fun Day
Activity Date: 9/25/2017
Partner Organization(s): Bessie Carmichael Elementary School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: After-School Reading program
Partner Organization(s): Bessie Carmichael Elementary School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: SRO mentoring youth
Partner Organization(s): Bessie Carmichael Elementary School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Annual National Night Out: Victoria Manalo Draves Park
Activity Date: 8/1/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Annual National Night Out: Treasure Island
Activity Date: 8/1/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Hospital Visits
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Mount Tamalpais hiking trip
Activity Date: 6/20/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Pumpkin patch giveaway event
Activity Date: 10/19/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: National Night Out
Activity Date: August
Activity Category: Plans for 2018

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Alt-Rite School
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): SF Challengers League
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with the Captain
Activity Date: 3/21/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with the Captain
Activity Date: 7/27/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Date: 5/17/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Date: 10/4/2017
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Activity Category: Plans for 2018

Objective: 1.1, 5.8
Activity: Community Liaison Officers

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Day hike at Año Nuevo State Park
Activity Date: 6/8/2017
Partner Organization(s): West Bay Pilipino Multi Services Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Water World trip
Activity Date: 7/6/2017
Partner Organization(s): West Bay Pilipino Multi Services Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Kayaking trip
Activity Date: 7/24/2017
Partner Organization(s): West Bay Pilipino Multi Services Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Fishing trip
Activity Date: 7/10/2017
Partner Organization(s): West Bay Pilipino Multi Services Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Santa Cruz trip
Activity Date: 7/27/2017
Partner Organization(s): West Bay Pilipino Multi Services Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Blackberry Farm trip
Activity Date: 8/3/2017
Partner Organization(s): West Bay Pilipino Multi Services Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Holiday Toy Giveaway Event
Activity Date: 12/20/2017
Partner Organization(s): West Bay Pilipino Multi Services Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Winter Wonderland at Justin Herman Plaza
Activity Date: 12/22/2017
Partner Organization(s): West Bay Pilipino Multi Services Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Movie at the Park -Victoria Manalo Draves Park
Activity Date: Oct-17
Partner Organization(s): United Playaz
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Halloween Festival
Activity Date: 10/31/2017
Partner Organization(s): United Playaz
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Holiday Toy Giveaway Event
Activity Date: 12/20/2017
Partner Organization(s): United Playaz
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Winter Wonderland at Justin Herman Plaza
Activity Date: 12/22/2017
Partner Organization(s): United Playaz
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: After-School Reading Program
Partner Organization(s): United Playaz
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Annual/Summer Youth Activities: Continued coordination of youth activities monthly with SFPD Youth and Community Engagement Unit involving youth and community based organizations
Partner Organization(s): West Bay Pilipino Center, United Playaz and the Gene Friend Rec and Park Center
Activity Category: Plans for 2018

Objective: 1.3, 3.2
Activity: Gun Buy Back
Activity Date: 12/16/2017
Partner Organization(s): United Playaz
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: none
Activity: 9X10B program
Partner Organization(s): Yerba Buena Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Station: Taraval

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Quarterly meetings
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): Outer Sunset Merchants Professional Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Quarterly meetings
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): West Portal Merchant
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Quarterly meetings
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): Ocean Ave Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Newsletter
Activity Frequency: Weekly
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Twitter
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Website
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): Community Meetings
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Safe Shopper awareness
Partner Organization(s): Stonestown Gallery
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Holiday Safety Awareness Meeting
Partner Organization(s): Jewish Community
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Active shooter awareness
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): High School/ middle school outreach
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Safety awareness
Partner Organization(s): High School/ middle school outreach
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Bullying awareness
Partner Organization(s): High School/ middle school outreach
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Traffic safety enforcement
Partner Organization(s): High School/ middle school outreach
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Safety presentations (parents using phone while driving)
Partner Organization(s): Preschools Safety Presentations
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Chinese New Year Safety Program
Partner Organization(s): Outer Sunset Merchants Professional Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 2.2
Activity: Academy Immersion Program
Partner Organization(s): Outer Sunset Merchants Professional Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: 852 Abatement Program
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): Stonestown Gallery
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Quarterly meeting with management and security
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): Stonestown Gallery
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Merchants walk
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): Outer Sunset Merchants Professional Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Merchants walk
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): West Portal Merchant
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Merchants walk
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): Ocean Ave Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Principal's Breakfast
Partner Organization(s): High School/ middle school outreach
Activity Category: Schools

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Meeting - CPAB
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): CPAB
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Christmas Toy Drive program
Partner Organization(s): Outer Sunset Merchants Professional Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Pumpkin Patch Giveaway
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Toy Drive Collection
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: National Night Out
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Activity Category: Community and Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Sunset Youth Services
Activity Category: Community Groups

Station: Tenderloin

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Quarterly meetings
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): Union Square Business Improvement District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Partner Organization(s): Central Mid-Market Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Quarterly meetings
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): Larkin Street Association
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Newsletter
Activity Frequency: Weekly
Activity Category: Community and Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Community
Activity Frequency: monthly
Activity Category: Community and Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Mediate: Twitter
Activity Category: Community and Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Social Media: Website
Activity Category: Community and Outreach

Objective: 1.1
Activity: Meeting - Merchant
Activity Frequency: Quarterly
Partner Organization(s): Benchmark, Zendesk, Twitter, Dolby, Tidal Wave, Westfield Mall
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 2.1
Activity: Safe Shopper Awareness
Partner Organization(s): Yerba Buena Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 2.2
Activity: Academy Community Immersion Program
Activity Category: Community and Outreach

Objective: 3.2
Activity: Community Police Advisory Board
Activity Frequency: Monthly
Activity Category: Community and Outreach

Objective: 3.2
Partner Organization(s): Park and Rec
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Four Corner Friday-First Friday of each month between 3-4:30pm
Partner Organization(s): Golden Gate Avenue Safety Group
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Halloween Carnival Event
Partner Organization(s): Tenderloin Rec Center
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Cops and Basketball
Partner Organization(s): United Playaz
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Shoe Giveaway
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Bicycle Giveaway
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Boeddeker Park ping pong tournament
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Safe Passage sing along night
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Easter Egg Hunt
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Basketball swim party
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: San Francisco Police Department Books & Badges
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Annual National Night Out
Activity Date: Every first Tuesday in August
Activity Category: Community and Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Sunday Streets
Activity Date: 5/6/2018
Activity Category: Community and Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Sunday Streets
Activity Date: 9/23/2018
Activity Category: Community and Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Working with St. Anthony's with various events throughout the year including the Turkey Carve event every Thanksgiving and donations.
Partner Organization(s): St. Anthony's
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): City Impact Youth Academy
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): De Marillac Academy
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Compass Children's Center
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Shih-Yu Lang YMCA
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Boys and Girls Club
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 4.1
Activity: Juvenile Probation Serious Offenders Unit Outreach in the Tenderloin (Dates TBD)
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with the Captain
Activity Category: Community and Outreach

Objective: 1.1, 4.1
Activity: Coffee with a Cop
Activity Category: Community and Outreach

Objective: 1.3, 2.1
Activity: Gang Intervention and Drug Prevention workshops
Partner Organization(s): United Playaz
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.3, 2.1
Activity: Bully proof workshop
Partner Organization(s): United Playaz
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Pumpkin patch giveaway event at Boeddeker Park and KROC Center
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Tenderloin Community Benefit District
Activity Category: Business Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Activity: Adult Probation and Parole Healing Groups (Beyond the Badge)
Partner Organization(s): United Playaz
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Partner Organization(s): KROC Center
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Partner Organization(s): La Voz Latina
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Partner Organization(s): beHuman
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Glide
Activity Category: Community Groups

Objective: 1.3, 4.1
Partner Organization(s): Beyond the Badge
Activity Category: Youth Outreach

Objective: 3.2, 4.1
Activity: Safe Passage
Activity Frequency: Occurs twice a day Monday through Friday.
Activity Category: Community Groups

D.2: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DIVISION PROGRAMS

D.3: MINIMUM COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

D.4: DOJ RECOMMENDATIONS

SUMMARY

Research Methodology

This Strategic Plan is rooted in an understanding of best practices from community policing efforts around the world. Early in the planning process, members of the Community Policing Working Group were engaged to research and summarize jurisdictional community policing plans, journal articles, and other appraisals of how community policing is understood and implemented. Distributing responsibility in this way diversified the source material for this review to capture as many opinions and ideas surrounding community policing as possible.

After working group members completed the initial research, the Community Policing Strategic Plan Project Team (Project Team) categorized the findings by major themes – from specific strategies to guiding principles – that became evident in the review. These themes were grouped into the major pillars of a community policing plan, which will be found below:

• Vision, Values, and Goals: What does community policing hope to accomplish?
• Strategies: What are the specific ways in which the goals can be met?
• Impact and Accountability: How can the strategies be measured? 

The best practices presented below are a snapshot of how community policing has been implemented and interpreted in a range of cities and contexts. The breadth of sources is itself an endorsement of the power in a community policing mindset, in that it demonstrates the adaptability of this structure. From small cities to global hubs, and federally-sponsored reports to blog posts, the diversity of ideas and beliefs about community policing is its greatest strength, any of which may be applicable to the challenges that San Francisco faces. 

The following is not a comprehensive review of best practices research. Rather, it is a survey of case studies, reports, and prior research meant to give context to the San Francisco Police Department’s own community policing Strategic Plan development. As such, every idea drawn from another source is demarcated with a superscript reference to the appropriate reference, however the source title or jurisdiction name is not always mentioned in-line. Sources named in the text can be found in bold.

Jurisdictions Cited

1. Fremont, California²⁴
2. San Jose, California²⁷
3. San Rafael, California¹⁴
4. London, England³
5. Chicago, Illinois²⁵
6. Louisville, Kentucky^16,19,26
7. Lexington, Massachusetts³²
8. Lincoln, Nebraska²
9. Las Vegas, Nevada¹⁷
10. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma⁴
11. Hamilton, Ontario¹²
12. Portland, Oregon²²
13. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania⁸
14. Fort Worth, Texas⁹
15. Seattle, Washington^13,28

Other Sources Cited

1. Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies²⁰ 

2. Criminal Justice Inspectorates¹⁵ 

3. Cure Violence Health Model⁵

4. International Association of Chiefs of Police⁷ 

5. RAND Corporation⁶ 

6. University of South Carolina – Columbia¹ 

7. U.S. Department of Justice – Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS)^{10,11,21,23,30}

8. University of California at Berkeley¹⁸ 

9. U.S. Department of Justice – National Institute of Justice²⁹ 

10. U.S. Department of Justice – Beat podcast³¹

Summary of Findings

“There’s an old saying, “Organizational culture eats policy for lunch.” Any law enforcement organization can make great rules and policies that emphasize the guardian role, but if policies conflict with the existing culture, they will not be institutionalized and behavior will not change…. Behavior is more likely to conform to culture than rules.”²³

While opinions about how best to pursue a community policing strategy vary widely, there is unanimity in the belief that community policing is first and foremost a state of mind for any police department. It is a mindset that the role of the police is to improve the lives of everyone that lives in the community, and that doing so requires trusting relationships between officers and community members. Only when this trust exists can effective partnerships develop to proactively solve local issues, with the police department and community members working side-by-side.

Police departments should facilitate opportunities for officers to build that trust, both by participating in formal community dialogues and through less formal methods, such as giving individual officers the freedom to use discretion in decision-making or serving as connectors to other community resources. In this way, officers demonstrate that they too are members of the community, and not outsiders sent simply to patrol. Police departments should partner with community organizations with a robust perspective of neighborhood issues, and make themselves as accessible to the community as possible by walking the streets and open, active communication with the community.

The organizational structure of a police department must support the goals of community policing. Recruitment should consider diversity of life experience and reflect the community the officers will serve, and community members’ input can be an invaluable addition to traditional police training curricula. Building community policing into the fabric of the Department paves the way for effective implementation of techniques by individual officers, and this has been done across jurisdictions by incorporating measures of community policing into professional development, standardizing goals and metrics across police districts, and supporting the well-being of active officers.

One of the many difficulties in implementing community policing programs is measuring the efficacy of policies. Experts concur that current policing metrics are insufficient to encompass community policing, but there is no consensus on specific measurements that would be satisfactory. However, surveys are generally agreed to be the most effective method to evaluate community policing, despite being more costly and difficult to analyze than traditional policing measurements. Any new metric used, whether qualitative or quantitative, should incentivize a focus on relationship building, problem-solving, and positive community outcomes.

Key Goals of Community Policing

• Create a working partnership between police and the community
• Focus on proactive problem-solving
• Increase safety and quality of life
• Foster guardian mindset
• Build understanding that relationship building is as important to policing as law enforcement

VISION, GOALS, AND VALUES OF COMMUNITY POLICING

“You don't start it at the beginning of the fiscal year. It is a process that evolves, develops, takes root and grows, until it is an integral part of the formal and informal value system of both the police and the community as a whole.”²

Community policing has been used for decades, and while police departments differ in opinion on the best tactics to support it, the key goals and values that it should embody are broadly agreed upon. The most fundamental of these is that community policing is not merely a program or set of strategies, but rather a philosophy that must permeate a police department to be effective.^2,17,18,30 As the City of Lincoln, Nebraska notes, community policing is not a pilot program, a grant, or foot patrol, but a value system and attitude wherein police officers see themselves as a part of the community and their role as much more than simply law enforcement. Officers who embody community policing understand that rather than being a distraction from the work of catching criminals, the parts of policing that some see as social work are the essence of their job.² In a successful community policing program, officers work side-by-side with their community to address neighborhood-specific problems.^10,25 By working together, officers and community members both have a voice in resolving issues, and mutual trust and respect is built as they create safe and healthy neighborhoods.

Mutual trust and a solid relationship with the community is fundamental to effective policing. As Louisville Police Chief Steve Conrad notes, getting to know the community is critical to good police work, because “if the only time [an officer is] there is responding to a call it’s difficult to have an effective conversation.”²⁶ In fact, if community policing works there may actually be an increase in 311 and 911 calls, because the community has faith in the police department.¹⁶ With a strong working relationship between community and the police, departments can proactively partner with the community to identify and solve local issues, rather than relying on the reactive policing model widely used today.^10,21,30 Shifting a department from a warrior mindset, a group of outsiders sent into a community to impose the rule of law, to one of a guardian whose job is to improve the lives of those in their community,²³ is difficult, but cities from London to Las Vegas believe that the relationships and trust built through community policing practices are the most effective way to create safe communities and fulfill their mission to serve their residents.^3,17 Effectively imbuing the spirit of a police department with the values of community policing opens the door to success when putting them into practice with concrete actions.

STRATEGIES

“Guardians are members of the community, protecting from within”²³

While the broad goal of community policing – to breed a culture of communication, trust and respect between police and the community – is largely agreed upon among police departments, proposed methods by which to achieve this are as numerous as the cities employing them. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) uses a multi-pronged approach to community policing, bucketing strategies into three categories: Community Partnerships, Problem-Solving, and Organizational Transformation.

Community Partnerships

Trust

Any policy or procedure must be predicated on officers treating their community fairly and with respect.²⁵ The COPS Office offers nine recommendations for effectively engaging with communities to build trust:¹⁰

1. Understand that officers are public servants charged with helping the community solve its problems
2. Remove sunglasses to make eye contact with the public
3. Don’t assume to know what the community wants or needs
4. Engage with the community to discuss approaches to enforcing the law and ensuring community safety
5. Behave and communicate with decency
6. Admit mistakes
7. Meet with community members in the community, not at district stations or other official locations
8. Crime prevention is as much a part of the job as law enforcement, and to do this effectively officers must work with community service providers
9. Engage community members who can work with peers on behalf of law enforcement

Legality and Legitimacy

"Partnership moves at the speed of trust."³⁴

To earn the trust of the community, police actions must be seen not only as legal, but legitimate. The COPS Office report on Racial Reconciliation, Truth-Telling, and Police Legitimacy³⁰ distinguishes the two in the example of “stop-and-frisk” policing. The Fourth Amendment specifies that an officer must have reasonable suspicion of a committed crime to stop an individual, but does not specify that the officer introduce her or himself, or even treat the individual politely. Doing so, or not, will determine whether the police’s actions are viewed as legitimate by the community, and it is crucial to effective policing that a community feels the police are legitimately utilizing the power they are given.²¹

Focus on Youth

Community members and officers alike express need for strong relationships between the police and youth in the community. Chicago’s Report of the Superintendent’s Community Policing Advisory Panel lists “breaking down barriers between youth and the police” as one of the four key elements for community policing and recommends a city-wide Youth Advisory Council in addition to district Youth Councils to focus on more local problems.²⁵ Louisville has a similar Youth Police Advisory Council, and hosts monthly Youth Chats with officers, co-moderated by the youth themselves.¹⁹ It is important to give minors and the 18-24 year-old transitional age youth (TAY) a voice and positive exposure to the police. Lexington, Massachusetts does this through an annual week-long Police Camp for high-schoolers, where they meet and talk to officers about a range of issues. Beyond dialogue between the two groups, events that allow officers to spend time with younger generations in a less formal setting help to build these important relationships, and in many cases officers can benefit from formal training on how to effectively interact with youth. In the spirit of community policing, development of any such curriculum should have significant input from younger individuals themselves.²⁵

Community Partnerships

Collaborative partnerships between a police department and the individuals and organizations they serve to increase public trust, identify public safety problems, and develop solutions to solve problems.

Collaboration with Local Organizations

When community policing functions well, officers partner with local organizations to solve problems, rather than acting as a strictly punitive force. ¹⁰ These relationships come in many forms, from Fort Worth, Texas’ program Ministers Against Crime in which local religious leaders are trained to provide victim crisis support and act as neighborhood liaisons to the police, to Lincoln, Nebraska’s use of college interns and retired officers as volunteers and implementation of citizen patrols.^2,9 In a progress report on the efficacy of Oakland’s Measure Y, the intent of which was to improve safety by reducing violence involving youth, the authors note that the most effective community partners for police share several qualities, including “well-developed organizational structures,… social, political, and commercial networks,… and existing community participation.”¹⁸ The City of London Police institutionalize these relationships through teams dedicated to working with residential and business stakeholders alongside a Street Intervention team,³ while Louisville’s police department conducts specific outreach to churches as a bridge to the community.¹⁹

Police as a Liaison to Community Resources

Alongside relationships with community organizations, in several programs that have proven very effective police themselves act as liaisons to other community resources, making sure that constituents get the support they need. In 2004, Seattle, Washington created a program called Get Off the Streets (GOTS) to provide substance abuse and mental health services to those that needed it most. This was a space where individuals could come to meet with court and case workers without fear of being arrested or harassed by the police – a safe zone where for many people the police were for the first time actively involved in improving their lives. In this neighborhood, which for years had known the police only as a harassing and ever-present force, GOTS was a major step that helped to “transform the image of law enforcement from agents of oppression into professionals who… cared about improving community members’ lives.”¹⁰ Hamilton, Ontario’s police department takes a similar approach. Their Social Navigator Program consists of a full-time paramedic, officer, and program coordinator focused on directing individuals with underlying mental and/or substance abuse needs, and who take up significant police and ambulatory resources, to the proper resources to address their unique situation. This is Hamilton’s attempt to break the cycle of repeat offenders and reduce reliance on the justice system as a catch-all solution, so that officers can connect high-need individuals with organizations that can provide meaningful assistance.¹²

Other Community Partnership Strategies

A review of community policing reports, strategies, and best practices provided a trove of strategy ideas for improving police and community relationships, in addition to those detailed above. These others include:

• Foot and bicycle patrols: Increase accessibility and visibility of officers in neighborhoods. This includes increased foot and bike patrols so that officers can meet and talk with community members.^10,19,25 Regular foot patrols are a staple of community policing and often referenced as a prime example of how to build rapport with a community and increase feelings of safety. Additionally, increasing the number of locations where police services are available by co-locating with other civic services increases access to, and responsiveness of, the police.¹⁸
• Community liaisons: Identify community members who can serve as liaisons and introduce officers to community members.^19,25

• Communication and information sharing: Improve technology interfaces to facilitate communication and information sharing. Community members often feel that police activity is opaque, and easing access to data, reports, events, and communication channels builds trust and faith by the community that they are being heard.^3,13,25 Improved 911 services that can receive texts, photos, and videos, also streamlines the user experience and improves public perceptions of the police.²¹

  Not only should communications channels be open and accessible, but the content of police communication matters a great deal. In times of crisis, police should be forthcoming with information and sensitive about language used, particularly in use of force cases.¹⁰ Prompt response to complaints, and follow-up after a report or incident, also builds faith in the Department.¹¹

• Dialogue: Perhaps just as important as real-time communication, an open dialogue about the history of policing and marginalization of communities paves the way for trusting relationships by helping the community and police department to understand each other.³⁰

Problem-Solving

Close partnerships between a police department and community members and organizations to identify preemptively solve local issues.

Strong relationships built between police departments and communities enable close collaboration to solve local, community-identified problems, and by doing so prevent crime before it happens. A 2010 study cited by a review of Oakland’s Measure Y found that problem-oriented policing such as this has a “statistically significant impact on improving public safety.”¹⁸ Community policing posits that by including the community in the problem-solving process, a department can create buy-in to support their work, and that a purely punitive approach to social issues is no longer a best practice.¹⁰

Formal Dialogue

This partnership often manifests as formalized meetings for the community and officers to identify, discuss, and problem-solve around community issues. Because these meetings are oriented around community concerns, Lincoln’s meetings are often focused on “minor offenses which contribute to fear of crime,” and not just high-visibility offenses.² It is also important, whenever possible, that these dialogues take place in the community, and not at police stations or other intimidating and inaccessible venues. Hosting a community meeting at a precinct station, for example, will deter individuals with negative feelings towards the police.¹⁰

Focus on Local Issues

The Seattle Police Department partnered with Seattle University Department of Criminal Justice to implement the Micro-Community Policing Plans Initiative (MCPP), which was “based on the premise that public safety can be enhanced… through collaborative police-community attention to distinctive needs of Seattle neighborhoods… on neighborhood-specific priorities.”¹³ By combining crime data with community engagement, this method is meant to provide a more robust sense of crime and quality of life than crime data alone would suggest, and enable the police to focus on issues important to each individual community. Partnerships of this nature are the foundation of community policing, where individuals, organizations, and the police work together to build a better community. For this to happen, officers must be given the leeway to prioritize this work; building problem-solving and relationship-building time into an officer’s schedule shows a department’s commitment to this type of policing.^{2, 25}

Case Studies in Community Problem-Solving

Community policing is a proactive process for sol ving salient, neighborhood-specific issues, and it’s being used effectively by a variety of departments to bring community members into the problem-solving process. 

San Rafael, California saw a trend of car break-ins of a few specific older models. The police department gave away steering wheel locks to owners of these models, and advertised this effort on the website Nextdoor in both English and Spanish to include as many community members as possible. 

Police in the UK invite community members to nominate Community Payback projects: unpaid service projects including graffiti or litter removal, repairing community centers, or clearing brush that low-risk offenders partake in as part of a “community sentence.” An explicit goal of this program is to “help unemployed offenders gain the skills needed for paid employment,” and the structure of the program is meant to simulate a normal working schedule to prepare them for that transition.³³ 

Seattle’s MCPP obtains direct feedback on perceptions of crime and public safety from community members at the neighborhood level.¹³

Policy Development

A robust community policing plan would include civilians not only in identifying and resolving specific issues, but also in policy development. Bringing in community input at a higher level presents an opportunity for systemic change, rather than resolving issues on a case-by-case basis. The Chicago Superintendent’s report suggests that it also shares the responsibility for success between the Department and the community to increase investment from both groups.²⁵ The Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD) has increased access to policymaking for civilians by creating demographic advisory councils to work with department leadership in crafting policy.¹⁷

Organizational Transformation

The structure of a police department must support the vision, goals, and strategies of effective community policing.

Police departments and community stakeholders working side-by-side to address salient, neighborhood-specific problems is widely seen as a core tenant of community policing. However, the shift from viewing community members as customers to partners is a major change, and requires not only strong ties to a community but a structure within the Department that allows this cultural and procedural shift to take hold.

Institutionalize Community Policing

Community policing must be a core function of the Department and supported in a standardized way across the Department.²⁵ As with all strategies, the ways to achieve this are limited only by imagination. However, recommended ways to start are by maintaining a dedicated community relations unit in the Department,^10,17 ensuring that it has adequate funding,²⁵ and emphasizing to all employees that building strong relationships is a department goal unto itself.⁴

Standardization Across the Department

All community policing strategies should meet standards and work towards goals that are consistent across precincts. This provides flexibility for neighborhood-specific problem-solving while still ensuring that all strategies work towards a common goal and meet minimum criteria. For example, the Chicago Superintendent’s Panel report recommends that all community policing tactics should facilitate:²⁵

• Positive engagement of the community by officers
• Building trusting relationships
• Organizing community members to address local challenges
• Solving problems impacting security and quality of life
• Pursuing restorative justice practices
• Supporting victims of crime

Recruitment

Building community policing into the fabric of a department starts with the recruitment of new officers. The police department should be demographically and culturally representative of the community it serves, and achieving this means changing the ways that departments recruit. The first step is an acknowledgement of the history of police and community relationships, and how that can impact recruitment in the present day. Outreach to community groups to facilitate recruitment and a diversity recruitment council can provide necessary perspective and guidance in bringing new populations and perspectives into a department. It is crucial that the interviewing process be designed to avoid accidentally filtering out candidates due to cultural misunderstandings and different life experiences.¹¹ Ultimately, refining and broadening the reach of the recruitment process will create a police department that can better identify with, and gain the trust of, the communities it serves.

Professional Development

After hiring, support for new officers should include mentorship and targeted skills building for traditionally underrepresented groups, and ensuring that promotional practices are updated to reflect more than seniority, as groups that have been excluded in the past will be less experienced than those that have not.¹¹ When considering younger generations for recruitment, it is important to build a professional experience that meets their criteria. Many new recruits seek opportunities for innovation and creativity in their jobs as well as pathways to specialize and make themselves invaluable to an organization. The leadership and management structures of a department should reflect these needs as they seek to develop a more diverse police force. While bringing in these new perspectives, the value of experience should not be lost; finding ways to keep retired officers and their institutional knowledge involved in the Department is important perspective to keep.²¹ Throughout the career ladder, professional development and consideration for promotion should take community policing into account as a key metric in an officer’s performance, and incentivize investment in these practices.^2,17,18

Training

A common criticism of today’s police forces is that officers lack the skills they need for effective community policing. Training should include a historical perspective and understanding of police relationships with different communities so officers can empathize with and understand the people they serve.^10,30 Community members should also assist in development of curricula, not only in the content of the program but also as third party experts and instructors.^11,25 This outside counsel provides an important on-the-ground perspective of community priorities such as homelessness, mental health, drug use, and cultural sensitivity. It’s important for trainers and recruits alike to remember that the Police Academy is much different than reality, and training should include not only traditional police skills and outside perspective, but time spent in the communities the future officers will be working in.¹¹ Other topics the curriculum should cover include bias, de-escalation, problem-solving, and trauma-informed policing, among others.^8,11,17,19

Staffing Tenure

Officers and community members alike request that officers be assigned to a community for an extended period, rather than being transferred every few years.^2,8,18,25 By doing so, officers can immerse themselves in a community and build relationships with the individuals and organizations they work with, and community members can get to know and feel comfortable with their local officers. Enabling them to stay in an assignment for more than a few years coupled with an increased focus on foot beats rather than patrolling in the cruiser creates an ideal environment for an officer to become part of the neighborhood instead of an interloper.

Decentralized Decision-Making

A department’s policies should provide latitude for officers to make local decisions and use discretion in their day-to-day work. This allows them to use their uncommitted time to best serve the community, making use of the perspective and cultural understanding they gain by walking their beat to find effective and creative solutions to local problems.^2,18 Using discretion when interacting with minor offenders can also help to build trust with communities,¹⁰ and a sense of accountability for an officer’s own actions. This responsibility and leeway will also invest officers in the organizational success of community policing as a bottom-up strategy, rather than a directive passed down from their superiors.¹⁷

Civilian Involvement

Police departments should formalize civilian involvement wherever possible. This can be in the form of third party review for incidents involving officers,¹⁰ advisory boards such as those the SFPD has implemented, or use of civilian staff to free up sworn officers’ time to focus on community policing,^18,21 Freeing this time to focus on building relationships with the community can be highly impactful, with the added benefit that reducing the load on individual officers can have extreme implications on their mental and physical wellbeing. The stresses of being an officer, from frequent schedule changes to physical endangerment, can be overwhelming, and can create consequences ranging from anxiety to the devastation of officer suicide. Reducing the burden that officers shoulder through civilian involvement, in conjunction with a commitment by leadership to provide the internal support that officers need to be effective in community policing, can have a huge impact not only on the quality of the services the Department provides, but on the quality of the officers’ lives.³¹

ACCOUNTABILITY AND IMPACT

“A modern police organization needs a broader view of its mission, a broader view of the dimensions of performance, and a clear understanding of the metrics that go with different types of work.”²⁹

The goal of community policing is to develop a trusting relationship and partnership between a police department and the community it serves, so that they can work together to solve local issues. Current policing metrics are insufficient to encompass such a major shift in a department’s focus, and creative new ways to track the impact of community policing need to be tailored to meet an individual department’s needs. These metrics should include input from the community, and be designed to incentivize positive outcomes over quantities of police actions.

Inadequacy of Current Metrics

There is broad agreement that any community policing effort must be accompanied by tools with which to measure their efficacy and evaluate police department functions. Current police metrics often focus on outcomes that are easy to measure, such as number of crime incidents reported. These metrics overlook underreported crimes such as sexual and domestic violence, and creates a perverse incentive to focus on lower numbers rather than better outcomes.^6,29 Development of new, robust metrics is crucial rather than relying on existing standards, and these should reflect the community policing value that crime control is simply one facet of police work.^20,29

Outputs vs. Outcomes

RAND’s report on police performance measurement6 asserts an important distinction between outcomes and outputs. Outputs are measures of internal performance and under the direct control of police, such as number of beats walked. Outcomes, however, are societal benefits that police produce, such as feelings of safety. Police behavior and actions have influence on this, but it is also impacted by external factors. Outcomes are desirable because they set a target and leave freedom for police to choose the means of achieving it, but are imperfect indicators of direct police action due to the outside influence. However, strategies should strive for improved outcomes, not outputs, and metrics should reflect this. The report divides proposed metrics for community policing into three categories to encompass the diversity of tasks a police department is responsible for:

• Process Measures E.g. Hours of academy and in-service training on use of force and ethnic sensitivity; databases to track citizen complaints and use of force
• Officer Conduct Measures E.g. Officer job satisfaction and ‘climate of integrity;’ Number of citizen complaints, rate at which complaints sustained, proportion of officers disciplined
• Outcome Measures E.g. Willingness of citizens to report crimes and non-crime problems to the police; Time to respond to emergency and non-emergency calls; Public opinions of police effectiveness and misconduct

Consider Desired Outcomes

When developing these new measures and what they should evaluate, there are a range of outcomes to consider. Reports from RAND Corporation,⁶ the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA),²⁰ and the National Institute of Justice’s New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin²⁹ agree on several of these fundamental outcomes of effective policing:

• Crime reduction
• Accountability for offenders
• Decreased fear for community members
• Increased safety in public spaces
• Monitor use of force
• Effective use of funding
• Community member satisfaction

CALEA’s report makes clear that measures of police efficacy should reflect how police spend their time, and not simply what is easy to measure. It also attempts to define the aspects of the interactions between police and communities that should be measured: attentiveness, reliability, responsiveness, competence, manners, and fairness.²⁰

Before choosing an evaluation method, it is important to consider the type of work being done and its goal. Some types of work lend themselves to numeric metrics, while others require a qualitative approach to fully encompass the outcomes. Any project plan should consider from the outset how the results will be measured, as it will inform whether the tactic is a good match for the problem it seeks to resolve.^1,20,29 Community policing metrics should be designed to emphasize quality and efficacy over quantity of action.^1,2,25 They should reinforce the spirit of community policing and avoid being bogged down in measurement of distinct actions, and the results should serve as a basis for discontinuing or revising ineffective program elements.²⁵

Surveys

The most effective way to avoid the pitfalls of traditional police measures and represent the effectiveness of community policing strategies are through community surveys, because they allow for feedback on a wide set of indicators and can be tailored to a police department’s specific needs.⁶ In fact, though many departments do not use surveys due to the difficulty of analyzing open-ended data, a survey component of evaluation is required for CALEA certification.^29,25 Portland, Seattle, and Louisville all conduct annual surveys of residents to evaluate satisfaction with police service, perception of crime, and incidence of victimization. Louisville’s survey dives more in depth, asking about professionalism of the Department, fairness, reasons community members wouldn’t contact the police, preferred method of communicating with the police, and more, while this feedback is captured through a separate community survey put out by Portland’s Police Bureau.^16,22

Seattle analyzes its survey data by the micro-community divisions defined in the MCPP, giving it granular data which can be published online and used to support problem-solving with the community. The Seattle Police Department also uses a follow-up survey to 911 callers to evaluate the entire customer experience in an emergency.²⁸ Beyond community and 911 follow-up surveys, victimization surveys can be used to determine levels of unreported crime. While these are often expensive and difficult there is no consensus on a more effective way to gain insight into unreported crimes, though it is possible to use other data sources, such as hospital records, to cross-check or validate trends in police data.²⁹

Beyond their complexity, surveys face other challenges as a mode of data collection. They require more resources to facilitate than other data sources, making their success and longevity dependent on sustained funding and interest. This makes them vulnerable to grant cycles and changes in political and public priorities.³⁵ Additionally, surveys can reflect bias both through their language and how they are conducted. Any legitimate survey must account for bias in its development and execution, as did Seattle University’s independent audit of the Seattle Police Department’s micro-communities policing program.³⁶

While there is little consensus beyond the methodology of a survey of the best means to measure police performance in community policing, there are many suggestions of what the metrics should cover. These include:

• Department’s impact on quality of life¹
• Change in community behavior before and after policing action¹
• Deployment tactics (including diversity and strategy in deployment decisions)¹⁰
• Outcomes viewed by demographic, to find biased practices disproportionately affecting one group¹⁰
• A department’s ability to solve individual and neighborhood problems¹¹
• Resolve disputes in the community¹¹
• Prevent crime and reduce fear¹¹
• Get to know community members¹¹
• Garner community and government support for police initiatives¹¹
• Diversity of the Department against census data, not simply the applicant pool¹¹
• Reported crime and details about the Department’s response to reports²²

Effective qualitative measurement necessitates that implemented strategies or tactics have expected outcomes that can be compared to actual outcomes.¹ For example, consider the ratio of investigations versus total calls to the police. Number of investigations and number of calls are important measures, but tell a different story when linked together.¹

Third Party Evaluation

As with all aspects of community policing, the community should have input about the measures and metrics used. They should help to define department priorities, and therefore the tools used to evaluate progress in achieving them.¹ Once developed, third party review of progress and accuracy of metrics is important to ensure policing measures remain focused on improving community relationships and proactively solving local problems.²⁵ England does this through an independent, public organization called Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services (HMICFRS). This organization is tasked with assessing “the effectiveness and efficiency of police forces and fire & rescue services – in the public interest” and promoting improvements in those same services.¹⁵

BEST PRACTICES REFERENCES

¹ Alpert, G., Flynn, D. and Piquero, A. (2001). Effective Community Policing Performance Measures. Justice Research and Policy, 3(2), 79-94

² Casady, T. (n.d.). Community Policing. open_in_new (HTM file) (opens in a new window)

³ City of London Police. (2014). About community policing open_in_new (opens in a new window).

⁴ Crum, W. (2017). Crime ebbs so far in 2017, chief says open_in_new (opens in a new window).

⁵ Cure Violence. (2011). Cure Violence Health Model open_in_new (opens in a new window).

⁶ Davis, Robert C.. Selected International Best Practices in Police Performance Measurement. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2012 open_in_new (HTML file) (opens in a new window). Also available in print form.

⁷ Dye, S. (2015). Legitimacy Through Policing. [Blog] Official Blog of the International Association of Chiefs of Police open_in_new (opens in a new window).

⁸ Flood, K. (2017). Summary Report on Community Policing in Philadelphia. Union Square Business Improvement District.

⁹ Fort Worth PD. (n.d.). Ministers Against Crime open_in_new (opens in a new window).

¹⁰ Gokey, Caitlin, and Susan Shah, eds. 2016. How to Increase Cultural Understanding. Police Perspectives: Building Trust in a Diverse Nation, no. 1. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

¹¹ Gokey, Caitlin, and Susan Shah, eds. 2016. How to Support Trust Building in Your Agency. Police Perspectives: Building Trust in a Diverse Nation, no. 3. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

¹² Hamilton Police Service. (2017). Social Navigator Program | Hamilton Police Service open_in_new (opens in a new window).

¹³ Helfgott, J. and Parkin, W. (2017). Final Report of the Seattle Police Department’s MCPP Implementation Evaluation open_in_new (opens in a new window).

¹⁴ Holton, L. (2017). San Rafael Police Offering Free Vehicle Anti-Theft Devices. [Blog] Nextdoor San Rafael.

¹⁵Justice Inspectorates. (n.d.). Criminal Justice Inspectorates open_in_new (opens in a new window).

¹⁶ Keeling, D. (2017). Louisville Metro Police Department Citizens' Attitude Survey 2016 open_in_new (opens in a new window).

¹⁷ Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (2018). LVMPD - Strategic Perspectives open_in_new (opens in a new window).

¹⁸ Lawrence, S. and McCarthy, B. (2013). What Works in Community Policing? A Best Practices Context for Measure Y Efforts open_in_new (PDF file) (opens in a new window). 

¹⁹ LouisvilleKy.gov. (n.d.). Louisville, Kentucky open_in_new (opens in a new window). 

²⁰ Maguire, E. (2003). Measuring the Performance of Law Enforcement Agencies - Part 1 of a 2-Part article open_in_new (opens in a new window).

²¹ Police Executive Research Forum. 2014. Future Trends in Policing. Washington, D.C.: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

²² Portland Police Bureau (2008). Community Policing Strategic Plan 2007-2012 A Five-Year Vision open_in_new (opens in a new window).

²³ President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. 2015. Final Report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.

²⁴ Ravani, S. (2017). Peace reigns in the streets of vigilant Fremont. San Francisco Chronicle open_in_new (opens in a new window). 

²⁵ Report of the Superintendent's Community Policing Advisory Panel. (2017) open_in_new (opens in a new window). 

²⁶ Ryan, J. (2015). A Deeper Look at How Louisville Does Community Policing. 89.3 WFPL open_in_new (opens in a new window). 

²⁷ San José Police Department Community Policing Strategic Work Plan. (2018) open_in_new (opens in a new window). 

²⁸Seattle Police Department Research Report: September 2016 Service Quality Update: Feedback from the People We Serve. (2016) open_in_new (PDF file) (opens in a new window).

²⁹ Sparrow, Malcolm K. Measuring Performance in a Modern Police Organization. New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 2015. NCJ 248476.

³⁰ U.S. Department of Justice (2012). RACIAL RECONCILIATION, TRUTH-TELLING, AND POLICE LEGITIMACY open_in_new (PDF file) (opens in a new window). 

³¹ U.S. Department of Justice (2014). Officer Suicides - Breaking the Silence open_in_new (TXT file) (opens in a new window). 

³² Wicked Local Lexington (2017). BUILDING COMMUNITY: Bringing Lexington youth, police, and lessons, together open_in_new (opens in a new window). 

³³ “Community Payback.” Police.uk open_in_new (opens in a new window).

³⁴ PolicyLink. “Equity Summit 2015: Closing Plenary - Building a Multiracial, Multigenerational Equity Movement.” Nick Tilsen open_in_new (opens in a new window).

³⁵ “Seattle University Issues Report on SPD Micro-Community Policing Plans.” CHS Capitol Hill Seattle, 18 Apr. 2017 open_in_new (opens in a new window).

³⁶ Waddell, Kaveh. “The Police Officer 'Nextdoor'.” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 4 May 2016 open_in_new (opens in a new window).

The Project Team administered two surveys through Surveymonkey.com to obtain feedback regarding the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) and community policing. The community survey was solicited from organizations representing diverse populations in San Francisco and was available from November 16 through January 4. The SFPD member survey was sent to all SFPD captains and sworn district station personnel from all ranks and was available from November 21 through January 11.

The recipient lists and the six open ended questions⁶ contained in both surveys were developed in partnership with the Executive Sponsor Working Group (ESWG). The ESWG is comprised of community members involved in the San Francisco Police Department’s Collaborative Reform Initiative based on U.S. Department of Justice’s review of the SFPD. The survey responses were categorized into themes that were later refined into goals and objectives by the Project Team in consultation with the ESWG.

Below is summary table that shows the outreach and response for both surveys. The remainder of this appendix and Appendices G, H and I provide more detail regarding the development, administration and analysis of the surveys.

⁶ See Appendix G to view the survey text.

SURVEY OUTREACH LIST DEVELOPMENT

The process of determining which organizations to solicit feedback from included input from both the ESWG and SFPD. Working group members contributed their perspective as active community members with knowledge of important local organizations, while the SFPD recommended organizations they have worked with in the past or that they know to be influential in the communities. The working group agreed that roughly 200 organizations would be a sufficient sample for outreach, with the assumption of receiving approximately 50 - 75 responses to understand broad trends in community and police relationships.

Community Survey List Development

Input from Executive Sponsor Working Group

During a regularly scheduled bi-weekly meeting, the ESWG was asked to list key demographic categories of which stakeholders should be representative; the results of this effort are summarized in Table 1. In a subsequent meeting the group brainstormed specific organizations within each of these demographic groups to ensure that all groups would be included in the outreach. These organizations included those ESWG members felt have an important perspective on community and police relationships, as well as those that represent individuals in marginalized communities or who interact frequently with the police. In total, the working group recommended approximately 160 organizations across all listed demographic groups. ESWG members were also invited to take the survey on behalf on any organization they represent.

Input from SFPD

Community policing is a partnership between police and the community. The police perspective was brought into this process by all ten District Captains providing the names of community stakeholders in their districts:

• Each Captain was asked to recommend ten organizations that the district station has worked with in the past or is known to be active in the community. In total, 119 organizations were suggested.
• Nine of ten* stations operate a Community Police Advisory Board (CPAB). These groups are comprised of volunteers from the neighborhood and business community who advise the district F-3 | P a g e captain on issues that affect the district. All Captains provided the contact information for these individuals, 126 in all, who were asked to respond to the survey on behalf of their organization, or if serving as an individual community member to speak from a neighborhood perspective.
  • *Mission Station does not have a currently operating CPAB, though it is currently being developed

In addition to recommendations from ESWG members and District Station Captains, the SFPD operates citywide Chief’s Advisory Forums that advise department leadership on issues pertaining to specific demographic groups. These are led by a member of the SFPD, and the boards are made up of community members from across the city. These individuals were included in outreach for feedback, and asked to respond from the perspective of their work on the Advisory Board, rather than their individual experience. Contact information was provided for the following Advisory Forums, totaling 115 individuals:

• African American (19)
• Homeless (12)
• Jewish (24)
• Latin (18)
• Small Business (26)
• Women (16)

Contact information for the Asian and Muslin Advisory Forums were not provided to the Project Team. However, the SFPD leaders of the groups forwarded invitations to the survey to the individuals so that their feedback could be heard.

SFPD Member Survey List Development

To compliment feedback from external stakeholders, members within the SFPD were also surveyed about their opinions of community policing. Station Captains provided a list of members of various ranks staffed at their station; in total 77 sworn members of the SFPD came from these station lists, including the captains of each District Station

• 1 Captain
• 1 Lieutenant
• 2 Sergeants
• 3 Patrol Officers
• 1 Station Investigative Team (SIT) Investigator

To better understand how community policing affects citywide police operations, the 26 Captains of citywide SFPD Divisions such as Investigations and Special Operations were included in outreach for the SFPD member survey. This brought the total number of SFPD members asked to provide feedback up to 103.

FINDING CONTACTS FOR ORGANIZATIONS

While some of the stakeholder organizations were recommended along with a known contact to reach out to, a majority were not. The Project Team filled these gaps through internet research, but for those where no contact was readily available assistance was sought from several outside sources.

The Mayor’s Offices of Neighborhood Services and Violence Prevention both provided contact information for some organizations where it was missing. In addition, the ESWG was asked to look at the remining organizations lacking a point of contact, and fill in any contact information they may have. Several Working Group members did significant research to find contacts, including calling the organizations and in a few instances traveling to their headquarters and talking to them directly. Other members offered to serve as liaisons for organizations they have an existing relationship with to ensure they filled out the survey and answer questions that arose.

Over 500 representatives of community organizations were invited to take the survey, significantly more than the originally anticipated population of 200, along with 103 members of the SFPD. These organizations serve populations spanning each of the demographic groups of interest originally proposed by the ESWG, and all ten SFPD District Stations.

SURVEY DEVELOPMENT

The questionnaire was developed with significant input from the ESWG. It was decided that the survey should not be targeted at individuals, but rather at organizations that work with and represent populations across the city. By asking the organizations to speak on behalf of the individuals they serve, and not the perspective of the individual respondent, themes and trends across demographic groups could still be understood without needing resources to perform a comprehensive citywide survey. This was decided with the expectation that the SFPD would conduct a survey of individuals in the future.

A list of important policing topics was brainstormed by the ESWG, and based on this the Project Team developed a broad list of questions. These questions were reviewed by the larger group, and refined to reduce the length of the survey and further polish the language. Two working group members met separately with the Project Team to provide specific feedback and pare down the list of questions to only those that were most essential. The result of these improvements was reviewed one final time by the larger ESWG, in which edits and improvements were made to demographic questions and flow of the survey. Final versions of the community policing surveys were approved by the ESWG and Commander David Lazar before being send to contact lists.

SURVEY IMPLEMENTATION

The community survey was sent to stakeholders before the SFPD member survey due to the size of the recipient lists. Below is a generic example of the community policing survey invitations. Each invitation was customized for the target audience.

Community Survey

Dear Community Organization,

On behalf of the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), I am reaching out to community and government stakeholders to help identify the major needs and priorities for community policing in San Francisco. This effort is part of a collaborative reform initiative to improve San Francisco policing practices, a result of the 2016 U.S. Department of Justice assessment of SFPD. Your organization’s input in this process will be invaluable as we build and implement a model for effective community policing.

This is an invitation-only survey to select organizations who work to make San Francisco a safe place for all that live, work and visit our city. We ask that you complete the survey on behalf of your organization, as the SFPD will conduct a broad community survey in the near future to collect the views of individuals.

Please complete the online survey by December 8, 2017; it should take approximately 15 minutes to complete.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to shape and contribute to the success of community policing in San Francisco. We are truly appreciative.

Sincerely, 
Commander David Lazar 
Community Engagement Division 
San Francisco Police Department 
(415) 558-5459 | david.lazar@sfgov.org

SFPD Member Survey

Dear SFPD Member, 

I am reaching out to a selection of SFPD members across police stations, bureaus, and units to help identify the major needs and priorities for community policing. Your Captain has identified you as the person representing your station to participate in an online survey. The survey results will inform a community policing strategic plan. 

Creating a community policing plan is part of implementing recommendations from the U.S. Department of Justice Collaborative Reform Initiative which identified 272 reform measures to improve operations at the SFPD. 

Please complete this online survey by Friday, December 15, 2017; it should take approximately 15 minutes to complete. 

Individual responses are confidential so you can give constructive feedback; however, the survey is not anonymous as we do ask for your district, rank and assignment so we can better understand the feedback provided. All responses will be reported at a summary level and not attributed to individuals. 

Thank you in advance for taking the time to shape and contribute to the success of community policing in San Francisco. I am truly appreciative of your time.

Sincerely, 
Commander David Lazar 
Community Engagement Division 
San Francisco Police Department 
(415) 558-5459 | david.lazar@sfgov.org

Community Survey

Several additional organizations were recommended to be included in the survey after the initial invitation was sent, and survey invitations were sent to these as they were suggested. A reminder email was sent to unresponsive organizations one week after the initial invitation, and after an additional week a second reminder was sent, this time through a City email address: SFPDCommunityPolicing@sfgov.org. The original invitation and first follow-up were sent through SurveyMonkey’s built-in email function; sending from the City address was meant to address invitations that had ended up in Junk Mail folders because they were from SurveyMonkey.

The ESWG was asked to volunteer to follow up with unresponsive organizations where they may have a personal contact, and several individuals offered assistance. Email invitations sent to invalid addresses were manually reviewed, and invitations were resent to any designated alternate contact. As the submission deadline approached, completed responses were reviewed to ensure participation from all demographic groups and geographies, and targeted outreach was conducted to organizations in the Mission and Bayview neighborhoods, which had seen low response rates. The official deadline for responding to the survey was extended by one week, but organizations could submit feedback on a casebycase basis after the survey was closed. When the survey closed, between one and three rounds of reminder emails had been sent to unresponsive organizations.

In three instances, a recipient of the community survey publicized it to larger lists, artificially inflating response rates and broadening exposure beyond the original list of 500 recipients. These incidents included:

• An invitation to take the survey was posted on Nextdoor.com, which increased the responses from 100 to 400 in three days. These extra responses were manually reviewed to remove feedback from individuals. Respondents that identified with a group of interest, such as a Neighborhood Organization or Merchant Group, were not removed from this analysis. After review, approximately 30 responses were kept from Nextdoor.
• The survey was forwarded to approximately 50 City employees and agencies that work with the Mayor’s Office of Violence Prevention Services. Though this groups receipt of the survey was unintended, these additional stakeholders were relevant to the survey populations. Rather than removing their responses, a follow-up email was sent with instructions clarifying that the survey should not be forwarded and any responses should be from the perspective of the agency. It is unknown how many of these recipients provided feedback through the survey.
• The survey link was shared with an email community of small business owners throughout the city. While this list consisted of individual business owners rather than the intended audience of representatives of organizations, there were few if any survey responses from this source and it was decided that the few which may have been submitted should remain in the dataset.

SFPD Member Survey

The SFPD member survey was also sent via SurveyMonkey’s platform, as was a reminder email one week after the initial invitation was sent. Similar to the community survey, subsequent follow-ups were sent through the City account SFPDCommunityPolicing@sfgov.org to ensure that invitations were not lost in junk folders. Because officers have little time to spend responding to email, response rates remained low after several rounds of reminder emails. To address this, Commander Lazar emailed District Captains to ask that they remind the relevant officers to complete the survey. The deadline to submit was also extended by two weeks, giving respondents a total of one month to complete the survey.

RESPONSES RECEIVED

The community survey was initially sent to approximately 500 community stakeholders, in addition to the additional lists it was forwarded to, and received 195 responses. The SFPD member survey received 66 responses from 103 invitations sent to members of the SFPD. All responses were collected through SurveyMonkey, using unique response pathways to track which stakeholder source group the submission was from. For the community survey, these included CPABs, Captain’s Lists, Chief’s Advisory Forums, and organizations recommended by the ESWG. SFPD member survey respondents were categorized by District Captains, Unit Captains, and SFPD members recommended by their District Captains. This method was moderately effective in tracking the source of our contacts, however respondents were not required to provide identifying information. This limited follow-up efforts, and necessitated reminder emails were targeted at broad groups rather than individuals. See Appendix H for a count of survey responses by stakeholder group.

SURVEY ANALYSIS AND GOAL DEVELOPMENT

Once data collection was completed, qualitative analysis software was sought to assist in processing the open-ended question responses. Several options were explored, including Nvivo, Interpris, PowerBI, and QDA Miner Lite. Ultimately it was decided that none of these fit the analysis’ needs and the most effective method would be to develop a coding methodology to capture key ideas and topics.

Every comment submitted through the community and SFPD member surveys was manually reviewed and “tagged” with relevant codes to facilitate analysis of the responses and provide insight into the major themes, recommendations, and opinions expressed by respondents. See Appendix I for themes and frequency.

The themes that emerged from this analysis was presented to the ESWG, which provided feedback, context, and additions. Over the course of several meetings, the themes were refined into the Goals and Objectives that constitute the body of the Strategic Plan. This process included soliciting feedback from SFPD command staff in addition to the facilitated sessions with the ESWG.

The text of the surveys sent to both community members and members of the SFPD are included below.

G.1: COMMUNITY SURVEY TEXT

SFPD Community Policing Strategic Plan Stakeholder Survey

1. Survey Overview

Survey Instructions

The goal of this survey is to hear from organizations that can help shape and contribute to the success of community policing in San Francisco. As such, we ask that you fill out the survey on behalf of your organization.

Please complete the survey by Friday, December 1, 2017.

If you would like to start the survey now and finish it at a later time, you must click "Next" at the bottom of the page to save your responses. You may also edit your survey after submitting it. Responses must be completed before the December 1 deadline.

If you have questions or difficulty using the survey, email SFPDCommunityPolicing@sfgov.org.

SFPD Community Policing Strategic Plan Stakeholder Survey

2. Community Policing Survey Questions

Community Policing Definition

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is committed to Community Policing, which is currently defined by SFPD as a philosophy and organizational strategy in which the police work collaboratively with community members, community-based organizations, city agencies, and others to reduce violent crime, create safer communities, and enhance the health and vibrancy of neighborhoods in San Francisco.

Major components of community policing include partnerships, problem-solving, shared responsibility, mutual respect, interaction with youth, and knowledge, understanding, and communication between police and the community.

1. What does your organization think community policing should aim to achieve?

2. Has your organization seen or heard of community policing in San Francisco?

• Yes (please see questions 3 and 4)
• No (skip to question 5)

3. What do you think worked?

4. What do you think didn't work?

5. What would your organization like community policing to look like for the population it represents or serves?

6. What changes would your organization expect to see if community policing worked well?

7. What issues would your organization like to work on collaboratively with SFPD?

8. What role could your organization play in advancing community policing in San Francisco?

SFPD Community Policing Strategic Plan Stakeholder Survey

3. Organization Background Questions

9. Are you a representative of an organization or an individual community member (not representing an organization)?

• Representative of an organization
• Individual community member (not representing an organization)

10. Are you or your organization a member of any of the following? If so, please identify which one(s).

• CPAB (Community Police Advisory Board)
• Chief's Community Advisory Forum
• Please specify which CPAB or Advisory Forum, if applicable:

SFPD Community Policing Strategic Plan Stakeholder Survey

4. Organizational Demographic Descriptions

Please describe the following about your organization:

* 11. Organization Type:

• Nonprofit Organization
• Advocacy Organization
• Neighborhood Association
• Merchant and/or Business Association
• Government Agency
• Other (please specify)

* 12. Primary population served/represented:

• Not Applicable
• Faith-based (please specity in the Other field for this question)
• Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Gender Nonconforming, or other non-cisgender/ heterosexual identity
• Homeless
• Immigrants
• Women
• Youth and Families
• Seniors
• People with disabilities
• Veterans
• Other (please specify)

* 13. Primary race/ethnicity served/represented:

• Not Applicable
• White
• Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish
• Black or African American
• Asian
• American Indian or Alaska Native
• Middle Eastern or Northern African
• Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander
• Other (please specify)

14. Primary district or neighborhood served (if applicable):

15. Describe the services you provide to these populations.

16. Has your organization worked with SFPD in the last two years to address concerns raised by the populations you serve/represent? If so, how?

17. Did you consult others in your organization in order to fill out these survey questions?

• Yes
• No

SFPD Community Policing Strategic Plan Stakeholder Survey

5. Contact Information

18. Your Contact Info

• Name
• Title (if applicable)
• Organization (if applicable)
• Email

19. Are there any other organizations addressing community safety that you recommend we reach out to for this survey?

• Organization 1
• Organization 2
• Organization 3
• Organization 4
• Organization 5

G.2: SFPD MEMBER SURVEY TEXT

SFPD Community Policing Strategic Plan Survey

Survey Overview

Survey Instructions

The goal of this survey is to hear from a selection of SFPD members across district stations, bureaus, and units on the needs and priorities for community policing in San Francisco. As such, we ask that you fill out the survey from your individual experience in your station, bureau or unit.

Please complete the survey by Friday, December 15, 2017.

If you would like to start the survey now and finish it at a later time, you must click "Next" at the bottom of the page to save your responses. You may also edit your survey after submitting it.

If you have questions or difficulty using the survey, email SFPDCommunityPolicing@sfgov.org.

SFPD Community Policing Strategic Plan Survey

Community Policing Survey Questions

Community Policing Definition

The San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) is committed to Community Policing, which is currently defined by SFPD (per DGO 1.08) as a philosophy and organizational strategy in which the police work collaboratively with community members, community-based organizations, city agencies, and others to reduce violent crime, create safer communities, and enhance the health and vibrancy of neighborhoods in San Francisco.

Major components of community policing include partnerships, problem-solving, shared responsibility, mutual respect, interaction with youth, and knowledge, understanding, and communication between police and the community.

1. What do you think community policing should aim to achieve in your station, bureau, or unit?

2. Does your station, bureau, or unit engage in community policing?

• Yes (please see questions 3 and 4)
• No (skip to question 5)

3. What do you think works?

4. What do you think doesn't work?

5. What would you like community policing to look like for the populations your station, bureau, or unit serves?

6. What changes would you expect to see if community policing worked well?

7. What issues would you like to work on collaboratively with the communities you serve?

8. What can you do in your position at SFPD to advance community policing in San Francisco?

SFPD Community Policing Strategic Plan Survey

Contact Information

9. Your Contact Info (optional)

• Name
• Email

* 10. Your District Station, Bureau, or Unit

* 11. Your Rank

• Captain
• Lieutenant
• Sergeant
• Officer

12. Your District Station Assignment (if applicable)

• Foot Beat
• Housing
• Car Sector
• SIT
• Other (please specify):

13. Are there any specific SFPD members, SFPD bureaus or units, or community organizations that you recommend we reach out to for this survey? Please provide a contact name and email if possible.

The following tables summarize responses to demographic questions completed as part of the survey of community organizations designed to gauge local perceptions of, and hopes for, community policing. The questionnaire was sent to individual representatives, who were asked to complete it on behalf and from the perspective of their organization.

All information was self-reported, and respondents were given the opportunity to enter multiple answers for a single question, for example a respondent might identify their organization as both a Nonprofit and a Neighborhood Association. A free-text field was provided for geographic service area responses, resulting in answers at both neighborhood and Supervisorial District levels. Community Police Advisory Board (CPAB) and Chief’s Advisory Forum membership was not defined for respondents.

The tables below provide an overview of the number of times various themes were found in the community and SFPD member community policing surveys. Responses to each question were read multiple times and coded with one or more themes by two analysts; the results were then compared and reconciled. Response counts refer to the number of question responses containing the relevant theme, not the number of surveys completed. For example, the theme “Relationship” was mentioned 245 times in the community survey. The themes were later grouped into broader categories, which became the Strategic Plan goal areas.