San Francisco County Grand Jury
• 2015-2016
Civil Grand Jury | 2017-2018 City and County of San Francisco Crisis Intervention:
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 17 findings
F1
The CIT Liaison Program will strengthen relationships between police officers, district station captains, and the CIT Coordinator.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Recommends that the CIT Coordinator and CIT Liaison Officers hold monthly meetings with each district station captain. Each meeting should include regular agenda items relating to district CIT incidents, high frequency clients, and outcomes. The results of each meeting should be summarized in a quarterly review with the Chief of Police. Meetings should commence no later than January 1, 2019. (F1)
F2
CIT Working Group members lack a computing background, which prevents the design of a workable and scalable data collection and reporting framework.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Recommends that SFPD Technology Division assign a representative to attend all regular CIT Working Group meetings no later than October 1, 2018. (F2)
F3
There are no standard CIT performance criteria, which are necessary to measure CIT operational effectiveness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Recommends that SFPD, in collaboration with CIT Working Group, identify both quantitative and qualitative standards to help measure CIT operational effectiveness. Newly adopted standards should include Crisis Response (CR) incidents and jail diversion statistics. These standards should be part of the CIT annual report to the Police Commission. Standards should be adopted no later than January 1, 2019 and be set for inclusion in the 2018 CIT annual report to the Police Commission. (F3)
F4
SFPD determines the deployment of CIT trained officers across the 10 SFPD district stations, mostly based on a traditional police staffing method instead of using a mix of methods, including a more effective data-driven analysis of incidents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Recommends that SFPD command staff consider reported CIT incident outcomes in deciding CIT officer assignments. This will help deploy CIT teams in areas where they are needed most. This consideration should begin no later than January 1, 2019. (F4)
F5
While some data collection has been occurring during 2017 and 2018, there have been gaps in the full data collection and reporting for CIT required by the DGO. These gaps include collection and reporting of eSTOP data with respect to CIT. Additional delay in reporting will occur due to implementation of the Racial and Identity Profiling Act of 2015.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Recommends that newly identified and budgeted programming personnel for SFPD Technology Division be hired no later than October 1, 2018. (F5)
F6
Crisis Response (CR) data is not being effectively collected throughout the crisis incident lifecycle. A lack of “CR” response notations, especially in incident categories such as mental health related and wellness checks, hinders measurement of CIT operational effectiveness.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Recommends that the use of crisis intervention techniques be reported within the CAD record. This broader designation of CIT incident responses should start no later than January 1, 2019. (F6)
F7
SFPD command staff find it challenging to attend and complete the 40-hour CIT training program, which they need in order to lead their teams effectively in crisis intervention.
Related Recommendations (1)
R7
Recommends SFPD command staff be allowed to spread their attendance in CIT training over two or more training sessions. Flexible sessions should start by October 1, 2018. (F7)
F8
The CIT curriculum does not explicitly inform officers of the full range of available community mental health services or other resources that may be used to assist residents who are in crisis. Once trained, officers have only a cursory knowledge of mental health resources, and minimal access to mental or behavioral health consultations in the field, unless they are confronted with high profile crises like hostage situations.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Recommends that CIT administrators develop a department bulletin which outlines the full range of community resources to support officers who are assisting residents in crisis. The bulletin should be in place no later than January 1, 2019. (F8)
F9
There is little useful information to be gleaned from the current CIT training evaluation process and it does little to determine the quality and efficacy of training.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Recommends that an academic institutional partner be assigned to assess and periodically review the efficacy of the 40 and 10 hour CIT Training courses. (F9)
F10
Currently there is no trended (longitudinal) survey data from field operations which can be used to evaluate the CIT training program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
Recommends SFPD officers who have completed the 40 hour CIT training course be surveyed six months to one year later to reflect on the usefulness of individual modules and to determine what worked and what did not work in the training. This new survey should start no later than April 1, 2019. (F10)
F11
In spite of assurances, the jury is concerned that the CED (Taser) certification program will diffuse or delay scheduling of the current 40 hour CIT training program.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Recommends the Chief of SFPD publicly state the CED (Taser) certification program will not diffuse or delay scheduling of the current 40 hour CIT training program. This public statement should occur no later than October 1, 2018. (F11)
F12
DPH has no equivalent accountability mechanism to SFPD Department General Orders (DGOs), by which DPH instructs, manages, and, thereby, holds DPH accountable for outlining its responsibilities, particularly in managing its CIT involvement, and collaborating with SFPD.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
Recommends renewal and elaboration of the current MOU between SFPD and DPH, and the associated DPH manual. An updated draft MOU should be presented to the Mayor for review no later than January 1, 2019 and adopted no later than June 1, 2019. (F12)
F13
DPH has not fully and adequately filled the five budgeted clinician positions. Without these field positions, DPH cannot fulfill the mutual goals prescribed by the Mayor in his 2016 press release.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
Recommends filling the five budgeted Crisis Intervention Specialist positions with field- ready clinicians. Clinicians should be dedicated to the CIT program and placed in the field no later than October 1, 2018. (F13)
F14
The CIT working group includes mental health clinicians, including those who work directly with CIT, but there is no consistent representation from DPH leadership/management. This results in inefficient sharing and understanding of broader public health information and priorities. The absence of DPH leadership at the working group level underscores the lack of program evaluation and supervision by DPH.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14
Recommends DPH/BHS leadership and the CIT Working Group hold joint quarterly meetings to examine and analyze CIT program data, measure and assess program progress, and identify appropriate program adjustments. These meetings should begin no later than January 1, 2019. (F14)
F15
The CIT Working Group, SFPD, and DPH have improved the responses to high visibility crises in San Francisco. Application of scaled and proactive methods to manage less extreme crises has not received similar attention.
Related Recommendations (1)
R15
Recommends that in addition to the Specialists referred to in Recommendation 13, DPH hire five additional Crisis Intervention Specialists by December 1, 2019. One Specialist should be assigned to each district station for coordination and collaboration with SFPD CIT liaisons in order to prevent crises before they require a 911 call. Initial assignments should be made to the stations with the greatest need, based on calls for service and incident type. (F15)
F16
Dore Clinic and Residence is an example of a valuable and useful community service that facilitates the success of the CIT program, relieving pressure on PES, the police, and the community by providing ongoing professional care for individuals in crisis.
No recommendations for this finding
F17
The individuals in both DPH and SFPD committed to crisis intervention at an operational level are engaged, dedicated and doing commendable work in reducing bad outcomes for people in crisis.
No recommendations for this finding
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The Civil Grand Jury sees SFPD making tangible progress on DGO 5.21 and use of force issues. A passionate and knowledgeable CIT working group convenes regularly to advise police. SFPD has a CIT Coordinator. There is a Crisis Intervention Unit, and behavioral health clinicians are available to help the crisis intervention police. At the time of this writing, nearly 40% of SFPD officers have completed their CIT training. District level CIT liaison officers are trained and will soon work to understand the people and places in their districts that require extra attention with the goal of preventing 911 calls and crisis incidents before they occur. Reports of use of force by SFPD were reduced in 2017, but without effective CIT data collection we do not know if de- escalation techniques were a contributing cause to this decline.40 As previously noted, the Department of Public Health is the primary purveyor of mental health services in San Francisco. It is the epicenter of knowledge about mental health, mental disabilities and related behaviors in our city. Consequently, DPH’s involvement in the CIT program is crucial to its success at every level: As trainers of the police, as the interface between the police and the mental health consumers, as the “street educators” of the police about aberrant mental health behavior, as another voice in interpreting crisis behavior, DPH is integral to the committed community partnership required for a successful CIT program. 40 See Appendix F - Use of Force by SFPD District Station (96A) SFCGJ 2017-2018: Crisis Intervention: Bridging Police and Public Health 24