San Francisco County Grand Jury
• 2017-2018
Civil Grand Jury | 2017-2018 City and County of San Francisco Our Lovable Pets: Dogs and Public Safety in San Francisco
⚠️ 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 19 findings
F1
Lack of support for SFPD officers by trained SFACC ACOs during the hours between 1:00 AM and 6:00 AM can increase the risk to SFPD officers and the public from difficult and dangerous dogs.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Recommends the Executive Director of the San Francisco Animal Care and Control (SFACC) study methods to provide 24-hour ACO coverage, either by full staffing or by on- call staffing, and report on this matter to the City Administrator by April 1, 2019. (F1, F2)
F2
Lack of support for SFPD officers by trained SFACC ACOs during the hours between 1:00 AM and 6:00 AM can cause delays and waste time for SFPD officers who may have to stay with a dog that they are unable to capture until an ACO is on duty and can pick up the dog.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
Recommends the Executive Director of the San Francisco Animal Care and Control (SFACC) study methods to provide 24-hour ACO coverage, either by full staffing or by on- call staffing, and report on this matter to the City Administrator by April 1, 2019. (F1, F2)
F3
Lack of immediate access to Chameleon data (e.g. previous dog behavior, owner location) by the SFPD Vicious and Dangerous Dog unit officer causes delays in dog attack and dog bite investigations, compromising public safety against dog attacks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC provide the SFPD VDD Unit with RDP (remote desktop protocol) or VPN (virtual private network) access to Chameleon, one seat license and a login to Chameleon, by January 1, 2019. (F3)
F4
Public access to statistics about the circumstances of dog bites would improve public policy decisions that affect the safety of the public against dog bites. These statistics would include the circumstance of whether the dog bite was provoked or unprovoked, and whether the biting dog was on or off a leash.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC publish on their website, for each of the most current five years, statistics about dog bites against humans in San Francisco, divided into categories based on whether the bites were provoked, and whether the biting dog was on a leash at the time of the bite. This to be implemented no later than July 1, 2019. (F4)
F5
Public access to the locations and descriptions and/or photos of dogs officially designated Vicious and Dangerous would improve the safety of the public against future dog attacks and bites. Such access is available in many other jurisdictions.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC publish on their website up-to-date information for all dogs that have been deemed Vicious and Dangerous by an authorized Hearing Officer and for which that status is still in effect. This information to include the residential address of the dog and/or its location on a map, the name of the dog, the breed of the dog, either a description or a photo of the dog, and the date of the most recent enforcement field visit by an ACO. This to be implemented no later than January 1, 2020. (F5)
F6
The SFACC practice of favoring dog owner education on the benefits of dog leashes in lieu of issuing off-leash citations has not increased the percentage of leashed dogs in San Francisco. Improving leash compliance will improve dog welfare and increase public safety regarding unleashed dog attacks.
Related Recommendations (1)
R5
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC change the current practice of only teaching dog owners about the benefits of keeping their dog(s) on a leash, to include issuing a citation to those dog owners whose dogs are in violation of the city leash law, as provided in Health Code Sections 41.12(a) and 41.13. This to be implemented no later than January 1, 2019. (F6)
F7
“Ex Parte” communications occur when a party to a case, or someone involved with a party, talks, writes or otherwise communicates with the Hearing Officer about issues in a case or Decision, without the other parties’ knowledge or consent. Consequently, such communications violate due process of law and deprive the parties of a fair Hearing, and are therefore impermissible.
Related Recommendations (1)
R6
Recommends the City Administrator instruct the VDD Hearing Officers that Ex Parte communications involving any issue in any case are not allowable outside the Hearing unless all parties to the Hearing are present. These instructions to be given as soon as practicable, and no later than January 1, 2019. (F7)
F8
Where inaccurate data exists in Chameleon there will be inaccurate statistical reporting and other undesirable results. For example, duplicate or obviously invalid dog owner addresses make it more difficult to contact dog owners with dog license reminders.
Related Recommendations (3)
R7
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC establish a data entry manual that includes standard procedures written for all Chameleon data entry, no later than July 1, 2019. (F8,
R8
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC establish data entry training and supervision over data entry procedures in Chameleon, to ensure accurate and uniform data entry, no later than July 1, 2019. (F8, F9)
R9
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC authorize and work with the Information Technology Director of San Francisco Department of Administrative Services to implement the changes in Chameleon data entry setup which were recommended by the paid consultant, Dr. Delany; this work to be finished no later than July 1, 2019. (F8, F10)
F9
Data entry into Chameleon is not well regulated by current training, supervision or by the current software implementation.
Related Recommendations (1)
R8
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC establish data entry training and supervision over data entry procedures in Chameleon, to ensure accurate and uniform data entry, no later than July 1, 2019. (F8, F9)
F10
Implementing the software changes recommended by the consultant — hired to identify potential improvements to Chameleon — would improve the integrity of data in the animal shelter activity area of Chameleon.
Related Recommendations (1)
R9
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC authorize and work with the Information Technology Director of San Francisco Department of Administrative Services to implement the changes in Chameleon data entry setup which were recommended by the paid consultant, Dr. Delany; this work to be finished no later than July 1, 2019. (F8, F10)
F11
A study of data entry improvements in the field services area of Chameleon and implementation of valid recommendations would improve the integrity of the data in this area and improve the accuracy of reports about dog attacks and bites.
Related Recommendations (1)
R10
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC request Friends of SFACC to fund a study by a qualified expert of Chameleon data entry for the Field activity division, and to authorize and work with the Information Technology Director of San Francisco Department of Administrative Services to implement those changes in Chameleon that will improve data entry accuracy and integrity. This work to be concluded no later than January 1, 2021. (F11)
F12
Failure to follow up on the "Final Notice" dog license and license renewal letters reduces the rate of compliance for dog licensing in San Francisco.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC study methods to increase compliance with dog license laws in San Francisco by at least 50% as measured by the number of active dog licenses as of December 31, 2017; the study to include but not limited to such options as lowering license fees across the board, adding some benefit(s) to dog owners for having dogs licensed, instituting a meaningful follow-up to the "final notice" automated dog license letters, and finding a better online interface for dog license applications, plus any other means that may occur to them. This study to be completed and submitted to the City Administrator no later than July 1, 2019. (F12, F13, F14, F15)
F13
The technologically out-of-date and clumsy version of licensepet.com that SFAC uses results in many users abandoning online attempts to license their dogs. This reduces the dog license compliance rate in San Francisco.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC study methods to increase compliance with dog license laws in San Francisco by at least 50% as measured by the number of active dog licenses as of December 31, 2017; the study to include but not limited to such options as lowering license fees across the board, adding some benefit(s) to dog owners for having dogs licensed, instituting a meaningful follow-up to the "final notice" automated dog license letters, and finding a better online interface for dog license applications, plus any other means that may occur to them. This study to be completed and submitted to the City Administrator no later than July 1, 2019. (F12, F13, F14, F15)
F14
A current dog license provides no additional benefit to the dog owner if the dog is already microchipped and vaccinated, a fact which tends to further reduce the dog license compliance rate in San Francisco.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC study methods to increase compliance with dog license laws in San Francisco by at least 50% as measured by the number of active dog licenses as of December 31, 2017; the study to include but not limited to such options as lowering license fees across the board, adding some benefit(s) to dog owners for having dogs licensed, instituting a meaningful follow-up to the "final notice" automated dog license letters, and finding a better online interface for dog license applications, plus any other means that may occur to them. This study to be completed and submitted to the City Administrator no later than July 1, 2019. (F12, F13, F14, F15)
F15
A higher compliance rate for dog licensing would be a positive outcome for San Francisco and its residents.
Related Recommendations (1)
R11
Recommends the Executive Director of SFACC study methods to increase compliance with dog license laws in San Francisco by at least 50% as measured by the number of active dog licenses as of December 31, 2017; the study to include but not limited to such options as lowering license fees across the board, adding some benefit(s) to dog owners for having dogs licensed, instituting a meaningful follow-up to the "final notice" automated dog license letters, and finding a better online interface for dog license applications, plus any other means that may occur to them. This study to be completed and submitted to the City Administrator no later than July 1, 2019. (F12, F13, F14, F15)
F16
Some sections of SFPD General Order 6.07 (issued 7/27/94) are out of date and contradict either current practice or relevant local ordinances or both. Updating or re-issuing this General Order would help avoid confusion among SFPD officers about their duties regarding dog complaints.
Related Recommendations (1)
R12
Recommends the San Francisco Chief of Police modify General Order 6.07 to bring it into compliance with local ordinances and with current practice. The General Order will also be modified to include the existence and function of the SFPD Vicious and Dangerous Dog Unit. These changes, either incorporated into the existing General Order or into a new superseding General Order, to be presented to the Police Commission for approval no later than April 1, 2019. (F16)
F17
Current practice is that SFPD VDD Unit has assumed many of the clerical and ministerial functions of the Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearing process. The GSA sets the framework of Hearings schedules (days, times, locations, assigned Hearing Officers), while the VDD Unit officer does the following: coordinates specific cases and the parties thereof to specific Hearing dates; notifies parties and witnesses to each case when their case will be heard; receives Decisions from Hearing Officers, keeps a file of the originals, and sends copies to the parties of each case and to SFACC; and maintains the Hearing audio recording archive. Only custom obliges SFPD to continue performing these functions. This situation is inherently unstable, and if both parties wish the arrangement to continue, it needs to be regularized.
Related Recommendations (1)
R13
Recommends the City Administrator's Office and the San Francisco Chief of Police agree on a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) specifying that San Francisco Police Department will continue to be in charge of the enumerated clerical and ministerial function for the Hearing Officers of the Vicious and Dangerous Dogs Hearings. This MoU to be completed by July 1, 2019. (F17)
F18
A Decision by a Hearing Officer that a dog is Vicious and Dangerous, but holding the Decision in abeyance, or placing a dog on probation, without further explanation in the Decision, does not make clear to any of the parties whether the provisions of SF Health Code section 42.2, et seq., apply (e.g. registration of the dog, payment of a $250 fine, permanently affixed identification, prominent display of signage, etc.).
Related Recommendations (1)
R14
Recommends the San Francisco City Administrator instruct Hearing Officers for the Vicious and Dangerous Dogs Hearings that it is their responsibility, pursuant to SF Health Code sections 42.3(C)(i) and (ii), to find a dog either Vicious or Dangerous or not Vicious and Dangerous, and that holding such Decisions "in abeyance" is no longer an option. This instruction to be given no later than March 31, 2019. (F18, F19)
F19
A Decision by a Hearing Officer that a dog is Vicious and Dangerous but holding the Decision in abeyance, or placing a dog on probation, is not within the Hearing Officer's jurisdiction, and does not address the public safety requirements of SF Health Code section 42.2.
Related Recommendations (1)
R14
Recommends the San Francisco City Administrator instruct Hearing Officers for the Vicious and Dangerous Dogs Hearings that it is their responsibility, pursuant to SF Health Code sections 42.3(C)(i) and (ii), to find a dog either Vicious or Dangerous or not Vicious and Dangerous, and that holding such Decisions "in abeyance" is no longer an option. This instruction to be given no later than March 31, 2019. (F18, F19)
Conclusions 1
-
CL1The San Francisco Civil Grand Jury’s study of dogs and public safety shows three city/county government entities that function reasonably well in protecting the safety of the public from dog attacks and bites. It also reveals several areas where those functions, and public safety, could be distinctly improved. The SFPD Vicious and Dangerous Dog Unit performs vital functions in this area and would benefit greatly from a staff increase from one to two people. The second person could be another police officer, or a clerical specialist to help with the extensive record-keeping required in this Unit. This Unit should also be recognized in the SFPD General Order that covers police-dog interactions. The Vicious and Dangerous Dog Hearings operate under the City Administrator’s Office and with extensive support from the SFPD VDD Unit. These Hearings also function reasonably well, but they lack any support structure to make sure they continue to function at this level. A memorandum of understanding between the City Administrator’s Office and SFPD to make sure that SFPD continues their support would be very useful. Finally, these Hearings need monitoring and guidance to make sure they provide equal protection and due process of law to all parties. San Francisco Animal Care and Control has a huge job and is chronically underfunded. This does not excuse them from performing their responsibilities of enforcing dog leash and dog license laws, and of providing public access to necessary information about dog attacks, dog bites, and vicious or dangerous dogs. We are thoroughly convinced of their devotion to the well- being of animals. Their current practices do not show the same devotion to public safety against 24 Superior Court decision located at https://webapps.sftc.org/ci/CaseInfo.dll?CaseNum=CPF16515381 SFCGJ 2017-2018; Dogs and Public Safety in San Francisco 13 dog attacks and bites. We have tried in this report to show them some ways to improve in that area. Since the Diane Whipple attack in 2001, we fear that San Franciscans have become complacent about the dangers posed by a small percentage of the dogs that live in the city. It is our purpose to overcome that complacency and to improve public safety, so that such an event will never happen here again.