San Francisco Police officers in the Mission District continue to be flagged more often than any others for potential misconduct — and SFPD higher-ups cannot explain why.

In 2020, the system that tracks potential misconduct and allows higher-ups to intervene flagged officers at Mission Station 103 times for repeatedly using force, being the subject of citizen complaints, getting sued, or being investigated by the internal affairs department. 

That is far more than any other station in 2020. Officers at Central Station, which patrols downtown, received 76 such alerts, the second-most. Officers in the Tenderloin received around 50 alerts, and officers in Bayview received around 39 alerts, according to an SFPD presentation at Wednesday night’s Police Commission meeting.

Under the early intervention system, the risk factors such as use of force and citizen complaints signal to higher-ups that they should “intervene” with an officer without imposing formal discipline, a measure intended to prevent an officer’s behavior from becoming more problematic down the road.  

But the data also offers a snapshot into how officers behave at a particular station.

In 2019, for example, the data showed that officers at Mission Station pointed their guns at people twice as often as officers from other stations, despite other stations recording comparable numbers of arrests and calls for service — and recording comparable levels of violent crime in their districts.

A similar trend continued into 2020, according to the latest round of data, presented on Wednesday. Even though the Tenderloin District recorded the highest number of “Part 1 Violent Crimes” — which include homicides, robberies, rapes and assaults — Mission officers were flagged for using 79 percent more force than Tenderloin officers.  

Use of force led to the most alerts at any station, followed by citizen complaints. Mission Station outstripped Tenderloin despite having less violent crime. Graph taken from the SFPD’s Wednesday presentation.

Commission Vice President Cindy Elias asked about this discrepancy. “I still am not understanding the reasoning or explanation [of] why Mission Station has a substantially higher number of alerts,” she said, noting that the Tenderloin District outpaced the Mission in violent crime but recorded half the number of alerts. “Have we figured out why Mission Station is substantially higher?”

Commander Robert O’Sullivan, who presented on the data, said the department had not. While emphasizing that it was merely an “educated guess,” he said that Mission Station recorded the highest number of calls for service. If there are more calls for service, he said, there’s a higher potential for officers to “engage in certain behaviors.”

But O’Sullivan’s educated guess echoed past failed explanations by the SFPD. In the second quarter of 2019, Mission Station received the third-most calls for service, while recording the highest number of risk alerts. Moreover, the SFPD’s own report for the fourth quarter of 2019 stated that there was “no relationship” between calls for service and alerts accrued by officers. It specifically stated that Mission Station “accounted for 25.5 percent of [early intervention system] Alerts but only 13.2 percent of citywide Calls for Service.”

O’Sullivan noted, however, that to meaningfully explain the reason behind Mission Station’s high number of alerts required the SFPD to adopt a more “data-driven system.” And, indeed, the SFPD’s early intervention system remains “highly inaccurate,” according to a University of Chicago study that found the current system flags officers who do not need interventions and misses officers who do. 

Researchers recommended that the department adopt a system that uses algorithms and “machine learning” to analyze the compiled data, instead of simply tallying it up. 

It’s unclear whether such a system would be able to explain why a particular station uses more force than other stations. But experts like John Alden, the executive director of Oakland’s Community Police Review Agency, an independent watchdog, told Mission Local in late 2019 that data analysis would certainly help the SFPD have an “honest self-reflection” about what the numbers mean.

He also offered an explanation that no SFPD higher-up has yet articulated. “Every Station at SFPD has a culture, reinforced by each officer’s right to pick their station assignment, so some wonder if this trend is caused by Mission Station’s culture,” he said.

Julian Mark

Julian grew up in the East Bay and moved to San Francisco in 2014. Before joining Mission Local, he wrote for the East Bay Express, the SF Bay Guardian, and the San Francisco Business Times.

Join the Conversation

8 Comments

  1. More complainers in the mission would be my guess. The statisticians would have to do a Spock mind probe citywide to find out.

  2. The Mission, Tenderloin and Bayview. What do we have all in common. We have Crime, gangs, shootings, Killings, theft, a community meth problem, homeless with mental health issues, vehicle break ins, human feces on the side walk, drunks, Graffiti and tagging unsightliness. Also having a Liquor Store on every corner doesn’t help our situations. The Mission Station has a FULL plate of police calls and citizens ordeals to respond to. Maybe the Culture and Ideology within the Mission needs to change. It’s time that we in The Mission take self responsibility and ownership for our actions and for our Neighborhood.

    1. Well spoken. People need to take responibility for their own actions. I grew up in the mission area from 1960 to 1975. It was never as bad as it is now.

  3. A certain Castro regular had a vendetta against me because I told him to, “f*** off.” For 5 weeks he taunted me daily over loudspeaker from the paddy wagon van. I didn’t report it. I figured if he felt emboldened enough to do something I would think would get you suspended, who knows what kind of can of worms a report could unleash. Most of the cops from Mission are cool, unlike Park Station where there are a large number of authoritarian types.

  4. Great, let’s use a computer algorithm to manage and supervise human beings. If it’s good enough for the police department then let’s do this for all human beings in the USA! Then when the computer police come for you because the algorithm projected you were than most likely going to commit a crime then don’t whine, cry and complain.
    Additionally, this data set seems to be based on calls for services. Does it include self initiated activity (which is a death sentence for any SFPD officer) or an on view of a crime or resident flagging down an officer?
    Here’s another idea, force the top heavy command staff (no longer officers, merely politicians wearing uniforms) and ranking officers, captains, accountable for the internal issues within the SFPD. Then if the members of the command staff who demonstrate an inability to perform then replace them and give a chance to others who just might have the ability to bring positive results. All this instead of those on the command staff who have adopted the mantra of the CYA method of management, leaving them only one choice to say and do anything to remain next to the throne of the Chief of Police, of which is for all intensive purposes has become a monarchy…

  5. In October 2020, I was pulled up on and abused and arrested. No probable cause, no explanation for stop n frisk nor told what I was arrested for. Found out at booking It was for an open container which is a fine not arrest the beer that fell out of pocket when slammed on ground was still closed. Spent 5 days in jail with charges dropped. SFPD are Tyrants.

  6. High crime, high population of anti police culture, high gang activity. That is what all those 3 stations have in common. Hard working cops trying to keep the piece in a time when people especially in those districts dislike the police. Even the district supervisors in those districts actively speak against the police.

  7. Another way to complain and make the Missiin PD look bad. When do the Politicians stop their BS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *