Are Our Streets Really Becoming Less Safe?

In recent years, San Francisco has repeatedly made national news for viral videos showing everything from brazen shoplifting, to unimaginable scenes of despair and addiction on public streets, to appalling anti-Asian hate crimes. Some people argue that these videos are intentionally being highlighted by right-wing media that loves to attack a city synonymous with progressive values, or that one-off videos cannot possibly tell the entire story of public safety in a major city like San Francisco. 

Both of these explanations certainly have some truth to them, but the statistics also show that whether we want to admit it or not, these videos do appear to be emblematic of very real trends in the City. 

So is San Francisco more dangerous? 

The answer does appear to be yes, especially for property crimes. So far in 2022, the San Francisco Police Department has reported a 32% increase in car break-ins compared to the previous year, which should come as no surprise to residents who are accustomed to seeing shattered glass on the sidewalk. Keep in mind this 32% increase comes from an already shockingly high baseline of 74 car break-ins per day in 2021.

Burglaries affecting small businesses rose 62% in 2021. “Hot prowl” burglaries, where people are inside their residences at the time of the crime, rose 24% in last year, totalling 1,054 instances. These property crimes are sometimes shrugged off as “victimless” crimes, but the financial and emotional ramifications for those impacted can be immense.

In addition to property crimes, San Francisco is also seeing a shocking rise of anti-Asian hate crimes. During the pandemic, anti-Asian hate crimes in San Francisco increased 567%, from 9 victims in 2020 to 60 people in 2021. High profile attacks, like the one that killed 84-year old Vicha Ratanapakdee, were not aberrations but rather reflective of the alarming increase that needs to be addressed.

Finally, San Francisco’s ongoing failure to address the drug crisis on its streets is resulting in an unacceptable amount of overdose deaths, with over 50 people dying per month. While overdoses relate more to a public health challenge than one of criminal activity, the ongoing open-air drug dealing, public drug use, and the visible resulting suffering on the streets contribute to a sense of dysfunction and disorder that negatively impacts quality of life in San Francisco, especially in the most affected areas like the Tenderloin.

How did we get here? And how can we fix it?

There isn’t a single policy or investment that will magically make San Francisco safe, but there is certainly room for improvement across the board in the City’s approach to policing, social services, and public health. In fact, many of the solutions to the City’s public health challenges have already been studied and acknowledged by City leaders but continue to languish year after year due to a failure of implementation and execution.

Take conservatorship for example. It is not hard to find someone experiencing severe challenges relating to mental health and addiction on San Francisco’s streets. Yet people routinely cycle in and out of the hospital, oftentimes on multiple 72-hour psychiatric holds, without any real intervention to get them the care they need. Many City leaders have argued for years that we should make it easier to conserve someone who is clearly unable to care for themselves. The need is apparent: the City’s own estimates place the number of people identified as suffering from mental health and addiction issues at roughly 4,000. But even after the City “reformed” the conservatorship process in 2019, only two individuals have since been conserved, leaving countless more in need of help.

This is a failure of policy and execution. Proponents of the 2019 change rightly point out that the requirements for conservatorship remain too high, and that is certainly true. But it is also the case that many people in need still meet these stringent requirements and the City’s bureaucracy is failing to meet the urgency of the crisis at hand. San Francisco needs to once again try to make it easier to qualify people in need for conservatorship, and invest the resources to make sure that people who qualify are actually being processed through the system.

Likewise, the City’s law enforcement response is not keeping up with the increase in crimes in the City. The police clearance rate has dropped to its lowest rate in a decade and many categories of crimes, like those relating to dangerous driving, are essentially no longer being enforced at all.

This is not surprising, as the San Francisco Police Department has been understaffed for years. The Mayor has pushed repeatedly in recent budget cycles for an increase in new police academy classes, which has been met with staunch resistance from the Board of Supervisors. Today, the SFPD is more than 400 officers short of what is recommended by independent analysts hired by the City. Fortunately, the recent budget agreement does contain funding for 220 new officers to finally make a dent in this shortage, but there will be more work to do in coming years. 

San Francisco has had success with some innovative public safety approaches, like the new Street Crisis Response Teams that provide a public health response to people in crisis rather than a police response. The City should continue these innovative efforts while investing in more placements like mental health treatment beds, but also should think more broadly about how to expand options for people in crisis. This includes drop-in sobering centers where people can be brought when they need a calm place to recover, as well as options like adult daycares for people who operate semi-independently but could benefit from an additional level of support. 

For years, the City has debated the opening of a safe consumption site, and has somewhat surreptitiously operated one in recent months. This is a controversial idea that public health advocates claim will provide a safe space that will prevent overdoses and potentially connect people with treatment, and opponents claim is enabling drug use with public resources. The City should be willing to try everything, including operating safe consumption sites, but a balance should be struck such that public consumption is not allowed surrounding these locations. It is only fair to the nearby neighbors that if there is a safe place for people to go and use drugs, they should not be allowed to instead choose to use drugs on the street.

Ultimately San Francisco's public safety challenges exist not for a lack of good ideas, but rather a lack of competent governance. There are dozens of programs that too often operate in silos instead of a coherent system. Public safety and public health challenges are increasingly one and the same, yet there is not enough coordination between law enforcement, public health, and the non-profit organizations that run much of the City’s social services. Many of the existing shelter and treatment options are underfunded, lack oversight, and are often in a state of disrepair that forces people to choose between remaining on the street or living indoors but in dangerous circumstances.

The people of San Francisco are not happy with the current situation. The most recent display of this fact was the successful recall of District Attorney Chesa Boudin, which was not a surprise to anyone who had seen the public polling that showed 83% of voters reporting crime has gotten worse.

Fixing these challenges, and addressing the public’s concern, ultimately comes down to political will. Elected officials need to move past their bitter fights of recent years and find common ground. We need to both expand police resources and social services. We need to create a coherent system of care that brings together the City’s resources. We need to acknowledge that property crimes are not victimless crimes–they have real impacts not only on the victims but also on the City’s global reputation.

Ultimately, it is not too much for residents to demand that San Francisco–a city that prides itself on tolerance, compassion, and progressive ideals–function such that we are an example to which other cities can aspire. In order for us to live up to our values, we need to ensure that these values are not just abstract concepts. Governance cannot be driven on idealism alone, it must be matched with an equal level of competence and execution. San Francisco has never failed to demonstrate our values, now it’s time for us to show the world that those values can create a safe, healthy, thriving city.