DPA audit urges stronger SFPD use‑of‑force oversight; department outlines fixes and vendor changes

The Department of Police Accountability (DPA) presented its audit 'Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Use of Force Oversight' to the San Francisco Police Commission on Feb. 5, 2026, identifying gaps in supervisor evaluations, data aggregation for training, and consistent reporting to the California Department of Justice.

Steve Flaherty, DPA’s director of audits, summarized three principal findings: supervisors’ use‑of‑force evaluations rarely include documented reasoning behind policy compliance determinations; the training division lacked reliable aggregate data after SFPD moved evaluations to a vendor (Benchmark) without a stable data pipeline; and SFPD’s reporting procedures did not ensure consistent reporting of qualifying incidents to CalDOJ. Flaherty said the audit found supervisors completed 994 evaluations between May 2024 and March 2025 and that 99% of those were marked within policy while comments fields — where reasoning could appear — were completed in only 18% of evaluations.

"We found that SFPD does not require supervisors to document the reasoning behind their policy compliance determinations," Flaherty said, noting that optional or incomplete fields and system limitations reduced the department’s ability to show how decisions were made.

The audit included 14 recommendations to strengthen documentation, aggregate data analysis for training, and reporting/audit practices. SFPD’s written response concurred with two recommendations, partially concurred with seven, and did not concur with five. Commander Jack Hart and Chief Derek Liu described steps already taken during and after the audit: implementing software reminders to prompt reviewers about required investigative steps, instituting biweekly briefings to the chief, creating a unit order to formalize CalDOJ reporting procedures, and beginning procurement to replace Benchmark.

SFPD representatives told commissioners they plan to move to Axon standards for use‑of‑force data and EIS (Early Intervention System) and expect that transition to occur in calendar year 2026. Command staff said the vendor change and accompanying unit orders will be used to address several DPA recommendations, including system checks to prevent an officer who used force from signing off on evaluations and to require multilevel review steps be visible in the software.

Commissioners asked for follow‑up on a handful of audit recommendations tied to software and data integrity; SFPD said it would provide updates as vendor transitions and unit orders are completed. The commission did not vote on audit recommendations at the meeting; DPA and SFPD staff agreed on the value of interim updates once Axon standards are implemented.

Key excerpts and next steps

- DPA recommended that SFPD revise DGO 5.01 or create unit orders that require written reasoning, define lieutenant and captain review responsibilities, and formalize CalDOJ reporting procedures. - SFPD said that most recommendations are being acted on operationally and that one or two substantive policy questions remain under discussion. - SFPD expects vendor migration work to be completed in 2026 (department and staff cited July–December 2026 as possible windows) and recommended periodic briefings to the commission showing progress on DPA’s recommendations.

The commission requested interim reporting on implementation progress and suggested DPA and SFPD coordinate updates timed with software rollouts.