Performance audit and sunset review, Arizona Department of Public Safety, followup on specific recommendations from previous audits and sunset factors

              A REPORT
TO THE
ARIZONA LEGISLATURE
Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
Performance Audit and Sunset Review
Arizona Department of
Public Safety—Followup on
Specific Recommendations from
Previous Audits and Sunset Factors
Performance Audit Division
March • 2011
REPORT NO. 11-01
The Auditor General is appointed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, a bipartisan committee composed of five senators
and five representatives. Her mission is to provide independent and impartial information and specific recommendations to
improve the operations of state and local government entities. To this end, she provides financial audits and accounting services
to the State and political subdivisions, investigates possible misuse of public monies, and conducts performance audits of
school districts, state agencies, and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Audit Staff
Copies of the Auditor General’s reports are free.
You may request them by contacting us at:
Office of the Auditor General
2910 N. 44th Street, Suite 410 • Phoenix, AZ 85018 • (602) 553-0333
Additionally, many of our reports can be found in electronic format at:
www.azauditor.gov
Dale Chapman, Director
Dot Reinhard, Manager and Contact Person
Lori Babbitt, Team Leader
Karl Kulick
Senator Rick Murphy, Chair
Senator Andy Biggs
Senator Olivia Cajero Bedford
Senator Rich Crandall
Senator Kyrsten Sinema
Senator Russell Pearce (ex officio)
Representative Carl Seel, Vice Chair
Representative Eric Meyer
Representative Justin Olson
Representative Bob Robson
Representative Anna Tovar
Representative Kirk Adams (ex officio)
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
MELANIE M. CHESNEY
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
March 7, 2011
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Janice K. Brewer, Governor
Colonel Robert Halliday, Director
Arizona Department of Public Safety
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, a Performance Audit and Sunset
Review of the Arizona Department of Public Safety (Department). This report is in response
to a November 3, 2009, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The
performance audit was conducted as part of the sunset review process prescribed in
Arizona Revised Statutes §41-2951 et seq. I am also transmitting within this report a copy of
the report highlights for this audit to provide a quick summary for your convenience.
As outlined in its response, the Department agrees with all of the findings and plans to
implement all of the recommendations.
My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.
This report will be released to the public on March 8, 2011.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Attachment
The Department was established as a
state law enforcement agency in 1969. It
patrols state highways, investigates
highway accidents, and enforces state
laws. The Department administers the
State’s sex offender registration and
community notification compliance
programs, and regulates private
investigators and security guards. Its
Crime Lab conducts deoxyribonucleic
acid (DNA) and other forensic evidence
testing. The Department performs its
functions through its divisions—Highway
Patrol, Technical Services, and Criminal
Investigations—and the Director’s Office.
Highway Patrol—The Department
reported that because of budget
reductions and a self-imposed hiring
freeze implemented to promote
fiscal responsibility, it has not hired
Highway Patrol officers since
October 2008. Although the
Highway Patrol had a shortage of 60
officers as of October 2010, it was
working to minimize the public safety
impact by patrolling primarily the
highway segments with the highest
traffic volumes and most calls for
service. It has been aided in this
effort by a decline in fatal traffic
accidents from 319 in fiscal year
2008 to 237 in fiscal year 2010.
The Department also intends to
adopt a goal in 2011 to clear traffic
incidents within 90 minutes. This
follows the time frame established
by California, Florida, and
Washington.
Aviation Resources—The
Department implemented all of the Auditor
General’s June 2000 performance audit
recommendations (Report No. 00-7),
2011
March • Report No. 11-01
Arizona Department of
Public Safety—Followup on
Specific Recommendations from
Previous Audits and Sunset Factors
Our Conclusion
The Department of Public
Safety (Department)
should implement its goal
to clear traffic accidents
quickly, and consistent
with the Auditor General’s
performance audit
recommendations made in
2000 and 2001, it should
assess the need for its
current level of aviation
resources, improve case
management information,
and document decisions
on whether to participate
in investigations and on
task forces.
REPORT
HIGHLIGHTS
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Most prior audit recommendations
implemented
except the recommendation to formally
assess whether it could dispose of fixed-wing
aircraft because it believed that all of
its aircraft were needed to fulfill its mission.
The Department flies five helicopters and
four fixed-wing aircraft for various missions
in the State. However, because of budget
reductions that have prevented the
Department from hiring pilots to fly its
aircraft, the number of missions has
declined by more than half for helicopters
and by almost a quarter for fixed-wing
aircraft.
Helicopter and Fixed-Wing
Air Transport Missions
Fiscal Years 2008 through 2010
(Unaudited)
1 Meeting missions include flights taken by the
Secretary of State and staff from the Department’s
Director’s Office.
Helicopter Missions 2008 2009 2010
Law Enforcement 915 438 343
Maintenance & Logistics 382 316 259
Medical 231 146 98
Search & Rescue 489 332 310
Training 293 250 174
Other 194 50 32
Total 2,504 1,532 1,216
Air Transport Missions 2008 2009 2010
Law Enforcement 157 123 91
Governor 38 40 55
Maintenance 24 26 19
Meetings¹ 88 23 30
Search and Rescue 0 0 10
Training 63 43 91
Other 17 8 6
Total 387 263 302
Arizona Department of
Public Safety—Followup on
Specific Recommendations from
Previous Audits and Sunset Factors
REPORT
HIGHLIGHTS
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
March 2011• Report No. 11-01
A copy of the full report is available at:
www.azauditor.gov
Contact person:
Dot Reinhard (602) 553-0333
Although aviation functions are common for
large law enforcement agencies, because
aircraft are expensive to own, operate, and
maintain, the Department should assess the
need for its current level of aviation resources.
Criminal investigations—To maintain its
effectiveness in response to budget reductions
and to help ensure that the Department’s law
enforcement goals and priorities are met, the
Department should implement the
recommendations from the Auditor General’s
September 2001 performance audit (Report
No. 01-22).
Specifically, the Department should:
• Adopt a formal process to decide whether to
participate on multi-agency task forces.
• Develop specific criteria for guiding whether
to accept investigative requests from local,
county, and state agencies.
• Improve criminal case management informa-tion
in order to determine outcomes and effec-tiveness,
and to ensure that priorities are met.
Crime Lab—The Crime Lab performs forensic
testing of DNA, firearms, and traces of fibers, hair,
glass, paint, and soil. The Crime Lab also
compares latent prints to known fingerprints, palm
prints, and footprints. The Department implemented
all of the recommendations from the Auditor
General’s September 2000 performance audit
(Report No. 00-12). However, because of reduced
staff, increased demand for forensic testing, and
outdated equipment, the Crime Lab is behind in its
work. To help address the backlog, the Crime Lab
prioritized the analyses needed. It first addresses
the most serious violent crime cases, then ensures
that it is meeting court discovery deadlines,
followed by cases involving felonies, and finally
cases involving misdemeanors.
Telecommunications—Consistent with the
recommendations in the Auditor General’s March
2001 performance audit (Report No. 01-05), the
Department has been upgrading its
telecommunications system from an analog to a
digital system. However, because of budget
reductions, it will take several years longer than
originally anticipated to complete the project.
Recommendations:
The Department should:
• Implement its 90-minute highway incident clear-ance
goal.
• Assess the need for its current level of aviation
resources.
• Implement the criminal investigations recom-mendations
regarding task forces, investigative
requests, and case management information.
Crime Lab Backlogged Cases1
October 2008, 2009, and 2010
(Unaudited)
1 Backlog is defined as an analysis request not completed within 30
days or more from the date the request was received.
2 Other includes firearms; trace evidence such as fibers, hairs, and
soil; and questioned documents.
3 Represents DNA samples collected from convicted offenders and
arrestees. The samples are analyzed and the DNA profiles are
entered into the DNA database and matched against DNA
evidence from unsolved cases.
Analysis Type
2008
2009
2010
DNA/Serology 2,016 2,326 2,694
Drug 200 180 241
Latent Prints 423 1,213 854
Other2 419 236 183
Toxicology:
Alcohol 0 0 74
Drug 692 935 1,474
Total 3,750 4,890 5,520
DNA Database3 59,567 25,913 39,518
Introduction & Background 1
Finding 1: Department Implemented Most Prior Audit
Recommendations and Is Working to Minimize Public
Safety Impact of State’s Budget Crisis 9
Highway Patrol should continue efforts to improve public safety 10
Recommendation 12
Recommendation 13
Criminal Investigations should take additional steps to ensure goals
and priorities being met 14
Recommendations 17
Technical Services is taking steps to reduce budget cut impacts 17
Sunset Factors 23
Agency Response
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page i
continued
Office of the Auditor General
Tables
1 Sworn and Civilian Filled and Vacant FTE Positions
As of November 30, 2010
(Unaudited) 2
2 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
Fiscal years 2009 through 2011
(In Thousands)
(Unaudited) 5
3 Helicopter and Fixed-Wing Air Transport Missions
Fiscal years 2008 through 2010
(Unaudited) 13
4 Crime Lab Backlogged Cases
October 2008, 2009, and 2010
(Unaudited) 18
5 Cases Submitted to Crime Lab
Fiscal years 2008 through 2010
(Unaudited) 19
6 Crime Lab Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Positons
June 30, 2008 and 2009, and September 30, 2010
(Unaudited) 19
7 Digital Microwave Upgrade Project Expenditures by Source
As of October 2010
Fiscal years 2007 through 2011
(Unaudited) 21
8 Highway Patrol Activity
Fiscal year 2010
(Unaudited) 25
TABLE OF CONTENTS
continued
page ii
State of Arizona
page iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
concluded
Tables (Continued)
9 Complaint-Handling Time Frames
As of January 1, 2010 through October 20, 2010
(Unaudited) 29
Office of the Auditor General
INTRODUCTION
& BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit and sunset
review of the Arizona Department of Public Safety (Department) pursuant to a
November 3, 2009, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This audit
was conducted as part of the sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised
Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-2951 et seq.
This performance audit and sunset review is the second of two reports on the
Department. The first report was a questions-and-answers document on the
Department’s photo enforcement program.
History and purpose
The Department was established as a state-level law enforcement
entity on July 1, 1969. According to A.R.S. §41-1711(A), the
Department is responsible for creating and coordinating
services for use by local law enforcement agencies in protecting
the public safety. Its statutory responsibilities include patrolling
the State’s highways and investigating highway accidents,
enforcing narcotics laws and investigating crimes, providing
scientific analysis services for many criminal justice agencies,
administering the State’s sex offender registration and
community notification compliance programs, and regulating
the State’s private investigator and security guard industry.
Organization and staffing
The Department reported 2,469.5 full-time equivalent (FTE) positions as of November
30, 2010; however, as shown in Table 1 (see page 2), 559 of these FTE positions (281
sworn and 278 civilian positions) were vacant. The Department’s staff are allocated
among the following four divisions:
Office of the Auditor General
page 1
Department’s mission—To protect
human life and property by enforcing
state laws, deterring criminal activity,
ensuring highway and public safety,
and providing vital scientific,
technical, and operational support to
other criminal justice agencies.
Source: The master list of state government
programs, fiscal years 2008–2010.
• Director’s Office (130.5 filled FTEs, 55 vacancies)—The Director’s Office
establishes department directives and oversees the Department’s government
liaison, community outreach and education program, budget office, and
professional standards unit, which investigates complaints against department
employees. In conjunction with the Department of Administration’s Capitol
Police, the Department also helps provide security for the State’s legislative
members and facilities. In addition, the Director’s Office administratively
supports the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety, the Arizona Peace Officer
Standards and Training Board, and the Law Enforcement Merit System Council
by providing services such as human resources, clerical and administrative
assistance, and personnel, and in some cases operating monies.1
• Highway Patrol Division (888 filled FTEs, 226 vacancies)—The Highway
Patrol Division, often referred to as the Department’s flagship division, has a
history dating back to 1931, when Arizona’s highway patrol function was first
created. This division’s mission is to ensure the safe and expeditious use of the
highway transportation system for the public, and provide assistance to local
and county law enforcement agencies. In addition, it enforces commercial
1 The Governor’s Office of Highway Safety’s responsibilities include acting on behalf of the Governor to administer
federal highway safety funds and executing highway safety contracts with federal and state government entities. The
Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board’s responsibilities include prescribing minimum qualifications,
recommending advanced training courses, and ensuring training standards are met for state law enforcement officers.
The Law Enforcement Merit System Council’s responsibilities include adopting rules for department employee
compensation, administration, and performance appraisals, and holding hearings on administrative decisions such as
employee suspensions or demotions.
State of Arizona
page 2
Table 1: Sworn and Civilian Filled and
Vacant FTE Positions
As of November 30, 20101
(Unaudited)
1 The Department also makes use of intermittent employees.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of FTE information as of November 30,
2010, provided by the Department.
Division
Sworn
Filled
Sworn
Vacant
Civilian
Filled
Civilian
Vacant
Total
Director’s
Office
29
8
101.5
47
185.5
Highway
Patrol
824
195
64
31
1,114
Criminal
Investigations
277 78 104.5 46
505.5
Technical
Services
Total
6
1,136
0
281
504.5
774.5
154
278
664.5
2,469.5
motor vehicle regulations, regulates the
design and operation of tow trucks,
registers tow truck drivers, issues school
bus driver certifications, and inspects
school buses to enforce school bus
regulations. Finally, this division also
provides air rescue and ambulance
services and air transport services (see
textbox).
• Technical Services Division (510.5
filled FTEs, 154 vacancies)—This
division develops and coordinates
scientific, technical, regulatory, and
support services to promote public
safety in Arizona. These services include
the following:
° Providing state-of-the-art scientific
examination and evaluation of evidence including deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA), fingerprints, blood, and controlled substances for the Arizona
criminal justice community to aid in the investigation and adjudication of
criminal cases.
° Regulating the private investigator and security guard industry through
various activities, including licensing and registering qualified applicants
and agencies, approving uniforms and patches worn by security guards,
and investigating violations of the statutes and rules governing these
industries.
° Operating Arizona’s Emergency Medical Services Communications System,
which provides a communication link between field emergency medical
services personnel and state-wide medical facilities.
° Processing criminal history background checks and fingerprint records
received from all Arizona law enforcement agencies. This division also
maintains and manages the Arizona Automated Fingerprint Identification
System, which is Arizona’s central repository of fingerprint records.
• Criminal Investigations Division (381.5 filled FTEs, 124 vacancies)—The
Criminal Investigations Division provides investigative, specialized enforcement,
and high-risk response support to federal, state, tribal, and local criminal justice
agencies. The Division includes multiple specialty units that provide operational
and investigative support in response to unique incidents, such as providing
support for or responding to chemical, biological or explosive incidents;
Office of the Auditor General
page 3
Highway Patrol Division Bureaus
• Highway Patrol—Ensures the safe use of the State’s
highway transportation system through its patrol
function and specialty units such as the Canine,
Motorcycle, and DUI Enforcement.
• Commercial Vehicle—Ensures the safety of the
motoring public by enforcing the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Regulations with primary functions,
including inspections and traffic enforcement.
• Aviation—Using rotary and fixed-wing aircraft,
primarily conducts law enforcement and search and
rescue operations. In addition, Aviation performs a
smaller number of air transport missions for the
Governor and personnel from other state agencies,
such as the Secretary of State’s or State Attorney
General’s Offices.
Source: Auditor General staff observation and analysis of the Department’s
Web site information and Fiscal Year 2009 Annual Report.
providing crisis negotiations personnel; and tracking down violent felons with
outstanding warrants. In addition, the Division participates in the Arizona
Counter Terrorism Information Center along with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and other law enforcement agencies to form a collective intelligence
agency dedicated to interdicting and preventing terrorism activities in the State.
The Division also partners with various federal, state, county, and municipal
agencies to form multi-agency task forces. For example, the Division’s Gang
and Immigration Intelligence Team Enforcement Mission (GIITEM) task force
provides gang and illegal immigration enforcement and intelligence services.
Further, the Division’s High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area Program is comprised
of many state-wide task force initiatives that target narcotics, weapons, and bulk
cash movements throughout Arizona. Finally, the Division also participates in the
Rocky Mountain Information Network, a project administered by the U.S.
Department of Justice, which provides support to law enforcement agencies in
the detection, enforcement, and prosecution of multi-jurisdictional criminal
activities crossing local, state, and national boundaries within a region.
Budget
As illustrated in Table 2 (see page 5), the Department received more than $300
million in net revenues in fiscal year 2010 and estimates receiving approximately
$291 million in revenues in fiscal year 2011. It receives revenue from many sources,
but the primary sources are Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)-managed
Highway User Revenue and State Highway Funds, and State General Fund
appropriations. The Department also receives intergovernmental revenues that are
primarily from federal grants, contracts, and reimbursements. The Department’s
expenditures for fiscal year 2010 totaled approximately $271 million and are
estimated to total nearly $280 million for fiscal year 2011. However, according to the
Department, fiscal year 2011 estimates assume most federal monies received during
the year will also be expended during the year; however, actual total expenditures will
likely be less than fiscal 2010 expenditures and unused federal monies will be carried
forward to fiscal year 2012. Personal services and employee-related benefits
represent the Department’s largest expenditures accounting for approximately 70
percent of total expenditures.
Similar to other state agencies, the Department has incurred State General Fund
reductions in addition to legislatively required transfers to the State General Fund
from many of its funds. Specifically, as shown in Table 2, the Department’s State
General Fund appropriation has been reduced from more than $60 million in fiscal
year 2009 to approximately $43.2 million in fiscal year 2011. In addition, in fiscal years
2009 and 2010, the Department was required to transfer to the State General Fund
more than $13 million and nearly $26 million, respectively, and more than $19 million
is required to be transferred for fiscal year 2011.
page 4
State of Arizona
Office of the Auditor General
page 5
Table 2: Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
Fiscal Years 2009 through 2011
(In Thousands)
(Unaudited)
1 The Department was appropriated a portion of monies from ADOT-managed funds. Revenues in the ADOT funds primarily come from highway-related taxes
such as motor fuel taxes. In addition, ADOT collects various revenues that are distributed to the Department in accordance with statute.
2 The photo enforcement program was discontinued on July 16, 2010; consequently, the fiscal year 2011 revenues are projected to substantially decline. Other
revenues collected primarily consist of fines and forfeits deposited in the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund (CJEF) that are distributed to various department
funds according to statute. For example, a portion of CJEF monies are deposited into the Department’s Crime Laboratory Operations Fund that is used to fund
crime lab operations. In addition, beginning in fiscal year 2010, A.R.S. §28-3396(C) requires the first $10.4 million of defensive driving school fees be deposited
into the Department’s Crime Laboratory Operations Fund and used to pay for crime lab operations; therefore, other court-collected fines and penalties
increased significantly in fiscal year 2010.
3 Statute requires the deposit of certain revenues, including highway-related taxes, into this fund, and the monies are subject to legislative appropriation.
4 Primarily consists of photo enforcement monies. Beginning in fiscal year 2011, Laws 2010, Ch. 266, §11, requires 60 percent of photo enforcement net
proceeds to be deposited to the State General Fund and the remaining monies to be deposited in other funds as directed by the law. Previously, all of the net
proceeds were deposited into the State General Fund.
5 As authorized in the annual general appropriations acts, the Department uses a clearing account for its operations. The operating appropriations are deposited
to and expended from this clearing account. At the end of the authorized period, the remaining monies in the account are reverted back proportionally to the
appropriated funds providing the initial contributions.
6 According to the Department, fiscal year 2011 estimates assume most federal monies received during the year will also be expended during the year; however,
actual expenditures will likely be less than fiscal year 2010 expenditures, and unused federal monies will be carried forward to fiscal year 2012.
7 Consists of monies transferred to the State General Fund in accordance with Laws 2008, Ch. 285, §§24 and 46; Laws 2009, Ch. 1, §4; Ch. 12 §44; 1st S.S.,
Ch. 1, §§4 and 7; 3rd S.S., Ch. 6, §21; 5th S.S., Ch. 1, §2; and Laws 2010, 7th S.S., Ch. 1 §§112, 113, and 148.
8 According to the Department, end-of-year balances consist of revenues from several dedicated funding sources such as federal grants. The balances are
generally needed for cash flow at the beginning of the next fiscal year and are restricted for specific purposes. For example, a substantial portion of the June
30, 2010, balance is from asset seizures that are awaiting court distribution and is not available for expenditure.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of department-provided financial information for fiscal years 2009 through 2011, as of November 15, 2010.
2009 2010
Revenues:
State General Fund appropriations $ 60,580 $ 43,658 $ 43,212
Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT):1
Highway User Revenue Fund appropriation 84,851 76,663 79,216
State Highway Fund appropriation 40,537 40,308 41,521
Revenue collections and other appropriated funds 3,576 4,544 4,629
Court-collected fines and penalties 2
Photo enforcement 22,478 42,991 12,000
Other 27,128 39,791 38,821
Highway Patrol Fund appropriation 3 24,076 20,951 18,906
Intergovernmental 38,964 42,866 49,312
Other 20,260 22,704 20,538
Gross revenues 322,450 334,476 308,155
Remittances to the State General Fund 4 (7,716) (26,878) (13,410)
Joint Fund reversions 5 (1,903) (4,462) (3,183)
Net revenues 312,831 303,136 291,562
Expenditures and operating transfers: 6
Personal services and related benefits 205,211 193,178 194,205
Aid to organizations and individuals 17,826 16,769 17,553
Professional and outside services, travel, and other operating 48,822 49,843 48,348
Equipment and capital outlay 27,778 11,219 19,682
Total expenditures 299,637 271,009 279,788
Legislative transfers to the State General Fund 7 13,348 25,996 19,027
Operating transfers out 6,534 4,031 7,961
Total expenditures and operating transfers out 319,519 301,036 306,776
Net change in fund balance (6,688) 2,100 (15,214)
Fund balance, beginning of year 40,785 34,097 36,197
Fund balance, end of year 8 $ 34,097 $ 36,197 $ 20,983
2011
(Actual) (Actual) (Estimate)
As discussed above, personnel services and related benefits comprise the majority
of the Department’s expenditures. Consequently, reductions in personnel were
necessary because of budget cuts, and according to the Department, these
reductions have affected its ability to perform its public safety functions. As noted in
Table 2 (see page 5), these expenditures totaled more than $193 million in fiscal year
2010, a decrease of approximately $12 million from the more than $205 million in
personnel expenditures in fiscal year 2009. Personnel expenditures are estimated to
total more than $194 million in fiscal year 2011. To address budget cuts, the
Department self-imposed a hiring freeze beginning in October 2008 and has sought
to reduce its personnel expenses primarily through attrition, including retirements.1
Since October 2008, 190 department positions have been vacated. This includes 83
sworn officer positions vacated through attrition, 88 civilian positions reduced
through attrition, and 19 civilian positions reduced through department layoffs.
According to the Department, this reduction has impacted its ability to perform its
public safety functions, including providing proactive highway patrol coverage,
processing crime scene evidence and fingerprint cards in a timely manner, and
effectively maintaining the State’s criminal history database. For more specific
information on budget cuts, see Finding I (pages 9 through 21).
In addition to personnel reductions, according to the Department, most of the
funding for equipment, such as replacing patrol cars and crime lab equipment, has
been eliminated. Additionally, one building has been closed and others that were
rented were vacated, and funding for immigration enforcement grants to local
agencies has been substantially reduced. Finally, the Department further reduced
personnel compensation costs by implementing furloughs, eliminating performance
pay, reducing overtime, and shifting some positions to grant funding.
Scope, objectives, and methodology
This performance audit and sunset review focused on following up on all of the
unimplemented recommendations from our previous performance audits and sunset
review of the Department conducted in 2000 and 2001 (see textbox, page 7);
conducting limited audit work related to the Department’s traffic incident clearance
time frames; and obtaining information about the effects of the Department’s budget
cuts as well as the steps the Department is taking to reduce the impact of those cuts.
This audit also includes responses to the 12 sunset factors required by A.R.S. §41-
2954.
Auditors used various methods to study the issues addressed in this report, including
interviewing department management and staff; reviewing statutes and rules;
analyzing information from internal documents, including department directives,
management reports, and planning documents; reviewing database information;
observing officers performing their duties; and reviewing information related to traffic
1 The Department is allowed to hire officers, dispatchers, and criminalists, but has imposed a hiring freeze to ensure it
is being fiscally responsible.
page 6
State of Arizona
Office of the Auditor General
page 7
incident management clearance time frames
and standards related to law enforcement
investigations (see citations in report).
Auditors’ work on internal controls was limited
to following up on the implementation status
of any internal control recommendations from
the 2000 and 2001 performance audits and
sunset review. In addition, since information
system data was not significant to auditors’
objectives, auditors did not conduct test work
on information system controls. However,
auditors conducted data validation test work
on the Department’s complaint-handling
information, including comparing hard copy
or system file information from 25 randomly
selected files against the Department’s
electronic data. Auditors determined that the
Department’s data was generally complete
and accurate for the purposes of determining
the number of complaints and complaint-processing
timelines, and describing outcomes.
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
audit objectives.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Department of Public
Safety’s Director and staff for their cooperation and assistance throughout the audit.
2000 and 2001 Auditor General performance
audits of the Department with unimplemented
recommendations1
• Aviation Section (Report No. 00-7)
• Telecommunications Bureau (Report No. 01-05)
• Licensing Bureau (Report No. 01-10)
• Highway Patrol (Report No. 01-20)
• Criminal Investigations (Report No. 01-22)
• Criminal Information Services Bureau, Access
Integrity Unit, and Fingerprint Identification Bureau
(Report No. 01-28)
1 Two of the audits had no unimplemented recommendations: Scientific
Analysis Bureau (Report No. 00-12) because all recommendations were
implemented at 6 months and Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
(Report No. 01-03) because the Department concluded its participation in
the program.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of Auditor General 2000 and 2001 audit
reports and subsequent follow-up reports.
State of Arizona
page 8
Office of the Auditor General
page 9
Finding 1
Department Implemented Most Prior Audit
Recommendations and Is Working to Minimize
Public Safety Impact of State’s Budget Crisis
This audit focused on following up on unimplemented recommendations from prior
Auditor General performance audits of the Department of Public Safety (Department)
published in 2000 and 2001, and on how the Department is working to minimize the
impact of the State’s budget crisis on public safety. The Department has implemented
many of the recommendations from the prior audits, but the Department can further
improve its efficiency and effectiveness if unimplemented recommendations are
addressed. Additionally, the Department is using a variety of methods to cope with
budget reductions, including a self-imposed hiring freeze, but it can do more to
effectively use its resources.1 Auditors specifically reviewed the following areas:
• The Department’s Highway Patrol Division, which includes its Aviation Section,
is operating with fewer officers but is using special programs to reduce public
safety impacts. The Highway Patrol Division should continue its efforts to gather
information on how long it takes to clear traffic incidents as it works to implement
a 90-minute traffic incident clearance time frame goal. In addition, consistent
with an unimplemented recommendation from the Auditor General’s June 2000
performance audit report (see Report No. 00-7), the Department should formally
assess the need for its current level of aviation resources. Aircraft are expensive
to own, operate, and maintain, and budget constraints have prevented the
Department from hiring pilots for its aircraft and caused it to reduce its available
hours of service by about 50 percent.
• The Department’s Criminal Investigations Division has also experienced a
decrease in officers. Implementing recommendations from the Auditor General’s
September 2001 performance audit (see Report No. 01-22) regarding
documenting its decision making for committing resources to multi-agency task
forces or to investigations for other law enforcement agencies can help to
ensure the most effective use of its reduced resources. In addition, the
Department should enhance its criminal investigation data, and once more
complete management information is available, the Department should use it
1 The Department is allowed to hire officers, dispatchers, and criminalists, but has imposed a hiring freeze to ensure it
is being fiscally responsible.
The Department should
continue its efforts to
implement a 90-minute
traffic clearance goal.
when assessing its investigation activities and outcomes to ensure its goals and
priorities are being met.
• The Department’s Scientific Analysis Bureau (Crime Lab) and Wireless Systems
Bureau, both part of its Technical Services Division, have implemented
recommendations from prior audit reports (see Report Nos. 00-12 and 01-05).
However, the Crime Lab is experiencing a backlog of cases because of
increased demand for its services, decreased resources, and outdated
equipment. In response, the Crime Lab has applied for federal grant monies to
retain analyst positions and outsource some deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)
testing, prioritized its cases, and used more automation. In addition, the
Department’s Wireless Systems Bureau is progressing on its upgrade of the
State’s microwave communications system from analog to digital. However,
budget cuts have required it to make some changes to the project and will delay
completion of the project.
Highway Patrol should continue efforts to improve public
safety
The Department’s Highway Patrol Division (Highway Patrol) should continue its
efforts to minimize the public safety impact of the budget reductions the Department
has experienced. Although operating with 60 fewer officers, Highway Patrol is
working to lessen the public safety impact of fewer officers by using such efforts as
special programs to curb speeding. Additionally, the Department has taken steps to
enhance its traffic incident management practices by gathering additional data and
planning to implement a goal in 2011 to clear traffic incidents within 90 minutes.
Consistent with the Auditor General’s recommendation from its June
2000 performance audit, the Department should also assess the need
for its current level of aviation resources.
Department working to lessen impact of officer reduction
on highway safety—Highway Patrol, which is responsible for
patrolling the State’s highways (see textbox), is operating with fewer
officers, but is working to lessen the public safety impact of this officer
shortage. To address budget cuts, the Department self-imposed a
hiring freeze beginning in October 2008, which has prevented it from
hiring new officers.1 As of October 2010, the Department reported a
shortage of 60 officers. This officer shortage has affected its ability to
patrol state highways. For example, according to the Department,
although there have always been some portions of state highways that
the Department cannot regularly patrol, since October 2008, there are
some highway segments that have been patrolled even less. However,
the Department still responds to calls for service on these roads and
1 The Department is allowed to hire officers, dispatchers, and criminalists, but has imposed a hiring freeze to ensure it
is being fiscally responsible.
To help address its case
backlog, the Crime Lab
has applied for federal
grant monies to process
cases.
State of Arizona
page 10
The Highway Patrol Division is
responsible for patrolling the State’s
highways, enforcing traffic and
criminal laws, and investigating
accidents that occur upon the
highway. This Division, among other
things, also conducts commercial
vehicle and school bus inspections,
and provides aviation services for the
Department and in support of other
law enforcement agencies state-wide.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of
information found on the Department’s
Web site at http://www.azdps.gov/
continues to focus its patrol efforts on the highway segments with the highest
traffic volumes and calls for service. Additionally, according to the Department,
having fewer officers has yet to have a significant impact because traffic volumes
and fatal crashes have also declined. For example, according to department
information, the number of fatal collisions on Arizona’s highways fell from 319 in
fiscal year 2008 to 237 in fiscal year 2010. However, in October 2010, the
Department estimated that the Department’s presence on Arizona’s highways will
further deteriorate within the next 3 years if it loses more officers and continues to
have a hiring freeze. The Department has also taken various actions to cope with
the officer shortage. These actions include employing special programs to curb
speeding through greater visibility such as “Operation Safe Passage,” which
placed department officers every 10 miles along two highways in Arizona to
monitor motorist activity, including traffic violations, and obtaining some federal
grant monies for specific safety programs, such as one to encourage safety belt
use.
Department taking steps to more quickly clear traffic incidents—The
Department has begun to gather more information about how quickly it clears
traffic incidents. Traffic incidents may be any nonrecurring event that reduces
highway capacity such as collisions, disabled vehicles, or spilled cargo. At the
time of the audit, the Department could not provide information on the time it
required to investigate traffic incidents and clear roadways. However, to improve
its ability to do so, in July 2010, the Department improved its traffic incident
tracking form and database to document, among other things, the times officers
arrive on the scene, and when the traffic incidents are cleared. A department
official reported that by improving its data collection, the Department will be able
to better determine how to more quickly clear traffic incidents and avoid traffic
buildup, which results in secondary incidents.
Similar to other states, the Department plans to adopt a 90-minute time frame goal
for clearing traffic incidents in 2011. The National Traffic Incident Management
Coalition (NTIMC), a multi-disciplinary partnership forum spanning the public
safety and transportation communities, has developed a national unified goal for
traffic incident management.1 Although not mandatory, NTIMC intended that the
goal encourage state and local transportation and public safety agencies to adopt
policies, procedures, and practices that would improve their management of traffic
incidents. One of the goal’s objectives focuses on safe, quick clearance of traffic
incidents. Although the national unified goal does not establish a specific time
frame for clearing roadways, according to the NTIMC, California, Florida, and
Washington have established a 90-minute traffic incident clearance time frame in
response to the goal.2 The Department also plans to adopt the same time frame
goal in 2011 to reduce secondary traffic incidents resulting from traffic buildup. To
1 National Traffic Incident Management Coalition. (2010). National unified goal for traffic incident management.
Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Retrieved October 5, 2010, from
http://www.transportation.org/sites/ntimc/docs/NUG-4pp_11-14-07.pdf
2 National Traffic Incident Management Coalition. (2010). Example strategies for building stronger state traffic incident
management programs. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
Retrieved November 2, 2010, from http://www.transportation.org/sites/ntimc/docs/Institutional%20Models.pdf
Like some other states, the
Department is adopting a
90-minute traffic clearance
goal.
Office of the Auditor General
page 11
further help meet its proposed traffic incident clearance time frame goal, according
to the Department, in November 2010, it conducted a workshop that brought
together first responders such as Metropolitan Phoenix-area fire departments and
the Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) to plan a collaborative effort to
better manage traffic incidents such as collisions. At the workshop, the Department
and other first responders discussed strategies to improve responder safety and
communication between responders at traffic incidents, and the safe/quick
clearance of traffic incidents.
Recommendation:
1.1 To ensure it can clear highways as quickly as possible, the Department should
continue with its plans to establish a 90-minute clearance goal, and use its new
traffic incident tracking form information to analyze the times officers arrive on
the scene and when the traffic incidents are cleared. The Department should
then use the data it collects to make appropriate and necessary changes to its
traffic incident management procedures so it can meet the 90-minute clearance
goal.
Department should determine the level of aviation resources
needed—Although aviation functions are common for large law enforcement
agencies, because aircraft are expensive to own, operate, and maintain, the
Department should assess the need for its current level of aviation resources. As
shown in Table 3 (see page 13), from fiscal years 2008 to 2010, the Department’s
overall number of missions flown has declined. The Department has attributed the
decline in aircraft missions to budget reductions for fiscal years 2008, 2009, and
2010, which have prevented it from hiring pilots and in turn caused it to reduce the
number of hours its aircraft are available. The Department further reported that this
reduction in service availability has resulted in decreased calls for service. The
Department’s overall aviation expenditures, which cover costs for five helicopters
and four fixed-wing aircraft, have decreased from $8.8 million in fiscal year 2008
to $6.6 million in fiscal year 2010. As a result, the Department indicated that its
available hours of service have been reduced by about 50 percent. According to
the Department, although the medical missions are being flown by other providers,
if department pilots are not available because of budget reductions, law
enforcement missions are not being flown. For example, according to the
Department, in 2010, the New Mexico State Police requested air helicopter
assistance from the Department to help them pursue a homicide suspect who was
fleeing on foot on the Arizona-New Mexico border, near Interstate 40. However, the
Department did not have a pilot available to fly that mission, and the suspect was
not apprehended.
The number of aircraft
missions the Department
flew decreased from fiscal
years 2008 to 2010.
page 12
State of Arizona
The Department implemented all of the
recommendations from the Auditor
General’s June 2000 performance audit of
the Department’s aviation function (see
Report No. 00-7), except for the
recommendation related to formally
assessing whether it could dispose of any
fixed-wing aircraft. The Department did not
implement this recommendation because it
believed that all of its aircraft are needed to
fulfill its mission. However, given the
reduced operations and pilot availability,
and because aircraft are expensive to own,
operate, and maintain, the Department
should formally assess the need for its
current level of aviation resources. In
conducting its assessment, the Department
should consider factors such as whether
the service is statutorily required, demand
for its various aviation services, the costs
versus benefits of providing such services,
whether the service can be provided by
another entity, and how many flight hours
each aircraft is flown.
A North Carolina evaluation of aviation
services provided in that state identified
opportunities for cost savings. Specifically,
a North Carolina General Assembly
Program Evaluation Division April 2010 report evaluated eight state aviation
programs in seven agencies.1 The evaluation found that 36 of 72 aircraft were
flown fewer than 100 hours per year and that 25 aircraft could be eliminated at an
annual savings of $1.5 million. In addition, it found that five facilities could be
closed at a savings of over $26,000 annually.
Recommendation:
1.2 Given its reduced operations and pilot availability and because aircraft are
expensive to own, operate, and maintain, the Department should formally
assess the need for its current level of aviation resources, both helicopters and
fixed-wing air transport aircraft.
1 Program Evaluation Division, North Carolina General Assembly. (2010). Selling 25 underutilized aircraft may yield up to
$8.1 million and save $1.5 million annually [Report Number 2010-04]. Raleigh, NC: Author.
Office of the Auditor General
page 13
Table 3: Helicopter and Fixed-Wing
Air Transport Missions
Fiscal Years 2008 through 2010
(Unaudited)
1 Meeting missions include flights taken by the Secretary of State and staff
from the Department’s Director’s Office.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of department-provided mission data
for fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
Helicopter Missions 2008 2009 2010
Law Enforcement 915 438 343
Maintenance & Logistics 382 316 259
Medical 231 146 98
Search & Rescue 489 332 310
Training 293 250 174
Other 194 50 32
Total 2,504 1,532 1,216
Air Transport Missions 2008 2009 2010
Law Enforcement 157 123 91
Governor 38 40 55
Maintenance 24 26 19
Meetings¹ 88 23 30
Search and Rescue 0 0 10
Training 63 43 91
Other 17 8 6
Total 387 263 302
Criminal Investigations should take additional steps to
ensure goals and priorities being met
To maintain its effectiveness in response to budget reductions and to help ensure
that the Department’s law enforcement goals and priorities are met, the Department’s
Criminal Investigations Division (Division) should implement the unimplemented
recommendations from the Auditor General’s September 2001 performance audit
(Report No. 01-22). The Criminal Investigations Division investigates narcotics law
violations, gangs, and vehicle theft among other things, and provides support to
local law enforcement agencies for other crime investigations such as those involving
aggravated assault and homicide. According to a department official, although it has
not had to lay off any officers from this Division, because of the Department’s hiring
freeze, it cannot replace officers lost through attrition. As of November 30, 2010, the
Division had 78 sworn officer and 46 civilian vacancies. According to a department
official, if further budget reductions occur, it will impact the Division’s effectiveness
and ability to provide service. Additionally, in response to budget reductions, the
Department has streamlined the Criminal Investigations Division by increasing the
size of squads that supervisors manage from two to three investigators, to nine or
ten. Given the reduction in staff and reorganization of the Criminal Investigations
Division, implementing the unimplemented Auditor General’s recommendations
from the September 2001 report can help ensure the most effective use of the
Department’s limited resources. These recommendations include:
• Documenting its decisions for department participation on task forces—
The September 2001 performance audit report found that the Department
should adopt a formal process for deciding when to participate on a multi-agency
task force. According to Standards for Law Enforcement Agencies
(Standards) produced by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies (CALEA®), a task force is any combination of resources assembled
to support a specific mission or operational need.1 According to the Department,
as of November 2010, it was participating on 27 task forces, and dedicating 163
department personnel to these efforts. These include task forces such as the
Gang and Immigration Intelligence Enforcement Mission, the Yuma County
Narcotics Task Force, and the Vehicle Theft Task Force. However, because the
Department has experienced a reduction in investigation resources, a formal
decision-making process can help ensure the most appropriate and effective
use of its more limited resources on these task forces.
According to department officials, although it has not developed and implemented
a written process for determining task force participation, it does informally
consider factors such as whether the task force’s purpose benefits Arizona and
supports the Department’s statutory mission; whether there is a possibility of
conflicting with other law enforcement agency efforts; whether the task force can
1 Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc. (2006). Standards for law enforcement agencies. (5th
ed.). Fairfax, VA: Author. The purpose of CALEA’s Standards is to offer useful and relevant standards that are
representative of the “best professional practices” for law enforcement agencies.
The Department is
participating on 27 task
forces, including a vehicle
theft task force.
page 14
State of Arizona
Office of the Auditor General
page 15
be funded without department monies; and whether the Division has a suitable
investigator available. The Department should formalize the process it uses to
decide whether or not it should participate in a task force. Department officials
have indicated a willingness to adopt a formal process for determining and
documenting its task force participation.
• Documenting decisions on whether to accept investigations from other law
enforcement agencies—The September 2001 performance audit report found
that the Department should develop specific criteria for accepting cases to help
it balance the requests of local jurisdictions with state-wide law enforcement
needs and priorities. According to a department official, it receives about 5 or 6
investigative requests each month from local, state, or county agencies to assist
with special investigations. As of November 2010, the Department had
dedicated 55 detectives to assist with 74 investigative requests from other
agencies during calendar year 2010. These investigations include theft of
several thousand dollars of seized bulk cash missing from a law enforcement
agency’s evidence locker, the use of deadly force by a county sheriff’s deputy,
and the death of a juvenile at a correctional facility. As recommended by the
Auditor General’s September 2001 performance audit report, to ensure that it is
balancing these requests with state-wide law enforcement needs and priorities
and available investigative resources, the Department should document its
case-screening criteria. In addition, it should document its decisions on whether
or not to fulfill a local jurisdiction’s request for assistance.
According to the Standards, case screening is necessary to ensure personnel
are assigned to investigations that have the best chance of being successful.1
In addition, the Standards suggest that agencies should have written directives
specifying how case screening is to be conducted. According to the Department,
because its mandate is to ensure public safety, it accepts all investigative case
requests unless it determines the case is better addressed by a different
agency. However, department officials have indicated a willingness to document
its decision making on whether to take on investigations.
• Improving criminal investigations case management information—To better
ensure the completeness of investigative case information captured in its case
management system, the Auditor General’s September 2001 performance audit
report recommended that the Department make the necessary programming
changes to its case management system to allow nondepartment cases (task
forces that department criminal investigators participate on, but do not lead) the
same internal tracking capability as department-led cases. The Department has
not implemented this recommendation. However, the Department indicated that
its long-term goal is to develop a case management system that would allow it
to track nondepartment-led cases and address other data management and
tracking issues. The Department has begun some initial planning and evaluation
of records management systems based on its needs and system affordability.
The Department should continue developing a system that will allow
1 See footnote 1, page 14.
As of November 2010, the
Department was assisting on
74 investigations for other
law enforcement agencies.
State of Arizona
page 16
nondepartment-led cases the same tracking capability as department-led
cases.
In addition, the September 2001 performance audit report recommended that
the Department develop case outcome codes for its case management system
that better reflect actual case outcomes. Some of the Department’s case
outcome codes do not adequately describe the outcome of case investigations.
For example, during the current audit, auditors observed that on one case, a
supervisor used an administrative closure code to close a case where officers
had recovered a stolen vehicle with no suspect because there is no specific
code to report recovery of a stolen vehicle. However, according to the
Department, the “administrative closed” code is defined in the system as one of
three things: (1) lack of further leads or solvability factors, (2) unavailable
resources, or (3) insufficient seriousness. Because these possible definitions
describe very different outcomes, additional, more descriptive codes would help
the Department better define case outcomes. Department officials have
indicated that the Department is working to develop new case outcome codes
for its case management system to better describe the investigative work
completed and the case outcomes achieved. The Department should continue
to expand the case outcome codes in its case management system or, in a new
system, to more accurately reflect the criminal investigation activities it conducts
and case outcomes.
• Assessing activities and outcomes to ensure priorities are being met—
Finally, the September 2001 performance audit report found that the Department
did not have complete and accurate management information to assess
whether it was using its resources effectively. Although it appears that the
Department has a process for assessing its criminal investigation activities and
outcomes to ensure its priorities are being met, the Department lacks complete
management information. According to the Standards, an agency should have
a system for evaluating the progress it has made toward attaining its goals and
objectives.1 By creating new, more specific codes for its case management
system and documenting information on the cases it works on but does not
lead, the Department will have more complete information to assess its
investigative activities and outcomes. Given the importance of effectively
managing its more limited resources, once more complete management
information is available, the Department should use this information to assess
its investigation activities and outcomes to ensure its goals and priorities are
being met.
1 See footnote 1, page 14.
Some of the Department’s
case outcome codes in its
case management system
do not adequately
describe the outcome of
case investigations.
Office of the Auditor General
page 17
Recommendations:
1.3 The Department should formalize the process it uses to decide whether or not
to participate on a task force.
1.4 The Department should develop specific criteria for accepting investigative
cases from other law enforcement agencies and document its decisions for
accepting investigative cases to help it balance the requests of local
jurisdictions with state-wide law enforcement needs and priorities.
1.5 The Department should continue developing a case management system that
will allow nondepartment-led investigative cases the same tracking capability
as department-led investigative cases.
1.6 The Department should continue to expand the case outcome codes in its
case management system or, in a new system, to more accurately reflect the
criminal investigation activities it conducts and case outcomes.
1.7 Once more complete management information is available, the Department
should use it when assessing its investigation activities and outcomes to
ensure its goals and priorities are being met.
Technical Services is taking steps to reduce budget cut
impacts
Although the Department has implemented the recommendations from the Auditor
General’s September 2000 and March 2001 performance audits for two key areas
within its Technical Services Division—the Scientific Analysis Bureau (Crime Lab) and
the Wireless Systems Bureau (Report Nos. 00-12 and 01-05)—budget reductions
have affected the Department’s ability to analyze crime scene data and enhance its
telecommunications system. For example, the Crime Lab continues to experience
processing backlogs because of increased forensic testing demand and budget
reductions, which affect its ability to upgrade or replace equipment and fill analyst
vacancies. Similarly, although the Wireless Systems Bureau is making progress on
its digital microwave upgrade project, budget reductions will cause implementation
delays.
Crime Lab continues to experience backlogs—Similar to crime labs in
other states, the Department’s Crime Lab continues to struggle with a backlog of
cases requiring scientific analysis of evidence, but is working to address the
situation.1 The Crime Lab consists of four regional labs that provide essential
forensic laboratory services to 272 criminal justice agencies in Arizona, including
1 Backlog is defined as an analysis request not completed 30 days or more from the date the request was received.
State of Arizona
page 18
municipal, county, state, tribal, and federal users. The four labs perform analysis
on various types of evidence such as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA); blood sample
testing for the presence of drugs or alcohol; firearms testing, including scene
recreation; handwriting analysis; comparison of latent prints to known fingerprints,
palm prints, and footprints; and examinations of trace evidence such as fibers,
hairs, glass, paint, and soil to determine if a suspect was present at a crime scene.
The Auditor General’s September 2000 performance audit found that the Crime
Lab was behind in entering convicted offender DNA samples into its database.
These samples are used to help match convicted offenders with unsolved cases
in Arizona and other states. At the time of the September 2000 audit report, the
Crime Lab had entered only about one-quarter of the samples it had received into
its database. In addition, the Crime Lab had a large backlog of blood and urine
samples awaiting drug and alcohol analysis. Despite implementing the September
2000 performance audit report’s recommendations within 6 months, the Crime
Lab continues to experience a backlog in processing criminal evidence. Table 4
illustrates the type and number of backlogged cases.
According to a department official, its increased backlog
results from (1) an overall increase in demand for forensic
testing, (2) reduced staffing, and (3) some outdated
equipment. According to department data, requests for DNA
testing of convicted offenders and arrestees increased
dramatically, from 6,155 cases in fiscal year 2002 to 29,348
cases in fiscal year 2003.1 In fiscal year 2010, law enforcement
agencies submitted 40,969 convicted offender and arrestee
DNA cases to the Crime Lab for analysis. In addition, as
shown in Table 5 (see page 19), overall since 2008, other
types of cases submitted to the Crime Lab for analysis have
also increased. For example, the number of alcohol toxicology
submissions increased from 10,837 in fiscal year 2009 to
11,335 in fiscal year 2010. In addition, the number of latent
print submissions increased from 5,961 in fiscal year 2008 to
6,217 in fiscal year 2010.
According to the Department, the inability to fill vacant
positions due to state budget reductions has also contributed
to case analysis backlogs. As indicated in Table 6 (see page
19), as of September 30, 2010, 4 Crime Lab positions were
eliminated and 20 vacant positions could not be filled
because of budget reductions.2 According to a department
1 Mandatory DNA testing was first required of convicted sex offenders in 1993, and convicted juvenile sex offenders were
added in 1995 (Arizona Revised Statute (A.R.S.) §13-4438). Convicted murder and burglary offenders were added to
mandatory testing in 2002, and convicted drug and other felony offenders were phased in over the next 2 years (A.R.S.
§13-610). In 2008, mandatory DNA testing of all persons arrested for homicide, sex offenses, burglary, and dangerous
felonies was added (A.R.S. §13-610).
2 According to the Department, the four positions were eliminated late in fiscal year 2009 and began to affect the backlog
in fiscal year 2010.
Table 4: Crime Lab Backlogged Cases1
October 2008, 2009, and 2010
(Unaudited)
1 Backlog is defined as an analysis request not completed within 30
days or more from the date the request was received.
2 Other includes firearms; trace evidence such as fibers, hairs, and
soil; and questioned documents.
3 Represents DNA samples collected from convicted offenders and
arrestees. The samples are analyzed, and the DNA profiles are
entered into the DNA database and matched against DNA
evidence from unsolved cases.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of 30 Day Backlog Status
reports provided by the Department.
Analysis Type
2008
2009
2010
DNA/Serology 2,016 2,326 2,694
Drug 200 180 241
Latent Prints 423 1,213 854
Other2 419 236 183
Toxicology:
Alcohol 0 0 74
Drug 692 935 1,474
Total 3,750 4,890 5,520
DNA Database3 59,567 25,913 39,518
Office of the Auditor General
page 19
official, the vacancies and eliminated
positions occurred through attrition because
analysts have moved to city crime labs that
pay higher salaries. In addition, 21.5 crime
lab positions are being funded temporarily
by federal stimulus grants, which expire on
June 30, 2011, and cannot be renewed.
According to the Department, if no additional
funding is identified, these employees will
have to be laid off, which will greatly increase
the backlogs.
Additionally, some Crime Lab equipment is
becoming outdated. For example,
according to a department official, the
Crime Lab’s scanning electron microscope,
which is used to analyze trace evidence
such as paint or explosives, is obsolete and
needs to be replaced with newer, updated
equipment that will improve analysis times
by eliminating some steps that currently
must be taken in the process.
However, Arizona is not alone in experiencing backlogs. According to a June 2010
National Institute of Justice report, although states and local governments have
increased crime lab capacity, increasing demand for crime lab services has
outstripped these gains.1 In addition, the Federal Bureau of Investigation has a
backlog in its DNA analysis work, according to an August 2010 U.S. Department
of Justice report.2
1 Nelson, M. (2010). Making sense of DNA backlogs–myths vs. reality: NIJ special report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice.
2 U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General. (2010). Review of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
laboratory’s forensic DNA case backlog [Report 10-39]. Washington, DC: Author.
Table 5: Cases Submitted to Crime Lab
Fiscal Years 2008 through 2010
(Unaudited)
1 Other includes firearms; trace evidence such as fibers, hairs, and
soil; and questioned documents.
2 Represents DNA samples collected from convicted offenders and
arrestees. The samples are analyzed, and the DNA profiles are
entered into the DNA database and matched against DNA evidence
from unsolved cases.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Department’s crime lab
caseload information for fiscal years 2008 through 2010.
Analysis Type 2008 2009 2010
DNA/Serology 4,942 5,545 6,364
Drug 20,609 21,086 22,477
Latent Prints 5,961 6,074 6,217
Other1 1,834 1,851 1,807
Toxicology:
Alcohol 10,087 10,837 11,335
Drug 14,149 14,714 14,920
Total 57,582 60,107 63,120
DNA Database2 44,299 42,638 40,969
Table 6: Crime Lab Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Positions
June 30, 2008 and 2009, and September 30, 2010
(Unaudited)
1 The 21.5 FTE under Temporary Grant Funding were part of the filled positions. To meet budget reductions,
federal stimulus grant monies were used. However, these grants end June 30, 2011, and cannot be
renewed.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of FTE data provided by the Department for June 30, 2008 and 2009,
and September 30, 2010.
Date
Authorized
Filled
Vacant
Eliminated
Temporary
Grant Funding1
June 30, 2008 160.5 150.5 10 0 0
June 30, 2009 160.5 142.5 18 0 0
September 30, 2010 156.5 115 20 4 21.5
State of Arizona
page 20
To help address its criminal evidence processing backlogs, the Department has
taken the following steps:
• Obtained federal grant monies to help it retain analysts or process cases. For
example, in addition to the federal stimulus grant monies previously mentioned,
from October 2009 to March 2011, the Department is using a $1.6 million
Department of Justice grant to hire a private contractor to test 55,000 convicted
felon and arrestee DNA samples.
• Prioritizing cases so that analysis related to violent crimes is completed first
(see textbox).
• Using automation where possible to increase the number of analyses
performed at one time. For example, through grant funding, the Department
purchased new genetic analyzers that are used to locate, extract, and purify
DNA and analyze 192 samples in 6 hours versus 96 samples in 11 hours.
• Training local law enforcement to perform drug field testing for certain cases
so these cases are not sent to the Crime Lab for analysis. The Department
estimates that, for more than 10 years, it has trained 5,750 officers to do this
testing, which has prevented from 7,000 to 10,000 cases from being submitted
to the Crime Lab for analysis.
Telecommunication system enhancements progressing despite
budget reductions—The Department’s Wireless Systems Bureau has made
progress on its digital microwave upgrade project and is adjusting this project to
accommodate budget reductions. The Auditor General’s March 2001 performance
audit report addressed the Department’s outdated analog telecommunications
system and recommended that the Department develop a plan for converting its
analog telecommunications system to a digital system as soon as possible. The
Department and more than 20 other state, county, and federal agencies, such as
the Army National Guard, the Department of Corrections, the Game and Fish
Department, and the Yavapai Fire District, depend on this communication system
to maintain radio communications with mobile and hand-held units used by
More than 20 other state,
county, and federal
agencies depend on the
Department’s
communication system.
Crime Lab Case Prioritization
1. Violent crimes where analysis is needed to identify a suspect
to prevent additional violence
2. Violent crimes with suspect arrested requiring analysis for
adjudication
3. Trial and court discovery deadlines
4. Felony crimes
5. Misdemeanor crimes
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of department information on Crime Lab case
prioritization.
Office of the Auditor General
page 21
administrators, officers, and other first responders. Although the Department has
yet to complete the digital microwave upgrade project, it has implemented all of
the recommendations from the March 2001 performance audit report, including
developing a project plan and seeking grant funding to help pay for the project.
The Department has used a combination of state-appropriated funds and Federal
Homeland Security grants to pay for the project. As illustrated in Table 7, the total
cost of this project as of October 2010 is more than $7.2 million. According to a
department official, as of October 2010, the southern loop of the system, which
consists of 25 microwave paths in Phoenix and Cochise, Gila, Graham, Pima, and
Pinal Counties, is basically complete and in use. In addition, 14 of the 25
microwave paths in the western loop of the system, which encompasses part of
Phoenix, over to Yuma and the western part of the State, are up and running.
The Department indicated that because of state budget reductions, some
changes were made to the project plan and it has sought collaborations with
system users to help finish the project. Project changes included temporarily
eliminating a new tower site planned for Casa Grande Mountain near Casa
Grande until funding is secured, and entering into a partnership with the City of
Phoenix to fund a new building scheduled to be built on a site they will share.
According to a department official, this building will house two-way radio
equipment for Phoenix and some state agencies and other equipment such as the
Department’s digital microwave equipment. In addition, a department official
indicated that the western loop will take longer to build than originally planned.
Specifically, the Department planned for the western loop to be completed in
2012, but now expects it will take several years longer to build because of reduced
funding.
As of October 2010, the
digital microwave upgrade
project cost more than
$7.2 million.
Table 7: Digital Microwave Upgrade Project Expenditures by Source
As of October 2010
Fiscal Years 2007 through 2011
(Unaudited)
¹ Expenditures reported for fiscal year 2011 are only through October 12, 2010.
² Expenditures from appropriations consist of nonlapsing appropriations made in fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009 from the State General Fund,
the State Highway Fund, and the Game and Fish Fund.
Source: Auditor General staff analyses of department expenditures for fiscal years 2007 through 2011.
Source of Expenditure 2007 2008 2009 2010 20111 Total
State appropriations2 $ 337,074 $ 521,384 $ 1,249,494 $ 965,598 $ 97,030 $ 3,170,580
Federal Homeland Security grants - 1,329,419 2,016,803 164,034 558,124 4,068,380
Total $ 337,074 $1,850,803 $ 3,266,297 $ 1,129,632 $ 655,154 $ 7,238,960
State of Arizona
page 22
Office of the Auditor General
page 23
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) §41-2954, the Legislature
should consider the following 12 factors in determining whether the Arizona
Department of Public Safety (Department) should be continued or terminated
1. The objective and purpose in establishing the Department.
The Department was established as a state-level law
enforcement entity on July 1, 1969. According to A.R.S.
§41-1711(A), the Department is responsible for creating
and coordinating services for use by local law enforcement
agencies in protecting the public safety. Its statutory
responsibilities include patrolling the State’s highways and
investigating accidents, enforcing narcotics laws and
investigating crimes, providing scientific analysis services
for many criminal justice agencies, administering the
State’s sex offender registration and community notification
compliance programs, and regulating the State’s private
investigator and security guard industry
2. The effectiveness with which the
Department has met its objective
and purpose and the efficiency with
which it has operated.
The Department has effectively met
some of its prescribed objectives and
purpose. Specifically, this performance
audit and sunset review primarily
focused on following up on the
unimplemented recommendations
from the Auditor General’s previous
performance audits and sunset review
conducted in 2000 and 2001 (see
textbox). At the conclusion of auditors’
follow-up work in November 2003
regarding the Department’s efforts to
Department’s mission—To protect
human life and property by enforcing
state laws, deterring criminal activity,
ensuring highway and public safety,
and providing vital scientific,
technical, and operational support to
other criminal justice agencies.
Source: The Master List of State Government
Programs, Fiscal Years 2008–2010.
2000 and 2001 Auditor General performance
audits of the Department with unimplemented
recommendations1
• Aviation Section (Report No. 00-7)
• Telecommunications Bureau (Report No. 01-05)
• Licensing Bureau (Report No. 01-10)
• Highway Patrol (Report No. 01-20)
• Criminal Investigations (Report No. 01-22)
• Criminal Information Services Bureau, Access
Integrity Unit, and Fingerprint Identification Bureau
(Report No. 01-28)
1 Two of the audits had no unimplemented recommendations: Scientific
Analysis Bureau (Report No. 00-12) because all recommendations were
implemented at 6 months and Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
(Report No. 01-03) because the Department concluded its participation in
the program.
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of Auditor General 2000 and 2001 audit
reports and subsequent follow-up reports.
State of Arizona
page 24
implement the recommendations from these audits, the Department had yet to
implement or was in the process of implementing 23 recommendations.
However, the Department has since implemented most of the recommendations.
For example, the Department:
• Expanded its cost recovery model and established new rates—As
recommended in the Auditor General’s June 2000 performance audit of the
Department’s Aviation Section, the Department modified its cost recovery
model and established new reimbursement rates for providing air transport
services to other state agencies that better reflect the cost of providing the
service.
• Developed a plan for converting its telecommunication system from
analog to digital—Consistent with the recommendations from the Auditor
General’s March 2001 performance audit, the Department developed a
plan for converting its telecommunications system from analog to digital
and has obtained both grants and legislative appropriations to help cover
the conversion costs. The changes have allowed the Department to
continue to enhance its telecommunication system. This system is used by
the Department and more than 20 other state, county, and federal agencies,
such as the Army National Guard, the Department of Corrections, the
Game and Fish Department, and the Yavapai Fire District to maintain radio
communications with mobile and hand-held units used by administrators,
officers, and other first responders (see Finding 1, pages 20 and 21).
• Conducts regular site visits/compliance checks of security guard
agencies—Finally, consistent with the recommendations from the Auditor
General’s May 2001 performance audit of the Department’s Licensing
Bureau, the Department has enhanced its regulation of security guard
agencies, including conducting regular site compliance visits. According to
the Department, the licensing unit began conducting routine audits in
October 2007. These audits help ensure security guard agencies comply
with statute and administrative rule requirements, including license posting,
uniform color and patch or badge, vehicle marking, and training
requirements.
The Department has also improved its incident management data collection
and analysis practices to help it better determine how to more quickly clear
traffic incidents and avoid traffic buildup. With this information and associated
improvements, the Department plans to adopt a goal in 2011 to clear traffic
incidents within 90 minutes, a goal that has been established by other states
(see Finding 1, page 11). The Department also processes in a timely manner
both security guard and private investigator complaints, and complaints against
its personnel (see Sunset Factor 6, pages 27 through 29).
Office of the Auditor General
page 25
However, the Department should take some steps to help improve its efficiency
and effectiveness. For example, consistent with recommendations from the
Auditor General’s June 2000 performance audit of the Department’s aviation
function (see Report No. 00-7), the Department should formally assess the need
for its current level of aviation resources. Overall, from fiscal years 2008 to 2010,
the number of aviation missions has declined. The Department has attributed
the decline in aircraft missions to budget reductions for fiscal years 2008, 2009,
and 2010, which have prevented it from hiring pilots and in turn caused it to
reduce the number of hours its aircraft are available. In addition, consistent with
recommendations from the Auditor General’s September 2001 performance
audit of the Department’s Criminal Investigations Division (Report No. 01-22),
the Department should implement processes for determining whether it should
join a multi-agency task force or accept requests for investigation assistance
from local jurisdictions. This will help ensure that the Department is balancing
requests for criminal investigation services with state-wide enforcement needs
and priorities, which becomes more critical given its reduced resources (see
Finding 1, pages 9 through 21).
3. The extent to which the Department has operated within the public interest
For the areas reviewed during this audit, the Department generally operates in
the public interest. For example, the Department operates within the public
interest by helping to ensure public safety on Arizona’s highways state-wide
through such efforts as speed enforcement, commercial vehicle inspections,
and safe driving tips. As illustrated in Table 8, the Department’s officers patrolled
nearly 21.3 million highway miles in fiscal year 2010 watching for traffic violations,
assisted more than 138,600 motorists, and responded
to and investigated nearly 24,600 vehicle collisions. The
Department also employs highway service patrols to
provide services to stranded motorists, direct traffic at
traffic incidents, and remove hazardous debris from
roadways. These service patrols allow regular patrol
officers to focus on more serious incidents, such as
those involving multiple vehicles. In addition, to help
prevent truck and bus accidents, the Department
conducts commercial vehicle inspections to ensure
compliance with Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration standards. Table 8 shows that the
Department conducted more than 39,600 such
inspections in fiscal year 2010. The Department also
includes public safety press releases on its Web site.
For example, in June 2010, it posted a press release
that provided driving safety tips related to rapid air loss in
a vehicle tire or mechanical failure.
Table 8: Highway Patrol Activity
Fiscal Year 2010
(Unaudited)
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information
from the Department’s personnel deployment
system for fiscal year 2010.
Activity Amount
Miles patrolled 21,275,292
Collisions investigated 24,580
Citations issued 158,000
Motorist assists 138,613
Arrests 23,955
Motor carrier inspections 32,014
School bus inspections 7,613
State of Arizona
page 26
The Department also operates in the public interest by providing various
services to or working directly with the law enforcement community. For
example, it provides state-of-the art scientific examination and evaluation of
evidence including DNA, fingerprints, blood, and controlled substances, to 272
criminal justice agencies in Arizona, including municipal, county, state, tribal,
and federal users, to aid in investigating and adjudicating criminal cases. During
fiscal year 2010, more than 104,000 cases were submitted to the Department
for scientific analysis, and the Department processed more than 88,600 cases.
The Department’s Crime Lab is experiencing a backlog of cases awaiting
processing because of the demand for its services, its inability to fill some
vacant positions due to budget reductions, and outdated equipment. However,
it is taking steps to limit this impact through efforts such as prioritizing cases,
obtaining grant funding to temporarily retain positions, and hiring a contractor to
process some cases (see Finding 1, pages 17 through 20).
Finally, the public also benefits from the Department’s criminal investigation
services in areas such as narcotics, gangs, and organized crime enforcement.
For example, according to the Department, in 2008, it established the Violent
Criminal Apprehension Team (VCAT), a collaborative effort of 24 state-wide law
enforcement entities, to pursue wanted felons. Since establishing VCAT, this
team has arrested 925 and 602 fugitives in fiscal years 2009 and 2010,
respectively, as compared to the 262 fugitives the Department arrested in fiscal
year 2008.
4. The extent to which rules adopted by the Department are consistent with
the legislative mandate.
General Counsel for the Auditor General has analyzed the Department’s rule-making
statutes and believes that the Department has established the required
rules for all but one area. According to department information, Arizona laws
regulate the sale of defined precursor and regulated chemicals to prevent the
unlawful manufacture of methamphetamine and other dangerous and narcotic
drugs. Specifically, A.R.S. §13-3404(A) requires that manufacturers, wholesalers,
retailers, or other persons who sell, transfer, or otherwise furnish any precursor
or regulated chemicals must submit a report of the transactions to the
Department. In addition, A.R.S. §13-3404(D) requires that manufacturers,
wholesalers, retailers, or other persons who receive any precursor or regulated
chemicals must submit a report of the transactions to the Department according
to rules adopted by the Department. This provision at least implies that there
should be rules prescribing the criteria for such reports. However, A.R.S. §13-
3404(K) gives the Director discretionary authority to adopt rules to carry out this
statute’s provisions. Consequently, the Department plans to form a committee
to review these statutory requirements and determine, among other things, if
administrative rules are necessary. The Department should continue with its
Office of the Auditor General
page 27
plans, and if the committee determines that administrative rules are necessary,
the Department should ensure that they are promulgated.
5. The extent to which the Department has encouraged input from the public
before adopting its rules and the extent to which it has informed the public
as to its actions and their expected impact on the public.
The public is informed of the Department’s proposed rules through the Notices
of Proposed Rule Making filed with the Secretary of State’s Office and published
in the Arizona Administrative Record. For example, in October 2008, the
Department filed a Notice of Proposed Rule Making for its Criminal Identification
Section Rules. These include rules such as those pertaining to the submission
and retention of criminal justice information, and procedures for challenging the
accuracy and completeness of criminal history records. In addition, according
to the Department, in some cases, industry input is sought through letters,
group meetings, and other forms of interaction. The Department indicated that
it has developed numerous private-public partnerships, including with the
Arizona Trucking Association, the Security Guard Licensing/Private Investigator’s
Group, and the Traffic Stop Advisory Council/American Civil Liberties Union, to
discuss proposed department rules and procedures that affect the public and
specialty groups. According to the Department, these partnerships provide an
opportunity beyond the public hearing for the public and members of the
regulated industries to provide input on proposed changes to the Department’s
rules.
The Department also holds press conferences and posts press releases and
other information on its Web site to inform the public of its actions. For example,
on September 21, 2010, the Department issued a press release informing the
public that it would hold a press conference to provide detailed information on
“Operation Take Back,” a program aimed at collecting potentially dangerous
expired, unused, and unwanted prescription drugs for destruction.
Finally, the Department complies with the open meeting law requirement to post
on its Web site a statement indicating where it will post notices of public
meetings for the Private Investigator and Security Guard Hearing Board.
According to its statement, the Department posts these notices on its Web site,
in the department lobby, and at the Arizona State Capitol.
6. The extent to which the Department has been able to investigate and
resolve complaints that are within its jurisdiction.
The Department investigates and resolves complaints both as part of its
regulatory duties and related to its personnel. Specifically, according to A.R.S.
§§32-2456 and 32-2639, the Department has statutory authority to investigate
complaints against registered security guards, private investigators, and their
State of Arizona
page 28
licensed agencies. In fiscal year 2010, the Department registered approximately
2,200 private investigators and 31,000 security guards in the State. The
Department may initiate an investigation of private investigators, security
guards, and their employing agencies on its own initiative or based on any
person submitting a written complaint.
According to A.R.S. §§32-2457 and 32-2636, after the Department completes its
investigation, the Department Director may take various actions, including
dismissing the case, issuing a letter of concern, or forwarding the Department’s
findings to the Private Investigator and Security Guard Hearing Board (Board)
for review and possible disciplinary action. Based on the information the Board
receives during a hearing and as provided in A.R.S. §§32-2405, 32-2457(F), and
32-2636(H), the Board may recommend that the Director dismiss the complaint,
establish a probation period, or suspend or revoke the license or registration.
During calendar year 2010 (as of November 29, 2010), the Department received
101 security guard complaints and 62 private investigator complaints. As of
November 29, 2010, 138 of the complaints had been investigated and resolved.
The Department determined that several complaints (47) were unfounded.
However, the Department also took action on several complaints, including
issuing 31 suspension letters and 7 letters of concern. According to the
Department’s strategic plan, it seeks to have no more than 2 complaints per
year that exceed 120 days from receipt to final disposition. During calendar year
2010 (as of November 29, 2010), the Department had 3 complaints that
exceeded this time frame.
The Department also investigates and resolves written and verbal complaints
concerning the actions and performance of its personnel. The Department has
established complaint-handling procedures, including timelines, investigation
steps, and steps for responding to complainants. During calendar year 2010, as
of October 20, 2010, the Department had received 265 complaints against its
personnel. These complaints involved a total of 323 allegations, mostly related
to inefficiencies (141 allegations), discourtesy (69 allegations), or improper
procedures (38 allegations).1 Some of the complaints involved allegations of a
more serious nature such as racial profiling (20 allegations) or excessive use of
force (4 allegations). As of October 20, 2010, the Department had resolved 217
complaints, and about half of the time, the Department’s investigation
determined that no further action was needed. However, the remaining half of
the resolved complaints resulted in some type of disciplinary action, including
letters of instruction or reprimand, oral and written corrective action guidance,
and loss of pay. The Department has a 120-day time frame for handling
complaints, and as illustrated in Table 9 (see page 29), most of the complaints
were resolved within that time frame. Specifically, of the 217 complaints resolved
as of October 20, 2010, 198 complaints met the time frame and 19 did not. Of
the 48 complaints still open as of October 20, 2010, 7 had been open longer
than 120 days.
1 According to the Department, inefficiencies generally involve damage to or loss of state property, such as an officer
losing his or her badge; backing into another vehicle, post, or sign; or being involved in a collision. Improper procedures
complaints can involve not following procedures for conducting a traffic stop, searching a vehicle or submitting
evidence, or using a state credit card for personal use.
Office of the Auditor General
page 29
7. The extent to which the Attorney General or any other applicable agency
of state government has the authority to prosecute actions under the
enabling legislation
According to A.R.S. §§41-193(A)(2) and 11-532(A)(2), the Attorney General and
county attorneys have the authority to prosecute criminal violations charged by
and civil violations issued by the Department. The Department enforces traffic
laws along Arizona’s highways, and conducts investigations involving narcotics
trafficking, organized crime, vehicle theft, illegal gang activity, human smuggling,
and computer and financial crimes, among other things. The Department
forwards its cases to the Attorney General or appropriate county attorneys for
prosecution when warranted. In addition, the Attorney General represents the
Department in legal issues facing the Department as prescribed in A.R.S. §41-
192(A)(1).
8. The extent to which the Board has addressed deficiencies in its enabling
statutes, which prevent it from fulfilling its statutory mandate.
The Department indicated that, at this time, it has not identified any significant
statutory changes it needs to accomplish its mission. However, the Department
proposed or was impacted by legislation that was enacted in calendar years
2008 through 2010. Specifically:
• Laws 2008, Ch. 142—This law amended several statutes relating to motor
carrier safety, including safety equipment on trucks and buses. According
to the Department, these changes moved Arizona’s statutes into compliance
with federal motor carrier safety regulations. For example, the changes
included a requirement that vehicles exceeding 30 feet in length must have
a reflector mounted at the midpoint between the front and rear reflectors.
According to the Department, compliance with these federal regulations
was necessary to ensure the continued receipt of some federal funding.
Table 9: Complaint-Handling Time Frames
As of January 1, 2010 through October 20, 2010
(Unaudited)
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of department complaint data for the period
January 1, 2010 through October 20, 2010.
Complaint status Number
Closed ≤ 120 days 198
Closed > 120 days 19
Open < 120 days 41
Open > 120 days 7
Total
265
State of Arizona
page 30
• Laws 2008, Ch. 276—This law added and amended statutes relating to
DNA testing. According to the Department, this statutory change eliminates
occasions when a defendant has to submit DNA several times relating to
the same offense or arrest. This law also established the requirement for
DNA testing for juveniles arrested for specific crimes. According to the
Department, changes made by this law should positively impact the
Department’s Crime Lab work by reducing duplication of DNA samples.
• Laws 2009, Ch. 125, §3—This provision established the Federal Sex
Offender Registration Notification Act Study Committee (Study Committee),
which includes the Department’s Director or designee, to examine the
effectiveness of the State’s sex offender laws and the impact of adopting
the federal standards of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
of 2006. According to information from the National Conference of State
Legislatures, the purpose of the Adam Walsh Act is to protect the public,
particularly children, from violent sex offenders through a more
comprehensive, nationalized system for sex offender registration. The
Adam Walsh Act calls for state conformity in various aspects of sex offender
registration, including offender classification, timing of registration, and
type of registry information each sex offender must provide. The Act also
states that failure to comply with the federal requirements within 3 years will
result in a 10 percent reduction of federal Byrne law enforcement assistance
grant monies that a state receives. According to Arizona Criminal Justice
Commission information, a 10 percent reduction would have been about
$3 million for Arizona in federal fiscal year 2009, and approximately
$600,000 in federal fiscal year 2010. States had until July 27, 2009, to
comply with the federal act, but Arizona has received two 1-year extensions
and has until July 2011 to comply.
The Study Committee last met in December 2009 and ended on December
31, 2010. Because the Department is responsible for administering the sex
offender registration and community notification compliance programs, the
Department is developing draft legislative changes, identifying
implementation costs, and researching funding sources to address system
upgrades that will be needed to comply with the federal requirements.
• Laws 2010, Ch. 59—This law amended various statutes related to
concealed weapons. Specifically, this law eliminated the need to obtain a
concealed weapons permit in many instances if the person is 21 years of
age or older. However, according to the Department, there are circumstances
when a permit may still be desired by a gun owner or is still needed, such
as to carry a concealed weapon into another state. Therefore, the
Department will continue many of its responsibilities for issuing concealed
weapons permits.
Office of the Auditor General
page 31
• Laws 2010, Ch. 87—This law amended A.R.S. §28-984 by changing the
requirement that the Department of Public Safety annually inspect all
school buses to a requirement that the inspections occur according to
rules. However, according to the Department, because rules have not been
amended, the Department is still responsible for annually conducting these
inspections.
9. The extent to which changes are necessary in the laws of the Department
to adequately comply with the factors in the sunset law.
This audit did not identify any needed changes to the Department’s statutes.
10. The extent to which the termination of the Department would significantly
harm the public’s health, safety, or welfare.
Consistent with its mission, the Department is responsible for protecting human
life and property by enforcing state laws; deterring criminal activity; ensuring
highway and public safety; and providing scientific, technical, and operational
support to other criminal justice agencies. Therefore, its elimination would
significantly harm the public. According to the Department, while some
alternatives are available for providing department services, these alternatives
would likely be less efficient and possibly less effective. Specifically, the
Department indicated that, as a state-wide agency, the Department can achieve
economies of scale and reduce redundancy for the services it provides. For
example, if criminal history information were maintained at the county or city
level, it would be more costly to maintain and less uniform. Similarly, if the State’s
highway system were patrolled by county sheriffs, there would be less of an
ability to shift resources state-wide, and enforcement policies and practices
could vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
11. The extent to which the level of regulation exercised by the Department is
appropriate and whether less or more stringent levels of regulation would
be appropriate.
This audit did not identify the need for any changes to the level of regulation
exercised by the Department.
12. The extent to which the Department has used private contractors in the
performance of its duties and how effective use of private contractors
could be accomplished.
As a law enforcement agency, the Department cannot outsource some of its key
functions, such as highway patrol and criminal investigations. However, it has
contracted with private contractors for services such as aviation fuel and aircraft
maintenance, including helicopter engine overhauls for its aviation bureau,
communications tower equipment and supporting personnel for department-maintained
communication sites state-wide, and tow truck services. The
Department contracts with tow truck companies to establish maximum service
rates that they may charge stranded motorists when it initiates the calls for
towing services. In addition, the Department uses contract custodial and
landscape services and contract fingerprint technology services, and also has
a contract to perform convicted felon and arrestee DNA testing to reduce the
backlog of DNA samples awaiting testing at its crime lab.1
Although the Department has allowed contracts to expire in some areas, it is
planning to rely even more on outsourced services in others. For example, in
July 2008, the Department contracted with a vendor to construct and operate a
state-wide speed photo enforcement system. However, in July 2010, the
Department allowed the contract to expire, which resulted in eliminating the
Department’s speed photo enforcement system. In that same month, according
to a department official, because of the State’s budget reductions, it reduced its
wireless systems bureau by 11 positions and, when necessary, plans to use
contracted services in that area. This bureau provides telecommunications
systems support for the Department and governmental agencies state-wide.
This audit did not identify any additional uses for contractors.
1 According to the Department, it has multiple locations throughout the State that require custodial and landscaping
services, and most of this is performed by contractors. However, it does have some locations, such as the State
Headquarters, where inmate labor is used for landscaping.
State of Arizona
page 32
AGENCY RESPONSE
Performance Audit Division reports issued within the last 24 months
Future Performance Audit Division reports
Arizona State Board of Nursing
10-01 Office of Pest Management—
Restructuring
10-02 Department of Public Safety—
Photo Enforcement Program
10-03 Arizona State Lottery
Commission and Arizona State
Lottery
10-04 Department of Agriculture—
Food Safety and Quality
Assurance Inspection Programs
10-05 Arizona Department of Housing
10-06 Board of Chiropractic Examiners
10-07 Arizona Department of
Agriculture—Sunset Factors
10-08 Department of Corrections—
Prison Population Growth
10-L1 Office of Pest Management—
Regulation
10-09 Arizona Sports and Tourism
Authority
09-02 Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections—Rehabilitation and
Community Re-entry Programs
09-03 Maricopa County Special Health
Care District
09-04 Arizona Sports and Tourism
Authority
09-05 State Compensation Fund
09-06 Gila County Transportation
Excise Tax
09-07 Department of Health Services,
Division of Behavioral Health
Services—Substance Abuse
Treatment Programs
09-08 Arizona Department of Liquor
Licenses and Control
09-09 Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections—Suicide Prevention
and Violence and Abuse
Reduction Efforts
09-10 Arizona Department of Juvenile
Corrections—Sunset Factors
09-11 Department of Health Services—
Sunset Factors