Performance audit, Department of Public Safety, Highway Patrol

              State of Arizona
Office
of the
Auditor General
PERFORMANCE AUDIT
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By Debra K. Davenport
Auditor General
DEPARTMENT
OF
PUBLIC SAFETY
Highway Patrol
September 2001
Report No. 01-20
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 impar-tial
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 and performance audits of state agencies and the programs they administer.
The Joint Legislative Audit Committee
Senator Ken Bennett, Chairman
Representative Roberta L. Voss, Vice-Chairman
Senator Herb Guenther Representative Robert Blendu
Senator Dean Martin Representative Gabrielle Giffords
Senator Peter Rios Representative Barbara Leff
Senator Tom Smith Representative James Sedillo
Senator Randall Gnant (ex-officio) Representative James Weiers (ex-officio)
Audit Staff
Dot Reinhard—Manager
and Contact Person (602) 553-0333
Sandra Tulloss—Team Leader
Rachel Rowland—Team Member
Richard Mueller—Team Member
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.auditorgen.state.az.us
2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051
DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
WILLIAM THOMSON
DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL
September 11, 2001
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Jane Dee Hull, Governor
Colonel Dennis Garrett, Director
Department of Public Safety
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit of the
Department of Public Safety’s Highway Patrol Division. This report is in response to a June
16, 1999, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. The performance audit was
conducted as part of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §41-2951 et seq. I am also
transmitting with this report a copy of the Report Highlights for this audit to provide a quick
summary for your convenience.
This is the sixth in a series of reports to be issued on the Department of Public Safety.
As outlined in its response, the Department of Public Safety agrees with all of the findings and
will implement, or implement in a different manner, 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 September 12, 2001.
Sincerely,
Debbie Davenport
Auditor General
Enclosure
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Program Fact Sheet
Department of Public Safety
Highway Patrol
Services: The Highway Patrol provides the following services: 1) Patrol—Officers regu-larly
patrol nearly 6,000 miles of state highways; 2) Enforcement—Officers enforce Arizona
traffic, criminal, and state laws primarily on highways; 3) Investigation—Officers investi-gate
traffic collisions and potential criminal behavior primarily on highways; 4) Arrests—
Officers make criminal arrests as needed; 5) Public Safety—Officers promote traffic aware-ness
and safety by interacting with the public in several ways, including making presenta-tions
to citizens and participating in child safety seat drives; and 6) Law Enforcement Sup-port—
The Highway Patrol supports other criminal justice agencies by providing specialized
training and manpower when needed.
Program Revenue: $47.9 million
(fiscal year 2001)
$46.5 $47.9
$60.1
$0.00
$10.00
$20.00
$30.00
$40.00
$50.00
$60.00
$70.00
Millions of Dollars
2000 2001 2002 (Est.)
Personnel: 876 full-time staff
(fiscal year 2001)
Civilian Support
Staff (89)
Sworn Officers (787)
Mission Statement:
“To ensure the safe and expeditious
use of the highway transportation
system for the public and to pro-vide
assistance to local and county
law enforcement.”
Facilities:
The Highway Patrol operates from four
key headquarters buildings: two in Phoe-nix,
and one each in Tucson and Flagstaff.
In addition, patrol officers work out of 12
district offices and 39 local area offices.
Thirty-one of these offices are owned by
DPS, while others are leased from other
state agencies, local governments, the fed-eral
government, and the private sector at a
total cost of approximately $94,000 in fiscal
year 2001.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Equipment: (fiscal year 2001)
DPS owns a wide variety of noteworthy
and valuable equipment. For example:
¾ 1,600 motor vehicles which have a
total market value of approximately
$20 million.1 This includes:
  961 fully equipped patrol sedans
which cost approximately $33,000
each when new.
  57 fully equipped patrol motorcy-cles
which cost approximately
$11,000 each when new.
¾ A standard equipment package issued
to every officer. For example, each offi-cer
receives:
  Body armor, which costs approxi-mately
$475;
  A semi-automatic weapon, 12
gauge shotgun, and gun belt, which
cost approximately $1,017 total; and
  Office supplies, such as blank cita-tions
and audio tape, which cost
approximately $743.
1 DPS also owns approximately 300 additional vehicles
which are not yet in service, are slated for disposal, or
are highly specialized.
Program Goals: (2001—2003)
1. To reduce the rates of vehicle collisions and
vehicle fatalities.
2. To vigorously target aggressive and im-paired
drivers.
3. To minimize traffic congestion and delays
on highways as a result of unexpected clo-sures.
4. To ensure patrol districts are staffed to their
proper operational levels utilizing the Pa-trol
Allocation Manual and implement the
appropriate allocation and distribution of
personnel.
Adequacy of Goals and Performance
Measures:
The Highway Patrol’s six goals are aligned
with its Mission and it has established per-formance
measures for each goal. However,
auditors identified the following problems:
¾ The Highway Patrol has not established
any input performance measures. Input
measures, such as the number of vehicle
miles traveled on Arizona highways,
would help demonstrate the scope of the
Highway Patrol’s work as well as provide
contextual information about external fac-tors
impacting its services.
¾ The Highway Patrol has not established
key quality and efficiency measures. For
example, there is no quality measure
gauging citizen’s satisfaction with the
Highway Patrol’s services. Similarly, effi-ciency
measures, such as average response
time, would help ensure that officers re-spond
to emergencies in a timely manner.
¾ In addition, several of the performance
measures are based on data from DPS’ of-ficer
time and tracking system. However,
auditors identified some problems that
could impact the accuracy of this data.
Therefore, DPS will need to take steps,
such as providing additional training to
officers about recording their patrolling
activities and establishing additional qual-ity
control checks, to ensure data entered
into the system is accurate.
5. To maintain or increase the level of sup-port
by Highway Patrol personnel to other
law enforcement agencies and respond to
civil and natural emergencies as directed.
6. To improve services to the motoring pub-lic
by expanding the Roadside Motorist
Assistance Programs statewide.
i
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of the Department of Public Safety’s Highway Patrol Divi-sion
(Division) pursuant to a June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as a part
of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §41-2951 et seq, and is the
sixth in a series of nine audits to be conducted on programs
within the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Specifically, per-formance
audits have been previously issued concerning DPS’
Aviation Section (Report No. 00-7), Scientific Analysis Bureau
(Report No. 00-12), Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
(Report No. 01-3), Telecommunications Bureau (Report No. 01-
5), and Licensing Bureau (Report No. 01-10). Future performance
audits will cover DPS’ Criminal Investigations Division, the
Criminal Information Services and Fingerprint Identification Bu-reaus,
and agency-wide Sunset Factors.
This audit focuses on the Highway Patrol function within the
Department of Public Safety. Although Highway Patrol officers
focus on patrolling nearly 6,000 miles of state and federal high-ways,
they have the authority to enforce traffic, criminal, and
state laws anywhere in Arizona. Additionally, highway patrol
officers investigate traffic collisions, make criminal arrests, pro-mote
traffic awareness and safety, and provide support and spe-cialized
training to other criminal justice agencies.
Highway Patrol Division Could
Improve the Accuracy of its
Staffing Estimates
(See pages 9 through 15)
The Highway Patrol Division needs to take several steps to im-prove
the accuracy of its staffing estimates. The Division uses the
Police Allocation Manual (PAM), a nationally accepted staffing
model, to estimate the number of officers it needs to adequately
patrol the State’s highways. The PAM model calculates staffing
Officers patrol nearly
6,000 miles of state and
federal highways.
Division uses a nationally
accepted staffing model.
Summary
ii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
needs based on officer workload data, such as the number of ac-cidents
responded to; highway miles patrolled; and policy deci-sions,
such as how often a particular roadway should be pa-trolled.
Several other states, such as Colorado, Missouri, Oregon,
and Washington, use the PAM model.
However, the Division has not updated the model nor some of
the key information used in the model since 1993. Therefore, be-fore
using its staffing model to develop future budget requests,
the Division should take steps to refine the accuracy of the staff-ing
estimates its model produces. As one of the first steps, the
Division should identify exactly how changes in its workload
data and policy decision inputs impact the complex model’s re-sults.
To do so, the Division should conduct a sensitivity analy-sis,
which consists of changing each input in the model one at a
time by 5 percent to identify how the change impacts staffing es-timates.
This would allow the Division to focus its efforts on re-fining
and ensuring the accuracy of those inputs which have the
greatest impact on the staffing estimates. The Division should
then review and revise as necessary the policy inputs or goals
used in the model before running the model as a part of future
budget requests.
Additionally, the Division should take steps to ensure the accu-racy
of the officer workload data that is entered into PAM. Fi-nally,
the Division should also consider having its model up-dated
or choosing an improved version of PAM.
DPS Needs to Develop Comprehensive
Motor Vehicle Fleet Size and
Replacement Policies
(See pages 17 through 25)
DPS needs to develop comprehensive, objective vehicle fleet size
and replacement policies. DPS lacks sufficient and reliable vehi-cle
use data to evaluate whether the size of its fleet, currently
over 1,600 vehicles, is appropriate. Because DPS’ motor vehicle
fleet represents a substantial financial investment to the State,
approximately $20 million, it is important to ensure it is the ap-propriate
size. A similar concern was raised in an Auditor Gen-eral
report in 1991 (No. 91-11). At that time, DPS owned ap-proximately
1,580 vehicles.
Division should improve
its staffing estimates.
Currently, DPS has over
1,600 vehicles in its fleet.
Summary
iii
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
DPS needs to ensure that its fleet consists of the appropriate num-ber
of vehicles. First, it should collect sufficient and reliable vehicle
use data and then evaluate and revise, as necessary, its practice of
assigning a vehicle on a 24-hour-per-day basis to virtually all
sworn officers. Four of the 14 states auditors contacted restrict take-home
vehicles to certain officer positions. For example, the Califor-nia
Highway Patrol and the Oregon State Police assign vehicles to
officers on a 24-hour-per-day basis only under special circum-stances.
Second, DPS should use its vehicle usage data to develop
formal fleet size policies for all of DPS’ divisions. Currently, only
the Highway Patrol has a fleet size policy. However, this policy is
based on current practice rather than demonstrated need. Third,
DPS needs to better monitor how many miles each vehicle is
driven and eliminate low-mileage vehicles as appropriate.
In addition to developing fleet size policies, DPS also needs to de-velop
a comprehensive vehicle replacement policy. Currently,
there is no consistently applied, objective standard identifying
when Department vehicles will be replaced. Although DPS reports
that highway patrol vehicles are eligible for replacement after they
have reached 100,000 miles, auditors identified several problems
with this standard. For example, it was developed based on per-ceptions
of available monies rather than on an objective study that
identified when it is most cost-effective to replace vehicles.
Other Pertinent Information
(See pages 27 through 28)
During the audit, other pertinent information was gathered re-garding
the new highway patrol officer positions recently appro-priated
by the Legislature. The Division will be receiving funding
to create 116 new highway patrol officer positions over fiscal years
2002 and 2003, but the Division did not request as many officers as
its staffing model indicates are needed. The most recent appropria-tion
of officer positions focused solely on the staffing needs for
metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson, which had the greater officer
shortage. The model continues to show that an additional 65 offi-cers
are needed statewide. Further, the Division believes these es-timates
may understate its staffing needs because the Arizona De-partment
of Transportation has not been able to provide the Divi-sion
with updated traffic counts since 1999 due to a computer
problem.
DPS should develop an
objective vehicle replace-ment
standard.
iv
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
v
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Introduction and Background.......................... 1
Finding I: Highway Patrol Division
Could Improve the Accuracy
of Its Staffing Estimates............................... 9
Division Uses a Nationally
Accepted Staffing Model ................................................ 9
Improvements to Staffing
Model Should be Made................................................... 10
Recommendations .......................................................... 15
Finding II: DPS Needs to Develop
Comprehensive Motor
Vehicle Fleet Size and
Replacement Policies .................................. 17
DPS Lacks Needed Vehicle
Use Data and Fleet Size Policies ..................................... 17
DPS Lacks a Consistent,
Objective Vehicle
Replacement Policy......................................................... 21
Recommendations .......................................................... 25
Other Pertinent Information.............................. 27
Agency Response
Table of Contents
vi
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Concl’d)
Page
Figures
Figure 1 Department of Public Safety
Highway Patrol Division
Areas Patrolled by Regional Bureaus
As of June 2001.............................................. 3
Figure 2 Department of Public Safety
Comparison by Division
Number of Authorized Staff Positions vs.
Number of Vehicles ...................................... 18
Table and Items
Table 1 Department of Public Safety
Highway Patrol
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures,
and Changes in Fund Balance
Years Ended or Ending June 30, 2000,
2001, and 2002 (In Thousands)
(Unaudited)................................................... 5
Item 1 Examples of Information
Entered Into the PAM Model....................... 10
Item 2 Highway Patrol Division
Major Formulas Used to Identify
the Number of Vehicles Needed.................. 21
Photos
Photo 1 A Department of Public Safety
Patrol Sedan................................................... 19
Photo 2 A Department of Public Safety
Motorcycle..................................................... 24
1
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance
audit of the Department of Public Safety’s Highway Patrol Divi-sion
(Division) pursuant to a June 16, 1999, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Audit Committee. This audit was conducted as part
of the Sunset review set forth in A.R.S. §41-2951 et seq, and is the
sixth in a series of nine audits to be conducted on programs
within the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Specifically, per-formance
audits have been previously issued concerning DPS’
Aviation Section (Report No. 00-7), Scientific Analysis Bureau
(Report No. 00-12), Drug Abuse Resistance Education Program
(Report No. 01-3), Telecommunications Bureau (Report No. 01-
5), and Licensing Bureau (Report No. 01-10). Future performance
audits will cover DPS’ Criminal Investigations Division, the
Criminal Information Services and Fingerprint Identification Bu-reaus,
and agency-wide Sunset Factors.
Highway Patrol Provides
Various Public Safety Services
The Highway Patrol strives “to ensure the safe and expeditious
use of the highway transportation system for the public and to
provide assistance to local and county law enforcement agen-cies.”
To meet this goal, officers focus on patrolling and enforcing
traffic and criminal laws on nearly 6,000 miles of state and fed-eral
highways. However, as Arizona peace officers, they have the
authority to enforce laws anywhere in Arizona. Additionally,
highway patrol officers investigate traffic collisions, make crimi-nal
arrests, promote traffic awareness and safety, and provide
support and specialized training to other criminal justice agen-cies.
1
1 The Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Bureau and the Aviation Section are
also part of the Highway Patrol Division but are not included in this audit.
The Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Bureau was excluded from this au-dit
because it was the subject of a 1998 Strategic Program Authorization
Review. A separate performance audit of the Aviation Section was previ-ously
conducted in 2000 (Auditor General Report No. 00-7).
The Highway Patrol
serves the public and
other criminal justice
agencies.
Introduction and Background
2
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Organization and Staffing
The Highway Patrol is divided into three geographically based
bureaus, as illustrated in Figure 1 (see page 3), and has 876 full-time
equivalent (FTE) employees.
¾ The Northern Patrol Bureau (255 FTEs)—The Northern
Patrol Bureau, headquartered in Flagstaff, is responsible for
patrolling the northern portions of Arizona, including King-man,
Holbrook, Globe, and Prescott. The Bureau is organized
into five geographic districts. These districts are further or-ganized
into approximately 26 small groups of patrol officers.
These small groups, responsible for patrolling a specific geo-graphic
area within their district, vary in size, but often range
from six to ten officers. In rural areas, officer groups are usu-ally
too small to patrol highways 24 hours per day. Because
rural roads often carry less traffic than urban freeways, con-tinuous
coverage may not be necessary. However, officers in
rural areas may be required to respond to emergencies dur-ing
their off-duty hours.
¾ The Southern Patrol Bureau (228 FTEs)—The Southern
Patrol Bureau, headquartered in Tucson, is responsible for
patrolling the southern portions of Arizona, including Yuma,
Casa Grande, and Sierra Vista. The Southern Patrol Bureau is
organized similarly to the Northern Patrol Bureau, with a to-tal
of four districts and 25 small groups of officers. Some of
these officers are assigned to patrol the Tucson metropolitan
area 24 hours per day.
¾ The Central Patrol Bureau (212 FTEs)—The Central Patrol
Bureau, headquartered in Phoenix, is primarily responsible
for the freeways in the Phoenix metropolitan area, including
Interstate 17, Interstate 10, Loop 202, and State Route 51. It is
organized in shifts so that there are at least three groups of of-ficers
on duty within the Phoenix Metropolitan area 24 hours
per day. The Central Patrol Bureau also includes approxi-mately
28 motorcycle officers.
In addition, the Highway Patrol Division has 181 FTEs working
in administrative, aviation, and commercial vehicle enforcement
functions.
The Highway Patrol is
organized into three
geographic bureaus.
Introduction and Background
3
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Figure 1
Department of Public Safety
Highway Patrol Division
Areas Patrolled by Regional Bureaus
As of June 2001
Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Highway Patrol’s district maps.
Northern
Bureau
Central
Bureau
Southern
Bureau
Introduction and Background
4
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Budget and Recent Appropriations
As illustrated in Table 1 (see page 5), the Highway Patrol re-ceived
approximately $7.7 million from the General Fund during
fiscal year 2001. Additionally, it received a total of approximately
$40.2 million from a combination of the Arizona Highway Patrol
Fund, State Highway Fund, Highway User Revenue Fund, and
other governmental sources.1
The Legislature also recently provided a notable increase in mon-ies
to the Highway Patrol. Specifically, Laws 2001, Chapter 1
provides over $11 million from the Highway User Revenue
Fund to hire a total of 116 new highway patrol officers over fiscal
years 2002 and 2003. The officers are expected to be primarily
assigned to the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. Addi-tionally,
the Legislature provided approximately $2.5 million for
officer overtime costs and over $11 million for new vehicles.
Audit Scope and Methodology
This audit focuses on DPS’ officer staffing projections and motor
vehicle fleet size and replacement. Specifically, the audit presents
findings and recommendations as follows: DPS needs to take
steps to improve its officer staffing projections and needs to de-velop
comprehensive motor vehicle fleet size and replacement
policies. Although this audit focuses on the Highway Patrol Di-vision,
department-wide vehicle fleet issues are also included in
this report because the Division controls the majority of vehicles
in DPS’ motor vehicle fleet.
1 The Arizona Highway Patrol Fund consists of taxes levied on vehicle in-surance
premiums that are appropriated to fund eligible contributions to
the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System. The State Highway Patrol
Fund and Highway User Revenue Fund primarily consist of motor fuel
taxes and motor vehicle license and registration fees that are appropriated
to fund a portion of highway patrol costs.
The Legislature recently
appropriated monies for
116 new highway patrol
officers.
Introduction and Background
5
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Table 1
Department of Public Safety
Highway Patrol
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance
Years Ended or Ending June 30, 2000, 2001, and 2002
(In Thousands)
(Unaudited)
2000 2001 2002
(Actual) (Actual) (Estimated)
Revenues:
Appropriations:
State General Fund $ 9,215.2 $ 7,710.9 $ 7,294.0
Arizona Highway Patrol Fund 1 10,474.2 12,017.9 10,167.8
State Highway Fund 2 11,314.6 11,343.5 11,957.1
Highway User Revenue Fund 2 11,513.5 11,560.0 26,164.0
Intergovernmental 3,999.5 5,241.0 4,521.2
Total revenues 46,517.0 47,873.3 60,104.1
Expenditures:
Personal services 33,400.2 34,197.4 38,034.1
Employee related 7,791.8 8,291.2 11,281.0
Professional and outside services 5.7 4.5 33.8
Travel, in-state 176.8 132.2 365.2
Travel, out-of-state 53.1 57.1 35.7
Aid to organizations 7.0 10.6
Other operating 1,077.5 894.5 3,850.9
Equipment 3,422.2 3,579.1 7,266.5
Total expenditures 45,934.3 47,166.6 60,867.2
Excess of revenues over expenditures 582.7 706.7 (763.1)
Reversions to the State General Fund 561.0     
Excess of revenues over expenditures and rever-sions
to the State General Fund 21.7 706.7 (763.1)
Fund balance, beginning of year 34.7 56.4 763.1
Fund balance, end of year $ 56.4 $ 763.1 $ 0
1 Consists primarily of insurance premium taxes that are appropriated to fund eligible contributions to
the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System.
2 Consists primarily of motor fuel taxes, and motor vehicle license and registration fees that are appro-priated
to fund a portion of highway patrol costs. In addition, the 2002 Highway User Fund appro-priation
includes $4.6 million for an additional 58 full-time equivalent positions and related operating
expenditures, and $5.4 million to replace highway patrol vehicles.
Source: Auditor General Staff analysis of financial information provided by the Department of Public
Safety for the years ended or ending June 30, 2000, 2001, and 2002.
Introduction and Background
6
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Part of this audit included reviewing DPS’ efforts to address
problems previously identified in the 1991 performance audit
reports of the Highway Patrol (Report No. 91-5) and DPS’ Ad-ministration
Bureau and Office of the Director (Report No. 91-
11). The 1991 Highway Patrol report contained two findings re-garding
the model DPS uses to identify how many officers it
needs to adequately patrol Arizona’s highways and DPS’ com-puterized
tracking system. Finding 1 of this report (see pages 9
through 15) addresses ways that DPS can continue to improve in
both areas.Similarly, the 1991 Administration Bureau and Office
of the Director report included findings about DPS’ management
of take-home vehicles and the size of its fleet. Both of these topics
are addressed in Finding II (see pages 17 through 25).1
In addition to the follow-up work, several other methods were
used to study the issues addressed in this audit, including:
¾ Obtaining a download, as of April 2001, of DPS’ motor vehi-cle
inventory database to identify and analyze the fleet’s size
and age;
¾ Contacting officials from 17 other states to obtain information
about their staffing projection and motor vehicle fleet man-agement
methods for comparison to Arizona’s practices; 2
¾ Reviewing manuals and other state audit reports regarding
the officer projection model used by the Division and motor
vehicle fleet management practices;
¾ Identifying and interviewing police force management ex-perts,
including the author of the officer projection model
used by the Division;
1 The Administration Bureau no longer exists. However, its functions have
been prima rily assumed by DPS’ Agency Support Division.
2 California, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Montana, Nevada,
New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming were con-tacted
because they are either western states that operate under similar
geographic conditions as Arizona or because they are acknowledged ex-perts
in state highway patrol motor vehicle fleet management. Similarly,
California, Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas,
and Washington were contacted to identify best and comparative practices
in projecting officer staffing needs.
Introduction and Background
7
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
¾ Interviewing DPS management and patrol officers, including
riding with officers in patrol vehicles during rush hour to
gain an understanding of highway patrol procedures, to ob-tain
officer opinions about DPS, and to identify the impact of
potential vehicle problems on citizens;
¾ Interviewing officials from all of the patrol officer representa-tive
organizations recognized by DPS to identify officers’
concerns and opinions about DPS; and
¾ Interviewing Arizona legislative and Department of
Administration staff regarding legislative involvement in
identifying the number of DPS officers and vehicles needed
and motor vehicle fleet management.
This audit was conducted in accordance with government audit-ing
standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the direc-tor,
assistant directors, officers, and staff of the Department of
Public Safety for their cooperation and assistance throughout the
audit.
8
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
9
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING I HIGHWAY PATROL DIVISION
COULD IMPROVE THE ACCURACY
OF ITS STAFFING ESTIMATES
The Highway Patrol Division needs to take several steps to im-prove
the accuracy of its staffing estimates. The Division uses a
complex, nationally accepted model to estimate the number of offi-cers
needed to adequately patrol state highways. However, the Di-vision
has not updated the model and some of the key information
entered into the model since it was implemented in 1993.
Division Uses a Nationally
Accepted Staffing Model
The Division uses the Police Allocation Manual (PAM), a nation-ally
accepted staffing model, to estimate the number of officers it
needs to adequately patrol state highways. In 1991, Northwestern
University’s Traffic Institute, under contract by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, completed this universal
state patrol staffing model. That same year, the Arizona Auditor
General (Report No. 91-5) reviewed the model and characterized it
as logical, flexible, and based on sound theoretical principles. Sev-eral
other states, such as Colorado, Missouri, Oregon, and Wash-ington,
use the PAM model.
The Division inputs many types of information into the model to
calculate highway patrol staffing needs. For example, this complex
model takes into account the number of highway miles patrolled
and officer workload, such as the number of violators stopped, the
number of accidents responded to, and the average amount of
time spent per accident. In addition, the model takes into account
policy decisions or goals the Division sets based on actual work-load
data. For example, the Division decides the amount of time
that should be dedicated to patrolling a particular highway and the
amount of time that should be spent on administrative tasks, such
as completing paperwork. In total, the model applies a variety of
formulas to over 40 variables to produce an estimate of the mini-mum
number of officers needed to adequately patrol the State’s
highways.
Staffing model uses work-load
data and policy deci-sions.
Finding I
10
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Improvements to Staffing
Model Should be Made
The Division should take steps to refine the quality and accuracy
of the estimates the model produces. The Division has not up-dated
key model inputs nor the model itself since its implemen-tation
in 1993. First, the Division needs to take steps to ensure the
information and policy decisions put into the model are as accu-rate
as possible. Second, the Division should conduct an analysis
to determine whether it would benefit from updating its model
or choosing a newer version of PAM. Establishing a study com-mittee
consisting of Division staff and key stakeholders could
help the Division make these changes.
Ensure the appropriateness and accuracy of the information
used in the model—PAM can be a useful tool for budget request
development because it can consider many factors that influence
the Division’s workload and need for officers. However, periodic
review of the model is necessary to ensure the input information
is accurate and appropriate so that the staffing estimates are as
accurate as possible.
One of the first steps the Division should take prior to using the
model to develop its next budget request is to identify exactly
how changes in its workload and policy decisions impact the
model’s results. To do so, the Division should conduct a
sensitivity analysis, which consists of changing each input in the
model one at a time by 5 percent to identify how the change
impacts staffing estimates. This would provide the Division and
other key stakeholders, such as budget analysts, with a better
understanding of how the Division’s staffing estimates change
Item 1 Examples of Information Entered
Into the PAM Model
Workload Data Policy
u Miles of roadway patrolled u Shift length
u Number of accidents and u Percentage of time officers in
requests for assistance supervisory positions spend
responded to patrolling the highways
u Average time per type u Patrol speed by highway
of response
Source: 1996 Personnel Allocation Plan, Arizona Department of Public Safety.
A sensitivity analysis
would determine which
inputs have the greatest
impact.
Finding I
11
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
when workload factors change or policy decisions are changed.
In addition, a sensitivity analysis would help the Division to
focus its efforts on ensuring the data or policy inputs that have
the greatest impact are as accurate or as reasonable as possible.
Specifically, the Division can use the sensitivity analysis to help it
address three key items before running the model to support its
next budget request.
¾ Reevaluate policy decisions—First, the Division should
review and revise as necessary the policy inputs or goals
used in the model. The model’s developer indicated that pol-icy
inputs should be reevaluated every three to five years.
However, these inputs have not been reviewed or changed
since the model was fully implemented in 1993. For example,
in 1993, the Division determined its officers should travel at
35 to 50 miles per hour based on the type of highway. How-ever,
since that time, some roadways have experienced an in-crease
of at least 10 miles per hour in the legal speed limit.
Therefore, the Division’s policy inputs relating to patrol
speed may need to be revised.
¾ Ensure accuracy of workload data—Second, the Division
should take steps to ensure the accuracy of officer workload
data that is entered into the model. Officers record workload
data, such as the number of motorist assists and accidents
they respond to in their assigned patrol areas. This workload
data is entered into an officer time-tracking system and then
used to update the PAM model and recalculate the number
of officers needed.
However, Division staff indicate that the degree of accuracy
and detail in the officers’ time tracking varies considerably
among the officers. Specifically, Division staff indicated that
generally new officers tend to track their patrolling activities
more accurately than officers who have been with the Divi-sion
for a longer period of time. This is consistent with the
1991 Auditor General’s report (No. 91-5), which found both
under- and over-reporting of workload data.
Policy inputs, such as
patrol speed, should be
reevaluated.
Finding I
12
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
To address data accuracy concerns, the Division should:
  Provide additional training—The Division should peri-odically
provide additional training to ensure officers are
accurately reporting their patrolling activities. Currently,
the Division conducts time-tracking training only during
the officers’ initial academy training. Additional training
could be provided through formal courses or informal
approaches, such as periodic reminder memorandums.
  Establish additional quality control checks—The Divi-sion
should establish additional quality control checks for
the data entry process. Currently, some system edits exist,
such as the inability to enter a code that does not exist.
However, the Division may also want to verify the accu-racy
of a percentage of the information entered or de-velop
some management or exception reports that would
help them monitor data entry accuracy.
¾ Consider using overtime in the staffing model—The Divi-sion
should also use the sensitivity analysis to determine the
impact of including paid overtime hours into its staffing
model. Including paid overtime hours in the staffing model
increases the number of staff hours available and thus can
reduce the number of staff needed.1 Historically, the Division
has had little money available to pay for highway patrol offi-cer
overtime and therefore has not reflected overtime in its
model. However, the Division was recently appropriated a
little over $850,000 for fiscal year 2002 and $1.7 million for fis-cal
year 2003 specifically for officer overtime. Division offi-cials
indicate that although this represents an increase in
overtime funding, it only amounts to about six hours of over-time
each month per highway patrol officer and thus is not
likely to impact the amount of staff needed. However, if the
sensitivity analysis shows that including overtime hours has
a significant impact on its staffing estimates and overtime
funding continues to be provided, the Division should add
overtime hours into the model.
1 Including cash paid overtime hours into the staffing model would have
the effect of decreasing the staffing estimates, whereas officer overtime
earned as compensatory time would have the opposite effect on the staff-ing
estimates.
Finding I
13
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Consider using an improved version of PAM—After the Division
takes the necessary steps to refine the data used in its staffing
model, it should also consider whether a revised model would
further improve its staffing estimates. Specifically, the Division
should conduct an analysis of the costs and benefits of further
improving its staffing model.
¾ Revising its current staffing model—The Division should
consider contracting with the model’s developer to further
improve PAM. The state patrol version of PAM used by Ari-zona
was developed in 1991 and no funding has been ob-tained
to update the overall model since. However, Washing-ton’s
state patrol recently contracted with the model’s devel-oper
to improve the state version of PAM. Washington’s re-visions
included tailoring the model to its time entry system,
as well as incorporating improvements from more recent
versions of PAM. Washington expects to spend no more than
$95,000 for the revisions to its PAM model.
¾ Switching to an improved version of the staffing model—
If hiring the model’s developer is not a viable option, the Di-vision
should consider switching to an improved version of
PAM, such as the improved “municipal” version published
in 1993. Although the municipal version is not specifically
designed for a state highway patrol agency, according to the
model’s developer, it is largely interchangeable and contains
improvements that would further increase the accuracy of
the Division’s staffing estimates. Specifically, the municipal
model allows the user to indicate that certain activities, such
as completing paperwork, do not prevent the officer from be-ing
immediately available to respond to a call. The municipal
model is available at no cost through the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration. However, it will require that
DPS allocate some employee resources because data cur-rently
used by the PAM state model will need to be manually
transferred to the new PAM municipal model.
A study committee could provide expertise and consensus—The
Division should consider establishing a study committee to assist
DPS in deciding which PAM model should be used and revising
policy inputs. Because changes to the information entered into
the model would increase or decrease the number of staff and
Finding I
14
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
service levels, key stakeholders could provide additional insight
into the process. In addition to DPS management, legislative and
executive budget staff could provide oversight while officer rep-resentatives
could ensure that policy goals are reasonable and
reflect actual officer practices.
Finding I
15
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Recommendations
Prior to making future staffing requests, the Division should take
the following steps to improve the accuracy of its staffing model:
1. The Division should perform a sensitivity analysis of its PAM
model to focus its efforts on first refining the model inputs
that have the greatest impact on the staffing estimates.
2. The Division should reevaluate all policy decisions that are
used in the model and make appropriate revisions.
3. The Division should establish a schedule to regularly review
the policy decision inputs that impact their PAM model.
4. The Division should provide periodic formal or informal re-fresher
training to officers to ensure accurate reporting of
workload data.
5. The Division should take steps to ensure the accuracy of
workload data entered into the Division’s officer time-tracking
system, such as verifying a percentage of workload
data and/or developing management or exception reports.
6. When conducting the sensitivity analysis, DPS should spe-cifically
test whether overtime hours have a significant im-pact
on its staffing estimates. If so, the Division should in-clude
overtime hours into its model.
7. The Division should analyze the costs and benefits of con-tracting
with the model’s developer to revise its staffing
model or switching to an improved version of the model.
8. The Division should consider establishing a study committee
to assist in deciding which PAM model will be used and re-viewing
policy inputs.
16
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
17
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
FINDING II DPS NEEDS TO DEVELOP
COMPREHENSIVE MOTOR
VEHICLE FLEET SIZE
AND REPLACEMENT POLICIES
The Department of Public Safety (DPS) needs to develop com-prehensive,
objective vehicle fleet size and replacement policies.
Because of a lack of sufficient and reliable data, it is difficult to
assess whether DPS’ motor vehicle fleet is the appropriate size.
Similarly, it is unclear whether its vehicles are being replaced at a
cost-effective rate. To address these problems, DPS should first
continue to develop additional vehicle use data and then de-velop
comprehensive fleet size and replacement policies.
DPS Lacks Needed Vehicle
Use Data and Fleet Size Policies
DPS lacks sufficient and reliable vehicle use data to evaluate
whether the size of its motor vehicle fleet is appropriate. There-fore,
DPS needs to gather and use this data to develop objective
fleet assignment and size policies, as well as regularly monitor
fleet utilization.
Fleet size—DPS’ motor vehicle fleet represents a substantial fi-nancial
investment to the State of approximately $20 million.1 As
illustrated in Figure 2 (see page 18), DPS’ fleet comprised over
1,600 vehicles as of April 2001.2 DPS employs approximately
2,000 sworn officers and civilians who use these vehicles for a
1 Estimated market value of DPS fleet as of June 30, 2001, reported by DPS’
fleet management based on industry price guides.
2 The vehicle inventory data also shows that DPS owned approximately 300
additional vehicles. Auditors excluded these vehicles from this analysis
because the vehicles are new and not yet ready for service, are slated for
disposal, or can be used only for special circumstances (such as tow trucks
and tactical vehicles).
DPS owns over 1,600
vehicles.
Finding II
18
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
wide variety of purposes, including patrolling highways, con-ducting
undercover operations, and maintaining DPS’ telecom-munications
equipment across the State. Two divisions, Criminal
Investigations and Highway Patrol, are assigned more vehicles
Figure 2
Department of Public Safety
Comparison by Division
Number of Authorized Staff Positions vs.
Number of Vehicles1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1,000
Officers Civilians Vehicles
1 Excludes approximately 300 vehicles owned by DPS because they are new and not yet ready for service, are
slated for disposal, or can be used only for special circumstances, such as tow trucks and tactical vehicles.
2 The Director’s Office is assigned 33 vehicles; however, 27 are used by organizations that are legally part of
DPS but not managed by DPS Personnel, such as the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board
and the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety
Source: Vehicle information obtained from the April 13, 2001, Department of Public Safety, fleet
management systems. Staffing information obtained from Department of Public Safety, Posi-tion
Control System as of May 14, 2001.
Director’s Criminal Justice Agency Criminal Highway
Office2 Support Support Investigations Patrol
48 33
523
97
214
134
396 423
876
952
Number of Staff and Vehicles
 
 
   
 
Finding II
19
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
than authorized staff positions. In comparison, an Auditor Gen-eral
report in 1991 found that DPS employed 1,617 officers and
civilians and owned 1,580 vehicles (Report No. 91-11).1
DPS should gather after-hour usage data—Determining
whether the size of DPS’ fleet is appropriate is difficult because
DPS lacks key vehicle use data. Currently, DPS
assigns a vehicle to virtually every sworn officer
and certain civilians on a 24-hour basis. This
practice is based on the assumption that officers
need a vehicle when they are called out after their
normal working hours to respond to emergen-cies.
Yet how frequently this occurs cannot be
evaluated, because DPS lacks sufficient and reli-able
vehicle use data showing how often all offi-cers
are called out for after-hours emergencies.
Although DPS requires all employees in nonex-empt
positions (i.e., officers and civilians in non-management
positions) to report call-out information on their
timesheets, DPS determined the data for highway patrol officers
was unreliable due to coding errors between the Highway Patrol
Division’s time and activity system and DPS’ time accounting
system. In addition, DPS does not have a process for collecting
this information for officers and civilians in exempt, or manage-ment,
positions even though these employees may be assigned
vehicles on a 24-hour-per-day basis. Therefore, DPS needs to
continue its efforts to fix the problems associated with call-out
data in the Highway Patrol Division. In addition, it needs to es-tablish
a process for collecting call-out data from exempt em-ployees
because there may be some officers or civilians working
in administrative or management positions who are assigned,
but may not need, a vehicle on a 24-hour-per-day basis.
Once data is gathered, DPS should develop formal policies—
DPS needs to use the vehicle usage information to ensure that its
fleet consists of the appropriate number of vehicles needed to
complete its work in an effective yet cost-efficient manner. Spe-cifically,
DPS should:
1 Auditors also reported that DPS owned an additional 90 pieces of
equipment as a part of its motor vehicle fleet (Report No. 91-11).
Virtually all officers take
DPS vehicles home at
night.
Photo 1: A Department of
Public Safety Highway Patrol Sedan
Approximate cost—$33,000.
Finding II
20
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
¾ Use data to evaluate vehicle assignment practices—
Once sufficient and reliable use data is collected, DPS should
use this data to evaluate its existing vehicle assignment prac-tices.
Specifically, DPS should consider modifying its current
practice of automatically assigning a vehicle to almost every
sworn officer and select civilians if the data shows they are
never or rarely called to respond to emergencies after their
normal working hours. Based on other states’ experiences,
the practice of assigning a vehicle to every sworn officer may
not be necessary.
Three of the 14 states auditors contacted assign vehicles on a
take-home basis to only some of their officers. For example,
the Oregon State Police assigns vehicles to officers on a 24-
hour-per-day basis only under special circumstances, such as
officers who work on special tactical teams and officers who
work and live in isolated rural areas where they are the only
officer. Similarly, the California Highway Patrol assigns vehi-cles
to officers on a take-home basis only in special circum-stances,
such as officers who work as area commanders. DPS
reports that it is already in the process of developing new ve-hicle
assignment policies for its 170 civilian employees in the
Agency Support Division. However, it should also evaluate
its vehicle assignment policies department-wide.
n Develop formal fleet size policies for all divisions—Once
DPS has examined its vehicle assignment policies, it should
use this information to develop formal fleet size policies. Cur-rently,
only the Highway Patrol Division has a policy specify-ing
how the size of its fleet will be determined. However, this
policy was not developed based on vehicle usage data and
may result in more vehicles than needed (see Item 2, page
21).
After evaluating and improving the existing highway patrol
policy, DPS should also develop formal fleet size policies for
its other divisions. DPS management indicated that other di-visions
may be directed to write policies indicating how the
number of needed vehicles will be calculated. Because usage
data would help demonstrate the need for vehicles, DPS
Finding II
21
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
should ensure that all Departmental fleet size policies are
based on data showing how frequently vehicles are used by
DPS’ officers and civilians.
¾ Regularly monitor vehicle use data—DPS needs to better
monitor how its motor vehicles are used on a regular basis.
Specifically, DPS should monitor how many miles each vehi-cle
is driven, examine more closely any vehicles that are
driven relatively few miles, and eliminate low-mileage vehi-cles
as appropriate. According to fleet management experts,
such vehicle utilization reviews are one of the best methods
of identifying opportunities to reduce the number of vehicles
in a fleet, reassign underused vehicles, and increase vehicle
sharing. However, such utilization reviews should not be
based on mileage alone, as some vehicles may be driven rela-tively
few miles but provide an invaluable service when
needed. For example, some tactical vehicles may be infre-quently
driven, but are critical to protecting officers’ and citi-zens’
safety in crisis situations.
DPS Lacks a Consistent,
Objective Vehicle
Replacement Policy
DPS also needs to develop an objective vehicle replacement pol-icy.
Currently, DPS does not have a consistently applied, objec-tive
standard identifying when its vehicles will be replaced. As a
Item 2: Highway Patrol Division
Major Formulas Used to Identify
the Number of Vehicles Needed
  One take-home vehicle for virtually every sworn officer and certain
civilians
  One spare vehicle for every four vehicles assigned to a squad
  One extra vehicle for every squad located in a remote area
  One enforcement vehicle for every three active sworn reserve officers
  One vehicle for every three civilian reserve employees who regularly
perform motorist assist duties
  Specialty vehicles, such as command and passenger vans, as needed.
Source: Auditor General staff summary of the Highway Patrol Divi-sion’s
Authorized Vehicle Strength policy.
Finding II
22
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
result, the State may not be replacing vehicles at the most cost-effective
age possible. DPS should develop a vehicle replacement
standard based on objective cost data and other fleets’ experi-ences
to ensure that both cost-efficiency and effectiveness are
considered when developing the policy.
DPS lacks a consistent, objective vehicle replacement policy—
Currently, there is no consistent standard identifying when DPS’
vehicles will be replaced. Although DPS reports that highway
patrol vehicles are eligible for replacement after they have
reached 100,000 miles, there are several problems with this stan-dard.
¾ The replacement standard is not based on objective in-formation—
The replacement standard was developed pri-marily
based on perceptions of available monies rather than
on an objective study, such as a cost-benefit analysis. As a re-sult,
it is unknown whether the current standard enables DPS
to replace vehicles at the most effective, cost-efficient age pos-sible.
Likewise, the lack of objective data may contribute to
the fact that the policy regularly changes. For example, at one
point the standard was 75,000 miles.
¾ The replacement standard has not been consistently ap-plied—
DPS has not consistently used the existing vehicle re-placement
policy. First, DPS only uses this standard for de-termining
when to replace highway patrol vehicles. Other
divisions have not developed specific replacement standards.
Second, DPS does not always fully apply this standard when
requesting funding for highway patrol vehicles. For example,
DPS made a policy decision to request monies to replace only
375 highway patrol vehicles in its most recent budget request,
even though 443 highway patrol vehicles were expected to
surpass 100,000 miles during the same period.
DPS needs to develop a consistent, objective vehicle replacement
policy—In order to ensure that vehicles are regularly replaced in
a cost-effective manner, DPS should develop a more consistent,
objective vehicle replacement standard. It is important that DPS
replace vehicles at the optimal point where the costs of keeping
an older vehicle become higher than the costs of acquiring a new
vehicle. If a vehicle is replaced too late, DPS may incur unneces-sary
maintenance costs and face increased vehicle downtime.
DPS’ vehicle replacement
standard changes fre-quently.
Finding II
23
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Likewise, DPS may not receive the maximum price possible
when disposing of its used vehicles. Finally, employee morale
may suffer. For example, officer association representatives re-port
that DPS officers are concerned about the safety and reliabil-ity
of DPS’ older vehicles. Similarly, professional fleet manage-ment
literature reports that employee morale may suffer when
vehicles are not replaced in a timely manner.
When developing a consistent, objective vehicle replacement
standard, DPS should consider several important sources of in-formation.
¾ DPS’ vehicle data—Because vehicles should be optimally
replaced at the point where the costs of keeping them exceed
the costs of purchasing new vehicles, it is important that DPS
identify these costs. This will require DPS to review the his-torical
operating costs and repair data, which it already tracks
in its vehicle maintenance database, in conjunction with the
age of its vehicles, which it tracks in its vehicle inventory da-tabase.
However, auditors attempting to validate this latter
database found that the odometer readings were not reliable.
Specifically, auditors attempting to verify 86 odometer read-ings
in DPS’ vehicle inventory database found that 6 readings
were inaccurate. For example, one odometer reading was
over-reported in the database by over 11,000 miles. DPS re-ports
that these errors are most likely due to employees re-porting
incorrect odometer readings. While DPS already has
some processes in place to help ensure that its data are accu-rate,
more actions are needed. For example, DPS could rein-force
to employees the importance of reporting accurate
odometer readings.
¾ Other fleets’ experiences—Fleet management experts re-port
that one of the best methods of identifying opportunities
for potential cost-saving practices would be to compare DPS’
current fleet management practices with the practices of
other fleet managers. For example, the National Association
of Fleet Administrators reports that commercial fleets typi-cally
retain vehicles for 37 months and/or 68,000 miles. Simi-larly,
5 of the 14 states auditors contacted replace vehicles at a
lower mileage than Arizona. For example, Missouri’s State
Operating cost data could
help identify optimal re-placement
age.
Missouri and Kansas
Highway Patrols replace
vehicles at 49,500 miles.
Finding II
24
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Highway Patrol and the Kansas Highway Patrol report that
they replace patrol vehicles at 49,500 miles. As a result, they
report incurring lower maintenance costs, higher
vehicle reliability, and higher resale revenues. Simi-larly,
both the Colorado State Patrol and the Texas
Department of Public Safety are seriously consider-ing
lowering their replacement standards to 49,500
and 80,000 miles, respectively.
Based on this information, DPS should develop a
vehicle replacement policy. This policy should pro-vide
a standard odometer reading at which vehicles
should be replaced, but should also allow for flexi-bility
under certain circumstances.
¾ Various vehicle types and uses—Different standards
should be developed based on the type and/or use of the ve-hicle.
The current replacement standard of 100,000 miles is
primarily intended to apply to sedans equipped and used for
active law enforcement purposes. However, DPS owns at
least 11 different types of vehicles, some of which naturally
deteriorate at a different rate than patrol sedans. For example,
DPS owns 57 motorcycles, which have a more realistic life
expectancy of 50,000 to 60,000 miles, according to DPS man-agers.
Similarly, vehicles which are used for less intense ad-ministrative
purposes could conceivably be replaced at
higher mileage than fully equipped police sedans which are
often driven at extremely high rates of speed.
¾ Problematic vehicles—Additionally, according to the Na-tional
Association of Fleet Managers, replacement standards
should be flexible enough to allow fleet managers to make
cost-effective decisions. Specifically, if an individual vehicle
requires repeated expensive repairs, fleet managers need the
ability to dispose of it earlier than required by the replace-ment
standard. Otherwise, the State could spend too much
money repairing a vehicle that will never be reliable or cost-effective.
Different types and uses
of vehicles require differ-ent
replacement stan-dards.
Photo 2: A Department of
Public Safety Motorcycle
Approximate cost—$11,000.
Finding II
25
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Recommendations
1. DPS should take steps to ensure it collects reliable data on an
ongoing basis showing how frequently all of its sworn offi-cers
and civilians in all divisions respond to emergencies out-side
of their normal working hours.
2. Once collected, DPS should use the data to:
a. Evaluate and revise as necessary its existing Highway Pa-trol
Division vehicle assignment and fleet size policies;
and
b. Develop formal vehicle assignment and fleet size policies
for DPS’ other divisions.
3. DPS should monitor how many miles each vehicle is driven
and examine more closely any vehicles that are driven rela-tively
few miles to determine whether they can be eliminated
from the fleet.
4. DPS should take further steps to ensure the accuracy of vehi-cle
odometer readings maintained in its motor vehicle fleet
database.
5. DPS should develop a comprehensive, objective vehicle re-placement
policy. In developing this policy, DPS should:
a. Use its historical vehicle operating cost data to identify
the most cost-effective time to replace vehicles;
b. Compare its standard to the practices of other fleet man-agers;
and
c. Provide unique replacement standards for different types
and uses of vehicles.
26
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
27
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the audit, other pertinent information was gathered re-garding
the new highway patrol officer positions appropriated
by the Legislature for 2002 and 2003.
Staffing Model Indicates Division
Remains Understaffed
The Legislature recently appropriated funds to create 116 new
highway patrol officer positions over fiscal years 2002 and 2003,
but the Division did not request as many officer positions as its
staffing model indicates are needed. The most recent appropria-tion
focused solely on the staffing needs for metropolitan Phoe-nix
and Tucson, which had the greatest officer shortage. How-ever,
the staffing model continues to show an officer shortage
statewide.
New officers slated for urban areas—Laws 2001, Chapter 1 pro-vides
over $11 million from the Highway User Revenue Fund to
hire a total of 116 new highway patrol officers over fiscal years
2002 and 2003. Additionally, the Legislature provided approxi-mately
$2.5 million for officer overtime costs and over $11 mil-lion
for new vehicles.
The Division intends to place over 80 percent of these new officer
positions in metropolitan Phoenix and approximately 13 percent
in the Tucson area. The majority of these officers will patrol the
metropolitan Phoenix area because it has the greatest officer
shortage as a result of both increased population and highway
miles. Despite the significant growth in the metropolitan areas,
the Division added only four officer positions for Phoenix and
none for Tucson between 1990 and 2000.
DPS did not request as many officers as model determined were
needed—The Division’s model continues to show that additional
staff are needed statewide because the Division did not request
Phoenix will get over 80
percent of the new officer
positions.
Other Pertinent Information
28
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
enough officers to fully address its shortage. Specifically, the Di-vision’s
model determined that a total of 140 new officers would
be needed to fully staff metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson
through the end of 2003 to meet the increase in population and
highways. The model also indicates that an additional 41 officers
are needed to fully staff the state’s rural areas through the end of
2003. However, the Division requested only an additional 120
officer positions for Phoenix and Tucson because it believed this
was the number of officers it could reasonably hire and train
over a two-year period.1 Therefore, the Division’s staffing re-quest
was not intended to fully staff the Highway Patrol Divi-sion,
but rather to decrease the significant staffing deficits in the
urban areas.
Division officials indicate that its model’s calculations are likely
low because they have been unable to update the model to re-flect
current traffic counts. As a result of a computer problem, the
Arizona Department of Transportation has not been able to pro-vide
the Division with updated counts since 1999. The Division
uses these counts to determine how frequently a particular
roadway should be patrolled.
1 Although the Division’s budget request was primarily directed toward
urban areas, 5 of the 120 officers in the Division’s original request were to
be placed in rural areas in fiscal year 2003. However, the Division was ap-propriated
116 officers and Division officials indicate that there has not
been a decision on how the difference will be handled.
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
Agency Response
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)
September 5, 2001
Ms. Debra K. Davenport, Auditor General
Office of the Auditor General
2910 North 44th Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85018
Dear Auditor General Davenport:
The attached page is our reply from the Highway Patrol for the performance audit of the Arizona
Department of Public Safety.
On behalf of the Highway Patrol, I thank you and your team for working with us and making this
process as non-intrusive as possible. If you have any questions or require additional information, please
contact myself or Commander Jeff Resler.
Sincerely,
Acting Deputy Director
W. R. Reutter, Lieutenant Colonel
Assistant Director
Highway Patrol Division
Arizona Department of Public Safety
State Headquarters
Highway Patrol Division
Performance Audit - Reply
The Highway Patrol Division appreciates the comments offered within the Auditor General’s review. We
realize this process is necessary for accountability and that it serves to provide an oversight to our
operations. Since our last review, there have been several administrations and changes within the
department and the highway patrol. Over the past year, we have done some readjustments and the timing
of this audit was beneficial to our overall look at the operation.
In the spirit of our agency, the highway patrol has continued to develop and foster working partnerships with
law enforcement and non-enforcement agencies. These relationships are pursued to better serve the
motoring public and the needs of our state. By using these relationships we are able to minimize internal
resources and extend our influence. An example of this teamwork is our leadership and participation with
local agencies in the pursuit of impaired drivers all across the state. Another is our newly formalized
relations with the Department of Transportation. After many years of working together, we now exchange
direct communications with ADOT and have a partnership in managing transportation needs.
As a part of the audit we have had an opportunity to review and reflect upon many of our activities. Over
the past five years, patrol officers have investigated 107,706 traffic collisions, issued 1,598,161 citations,
1,306,904 equipment repair orders, made 32,810 impaired driver arrests, assisted 807,612 stranded or
disabled motorists, arrested 44,245 misdemeanor violators and incarcerated 20,318 felons. This workload
was carried by a force of officers being pulled in multiple directions by a growing population with constant
demands for service. With the additional officers added in the next two years, we hope to keep pace with
the demands and re-institute proactive programs that will promote highway safety and reduce collisions.
As a member of the National Highway Safety Committee, our agency is poised to learn from other state and
national leaders. In the same fashion, we find ourselves as being the model and leader for other states. In
our future we must continue to look for better ways of doing business while being mindful of our obligations
and responsibilities. The comments of this audit review are helpful, but they do not necessarily provide the
final answer. We’re proud of the job our people do and we appreciate the opportunity to improve. As we
advance ahead, we look forward to a continued service to the motorists and citizens of Arizona.
Responses to Recommendations and Findings
Finding I: Highway Patrol Division Could Improve the Accuracy of Its Staffing Estimates
Recommendation 1: The Division should perform a sensitivity analysis of its PAM model to focus its
efforts on first refining the model inputs that have the greatest impact on the
staffing estimates.
Reply: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
·  A sensitivity analysis will be conducted on the major factors. The
data utilized by the Department to determine both policy decisions
and calls and activity is based upon data inputs from the officers in
the field. The data that will be reviewed for the sensitivity analysis
will be evaluated with special emphasis placed upon those factors
that affect policy decisions.
·  Each of the factors will be reviewed using a standard increases to
determine sensitivities in PAM and how changes in those factors will
affect the required number of officers that the PAM recommends.
Recommendation 2: The Division should reevaluate all policy decisions that are used in the model
and make appropriate revisions.
Reply: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
·  Policy decisions need to be reevaluated and entered into the new
allocation review. This evaluation was planned for during the past year
when PAM was revisited. As a result of current Average Daily Traffic
data has not been available, PAM and all policy decisions have not
been updated. The policy decisions will be updated as the new PAM
numbers are generated.
Recommendation 3: The Division should establish a schedule to regularly review the policy decision
inputs that impact their PAM model.
Reply: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
·  A review of those decisions every other year prior to the Department’s
budget cycle would allow the agency the opportunity to review and
implement policy changes on a more frequent basis.
Recommendation 4: The Division should provide periodic formal or informal refresher training to
officers to ensure accurate reporting of workload data.
Reply: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
·  This process and will be implemented in quarterly Roll Call Training.
Recommendation 5: The Division should take steps to ensure the accuracy of workload data entered
into the Division’s officer time tracking system, such as verifying a percentage of
workload data and/or developing management or exception reports.
Reply: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and a different method
of dealing with the finding will be implemented.
·  An electronic system is currently unavailable to complete such an
electronic review. Area sergeants review officers’ time and activity and
will be instructed to more carefully check the completion of time and
activity reports, and ensure through Roll Call Training the proper codes
are utilized.
·  District Lieutenants will review data and statistics to ensure the data
appears to be consistent and in line with district enforcement activities.
Recommendation 6: When conducting a sensitivity analysis, DPS should specifically test whether
overtime hours have a significant impact on its staffing estimates. If so, the
Division should include overtime hours into its model.
Reply: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
·  The Division has had insufficient overtime in the past to affect the
model and officer allocation. Overtime is rarely utilized to
supplement shift or activity, and is most often utilized to support on-going
work in progress that began prior to the overtime. Even with
the increase in overtime funding, and the increase of 116 officers
over two years, overtime will have minimal impact on PAM.
·  Overtime hours are not substitutes for officers and patrol strength.
While minimal change would be anticipated with the inclusion of
overtime hours, hours and activity will be reviewed to ascertain the
impact on PAM.
·  Activity codes, overtime hours and activity will be reviewed and tested
to determine the impact of overtime on the PAM recommendations.
Recommendation 7: The Division should analyze the costs and benefits to contracting with the
model’s developer to revise its staffing model or switching to an improved
version of the model.
Reply: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
·  The Department’s PAM model was transferred to a system that will
work with the DPS mainframe data provided by officers Weekly
Time and Accounting Summaries. This data is then transferred to a
series of Excel worksheets that apply the PAM formulas and model.
·  The review and updating by the model’s developer can be
investigated to tweak the current program, applying any new changes
that may affect the final outcome for staffing numbers. In regards to
utilization of the Municipal Model, the Division does not have the
ability to determine response time, a major component of the
Municipal Model. When a computer aided dispatch system is in
place in the Department, that component may be applied to the
Municipal Model or the State Model.
·  In the interim, the models developer will be contacted to discuss
changes. The Patrol Division will investigate the potential for
contracting with the developer to review the current model.
Recommendation 8: The Division should consider establishing a study committee assist it in selecting
which PAM model will be used and reviewing policy inputs.
Reply: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and a different method
of dealing with the finding will be implemented.
·  To complete this process, a working group with Patrol Commanders,
staff and selected sergeants will be formed to review the data and
establish policy input recommendations. These will be forwarded to the
Assistant Director, Highway Patrol Division and the Director.
·  These inputs will be based on actual data collected and established
through inputs from the officers Weekly Time and Accounting
Summaries.
·  The information and methodology for establishing those policy decisions
will be clearly communicated to the legislature and Governor’s Office
when presenting the requests for manpower and staffing.
Finding II: DPS Needs to Develop Comprehensive Motor Vehicle Fleet Size and
Replacement Policies
Recommendation 1: DPS should collect data on an ongoing basis showing how frequently its sworn
officers and civilians in all divisions respond to emergencies outside of their
normal working hours.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the
recommendation will be implemented.
·  The DPS General Order 55.09 addresses how all non-exempt
employees are to mark their overtime on the Employee Time
Accounting Summary report prepared weekly. Included in the
order are overtime codes for reporting scheduled overtime (S),
workday extension (E), and call-out overtime (C) from which
relevant overtime data may be extracted from the DPS Time
Accounting System.
·  Exempt personnel in executive, administrative or professional
positions are not eligible for overtime compensation. They are
required to work the hours necessary to carry out their
responsibilities and currently do not report hours worked
beyond scheduled work hours on the Exempt Employee
Biweekly Leave Report form.
·  Both the time accounting report form for exempt personnel and
the Time Accounting System can be modified to obtain the
information needed to review vehicle usage and assignments.
·  The Patrol Division will emphasize to all personnel the
importance of utilizing accurate codes for overtime and activity
on the Employee Time and Weekly Summary.
Recommendation 2: Once collected, DPS should use the data to:
a. Evaluate and revise as necessary its existing Highway Patrol Division
vehicle assignment and fleet size policies; and
b. Develop formal vehicle assignment and fleet size policies for DPS’ other
divisions.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
Recommendation 3: DPS should monitor how many miles each vehicle is driven and examine more
closely any vehicles that are driven relatively few miles to determine whether
they can be eliminated from the fleet.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
·  DPS is currently developing vehicle use and assignment standards which
will be based on the need to carry out mandated and administrative
support functions.
Recommendation 4: DPS should take further steps to ensure the accuracy of vehicle odometer
readings maintained in its motor vehicle fleet database.
Response: The findings of the Auditor General is agreed to and a different
method of dealing with the finding will be implemented.
·  Odometer readings need to be recorded accurately and consistently by
occupants/drivers of the individual vehicles. Fleet Management systems
make every attempt to collect and maintain accurate figures. The
accuracy of data entry will be reemphasized to all users of the DPS
fleet.
·  Fleet Management emphasizes the need to maintain accurate fleet usage
data in its District Vehicle Administrator meetings, in EMS messages it
publishes and in Fleet Bulletins. General Order 72.01, Vehicle
Assignment and Use, requires employees to capture this data whenever
fuel is appropriated. General Order 72.03, Vehicle Work Orders,
requires the employee to complete the work order for all repairs and
maintenance and for supervisors to assure accuracy and completeness
of the work order. Accurate odometer readings are a required field for
completion of this report.
Recommendation 5: DPS should develop a comprehensive, objective vehicle replacement policy. In
developing this policy, DPS should:
a. Use its historical vehicle operating cost data to identify the most cost-effective
time to replace vehicles;
b. Compare its standard to the practices of other fleet managers; and
c. Provide unique replacement standards for different types and uses of
vehicles.
Response: The finding of the Auditor General is agreed to, and the audit
recommendation will be implemented.
·  Current replacement standards have been determined on a variety of
factors.
·  DPS is developing replacement standards which will be based on a
vehicle’s type, use, age, mileage, condition, and maintenance and repair
costs. Other factors may be included after further research is
conducted.
Other Performance Audit Reports Issued Within
the Last 12 Months
01-10
Future Performance Audit Reports
Arizona Department of Corrections—Arizona Correctional Industries
Board of Nursing
Department of Building and Fire Safety
00-21 Universities—Funding Study
00-22 Annual Evaluation—Arizona’s
Family Literacy Program
01-1 Department of Economic Security—
Child Support Enforcement
01-2 Department of Economic Security—
Healthy Families Program
01-3 Arizona Department of Public
Safety—Drug Abuse Resistance
Education (D.A.R.E.) Program
01-4 Arizona Department of
Corrections—Human Resources
Management
01-5 Arizona Department of Public
Safety—Telecommunications
Bureau
01-6 Board of Osteopathic Examiners in
Medicine and Surgery
01-7 Arizona Department
of Corrections—Support Services
01-8 Arizona Game and Fish Commission
and Department—Wildlife
Management Program
01-9 Arizona Game and Fish
Commission—Heritage Fund
01-10 Department of Public Safety—
Licensing Bureau
01-11 Arizona Commission on the Arts
01-12 Board of Chiropractic Examiners
01-13 Arizona Department of
Corrections—Private Prisons
01-14 Arizona Automobile Theft
Authority
01-15 Department of Real Estate
01-16 Department of Veterans’ Services
Arizona State Veteran Home,
Veterans’ Conservatorship/
Guardianship Program, and
Veterans’ Services Program
01-17 Arizona Board of Dispensing
Opticians
01-18 Arizona Department of Correct-ions—
Administrative Services
and Information Technology
01-19 Arizona Department of Education—
Early Childhood Block Grant
Program