A performance audit of the Arizona Criminal Intelligence System Agency

              STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF THE
ARIZONA CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE
SYSTEM AGENCY
SEPTEMBER 1983
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 83- 1 8
DOUGLAS R. NORTON. CPA
AUDITOR GENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 23, 1983
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, Governor
M r . Frank F. Navarrete, Director
Arizona Criminal Intelligence System Agency
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Arizona Criminal Intelligence System Agency. This report is
i n response t o a January 18, 1982, resolution of the J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e
Oversight Committee. The performance audit was conducted as a part of the
Sunset Review s e t f o r t h i n A. R. S. § § 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The blue pages present a summary of the report; a response from the
Arizona Criminal Intelligence System Agency is found on the yellow pages
preceding the appendices.
My s t a f f and I w i l l be pleased t o discuss or c l a r i f y Items i n the report.
dougras R. Norton
Auditor General
Enclosure
Staff : William Thomson
Steve H. Thacker
Brent L. Nelson
Urs C. Bauder
Richard D. Stephenson
William A. Wright
1 11 WEST MONROE SUITE 600 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85003 ( 602) 255- 4385
OFFICE OF THE AUDITOR GENERAL
A PERFORMANCE AUDIT OF THE
ARIZONA CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM AGENCY
A REPORT TO THE
ARIZONA STATE LEGISLATURE
REPORT 83- 18
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
SUNSET FACTORS
FINDINGS
FINDING I
ACISA needs d i r e c t i o n and focus i n order t o develop
a n e f f e c t i v e statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e system.
CONCLUSION
RECOEDENDATIONS
FINDING I1
The Arizona Criminal I n t e l l i g e n c e System
Agency should be combined with the Department
of P u b l i c S a f e t y .
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATION
FINDING I11
Transportation c o s t s can be reduced.
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
WRITTEN REPONSE TO AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
APPENDIX I
ACISA Mission Statement, Goals and Objectives
APPENDIX I1
Auditor General Survey of Law Enforcement Agencies
- Page
i
1
7
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 - ACISA Expenditures ( Actual o r Approved) F i s c a l
Years 1981- 82 through 1983- 84
TABLE 2 - Subject Cards Submitted t o the ACISA Data F i l e
During F i s c a l Year 1982- 83
TABLE 3 - Estimate of 5- Year Savings By Purchasing
Rather than Leasing 17 Vehicles
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 - ACISA I n t e l l i g e n c e System Impaired by
Lack of Direction and Focus
FIGURE 2 - Percentage of I n q u i r i e s f o r Which ACISA Had
Information on the Statewide Data Base
- Page
4
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of the
Arizona Criminal I n t e l l i g e n c e System Agency i n response to a January 18,
1982, resolution of the Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This
performance audit was conducted as part of the Sunset Review s e t f o r t h i n
Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) ss41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The Arizona Criminal Intelligence System Agency ( ACISA) was created f o r
the purpose of c o l l e c t i o n , control, analysis and dissemination of criminal
i n t e l l i g e n c e information t o governmental a u t h o r i t i e s which i n v e s t i g a t e
violations of criminal laws. ACISA replaced the Arizona Drug Control
D i s t r i c t ( ADCD) on July 25, 1981. While the ADCD operated as a continuing
drug s t r i k e force with enforcement authority, ACISA has been limited t o
criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e functions only but f o r a l l areas of criminal
a c t i v i t y . ACISA maintains a computer f i l e of information on approximately
24,000 persons known or suspected t o be involved i n criminal a c t i v i t y .
The Legislature has approved 70 full- time employee positions and a budget
of $ 3.3 million t o operate ACISA i n f i s c a l year 1983- 84.
I n e f f e c t i v e Statewide
I n t e l l i g e n c e Functions ( see page 11)
The Arizona Criminal I n t e l l i g e n c e System Agency ( ACISA) has not developed
an e f f e c t i v e statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e system. Lacking d e f i n i t e goals and
o b j e c t i v e s , l i m i t e d " s t r a t e g i c intelligence" functions have been performed
and ACISA' s " t a c t i c a l intelligence1'* support has been impaired. ACISA
reports it is now changing its operational philosophy t o address these
problems.
* There a r e two types of i n t e l l i g e n c e support provided by i n t e l l i g e n c e
systems : s t r a t e g i c and t a c t i c a l . S t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e is used f o r
long- range planning and t o identify major cases of criminal a c t i v i t y
which are not already i n the hands of enforcement investigators.
T a c t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e is assistance given t o enforcement i n v e s t i g a t o r s
on current cases.
ACISA lacks d e f i n i t e goals and objectives. Clearly stated goals and
objectives a r e needed t o provide an i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t with d i r e c t i o n and
focus. Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s e s t a b l i s h ACISA a s an i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t
but provide no f u r t h e r d i r e c t i o n . The ACISA policy board has not provided
any operating guidelines. Although ACISA has e s t a b l i s h e d g o a l s and
objectives, they are not e x p l i c i t enough t o be useful. The lack of goals
and objectives has affected ACISA's provision of basic i n t e l l i g e n c e
support.
Lacking d i r e c t i o n and focus, ACISA has performed only a limited s t r a t e g i c
i n t e l l i g e n c e function. S t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e functions include 1)
analyzing major crime types t o determine the extent and nature of probable
criminal a c t i v i t y , 2) identifying persons suspected of being involved i n
these a c t i v i t i e s , 3) gathering additional information t o confirm or
disprove suspected criminal involvement, and 4) a s s i s t i n g law enforcement
agencies i n building prosecutable cases i f suspected criminal involvement
is confirmed. Strategic i n t e l l i g e n c e functions a r e necessary t o provide
information t h a t can be used f o r law enforcement planning purposes. As
the s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e process is continued, the i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t is
able t o i d e n t i f y major c r i m i n a l c a s e s f o r law enforcement agencies t o
pursue. However, ACISA's support t o law enforcement agencies has been
largely limited t o consulting with and supporting requests f o r t a c t i c a l
i n t e l l i g e n c e assistance on a case- by- case basis.
Lack of d i r e c t i o n and focus a l s o impairs ACISA's a b i l i t y t o perform its
t a c t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e functions. F i r s t , ACISA has not developed
i n t e l l i g e n c e c o l l e c t i o n plans f o r the gathering of i n t e l l i g e n c e
information. Collection plans are necessary t o give c l e a r d i r e c t i o n f o r
information gathering and t o assure enough q u a l i t y d a t a w i l l be
c o l l e c t e d . Second, ACISA has lacked a s u f f i c i e n t flow of criminal
information. Law enforcement agencies i n Arizona have not supported the
statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e system by submitting information t o it. This
s i t u a t i o n i s especially c r i t i c a l f o r ACISA because, a s an independent
agency, it has no routine sources of information such a s crime reports and
investigative reports. The foregoing problems have reduced the usefulness
of the ACISA i n t e l l i g e n c e information data base. The data base has
declined i n its a b i l i t y t o provide information t o law enforcement
agencies. ACISA only had information on 11 percent of t h e i n q u i r i e s made
t o it during the recent three- month period ended June 30, 1983. In
c o n t r a s t , it had information on 27 percent of t h e i n q u i r i e s made during a
three- month period almost two years e a r l i e r . In addition, most of the
data i n the f i l e s has been used only by the agency submitting the data.
ACISA Should Be
Combined with DPS ( see page 29)
The statewide criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e functions of ACISA and the Department
of Public Safety ( DPS) should be consolidated within DPS. Several f a c t o r s
favor such a transfer. F i r s t , ACISA and DPS duplicate each other by
having s i m i l a r i n t e l l i g e n c e systems which provide support to statewide law
enforcement agencies. ACISA' s proposed i n t e l l i g e n c e gathering emphasis
w i l l duplicate areas already being pursued by DPS. Second, ACISA r e l i e s
heavily on information systems housed by DPS t o provide information t o
answer its inquiries. In f i s c a l year 1982- 83 ACISA queried other sources
20,173 times t o gain information f o r inquiries made t o it. More than half
( 59%) of these queries were t o sources accessible through the Arizona
Criminal J u s t i c e Information System ( ACJIS) maintained by DPS. Most law
enforcement agencies have d i r e c t access t o the ACJIS system without going
through ACISA. Third, while ACISA lacks s u f f i c i e n t data flow f o r
analysis, DPS has an adequate information flow from both i n t e r n a l and
external sburces. Finally, the statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e function should be
located i n DPS because it complements other DPS services provided t o local
law enforcement agencies. No other s t a t e has established a statewide
i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t a s an independent agency.
iii
Transportation Costs Can Be
Reduced ( see Daze 4 3 )
Changes can be made i n agency operations t o reduce t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s .
ACISA can reduce the cost and s i z e of its vehicle f l e e t . Approximately
$ 177,600 can be saved over a five- year period i f vehicles a r e purchased
r a t h e r than leased.* Additional savings can be realized by eliminating
unneeded vehicles permanently assigned t o management l e v e l staff .
* Currently ACISA owns 17 vehicles and leases 17 vehicles.
i v
IhTRODUCTION AMD BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance a u d i t of t h e
Arizona Criminal I n t e l l i g e n c e System Agency i n response t o a January 18,
1982, r e s o l u t i o n of t h e J o i n t L e g i s l a t i v e Oversight Committee. This
performance a u d i t was conducted as p a r t of t h e Sunset Review s e t f o r t h i n
Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s ( A. R. S.) SS41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
The Arizona Criminal I n t e l l i g e n c e System Agency ( ACISA) was created
• e f f e c t i v e July 25, 1981. Its s t a t u t o r y purpose is t h e ". . . c o l l e c t i o n ,
c o n t r o l , a n a l y s i s and dissemination of criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e information
t o governmental a u t h o r i t i e s involved i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of v i o l a t i o n s of
t h e criminal laws." ACISA replaced the Arizona Drug Control District
C ( ADCD) which was created on June 18, 1975, and took over its f a c i l i t i e s ,
equipment, personnel and appropriated budget funds. The ADCD was
o r i g i n a l l y created t o continue a narcotic s t r i k e force.* During its
existence, ADCD developed a computerized narcotic i n t e l l i g e n c e information
system. Since t h e c r e a t i o n of ACISA t h i s system has been expanded t o
include information on a l l areas of criminal a c t i v i t y . Currently, the
computer system includes data on approximately 24,000 persons o r
organizations who a r e known t o be or suspected of engaging i n criminal
a c t i v i t y .
* Pima County created t h e Pima County Attorney's Narcotics S t r i k e Force
i n 1973. The c r e a t i o n of ADCD continued the s t r i k e f o r c e and expanded
it t o t h e four border counties. Later a l l Arizona counties were
included i n ADCD.
The c r e a t i o n of ACISA was recommended by the Select Law Enforcement Review
Commission ( SLERC). The SLERC was a 15- member committee ( t h e President of
the Senate, Speaker of the House and Governor each appointed f i v e members)
charged with reviewing the c o n t r o l of n a r c o t i c s and organized criminal
a c t i v i t y within Arizona. The Commission found t h a t Arizona had need f o r a
computerized statewide criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e information system and t h a t
there was d u p l i c a t i o n i n maintaining two competing statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e
information organizations ( ADCD and the Department of Public Safety).
However, it recommended t h a t t h e ADCD i n t e l l i g e n c e information system be
maintained as an independent f u n c t i o n s e p a r a t e from DPS. This was p a r t l y
due t o l o c a l law enforcement agencies' concerns t h a t DPS would use
i n t e l l i g e n c e in£ ormation provided by them t o f u r t h e r DPS enforcement
a c t i v i t i e s . The Commission strongly urged t h a t t h e independent statewide
i n t e l l i g e n c e system be l i m i t e d t o the i n t e l l i g e n c e function and t h a t a l l
law enforcement agencies cooperate f u l l y by providing i n t e l l i g e n c e
information t o the system. Thus, ACISA was created. A 15- member Arizona
Criminal I n t e l l i g e n c e System Board made up of law enforcement o f f i c i a l s
was a l s o created t o e s t a b l i s h p o l i c i e s , procedures, r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s
f o r the functioning of the agency.
ACISA was intended t o operate d i f f e r e n t l y than i t s predecessor, ADCD, and
is i n a period of t r a n s i t i o n . There has been a 50 percent s t a f f turnover
since ACISA's c r e a t i o n and the D i r e c t o r h a s e x t e n s i v e l y reorganized the
agency. While the ADCD was engaged i n enforcement a c t i v i t i e s , ACISA is
l i m i t e d t o i n t e l l i g e n c e functions only. The s e r v i c e s of ACISA a r e
a v a i l a b l e t o law enforcement agencies within the S t a t e . In a d d i t i o n ,
ACISA w i l l respond t o informational requests from law enforcement agencies
i n other s t a t e s . I n its i n t e l l i g e n c e r o l e ACISA responds t o requests f o r
a s s i s t a n c e and performs very few independent i n t e l l i g e n c e a c t i v i t i e s .
ACISA performs the following major functions:
- Maintains a computerized criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e data base on a l l
types of major crime;
- A s s i s t s l o c a l , S t a t e and Federal law enforcement agencies with
information, research and a n a l y s i s of criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e
including giving t e c h n i c a l advice; and
- Provides p h y s i c a l r e s o u r c e s i n c l u d i n g computer s e r v i c e s ,
s u r v e i l l a n c e and i n v e s t i g a t i o n equipment, personnel and f i n a n c i a l
support.
The ACISA o r g a n i z a t i o n i n c l u d e s 1 ) regional f i e l d agents who e s t a b l i s h
l i a i s o n f o r information c o l l e c t i n g and providing resources t o other
agencies, 2) c e n t r a l a n a l y s t s who review/ analyze i n t e l l i g e n c e information
and a s s i s t other agencies i n case building, and 3) a n i n t e l l i g e n c e c e n t e r
which houses the computerized subject information and answers i n q u i r i e s
f o r information. ACISA headquarters a r e located i n Tucson with d i s t r i c t
o f f i c e s i n a l l counties except Greenlee.
U n t i l May 1, 1983, ACISA hosted the f e d e r a l l y funded Rocky Mountain
I n t e l l i g e n c e Network ( RMIN) which provides criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e
information s e r v i c e s t o law enforcement agencies i n e i g h t Rocky Mountain
s t a t e s . This program, which supported 24 employee p o s i t i o n s and received
approximately $ 1 m i l l i o n p e r y e a r i n Federal funds, has been moved t o
8 A1 buquerque , New Mexico.
The ACISA budget f o r f i s c a l years 1981- 82 through 1983- 84 is shown i n
Table 1. Revenues a r e appropriated from t h e S t a t e General Fund.
TABLE 1
ACISA EXPENDITURES ( ACTUALO R APPROVED)
FISCAL YEARS 1981- 82 THROUGH 1983- 84
Actual Actual
1981- 82 1982- 83
Number of full- time employees 7 0* 67"
Expenditures:
Personal services $ 1,502,100 $ 1,498,700
Employee- related 310,600 289,800
Professional services 2,100 1,700
Travel -
In- S t a t e 200,000 23,200
Out- of- State 19,100 7,400
Other operating 1,093,000 949,600
Equipment 53,900 16,700
Total operating expenditures 3,180,800 2,787,100
Investigative fund*** 50,000 34,000
Flash fund****
Total
Approved
1983- 84
Source: Appropriations reports
* This does not include approximately 24 employee positions which were
federally funded.
** Expendable monies used f o r general investigative purposes such a s
providing cover s t o r i e s and equipment r e n t a l .
*** Nonexpendable monies t o be used by local law enforcement agencies t o
e s t a b l i s h a " good f a i t h " relationship between undercover o f f i c e r s
and criminals.
Scope of Audit
The scope of our a u d i t was limited t o t h r e e broad a u d i t objectives. These
o b j e c t i v e s were t o determine:
1. Whether ACISA is performing a proper and adequate statewide
i n t e l l i g e n c e function and i f it houses a q u a l i t y criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e
information system,
2. Whether ACISA should operate a s an independent S t a t e agency or be
combined with another S t a t e agency t o i n c r e a s e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o r
e f f i c i e n c y , and
3. Whether improvements can be made i n s e l e c t e d o p e r a t i o n a l a r e a s t o
reduce c o s t s or increase e f f i c i e n c y and performance.
Our scope of review was l i m i t e d t o the e x t e n t t h a t we did not have access
t o any criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e information maintained i n manual and computer
f i l e s or w r i t t e n r e p o r t s .
The Auditor General and s t a f f express a p p r e c i a t i o n t o the ACISA d i r e c t o r
and h i s s t a f f f o r t h e i r cooperation and a s s i s t a n c e during the course of
our a u d i t .
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with A. R. S. $ 41- 2354, t h e L e g i s l a t u r e should consider 11
f a c t o r s i n determining whether the Arizona Criminal Intelligence System
Agency ( ACISA) should be continued or terminated.
1. Objective and purpose i n e s t a b l i s h i n g the Agency
The objective and purpose of the Agency is s t a t e d i n A. R. S. $ 41- 2152:
" There is established the Arizona criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e
system agency which s h a l l be a law enforcement agency
with peace o f f i c e r authority f o r the limited purposes
of c o l l e c t i o n , control, analysis and dissemination of
criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e information t o governmental
a u t h o r i t i e s involved i n the investigation of violations
of the criminal laws. Agency personnel s h a l l not
otherwise engage i n law enforcement a c t i v i t i e s . "
( emphasis added)
2. The effectiveness with which the Agency has met its objective and
purpose and t h e e f f i c i e n c y with which the Agency has operated
ACISA needs d i r e c t i o n and focus i n order t o develop an e f f e c t i v e
statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e system. ACISA has performed only a limited
" s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e " f u n c t i o n t o assess t h e t h r e a t of criminal
a c t i v i t y and t o identify t a r g e t s f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n ( s e e page 11).
Further, the lack of focus has impaired ACISA's " t a c t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e "
r o l e of providing support t o law enforcement agencies. S p e c i f i c a l l y ,
AICSA has not developed i n t e l l i g e n c e c o l l e c t i o n plans and has lacked an
adequate flow of information f o r analysis. As a r e s u l t of these
problems ACISA has been unable t o provide law enforcement agencies with
much information from the statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e data base ( see page 24).
If t h e Agency is not allowed t o terminate on July 1, 1984, the Agency's
e f f i c i e n c y can be improved by 1) purchasing vehicles r a t h e r than leasing
them and 2) disposing of unneeded vehicles.
The extent t o which the Agency has operated within the public i n t e r e s t
The Agency has operated within the public i n t e r e s t t o the extent t h a t it
has a s s i s t e d various law enforcement agencies. However, because it has
not performed a l l functions of the i n t e l l i g e n c e process i n a systematic
and proactive manner, its e f f e c t has been minimized ( see page 11).
4. The extent t o which r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s promulgated by the Agency a r e
c o n s i s t e n t with t h e l e g i s l a t i v e mandate
This f a c t o r is not applicable because ACISA has no a u t h o r i t y t o
promulgate r u l e s and regulations.
5. The e x t e n t t o which the Agency has encouraged input from the public
before promulgating its r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s and the extent t o which it
has informed the public a s t o its a c t i o n s and t h e i r expected impact on
the public
This f a c t o r is not applicable t o ACISA.
6. The extent t o which the Agency has been able t o i n v e s t i g a t e and resolve
complaints which a r e within its j u r i s d i c t i o n
This f a c t o r is not applicable t o ACISA.
7. The extent t o which the Attorney General o r any o t h e r a p p l i c a b l e agency
of S t a t e government has the a u t h o r i t y t o prosecute a c t i o n s under enabling
l e g i s l a t i o n
This f a c t o r is not applicable t o ACISA.
8. The extent t o which the Agency has addressed d e f i c i e n c i e s i n the enabling
s t a t u t e s which prevent it from f u l f i l l i n g its s t a t u t o r y mandate
The Agency has addressed one deficiency i n its enabling s t a t u t e s . When
the Agency was e s t a b l i s h e d i n 1981, it was n o t d e c l a r e d a law enforcement
agency or given peace o f f i c e r a u t h o r i t y . Other law enforcement agencies'
c h a r t e r s prohibited them from cooperating with ACISA because of t h i s
deficiency. The problem was brought t o the a t t e n t i o n of the L e g i s l a t u r e ,
r e s u l t i n g i n ACISA receiving law enforcement s t a t u s w i t h l i m i t e d peace
o f f i c e r a u t h o r i t y .
9. The extent t o which changes a r e necessary i n t h e laws of the Agency t o
adequately comply with t h e f a c t o r s l i s t e d i n the Sunset Law
We recommend the L e g i s l a t u r e consider combining ACISA with the Arizona
Department of Public Safety ( see page 29).
10. The extent t o which the termination of the Agency would s i g n i f i c a n t l y
harm the public h e a l t h , s a f e t y or welfare
Because both ACISA and the Department of P u b l i c S a f e t y ( DPS) have
competing statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e o p e r a t i o n s w i t h s i m i l a r c a p a b i l i t i e s ,
termination of ACISA would not s i g n i f i c a n t l y harm the public h e a l t h ,
s a f e t y or welfare ( s e e page 30). Statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e functions could
be provided by DPS.
11. The extent t o which t h e l e v e l of r e g u l a t i o n exercised by the Agency is
appropriate and whether less or more s t r i n g e n t l e v e l s of r e g u l a t i o n would
This f a c t o r is n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o ACISA.
FINDING I
ACISA NEEDS DIRECTION AND FOCUS I N ORDER TO DEVELOP AN EFFECTIVE STATEWIDE
INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM.
The Arizona Criminal I n t e l l i g e n c e System Agency ( ACISA) has not developed
a n e f f e c t i v e statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e system. Lacking d i r e c t i o n and focus,
ACISA has performed only a l i m i t e d " s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e " function.
Further, the lack of focus has impaired ACISA's t a c t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e
r o l e . ACISA r e p o r t s it is now changing its o p e r a t i o n a l philosophy t o
address these problems.
There a r e two types of i n t e l l i g e n c e support provided by i n t e l l i g e n c e
systems. Simply s t a t e d , s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e is used f o r long- range
planning and t o i d e n t i f y and develop major criminal cases t h a t a r e not
already i n the hands of enforcement i n v e s t i g a t o r s . An example of
s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e would be an a n a l y s i s of how organized crime's
encroachment i n t o l e g i t i m a t e business e n t e r p r i s e s may a f f e c t f u t u r e
i l l e g a l a c t i v i t i e s associated with the businesses. S t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e
is considered t o be t h e most important a c t i v i t y of a n i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t
because it allows law enforcement t o counteract developments by organized
crime as they occur, r a t h e r than reacting a f t e r t h e f a c t .
T a c t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e is a s s i s t a n c e given t o enforcement i n v e s t i g a t o r s on
c u r r e n t cases. An example of t a c t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e would be a response t o
an enforcement i n v e s t i g a t o r ' s request f o r the names of a l l persons known
t o commit burglary i n a p a r t i c u l a r manner so the i n v e s t i g a t o r can i d e n t i f y
possible suspects i n a reported crime. Figure 1 d e p i c t s the e f f e c t t h a t
lack of d i r e c t i o n and focus has had on the ACISA i n t e l l i g e n c e system.
FIGURE 1
ACISA INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM IMPAIRED BY
LACK OF DIRECTION AND FOCUS
( see page 13)
IMITED STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE
( s e e page 19)
S t r a t e g i c I n t e l l i g e n c e
Products Not Developed*
- t h r e a t assessment
- t a r g e t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n
- t a r g e t tracking
- case building
I IMPAIRED TACTICAL INTELLIGENCE I
I I
No Information Collection Plans I
I ( see page 20) I
I Reduced Information Flow 1
( see page 21)
Lack of S t r a t e g i c Products
Results i n
- i n a b i l i t y t o i d e n t i f y
unreported criminal
a c t i v i t y
I - i n a b i l i t y t o f o r e s e e
developing crime networks
- no b a s i s f o r law enforce-ment
resource planning
Lack of Information Available
On I n t e l l i g e n c e Data Base
( see page 24)
i
Weakened T a c t i c a l Support I
* S t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e products a r e defined on page 17.
12
No Direction and Focus
The Arizona Criminal I n t e l l i g e n c e System Agency lacks d e f i n i t e goals and
objectives. S p e c i f i c g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s a r e needed t o provide an
i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t with d i r e c t i o n and focus. Arizona Revised S t a t u t e s
e s t a b l i s h ACISA a s a n i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t but provide no f u r t h e r d i r e c t i o n .
The ACISA policy board has not provided any o p e r a t i n g g u i d e l i n e s .
Although ACISA has e s t a b l i s h e d goals and o b j e c t i v e s they a r e not e x p l i c i t
enough t o be useful.
Specific ~ n t e l l i g e n c eG oals Needed - I n t e l l i g e n c e g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s a r e
needed t o assure t h a t the f u n c t i o n f u l f i l l s its purpose. This is
supported by an a r t i c l e appearing i n the Criminal J u s t i c e Journal, October
1982, which s t a t e s :
" Simply s t a t e d , the goals and o b j e c t i v e s of the
i n t e l l i g e n c e unit must be e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d and systems
implemented must support these goals and objectives."
The Handbook of S e l f Evaluation Guidelines For: Organized Crime
I n t e l l i g e n c e Units prepared by the C a l i f o r n i a Department of J u s t i c e a l s o
supports the need f o r c l e a r l y s t a t e d p o l i c i e s and operating procedures i n
order t o standardize and bring consistency t o an i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t ' s
operations.
An example of s p e c i f i c goals and o b j e c t i v e s which i d e n t i f y crime areas f o r
emphasis a r e those prepared by New Jersey. The New Jersey S t a t e Police
I n t e l l i g e n c e Bureau has developed an i n t e l l i g e n c e manual whose c o n t e n t s
have been adopted by t h e U. S. Law Enforcement Assistance Administration,
New Scotland Yard, the Law Enforcement I n t e l l i g e n c e Unit ( a s s o c i a t i o n ) and
s e v e r a l Canadian law enforcement agencies. In t h i s manual the goal of the
New Jersey I n t e l l i g e n c e Bureau is s t a t e d :
" The primary goal of t h e New Jersey S t a t e Police
I n t e l l i g e n c e Bureau w i l l be the development of
s t r a t e g i c and t a c t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e assessments
designed t o :
1. Provide a d e s c r i p t i v e a n a l y s i s of organized crime
systems operating i n t h e S t a t e of New Jersey.
2. Depict the c a p a b i l i t i e s of these organized crime
systems and provide a l t e r n a t i v e s t o reduce the
e f f e c t i v e n e s s of these systems.
3. I d e n t i f y the major crime problems a f f e c t i n g t h e
S t a t e of New Jersey and provide recommendations f o r
remedial action.
4. Assess the e f f o r t s of law enforcement i n t h e
c o n t r o l of organized crime i n the S t a t e of New
Jersey.
5. Provide t h e o p e r a t i o n a l u n i t s within t h e Division
of S t a t e P o l i c e w i t h the necessary data t o
i n v e s t i g a t e organized criminal a c t i v i t y .
6. I d e n t i f y those person( s) engaged i n organized
criminal a c t i v i t y i n the S t a t e of New Jersey."
These goal statements s e t f o r t h i n r a t h e r p r e c i s e terms what the
i n t e l l i g e n c e unit plans t o provide f o r the law enforcement e f f o r t .
The New Jersey unit a l s o i d e n t i f i e s s p e c i f i c crime areas f o r focusing t h e i r
c o l l e c t i o n , evaluation, analyzation and dissemination a c t i v i t i e s . These
a r e s t a t e d a s follows:
1. Gambling
2. Loansharking
3. Narcotics
4. P r o s t i t u t i o n
5. Bribery
6. Extortion
7. Conversion of i l l e g i t i m a t e
funds i n t o l e g i t i m a t e invest-ment
8. Trafficking i n s t o l e n property
9. Counterfeiting
10. Arson
11. Homicide/ Kidnapping
12. Crimes designed t o subvert the
economic i n t e r e s t s of the
S t a t e , black market a c t i v i t y ,
e t c .
13. Labor racketeering
Not only do these s p e c i f i c goals and crime areas provide focus and
d i r e c t i o n , but they a l s o become t h e b a s i s f o r evaluating the a c t i v i t i e s
and functions of the i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t . However, n e i t h e r the s t a t u t e s ,
the ACISA Board nor ACISA have s e t f o r t h these kinds of goals and
o b j e c t i v e s f o r ACISA's i n t e l l i g e n c e e f f o r t s .
Enabling S t a t u t e s Vague - ACISA's enabling s t a t u t e s do not provide
s u f f i c i e n t d i r e c t i o n f o r the agency. The s t a t u t e s provide t h a t ACISA
operate as an i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t but gives no f u r t h e r guidance. A. R. S.
541- 2152 provides only t h a t
" There is e s t a b l i s h e d t h e Arizona criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e
system agency which s h a l l be a law enforcement agency
with peace o f f i c e r a u t h o r i t y f o r the l i m i t e d purposes
of c o l l e c t i o n , c o n t r o l , a n a l y s i s and dissemination of
criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e information t o governmental
a u t h o r i t i e s involved i n the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of v i o l a t i o n s
of t h e criminal laws. Agency personnel s h a l l not
otherwise engage i n law enforcement a c t i v i t i e s . "
( emphasis added)
The Director of ACISA is f u r t h e r required i n A. R. S. 541- 2155. B( 1) t o
respond t o requests from l o c a l , county, S t a t e and Federal a u t h o r i t i e s f o r
criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e information. No other d i r e c t i o n is provided by
s t a t u t o r y mandate.
Policy Board Has Not Provided Direction - The Arizona Criminal
I n t e l l i g e n c e System Board was e s t a b l i s h e d by A. R. S. $ 41- 2153- The Board's
duty is t o ". . . e s t a b l i s h p o l i c i e s , procedures, r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s
f o r t h e functioning of the agency and f o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n , preservation,
access t o and s e c u r i t y of criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e information." A review of
Board minutes i n d i c a t e s t h a t the Board h a s n o t provided ACISA with
s p e c i f i c focus and d i r e c t i o n , such a s crime a r e a s f o r emphasis o r types of
i n t e l l i g e n c e support t o give t o law enforcement agencies.
Agency Goals and Objectives Not Specific - ACISA's goals and o b j e c t i v e s
a r e not s p e c i f i c enough t o provide adequate d i r e c t i o n and focus. The
agency h a s e s t a b l i s h e d t h r e e goals.* These a r e :
" 1. The c o l l e c t i o n of criminal information.
2. The c o n t r o l of criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e information,
including the management, c o l l a t i o n , and a n a l y s i s
necessary t o i n c r e a s e the q u a l i t y and t i m e l i n e s s
of t h e i n t e l l i g e n c e product.
3. The dissemination of criminal information and
i n t e l l i g e n c e . "
The , agency has developed o b j e c t i v e s f o r each goal, however, these
o b j e c t i v e s a r e likewise vague. For example, ACISA has developed four
o b j e c t i v e s i n support of its f i r s t goal. These a r e :
" 1. E s t a b l i s h a comprehensive l i a i s o n program f o r
c o l l e c t i n g criminal information, disseminating
criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e and providing resources i n
support of other agencies. . . .
2. E s t a b l i s h overt i n t e l l i g e n c e p r o j e c t s . . . .
3. E s t a b l i s h covert i n t e l l i g e n c e p r o j e c t s . . . .
4. The t r a i n i n g of ACISA and other agency's
personnel. . . ."
As i l l u s t r a t e d above, these goals and o b j e c t i v e s provide l i t t l e d i r e c t i o n
concerning t h e a c t u a l emphasis and focus of ACISA's resources.
Not Providing S t r a t e p i c
I n t e l l i g e n c e Products
The Arizona Criminal I n t e l l i g e n c e System Agency has not developed an
e s s e n t i a l i n t e l l i g e n c e r o l e . Although it has performed a t a c t i c a l
i n t e l l i g e n c e function, ACISA has performed only a l i m i t e d s t r a t e g i c
i n t e l l i g e n c e function.
* Appendix I contains the f u l l t e x t of ACISA's mission statement, goals
and o b j e c t i v e s .
Nature of S t r a t e g i c I n t e l l i g e n c e - An i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t ' s primary focus is
developing cases not already under investigation. This is accomplished by
s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e functions. F i r s t , s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e provides
information that may be used f o r planning purposes. The s t r a t e g i c
i n t e l l i g e n c e assessment estimates the extent and nature of a type of
criminal a c t i v i t y , assesses the current s i t u a t i o n and estimates f u t u r e
developments . This enables the i n t e l l i g e n c e unit and law enforcement
agencies t o e s t a b l i s h p r i o r i t i e s . Second, as the s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e
process continues, the i n t e l l i g e n c e unit can identify major cases f o r law
enforcement agencies to pursue. This d i f f e r s from t a c t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e
which is support given t o enforcement i n v e s t i g a t o r s on existing cases.
Tactical i n t e l l i g e n c e c o n s i s t s of responding t o i n q u i r i e s on the subject
( person) under i n v e s t i g a t i o n and is reactive i n nature while s t r a t e g i c
i n t e l l i g e n c e is proactive.
S t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e provides four types of i n t e l l i g e n c e products which
can be used a s the basis f o r measuring the impact of criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e
units. These four products, i n order of t h e i r development, are 1) t h r e a t
assessment, 2) t a r g e t s e l e c t i o n , 3) t a r g e t tracking, and 4) case
building. The natures of these products are defined by the Handbook of
Self Evaluation Guidelines For : Organized Crime I n t e l l i g e n c e Units, 1976,
California Department of J u s t i c e , as follows:
" Threat Assessment - The systematic c o l l e c t i o n and
analysis of information t o i d e n t i f y the nature and
t; ipes of existing and/ or p o t e n t i a l t h r e a t s posed to the
community by organized criminal a c t i v i t i e s . "
" Target Selection - The systematic evaluation of t h r e a t
information, the formulation of hypothesis of probable
criminal a c t i v i t y , and the selection of t a r g e t s
( individuals and organ; zations) f o r f u r t h e r
investigation."
" Target Tracking - The systematic completion of the
i n t e l l i g e n c e c o l l e c t i o n plan f o r each s e l e c t e d t a r g e t
through the u t i l i z a t i o n of overt and covert sources. "
( This confirms or disproves suspected criminal a c t i v i t y )
" Case Building - ( 1) The systematic accumulation of
l e g a l l y admissible evidence necessary t o support the
eventual a r r e s t , or indictment and prosecution of the
t a r g e t e d s u b j e c t s ; and/ or ( 2) the systematic
accumulation and dissemination of information necessary
t o influence regulatory, l e g i s l a t i v e and administrative
agencies t o take c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n s and the general
public t o support such action."
An example i l l u s t r a t e s how the process works. Suppose t h e i n t e l l i g e n c e
unit e l e c t s t o perf om an analysis of c a r t h e f t s with focus on possible
connections with parts d i s t r i b u t o r s or dealers. F i r s t , it performs a
" threat assessment" t o determine the extent of probable criminal a c t i v i t y
and to estimate f u t u r e developments. If the t h r e a t is s i g n i f i c a n t enough,
the i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t continues its investigation. Second, by evaluating
the t h r e a t information the unit s e l e c t s t a r g e t s ( individuals and
businesses) it believes may be involved i n criminal a c t i v i t y . The end
products of t h i s " target selection" a r e a p r i o r i t i z e d s e t of specific
t a r g e t s and corresponding i n t e l l i g e n c e c o l l e c t i o n plans f o r each t a r g e t .
Third, the i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t completes the c o l l e c t i o n plan t o acquire
s u f f i c i e n t information t o confirm or disprove the suspected criminal
a c t i v i t y of each t a r g e t . This is c a l l e d " target tracking." If criminal
a c t i v i t y is disproven, t h e t a r g e t is cleared and it is removed from the
i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t f i l e s . I f criminal involvement is confirmed, t a r g e t
tracking is continued and the i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t moves t o the l a s t phase
c a l l e d " case building." Case building is the process of collecting
s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support d i r e c t a r r e s t s and prosecution. This l a s t
a c t i v i t y must be performed i n conjunction with external enforcement and
prosecuting agencies. Thus, the process of s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e enables
the i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t t o identify cases not already i n the hands of
enforcement investigators.
No S t r a t e g i c Products - ACISA has performed only a limited s t r a t e g i c
i n t e l l i g e n c e function. ACISA's support t o law enforcement agencies has
been g e n e r a l l y l i m i t e d t o consulting with and supporting requests f o r
t a c t i c a l a s s i s t a n c e and information on a case- by- case or r e a c t i v e b a s i s .
Through its a n a l y t i c a l resources, ACISA has been able t o expand some cases
beyond t h e i r i n i t i a l impacts or scopes. However, only limited s t r a t e g i c
i n t e l l i g e n c e functions have been performed i n t h i s r e a c t i v e mode. The
agency has not performed any statewide a n a l y s i s of crime problems t o
e s t a b l i s h e i t h e r its own i n t e r n a l p r i o r i t i e s o r t o guide S t a t e and l o c a l
law enforcement a c t i v i t i e s . It h a s n o t s y s t e m a t i c a l l y performed t h e
primary i n t e l l i g e n c e functions necessary t o develop s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e
products.
ACISA's a b i l i t y t o assist S t a t e law enforcement a c t i v i t i e s is not a s g r e a t
a s could be expected were it p r o a c t i v e l y performing t h e s t r a t e g i c
i n t e l l i g e n c e process. By not developing more s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e ,
ACISA is unable t o 1 ) i d e n t i f y unreported criminal a c t i v i t y and 2) foresee
developing crime networks. Lacking t h r e a t assessments, law enforcement
agencies may not have s u f f i c i e n t information t o e f f e c t i v e l y plan and
coordinate t h e i r e f f o r t s . Moreover, the p r o a c t i v e n a t u r e of s t r a t e g i c
i n t e l l i g e n c e f a c i l i t a t e s crime prevention.
The ACISA d i r e c t o r recognizes the need t o operate i n a proactive manner
and r e p o r t s he is preparing t h e agency t o begin t h r e a t a n a l y s i s , t a r g e t
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , t a r g e t tracking and case building on a statewide b a s i s .
He a l s o r e p o r t s t h a t ACISA was r e s t r u c t u r e d on May 15, 1983, t o prepare
f o r t h i s f u t u r e emphasis.
T a c t i c a l I n t e l l i g e n c e
Support Impaired
Lack of d i r e c t i o n and focus a l s o impairs ACISA's a b i l i t y t o perform its
t a c t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e functions. F i r s t , it has precluded the development
of i n t e l l i g e n c e c o l l e c t i o n plans. This i n t u r n has reduced information
flow, because not knowing what is wanted, law enforcement agencies do not
submit information t o the statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e d a t a base. The combined
e f f e c t of these f a c t o r s is t o l i m i t the usefulness of the ACISA
i n t e l l i g e n c e information base f o r t a c t i c a l support.
No Collection Plans - ACISA has not developed statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e
c o l l e c t i o n plans which contain such elements a s crime area for information
gathering, c o l l e c t i o n methods and p a r t i c i p a n t s , b e n e f i t s expected by
undertaking the collection e f f o r t and time frames f o r completion. It has
not provided guidance t o S t a t e and local law enforcement agencies
regarding the specific kinds of information t o submit f o r the statewide
i n t e l l i g e n c e d a t a base.
I n t e l l i g e n c e c o l l e c t i o n planning i s e s s e n t i a l f o r an effective
i n t e l l i g e n c e operation. Collection plans i n t e g r a t e the functions of
collection and analysis. They assure t h a t enough q u a l i t y d a t a w i l l be
collected f o r an e f f e c t i v e and thorough analysis. The importance of
collection plans was stressed during an Organized Crime Intelligence
Analysis seminar conducted by the New Jersey State Police. It was stated
that
" In order t o manage t h e d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s of
i n t e l l i g e n c e off icers/ analyst s , c o l l e c t i o n plans
represent a v i t a l part of the communicative process.
The c o l l e c t i o n plan, usually generated by the
a n a l y t i c a l element, provides the mid- managers and
i n t e l l i g e n c e o f f i c e r s with a s p e c i f i c o b j e c t i v e and
d i r e c t i o n . In essence, the collection plan is a
vehicle f o r communicating t o i n t e l l i g e n c e o f f i c e r s the
d i r e c t i o n t h e i r c o l l e c t i o n e f f o r t s should take."
Collection plans s e t f o r t h such parameters as 1) crime area f o r
information gathering, 2) j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r undertaking the collection
e f f o r t , 3) expected benefits of completing the plan, 4) the extent of
inquiry t o be made, 5) the period of inquiry and completion dates, 6) type
of information t o be c o l l e c t e d , and 7) collection methods and
participants.
In the absence of c o l l e c t i o n plans, past d i r e c t i o n from ACISA has been
very broad. In one case ACISA made a s t a t e w i d e r e q u e s t f o r i t s agents t o
" c o l l e c t information on organized crime." However, law enforcement
agencies provided l i t t l e information t o a s s i s t the c o l l e c t i o n e f f o r t . The
ACISA Director says t h i s taught them two lessons:
". . . the need t o f o c u s t h e area of a n a l y s i s and f o r
ACISA headquarters t o communicate d i r e c t l y with law
enforcement agencies a s well a s through our agents."
The ACISA D i r e c t o r h a s acknowledged the need t o develop statewide data
c o l l e c t i o n plans and s t a t e s t h a t he h a s t a k e n s t e p s t o prepare f o r such an
e f f o r t . The agency now has s e v e r a l c o l l e c t i o n plans c u r r e n t l y i n d r a f t
f om.
Reduced Information Flow - The absence of data c o l l e c t i o n plans r e s u l t s i n
reduced information flow. Law enforcement agencies i n Arizona submit
limited amounts of information f o r inclusion i n the ACISA statewide
i n t e l l i g e n c e data base. Data flow problems a r e f u r t h e r compounded because
ACISA l a c k s r o u t i n e data s o u r c e s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h enforcement agencies.
Enforcement agencies can submit information t o the statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e
f i l e on ACISA i n t e l l i g e n c e t r a n s m i t t a l forms c a l l e d subject cards.
However, records kept by ACISA show t h a t law enforcement agencies have
submitted very l i t t l e information t o the statewide data base. Only 954
subject cards were submitted by law enforcement agencies during f i s c a l
year 1982- 83. ACISA agents submitted 2,208 s u b j e c t c a r d s i n t o the
system. Table 2 shows the number of subject cards submitted by various
sources.
TABLE 2
SUBJECT CARDS SUBMITTED TO THE ACISA DATA FILE
DURING FISCAL YEAR 1982- 1983
ACISA Employees
Arizona Law Enforcement Agencies
Total
Source of subject cards submitted by
Arizona law enforcement agencies:
AZ Department of Public Safety
AZ Attorney General ' s Off i c e
Tucson Police Department
Maricopa County Sheriff
U. S. Customs
Kingman Police Department
Phoenix Police Department
U. S. Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms
S c o t t s d a l e P o l i c e Department
Mohave County Sheriff
Coconino County Sheriff
Chandler Police
Maricopa County Attorney
Pima County Sheriff
U. S. Drug Enforcement Administration
Goodyear Police Department
Glendale Police Department
National Park Service
Other ( 21 agencies)
Total
No. Subiect Cards Submitted
Number Percent
~ l t h o u g h DPS has provided ACISA with more information than any other
agency, DPS o f f i c i a l s s t a t e t h a t more a v a i l a b l e information is not
provided because ACISA requests have not been s p e c i f i c and ACISA has no
c o l l e c t i o n or dissemination p l a n s . Another agency responded t h a t l i t t l e
information is sent t o ACISA because it is too time consuming t o send
information on each and every case. Sixteen other agencies responded i n a
l i k e manner. I f these agencies were provided s p e c i f i c d i r e c t i o n regarding
information needs, they may submit more information t o ACISA.
The problems with obtaining information from other agencies are especially
c r i t i c a l because ACISA lacks a continuous, routine flow of information t o
be analyzed, other than what is obtained by i t s own agents. The U. S.
Department of J u s t i c e i n its publication Basic Elements of I n t e l l i g e n c e
s t a t e s that a n i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t cannot, with its own resources, develop
an information flow s u f f i c i e n t f o r e f f e c t i v e analysis. However, those
i n t e l l i g e n c e units associated with an enforcement agency have several
sources of routine information. These sources include crime reports and
enforcement i n v e s t i g a t o r s ' case reports. An i n t e l l i g e n c e unit must have
access t o t h i s general flow of reporting on criminal a c t i v i t y i n order t o
gain a p i c t u r e of crime i n its j u r i s d i c t i o n . This forms the context
within which the unit can request specific information and focus on
specific criminal a c t i v i t i e s . As an independent agency ACISA does not
have these routine sources of information and must depend even more
heavily on other agencies f o r information flow.
Value of I n t e l l i g e n c e Data Base Is Questionable - The foregoing problems
have reduced the usefulness of the ACISA i n t e l l i g e n c e information data
base. F i r s t , t h e d a t a base has declined i n its a b i l i t y t o provide
information t o law enforcement. Second, most of t h e d a t a i n the f i l e s has
been used only by the agency submitting the data.
Law enforcement agencies may request i n t e l l i g e n c e information from ACISA.
To obtain t h i s information ACISA checks its own data base and contacts
other agencies. During f i s c a l year 1982- 83, ACISA processed 9,212
i n q u i r i e s . Approximately half of these i n q u i r i e s were made by ACISA
agents and half by law enforcement agencies.
Decline of Information Available from ACISA F i l e s - ACISA has
been unable t o provide Arizona law enforcement agencies with much
information from the statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e data base. The
a b i l i t y of the data base t o provide information f o r i n q u i r i e s has
declined s i g n i f i c a n t l y during the period July 1, 1981, t o June
30, 1983. For the f i r s t t h r e e months of i t s operation, ACISA had
some information i n its data base f o r 26.7 percent of the
i n q u i r i e s made t o it. However, it only had information f o r 10.8
percent of i n q u i r i e s made during the three- month period ended
June 30, 1983. The d e c l i n e may be a t t r i b u t e d t o a l o s s of focus
and d i r e c t i o n . Before ACISA was created the statewide
i n t e l l i g e n c e system was limited t o n a r c o t i c and r e l a t e d
information. When ACISA was created the system's scope was
broadened. However, ACISA has not developed s p e c i f i c guidelines
regarding t h e type of criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e t o be included on the
statewide system. This a f f e c t s raw data flow. ACISA a l s o
a t t r i b u t e s t h e d e c l i n e t o purging criminal h i s t o r y information
from the system. We were not allowed access t o the i n t e l l i g e n c e
f i l e s and were unable t o determine the extent of c r i m i n a l h i s t o r y
information on the system. ACISA believes the a b i l i t y t o provide
information from i t s f i l e s w i l l improve over time. Figure 2
d e p i c t s the percentage of i n q u i r i e s f o r which ACISA had
information on the data base during its f i r s t two years.
FIGURE 2
PERCENTAGE OF INQUIRIES FOR WHICH ACISA HAD
INFORMATION ON THE STATEWIDE DATA BASE
A c t u a l R a t e
S t a t is t ical T r e n d
\
\
1 I
- I I i I 1 I I 1 81! ln 81- 2* 81- 3 81- 4 82- 1 82- 2 82- 3 82- 4 83- 1 83- 2
( Y e a r - Q u a r t e r )
* Pre- ACISA rates
As shown by Figure 2, the ACISA statewide system has had
information t o answer few of t h e i n q u i r i e s made t o it. However,
ACISA does request information from other agencies t o help
s a t i s f y i n q u i r i e s r e g a r d l e s s of whether it has information i n i t s
own data base. By t h i s means, ACISA was able t o provide some
information on approximately 53 percent of i n q u i r i e s received
during f i s c a l year 1982- 83. We were unable t o determine i f the
information provided by ACISA t o t h e requestor from e i t h e r the
ACISA or other agencies' data bases was u s e f u l t o the requesting
agency because ACISA would n o t a l l o w us access t o the
i n t e l l i g e n c e f i l e s .
a Information i n ACISA Data Base Rarely Used - Information stored
on the ACISA data base is r a r e l y used by law enforcement
agencies. ACISA has information stored on approximately 24,000
s u b j e c t s o r i n d i v i d u a l s . A review of the f i l e * a s of March 1,
1983, showed t h a t 11,518 s u b j e c t s or 49 percent have not received
any i n q u i r i e s f o r more than 2 years. In a d d i t i o n , 86 percent of
the subjects on f i l e showed only the o r i g i n a l inquiry o r subject
card; no other agency had since requested information on the
i n d i v i d u a l . Even when ACISA received more than one inquiry on a
person, it was by the same agency i n 76 percent of the cases.**
Thus the concept of information sharing has not fared well.
According t o ACISA, one major purpose f o r its data base is t o
f - a c i l i t a t e information sharing among l a w enforcement agencies.
* ACISA would not allow us t o review its i n t e l l i g e n c e f i l e s because of
s t a t u t o r y exclusions but provided us with s t a t i s t i c a l information t o
make these determinations.
** We considered only i n q u i r i e s s i n c e J u l y 1, 1981.
Changes i n ACISA
Operational Philosophy
ACISA r e p o r t s it i s now changing its o p e r a t i o n a l philosophy t o operate i n
a more proactive mode and t o emphasize more s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e
functions. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the ACISA d i r e c t o r s t a t e d i n a May 23, 1983,
l e t t e r t h a t
" ACISA is a new organization with a new, state- wide
i n t e l l i g e n c e function. Thus f a r , most of i t s work has
involved consulting with and supporting u s e r r e q u e s t s
f o r information o r a s s i s t a n c e on a case by case
basis. . . . ACISA has made c o n s i d e r a b l e p r o g r e s s i n
performing and providing basic i n t e l l i g e n c e support and
is prepared now t o progress t o advanced i n t e l l i g e n c e
work. S p e c i f i c a l l y , ACISA is preparing t o begin t h r e a t
a n a l y s i s , t a r g e t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , t a r g e t tracking and
case building on a state- wide basis."
As indicated i n the d i r e c t o r ' s l e t t e r , ACISA is a new organization evolved
from a forerunner agency with d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t i v e s . This f a c t o r appears
t o have impacted its a b i l i t y t o develop a n e f f e c t i v e i n t e l l i g e n c e system
during t h e two years of its existence.
CONCLUSION
The Arizona Criminal I n t e l l i g e n c e System Agency ( ACISA) h a s n o t developed
an e f f e c t i v e statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e system. Lacking d i r e c t i o n and focus,
ACISA has performed only limited " s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e " functions.
ACISA's " t a c t i c a l i n t e l l i g e n c e " a s s i s t a n c e t o law enforcement has been
impaired by the lack of c o l l e c t i o n planning and inadequate data flow. As
a r e s u l t of the foregoing problems, the ACISA computer i n t e l l i g e n c e f i l e s
a r e of questionable value.
FaCO~ mZ? DATIONS
1. ACISA i n conjunction with the ACISA Board should develop s p e c i f i c
goals and o b j e c t i v e s and crime category p r i o r i t i e s i n order t o
e s t a b l i s h agency d i r e c t i o n and focus.
2. ACISA should perform s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e functions to provide
measurable products of threat assessment, t a r g e t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ,
t a r g e t tracking and case building. Case building should be developed
i n conjunction with appropriate law enforcement agencies.
3. ACISA should develop statewide criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e c o l l e c t i o n plans
t o include the components of a) t a r g e t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , b)
j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r undertaking the collection e f f o r t , c ) expected
benefits of completing the plan, d) the extent of inquiry t o be made,
e) the period of inquiry and completion dates, f ) type of information
t o be collected, and g) collection methods and participants.
FINDING I1
THE ARIZONA CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM AGENCY SHOULD BE COMBINED WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
The statewide criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e functions of the Arizona Criminal
I n t e l l i g e n c e System Agency ( ACISA) and the Department of Public Safety
( DPS) should be consolidated within DPS. Several f a c t o r s favor such a
t r a n s f e r . F i r s t , ACISA and DPS duplicate each other by having similar
i n t e l l i g e n c e systems which provide support t o statewide law enforcement
agencies. Second, ACISA r e l i e s heavily on information sources housed
within DPS. Third, DPS can provide a b e t t e r flow of criminal information
f o r a n a l y s i s . F i n a l l y , the statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e r o l e is compatible with
other DPS s e r v i c e s provided t o l o c a l law enforcement agencies. Although
ACISA was e s t a b l i s h e d a s an independent agency t o i n s u l a t e t h e
i n t e l l i g e n c e function from enforcement a c t i v i t i e s and t o f a c i l i t a t e
support from l o c a l agencies, DPS can meet these needs.
Background
The development of 2 statewide criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e organizations has
evolved over the past 15 years. The l e g i s l a t u r e recognized the need f o r a
criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e system i n 1968 when the Department of Public Safety
( DPS) was c r e a t e d w i t h a d i v i s i o n of n a r c o t i c s enforcement and criminal
i n t e l l i g e n c e . However, DPS did not develop a f u l l y o p e r a t i o n a l computer
i n t e l l i g e n c e system u n t i l 1980.
The Arizona Drug Control D i s t r i c t ( ADCD) was created i n 1975 and developed
a computerized i n t e l l i g e n c e system f o r n a r c o t i c s information. In 1981,
following the report of the S e l e c t Law Enforcement Review Commission,
ACISA replaced ADCD and expanded the computerized i n t e l l i g e n c e system t o
include o t h e r a r e a s of criminal a c t i v i t y .
DPS1s computerized i n t e l l i g e n c e system now has approximately 50,000
s u b j e c t s on f i l e and ACISA1s system has approximately 24,000 subjects.
Both i n t e l l i g e n c e systems contain information on a l l areas of major
criminal a c t i v i t i e s .
Duplicating Statewide Systems
Maintaining t h e ACISA i n t e l l i g e n c e f u n c t i o n s e p a r a t e from DPS r e s u l t s i n
excessive d u p l i c a t i o n . Both agencies have e s t a b l i s h e d s i m i l a r
i n t e l l i g e n c e organizations based on s t a t u t o r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Each agency
provides i n t e l l i g e n c e information t o answer i n q u i r i e s from law enforcement
agencies i n t h e S t a t e . ACISA r e c e n t l y selected p r i o r i t i e s which duplicate
a r e a s c u r r e n t l y being pursued by DPS.
Development of Similar I n t e l l i g e n c e Organizations and C a p a b i l i t i e s - ACISA
and DPS have developed i n t e l l i g e n c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s with s i m i l a r
c a p a b i l i t i e s and a c t i v i t i e s . These s i m i l a r c a p a b i l i t i e s and a c t i v i t i e s
include a s follows:
1. Computerized Subject F i l e - Each has computerized information on
subjects suspected or known t o be involved i n criminal a c t i v i t y .
The format f o r each system is b a s i c a l l y t h e same. ACISA has
approximately 24,000 s u b j e c t s on i t s f i l e while DPS has about
50,000.
2. Same Analytical Capability - Each computer system can access data
i n the f i l e s by multiple c a t e g o r i e s of information. Both systems
can e s t a b l i s h a s s o c i a t i o n s o r l i n k s between i n d i v i d u a l s i n a case
and can compare common c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s f o r s e l e c t e d persons.
3. Telephone Toll Analysis - ACISA and DPS both have developed
s o p h i s t i c a t e d computer programs t o analyze telephone t o l l
information. These programs w i l l :
- give a frequency count of a l l numbers c a l l e d by t h e subscriber,
- s o r t numbers c a l l e d i n a number of ways,
- e s t a b l i s h l i n k s among persons c a l l i n g t h e same number,
- f i n d any occurrence of one or more telephone number i n t h e
e n t i r e data base, and
- prepare a matrix of frequency of telephone c a l l s between
s u b s c r i b e r s and t o other numbers.
4. F i e l d I n t e l l i g e n c e Agents - Both agencies u t i l i z e f i e l d agents t o
provide l i a i s o n with l o c a l law enforcement. Each agency has 19
full- time i n t e l l i g e n c e agents. However, DPS a l s o h a s a n o t h e r 52
agents i n 22 c i t i e s which o f f e r i n v e s t i g a t i v e and i n t e l l i g e n c e
a s s i s t a n c e t o l o c a l law enforcement agencies.
Statutory Authority - Both ACISA and DPS a r e s t a t u t o r i l y charged t o
develop i n t e l l i g e n c e organizations. I n a d d i t i o n , DPS needs i n t e l l i g e n c e
information t o support its enforcement r o l e . ACISA was e s t a b l i s h e d
s p e c i f i c a l l y t o c o l l e c t and c o n t r o l criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e information f o r
dissemination t o law enforcement agencies i n the S t a t e . However, DPS was
given t h i s same a u t h o r i t y i n 1968 by A. R. S. § 41- 1711. A. and $ 41- 1761. A.
which state:
" There s h a l l be e s t a b l i s h e d a department of public
s a f e t y which is responsible f o r c r e a t i n g and
coordinating s e r v i c e s f o r use by l o c a l law enforcement
agencies. . . .
" There i s e s t a b l i s h e d a d i v i s i o n of n a r c o t i c s
enforcement and criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e w i t h i n the
department. . . ." ( emphasis added)
DPS has been given f u r t h e r a u t h o r i t y i n A. R. S. $ 41- 1713 t o
". . . cooperate with s h e r i f f s , l o c a l p o l i c e and peace
o f f i c e r s within the s t a t e f o r t h e prevention and
discovery of crimes. . . ." ( emphasis added)
As noted i n Finding I ( s e e page 17) the main purpose of a n i n t e l l i g e n c e
u n i t is t o i d e n t i f y cases n o t a l r e a d y i n the hands of enforcement
i n v e s t i g a t o r s . Theref ore, DPS must be engaged i n i n t e l l i g e n c e functions
i n order t o discover crimes.
Support t o Other Agencies - ACISA and DPS's i n t e l l i g e n c e sections both
receive and answer i n q u i r i e s from law enforcement agencies within the
s t a t e . However, DPS has been able t o answer more i n q u i r i e s t h a n h a s
ACISA. Each agency received approximately 8,900 requests f o r information
during calendar year 1982. In both instances 22 percent of t h e i n q u i r i e s
were from c i t y or county law enforcement agencies. Thus ACISA and DPS a r e
providing approximately the same amount of i n t e l l i g e n c e support t o l o c a l
agencies. However, while ACISA was a b l e t o provide information f o r 59
percent of t h e t o t a l i n q u i r i e s made t o it, DPS provided information on 86
percent of i n q u i r i e s received. *
ACISA Duplicates DPS I n t e l l i g e n c e Gathering - ACISA's proposed
i n t e l l i g e n c e gathering emphasis w i l l duplicate a r e a s already pursued by
DPS. Past i n t e l l i g e n c e gathering e f f o r t s by ACISA had not been planned
and focused ( see page 20). ACISA recently announced a new emphasis. This
new emphasis includes 1 ) making organized crime an ACISA p r i o r i t y and
i d e n t i f y i n g organized crime f i g u r e s i n the s t a t e and 2) tracking members
* To a l a r g e extent t h i s may be a t t r i b u t e d t o the f a c t DPS has a l a r g e r
system with more names on f i l e and more computerized data bases ( see
page 36). It may, however, a l s o be p a r t i a l l y explained by an Auditor
General survey which disclosed t h a t 24 percent of the agencies
requesting a s s i s t a n c e from ACISA contact DPS f o r a s s i s t a n c e before
c a l l i n g upon ACISA. ( See Appendix I1 f o r the survey instrument and
r e s u l t s . ) I n t h e case of these agencies ACISA may only receive
requests f o r which DPS could not provide a s s i s t a n c e .
of two " outlaw" motorcycle clubs. ACISA has a l s o divided its a n a l y s i s
resources i n t o f o u r s e c t i o n s addressing 1) crimes a g a i n s t property, 2)
crimes a g a i n s t persons, 3) n a r c o t i c s and smuggling, and 4) organized
crime. This new emphasis and organization d u p l i c a t e s a r e a s already
pursued by DPS. DPS has already gathered extensive information on the two
motorcycle groups. It has a l s o compiled and v e r i f i e d information on 9,600
members of organized crime f a m i l i e s throughout the United S t a t e s .
Information i n these two a r e a s has been a v a i l a b l e t o other law enforcement
agencies through DPS. In a d d i t i o n , DPS has a Narcotics Enforcement
Division and an Organized Crime Division. Thus, ACISA1s new emphasis w i l l
duplicate e f f o r t s already pursued by DPS.
Duplication Should Be Avoided - As shown by the previous discussion, the
establishment of ACISA a s an independent agency has r e s u l t e d i n excessive
d u p l i c a t i o n . The Select Law Enforcement Review Commission f e l t t h a t
d u p l i c a t i o n of i n t e l l i g e n c e functions should be avoided. It s t a t e d :
" There is a d u p l i c a t i o n of e f f o r t and f a c i l i t i e s i n
maintaining two competing statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e
information organizations. . . . It is apparent t h a t
only one such statewide system needs t o be maintained. . . . Care should be taken t h a t the state not develop
and fund capacity i n more than one s t a t e agency f o r the
same type of law enforcement support f o r l o c a l
agencies. For example, a s i n g l e criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e
information system should be maintained."
The S t a t e - has, however, e s t a b l i s h e d two competing i n t e l l i g e n c e information
systems t h a t provide s i m i l a r s e r v i c e s t o the law enforcement community.
ACISA Reliance on DPS
ACISA r e l i e s on information systems housed by DPS t o provide most of the
information t o answer its i n q u i r i e s . Moreover, t h i s information is
d i r e c t l y a v a i l a b l e t o most law enforcement agencies without going through
ACISA.
During f i s c a l year 1982- 83 ACISA received 9,212 i n q u i r i e s f o r
in£ ormation. ACISA queried other sources 20,173 times t o gain information
f o r the i n q u i r i e s . More than half ( 59%) of t h e q u e r i e s made by ACISA were
t o data systems a c c e s s i b l e through the Arizona Criminal J u s t i c e
Information System ( ACJIS) maintained by DPS. In a d d i t i o n , DPS has
provided 31 percent of the subject cards* t h a t ACISA received during
f i s c a l year 1982- 83 from law enforcement agencies i n the State.
Most law enforcement agencies i n Arizona have d i r e c t access t o information
a v a i l a b l e through the ACJIS system.** Therefore, they can obtain t h i s
information themselves without going through ACISA. Moreover the ACJIS
system c u r r e n t l y includes two i n t e l l i g e n c e f i l e s : 1 ) the U. S. Secret
Service p r o t e c t i o n f i l e which lists 200 t o 300 names of persons
p o t e n t i a l l y dangerous t o the President o r other p o l i t i c a l l e a d e r s and 2)
the Maricopa County pawn shop f i l e t h a t lists a l l pawn shop t r a n s a c t i o n s
( guns, e t c . ) . DPS r e p o r t s t h a t i n t h e f u t u r e its main i n t e l l i g e n c e system
may be a c c e s s i b l e through ACJIS i f approved by the ACJIS policy board and
i f proposed changes i n computer software and operating systems a r e
completed.
DPS Has B e t t e r Information Flow
The flow of information i s e s s e n t i a l t o the e f f e c t i v e operation of an
i n t e l l i g e n c e u n i t and provides another reason why ACISA should be mzde a
p a r t of DPS. ACISA lacks s u f f i c i e n t data flow t o be e f f e c t i v e
( see page - 21). On the other hand, DPS has an adequate information flow
from both i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l sources.
* The s u b j e c t card is used f o r transmitting i n t e l l i g e n c e information t o
the ACISA computer f i l e s . ** All 15 county s h e r i f f s and 54 of the 72 l o c a l p o l i c e departments have
a computer terminal which gives them d i r e c t access t o ACJIS data bases
( only the smaller c i t i e s / t o w n s do not have d i r e c t access t o ACJIS).
I n t e r n a l Information Sources - DPS has more i n t e r n a l information sources
than ACISA. As an independent agency ACISA's i n t e r n a l information is
limited t o what can be provided by 1 9 i n t e l l i g e n c e f i e l d agents. DPS has
i n t e r n a l information a v a i l a b l e from s e v e r a l sources including:
1. Nineteen full- time i n t e l l i g e n c e agents devoted t o developing
i n t e l l i g e n c e information.
2. Another 134 enforcement agents prepare r e p o r t s on i n v e s t i g a t e d
crimes which provide u s e f u l information f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e a n a l y s i s .
3. Highway P a t r o l o f f i c e r s assist i n t e l l i g e n c e gathering by preparing
r e p o r t s on f i e l d interviews t h a t t r a c k motorcycle gang movement,
check h i t c h h i k e r s ' i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s , e t c .
I n t e r n a l information data bases t h a t a s s i s t DPS criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e
e f f o r t s a r e :
1. Suspects Under I n v e s t i g a t i o n ( SUI) - a system designed t o provide
names of subjects who a r e c u r r e n t l y under i n v e s t i g a t i o n o r have
been under i n v e s t i g a t i o n by DPS within t h e past 12 months.
2. Automated I n t e l l i g e n c e Report Systems ( AIRS) - a system designed
t o provide information on the suspected, but not confirmed,
criminal a c t i v i t i e s of s u b j e c t s .
3. Automated Name Index ( ANI) - a system designed t o provide a list
of subjects who a r e l i s t e d as suspects on Departmental Reports or
s u b j e c t s involved i n t r a f f i c accidents. Information comes from
a r r e s t and a c c i d e n t r e p o r t s .
4. Automated Field Interview Report System ( AFIRS) - a system
c o n s i s t i n g of information c o l l e c t e d by DPS o f f i c e r s through f i e l d
interviews.
External Information Sources - DPS has s e v e r a l external information
sources on its computer system. These sources provide valuable
information f o r a n a l y s i s and t a c t i c a l response. While these systems a r e
computerized at DPS, ACISA can obtain t h i s information only by contacting
the o r i g i n a l source or DPS. ACISA would l i k e t o obtain t h i s information
f o r its own i n t e l l i g e n c e system. However, t o provide t h i s information t o
ACISA f o r computerization would increase t h e e x i s t i n g degree of
d u p l i c a t i o n between ACISA and DPS. External information sources which a r e
computerized at DPS include:
1. Arizona Driver's License F i l e s - DPS has developed a search method
when only p a r t i a l information is known;
2. Vehicle R e g i s t r a t i o n Information - DPS has developed a system t o
provide information when limited information is known about an
owner, v e h i c l e , o r r e g i s t r a t i o n number ( f o r example, a p a r t i a l
l i c e n s e p l a t e number);
3. Arizona Watercraft R e g i s t r a t i o n ;
4. Uniform Crime Reports - submitted t o DPS by most law enforcement
agencies i n Arizona;
5. Unidentified Dead BodyIMissing Persons Systems - maintained by
DPS, a l l agencies can c o n t r i b u t e ;
6. Arizona Property Ownerships and Tax Records;
7. Public Documents Computerized System, including
- Arizona Registrar of Contractors,
- Arizona Security Guard License,
- Arizona Health Service,
- Arizona Insurance Commission,
- Corporation Commission,
- Real E s t a t e Commission, and
- Federal Courts-- Civil and Criminal Cases.
These computerized informat ion sources which a r e computerized at DPS can
provide an invaluable source of information f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e analysis.
Other Services Provided by DPS
The statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e f u n c t i o n should be located i n DPS because it
complements other DPS s e r v i c e s provided t o l o c a l law enforcement
agencies. DPS provides t h e following s e r v i c e s t o l o c a l law enforcement:
1. The S t a t e C r i m e Laboratory which provides s c i e n t i f i c criminal
a n a l y s i s a s s i s t a n c e t o statewide law enforcement o f f i c e r s ;
2. The Criminal I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Section which procures and maintains
p o s i t i v e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s of persons a r r e s t e d o r convicted within
t h e S t a t e and g a t h e r s information f o r the study of crime
prevention concerning crimes committed and persons a r r e s t e d ;
3. The Division of Training and Education which provides t r a i n i n g and
c e r t i f i c a t i o n programs f o r law enforcement o f f i c e r s throughout the
S t a t e ;
4. The Arizona Criminal J u s t i c e Information System which provides
access t o o u t s t a n d i n g w a r r a n t s and criminal h i s t o r y information
statewide and nationwide; and
5. I n v e s t i g a t i o n and i n t e l l i g e n c e support which is provided upon
request from l o c a l enforcement agencies.
These s e r v i c e s demonstrate t h a t DPS already works with l o c a l l a w
enforcement agencies and could enhance t h i s cooperative enforcement e f f o r t
i f the statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e function of ACISA were t r a n s f e r r e d t o DPS.
Independence and Cooperation Needed f o r
E f f e c t i v e Statewide I n t e l l i g e n c e Can Be
Maintained Under DPS Or~ anization
Independence from enforcement a c t i v i t i e s can be preserved i f ACISA
functions a r e t r a n s f e r r e d t o the Department of Public Safety. Other
s t a t e s have o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y i n s u l a t e d i n t e l l i g e n c e functions from
enforcement a c t i v i t i e s . Most l o c a l law enforcement agencies w i l l
cooperate with the statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e system i f it is combined with
DPS. The c o n s o l i d a t i o n of statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e resources within DPS
should provide cost savings.
Need f o r I n s u l a t i n g I n t e l l i g e n c e Functions from Enforcement A c t i v i t i e s -
Law enforcement o f f i c i a l s g e n e r a l l y a g r e e t h a t it is important t o separate
i n t e l l i g e n c e functions from enforcement a c t i v i t i e s . Two main reasons a r e
given f o r the separation. F i r s t , i n t e l l i g e n c e is a s t a f f function and i f
not i n s u l a t e d from enforcement its resources can be cannibalized or
siphoned f o r enforcement a c t i v i t i e s or other functions whose r e s u l t s a r e
more v i s i b l e o r e a s i e r t o measure. Second, widespread cooperation from
most l o c a l law enforcement agencies can be ensured i f the r i s k of usurping
t h e i r enforcement a u t h o r i t y is reduced. The Select Law Enforcement Review
Commission recognized the need t o i n s u l a t e i n t e l l i g e n c e functions from
enforcement a c t i v i t e s . Its r e p o r t s t a t e d :
". . . It is imperative t h e r e f o r e t h a t , wherever the
i n t e l l i g e n c e system i s l o c a t e d , the system must be
i n s u l a t e d from any agency' s i n v e s t i g a t o r y and
enforcement mission so t h a t users w i l l perceive no r i s k
t o t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s i n c o n t r i b u t i n g information t o
t h e system."
However, the statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e system can be i n s u l a t e d from
enforcement a c t i v i t i e s i f it is e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h i n DPS a s a separate
bureau reporting d i r e c t l y t o the DPS Director. This has been done i n
other s t a t e s .
Other S t a t e s - No other s t a t e i n the nation has e s t a b l i s h e d a statewide
i n t e l l i g e n c e system a s an independent agency. Most s t a t e s ' law
enforcement agencies ( such a s Arizona's DPS) have a criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e
system which supports t h e i r own enforcement operations. Only two s t a t e s
have e s t a b l i s h e d statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e systems whose main purposes a r e t o
provide i n t e l l i g e n c e information t o a l l law enforcement agencies i n t h e i r
s t a t e s . These two s t a t e s , Florida and C a l i f o r n i a , have e s t a b l i s h e d t h e
i n t e l l i g e n c e function as a d i v i s i o n of t h e i r s t a t e law enforcement
agencies. Law Enforcement o f f i c i a l s i n both s t a t e s f e e l t h a t t h i s
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l placement is e f f e c t i v e . For example, a Florida o f f i c i a l
s t a t e s :
" I n F l o r i d a , the i n t e l l i g e n c e system is p a r t of the
s t a t e ' s primary i n v e s t i g a t i v e agency. The i n t e l l i g e n c e
function, a s I mentioned, is housed i n a separate
Division of the De~ artment. with t h i s Division being u
responsible f o r s e v e r a l basic types of support t o l o c a l
law enforcement agencies. In the p a s t , various
o r g a n i z a t i o n a l placements of the i n t e l l i g e n c e function
have been attempted, however, I f e e l separation of t h i s
function a s it now is, is most e f f e c t i v e . The regular
contacts f o r many reasons with the s t a t e ' s law
enforcement community f o s t e r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s which
are a l s o required i n i n t e l l i g e n c e exchanges. . . ."
( emphasis added)
Therefore, ACISA's i n t e l l i g e n c e f u n c t i o n s c a n be consolidated with DPS'
i n t e l l i g e n c e functions and e s t a b l i s h e d a s a separate bureau within DPS.
Currently, the DPS i n t e l l i g e n c e function r e p o r t s t o the Criminal
I n v e s t i g a t i o n Bureau which has enforcement r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . To maintain
independence and avoid r e d i r e c t i o n of i n t e l l i g e n c e resources, the
i n t e l l i g e n c e function should be e s t a b l i s h e d a s a separate bureau reporting
d i r e c t l y t o the DPS Director.
Local Law Enforcement Support - P a r t i c i p a t i o n by l o c a l law enforcement
agencies would continue i f the criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e function were i n
DPS. Support by most law enforcement agencies i n the S t a t e is necessary
t o have a s u c c e s s f u l s t a t e w i d e i n t e l l i g e n c e function. We surveyed county
and l o c a l law enforcement agencies t o determine t h e i r a t t i t u d e regarding
combining ACISA with DPS. * Sixty- eight percent of the agencies responding
t o the question indicated t h a t they would continue or increase t h e i r
cooperation w i t h the statewide criminal i n t e l l i g e n c e system i f it were i n
DPS. Thirty- two percent responded they would not support such a move;
however, these agencies c u r r e n t l y do not s i g n i f i c a n t l y use or c o n t r i b u t e
t o the statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e system.** Furthermore, the survey showed
t h a t 24 percent of law enforcement agencies which received support from
ACISA f i r s t contacted DPS f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e information o r resources.
Cost Savings and Benefits - I f the ACISA function i s combined with DPS,
the S t a t e could enjoy p o t e n t i a l c o s t savings while improving the
development of i n t e l l i g e n c e products. As discussed e a r l i e r , ACISA and DPS
d u p l i c a t e each other. Reducing t h i s d u p l i c a t i o n should provide c o s t
savings. We did not estimate the p o t e n t i a l savings of consolidating both
operations because such a c o n s o l i d a t i o n could both reduce d u p l i c a t i o n and
allow more resources t o be devoted t o s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e . ( Increasing
s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e may be of g r e a t e r b e n e f i t t o t h e S t a t e than the
p o t e n t i a l c o s t savings.) Estimating the resources needed f o r s t r a t e g i c
i n t e l l i g e n c e is d i f f i c u l t because n e i t h e r agency presently performs a
statewide s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e function. However, i n response t o a
request from a l e g i s l a t i v e committee DPS previously estimated t h a t i f the
ACISA function were merged with it, approximately $ 1,482,000 could be
saved i n the f i r s t year and 28 employee p o s i t i o n s could be eliminated.
* A l l county s h e r i f f s , city/ town police and county attorneys were
surveyed; 90 of 104 agencies surveyed responded t o o u r q u e s t i o n n a i r e .
** These agencies submitted only f i v e percent of the t o t a l s u b j e c t c a r d s
and i n q u i r i e s submitted t o ACISA by law enforcement agencies.
Combining ACISA and DPS i n t e l l i g e n c e resources would allow the S t a t e t o
provide a more complete i n t e l l i g e n c e operation. ACISA h a s n o t performed
the s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e function ( see page 16). DPS has performed
some s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e a n a l y s i s f o r its own purposes and
disseminates t h i s i n t e l l i g e n c e information throughout the S t a t e . It
could a c c e l e r a t e its present a c t i v i t i e s and broaden its scope t o include
more s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e f u n c t i o n s w i t h the a d d i t i o n a l resources of
ACISA. The importance of s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e functions has been
s t r e s s e d by the U. S. Department of J u s t i c e i n i t s p u b l i c a t i o n Basic
Elements of I n t e l l i g e n c e a s
" . . . [ s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e ] is probably t h e s i n g l e
most important a c t i v i t y i n the department since it
assists i n v e s t i g a t o r s i n making " quality" or major
cases. Moreover, it enables i n v e s t i g a t o r s t o g e t ahead
of organized criminals. It allows the law enforcement
ag- ency t o i n i t i a t e counteractions r a t h e r than w a i t i m-and
reacting a f t e r the f a c t . By being prepared and
a l e r t t o p o t e n t i a l organized criminal a c t i v i t y , the
department can d i r e c t its i n v e s t i g a t o r s t o look f o r
information on expected developments. Finally
s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e is an input t o . . . planning
f o r more e f f e c t i v e a c t i o n against crime i n the
j u r i s d i c t i o n . " ( emphasis added)
See page 17 of Finding I f o r a d d i t i o n a l information regarding s t r a t e g i c
i n t e l l i g e n c e .
CONCLUSION
Currently, there is excessive d u p l i c a t i o n i n maintaining two s e p a r a t e ,
competing i n t e l l i g e n c e operations. Study shows ACISA r e l i e s heavily on
information sources within DPS, and DPS can provide a b e t t e r flow of
criminal information f o r a n a l y s i s . Also, the statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e r o l e
is compatible with other DPS s e r v i c e s provided t o l o c a l law enforcement
agencies. I f the i n t e l l i g e n c e system is located within DPS, c o s t savings
can be made and the statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e function improved.
RECOMMENDATION
The L e g i s l a t u r e should consider t r a n s f e r r i n g ACISA i n t e l l i g e n c e functions
t o the Department of P u b l i c S a f e t y and c r e a t i n g a statewide i n t e l l i g e n c e
bureau within DPS charged with serving a l l Arizona law enforcement
agencies. Such a bureau should report d i r e c t l y t o the DPS Director.
Further study is needed t o determine how much of ACISA's e x i s t i n g
resources a r e required f o r the new i n t e l l i g e n c e bureau t o function
effectively-- including t h e resources required t o provide the S t a t e with a
strong s t r a t e g i c i n t e l l i g e n c e function.
FINDING I11
TRANSPORTATION COSTS CAN BE REDUCED.
Operating c o s t s of ACISA1s v e h i c l e f l e e t can be reduced. Approximately
$ 177,600 can be saved over a five- year period i f vehicles a r e purchased
r a t h e r than leased. Although ACISA has reduced its vehicle f l e e t by 17
vehicles during the past 2 years, a d d i t i o n a l savings can be r e a l i z e d by
eliminating unneeded vehicles.
ACISA c u r r e n t l y operates a f l e e t of 34 vehicles. Thirty of the vehicles
a r e assigned t o employees on a take- home basis. ACISA owns 17 of the
vehicles; the other 17 vehicles a r e leased commercially. Under l e a s e
contract terms, ACISA is required t o pay a l l v e h i c l e operating c o s t s
including r e p a i r s and maintenance. The agency is planning t o purchase
f i v e v e h i c l e s t h i s c u r r e n t f i s c a l year.
$ 177,600 Savings Can Be Obtained
ACISA can save approximately $ 177,600 over a f ive- year period i f vehicles
a r e purchased r a t h e r t h a n l e a s e d . ACISA c u r r e n t l y expends approximately
$ 63,000 per year t o l e a s e 17 vehicles. However, the purchase p r i c e of 17
comparable vehicles i s only $ 125,400. The purchase c o s t is equal t o only
two years of t h e l e a s e c o s t , y e t v e h i c l e l i f e is f i v e years.* Table 3
shows the. savings p o t e n t i a l over a five- year period.
* Lease c o n t r a c t s l i m i t annual mileage t o 20,000 miles.
4 3
TABLE 3
- Year
ESTIMATE OF 5- YEAR SAVINGS
BY PURCHASING RATHER THAN LEASING 17 VEHICLES
Five- year Cost
Lost i n t e r e s t i f
purchased*
Less purchase cost
Five- year savings i f
purchased
Purchase
* Leasing c o s t s a r e reduced by t h e i n t e r e s t which can be earned on
the d i f f e r e n c e between the purchase c o s t and t h e l e a s e payments
during the f i r s t two years.
** Lease term is normally two years and our a n a l y s i s assumes t h a t the
l e a s e c o s t w i l l n o t i n c r e a s e . *** P o t e n t i a l savings would be s l i g h t l y o f f s e t by increased maintenance
c o s t of older purchased vehicles.
To obtain t h e $ 177,600 savings only a n a d d i t i o n a l appropriation of $ 62,400
is needed because $ 63,000 is already being appropriated t o cover the l e a s e
cost. However, the 17 l e a s e s do not run concurrently and the vehicles may
have t o be replaced as l e a s e s expire.
F l e e t S i z e Can Be Reduced
ACISA can f u r t h e r reduce t h e c o s t of i t s vehicle f l e e t by reducing the
f l e e t s i z e . The v e h i c l e f l e e t is l a r g e r than necessary because of l e n i e n t
f u l l - t i m e take- home assignments. A t l e a s t two or t h r e e vehicles could be
eliminated from the f l e e t i f assignments were based on more j u s t i f i a b l e
c r i t e r i a .
ACISA has a l e n i e n t vehicle assignment policy. Full- time vehicle
assignments have been made t o 30 employees. Assignments t o eight
management- level employees a r e questionable. ACISA provides two reasons
f o r these full- time v e h i c l e assignments. F i r s t , t h a t regular f i e l d
rn i n s p e c t i o n s and meetings on law enforcement m a t t e r s r e q u i r e
management- level employees t o have f u l l - t i m e v e h i c l e s . Second, ACISA
j u s t i f i e s full- time vehicle assignments t o management employees as " an
incentive supplementing r e g u l a r s a l a r i e s . " Other law enforcement agencies
do not have such l e n i e n t p o l i c i e s . For example, DPS policy requires a
need f o r immediate response or frequent off- duty assignments before
take- home p r i v i l e g e s a r e t o be granted. ACISA's management employees do
not meet these c r i t e r i a . " A Federal law enforcement agency has even
s t r i c t e r p o l i c i e s than DPS and allows take- home p r i v i l e g e s f o r only 20
percent of its f l e e t and excludes agents who a r e assigned t o white c o l l a r
crime areas. Although not s t r i c t l y prohibited by s t a t u t e , the assignment
of vehicles as a supplemental s a l a r y i n c e n t i v e appears questionable.
Other S t a t e law enforcement agencies such a s t h e Attorney General's Office
and DPS do not provide take- home vehicles t o t h e i r management employees a s
an e x t r a s a l a r y incentive.
I f v e h i c l e assignments a r e based on a c t u a l work- related use, then a t l e a s t
two or t h r e e v e h i c l e s c a n be eliminated. We analyzed the use of four
vehicles assigned t o Tucson- based management- level employees and found
t h a t 72 percent of the in- town mileage was due t o commuting from home t o
o f f i c e and back. Although the vehicles were sometimes used f o r
out- of- town t r a v e l i n g , we found t h a t a t l e a s t t h r e e vehicles were i n town
on t h e same day 71 percent of the time and at l e a s t two vehicles were i n
town on the same day 97 percent of the time. Therefore at l e a s t two
vehicles can be eliminated. I f employees plan and coordinate out- of- town
t r i p s , another vehicle can be eliminated. The elimination of t h r e e
vehicles could save ACISA approximately $ 6,600 per year exclusive of any
lease or d e p r e c i a t i o n c o s t s .
* A 1982 Federal a u d i t of ACISA's Federal program found t h a t t h r e e
v e h i c l e assignments t o management- level employees were not
s u f f i c i e n t l y j u s t i f i e d .
CONCLUSION
Changes a r e needed t o increase agency efficiency. ACISA can save $ 177,600
over a five- year period by purchasing rather than leasing 17 vehicles.
Additional savings are possible by eliminating two or three unneeded
vehicles.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Legislature should consider appropriating funds t o allow ACISA t o
purchase vehicles r a t h e r than lease them.
2. ACISA should discontinue u n j u s t i f i e d full- time c a r assignments and
reduce its f l e e t s i z e a s appropriate ( a t l e a s t two or three cars
should be eliminated immediately).
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During t h e a u d i t , other p e r t i n e n t information was developed regarding
i n t e l l i g e n c e information processing.
Information Processing
ACISA is c u r r e n t l y developing a new automated system t o improve its
information processing. Presently, most i n q u i r i e s t o the statewide
i n t e l l i g e n c e data base a r e received by telephone. ACISA c l e r k s manually
record i n i t i a l information given by t h e i n q u i r e r on an " i n t e l l i g e n c e
t r a n s m i t t a l form." Any information obtained by ACISA through contacting
outside sources is a l s o added t o the form. When a l l outside checks have
been made, ACISA informs t h e i n q u i r e r of t h e r e s u l t s and places the form
i n a manual f i l e . Later, the information is entered on the computer
f i l e . Quarterly, t h e c l e r k s review the e n t i r e manual f i l e t o purge
s u b j e c t s with no information newer than two years.* These records must
then a l s o be removed from the computer f i l e . At one point during t h e
a u d i t , ACISA reported t h a t information submitted on 2,700 subjects was not
yet added t o t h e computer system. A t the same time 6,200 s u b j e c t s had
been purged from t h e manual system but not yet removed from the computer
f i l e s .
To improve information processing ACISA is developing a new autoniated
system c a l l e d t h e " screen driven format." Under t h i s format the computer
i n p u t s c r e e n w i l l v i s u a l i z e the t r a n s m i t t a l form and allow employees t o
input information d i r e c t l y onto the computer as i f they were manually
preparing the form. The system is designed t o e l i m i n a t e d u p l i c a t i o n of
manual processing and f i l e s . It w i l l allow the input of information
d i r e c t l y from source documents of a l l enforcement agencies. In a d d i t i o n ,
the system can i d e n t i f y information t o be purged from the system without
requiring employees t o review the e n t i r e i n t e l l i g e n c e f i l e . ACISA hopes
t h i s system w i l l allow them t o eliminate the i n p u t t i n g and purging
backlogs.
* The ACISA purge cycle was recently changed t o f i v e years.
AUDITOR GENERAL NOTE
The Auditor General has c a r e f u l l y reviewed t h e w r i t t e n response submitted
by t h e Arizona Criminal I n t e l l i g e n c e System Agency ( ACISA). We find no
reason t o a l t e r or r e t r a c t t h e findings of our r e p o r t . Further, although
the ACISA response c o n t a i n s s e v e r a l items of misinformation o r
inaccuracies, no purpose would be served i n a lengthy " response t o t h e
response."
The Auditor General has reproduced the e n t i r e narrative portion of the
ACISA response. Because of the extensive length of the t o t a l response
( 118 pages including appendices) 8 appendices t o t a l i n g 59 pages are not
presented here. These documents, which are available from ACISA, are as
follows :
Appendix A - Summary of Quality Control Standards. General guidelines
f o r input, dissemination and updating of information ( 3 pages).
Relates t o comments on page 6 of the response.
Appendix C - ACISA " I n t e l l i g e n c e B u l l e t i n " Publication Covers
( contents r e s t r i c t e d ) . A reproduction of the covers, not contents, of
ACISA " I n t e l l i g e n c e B u l l e t i n s " ( 5 pages). Supports comments on page 7
of the response.
Appendix D - ACISA Director's Congressional Testimony - U. S. House of
Representatives Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse and Control.
Testimony before Congress regarding the increasing problem of
marijuana c u l t i v a t i o n within Arizona. Discusses the enforcement
problems associated with the use of more sophisticated techniques t o
grow marijuana. Calls f o r additional resources t o combat the problem
and g r e a t e r coordination between the various enforcement l e v e l s ( 14
pages). Relates t o comments on page 7 of the response.
Appendix H - El Paso I n t e l l i g e n c e Center ( EPIC) Brochure - D. E. A.
Excerpts of a brochure showing t h a t Arizona agencies must access EPIC
through ACISA ( 1 page). Supports comments on page 11 of the response.
Appendix I - I n t e l l i g e n c e Transmittal ( subject- card ) Fom. Shows t h e
revised t r a n s m i t t a l form c u r r e n t l y used by ACISA ( 2 pages). Relates
t o comments on page 13 of t h e response.
Appendix J - I n t e l l i g e n c e Agent Specialized Training Curriculum.
Outline f o r course of i n s t r u c t i o n f o r basic t r a i n i n g f o r i n t e l l i g e n c e
a g e n t s ( 4 pages). Relates t o comments on page 24 of t h e response.
Appendix K - Final Report - Select Law Enforcement Review Commission.
Reproduction of t h e study commission report which led t o t h e
establishment of ACISA ( 23 pages). Supports comments on page 26 of
t h e response.
Appendix M - ACISA Budget Requests f o r Vehicles - FY 1983- 84 and
1984- 85 ( 7 pages). Supports comments on page 33 of t h e response.
a
ARIZONA
CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM AGENCY
e
BRUCE BABBITT 4370 South Fremont Tucson, Arizona 85714 ( 602) 628- 5104 FRANK F. NAVARRETE
Governor Director
September 1 9 , 1983
Mr. Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
State of Arizona
111 W. Monroe, Suite 600
Phoenix, Arizona 85003
Dear M r . Norton:
Enclosed i s the Arizona Criminal Intelligence System
Agency response t o the Auditor General's Draft Sunset
Audit Review of the Agency.
I f e e l we have adequately, and candidly, responded to
the issues i d e n t i f i e d in the audit.
Under current management, ACISA has made considerable
progress i n providing a professional criminal i n t e l l -
igence system for t h e S t a t e of Arizona.
Frank F. Navarrete
Director
FFN/ cb
Enclosure
800- 5281 143 OUT- OF- STATE 602- 6285104 IN- TELLIGENCE CENTER 8OC- 362- 1138 IN- STATE
ARIZONA CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE
SYSTEM AGENCY
RESPONSE TO PERFORMANCE AUDIT
TABLE OF CONTEXTS
SUMMARY
ACISA Findings, Conclusion.
ACISA FINDING I
ACISA has developed an effective statewide
system which addresses the varied needs of
its users throu~ hout the law enforcement
community in Arlzona.
ACISA FINDING I1
The Arizona Criminal Intelligence System
Agency should remain an independent state
agency.
ACISA FINDING 111
Transportation costs have been significantly
reduced.
APPENDIX
The overall reaction of the Arizona Criminal Intelligence
System Agency to the Performance audit is, primarily,
one of disappointment. A performance audit normally
provides an excellent opportunity for an agency to
obtain a useful view of its operations and procedures
from a disinterested, objective viewpoint. Although
some meaningful suggestions for improvement of ACISAfs
operations are offered, we believe the findings of the
audit do not reflect reality.
In the subsequent pages of this response, we will
convincingly demonstrate that ACISA has done a cornendable
job in its formative two years. We will show that our
modest budget has been a bargain for the taxpayers,
that we are carrying out the mandate of the legislature
and that our customers, law enforcement agencies at
every level throughout Arizona, overwhelmingly approve
of ACISA and the services we provide.
The normal term a new state agency is given, prior to
being subjected to a performance audit, is six years.
There have been exceptions to this general rule. This
audit started less than eighteen months after the agency
was established, almost while the ink was still drying
on the enabling legislation.
The auditors thus were examining an agency in the formative
stage which was still ( 1) identifying policies and
procedures, ( 2) identifying the criminal intelligence
requirement of user agencies, ( 3) balancing user expect-ations
against new agency mission requirements, and
( 4) retraining the employees it inherited to accomplish
a newly definled mission. Under such circumstances,
a fair way to audit the performance of an agency might
- be expressed by " how far had the agency come in the time
available and what have they accom~ lished?", rather than
observing the agency much like a photograph without
reference to what led up to that moment.
As a result, the value of the agency to local law enforce-ment
and the demonstrable progress the agency has made
during the two years since its inception have gone
largely unreported. We believe, by presenting our
accomplishments during this period, we provide a more
balanced view of the Arizona Criminal Intelligence System
Agency. This, in turn, will provide a more accurate
and complete picture to the legislature for its
deliberations.
The following represents a summary of ACISA1s findings
concerning the performance review.
ACISA FINDING I
ACISA HAS DEVELOPED AN EFFECTIVE STATEWIDE INTELLIGENCE
SYSTElll4HICH ADDRESSES THE VARIED NEEDS OF ITS USERS
THROUGHOUT THE LA1. J ENFORCEMENT COMMLTJITY IN ARIZONA.
ACISA and its Policv Board have provided fullv- developed,
comprehensive goalsd and obj ectivks which spring from, -
and facilitate attainment of, the Agency's overall
mission statement and enabling statute..
Agency goals and objectives are supported by identified
programs which were developed to help achieve those goals
and objectives. These are spelled out in specific
language in ACISA Operational Orders # A- 2, A- 3, and A- 4 of
July 26, 1981. a
Our Agency Mission Statement, Goals, Objectives, and
Programs provide sufficient direction in the employment
of ACISA resources, and consequently provide direction
and focus in explicit terms as to developing an effective
statewide intelligence system currently acceptable to
the majority of Arizona law enforcement. Furthermore,
these policies elucidate the elements of A. R. S. 41- 2151
and provide sufficient guidance for ACISA personnel to
comply with and carry out the mandate of that legislation.
ACISA FINDING I1
THE ARIZONA CRIMINAL INTELLIGENCE SYSTEM AGENCY SHOULD
REMA13 AM INDEPENDENT STATE AGENCY.
ACISA was established a f t e r long and c a r e f u l deliberation
by the l e g i s l a t u r e , appropriate l e g i s l a t i v e committees,
and the Select Law Enforcement Review Commission ( SLERC).
The SLERC was established to deal with long standing
problems regarding the u t i l i z a t i o n of criminal i n t e l l i -
gence a s s e t s . None of t h e f a c t o r s , which were identified
by SLERC as the rationale f o r t h e establishment of ACISA
as an independent e n t i t y , have been negated. The d e l i -
berations which resulted in the formation of the Agency
are s t i l l fresh and germane. They are not musty documents
of prior decades that have been overtaken by events. A l l
deliberations and considerations took place in the 1980' s.
An objective examination of ACISA and DPS reveals that
each has an important role i n Arizona law enforcement.
These roles are markedly different i n size and scope.
As an agency focused on the criminal intelligence needs
of t h e S t a t e , ACISA i s able to perform a v i t a l function
not only for the State as an e n t i t y , but for each indivi-dual
law enforcement agency. ACISA i s the only organization
with the f l e x i b i l i t y and expertise needed to respond
to widely varying intelligence requirements of small
rural agencies as well as large urban departments.
The importance of impartiality, independence and flex-i
b i l i t y cannot be overemphasized i n providing criminal
intelligence support to krizona. We- already- have them
with ACISA. It i s particularly i m ~ o r t a n t that the State
not take a c r i t i c a l step backward a t t h i s point by re-gressing
to methods already discredited as inoperative
and ineffective.
ACISA FINDIPIG I11
TRANSPORTATION COSTS HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICAPITLY REDUCED.
In the short history of the agency, transportation c o s t s
have been reduced s i g n i f i c a n t l y . An inherited f l e e t of
f i v e a i r c r a f t has been reduced to one single engine
a i r c r a f t o ~ e r a t e da t minimum cost.
The vehicle f l e e t has been reduced by over t h i r t y percent
since 1931. Further savings i n transporation costs can
be achieved by substituting s t a t e owned vehicles for s t a t e
leased vehicles and by replacing the older, high mileage
vehicles with newer gasoline- efficient models. The
average annual savings of approximately $ 36,000 suggested
by the auditors appears r e a l i s t i c e once the l e g i s l a t u r e
appropriates s u f f i c i e n t funds for vehicle purchase.
ACISA has recognized t h i s potential saving for two years
and submitted requests in the current and previous budget
for t h i s purpose.
Again, while we concur that recommended savings are
possible, we have taken budgetary actions previously
to effect savings and w i l l continue to pursue them.
Additionally, we f e e l encouraged that t h i s agency has
been p a r t i c u l a r l y careful to ensure t h a t the funds with
which it has been entrusted have provided maximum value
to the taxpayers of the s t a t e .
CONCLUSION
We believe that ACISA has done an excellent job i n i t s
formative stage. It has taken time to identify problems,
opportunities and challenges, and t o plan, create and
implement an organization to address them. The most
d i f f i c u l t part of the learning curve has been hurdled.
It would be a disservice to the taxpayers and law enforce-ment
agencies throughout the s t a t e t o subject i t s criminal
intelligence function to a d e b i l i t a t i n g reorganization
and/ or relocation. What i s needed now, for the f i r s t time, a
i s to afford the agency with a period of s t a b i l i t y during
which it can focus solely on the criminal i n t e l l io, e nce
needs of Arizona.
ACISA FINDING I
ACISA HAS DEVELOPED AN EFFECTIVE STATEWIDE INTET, T. TGI? NCE - -~ -- - - - - - - . . - - .- - - . - - -- - - --- . - --
SYSTEM WHICH ADDRESSES THE VARIED NEEDS OT ITS USERS
THROUGHOUT THE LAW ENFORCEMENT COMMUNITY IN ARIZONA.
ACISA and its Policy Board have provided fully- developed,
comprehensive goals and objectives which spring from,
and facilitate attainment of, the Agency's overall
mission statement and enabling statute.
Agency goals and objectives are supported by identified
programs which were developed to h e l ~ a chieve those goals
and objectives. These are spelled out in specific
language in ACISA Operational Orders # A- 2, A- 3, and A- 4
of July 26, 1981. Interestingly, these orders span
seven ( 7) pages of text -- quite unlike the five ( 5)
truncated paragraphs depicted on Audit page 16.
DIRECTION AND FOCUS
Our Agency Mission Statement, Goals, Objectives, and
Programs provide sufficient direction in the usage of ACISA
resources, and consequently provide direction and focus
in explicit terms as to developing an effective state-wide
intelligence system for Arizona law enforcement.
Furthermore, these policies elucidate the elements of
A. R. S. 41- 2151 et. seq. and ~ rovide sufficient guidance
for ACISA personnel to comply with and carry out the
mandate of that legislation ( See Auditor's Appendix I).
Unlike the New Jersey State Police goals statement,
preferred by the auditors on audit page 14, ACISA1s
Mission Statement goes beyond merely providing " . . .
intelligence assessments ..." ( which may or may not meet
the needs of the New Jersey law enforcement community).
Our Mission Statement identifies the desired " end
product" not merely the " means" for accomplishing some-thing.
Our mission is to assist local law enforcement
in reducing criminal activity in Arizona. Crime statistics
throughout the State for the past 2- 3 years would sugcest
that we have participated in such a reduction ( violent
crimes down 9%; index crlmes down 5%; property crimes down
5%; 1981 vs. 1982. Source: " Crime in Arizona", DPS, 1982).
STRATEGIC INTELLIGENCE
The audit statement, " ACISA has performed only a limited
i r strategic intelligence function. is misleading. It is
true that certain strategic intelligence activities and
services become more valuable as a data base builds
over time. With the task and technical complexities
of creating a newly defined data base, and the implement-ation
of detailed q u a l i l i t y control standards ( See Tab A),
it would be expecting too much f o r t h e data base to have
achieved i t s optimum s t r a t e g i c value in the short 18
months between the inception of the agency and the
commencement of the audit. Nevertheless, there were
s t i l l over 100 projects completed during t h i s period,
many of which were of a s t r a t e g i c nature. Examples
include :
a. Analysis of organized crime e f f o r t s to
penetrate the f a s t food industry;
b. Evaluation of an occult grouD with potential
for serious criminal a c t s , penetrating
a geographical area of Arizona;
c. Long term compilation of information on
smuggling a i r c r a f t t o a s s i s t agencies in
deployment of resources and case development;
d. Analysis of major fraud a c t i v i t y in the
livestock industry; and
e. A two year commitment t o t h e Multi- Agency
Conspiracy Eradication Task Force.
Many other examples are available.
TACTICAL INTELLIGENCE
The audit statement that "... The lack of focus has
impaired ACISA1s t a c t i c a l intelligence role," i s also
without foundation in f a c t .
The flow of criminal information to ACISA i s adequate
and the numerous data bases available to law enforce-ment
agencies are on- line a t ACISA. In addition, ACISA
has i t s own unique and unduplicated criminal intelligence
data base.
Intelligence collection guidance has been provided to
a l l f i e l d offices and, i n our opinion, quality i n t e l l i g e n c e
i s being collected. Although the review separated the a
subject cards into ACISA submittals and other- agency
submittals, it should be remembered that v i r r u a l l y a l l
subject cards and inquiries ( over 12,900 in FY 82/ 53)
are in direct support of a primary law enforcement agency.
The level of submittals by ACISA agents i s a direct
r e s u l t of the close working relationships established a
with these agencies througlfout the s t a t e .
Finally, although ACISA has strict quality control
standards regarding input of criminal intelligence into
files, we will in no way dictate to the primary agencies
their intelligence requirements. Each agency, depending
upon numerous local factors, has different criminal
intelligence needs. Therefore, the types of support
they request will vary greatly ( See Tab B).
SPECIFIC INTELLIGEYCE GOALS
In regard to the Yew Jersey State Police goal statements
referred to earlier, ACISA cites the following examples
of its current activities which directly address the
individual subsections of New Jersey's primary goal:
1. Provide a descriptive analysis of organized
crime systems operating in the State . . .
ACISA organized crime profiles published
in its " Intelligence Bulletin" are ex-cellent
examples of descriptive analyses
of systems operating in Arizona ( See Tab C).
2. Depict the capabilities of these organized
crime systems and provide alternatives to
reduce the effectiveness of these systems.
ACISA's recent presentation before a U. S.
House Select Committee on Narcotics Abuse
and Control exemplifies our involvement
in depicting capabilities of organized
crime and presenting alternatives to reduce
their effectiveness ( See Tab D).
3. Identify the major crime problems affecting
the State . . . and ~ rovide recommendations
for remedial action.
ACISA is in the forefront in Arizona in
developing criminal intelligence and threat
assessments. The advent of Cultism and the
threat potential of Terrorism in our state
are two recent examples.
4. Assess the- efforts of law enforceme- nt in the
control of organized crime in the State . . .
Not ACISA's mission according to its enabling
legislation.
5. Provide the operational units within the . . .
police with the necessary data to investigate
organized criminal activitv.
ACISA's 2- year involvement in Project
M. A . C . E . ( Multi- Agency Conspiracy
Eradication), a statewide narcotics
d i s t r i b u t i o n case, i s i l l u s t r a t i v e of
our a c t i v i t y i n t h i s area.
6. Identify those person( s) engaged in organized
criminal a c t i v i t y i n the State . . .
ACISA's computerized c a p a b i l i t i e s are being
used, for example, to aid the National
Park Service and the Arizona Livestock
Board i n combatting unique crime problems
in Arizona concerning burglary and t h e f t s .
SPECIFIC CRIME AREAS
ACISA, l i k e the New Jersey State Police, i d e n t i f i e s crime
areas for focusing i t s intelligence c a p a b i l i t i e s . We
demonstrated t h i s in our May revamping of ACISA's analytical
s t a f f into four ( 4) teams ( by crime category) :
PROPERTY CRIMES TEAM PERSONS CRIME TEAM
CRIMES :
arson assaults
burglary crimes against children
fencing extort ion
forgery unlawful f l i g h t
fraud i n n a t ' l parks homicide
t h e f t s kidnapp in2
obstructing j u s t i c e
outlaw bikerslprison gangs
robbery
sex offenses
weapons
NARCOTICS / SMUGGLING TEAM ORGAYIZED CRIME TEAM
CRIMES : CRIMES :
dangerous drugs ethnic organizations
drug rip- offs terrorism
import violations t r a d i t i o n a l o. c.
marijuana vice offenses
narcotic drugs white collar crime
U. S. Customs I n t e l l
ENABLING STATUTE SPECIFIC
ACISA's mandated mission, scope, and authority are
spelled out explicitly and concisely in the single
statute A. R. S. 41- 2152 as follows:
" There is established the Arizona Criminal
Intelligence System Agency which shall be a
law enforcement agency with peace officer
authority for the-. limited purposes of collection,
control, analysis and dissemination of criminal
intelligence information to ~ overnmental
authoriLies involved in the investigation of
violations of the criminal laws. Agency
~ ersonnels hall not otherwise en. g- a g-. e in law
enforcement activities. " ( emphasis added)
In contrast, the authority of the DPS is found in two
separate statutes clustered between and among various
other authorities unrelated to the intelligent Drocess,
as follows:
A. R. S. $ 41- 1711. A
" There shall be established a department of
public safety which is responsible for creating
and coordinating services for use by local law
enforcement agencies . . .
A. R. S. § 41- 1761. A
" There is established a division of narcotics
enforcement and criminal intelligence within
the department.. . ." ( emphasis added)
ACISA's enabling legislation, the more recent statute,
clearly expresses the Legislature's wisdom and the
Select Law Enforcement Review Commission's intent when
ACISA was created and mandated to be the State's primary
intelligence agency.
POLICY BOARD DIRECTION
In addition to the previously mentioned goals and objectives,
the ACISA Policy Board has provided direction for the
agency in the following areas ( See Tab E):
1. Quality Control Standards:
Guidelines to insure that the intelligence
data base is accurate, pure, and up- to- date
for law enforcement use;
2. User Access to Criminal Intelligence:
Guidelines as to who is eligible to receive
intelligence information from ACISA, thereby
authorizing disclosure under A. R. S. $ 41- 2156;
3. Approval of the ACISA Policies/ Procedures:
Manual containing volicy for ACISA operations;
and
4. General Direction:
Dealing with specific types of intelligence
support to give to law enforcement agencies.
SUFFICIENCY OF STRATEGIC PRODUCTS
The audit's pronouncement that ACISA intelligence functions
are limited to consulting with users on a case- by- case
or in a reactive mode in an unfair characterization.
While neither ACISA's capabilities nor its users demands
are yet fully matured, our record for two short years
is adnirable in terms of the time- consuming process of
educating Arizona law enforcement as to the value of the
strategic services provided by ACISA.
The structure and process inherently involved in ACISA's
provision of intelligence products is extremely systematic
( i. e. the Quality Control Standards document) and quite
proactive in nature. The Auditor's User Survey Section
dealing with " Current Intelligence Services" ( Question # 2,
page 11- 6) reveals that Arizona law enforcement clearly
rates the value of ACISA's intelligence contribution in
the " 95 percentile" on each categoGy of ( 1) currency
of data, ( 2) accuracy and reliability, ( 3) usefulness,
and ( 4) sufficiency of data.
In addition, Auditor's Survey Question ? I3 under " General
Information" indicates that respondents ( users of our
services) revised their operational actions as a result
of ACISA intelligence by ( 1) adjusting enforcement1
investigative priorities ( 30%), ( 2) initiating increased
investigations ( 63X), and ( 3) making arrests/ serving
warrants ( 49%).
COLLECTION PLANS
While ACISA Collection Plans are still in the refinement
stages, specific collection requirements of ACISA personnel
are in place and working well. These collection requirements
contain specific elements such as ( 1) crime areas targeted
for information gathering, ( 2) justification for collection,
( 3) collection participants, ( 4) collection tasks,
( 5) recommended suspense dates, ( 6) date transmitted to
participants, and ( 7) management approval ( see Collection
Request Form, Tab E) .
Further, Audit Survey Questionnaire Section entitled
" Sharing of Intelligence Information" ( Question # 2,
page 11- 4) reveals that 65% of the user respondents
related that ACISA provided them with descriptions of
specific types of information and crime areas to guide
their submittal of data to the statewide intelligence
data base.
ADEOUACY OF INFORMATION FLOW
While ACISA does not routinely ask for or receive police
reports full of raw data, we do solicit regular intell-igence
reports of our own personnel. These reports
are prepared in concert with user agency personnel and
address specific crime problems in specific locales.
In addition, ACISA regularly receives input from law
enforcement through ( See Tab G) :
1. intelligence inquiries;
2. intelligence subject cards ;
3. law enforcement investigations meetings;
4. intelligence bulletins, digests and
special reports from:
a. out- of- state police agencies, and
b. various federal and state authorities
such as the DEA, FBI, ;? EPIC, Calif.
DOJ, etc.
( Note: ACISA is EPIC'S only authorized
Arizona statewide accessor; See Tab H).
The audit report indicates that only 954 out of 3,162
subject cards submitted during 1982733 originated. with
other law enforcement agencies, and that the remainder
came from ACISA employees. While we do not dispute our
own statistics, we feel that erroneous conclusions
about them have been drawn. S~ ecifically, until
recently ACISA agents who filled out subject cards at
the request of user agencies ( often telephonically
transmitted) credited those cards statistically to them-selves.
This resulted in an imbalance in the tabulation.
While ACISA management had no particular problem with
this practice, it was modified to ? resent a truer picture
of what really was happening statistically. Our current
practice is to credit the user agency originating the
intelligence data. This should correct any future
imbalance in the s t a t i s t i c s , and eliminate the erroneous
assumption t h a t law enforcement was not providing much
data into ACISA's system.
Auditor's Survey Section " General Information" ( Question
# 4, page 11- 2) reveals t h a t ACISA's users prefer to go
through ACISA agents ( 54%), or telephone ACISA's I n t e l l -
igence Center ( 35%) when requesting services such as data
submission ( Total of 89%).
Reference i s made to Table 2 on audit page 22 concerning
c r e d i t i n g t h e DPS with 299 ( or 31 percent) of a l l extern-a
l l y generated subject cards during 1982/ 83. This infor-mation
i s inaccurate on several bases:
1. The correct number of subject cards to
be credited to DPS i s 203 not 299. The
96 card difference i s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o
an erroneous double count by the auditor
s t a f f .
2. Of the remaining 203 cards, 195 of them
( a l l but 8 cards) were prepared by ACISA
s t a f f and credited to DPS since the data
came out of 2 DPS products ( 96 cards from
an outlaw motorcyc~ le gang booklet and 99
cards from a prison gang booklet). ACISA
i n i t i a t e d t h i s action and contacted DPS
since t h e i r approval was needed to put the
data into ACISA's system.
3. The remaining 8 subject cards were submitted
by 5 different DPS personnel over the e n t i r e
annual period.
It would appear that i f the 203 cards credited to DPS
( but submitted by ACISA) were handled exactly the same
way the auditors handled the other 2,109 cards done by
ACISA, the 203 cards would be excluded com~ letely from
the substantive portion of Table 2. This would leave
DPS with 8 subject cards or a small fraction of 1 percent
of the t o t a l submissions. It would be as equally unfair
of ACISA to characterize DPS support for our system in
t h i s manner as it would be f o r t h e audit s t a f f to claim
that DPS i s the largest supporter i n Arizona.
In addition, Audit page 22 i d e n t i f i e s seventeen ( 17)
unnamed law enforcement agencies who indicate that it i s
too time consuming t o send information t o ACISA on every
case. IJe believe t h i s to be typical of law enforcement
agencies and i s compounded in agencies who have extreme
manpower shortages, and that t h i s i s further j u s t i f i c a t i o n
for maintaining f i e l d agents at ACISA. Also, t h i s would
tend to explain some of the reduction in subject cards
experienced.
ACISA has responded to this situation by simplifying
the transmittal form used by law enforcement to submit
data, and by initiating an effort to streamline and speed-up
the entire data flow process through ACISA systems
( see audit page 47 for details on our " screen driven
format" automated system- See Tab I for the revised
transmittal form).
DATA BASE VALUE
Contrary to Audit conclusions that the value of ACISA's
intelligence data base is questionable, the ability of
ACISA to provide a quality response to user needs has
never been stronger. Unlike a typical police record
bureau which houses vast amounts of raw public data
( heavily quantity oriented), the ACISA data base has
by design only selected timely, relative and sensitive
intelligence data housed within it ( the em~ hasis is on
quality and on significant data).
Further, Auditor User Survey Question { I5 R ( pg. 11- 3)
reveals that 80% of the respondents felt that information
received from ACISA was useful for their day- to- day
operations or was used in a specific case. Also, Survey
question / I3 in the Section entitled " Sharing of Intelligence
Information" ( pg. 11- 5) indicates that 58% of the respondents
believed that ACISA was " sometimes" or " most always"
effective in coordinating user efforts with other law
enforcement agencies with similar cases or suspects under
investigation.
In addition, Survey Question {/ 3 ( pg. 11- 6) in the Section
entitled " Current Intelligence Services" indicates that
73% of the user respondents either " rely upon" or " rely
heavily upon" ACISA information for their law enforcement
operations. Lastly, Question {/ 1 ( pg. 11- 5) of the same
survey section reveals that ACISA users overwhelmingly
believe that information from ACISA's Intelligence
Center ( analysts and data base) ranks as the ACISA
service most important to their operations ({/ I of 7
priorities).
IXFOXII'ATION AVAILABLE FROM ACISA'S DATA BASE
A data base cannot be better than the informa~ ion in it.
" Garbage- in, garbage- out" is one of the cliches: of the
computer field. This is particularly true of law enforce-ment
computers and data bases. If the sole desire of any
agency is to ensure a high response, or " hit rate", this
can easily be accommodated. One of the major tasks that
ACISA confronted early on was the development of strict
and detailed quality control standards for infornation
retained in the data base and the application of these
standards to a prior agency. The result was elimination
of voluminous files that did not meet the new quality
standard. The natural outcome is a higher quality, more
accurate, timely and legal data base with a lower per-centage
of " hits" on inquiries due to a smaller intell-igence
base. This reduction in hits is almost in direct
proportion to reduction in the total number of files and
has occurred simultaneously with the introduction of the
quality control standards.
Five qualitative improvements of the intelligence data
base took place during ACISA's massive purge effort in
1981- 82:
1. Criminal history record information was
separated from intelligence.
2. Quality Control Standards were implemented.
3. Review of the entire data base to remove
unevaluated or invalid information.
4. Evolution from a narcotics intelligence data
base to an all- crimes intelligence data
base commenced.
5. Previous counting practices tended to inflate
the statistics and were changed.
These five factors had a cumulative effect of ensuring
a lower hit rate. As time progresses, and the recently
instituted five year review cycle allows the data base to
grow, it is projected that the hit- rate cycle will again
rise. In any event, the primary thrust will continue to
be qualitative, not quantitative.
The long- run