Performance audit, Department of Public Safety, Highway Patrol Bureau

              PERFORMANCE AUDIT
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
HIGHWAY PATROL BUREAU
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
June 1991
91 - 5
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDllOn GENEFtAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
June 24, 1991
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable Fife Symington, Governor
Colonel F. J. " Rickw Ayars, Director
Department of Public Safety
Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Performance
Audit of the Department of Pubic Safety, Highway Patrol Bureau. This
report is in response to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the Joint
Legislative Oversight Committee and was conducted as a part of the Sunset
Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes $ 641- 2351 through 41- 2379.
This report is one in a series of reports to be issued on the Department
of Public Safety ( DPS). The report addresses the issues of staffing and
staff u t i l i z a t i o n within the Highway Patrol Bureau. The Bureau expends
90 percent of i t s nearly $ 34 million budget on salaries and
employee- related expenditures. The Bureau believes that additional staff
are needed. DPS requested an additional 63 positions in i t s 1991- 92
budget request. Although the Bureau has requested additional s t a f f , the
number of additional staff actually needed is uncertain. However, we
found that a new manpower model being tested by the Highway Patrol Bureau
could help DPS and the Legislature determine the number of Highway Patrol
officers needed. In addition, we found that the Department needs to
enhance i t s Personnel Deployment System ( PDEP) to allow i t to ensure that
Highway Patrol officers are being deployed in the most efficient and
effective manner possible.
My staff and I w i l l be pleased to discuss or c l a r i f y items in the report.
This report w i l l be released to the public on June 25, 1991.
Sincerely,
w sR. N orton
Auditor General
DRN : l mn
Staff: William Thomson Kurt L. Schulte
Deborah A. Klein Marcia W. Soergel
Arthur E. Heikkila Deborah Rhoads
Anthony J. Guarino
27130 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE * SUITE 700 . PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85804 ' ( 602) 255- 4385 ' FAX ( 602) 255- 1251
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS), Highway Patrol Bureau,
pursuant to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted as a part of
the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.)
! j § 41- 2351 through 41- 2379.
This is one in a series of reports to be issued on the Department, and
focuses on the functions of the Highway Patrol Bureau. The Bureau has
four regionally organized patrol divisions that are responsible for
patrolling Arizona highways and enforcing the State's t r a f f i c and
criminal statutes. In addition, the Bureau contains a Special Services
Division that enforces commercial vehicle safety standards and vehicle
weight regulations, responds to accidents or incidents involving
hazardous materials and commercial vehicles, and inspects school buses
and tow truck companies. The Bureau is allocated 721 Full- Time Employees
( FTEs) and has a budget of nearly $ 34 mi l l ion for fiscal year 1991.
Based on an overview of the Bureau, we identified staffing and staff
u t i l i z a t i o n as the primary issues facing the Bureau. The Bureau expends
90 percent of i t s nearly $ 34 million budget on salaries and
employee- related expenditures. The Bureau believes that additional staff
are needed -- DPS requested an additional 63 positions in i t s 1991- 92
budget request. Although the Bureau has requested additional s t a f f , i t
is uncertain at this time about the number of additional staff that are
actually needed. Our preliminary review also identified issues relating
to the efficient and effective u t i l ization of s t a f f . ( Other issues
affecting the Bureau, such as training and vehicle u t i l i z a t i o n , are being
considered in our other audits of the Department.) Because of the
concerns about the number of Highway Patrol staff needed and whether
officers were being u t i l i z e d e f f i c i e n t l y and effectively, our audit
focused on these two areas.
New Manpower Model Could
Eventuallv lm~ rove Leaislat ive
Oversiaht Of Hiahwav Patrol Staffinq ( see pages 5 through 11)
How many police officers should patrol Arizona's highways? The Highway
Patrol Bureau is testing a new manpower model that could help DPS and the
Legislature answer this d i f f i c u l t question. Maintaining an adequate
police force is the Bureau's number one p r i o r i t y and a growing agency
concern. However, past attempts by the Bureau to objectively j u s t i f y i t s
police staffing needs have proven inadequate. The Highway Patrol Bureau,
recognizing the need for a more objective analysis of police staffing
requirements, participated in a Northwestern University Traffic lnst i tute
( NUTI) project to develop a staffing model suitable " for any agency whose
primary mission is the delivery of t r a f f i c services." The manpower model
developed by NUTI appears to provide a sound basis for assessing staffing
needs.
Despite i t s potential value, the Highway Patrol Bureau should not use i t s
new manpower model u n t i l several c r i t i c a l problems are addressed.
Staffing needs can change significantly, depending on the data programmed
into the model. For example, by lowering the projected response time to
calls for service, one d i s t r i c t ' s staffing needs changed from 54 FTEs to
68 FTEs. A t a cost of over $ 60,000 in salary, equipment, and other
operating expenses for each additional Highway Patrol o f f i c e r , even small
differences in projections for the number of staff needed w i l l be costly
to the State. Our review of the model showed that the factors used by
the Department in i t s i n i t i a l application of the model did not correspond
to any measurable performance objectives, that d i s t r i c t s were using
varying c r i t e r i a , and that some of the automated data used for officer
a c t i v i t y was either inaccurate or unavailable. Therefore, before using
the model for budgetary purposes, the Bureau needs to develop: 1)
real i s t i c service levels, 2) more uniform standards, and 3) a more
accurate and complete database. During the course of our audit, the
Bureau began taking actions to address our concerns.
DPS Needs To Enhance Its
Personnel Deployment System ( PDEP) ( see pages 13 through 20)
At this time, DPS cannot adequately ensure that Highway Patrol officers
are being deployed in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
DPS has implemented an automated information system called PDEP
( Personnel Deployment) for providing information on accidents and
informing management of the specific a c t i v i t i e s officers are spending
their time on. However, due to problems with PDEP, management's a b i l i t y
to analyze staff u t i l i z a t i o n is being hampered. Some of the data in the
system is unreliable because officers are not coding their time
accurately. Other information needed by management, such as where
enforcement actions occur, and response time is not captured by PDEP.
Finally, because Bureau goals and objectives are not related to officer
a c t i v i t y , i t is more d i f f i c u l t for DPS management to adequately determine
whether the a c t i v i t i e s officers perform are accomplishing i t s goals.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTROWCTION AND BACKGROUND. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING I: NEW MANPOWER UODEL CWUI
EVENTUALLY IUPROVE LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT OF HIGHWAY PATROL STAFFING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New Manpower Mode l Cou l d Lead To
Systematic Evaluation Of
Highway Patrol Staffing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C r i t i c a l Problems Need To Be
Addressed Before New Manpower Model Can Be Used Effectively. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING II: DPS NEEDS TO ENHANCE ITS
PERSONNEL DEPLOYMENT SYSTEM ( PDEP) . . . . . . . . . . .
PDEP Can Contribute To Better
Highway Patrol Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Problems With PDEP Impact Management's
A b i l i t y To Efficiently And Effectively U t i l i z e s t a f f . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
What DPS Needs To Do
To Enhance PDEP. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recomnendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Accident Investigation
And Report Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New Techno log i es Cou l d Assist Highway Patrol. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Pane
1
AGENCY RESPONSE
LIST OF TABLES
Paae
TABLE 1 Department Of Public Safety
Highway Patrol Bureau
Statement Of FTEs And Actual And
Budgeted Expenditures
Fiscal Years 1988- 89, 1989- 90, And 1990- 91
( Unaudi ted). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 2 Impact Of Patrol Frequency
On Staff Requirements ( For one d i s t r i c t o f f i c e ) . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 3 Impact Of Response Time
On Staff Requirements
( For one d i s t r i c t o f f i c e ) . . . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1 DPS Highway Patrol Officers I And II
On- Duty Time Distribution
Fiscal Year 1989- 90. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The O f f i c e o f the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS), Highway Patrol Bureau,
pursuant to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the Joint Legislative
Oversight Committee. This performance audit was conducted as part o f the
Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised Statutes ( A. R. S.) § § 41- 2351
through 41- 2379. This i s one in a series of reports on the Department.
Backaround
The Department of Public Safety ( DPS) was establ ished on July 1, 1969, to
consolidate the functions and responsibilities of the Arizona Highway
Patrol, the Enforcement Division of the Department of Liquor Licenses and
Control, and the Narcotics Division of the Arizona Department of Law.
Currently, DPS i s organized into five bureaus: Highway Patrol, Criminal
Investigation, TeIecommunications, Administration, and Criminal Justice
Support. The Department employs approximately 1,620 Full- Time Employees
( FTEs) and has an annual budget of $ 86 m i l l i on.
The Highway Patrol Bureau consists o f f i v e Divisions: Northern Patrol,
Southern Patrol, Metro Patrol, Central Patrol, and a Special Services
division. The four patrol divisions are organized regionally into 15
d i s t r i c t s and 71 area offices. The divisions are responsible for
p a t r o l l i n g the Arizona highways and enforcing the State's t r a f f i c and
criminal statutes. The Special Services division enforces commercial
vehicle safety standards and vehicle weight regu lat ions, responds to
accidents or incidents involving hazardous materials and commercial
vehicles, and inspects school buses and tow truck companies.
Scope
During the preliminary phase of our audit, we conducted a review of the
Bureau's major operations to identify issues within the Bureau. Auditors
v i s i t e d Highway Patrol d i s t r i c t s and areas throughout much of the State
and met with the lieutenants and sergeants responsible for those areas.
Further, we rode with many Highway Patrol o f f i c e r s during portions of
of their s h i f t s to gain an understanding of their duties. During these
v i s i t s , we also contacted several local law enforcement agencies to
obtain their impressions of the Bureau's operations. The agencies we
contacted commented that DPS was helpful and provided assistance when
needed. In the rural areas of the State, both DPS and local law
enforcement o f f i c i a l s stressed the need for cooperation and mutual
assistance because of the large geographical areas patrolled with a
relatively small number o f o f f i c e r s .
Our prel iminary review identified staffing and staff ut i l izat ion as the
primary issues facing DPS. Other issues, including those related to
vehicles, training, and the use of sworn officers in administrative
positions, w i l l be considered in our forthcoming audit of the DPS
Administration Bureau. As shown in Table 1 ( page 3), the Bureau is
allocated 721 FTEs and expends 90 percent of i t s nearly $ 34 million
budget on salaries and employee- related expenditures. The Bureau
believes that additional staff are needed. Nearly 21 miles of new
metropolitan freeway were added to the road system in 1989 and 1990, and
an additional 41 miles are planned to be completed during 1991 and
1992.(') For fiscal year 1990- 91, the Bureau was allocated seven
additional officers to replace those officers who had been transferred
from rural areas to patrol metropolitan freeways. However, the Bureau
thinks more officers are needed ( DPS asked for an additional 63 positions
in i ts fiscal year 1991- 92 budget request). Because of mandated budget
cuts, the Bureau has been unable to f i l l the seven new positions and has
l e f t some of the other positions vacant.
( 1) These figures include miles added to the 1- 10, Papago, Hohokam, Superstition, Agua
F r i a , Sky Harbor and other segments of metropolitan freeways.
TABLE I
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
HIGHWAY PATROL BUREAU
STATEMENT OF FTEs AND ACTUAL AND BUDGETED EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1988- 89, 1989- 90, AND 1990- 91
( Unaudited)
1988- 89 1989- 90 1990- 91
Actual Actual Budqe t ed
FTE Positions 718 714 721
Ex~ endi t u res
Personal Services $ 22,951 ,105 $ 24,142,970 $ 25,503,700
Employee- Related 4,637,012 4,527,519 5,182,700
Profess i ona l and
Outside Services 18,679 14,151 29,200
Travel, In- State 211,241 221,557 237,600
Travel, Out- of- State 52,101 28,372 24,700
Equ i pmen t 2,758,536 2,614,025 2,578,800
Other Operating 489.710 453.088 261.200
TOTAL $ 31.118.384 $ 32,001,682 $ 33,817,900
Sources: Arizona Financial Information System reports for Fiscal Years
1988- 89 and 1989- 90; the State of Arizona Appropriations
Reports for the Fiscal Years ending June 30, 1989, 1990, and
1991, as applicable.
Although the Bureau has requested additional s t a f f , we are uncertain at
this time how many more staff are actually needed. The Bureau's previous
methodology to determine staffing requirements for i t s budget requests
was discredited by Arthur Young and Company in a report prepared for the
Governor in 1988. Recognizing the need for a more objective analysis,
the Bureau, along with police agencies in several other states, is in the
process of implementing a new manpower assessment model developed by the
Northwestern University T r a f f i c Institute. Properly implemented and
used, this model should be able to more accurately determine staffing
needs.
Our preliminary review also identified issues relating to the e f f i c i e n t
and effective u t i l i z a t i o n of s t a f f . Those we spoke with raised the
following questions: Were officers being used in the areas of greatest
need? Were officers spending too much time on accident investigation,
report writing, and training? The Bureau developed an automated system
several years ago to assist management in the e f f i c i e n t and effective
deployment of officers. During the preliminary review, several DPS
o f f i c i a l s identified data and other problems with this automated system.
Because of the concerns about the number of Highway Patrol staff needed
and whether officers were being u t i l i z e d e f f i c i e n t l y and effectively, our
audit focused on two areas:
the extent to which the Bureau's new manpower model could assist DPS
and the Legislature in determining appropriate Highway Patrol officer
staffing levels, and
e the need to enhance DPS's automated system for deploying Highway
Patrol officers.
The audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and staff express appreciation to the Director of the
Department of Public Safety and the Assistant Director for the Highway
Patrol Bureau and h i s s t a f f for their cooperation and assistance
throughout the audit.
FINDING I
NEW MANPOWER MODEL
COULD EVENTUALLY IMPROVE LEGISLATIVE OVERSIGHT
OF HIGHWAY PATROL STAFFING
How many police officers should patrol Arizona's highways? The Highway
Patrol Bureau is testing a new manpower model that could help DPS and the
Legislature answer this d i f f i c u l t question. Several c r i t i c a l problems
need to be addressed, however, before the model can be used effectively.
New Manpower Model Could Lead
To Svstematic Evaluation
Of Hiqhwav Patrol Staffinq
A new manpower model developed by Northwestern University's Traffic
Institute ( NUTI) could help decide how many officers are needed on
Arizona's highways. Although staffing is a growing agency concern, past
attempts by the Highway Patrol Bureau to demonstrate police staffing
requirements have been inadequate. I f properly implemented, the NUTI
model could address this shortcoming by providing a more systematic
approach to Highway Patrol staffing.
Number one p r i o r i t v - Maintaining an adequate police force is the
Bureau's number one p r i o r i t y , and a growing agency concern. Staffing is
the predominant issue discussed in the Bureau's current three- year
strategic plan. The plan states that " the level of police services ...
w i l l decline to the point where public welfare and officer safety is
jeopardized" unless 143 additional officers are hired.
But are 143 additional officers really needed? Past attempts by the
Bureau to objectively j u s t i f y i t s police staffing needs have proven
inadequate. The manpower model used by the Highway Patrol Bureau was
severely c r i t i c i z e d by Arthur Young and Company in a report prepared for
the Governor in 1988. The report concludes that " in our opinion the ...
model for Highway Patrol staffing is not valid and is not useful to any
substantive degree as a determinant of personnel requirements.''
According to the report, the model's major deficiency was i t s failure to
rely heavily enough on workload measures.
The Northwestern Universitv model - The Highway Patrol Bureau recognized
the need for a more objective analysis of police staffing requirements
and participated in a NUTI project to develop a staffing model suitable
" for any agency whose primary mission is the delivery of t r a f f i c
services."( l)
The manpower model developed appears to provide a sound basis for
assessing staffing needs. NUTI surveyed over 50 police agencies and
conducted an extensive literature search to gather information and
produce a s t a t i s t i c a l model and handbook entitled the Police Allocation
Manual ( PAM). Eight state agencies, including Arizona's Highway Patrol
Bureau, tested and evaluated PAM for v a l i d i t y and usability.(*) Results
have been positive. One test state, California, now uses the model to
prepare i t s budget and j u s t i f y staffing requests.
Our own review indicates the model i s a logical and flexible approach for
assessing police staffing requirements. PAM'S s t a t i s t i c a l formulas are
based on sound theoretical principles. Moreover, the model is
adaptable. It can be appl ied to diverse demographic and geographic
conditions. Finally, PAM addresses concerns raised in the Arthur Young
report by relying on workload measures to appraise police staffing
requirements.
Critical Problems Need To Be Addressed
Before New Man~ ower Model Can Be Used Effectivelv
Despite i t s potential value, the Highway Patrol Bureau should not use i t s
new manpower model u n t i l several c r i t i c a l problems are addressed.
Staffing appraisals can change significantly, depending on the data
programmed into the model. Therefore, before using the model for
budgetary purposes, the Bureau needs to develop: 1) real i s t ic service
( 1) After repeated requests f o r assistance by the law enforcement community, the National
Highway T r a f f i c Services Admini stration, a Federal service agency f o r pol i c e forces,
hi red NUT1 to develop standardized s t a f f i n g procedures.
( 2) T h i r t y state police agencies expressed i n t e r e s t i n t e s t i n g PAM. Police agencies i n
eight states ( C a l i f o r n i a , Colorado, Florida, I l l i n o i s , Massachusetts, Nebraska, New
York, and Arizona) were selected based on agency size, and geography, and the
a v a i l a b i l i t y of workload data. At the present time, NUT1 i s near the end of i t s
second and f i n a l t e s t phase of the model as i t pertains t o state police agencies. A
t h i r d t e s t phase w i l l evaluate the model ' s u t i l i t y f o r local pol ice agencies.
levels, 2) more uniform standards, and 3) a reliable and more complete
database. Once problems are addressed, the new manpower model could
assist in making budget decisions.
The Bureau is st i l l in the early stages of implementing PAM, having just
recently completed the model's f i r s t statewide application. During
i n i t i a l testing, each d i s t r i c t patrol office used the model to assess i t s
own manpower needs with minimal input from Bureau management.(') The
purpose of this i n i t i a l testing was to allow each d i s t r i c t to become
fami l i a r with the workings of the model and to identify problem areas.
Not surprisingly, the test results indicate the Bureau needs to make
substantial progress before the model can be used effectively.
staff in^ needs can easily be altered - By simply changing several key
data inputs, PAM can produce widely varying staff results. For example,
during the model's i n i t i a l testing:
Lowering the response time to calls for service enable one d i s t r i c t
to increase i t s staffing requirements by 26 percent, from 54 Full
Time Employees ( FTEs) ( including officers, support s t a f f , and command
personne I) to 68 FTEs .
Increasing the frequency with which highways are patrolled enable a
second d i s t r i c t to increase i t s staffing requirements by 20 percent,
from 54 to 65 FTEs.
Because the number of staff needed can vary so greatly as a result of the
c r i t e r i a applied, i t is important that the model not be implemented
prematurely. Even a minor error in projecting the number of staff needed
w i l l be costly to the State; the Bureau spends over $ 60,000 in salary,
equipment and other operating expenses for each Highway Patrol officer
during his or her f i r s t year of employment. Therefore, the Bureau needs
to proceed cautiously and address several key problem areas before
attempting to use PAM to evaluate i t s staffing requirements.
( 1) Applying the model at the d i s t r i c t level i s possible because PAM calculates s t a f f i n g
by llAutonomous Patrol Area ( APA)," which can be any self- contained patrol u n i t .
Overall s t a f f i n g i s determined by t o t a l i n g each APA8s s t a f f assessment. Therefore,
although the Highway Patrol Bureau has the option of applying the model to a bureau,
d i s t r i c t , or area level, the smaller the APA selected, the more precise the assessment.
Establish credible service levels - One key to implementing PAM
effectively is for the Bureau to establish service levels that meet
we1 I- def ined performance objectives.
Two areas of police service in particular should be based on well- defined
and measurable objectives:
Patrol freauency - This value represents the frequency in which an
o f f i c e r w i I I pass a given point on a highway or the average amount of
time a stranded motorist w i l l have to wait for an o f f i c e r to come by
on patrol.
0 Response time - This value represents the amount of time i t takes an
o f f i c e r t o a r r i v e a t the scene in response to a c a l l for service or
an accident.
During DPS1 i n i t i a l application of the model, the patrol frequencies and
response times selected DID NOT correspond to any measurable performance
objectives.(') This was a major deficiency in the Bureau's e f f o r t
because of the impact these service levels have on the number of officers
needed as calculated by PAM. As Table 2 indicates, the difference
between patrolling one d i s t r i c t ' s highways every 15 minutes and every
hour is an additional 17 officers. Likewise, Table 3 ( see page 9) shows
that the difference between responding to a call for service in 5 minutes
versus 20 minutes ( for that same d i s t r i c t ) is an additional 14 officers.
TABLE 2
IMPACT OF PATROL FREQUENCY
ON STAFF REQUIREMENTS
( For one district office)
Patrol Freauencv Staff Requirement
15 minutes
30 minutes
45 minutes
1 hour
23 officers
12 o f f i c e r s
8 o f f i c e r s
6 o f f i c e r s
Sources: Northwestern University's T r a f f i c I n s t i t u t e , Police Allocation
Manual ( PAM); values submitted by the Arizona Department of
Public Safety, Highway Patrol Bureau d i s t r i c t personnel.
( 1) DPS lacks information on i t s current response times and patrol frequencies.
8
TABLE 3
IMPACT OF RESPONSE TIME
ON STAFF REQUIREMENTS
( For one district office)
Res~ onse Time
5 minutes
10 minutes
15 minutes
20 minutes
Staff Requirement
19 officers
10 officers
6 officers
5 officers
Source: Northwestern University's Traffic Institute, Police Allocation
Manual ( PAM); values submitted by the Arizona Department of
Public Safety, Highway Patrol Bureau d i s t r i c t personnel
Consequently, selecting r e a l i s t i c patrol frequencies and response times
should be a high p r i o r i t y for the Bureau. Since there are no national
standards or c r i t e r i a against which to measure these two service levels,
DPS w i l l have to develop i t s own c r i t e r i a . However, logical f i r s t steps
in this process include determining Arizona's current levels of service
and conducting a survey of service levels of other states using the PAM
model .
Institute uniform definitions - The Bureau also needs to develop more
uniform standards and definitions upon which to base i t s staffing
requirements.(') As noted previously, each d i s t r i c t calculated i t s own
manpower needs using their own criterion to set patrol frequencies and
response times. In addition:
D i s t r i c t s calculated the time spent on calls for service
differently. For example, one d i s t r i c t included the time needed to
write offense reports in i t s calculations; other d i s t r i c t s did not.
Another d i s t r i c t included in i t s calculations the amount of time i t
spent assisting other police agencies with accident investigations,
other d i s t r i c t s did not. Finally, some d i s t r i c t s considered their
( 1 ) To he1 p ensure uniformity, C a l i f o r n i a has established separate " patrol envi ronments , I1
that i t uses to i d e n t i f y the individual service requirements f o r i t s various
demographic regions. For example, C a l i f o r n i a developed d i f f e r e n t regional
requirements f o r patrol frequencies, response times, and the number of hours of patrol
coverage. Missouri has adopted a s i m i l a r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme.
time spent in investigative a c t i v i t i e s as being a cal l for service
and included this time in their calculations; at least one d i s t r i c t
did not.
D i s t r i c t representatives also expressed concern that d i s t r i c t s were
not classifying highways or counting roadway miles in the same manner.
A l l these inconsistencies can impact PAM'S staffing calculations.
The Bureau's upper management should consider taking a more active role
in implementing PAM. Until staffing requirements developed through PAM
conform to uniform guidelines, they w i l l lack c r e d i b i l i t y . Although
d i s t r i c t personnel have formed a three- man committee to address some the
of problems with uniformity, more aggressive Bureau involvement might
speed up this process. According to one NUTI project coordinator, the
police agencies that " have gone the farthest" with PAM, have employed a
more centralized " top downtt management approach than the Bureau.
Develop a more accurate and complete database - Finally, the Highway
Patrol Bureau needs a more accurate and complete database to successfully
implement PAM. As indicated on page 6, the model relies in part on
workload measures to assess staffing needs. Consequently, accurate s t a f f
appraisals depend on the Bureau's a b i l i t y to reliably input the time
spent by officers investigating accidents, assisting motorists, attending
meetings, directing t r a f f i c , and participating in other routine
a c t i v i t i e s . The Bureau is deficient in this area. For example:
Some data is inaccurate - A survey of f i e l d officers conducted by our
o f f i c e revealed chronic under- and overreporting of workload data.
For example, administrative a c t i v i t i e s such as vehicle maintenance,
in- house meetings and other miscellaneous o f f i c e work is being
overreported by 23 percent. The Bureau w i l l have to take steps to
increase the accuracy of i t s database before PAM can be used r e l i a b l y .
Data i s unavailable - In several instances, PAM requires data that
the Bureau's management information system is not set up to capture.
For example, PAM requires user agencies to calculate the amount of
time o f f i c e r s spend issuing citations and assisting motorists. The
Bureau's system currently lacks this capability. Agency personnel
have said the system can be modified to capture this information.
Model could assist in nakinq budaet decisions - If the problems described
in our report can be resolved, the Bureau's new manpower model could
eventually be used to develop the Highway Patrol's budget ( and budget
alternatives) based on service levels. For example, PAM would enable the
Bureau to report the cost of responding to an accident in 5 minutes
versus 10 or 15 minutes. The Bureau should even be able to provide
information about the extent to which faster response times would
alleviate t r a f f i c congestion, or save lives. With this type of
information available, the legislative and executive branches would be
able to weigh the relative costs and benefits of various service levels,
and make policy and budget decisions related to Highway Patrol staffing
in a more effective manner than is now possible.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. DPS should continue efforts to implement i t s new manpower model.
2. DPS should not attempt to use the model to assess Highway Patrol
staffing u n t i l i t develops the following:
service levels based on real i s t i c performance objectives,
more uniform standards, and
a more accurate and complete database.
3. Once the model is workable, the Legislature should consider requiring
DPS to present in i t s budget various service options related to
highway patrol, along with the relative costs and benefits of these
opt ions.
FINDING II
DPS NEEDS TO ENHANCE ITS
PERSONNEL DEPLOYMENT SYSTEM ( PDEP)
At this time, DPS cannot adequately ensure that Highway Patrol officers
are being deployed in the most efficient and effective manner possible.
A comprehensive management information system ( MIS) could assist DPS in
the proper u t i lization of staff and provide information to determine
appropriate staffing levels. The Department's current MIS system, called
PDEP ( Personnel Deployment) , has data problems and has never been
completed. In this finding we outline several steps and actions DPS must
take to enhance PDEP into a useful decision- making tool.
The Highway Patrol Bureau's management information system, PDEP, is a
computer database containing accident information and officer time and
a c t i v i t y data. It is used by management to monitor accidents and staff
a c t i v i t y and also deploy s t a f f . PDEP serves a different role than the
Patrol Allocation Model ( or PAM, as discussed in Finding I). The PAM
staffing formula determines the number of staff needed for a certain
patrol area. PDEP information then assists management in appropriately
deploying staff within that patrol area.
PDEP Can Contribute To
Better Hiahwav Patrol Manaaement
Currently, DPS officers spend 28 percent of their on- duty time performing
administrative functions and spend 48 percent of their time on patrol.
I s t h i s the appropriate combination of a c t i v i t i e s to achieve the Highway
Patrol Bureau's goals and objectives? In fiscal year 1989- 90 the Bureau
was authorized 714 s t a f f , and the Bureau's expenditures were $ 32
million. Without a comprehensive management information system, DPS has
d i f f i c u l t y determining whether i t s resources are being u t i l i z e d
e f f i c i e n t l y and effectively. Figure 1, page 14 shows a breakdown of how
DPS Highway Patrol Officer Is and I l s spent their time during fiscal year
1989- 90.
FIGURE I
DPS HIGHWAY PATROL OFFICERS I AND II
ON- DUTY TIME DISTRIBUTION
FISCAL YEAR 1989- 90
Report Writing 6%
Vehicle Inspec. 1 % A
Patrol
Accident Inves. 7%
Source: Auditor General staff review of Highway Patrol Bureau PDEP data.
a a I a e
According to the Northwestern University Traffic lnsti tute ( NUTI), a
well- designed management information system provides useful information
in a form appropriate for decision making. It also provides a historical
record of t r a f f i c operations for assessing trends and provides a " track
record" of operations. In addition, i t establishes conditions for
enhancing efficiency and effectiveness of operations because managers can
readily see i f objectives are being achieved, and they can respond
appropriately.
Problems With PDEP Impact Manaaement's Ability
To Efficientlv And Effectivelv Utilize Staff
Our review found several problems with the Department's PDEP management
information system. F i r s t , some of the data in the system is of l i m i ted
use to management because officers are not coding their time accurately.
Second, some information needed by management i s not captured by PDEP.
Third, i t is more d i f f i c u l t for DPS management to determine whether i t s
deployment of officers is indeed efficient and effective because there is
no formal relationship between the Bureau's goals and the functions
officers are actually performing.
Evolution of PDEP - DPS began a project to develop the PDEP system in
1977. A t that time, information about accidents, officer a c t i v i t y , etc.
was not available to management in a usable format or in a manner timely
enough to impact decision making. The goal of the project was to design
a deployment system for selective enforcement that would assist
management in distributing, assigning, and projecting manpower needs.
DPS envisioned an ongoing process of assigning personnel, performing
duties, measuring and evaluating results, and then reassigning personnel
as needed. The system was to be developed in four phases. Phase I
involved automating accident information. Phase II automated officer
time and a c t i v i t y information. Both of these Phases have been completed
since 1982. However, to complete the system, Phases I l l and IV require
automating enforcement and other information.
Problems with current data - In our review we found significant problems
with the current information in PDEP. Our survey of Highway Patrol
officers indicates that many of them did not record their time and
act i v i ties accurately.(') In practice, officers are requi red to charge
their time and a c t i v i t i e s to any of approximately 50 codes on a weekly
time sheet. The information is then put onto the PDEP system. The
survey indicates that both overreporting and underreporting occurred by
up to as much as 23 percent per code.
Officers listed several reasons they either overreported or underreported
the time they spent on various a c t i v i t i e s . Many officers wrote that they
were under pressure from management to keep patrol time up or expand
patrol time and keep charges for administrative a c t i v i t i e s down.
Officers also wrote that they were pressured to maintain a balance
between the number of enforcement a c t i v i t i e s and the number of hours
spent on those a c t i v i t i e s ( such as maintaining an average of one
enforcement action for every hour spent on patrol). Additional reasons
cited included covering uncoded time, covering downtime, covering the
lack of sufficient time allowed for certain a c t i v i t i e s , and unclear codes.
Improper coding of time for whatever reason seriously impacts the
v a l i d i t y and usability of PDEP data for management decision making.
Because of the extent of miscoding, in some cases, management does not
receive an accurate picture of how resources are being u t i l i z e d in the
f i e l d . For example, one important measure of a c t i v i t y used by management
is the percentage of time officers spent on proactive enforcement
a c t i v i t i e s ( patrol) as opposed to the time spent on reactive a c t i v i t i e s
( responding to accidents or assisting motorists). Our review of PDEP
information revealed that the percentage of time spent on patrol for the
15 Bureau d i s t r i c t s averaged 47 percent in fiscal year 1989- 90. The
Department's goal for patrol a c t i v i t i e s is 65 percent. I f patrol is
indeed over reported by 22 percent as shown by the survey, then DPS may be
even further from meeting i t s patrol goal than indicated in PDEP.
( 1 ) We surveyed 484 O f f i c e r I s and 11s only; management positions were excluded. We
received 191 responses ( 43 percent of those surveyed).
lm~ ortant manaaement information not captured by PDEP - PDEP does not
capture some c r i t i c a l information needed by management. For instance,
information regarding where enforcement actions occur is not recorded.
Without this information, i t is more d i f f i c u l t for management to monitor
whether officers are actually performing enforcement functions in the
areas assigned. Information about response time i. e., the time i t takes
for the officer to arrive a t the scene, is also not captured in the
system. Management needs this information both for making deployment
decisions and for calculations performed by the PAM staffing allocation
model .
Patrol soals and ob- iectives not related to PDEP - Because Bureau goals
and objectives are not related to officer a c t i v i t y , DPS management cannot
adequately determine whether the a c t i v i t i e s officers perform
significantly impact whatever goal they are trying to accomplish. The
Bureau has established five goals and 14 objectives. The goals are
wide- ranging -- from reducing the rate of t r a f f i c accidents Statewide to
promoting officer participation in physical fitness programs. DPS goals
and objectives, however, are not linked to officer a c t i v i t y . DPS should
relate i t s goals and objectives to officer a c t i v i t y using performance
measures. NUTI has developed several performance measures that relate to
t r a f f i c supervision goals and objectives. For example, one of NUTl's
performance measures for the goal of reducing accidents is the ratio of
the number of citations ( citing for a specific violation known to cause
accidents in the area) to the number of accidents for a certain area.(')
For instance, i f the management information system indicates that the
number of citations remains low when the accident rate remains high,
management can then ask officers to focus their efforts in that area.
However, i f the accident rate is not affected by a certain type of
enforcement, management w i l l then know that i t should identify and
attempt other options.
( 1) Other highway patrol a c t i v i t i e s also relate t o accident reduction including, f o r
example, things such as DUI checkpoints, V i o l a t o r Directed Patrol ( VDP) and public
information. These a c t i v i t i e s could also be translated i n t o performance measures.
What DPS Needs To DQ
To Enhance PDEP
To properly enhance PDEP, DPS must address several different issues so
that i t can provide useful information on which to base i t s decisions.
F i r s t , time coding and data problems must be resolved. Second, the
system needs to be completed so that a l l necessary information is
captured. Third, measurable goals, objectives, and performance
indicators need to be adopted. Fourth, management needs to make a
commitment to develop and u t i l ize the system as we1 l as provide training
to those using i t .
Resolve PDEP data ~ roblems - DPS needs to address problems w i t h o f f i c e r s
miscoding time sheets. For the system to provide meaningful informat ion
for management decision making, o f f i c e r s must code their time
accurately. DPS needs to review the results of our o f f i c e r survey to
determine the reasons for miscoding and then develop strategies for
resolving the problem. For example, our survey indicated that pressure
from management was one of the primary reasons for miscoding. HPB
management needs to convey to supervisors that o f f i c e r s should be
encouraged to code their time accurately.
Ex~ and PDEP to capture needed informat ion - DPS needs to expand the PDEP
information base to capture other v i t a l information relating to
enforcement, and response time. DPS o r i g i n a l l y planned to obtain this
information through implementation of PDEP Phases I I I and I V .
Implementation of Phase I l l would allow DPS to track the location of
enforcement actions and c a l l s for service, thus allowing management to
determine whether s t a f f were deployed to p r i o r i t y areas. Implementation
of Phase IV would provide response times to c a l l s for service, and would
also relate s t a f f a c t i v i t i e s to broader goals and objectives. However,
at the present time neither phase has been implemented and there i s no
firm timetable to do so. According to the assistant directors for both
the HPB and the Telecomunicat ions Bureau ( TCB, which handles system
development), other Department p r i o r i t i e s have superseded implementation
of these phases. Currently, only two to three s t a f f are available for
programming; a l l other EDP s t a f f provide system maintenance. Recently,
the HPB has again requested implementation of Phase I l l . According to
TCB, they w i l l be able to address Phase I I I using the in- house
programming s t a f f in fiscal year 1991- 92 i f DPS does not suffer budget
cuts. L i t t l e i f any additional hardware w i l l be needed.
Refine goals and obiectives. add ~ erformance measures - To f u l l y benefit
from a management information system, DPS needs to refine i t s goals and
objectives and add performance measures.
Management information systems are being recommended and considered as a
more e f f i c i e n t and effective method for managing resources both
nationally and within Arizona. NUTI has developed a management
information system to be u t i l i z e d by organizations such as DPS for
t r a f f i c patrol. In fact, DPS participated in the NUTI study and served
as one of the test agencies. The NUT1 system provides measurable goals,
objectives, and performance indicators.
In Arizona, proposed State budget reform measures would require State
agencies to develop goals, objectives, and evaluation c r i t e r i a for each
budget program. The evaluation c r i t e r i a must relate to program goals and
objectives, and emphasize results. In addition, agencies would be
required to develop management information systems to evaluate the
success or f a i l u r e of each budget program in achieving i t s goals and
objectives. I n i t i a l l y , DPS could consider using the NUTI goals,
objectives, and performance measures to meet these requirements.
Provide train in^ and commitment - To help ensure that a resource
management system i s u t i l i z e d and i s effective, DPS needs to address
other issues. Those u t i l i z i n g the system for decision- making purposes
need to be trained in the system's use and capabilities. To date, f i r s t
line supervisors have been given very l i t t l e training in the use of
PDEP. In addition, DPS needs to provide Bureau orders and management
manuals f o r further guidance. A t the present time, there are no Bureau
orders or guidelines for management for using PDEP.
Finally, commitment from upper management i s needed to make t h i s system
work. Without commitment, the system w i l l not be u t i l i z e d by managers in
the f i e l d . DPS needs to carefully plan, support, and sustain i t s e f f o r t s
in developing an effective system. Nine years have passed since DPS
completed Phase II of PDEP. Since that time, DPS has not automated any
of the information required for PDEP's later Phases I l l and IV. I f
additional programming resources and hardware are needed to bring these
phases on- line, DPS needs to develop options i n t e r n a l l y or seek
additional funding.
RECOMMENDATIONS
In order to enhance i t s PDEP management information system, DPS
shou Id consider the fo l lowing recoiendat ions :
a. Resolve o f f i c e r miscoding problems.
b. Expand PDEP to capture information about the location of
enforcement actions, and response time.
c. Uti I ize the NUTI system as the basis for developing goals,
objectives, and performance measures.
d. Develop s u f f i c i e n t training for a l l management personnel who
w i l l be using the system.
e. Develop Bureau orders and management manuals for using the PDEP
system.
f . Provide a management commitment to the implementation and
u t i l i z a t i o n of the PDEP system.
DPS needs to determine i f additional programming resources and
hardware are needed to complete the PDEP system. I f so, DPS needs to
develop funding options i n t e r n a l l y o r seek additional funding from
the Legislature.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During our audit we obtained information about methods to improve the
efficiency of accident investigation and report writing. In addition, we
also obtained information on the use of photo radar.
Accident lnvestiqat ion
And Report Writinq
Time went i s considerable and varies between d i s t r i c t s - DPS officers
spend a significant amount of time in both investigating accidents and
writing accident reports. In fiscal year 1989- 90, the Highway Patrol
Bureau investigated 14,738 accidents and prepared 12,904 accident
reports. In addition, Bureau staff completed 15,195 offense reports,
some of which were related to accident investigation. According to DPS
records, Bureau staff spent 77,678 hours on the a c t i v i t i e s mentioned
above. This equates to 43.5 full- time employees. The amount of time
spent on these a c t i v i t i e s may be even higher than reported. Our survey
of officers found that underreporting the amount of time spent on these
a c t i v i t i e s occurs either because not enough time is allocated for them or
officers are pressured by management to keep non- patrol time low.
We found that the amount of time spent on these a c t i v i t i e s varied among
d i s t r i c t s . Generally, personnel in the metropolitan Phoenix area
d i s t r i c t s spent less time investigating accidents than personnel in rural
d i s t r i c t s . The reasons given for these differences are that urban area
d i s t r i c t s need to investigate accidents quickly in order to expedite
t r a f f i c movement on the freeways, while in rural areas, d i s t r i c t s tend to
conduct more comprehensive investigations on a l l types of accidents.
According to DPS, some rural d i s t r i c t connnanders think comprehensive
investigations provide useful training for officers. A t the present
time, because the Bureau has no standards for determining how
comprehensive an investigation or report must be, d i s t r i c t commanders
establish their own c r i t e r i a for these a c t i v i t i e s .
New cateaories and reports may save tim - The Bureau is considering
adopting new accident categories for investigation and reporting purposes
that may reduce the amount of time spent on these a c t i v i t i e s . Currently,
the Bureau allows for discretion in the types of accident reports
prepared. As a result, some officers complete more forms than
necessary. New accident categories and standards for writing reports are
being developed by a panel of DPS sergeants and officers and w i l l be
submitted to DPS management for approval. The categories being
considered include:
8 accidents with no or only minor injuries and involving vehicles that
can be driven away,
accidents with injuries that do not require hospitalization, whether
or not the vehicles can be driven away, and
8 accidents involving hospitalized injuries or f a t a l i t i e s , and other
offenses l i k e l y to be prosecuted.
DPS should accrue time savings with these new categories because more
limited investigation and reporting standards would be required for the
" accidents with no or only minor injuries and vehicles that can be driven
awayt1 category. Rather than the current procedure of f i l l i n g out
supplemental pages, officers would complete only a standard, one- page
form. The Lieutenant heading the panel estimates that from 50 to 70
percent of a l l accidents would f a l l into this new category, and both the
investigation and the report would require approximately one hour to
complete ( as opposed to the two to three hours currently required). New
DPS accident investigation categories, investigation requirements, and
reporting standards appear to have the potential for considerable time
sav i ngs .
New Technologies Could
Assist Hiahwav Patrol
New technologies such as photo radar and the automated c i t a t i o n device
may also help the Highway Patrol Bureau improve i t s efficiency and
effectiveness.
Photo radar - Photo radar is one new technology used to enforce the speed
l i m i t . Specialized radar equipment, a computer, and a camera or video
recorder are mounted inside a marked police vehicle so that the equipment
can then be moved from one location to another. An officer enters into
the computer the posted speed l i m i t and the amount over the speed limit
for which citations should be issued. Proponents of photo radar believe
this technology's greatest benefit is that i t reduces speeding and
therefore the number of accidents involving injury. A t the same time, i t
reduces the number of officers needed for speed enforcement so more
officers are available for other types of law enforcement. It is also
safer for both officers and motorists because i t eliminates the need for
an o f f i c e r t o pursue a speeding vehicle or create a hazard by pulling the
speeding vehicle to the side of the road.
Photo radar is in use in many other countries including Europe, Canada
and Australia. In the United States, local police departments currently
use this technology; however, state law enforcement agencies are just now
beginning to study the impact of photo radar.
We contacted the Paradise Valley and Peoria Police Departments to learn
about their experiences with the use of photo radar. Peoria has used
photo radar only since April 1990 and, therefore has limited data. A
Paradise Valley law enforcement o f f i c i a l noted that the number of injury
accidents in fiscal year 1990 decreased 21 percent over the number of
injury accidents in 1989. He considers this decrease to be a direct
result of the use of photo radar.
Both jurisdictions noted that there have been concerns expressed by
citizens regarding the manner in which these systems are leased and
used. Citizen concerns about invasion of privacy and entrapment have not
been supported by the courts. A law suit was brought against the
Paradise Valley Police Department on this issue, but the Arizona Supreme
Court refused to accept jurisdiction of the case.
In February 1991, Senate Bi l l 1164 -- a b i l l that would prohibit the use
of photo radar devices -- was introduced. However, this b i l l was
defeated by the Transportation Committee. On March 19, 1991, voters in
the City of Peoria, by a 5 to 2 margin, voted to discontinue the use of
photo radar in their c i t y and to terminate the c i t y ' s three- year contract
with Traffic Monitoring Technologies.
The assistant director for the Highway Patrol Bureau has indicated that
photo radar is a valuable law enforcement tool; however, the manner in
which i t would be used by the Bureau would d i f f e r from the manner in
which i t has been used by local police departments. He noted that the
greatest public concern about these systems is that they w i l l be used to
increase revenues in the same way law enforcement used speed traps.
However, photo radar equipment has been shown to deter speeding. He also
noted rather than eliminate the use of photo radar, safeguards can be
adopted to ensure proper use of this equipment. The assistant director
also thinks that i n i t i a l l y warnings should be issued rather than
citations. Thus, photo radar would be used more as an informative rather
than a punitive tool of enforcement.
Automated citations - Another type of technology that the California
Highway Patrol is testing is the use of automated c i t a t i o n computers by
officers in the f i e l d . An officer enters the driver's license and
vehicle registration information into an automated c i t a t i o n device and a
c i t a t i o n is then printed by a portable printer connected to the device.
At the end of a s h i f t , the officer uploads the information in the
citation devise to a personal computer located in the area office. Use
of the automated citation computer may reduce the amount of data that
needs to be input at the courts as well as reduce the number of i l l e g i b l e
citations that cannot be entered into the court system and adjudicated.
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2102 WEST ENCANTO BLVD. P. 0. BOX 6638 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85005- 6638 ( 602) 223- 2000
FIFE SYMINGTON F. J. " RICIC' AYARS
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR
June 21, 1991
Mr. Arthur Heikkila
Auditor General's Office
2700 North Central Avenue
Phoenix, Arizona 85004
Dear Mr. Heikkila:
This letter is forwarding our reply to the review draft of the
Audit Report on the Highway Patrol Bureau.
I have reviewed the revisions drafted in your report on the
patrol and a reply to the findings is attached.
On behalf of the Patrol Bureau and it's staff, I wish to
thank you and your team for it's cooperation and patience.
~ f you have any questions or need further assistance, please
contact me again.
Sincerely,
REVIEW OF DRAFT AUDITOR'S REPORT
OF HIGHWAY PATROL BUREAU
FINDING # 1 - NUT1 POLICE ALLOCATION MODEL
A review o f the r e p o r t shows t h a t it accurately d e t a i l s the current s t a t e of the
deployment o f Highway Patrol Bureau f i e l d personnel. However, we disagree w i t h
the references t o the methods used by C a l i f o r n i a and Washington. C a l i f o r n i a was
rushed i n t o using t h i s formula due t o a mandate from the C a l i f o r n i a Legislature
t o develop a formula t o use i n e s t a b l i s h i n g manpower needs. Washington chose t o
go d i r e c t l y t o s t r i c t " top down" management involvement without f i r s t estab-l
i s h i n g the v a l i d i t y o f t h e i r decision- making process.
The Highway Patrol Bureau has e s t a b l i s h e d a c o r n i t t e e o f l i n e and s t a f f person-nel
t o coordinate the implementation o f the Police A l l o c a t i o n Model ( PAM) deve-loped
by Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y ' s T r a f f i c I n s t i t u t e ( NUTI).
The PAM c o r n i t t e e ' s primary o b j e c t i v e i s t o determine the p u b l i c ' s demand f o r
service i n each demographic p a t r o l area and e s t a b l i s h the manpower needs f o r
each area. This i s being accomplished by the c o l l e c t i o n o f s t a t i s t i c a l data
( PDEP system) and evaluating i n p u t from a l l autonomous p a t r o l areas consisting
o f small geograpahic areas - t o d i s t r i c t s - t o d i v i s i o n s , w i t h i n the Bureau.
Upon review o f t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e comnand s t a f f o f the Bureau w i l l e s t a b l i s h
p o l i c y decisions t o standardize ( 1) p a t r o l i n t e r v a l s t h a t w i l l meet the needs o f
the motoring p u b l i c i n each demographic p a t r o l area and ( 2) e s t a b l i s h an average
known response time f o r c a l l s f o r service w i t h i n these defined areas.
The Bureau has recognized t h a t t h e c u r r e n t Personnel Depl oyment Sys tem ( PDEP)
does not capture a l l the required data t o work the PAM i n an accurate manner.
An improvement has already been implemented, allowing f o r t h e tracking o f s e l f -
i n i t i a t e d time. The PAM comnittee i s continuing t o work w i t h technical support
personnel from Data Processing i n the development o f a new deployment system
which wi 11 meet a1 1 the needs o f the Bureau i n the accurate deployment o f i t s
o f f i c e r s and f i e l d support s t a f f by the u t i l i z a t i o n o f the PAM.
These actions w i l l enhance the Bureau's a b i l i t y t o b e t t e r c a l c u l a t e and deploy
i t s manpower.
FINDING # 2 - PERSONNEL DEPLOYMENT SYSTEM ( PDEP)
The Bureau agrees w i t h the statements regarding PDEP. However, t h e r e p o r t s
suggest s e l f - i n i t i a t e d a c t i v l t y produced by p a t r o l o f f i c e r s should be a d i r e c t
l i n k t o the Bureau's a c c i d e n t r e d u c t i o n goal. This i s but one way t o address
t h i s need. Others include DUI checkpoints, v i s i b i l i t y , V i o l a t o r Directed
P a t r o l , and education o f the motoring p u b l i c through the media and the
Department's Public A f f a i r s & Comnunity Education Program ( PACE).
PDEP, as c u r r e n t l y used, f a l l s short o f the Bureau's need t o c o l l e c t correct
s t a t i s t i c a l information f o r funding and s t a f f i n g requirements. To c o r r e c t t h i s
shortcoming, a minor c o r r e c t i o n which tracks a d d i t i o n a l items and hours dealing
w i t h s e l f - i n i t i a t e d a c t i v i t y and t h e r e c o r d i n g o f supervisor time separate from
o f f i c e r time was implemented June 1, 1991. Training i s c u r r e n t l y scheduled f o r
Page 2
June 21, 1991
REVIEW OF DRAFT AUDITOR'S REPORT
a1 1 bureau supervisors i n the proper use o f PDEP and should be completed by
October 1991. This i n s t r u c t i o n wi 11 define the use o f the improved PDEP
A c t i v i t y Code Manual and t h e r e v i s e d Highway Patrol Bureau Time and A c t i v i t y
Report ( Weekly).
As designed, PDEP has several l i m i t a t i o n s which l i m i t the Bureau's a b i l i t y to
i d e n t i f y s t a f f i n g requirements. To correct these issues, the Bureau PDEP com-mittee
has been coupled w i t h the PAM c o n i t t e e . They continue t o work with Data
Processing i n the redesign o f Phase I and I 1 o f PDEP t o enhance the system's
a b i l i t y t o track the needed information i n a s i m p l i f i e d n u s e r - f r i e n d l y ' t manner
and the implementation o f Phase 111. The a p p l i c a t i o n o f PDEP Phase I11 would
0
g r e a t l y enhance the Bureau's a b i l i t y t o use the PAM by showing l o c a t i o n o f
enforcement data.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION - ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION SECTION
The r e p o r t accurately d e t a i l s the current s t a t e o f accident i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n the
Highway Patrol Bureau.
The comnittee mentioned i n the report i s c u r r e n t l y f i n i s h i n g i t s second d r a f t of
a comprehensive Accident I n v e s t i g a t i o n P o l i c y Manual. The manual w i l l address
a l l areas d e t a i l e d i n the Auditor General ' s report, s e t t i n g parameters on
i n v e s t i g a t i v e d e t a i l , report format and reducing time spent on minor accident
a
r e p o r t i n g t i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Although some d i s c r e t i o n w i l l be retained by i n v e s t i -
gators and conanders, it w i l l be l i m i t e d by the s e t t i n g o f standards f o r each
r e p o r t i n g level.