Performance audit, Department of Public Safety, Administration Bureau and Office of the Director

              DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
ADMINISTRATION BUREAU AND
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
Report to the Arizona Legislature
By the Auditor General
September 1991
91- 11
DOUGLAS R. NORTON, CPA
AUDiTOR CENERAL
STATE OF ARIZONA
OFFICE OF THE
AUDITOR GENERAL
September 26, 1991
Members of the Arizona Legislature
The Honorable F i f e Symington, Governor
Colonel F. J. " Rickn Ayars, Director
Department of Public Safety
Transmitted herewith i s a report of the Auditor General, A Performance Audit
of the Department of Public Safety, Administration Bureau and Office of the
Director. 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 $ 541- 2351 through
41 - 2379.
This report i s the last in a series of four reports issued on the Department
of Public Safety. This report addresses several issues relating to DPS's
management of i t s vehicle f l e e t . We found DPS should: revoke vehicle
take- home privileges for at least 250 employees; eliminate at least 211
unnecessary vehicles from i t s f l e e t ; improve i t s compliance regarding the
marking of 481 of i t s vehicles; and i n s t a l l a computerized system to improve
controls over fuel. We also found that DPS needs to revise i t s process for
allocating Criminal Justice Enhancement Funds to ensure objectively and
fai rness.
My s t a f f 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 September 27, 1991.
Sincerely,
fi
D d u d s R. Norton -
Auditor General
DRN : l mn
2700 NOR'TH CENTRAL AVENUE ' SUITE 7 0 0 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85004 ' ( 602) 255- 4385 . FAX ( 602) 255- 1 251
SUMMARY
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit of
the Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS), Administration Bureau and
Office of the Director, pursuant to a June 14, 1989, resolution of the
Joint Legislative Oversight Committee. This performance audit was
conducted as part of the Sunset Review set forth in Arizona Revised
Statutes ( A. R. S.) $ 941- 2351 through 41- 2379.
This audit reviewed the functions performed by the Administration Bureau
and the O f f i c e o f the Director. The Administration Bureau is responsible
for providing centralized services including human resources, basic
o f f i c e r and advanced t r a i n i n g , p o l i c y development, vehicle and f a c i l i t y
maintenance, and financial management. The Bureau i s comprised of six
divisions: Management Services, Logistics, Advanced Training, F a c i l i t i e s
Management, Arizona Law Enforcement Training Academy, and Finance. The
O f f i c e o f the Director provides management support, executive security,
and fiscal management. For fiscal year 1991- 92, the Bureau and Office of
the Director are authorized 211.3 full- time employees ( FTEs) and a budget
of $ 17,467,500.
DPS Should Review Its Vehicle Take- home Policy
For All Ernplovees. In Addition. DPS Should
Eliminate Unnecessary Vehicles From
It Fleet. ( see pages 5 through 14)
DPS phi losophy provides for every sworn o f f i c e r and certain c i v i l ians to
have a take- home vehicle, even i f the o f f i c e r ' s job i s administrative.
Our analysis found 250 employees who did not need take- home vehicles
because they rarely used their vehicles for job- related purposes. Rather,
their vehicles, which are purchased, maintained, and fueled by DPS, and
insured by the State, are used largely for commuting to work. We found
that for 217 of these vehicles, commuting miles represented an average of
53 percent of the t o t a l miles driven. Some vehicles also showed very low
work miles, 53 vehicles were driven less than 200 work- related miles per
month. DPS's j u s t i f i c a t i o n for some of i t s take- home vehicles is that
sworn o f f i c e r s are on 24- hour emergency c a l l ; however, 115 of the 206
employees we interviewed estimated that they had been called out only
once per month - or less and some did not remember being called out to
respond to an emergency.
In addition to eliminating take- home privileges for many employees, DPS
should also eliminate 211 vehicles from its fleet.(') Currently, DPS
owns a fleet of 1,670 vehicles(') for use by its 1,617 employees. Our
examination showed that the Department could eliminate 87 vehicles
completely because they are not needed for job- related functions. As an
example, there are 46 vehicles assigned to pilots and paramedics within
the Aviation Division who have virtually no job- related use for a
vehicle, as their primary responsibilities involve aircraft missions.
Another 124 vehicles could be eliminated by increased pooling in certain
areas within the Department. Furthermore, DPS should consider purchasing
smaller, less costly, and more fuel- efficient vehicles for some purposes.
DPS Vehicles Are
lnawropriatelv Marked ( see pages 15 through 19)
DPS has 481 vehicles which should be marked or marked more clearly.
Specifically, many of the 171 unmarked, non- undercover vehicles may not
need to be unmarked, because staff assigned such vehicles seem to have
little need for an unmarked car. Some of these vehicles are used for
travelling to teaching assignments, court appearances, and meetings with
other law enforcement agencies and groups. According to the Director's
office, some are unmarked because DPS and other law enforcement agencies
have historically provided unmarked cars to command staff ( Lieutenants
and above). This practice, however, does not seem to be provided for by
law. In addition, 310 administrative vehicles are inadequately marked.
These vehicles either have no markings on the vehicle body, or tinted
windows reduce the visibility of identifying decals attached to the
w i ndows .
( 1) Some of the 211 vehicles which should be eliminated are the same vehicles i d e n t i f i e d
i n our analysis of the 250 vehicles which should have take- home status eliminated.
( 2) DPS's f l e e t consists of 1,216 cars, 298 trucks, 66 motorcycles, and 90 specialty
vehicles and equipment such as t r a i l e r s , snownobiles, fork1 i f t s , and a l l - t e r r a i n
vehicles .
DPS should begin complying with State laws which require specific
markings be placed on each side of the body of State- owned vehicles. DPS
could request exemption for specific vehicles by applying annually to the
Governor ( A. R. S. 528- 1443). Over recent years, DPS has not sought an
exemption as o f f i c i a l s believed a 1987 l e t t e r from a former Governor
delegated t h i s decision to the Department. However, under current law,
such a decision can not be delegated.
The Department Should Revise Its Process
for Allocatin~ Criminal Justice Enhancement Funds
to Ensure Obiectivity and Fairness ( see pages 21 through 26)
DPS should take steps to ensure that a f a i r and objective system exists
for d i s t r i b u t i n g Criminal Justice Enhancement Funds ( CJEF). DPS
allocates CJEF funds i t receives to i t s e l f and other State and local law
enforcement authorities for s t a t u t o r i l y defined purposes. During fiscal
year 1990- 91, DPS received approximately $ 1.7 m i l l ion for d i s t r i b u t i o n .
However, DPS's current system for allocating t h i s money does not appear
to be free of bias, and creates, at a minimum, the appearance of a less
than objective administration of these funds. Some DPS projects which
have been funded appear to be only i n d i r e c t l y related to the purposes
outlined in statute f o r the use of CJEF monies. As an example, DPS
recently awarded i t s e l f $ 250,000 for the purchase of mobile d i g i t a l
terminals ( IJIDT) and related equipment for Highway Patrol vehicles. DPS
stated the purpose of the project was to " reduce street crime," which i s
one of the s t a t u t o r i l y mandated uses of CJEF funds. The Highway Patrol,
however, i s primarily involved i n t r a f f i c enforcement and accident
investigation, and we could find no j u s t i f i c a t i o n i n the project f i l e as
to how the MDTs were to be used to reduce street crime. Furthermore,
whi le DPS funded i t s MDT project, i t awarded other law enforcement
agenc i es , i nc I ud i ng the South Tucson Po l i ce Department and Yavapa i County
Sheriff, less than requested for their projects. Examples of projects
not funded included patrol and undercover vehicles and overtime pay for
o f f i c e r s , projects appearing to be more d i r e c t l y related to the statutory
goals for use of CJEF money than the DPS MDT project.
Several p o s s i b i l i t i e s exist for improving the allocation process, both in
practice and appearance. One such alternative would be for DPS to use a
panel to review requests for CJEF funding.
DPS Needs Better Control
Over Vehicle Fuel ( see pages 27 through 30)
DPSfs current fuel tracking system does not provide for adequate record
keeping and reporting of fuel dispensed from i ts pumps. The current
system i s error- prone and results in unreliable management information.
I n s t a l l i n g a computerized system at an estimated cost of approximately
$ 46,000 to $ 276,000 ( depending on the number of fuel sites automated)
would increase control over fuel use, improve record keeping, and provide
more accurate information for management decisions.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pane
lNTROWCTlON AND BAmm. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FINDING I: DPS W U I REVIEW ITS VEHICLE TAKE- HOUE
POLICY FOR ALL EUPLOYEES. IN ADDITION,
DPS SHOUU) ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY
VEHICLES FROU ITS FLEET. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DPS Should Eliminate
Vehicles for Commuting Purposes. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DPS Should Reduce the
Total S i z e o f I t s Fleet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DPS Lacks Central Oversight
of I t s Vehicle Fleet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING II: DPS VEHICLES ARE
l NAPPROPR l ATELY W E D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DPS Has Many
UnmarkedVehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Many of DPS's Marking
Practices Cannot Be J u s t i f i e d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DPS Shou l d Comply
w i t h A r i z o n a L a w . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
FINDING Ill: THE DEPARTUEKT SHOULD REVISE
ITS PROCESS K) R ALLOCATING CRIMINAL JUSTICE
ENHANCEllPENT FUNDS TO ENSORE OSJECTIVITY
AM) FAIRNESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1
DPS Rece i ves and A l locates
CJEF Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1
Fairness and Objectivity Not
Ensured with Current
AllocationProcess . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Allocating Process
Should BeRevised. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
TABLE OF CONTENTS ( Con t )
FINDING IV: DPS NEEDS BETTER CONTROL
OVER VEHICLE FUEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
DPS's System for Recording
Fuel Use Is Inadequate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Automated Systems
AreAvailable. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
OTHER PERT l NENT I NFOWAT I ON. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AREA FOR FURTHER AUDIT WK. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SUNSETFACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
AGENCY RESPONSE
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 Administration Bureau and Director's Office
Statement of FTEs and Actual and
Approved Expenditures
Fiscal Years 1989- 90, 1990- 91, and 1991- 92
( Unaud i t ed ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 2 DPS Vehicle Fleet. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 3 DPSVehicle Markings . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 4 Cost Of Automated Fuel Systems . . . . . . . . .
TABLE 5 Department of Public Safety
RlCO and Federal Shared Assets
Receipts and Expenditures
F i sca l Years 1988- 89, 1989- 90,
and 1990- 91 ( Unaudited). . . . . . . . . . . . .
INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The Office of the Auditor General has conducted a performance audit o f
the Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS), Administration Bureau and
Office of the Director, 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.) 5541- 2351 through 41- 2379.
Backuround
The Department of Public Safety was established 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 o f the Arizona Department of Law.
Currently, DPS i s organized into f i v e Bureaus: Criminal Investigation,
Highway Patrol, Administration, Telecommunications, and Criminal Justice
Support . The Depar tment employs 1,617 fu l I- t ime employees ( FTEs) and has
an annual budget of approximately $ 87.9 mi l lion.
Administration Bureau Provides
Vehicles, Trainina, And Other
Administrative S u ~ ~ oTrot Bureaus
The Administration Bureau i s responsible for providing centralized
services which include supplies, human resources, basic o f f i c e r training,
advanced training, legal assistance, policy development and research,
maintenance of vehicles and f a c i l i t i e s , building security, and financial
management. Administered by the Assistant Director for Administration,
the Bureau i s composed o f s i x divisions: Management Services, Logistics,
Advanced Training, F a c i l i t i e s Management, Arizona Law Enforcement
Training Academy, and Finance. The s t a f f i n g levels and responsibilities
of each d i v i s i o n are as follows:
Manaqernent Services i s authorized 36 FTEs. The Division includes
three sections. The Human Resources Section i s responsible for
personnel services including the h i r i n g of both sworn and c i v i l i a n
personnel, administering the benefits program, and maintaining
personnel records. The Information Analysis Section prepares
numerous publications which include Department policies and
procedures , as we l l as manua I s , handbooks, i n fo rma t i on bu l l e t i ns ,
directories, and the annual report. The Legal Section provides
advisory support to management by researching laws and legal
precedents which may affect the Department.
Logistics i s authorized : 4 FTEs. This Division includes three
sect i ons-- F I ee t Manageme- ': , Supp I y , and Safety and Loss Con t ro l--
which are responsible for the purchase, maintenance, and repair of
vehicles, the stocking of supplies, the coordination of health and
safety programs, and the reduction of Department property losses.
Advanced Training i s authorized 26 FTES.(') The Division has three
sect ions. Project DARE ( Drug Abuse Resistance Educat ion) provides a
substance abuse program for children. Operational Training is
responsible for providing operational and specialty training,
repairing and maintaining weapons, preparing training publications,
and providing video services. The Administrative Support Section
provides mail services, maintains training records, and provides
l i b r a r y services.
Facilities Manaqernent is authorized 41 FTEs. The Division has three
sections. Planning and Construction develops and coordinates
projects from design through construction. Administration manages
leases, purchases property and materials, and supervises
custodial/ landscaping and security functions statewide. Maintenance
provides both preventative and corrective maintenance for DPS
f a c i l i t i e s .
Arizona Law Enforcement Trainina Acadernv ( ALETAI i s authorized 6
F T E S . ( ~ ) ALETA was established in 1981 as a multiagency training
f a c i l i t y conducting basic law enforcement training for approximately
12G agencies. ALETA i s responsible for providing training for
Arizona peace o f f i c e r s at the state, county, and local levels.
Finance Division i s authorized 18 FTEs. The Finance Division has two
sections-- General Accounting and Accounts Payable-- which are
respons'ble for the Department's payrol I, purchasing, and accounting
service:.
In addition to Division s t a f f , the Bureau has four administrative s t a f f
positions: Assistant Director, Chief of S t a f f , Executive Secretary, and
Administrative Services Officer.
Director's Office Provides
Other Central Functions
The D i r e c t o r ' s O f f i c e was also reviewed as part of t h i s audit as i t s FIE
and budget are included within the Administration Bureau's appropriation.
( 1 ) I n addition to the 26 FTEs, Advanced Training has two Arizona Law Enforcement O f f i c e r
0
Advisory Council ( ALEOAC) funded positions and four Drug Abuse Resistance Education
( DARE) funded posi ti ons.
( 2) I n addition to the six FTEs, ALETA has an additional 12 ALEOAC funded FTEs.
The Director's Office is allocated 44 FTEs. Centralized a c t i v i t i e s
carried out by the Director's Office personnel include management
support, executive security, and fiscal management. The Director's
Office also houses the Governor's Office of Highway Safety and the Law
Enforcement Merit System Counci l ( LEMSC).
Budqet And Staffinq
Currently, the Administration Bureau and Director's Office are authorized
211.3 FTES(') and a General Fund budget of approximately $ 17.5 m i l l i o n .
Table 1 presents further information on expenditures.
TABLE I
ADMINISTRATION BUREAU AND DIRECTOR'S OFFICE
STATEMENT OF FTES AND ACTUAL AND
APPROVED EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1989- 90, 1990- 91 AND 1991- 92
( Unaudited)
1989- 90 1990- 91 1991- 92
( Actual 1 ( Actual 1 ( ADD roved 1
FTE Positions 213 213 211.3
Ex~ endtiu res
Personal services $ 6,851,694 $ 7,054,755 $ 6,995,600
Employee- related 1,171,180 1,372,438 1,222,500
Professional and
outside services 154,691 196,529 118,300
Travel, in- state 67,696 68,902 84,000
Travel, out- of- state 38,375 47,915 39,100
Capital outlay 172,904 154,791 2,500
Other operating expenses 10.209.813 9,885.682 9,005.500
TOTAL $ 18.666.353 $ 18,781,012 $ 17,467,500
Sources: Arizona Financial Information System reports for Fiscal Years
1989- 90 and 1990- 91; and the State of Arizona Appropriations
Report for the Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 1992.
( 1 ) Although DPS i s authorized 211.3 FTEs f o r the Administration Bureau and Director's
Office, according to DPS, two FTEs were moved to the Telecomnunications Bureau to
support f i e l d operations.
Audit Scope
Our report presents findings and recommendations in four areas:
F l eet take- home pol icy and size
Use of unmarked vehicles
Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund allocation process
Fuel management system adequacy
The report also presents other pertinent information on the need for more
controls over special funds, the p o s s i b i l i t y of DPS obtaining more
Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations ( RICO) funds, and the need
for DPS to develop training policies and to improve training records for
i t s sworn o f f i c e r s ( see pages 31 through 40). In addition, the cost
effectiveness of using sworn o f f i c e r s rather than c i v i l i a n employees in
certain positions i s questioned in the Area For Further Audit Work
section o f t h i s report ( see pages 41 through 42). Further, the report
contains a response to the twelve sunset factors ( see pages 43 through
53).
The audit was conducted in accordance with government auditing standards.
The Auditor General and s t a f f express appreciation to the Director of the
Arizona Department of Public Safety, and the Assistant Director and s t a f f
of the Administration Bureau for their cooperation and assistance during
the audit.
FINDING I
DPS SHOULD REVIEW ITS VEHICLE TAKE- HOME POLICY
FOR ALL EMPLOYEES. IN ADDITION. DPS SHOULD
ELIMINATE UNNECESSARY VEHICLES FROM ITS FLEET.
DPS should review i t s take- home policy for a l l employees; further, DPS
should eliminate unnecessary vehicles from i t s f l e e t . DPS provides
take- home vehicles for numerous employees who do not need commuter
vehicles. In addition, DPS has more cars, trucks, and motorcycles than
i t needs. The Department should improve oversight of i t s vehicle fleet
to ensure i t s fleet is e f f e c t i v e l y used.
DPS owns a f l e e t o f 1,670 vehicles. By comparison, the Department i s
authorized only 1,617 employees for fiscal year 1991- 92. In addition to
the familiar Highway Patrol cruisers used for t r a f f i c enforcement
throughout the State, DPS owns a variety of other vehicles including
passenger vehicles used by administrative and support personnel,
undercover vehicles, and trucks equipped with tools for repairing
buildings and radio towers. DPS also owns 90 specialty vehicles such as
t r a i lers, snowmobi les and f o r k l i f t s . Table 2, page 6, i l l u s t r a t e s the
components of the DPS f l e e t .
We considered several factors in evaluating each vehicle. To obtain the
necessary information, we interviewed individual users, unit supervisors,
and the employees who administer the vehicles assigned to each d i s t r i c t
or u n i t o f the Department. In addition, we examined Department records
showing the miles driven per month for each vehicle('), and monitored
vehicles i n three DPS parking lots.
( 1) During our review of fuel use, we found DPS's record keeping system allowed errors to
occur. Some of the errors could have impacted mileage information recorded on DPS's
Fleet Management System.
TABLE 2
DPS VEHICLE FLEET
Bu r eau
Total Yotor- Equip-
FTEs Vehicles Cars Trucks cycles ment
Director's Office 44 68 66 2 0 0
Criminal Investigation 25 1 287 1 94 88 0 5
Highway Patrol 7 19 922 740 80 66 36
Administration 165 177 100 56 0 2 1
Criminal Justice
Suppo r t 156 132 95 26 0 11
Telecommunications - 282 - 84 - 21 - 46 - 0 - 17
Total 1.617 1.670 1,216 2- 98 - 66 - 98
Source: Auditor General Analysis of DPS Fleet Management System
informat ion provided by DPS Data Processing on Apr i l 16, 1991,
adjusted for changes noted during auditors' interviews with
individuals responsible for vehicles. The FTE figures were
obtained from DPS1s Comptroller.
DPS Should Eliminate Vehicles
for Commutina Pumoses
Two hundred f i f t y DPS employees who do not need take- home vehicles
currently commute to work in vehicles which are purchased, maintained.
and fueled by DPS, and insured by the state.(') These employees have
l i t t l e job- related use for their assigned vehicles and are rarely cal led
out to respond to emergencies, which is DPS's primary j u s t i f i c a t i o n for
take- home status. Our findings are consistent with two previous studies,
including one conducted by DPS management, which reported the need for
DPS to reduce take- home privileges. Finally, DPS i s not reporting i t s
take- home vehicles assigned to c i v i l i a n s as an employee benefit, even
though required to do so by Federal law.
The Department currently classifies 1,059 vehicles as take- home. DPS
philosophy allows for every sworn o f f i c e r to be assigned a take- home
vehicle, even i f the o f f i c e r ' s job i s purely administrative-- e. g., grants
administration-- and does not entail any law enforcement work. In a l l ,
( 1 ) According to the American Automobile Association, i t now costs an average of $ 5,535
per year to own and operate a new car.
965 sworn o f f i c e r s have assigned take- home vehicles. Further, the
Department ass i gns 77 c i v i l i an emp l oyees take- home veh i c l es . ( ' )
To review the appropriateness of take- home vehicle assignments, several
factors were considered. The j u s t i f i c a t i o n for each take- home vehicle
was evaluated in l i g h t of the elements l i s t e d below.
Factors Considered in Evaluating
Need for Take- Home Vehicles
Is the vehicle assigned to a Highway Patrol Officer whose primary job
i s to patrol roadways, beginning at the time the o f f i c e r leaves his
or her home?
i s the vehicle assigned to a Criminal Investigations Bureau Officer
or Sergeant whose primary job is t o a c t i v e l y investigate crimes and
make arrests?
Must the employee report d i r e c t l y to the scene of emergencies as part
o f h i s or her job?
@ How frequently i s the employee required to respond to an emergency
during off- duty hours?
@ Could the employee's unit rotate on- call status to reduce the number
of vehicles taken home each night?
Many vehicles are primarily used far comnuting - Many employees with
take- home vehicles rarely use their vehicles for any job- related purpose
other than commuting. We compared commuting miles to total miles driven
for 217 take- home vehicles,( 2) and found that commuting miles represented
53 percent of the t o t a l miles driven. Some vehicles showed very low work
mileage: 53 of the vehicles were driven less than 200 miles per month
once commuting was excluded.
( 1) I n addition, 17 other vehicles are c l a s s i f i e d as take- home status. DPS assigns a
take- home vehicle to the Governor and to two reserve o f f i c e r s . At the time of the
audit, DPS had nine vehicles c l a s s i f i e d as take- home but assigned to vacant positions
or i n use as " swing" vehicles, and f i v e c l a s s i f i e d as take- home which were i n
t r a n s i t i o n or were disposed of during the audit.
( 2) Comnuting miles do not include other personal use of vehicles, such as lunch and
errands, which require use of a State car because the employee does not have a
personal car a t the worksi te.
Manv vehicles are rarelv used for call- outs - DPS j u s t i f i e s providing
take- home vehicles for a l l sworn o f f i c e r s by maintaining that i t provides
an increased capability to respond to major incidences. In p a r t i c u l a r ,
they suggest that no one can predict when a castastrophic incident ( such
as a nuclear plant f a i l u r e or major dam collapse) might occur or how
extensive the required response might be. We disagree with the extent of
the DPS approach on t h i s issue because while there are no l i m i t s as to
what can be imagined miaht happen, State resources are limited.
DPS also j u s t i f i e s many of i t s take- home vehicles by stating that they
are assigned t o o f f i c e r s who are on 24- hour c a l l . However, of 206
employees interviewed ( both c i v i l ian and o f f i c e r s ) ( ' ) , 115 had been
called out only once per month or less-- some had never been called
out.( 2) Some administrative employees mentioned p a t r o l l i n g metropolitan
freeways in the wake of the recent freeway shooting incidents as a reason
for needing a take- home vehicle. However, t h i s work was scheduled in
advance and entailed borrowing marked patrol cars, as the cars assigned
to administrative employees are not marked for enforcement work.
Further, many of the jobs which do require call- outs could have take- home
vehicles rotated. In some DPS units, such as Special Investigations,
Internal A f f a i r s , and Executive Security, after- hours call- outs happen
periodically. However, the Department policy of assigning a take- home
vehicle to every member of these units is excessive. When an incident
occurs during off- duty hours, not a l l members of the unit are called out;
the unit commander c a l l s only as many as the situation requires. These
( 1) Auditors obtained information on every vehicle i n DPS1s inventory by interviewing 46
D i s t r i c t Vehicle Administrators ( s t a f f responsible f o r vehicles assigned to DPS
organizational u n i t s ) and 39 representatives of employee groups w i t h s i m i l a r uses for
vehicles. A f t e r these interviews, most take- home vehicles could be c l a s s i f i e d as
e i t h e r c l e a r l y appropriate or c l e a r l y inappropriate f o r take- home use, but auditors
had f u r t h e r questions about 240 take- home vehicles. O f the individuals assigned to
these 240 vehicles. auditors were able to contact and interview 206.
( 2) DPS c a l l s employees out a f t e r regular duty hours t o perform a v a r i e t y of functions.
These include photographing accident scenes, re1 easi ng " flash money" f o r drug
operations, i n v e s t i g a t i n g school bus accidents, and providing requi red supervising
authority f o r certain actions.
units could assign a limited number of people to on- cal l status, rotating
the assignment weekly or monthly and allowing only the people on c a l l to
take vehicles home. I f a major incident requiring fuI I mobi Iization
occurred, the other members of the unit could pick up additional vehicles
a t t h e i r duty stations.
Previous studies confirmed our results - Two previous studies reported
results simi lar to our. investigation. In 1987, the Governor requested
agencies to ident i fy and reclassi fy take- home vehicles which did not need
to be taken home. DPS management responded to the request by el i m i nat i ng
take- home status for 274 vehicles. However, 197 of the positions which
lost take- home vehicles in 1987 had regained them by 1991. Only 49 of
the 274 jobs s t i l l lack a take- home vehicle. The remaining 28 positions
have been changed or eliminated since 1987, or were vacant at the time of
the aud i t . DPS management was unab l e to exp l ai n how, when, or why the
decision was made to reinstate take- home use of the 197 vehicles.
A 1988 report by Arthur Young & Company suggested reevaluating DPS
policies and eliminating take- home privileges for 540 positions. The
report said Highway Patrol and Criminal Investigation o f f i c e r s not
stationed at remote duty posts could report to a central location to pick
up a vehicle before beginning work, instead of reporting on duty by radio
and proceeding d i r e c t l y to the highway or other work location. These
reccmendations were never implemented by DPS.
DPS needs to f u l f i l l IRS reauirements for take- home vehicles assianed to
c i v i l i a n s - In addition to reducing the number of take- home vehicles, DPS
needs to begin to comply with Federal law that requires the reporting of
take- home vehicles as an employee benefit f o r c i v i l i a n s . The Internal
Revenue Service requires employers providing take- home vehicles to report
an employee benefit at the rate o f $ 3 for each round t r i p to and from
home.(') Under the law, employers must either withhold extra taxes from
( 1) I R S exempts some vehicles from t h i s reporting requirement including marked pickups and
vans which have been modified i n specific ways f o r work purposes. Some DPS c i v i l i a n
employees with take- home vehicles qua1 i f y f o r t h i s exemption.
the employee's paycheck or n o t i f y the employee that they w i l l not
increase the withholding. Whether or not withholdings are increased, the
benefit must s t i l l be reported on the employee's W- 2 form.
Alternatively, IRS allows the employee to pay the employer $ 3 per round
t r i p for using the vehicle in order to avoid any reportable benefit.
Although IRS excludes law enforcement o f f i c e r s from this requirement, and
has not provided clear guidance on sworn personnel whose jobs are
administrative in nature, the c i v i l i a n employees should comply with IRS
requirements. DPS has never reported any employee benefits for take- home
vehicles.
DPS Should Reduce the
Total Size of Its Fleet
DPS should eliminate 211 vehicles from i t s f l e e t . Our examination of
several factors showed that the Department could eliminate vehicles
completely for some s t a f f positions and increase pooling. In addition to
reducing the number of vehicles in the f l e e t , DPS could join other State
agencies i n beginning to use more fuel- efficient and less costly vehicles
for some purposes.
DPS assigns vehicles to individuals and organizational units. In
addition to take- home vehicles, DPS assigns vehicles to some individuals
for their use during duty hours. The Department also assigns some pool
vehicles to various organizational units, which may be used by employees
who do not have individually assigned vehicles. In addition, the
Highway Patrol and Criminal Investigation Bureaus have " swing" vehicles
which may be used by employees whose individually assigned vehicles are
i n the repair shop.
Similar to our evaluation of DPS's need for take- home vehicles, we
considered several factors when examining the need t o r e t a i n each vehicle
in the Department's f l e e t :
Factors Considered in Evaluating
Overall Need for Vehicl-
I f the vehicle i s assigned to an individual, i s i t driven at least
1,000 mi les per month for Department purposes ( other than comnut ing)?
Is a vehicle necessary for the performance of the assignee's job?
I f the veh i c'le i s assigned to a pool to be shared by a spec i f i c DPS
u n i t , i s i t driven at least 1,000 miles per month for Department
purposes?
Is thevehicle specially equipped for a specificDepartment purpose?
I f the vehicle i s kept as a " swing" vehicle to replace essential DPS
vehicles that are down for repairs, i s i t driven at least 500 miles
per month?
These factors were developed based on interviews with other fleet
managers and on our knowledge of the Department. The Arizona Deparhent
of Administration ( DOA) charges an underutilization fee to State agencies
that use motor pool vehicles less than 1,000 miles per month. This
standard was applied to most DPS vehicles; although i f a vehicle met anv
of the factors i d e n t i f i e d above, i t was accepted as j u s t i f i e d . For
example, because swing vehicles are kept as replacements for vehicles
that are in the shop, a cutoff of only 500 miles was used. Further, some
vehicles have special uses j u s t i f y i n g their retention, such as the motor
homes used at drunk driver checkpoints; therefore, a mileage c r i t e r i a
does not apply.
DPS can reduce or eliminate many vehicles - We recommend reductions or
eliminations in several areas. For example:
o P i l o t s and paramedics within the Aviation Division of the Criminal
Justice Support Bureau have v i r t u a l l y no job- related use for a
vehicle since their primary responsibilities involve a i r c r a f t
missions. The 46 vehicles, assigned to these personnel on a
take- home basis, should be eliminated from the f l e e t .
Administrative Sergeants work at d i s t r i c t o f f i c e s or Department
headquarters where swing vehicles are located. Their duties are
primarily administrative. They should use swing vehicles when needed
for d a i l y errands, and should take a vehicle home only when serving
as Acting Comnanders in the absence of their supervisors.
Staff at the Arizona Law Enforcement Training Academy ( ALETA) in
Tucson sometimes need access to vehicles to travel from the Academy
to the f i r i n g range and driving tracks. However, i f commuting use of
ALETA's 23 take- home vehicles i s eliminated, a pool of 11 vehicles
should s a t i s f y ALETA1s business travel needs. In addition to these
s t a f f vehicles, ALETA has a f l e e t of 33 vehicles f o r d r i v e r t r a i n i n g
classes, which appears acceptable based on the estimated average
class size.
Altogether, we i d e n t i f i e d 211 vehicles that could be eliminated from
DPS's f l e e t :
87 vehicles can be eliminated e n t i r e l y , without adding any pool
vehicles to compensate for them. These include the vehicles assigned
to p i l o t s , paramedics, and administrative sergeants, plus several
vehicles with monthly u t i l i z a t i o n s under 100 miles per month.
124 vehicles can be eliminated by increasing the amount of sharing.
We i d e n t i f i e d 246 vehicles, currently assigned to individuals and
units throughout the Department, that are underutilized although the
assignees do need access to vehicles. By assigning 122 vehicles to
pools, DPS can meet the needs currently met by the 246 vehicles.
DPS may have additional vehicles that could be eliminated or reclassified
as non- take- home which were not i d e n t i f i e d because the analysis did not
address :
Whether Highway Patrol vehicles should be assigned to road o f f i c e r s
on a take- home basis. Two neighboring states, California and
Colorado, share such vehicles between o f f i c e r s .
Whether the Criminal Investigation Bureau should assign vehicles to
every o f f i c e r and sergeant to use for law enforcement work conducted
by members of the street squad, gang u n i t , narcotics units, and
similar groups.
Whether vacant F - : i t i o n s within the Department would be f i l l e d . For
purposes of the ~ n a l y s i s , i f a vehicle was assigned to a vacant
position, the venicle was evaluated as i f the position i t was
assigned to was f i l l e d .
Whether DPS employees can make greater use of personal cars for
conducting Department business. Other state agencies routinely
require employees to use their own vehicles for State business and
obtain reimbursement for miles traveled.
Further, the Department was provided a number of pool vehicles to replace
el iminated vehicles.(')
( 1) For several small groups within DPS, we divided each group's current average monthly
business miles by 1,000 ( 500 for swing vehicles) to determine the number of vehicles
needed i n a dedicated pool. If the result showed a fraction of a vehicle ( e . g . ,
Advanced Training's 5,233 business miles would require 5.233 vehicles), we dropped the
fraction from the dedicated pool, and added a l l the fractions together to determine
the number of extra vehicles the Department would need to make available at a central
1 ocati on.
% me areas could use smaller vehicles - In addition to reducing the
number of vehicles in i t s f l e e t , DPS should consider purchasing smaller,
less costly, and more fuel- efficient vehicles for some purposes.(')
Legislation enacted during the 1991 Legislative Session
( A. R. S. $ 28- 1591.04) requires the State motor vehicle fleet to begin
buying fuel- efficient vehicles and to convert the State vehicle fleet to
alternative fuel use. Although DPS is excluded from this new law, the
Department could take steps in the same direction. When surveyed, some
DPS employees indicated that their duties could be accomplished using
smaller, more fuel- efficient vehicles. For example,
Internal A f f a i r s s t a f f drive Crown Victorias, f u l l - s i z e cars equipped
with special police engines, which obtain 15 miles per gallon
according to EPA estimates. Although they travel statewide, most do
not carry special equipment or conduct high- speed pursuits, so they
could use smaller cars. The Cavalier, a four- door compact car
frequently used by the State motor pool, has an EPA estimate of 29
m i les per gal Ion, and costs $ 8,185 compared to approximately $ 14,000
for a Crown Victoria.
DPS Lacks Central Oversiqht
of Its Vehicle Fleet
I f DPS had better central monitoring of i t s vehicle f l e e t , i t could
i dent i fy unneeded take- home ass i gnmen t s and excess i ve veh i c l es . DPS does
not monitor or evaluate i t s need for vehicles on an ongoing basis. The
Department allows each Bureau to purchase i t s own vehicles, and no
central unit monitors usage to ensure the vehicles are f u l l y u t i l i z e d and
proper l y dep l oyed . The F l ee t Management Sect i on keeps computer i zed
records of vehicle assignments, including information on miles driven and
costs of operation, but does not have the authority to question the need
for vehicles or take action on any underuti I ized vehicles. The
Department should delegate responsibility for monitoring f l e e t usage, and
authority f o r reassigning or eliminating unneeded vehicles, to the Fleet
Management Section.
( 1) This recmendation does not apply to a l l DPS u n i t s . Many units do not obtain
vehicles new, but receive used vehicles from Highway Patrol. DPS generally r e t i r e s
vehicles f rm the highway a f t e r approximate1 y 100,000 miles because cruisers used by
patrol o f f i c e r s must be re1 i abl e, capable of a t t a i n i n g high speeds, and comfortable
enough t o work i n a11 day. A1 though n o t s u i t a b l e f o r patrol work, " miled- out1'
cruisers can remain useful f o r many more miles, so they are d i s t r i b u t e d throughout the
Department f o r use u n t i l the cost of maintaining them becomes excessive.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. DPS should. review the vehicle take- home status for a l l of i t s
take- home vehicles. Based on our review, DPS should be able to
revoke take- home p r i v i l e g e s f o r at least 250 employees.
2. DPS's Fleet Management Section should monitor and evaluate the need
for vehicles on an ongoing basis, and examine the potential f o r
pooling or eliminating vehicles which do not meet u t i l i z a t i o n
standards. Based on our analysis, DPS should reduce i t s overall
f l e e t by at least 211 vehicles.
3. DPS should begin reporting benefits for take- home vehicles on
employee tax forms as required by Federal law.
4. DPS should consider fuel efficiency in i t s vehicle procurement
decisions.
FINDING I1
DPS VEHICLES ARE
INAPPROPRIATELY MARKED
DPS does not comply with Arizona laws pertaining to vehicle markings.
Nearly half of the Department's vehicle fleet i s either unmarked or only
p a r t i a l l y marked. The lack of markings appears unjustified in many of
these cases.
DPS Has Many
Unmarked Vehicles
Arizona Revised Statutes require marking a l l State vehicles with the name
of the owner agency and the words '' for o f f i c i a l use only," unless certain
conditions are met. DPS has nearly 500 t o t a l l y unmarked vehicles and
over 300 p a r t i a l l y marked vehicles.
A. R. S. requires markina State vehicles - A. R. S. 528- 1441 requires a l l
motor vehicles owned by the State to be marked, in one- inch- high l e t t e r s ,
with the words " State of Arizona" followed by the name of the Department
or agency. This designation must be placed on each side of the body of
the vehicle. Above t h i s legend, the words " for o f f i c i a l use onlytt must
appear i n l e t t e r s at least one inch high.
A. R. S. 528- 1443 provides an exemption for certain vehicles. The head of
an agency with the power to conduct felony investigations, or other
confident i a i a c t i v i t i e s , may apply to the Governor for an exempt ion for
specific vehicles used in such services. This application must include
the nature of the services and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the vehicle with year,
make, model, and vehicle i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. The Governor may grant
an exemption for a period not to exceed one year.
DPS has many unmarked vehicles - DPS's f l e e t o f 1,670 vehicles includes
vehicles marked in several ways. The Department's General Orders define
seven vehicle types and the markings to be used for each type. Table 3,
page 16 i l l u s t r a t e s the types of markings and the number of vehicles of
each type.
TABLE 3
DPS VEHICLE MARKINGS
Markings Number of
IYW Vehicles Description of Uarkinas
A 416 White cruisers with l i g h t bars on the roof,
seven- point star. on the front doors,, and
reflectorized words " Highway Patrol" across. the
trunk. These have brown State license plates.
B 315 White cruisers s i m i l a r t o the above, but with
lights in the g r i l l e instead of on the roof.
D 171 Unmarked vehicles, not for undercover use. These
have regular maroon license plates which are
registered to the Department, and have no obvious
police i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .
P a r t i a l l y marked vehicles used by administrative
and support personnel. These have brown State
license plates and clear decals in the rear windows
saying in dark letters " State of Arizona Department
of Public Safety, For O f f i c i a l Use Only." There
are no markings on the body of the vehicle.
Unmarked vehicles for undercover use. These have
regular maroon license plates which are registered
under false names.
Specialty vehicles such as motorcycles, snowcats,
and t r a i lers, marked as designated by the
appropriate Department o f f i c i a l .
Marked motorist assist vehicles ( vehicles special ly
equipped to assist motorists experiencing vehicle
problems) w i th roof- mounted I ight bars.
Source: DPS General Order, ho. 72.02, dated May 11, 1990.
Manv Of DPS's Marking
Practices Cannot Be Justified
The Department's marking practices for i t s administrative and command
s t a f f vehicles are inappropriate. Fai lure to mark some vehicles appears
u n j u s t i f i e d , while the markings used on other administrative vehicles do
not appear to meet either the l e t t e r or the intent of the law. Marking
law enforcement vehicles i s important to deter t r a f f i c violations and
detect misuse of vehicles.
Our concern with unmarked vehicles focuses on those vehicles used by the
Department's administrative and command s t a f f . Currently, DPS has over
480 vehicles which are either unmarked or only p a r t i a l l y marked. We do
not question the Department's need for unmarked status for the 306
vehicles used in i t s undercover work.
Some of DPS's unmarked vehicles should be marked - Many of DPS's 171
unmarked, non- undercover vehicles may not need to be unmarked. Some of
these vehicles lack a brown State government license plate and are
varying models and colors, thus, they look l i k e privately owned
vehicles. According to the DPS Director" Office, some of these vehicles
are unmarked because DPS and other law enforcement agencies have
h i s t o r i c a l l y provided unmarked cars to command s t a f f ( Lieutenants and
above). However, t h i s practice does not appear to be provided for in the
statute. Others are unmarked because the user legitimately needs to
maintain a low p r o f i l e , for example when conducting special
investigations into o f f i c e r conduct at the request of another law
enforcement agency. However, there are a limited number of unmarked
vehicles in DPSfs f l e e t which can be j u s t i f i e d using this c r i t e r i a . The
following examples i l l u s t r a t e some of the s t a f f with assigned unmarked
cars who seem to have l i t t l e need for unmarked vehicles:
@ Some s t a f f in the Crime Laboratory use unmarked cars to travel to
crime scenes, court appearances, and meetings with various law
enforcement agencies and groups. The other Laboratory personnel use
marked vehicles f o r s i m i l a r purposes.
Two o f f i c i a l s o f the DARE program use unmarked cars, although DARE i s
a public outreach program where high v i s i b i l i t y would seem to be
desirable.
Two members of the Advanced Training Unit use unmarked cars to travel
to teaching assignments throughout the State.
In addition, DPS has 310 administrative vehicles which are inadequately
marked. These vehicles have brown State government license plates and
decals with one- inch high letters in the rear windows, but no markings on
the body of the vehicles. Some of the vehicles have tinted windows,
making the dark l e t t e r s on the clear decal d i f f i c u l t to see. A
representative of DPSfs D i r e c t o r ' s Office explained that the window
decals are easier to remove without doing any damage when the Department
resells i t s vehicles. However, the window decals in DPS's administrative
vehicles do not appear to comply with the specific requirements or the
intent of the statute.
Markina State- owned vehicles i s im~ ortant - State- owned vehicles should
be marked whenever possible. F i r s t , marked Department of Public Safety
vehicles may serve as deterrents to t r a f f i c violations and other crimes.
Second, marked vehicles, i f they are equipped with l i g h t s and sirens, are
more useful for the Department's function of apprehending v i o l a t o r s , and
safer when o f f i c e r s must respond quickly to emergencies. Third, marking
State- owned vehicles enables private c i t i z e n s t o recognize and report
possible misuses of the vehicles. Tr Arizona Department of
Administration, for example, receives compl: - s from the o ~ b l i c when
State vehicles are parked at supermarkets or sn on the : d .
DPS Should Corn~ ly
with Arizona Law
DPS i s not exempt from A. R. S. 528- 1441 which requires State vehicles to
be marked in a specified manner. DPS may obtain exemption for specific
vehicles by making application annually to the Governor as described in
A. R. S. 528- 1443, identifying each vehicle and the nature of i t s use.
However, DPS has not applied to the Governor for approval of unmarked
vehicles.
A l e t t e r from a former Governor delegating responsibility for authorizing
unmarked vehicles to DPS does not exempt DPS from complying with the
statute. DPS showed us a l e t t e r from the Governor dated
November 28, 1987, which delegated r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r complying with
A. R. S. 528- 1443. to the Director of DPS at the time. However, authority
of an executive may only be delegated i f i t does not require judgment or
discretion. Authority to delegate discretionary matters must be pursuant
t o s p e c i f i c Iegislat ion, according to Attorney General's Opinion
187- 119. A. R. S. $ 28- 1443.8 s p e c i f i c a l l y provides that the Governor w i l l
make the exemption as a matter o f discretion. Since determining the
exemption i s a discretionary matter, this authority may not be delegated.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. DPS should comply with A. R. S. 528- 1441 by properly marking i t s
vehicles on each side of the body of the car.
2. DPS should reduce the use of unmarked vehicles for non- undercover
work.
3. DPS should comply with A. R. S. $ 28- 1441 by applying annually to the
Governor for exemption for a l l unmarked vehicles.
FINDING Ill
THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD REVISE ITS PROCESS
FOR ALLOCATING CRIMINAL JUSTICE ENHANCEMENT FUNDS
TO ENSURE OBJECTIVITY AND FAIRNESS
The Department should take steps to ensure that i t s process of
d i s t r i b u t i n g Criminal Justice Enhancement Funds ( CJEF) i s f a i r and
objective. DPS is one of several State'agencies allocated a percentage
of CJEF monies to d i s t r i b u t e to State and local law enforcement agencies
for use for s t a t u t o r i ly defined purposes. However, i t appears that the
process DPS uses for d i s t r i b u t i n g these funds may not be conducted in an
obviously objective and unbiased manner. This process should be revised
to ensure greater o b j e c t i v i t y and fairness.
DPS Receives and Allocates
CJEF Funds
A. R. S. 541- 2401 establishes the Criminal Justice Enhancement Fund ( funded
from penalties assessed on criminal fines and f o r f e i t u r e s and on c i v i l
sanctions as per A. R. S. $ 41- 2403), a portion of which i s allocated to DPS
and nine other State agencies and funds.(') Of the percentage DPS
receives, i t then allocates, or distributes the money to i t s e l f and other
law enforcement agencies f o r c e r t a i n purposes. S p e c i f i c a l l y , DPS is to
allocate the money i t receives
... to State and local law enforcement authorities for the
purpose of enhancing projects designed to prevent residential
and commercial burglaries, control street crime, including the
a c t i v i t i e s of criminal street gangs, and locate missing children
and for the purpose of providing support to the Arizona
automated fingerprint information system.
( 1) A. R. S. 541- 2401 d i r e c t s the State Treasurer t o d i s t r i b u t e CJEF monies on a monthly
basis i n the following way. F i r s t , 7.5 percent to the Arizona automated f i n g e r p r i n t
information system ( received and administered by DPS), then 2 percent of the remaining
92.5 percent to the Department of Juveni 1 e Corrections. A f t e r these d i s t r i b u t i o n s ,
remaining monies are allocated to various agencies or funds-- DPS receives 12 percent
of the remainder, and varying percentages are received by the Peace Officers' Training
Fund, Prosecuting Attorneys1 Advi sary Council Training Fund, Depa'rtment of Health
Services, Supreme Court, Department of Law, Department of Corrections, and the Arizona
Criminal Justice C m i ssion.
DPS received approximately $ 1.9 m i l l i o n and $ 1.7 m i l l i o n for the fiscal
years 1989- 90 and 1990- 91 respect i ve ly for these purposes.
Fairness and Obiectivitv Not Ensured
with Current Allocation Process
The decision- making process used by DPS for allocating CJEF monies does
not appear to have an objective basis. The Legislature, as mentioned
previously, has defined the purposes for which DPS should allocate CJEF
monies. DPS, however, has not developed specific written evaluation
c r i t e r i a defining how projects w i l l be selected for funding. Instead,
each DPS employee involved in the process makes approval and funding
decisions based on their individual judgment. The current allocation
process begins with the DPS CJEF coordinator, who assesses application
information,(') and may conduct additional queries as necessary including
referring the application t o s p e c i a l i s t s within DPS for technical
evaluation. The coordinator then prepares a b r i e f summary, recommending
alternatives regarding the project and potential funding to the DPS
grants administrator. Following review of the summary and application
f i l e by the grants administrator, a recommendation i s noted in the f i l e
which i s then sent to the comptroller for review. The f i l e is then
submitted to the Deputy Director for f i n a l approval ( acting on behalf of
the Director).
As a result, this process may not be free of bias nor provide a l l
applicants a f a i r and equal opportunity to u t i l i z e CJEF funds. A t a
minimum, the e x i s t i n g allocation process creates the appearance of a less
than objective administration of these funds by DPS. For example, some
DPS projects which received funding appear to be only i n d i r e c t l y related
to the s t a t u t o r i l y defined purposes. Furthermore, inconsistencies i n the
basis f o r certain decisions i s evident in some cases. The Department
also lacks an adequate system for p r i o r i t i z i n g projects competing for
limited CJEF funding.
( 1 ) According to both DPS policies and Arizona Criminal Justice Comnission rules, a l l
applications must be i n writing, d e t a i l i n g the objectives and purpose of the project,
and providing an implementat. ion plan, a detailed budget, and other information.
proiects aopear to be only i n d i r e c t l y related to the
urwses outlined i n statute. For example, during fiscal year
7989- 90, DPS awarded i t s e l f al I $ 250,000 requested by one of i t s
bureaus for a project to purchase mobi l e d i g i t a l terminals ( MOT) and
mobile radio equipment for Phoenix and Tucson area Highway Patrol
vehicles. While the award form indicates the statutory purpose of
the project is to " reduce street crime," and DPS does make arrests
involving such crimes, the Highway Patrol i s p minvolv ed in
t r a f f i c enforcement and accident investigation. Furthermore, no
information regarding how the Highway Patrol w i l l use MDTs to reduce
street crime i s provided in the project f i l e . Instead, the only
informat ion provided in the project f i le describing any project goal
i s on the award form, noting that the MDTs w i l l " improve o f f i c e r
performance and safety." No formal request was prepared-- the only
document requesting these funds i s a b r i e f memorandum, which also
indicates that Racketeering lnf luenced Corrupt Organizations ( RICO)
monies and internal funds would be used to purchase
transmitter/ receivers and related switching equipment needed to
implement the MDTs.
While DPS funded i t s MDT project, i t awarded other law enforcement
e n t i t i e s less than requested for their projects which appeared to be
more d i r e c t l y related to the statutory purposes. We reviewed project
requests in that same year from the South Tucson Police Department,
Springerville Police Department, Yavapai County Sheriff, and ASU
Police. While DPS awarded i t s e l f $ 250,000 for the MDTs, these four
e n t i t i e s received, in t o t a l , 44 percent less than requested ( received
$ 207,865 of $ 369,505 requested). Examples of projects not funded
included patrol and undercover vehicles, overtime pay for o f f i c e r s ,
and crime reduction/ prevention public information pamphlets and
posters. While DPS o f f i c i a l s indicated that the requested amounts
were reduced based on agreements with these j u r i s d i c t i o n s that some
of the funding requested was not necessary or did not meet the
statutory purposes for use of CJEF funds, the contract f i l e s did not
reflect such agreements. Instead, f i l e documentation generally
indicates that these jurisdictions were told that inadequate funds
were available, and that the jurisdictions should resubmit their
requests for unfunded items at a later date.
Another example of a DPS project which appears to only i n d i r e c t l y
relate to one of the statutory purposes i s DPS's funding during
f i s c a l year 1987- 88 of $ 165,000 for a Forward Looking Infrared Radar
( FLIR) device. This device was to be used by i t s helicopters ( the
one device could be transferred among the Department's several
he1 icopters) for locating missing persons and other purposes. The
project was approved under the statutory purpose of locating missing
children. However, based on our analysis of the Department's
helicopter operations, the primary use of the helicopters i s for
medical missions ( 56 percent), while use for search and rescue
missions, which includes persons of a l l ages, amounts to only 8
percent of a l l f l i g h t s . According to Department s t a t i s t i c s , the FLIR
device has been used 16 times since October 1988 in searches for
missing children.
The basis for some awards indicates inconsistencies in
d e c i s i o n d i n g . For example, we reviewed several fiscal year
1989- 90 project f i l e s and found that DPS treated similar requests
d i f f e r e n t l y . On August 29, 1989, the South Tucson Police Department
requested two f u l l y equipped patrol vehicles for a total of $ 32,000
as part of i t s total project request. One funding recommendation
prepared by the DPS CJEF coordinator stated that the patrol vehicles
should be excluded from funding to be " consistent with recent
recommendations." The grants administrator also recommended no
funding for the vehicles due to limited funds.
Also on August 29, 1989, the Yavapai County S h e r i f f ' s Office
requested six f u l l y equipped vehicles f o r investigative uses ( t o t a l
of $ 90,000) as part o f t h e i r t o t a l request. Although the vehicle
portion of the request was o r i g i n a l l y not funded, the request for the
vehicles was resubmitted three months later. A t t h i s time, DPS
approved three of the six vehicles for funding ($ 45,000). This time
the project funding summary recommendations noted that " i f the
Department were to turn down this request i t would be extremely
d i f f i c u l t to defend since CJEF recently provided Cottonwood monies to
purchase and equip two vehicles."
As a further example of inconsistency in decision making, for the
South Tucson Po l i ce Department request d i scussed above, DPS approved
a blanket amount of $ 75,000 out of a total request of $ 133,379.
Typically, DPS approves funding for specific items i d e n t i f i e d in
requests when it funds only a portion of project requests. In this
case however, DPS not i f ied the pol ice department to " submi t a budget
for $ 75,000 and we w i I l then issue a contract."
DPS does not have an adeauate svstem for o r i o r i t i z i n g com~ eting
proiects. Applicants can submit project funding requests to DPS at
any time-- there i s no set deadline by which a l l projects are to be
received, and DPS has not established a system for clearly
g r i o r i t i z i n g projects for funding. Because requests for DPS CJEF
monies routinely exceed amounts available for award,(') and because
less money has been and w i l l be available for DPS t o allocate in the
future as a result of various statutory changes, lack of a
p r i o r i t i z a t i o n system reduces the a b i l i t y of the various agencies to
objectively compete for limited funding.
Although DPS told us that new projects approved for funding
throughout the year cause a l l approved but unfunded projects to be
r e p r i o r i t i z e d , we found no clear evidence of p r i o r i t i z a t i o n . For
example, DPS approved a project for funding a DPS lab technician
position during fiscal year 1991- 92 ($ 30,500). A DPS bureau had
requested funding for t h i s position on February 22, 1991, out of
DPS1s RlCO ( seized assets) funds, not CJEF. Although documentation
indicates the project qualified for seized assets funding, DPS
decided CJEF monies should be used instead ( no CJEF application for
t h i s approved project exists). Eight working days l a t e r , on March 6,
( 1 ) According to a DPS report, requests f o r funding exceeded CJEF receipts by 25 percent
i n f i s c a l year 1988- 89 and 69 percent i n f i s c a l year 1989- 90.
the project was approved for CJEF funding. While this DPS project
appears to have been quickly evaluated and approved for funding, we
were unable to determine that any structured p r i o r i t i z a t i o n actual ly
occurred and i f so, which other project( s1 were lowered in p r i o r i t y
for potential funding as a result of approval of t h i s DPS project.
Allocatincr Process
Should Be Revised
Although i t was d i f f i c u l t to obtain comparable c r i t e r i a , we found several
p o s s i b i l i t i e s for improving the o b j e c t i v i t y of the allocation process,
both in practice and appearance. F i r s t , DPS should develop objective
written c r i t e r i a defining how competing projects w i l I be evaluated and
funded. As discussed e a r l i e r , the only guidance the Department currently
has i s that which i s contained in statute regarding the overall uses of
CJEF monies. Written c r i t e r i a i s also needed to c l a r i f y how approved
projects w i l l be p r i o r i t i z e d for funding purposes.
Second, DPS should consider s e t t i n g s p e c i f i c due date( s) for applications
requesting CJEF funds. Currently, DPS accepts requests, or applications,
for CJEF monies at any time throughout the year. Establishing due dates
for applications ( perhaps requiring they be due once or twice yearly)
w i l l promote greater fairness in ranking projects competing for limited
funds and improve the p r i o r i t i z a t i o n of those projects approved for
funding. While a l l approved projects could not be funded immediately,
funding could occur as CJEF receipts become available, based on project
p r i o r i t y . ( ' ) The Supreme Court, which i s the only other e n t i t y that
receives CJEF monies and can allocate such monies to both i t s e l f and
other e n t i t i e s , requires requests be received on January 31 of each
year. Approved projects are funded in the subsequent fiscal year.
( 1) A DPS administrator t o l d us the Department feels i t i s important to set aside some
CJEF funds f o r potential emergencies, f o r example, to help a local law enforcement
e n t i t y pay costs associated with a type o f p r o j e c t that could not be applied f o r i n
advance, such as locating a missing c h i l d . However, funding f o r such an emergency has
occurred, according to DPS, only once since DPS began receiving CJEF allotments
($ 73,874, during f i s c a l year 1988- 89). I f DPS feels the need to reserve funds for
such emergencies, i t could implement recomnended changes, but reserve a set amount to
be used on1 y f o r v a l i d , defined emergencies.
Thi rd, in evaluating project requests, DPS should study the possibi l i ty
of using a panel to review requests for CJEF funding. A t this time, each
request i s reviewed and considered by one DPS employee, the CJEF
coordinator, who then summarizes the request and prepares recornendations
for funding for review by higher- level o f f i c i a l s . Using some type of
panel, p a r t i c u l a r l y i f i t involved personnel from outside DPS, to review
a l l applications competing for the limited CJEF funds, could lend more
o b j e c t i v i t y t o the process.
Finally, DPS should ensure that evaluation decisions are adequately
documented in the project f i l e s . This documentation should clearly
identify how decisions were made, and the j u s t i f i c a t i o n s used in arriving
at those decisions.
RECOMMENDATION
1. DPS should revise i t s process of reviewing and approving applications
requesting CJEF monies to provide for ~ t e r o b j e c t i v i t y and
fairness. S p e c i f i c a l l y , DPS should conside
8 developing s p e c i f i c w r i t t e n c r i t e r i a defining how competing
projects w i l l be evaluated and funded, and, how approved
projects w i l l be p r i o r i t i z e d for funding purposes,
setting specific due dates for applications to allow for clearer
and more timely p r i o r i t i z a t i o n of projects requesting limited
CJEF funds,
8 usingapanel for the review andevaluationof theapplications,
and
ensuring that project f i l e s contain adequate documentation
j u s t i f y i n g decisions.
FINDING IV
DPS NEEDS BETTER CONTROL
OVER VEHICLE FUEL
DPS should i n s t a l l a computerized system to improve control over fuel
dispensed at i t s pumps. DPS's system for recording the fuel used in i t s
vehicles i s error prone, resulting in unreliable management information.
A computerized system for control ling and recording fuel would cost only
a small fraction of DPS's annual fuel budget and would provide better
control.
Fuel i s a large expenditure for DPS. In fiscal year 1990- 91, the
Department purchased 1,370,098 gallons for i t s 23 bulk fuel s i t e s , a t a
total cost of $ 1,357,229.(') DPS's Fleet Management Sect ion handles
approximately 10,000 fuel transactions per month.
DPS's Svstem for Recording
Fuel Use Is lnadeauatg
DPS's current fuel tracking system provides inadequate record keeping and
reporting. Handwritten '' fuel tickets," f i l l e d out by DPS employees when
they put fuel i n t o t h e i r vehicles, form the basis of DPS's current system
for tracking fuel use. When properly f i l led out, these tickets show the
vehicle and employee using the fuel, the gallons used, and the vehicle's
current odometer reading. These tickets are then entered into the
Department's Fleet Management computer system.
DPSts current system for recording fuel use allows many errors to occur,
and most errors are not corrected. A review of DPS's Fuel Ticket Error
L i s t reports showed that during January through March 1991, 1,988 fuel
ticket errors occurred. Because these errors were not corrected ( i n many
cases correction would be impractical), 22,029 gallons of fuel were not
recorded on DPS's computer information system. In addition, we found
( 1) I n addition, DPS employees obtained another 340,000 gallons from Arizona Department of
Transportation ( ADOT) bulk fuel sites at a cost of approximately $ 418,000, and the
Department spent about $ 165,000 on fuel purchased w i th credi t cards.
other errors which were not captured on the error report, including two
vehicles which . showed only one fuel transact ion between them in a
fifteen- month period although maintenance records revealed they were
"- being driven during that time. The effects of these errors include the
following:
DPS reports contain unreliable vehicle operating costs per mile,
because the underlying data i s incomplete. These costs are used to
evaluate f l e e t management practices and identify vehicles which cost
too much to run.
8 The Department cannot adequately monitor vehicle u t i l i z a t i o n because
the Fleet Management System contains inaccurate data on vehicle
odometer readings.
DPS cannot determine whether discrepancies are simply due to
recording errors or whether pilferage i s occurring.
Automated Svstems
Are Available
An automated system could improve control over fuel use and increase data
accuracy.(') Several manufacturers can provide automated systems for
recording fuel dispensed from DPS pumps at a cost of only a small
percentage of DPSts annual fuel budget.
Automated svstems have benef i ts - Automated fuel record- keepi ng systems
have several benefits. As reported br a Salt River Project o f f i c i a l ,
implementing a f u l l y automated system reduced unaccounted fuel from 10 to
20 percent to none. In Colorado, State Patrol o f f i c e r s can obtain fuel
from the Highway Department's automated system, el iminat ing the need to
manually check fuel logs and manually enter data into the system.(*)
( 1) Automated fuel systems involve a reading device, mounted at the fuel s i t e , and magnetic
cards or keys which are assigned to the vehicle user. To obtain fuel, the user inserts
the card or key i n t o the reading device, which prompts f o r an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number and
odometer reading. The device checks the information f o r accuracy, and then releases
the hose f o r fuel dispensing. The transaction i s recorded automatically.
( 2) Other states and police departments also use automated fuel systems. Utah implemented
a statewide automated fuel system on July 1, 1991, too recently to assess the system's
benefits. New Mexico o f f i c e r s access fuel pumps with a numbered key, and a meter
records the key number and gallons used. The City of Phoenix uses a system s i m i l a r to
the one used i n New Mexico.
According to several vendors in addition to improving accountabi I i t y ,
automated systems can signal when preventative maintenance i s due and
f lag when the fue l 1 eve l i n each tank i s low. They said these sys tems
provide better fuel management overall, increase the accuracy of records
and eliminate errors, provide vehicle performance information, and reduce
or eliminate unauthorized fuel use.
DPS Fleet Uanaaement Section has requested funding - DPS's Fleet
Management Section has requested funds for evaluating or implementing an
automated fuel dispensing system. In fiscal year 1988- 89, the Department
included a request for this funding in i t s budget request to the
Legislature. However, funding was denied. In each of the next three
fiscal years, the Fleet Management Section again submitted policy issues
to the Department's internal budget preparation process, but the
Department did not include them in i t s p r i o r i t y l i s t of budget items
presented to the Legislature.
Cost of automated svstem would be small i n comparison to fuel budaet -
The Department could automate i t s fuel record keeping system for a small
fraction of i t s annual fuel expenditures. We contacted representatives
of five vendors to obtain an estimate of the cost of an automated
system. As shown in Table 4, automating DPS's entire network of 23 fuel
sites could cost less than $ 300,000, and automating only the 6 sites
whicn dispense 70 percent of the Department's fuel could cost less than
$ 100,000. The most expensive plan shown in Table 4 ( see page 30), at
$ 276,000, would cost only 14 percent of DPS's fiscal year 1990- 91
expenditures f o r f u e l , which t ~ t a l l e d $ 1,940,170. The Department has
several options for funding t h i s expenditure, including using internal
special funds ( see Other Pertinent Information, pages 31 through 40).
Vendor
TABLE 4
COST OF AUTOMATED FUEL SYSTEMS(~)
Cost for 6 sites that
disoense 70% of fuel Cost for a l l 23 sites
( a) We contacted f i v e vendors, but on1 y f o u r provided complete estimates. The f i g u r e s
presented are not formal quotations, but i n d i c a t e an apcwximation of the cost range
f o r automating DPS's system. The vendors d i d not v i s * t DPS f a c i l i t i e s nor prepare
fonnal proposals.
Source: Auditor General s t a f f interviews with representatives of
automated fuel system vendors during June 1991.
Some of these costs would be offset by reductions in s t a f f needed to
manually process fuel tickets under the current system.
RECOMMENDATlON
In order to maintain better control and improve record keeping over fuel
usage, DPS should explore alternative funding sources to implement an
automated f ue l d i spens i ng and r eco rd- keep i ng system.
OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION
During the course of our audit we developed information concerning the
need for more controls over special funds, DPS's potential f o r obtaining
more anti- racketeering funds for i t s operations, and the need for DPS to
develop training policies and improve training records for i t s sworn
o f f i c e r s .
Nationallv, More Attention Is Centerinq
on Controls over S~ ecial Funds
There has been tremendous growth in monies received as a result of State
and Federal f o r f e i t u r e and anti- racketeering laws both nationally and at
the state level. Although funds are growing, laws governing these funds
have generally remained broad. Other jurisdictions are studying the need
for additional controls in these areas.
Arizona receives monies from both State Racketeering lnfluenced Corrupt
Organizations ( RICO) forfeitures, as well as for i t s involvement in
forfeitures under Federal shared assets laws.
Racketeerina Influenced Corrupt Oraanizations - Funds wh i ch are received
by DPS as a result of i t s involvement in actions resulting in the
f o r f e i t u r e of criminal assets based on State anti- racketeering laws.
Federal shared assets - Received from several Federal agencies ( the
Drug Enforcement Agency, U. S. Customs, Federal Bureau of
Investigations, and Internal Revenue Service) as a result o f DPS's
cooperation i n the enforcement of Federal drug and anti- racketeering
( RICO) and f o r f e i t u r e statutes.
In recent years, at both the national and local level, tremendous growth
has occurred with respect to these funds. A Federal report indicates
that since the Asset Forfeiture Program began in 1984, over $ 1.5 b i l l i o n
has been generated for the Asset Forfeiture Fund. Of this, more than
$ 560 m i l l i o n i n forfeited cash and property has been shared with s t a t e
and local law enforcement agencies, over $ 200 m i l l i o n in fiscal year
1989- 90 alone. This sharing has increased from only $ 22.5 m i l l i o n i n
fiscal year 1986. Over the past several years, DPS i t s e l f has received
increasingly larger amounts of both State RlCO and Federal shared assets
funds. These unappropriated funding sources have provided DPS with the
opportunity to offset some of i t s operating costs ( also with CJEF funds -
see Finding I l l , pages 21 through 26). According to information provided
by DPS, combined RlCO and Federal shared assets receipts to DPS have
s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased. Between fiscal years 1988- 89 and 1990- 91, DPS
received $ 6,613,336 and expended $ 5,102,331 ( see Table 5). As of June
TABLE 5
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
RlCO AND FEDERAL SHARED ASSETS
RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURES
FISCAL YEARS 1988- 89, 1989- 90, AND 1990- 91
( Unaudited)
FY 1988- 89( a) FY 1989- 90 FY 1990- 91 Total
W ( b )
Receipts:
Attorney Gen'l $ 297,691 $ 487,168 $ 995,957 $ 1,780,816
Count ies( c) 475,348 558,494 440,386 1 ,474,228
Expended by DPS: $ 730.780 $ 999,712 $ 1,171.807 $ 2,902,299
Federal Shared Assets( b)
Receipts ( from
a l l sources): $ 437,099 $ 682.829 $ 2,085.939 $ 3,205.867
Expended by DPS: $ 306,251 $ 719.761 $ 1,174,020 $ 2,200.032
( a) According t o a Department o f f i c i a l , f i s c a l year 1988- 89 receipts and expenditures are
not r e f l e c t i v e o f a f u l l twelve month time period.
( b) As of June 30, 1991, DPS had a balance on hand ( in- house DPS accounts) of $ 1,005,835
i n Federal shared assets funds, $ 475,527 i n Attorney General RICO funds, and $ 29,643
of " other" RICO funds.
( c) These " receipts1' include only monies actually received by DPS from the counties. I n
some counties, additional amounts, though not actually received by DPS for use, have
been " set aside" or earmarked f o r future DPS use. As of June 30, 1991, the amounts
earmarked for, but n o t y e t used by DPS by four counties totaled $ 840,259.
( d) " Other" includes monies received by DPS from transactions i n which DPS cannot c l e a r l y
i d e n t i f y the o r i g i n a l source.
Source: Compiled by Auditor General s t a f f using information obtained
from DPS.
30, 1991, DPS had a balance of $ 2,351,265 available both in- house and
earmarked for - i t s use by several counties. Furthermore, recent
information from the U. S. Attorney's Office indicates that as much as $ 10
m i l l i o n may be due DPS from various f o r f e i t u r e actions that are being
processed . ( ' )
Although funds are increasing, laws governing these funds have generally
remained broad and provided for I imited oversight. In the case of RICO,
funds can be used for the investigation and prosecution of 27
racketeering acts ( including homicide, robbery, t h e f t , involvement with
prohibited drugs, t r a f f i c k i n g in explosives, weapons or stolen property,
gambling, p r o s t i t u t i o n , money laundering, asserting false claims, and a
scheme or a r t i f i c e to defraud). This has a1 lowed DPS to use this money
f o r projects such as the purchase of cameras, surveillance equipment, a
Forward Looking Infrared Radar ( FLIR) device, weapons, bomb suits, and
microscopes, and to pay for overtime costs, gambling investigations,
crime lab operations, evidence acquisition costs, and K- 9 narcotics
detection. Although DPS reports i t s State RICO expenses to the Attorney
General, we could not identify any authority responsible for ensuring
that these funds are properly used.
Allowable uses of Federal monies is even broader and reporting of uses of
funds i s v i r t u a l l y nonexistent. DPS can use Federal shared asset funds
" for any law enforcement purpose" provided the operation or equipment
" enhancesn law enforcement and does not supplant funds which would
normally be appropriated. DPS has u t i l i z e d Federal shared assets funds
on projects including employee wellness programs and physicals, evidence
acquisition and a cold evidence storage f a c i l i t y , employee overtime pay,
fuel, and various types of equipment including a laser fingerprint
analyzer, undercover vehicles, copiers, weapons, and vehicle l i g h t bars.
Other j u r i s d i c t i o n s have. or are studying. more controls - The Federal
government i s currently studying the need to implement stronger controls
over Federal shared asset funds. The U. S. Department of Justice
( 1) I n addition to receiving and u t i l i z i n g funds, DPS also receives and u t i l i z e s various
other assets as a result of seizures and r e s u l t i n g f o r f e i t u r e s . For example, DPS has
received many vehicles, including a diesel truck valued at $ 100,000, which i t plans to
use i n comnercial vehicle inspection and enforcement work.
Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture, responsible for examination of
Federal asset f o r f e i t u r e and asset sharing policies, i s currently in the
process of developing more controls over management and d i s t r i b u t i o n of
forfeited assets than are now in place. O f f i c i a l s we spoke with
commented on the necessity of doing so because of the extreme growth of
the Federal Shared Assets Fund and because of recent c r i t i c i s m by the
United States General Accounting Office. A June 1990, report by the
General Accounting Office found that these funds were vulnerable to
fraud, waste, and mismanagement and, as such, should be audited. The
report recommended that the U. S. Department o f Justice as well as the
U. S. Customs Department both be required to provide Congress with audited
financial statements to " strengthen internal controls and improve
information available f o r effective oversight by ... Congress . . . . I f In
1990, Congress passed measures requiring such financial statements.
In addition to requiring audits of these funds, Congress also requires
that monies in the Department of Justice's forfeited assets fund be
appropriated. For example, in fiscal year 1990- 91, the U. S. Congress
appropriated $ 100 mi I l ion from the fund for discretionary use by the
Department of Justice in support o f f o r f e i t u r e actions, and additional
amounts for prison construction and use by other Federal law enforcement
agenc i es .
A t the state level, controls vary considerably. We contacted four states
regarding their controls. Two states, Florida and Texas, were attempting
to add statutory controls. The other two states, California and New
Mexico, have existing controls or oversight not found i n Arizona:
8 In New Mexico, monies seized or forfeited under i t s Controlled
Substances Act are deposited into special accounts within the State
Treasury. These monies are appropriated by the legislature for
specific purposes.(') According to a New Mexico Public Safety
Department o f f i c i a l , the appropriations go to specific positions and
programs. Monies received from Federal shared assets, on the other
( 1 ) According to Vice Chair of the New Mexico Senate Judiciary C m i t t e e , the New Mexico
Legislature looks with disfavor on special funds and i s working toward ending their
use so that a l l state expenditures are brought within the budgetary process and under
proper control.
hand, go d i r e c t l y to the agency, and are not appropriated. According
to an o f f i c i a l with the New Mexico legislature, courts have ruled
that the legislature does not have the authority t o appropriate these
funds .
In California, State RlCO and seized asset monies are deposited into
special deposit funds within the asset f o r f e i t u r e account of the
State Treasury. These monies must then be budgeted and appropriated
by the legislature, or i t s designee. According to an o f f i c i a l from
the California Highway Patrol, the Highway Patrol appropriation is
limited to $ 2 m i l l i o n a year. Once appropriated, the specific
allocation of these funds i s an internal matter. Proposal for use of
the monies are reviewed by a four- member Highway Patrol Commission,
and ultimately approved by the Commissioner, who i s appointed by the
Governor .
Within Arizona, there has been a move to address the need for additional
control. During the 1991 Legislative session, a b i l l was introduced
which would have required standard reporting by a l l Arizona agencies
receiving RlCO monies, and a requirement that these monies also be
appropriated. The b i l l was amended to remove the requirement for monies
to be appropriated. However, the b i l l as passed does require standard
reporting of the sources of a l l monies and expenditures by the Attorney
General, counties ( County Attorneys), and c i t i e s and towns ( each of these
e n t i t i e s , l i k e DPS, receives anti- racketeering monies). However, DPS was
not included in the b i l l .
Potential Exists For DPS To Receive
More Funds From Forfeitures
Although the amount of funds received by DPS from the f o r f e i t u r e of
seized assets has steadily increased in the past three years, i t appears
DPS should be receiving even more such funds from the counties. As
discussed on page 33, DPS can receive funds when i ts enforcement act ions
result in the f o r f e i t u r e of assets seized under State and Federal
f o r f e i t u r e and anti- racketeering laws. The funds DPS receives are
referred to as " Federal shared assets'' from Federal agencies, and
Racketeering influenced Corrupt Organizations, or RlCO funds, from
revolving funds administered by the Arizona Attorney General and the
counties. Information provided by DPS shows that combined receipts and
earmarked funds for DPS from these sources have grown steadily over the
past three years ( f i s c a l years 1988- 89 to 1990- 91), with Federal shared
asset receipts up 377 percent and State and county funds increasing by 86
percent . Du r i ng f i sca I year 1990- 91 , DPS received $ 1,436,343 and expended
$ 1,115,807 of State and county RICO funds('), and received $ 2,085,939
Federal shared assets funds, expending $ 1,174,020.
Greater sharina could be ~ o s s i b l e - I t appears that DPS may not be
receiving i t s " f a i r share" of RiCO funds resulting from f o r f e i t u r e under
State laws. According to A. R. S. 513- 2314, State and county
anti- racketeering revolving funds may be used " for the benefit of the
agency or agencies responsible for the enforcement action to the extent
o f t h e i r contribution." While this language appears to indicate that DPS
should benefit from enforcement actions in which i t is involved, no
uniform policies have been established regarding how such " sharing" of
seized assets, and the funds resulting from these assets, i s to occur.
Instead, county attorneys administering the revolving funds appear to
have complete control over the way monies deposited into the funds are
shared.
Currently, DPS has " sharing agreements" with the Attorney General's
Office and several counties. These agreements provide that DPS w i l l
receive a share sf enforcement actions in which i t was essentially the
sole enforcement authority ( any task force actions are not considered in
these agreements). In November 1990, the Attorney General's Office and
DPS entered into an informal agreement outlining the sharing of assets
( based on a formula) from the P>' orney General's revolving fund.
Similarly, county attorneys in three i n t i e s , Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal,
maintain special accounts earmarked for DPS use in which they deposit a
share of funds forfeited in their prosecution of cases in which DPS
participated exclusively. The percentages deposited into those accounts ( I
vary from county to county based on informal unwritten agreements between
DPS and the county attorneys. A fourth county, Cochise, also maintains a
special account for DPS use, but only deposits funds acquired from sales
of vehicles and other forfeited personal property. No seized cash is
deposited into the account. With the exception of the Attorney General's
( 1) As of June 30, 1991, DPS had a county RICO balance of $ 840,259, which was maintained
f o r DPS i n sub- accounts ( revolving funds) by four counties. Such funds are earmarked
f o r DPS use, but DPS w i l l not actually " receive" the benefit of this money u n t i l i t
requests funding f o r specific projects and the projects are approved by the applicable
county attorney.
agreement, in which DPS's share i s sent d i r e c t l y to DPS for use, DPS must
request and receive approval to use DPS- earmarked county funds.
Frequently, approval of these funds for projects outlined by DPS depends
on the project s i g n i f i c a n t l y benefiting the particular county.
With regard to the other 11 counties, no sharing agreement exists,
informal or otherwise. These counties do not d i r e c t l y share funds
resulting from f o r f e i t u r e s w i t h DPS, but rather the funds be made
available for DPS projects based on requests by DPS. Conditions for
approval vary from county to county and projects most l i k e l y to be
approved general ly have to benef i t the part i cu lar county. According to
reports recently submitted to the Governor, the 11 counties having no
agreements with DPS received $ 637,028 during the f i r s t quarter of 1991,
expended $ 404,878 during the same time period, and had ending balances in
their revolving funds of $ 3,660,248 as of March 31, 1991.(')
DPS o f f i c i a l s feel that more county anti- racketeering revolving fund
monies could be shared with DPS; however, some counties have been
reluctant to formalize such sharing. For example, several DPS employees
and o f f i c i a l s told us that in several of these counties, where DPS has
clearly been materially involved in actions resulting i n s i g n i f i c a n t
forfeitures, the Department has benefited l i t t l e , i f at a l l , especially
in comparison to the e f f o r t and resources DPS provided. Forfeitures
resulting from investigations carried out exclusively by DPS
investigators now accrue e n t i r e l y to the benefit of the counties,
a l though DPS can subsequent l y request funds .
We contacted four county attorneys of counties where no sharing agreement
exists to determine whether DPS could establish sharing agreements. Two
comrnen ted that such an agreement cou l d I i ke l y be deve loped. One county
attorney was unsure and told us that DPS would have to pursue t h i s issue
with them; the other provided no position on the issue.
( 1) We are unable to provide more comprehensive information about county RICO receipts and
expenditures because, a1 though reporting of such information i s s t a t u t o r i l y required,
reporting has not occurred consistently.
While DPS might be able to obtain additional RlCO fund, * ram t
counties, we were unable to estimate the amount. Several factor
including lack of tracking by DPS of actions in which i t s employees we;
involved and lack o f detailed financial information concerning county
revolving funds over time, precluded such an analysis.
lm~ roved tracking - Improved tracking by DPS of actions in which i t is
involved may net more anti- racketeering funds for the Department. In
September 1988, DPS's Inspections and Control Unit s" died the Federal
shared assets and RlCO funds systems within the 3epa: n t . The report
cop 3ude in part, that a case or set track 1 s: m did not exist
w i : nin e Department. Specifica the investi, ators found that
Department employees were not aware or what assets had been seized, the
status of particular cases or asset forfeitures during processing, or the
amount of the Department's share of particular actions. The report
pointed out that the absence of such a system has caused i t to rely on
the accuracy of the various county, State, or Federal attorneys, and that
in one county, the accuracy of such information was suspect.
Since the *> ort, the Department has improved i t s management of RlCO and
forfeited s e t s . Special accounts were set up to record funds received
for accounting purposes; Grants Administrator and RlCO Coordinator
positions were created to oversee the funds and requests for the use of
such funds, and various agreements have been developed between BPS, the
Attorney General's Office, and several counties regarding the sharing of
funds resulting from f o r f e i t u r e actions.
However, the Department has been slow in formalizing a tracking system.
Although the 1988 lnspections and Control Unit report emphasized the need
for a proper case tracking system and the Asset Forfeiture Section ( AFS)
was approved to track f o r f e i t u r e cases, the section becane - y p a r t i a l l y
operational during March 1991. According to the AFS mr r, currently
the only permanent employee in the section, the c m t a t i o n and
tracking of a l l asset seizures and forfeitures in whiw - S i s , or was,
involved i s being undertaken to establish as clearly as possible DPS's
stake i n them and to help determine what DPS1s appropriate share in the
forfeitures might be. Because of delays in s t a f f i n g t h i s section and
i nadequate record keep i ng i n the past , the Department does not yet know
the worth of a l l assets in the cases in which DPS o f f i c e r s were involved,
or even a l l cases of involvement.
DPS Lacks Trainina Policies and Corn~ letg
Traininq Records For Its Sworn Officers
The Highway Patrol lacks clear training guidelines defining how much and
what types o f t r a i n i n g are needed. In addition, training records for
Highway Patrol o f f i c e r s are incomplete.
DPS lacks clear trainina auidelines for Hiahwav Patrol o f f i c e r s - In our
review of the Highway Patrol Bureau, we found that the Bureau lacked
guide1 ines as to the amount and type of advanced t r a i n i n g t o be provided
to i t s o f f i c e r s . Minimum training requirements established by DPS and
the Arizona Law Enforcement Officer Advisory Council ( ALEOAC) require
o f f i c e r s below the rank of Sergeant to receive 28 hours of training per
year.( 1) However, we found that Highway Patrol o f f i c e r s average 124
hours per year, which i s over four times the minimum annual requirement
for training hours.
Further audit work was conducted to determine what types of training were
being received by the Highway Patrol o f f i c e r s . Based on review of four
Higcjvay Patrol d i s t r i c t ' s training records, we found that some of the
most common courses taken were Horizontal Gaze Nastigmus ( HGN) ( a course
designed to help o f f i c e r s detect impaired drivers through special eye
tests), Sig Sauer ( training on newly issued weapons), Commercial Vehicle
Safety, Advanced Officer Training, Firearms, and Unusual Occurrence Task
Force. Further, we found that the hours spent by o f f i c e r s in these
courses varied s i g n i f i c a n t l y . For example, hours spent in Advanced
( 1) All o f f i c e r s are annually required to have 8 hours of continuing t r a i n i n g ( o f f i c e r
wellness, statutory updates, the c r i t i c a l incident process, and post incident trauma
review), 9 hours of f i reams qua1 i f i c a t i o n shoots, and 8 hours of side- handle baton
refresher training. I n addition, o f f i c e r s below the rank of sergeant are to receive 8
hours of proficiency t r a i n i n g every 3 years ( which requires them t o demonstrate an
adequate s k i l l level i n a high l i a b i l i t y s k i l l such as defensive d r i v i n g ) .
Officer Training ranged from 2 to 32, and hours spent in Comercial
Vehicle Safety - ranged from 7 to 55. Without training goals and
guidelines, we could not determine whether the hours spent in these
courses were appropriate, or whether a l l o f f i c e r s who needed such
training were included.
Record k e e ~ i nof~ trainina received is i n c m l e t e - Although the Advanced
Training Division ( ATD) of the Administration Bureau i s charged with
maintaining training records, ATD lacked complete and accurate
information on the amount and tyaes of training received by o f f i c e r s .
The ATD i s responsible for maintaining records of a l l sworn o f f i c e r
training. However, the information i s not routinely being forwarded to
ATD for inclusion in o f f i c e r training records.
Lack of complete records was evident in our review of the Highway Patrol
Bureau. During our review of the Highway Patrol Bureau, a review of
Highway Patrol o f f i c e r s ' training records was conducted to determine what
type of training was being received. Reviewing a sample of 225 training
records maintained by the ATD, we found that only 41 percent of the
training hours recorded on the Department's automated time report were
accounted for in ATD's records. In order to determine the training hours
missing from ATD records, the d i s t r i c t offices had to be contacted to
check their own f i l e s .
AREA FOR FURTHER AUDIT WORK
Is the Use of Sworn Officers Rather Than
Civilian Emplovees in Administrative
and Technical Positions Cost Effective?
During the course of our audit, we i d e n t i f i e d a number of administrative
and technical positions held by sworn o f f i c e r s that had the potential f o r
being f i l l e d by c i v i l i a n s . Use of sworn o f f i c e r s in positions that could
be f i l l e d by c i v i l i a n s i s potentially more costly to the Department due
to higher salaries, training requirements, individually assigned
take- home vehicles, and associated fringe benefits ( such as 20- year
retirement and uniform allowances). Further, we found that sworn s t a f f
in administrative and technical positions frequently lacked background or
experience in their present job's requirements.
Due to time constraints, we were unable to evaluate on a department- wide
basis the f e a s i b i l i t y of using c i v i l i a n s for non- enforcement related
positions currently f i l l e d with sworn o f f i c e r s . However, in our review
of the Administration Bureau, we noted several positions which could be
f i l l e d with lesser paid c i v i l i a n s . For example, the Safety Programs
Coordinator position i s currently held by a Lieutenant at a pay grade of
22. However, the position had previously been held by a c i v i l i a n at a
pay grade of 19. As j u s t i f i c a t i o n for reallocating the position t o a
Lieutenant, the Department noted that " the duties, responsibi I i t i e s and
requirements as to education, knowledge and a b i l i t y are substantially
similar for both classifications," and that reallocation of the position
" w i l l provide additional career development in the sworn ranks.'' We also
found that the Fleet Manager position was, u n t i l recently, f i l l e d with a
Captain at a pay grade of 23('); however, the position had previously
been f i l l e d with an AS0 I l l with a pay grade of 22. Further, during our
review of the Highway Patrol Bureau, we found that the Bureau may be able
to use Administrative Service Officer 11s in place of i t s 21
Administrative Sergeants at a savings of $ 11,000 each.
( 1) I n May 1991, th@ position was f i l l e d w i t h a Lieutenant at a pay grade of 22.
The need for further study of this area was also noted in the 1988 Arthur
Young & Company review of the Department. The Arthur Young & Company
report indicated that the Department should consider replacing some
administrative or office assistant type positions with lesser paid sworn
or c i v i l i a n s t a f f , although specific positions were not indicated.
Further audit work is needed to systematically identify on a
department- wide basis a l l administrative and technical positions
currently held by sworn officers, evaluate the duties of those positions,
and determine whether a c i v i l i a n would be able to f i l l the position at
less cost to the Departme- t.
SUNSET FACTORS
In accordance with A. R. S. 941- 2354, the Legislature should consider the
following 12 factors in determining whether the Department of Public
Safety ( DPS) should be continued or terminated.
1. Objective and Purpose in establishina the agency
The Department of Public Safety was created for the purpose of
developing and coordinating services for use by local law enforcement
agencies in protecting public safety. This action was recommended in
1967 by the Governor's Crime Commission. Authorizing l e g i s l a t i o n was
passed in 1968 and the Department became operational on July 1, 1969,
pursuant to Executive Order 69- 3. Enabling l e g i s l a t i o n dictated that
the Department " shall formulate plans with a view to establishing
modern services for prevention of crime, apprehension o f v i o l a t o r s ,
training of law enforcement personnel, and for the promotion of
pub1 i c safety."
The Department consolidated previously separate functions and
responsibilities of several other agencies-- the Highway Patrol, the
Enforcement Division of the Department of Liquor Licenses and
Control, and the Narcotics Division of the Arizona Department of Law.
2. The effectiveness with which the aaencv has met its obiective and
purpose and the efficiencv with which it has operated
DPS has generally been effective in meeting i t s overall objective and
purpose. However, in each of our four audits of the Department, we
have i d e n t i f i e d areas i n which i t s efficiency and effectiveness could
be improved. In t h i s report on the Administration Bureau and the
Director's Office, we recommend that the Department review i t s
vehicle take- home policy for a l l employees. Our analysis shows that
the Department has 250 vehicles which could have take- home status
revoked because these vehicles are mainly used for commuting and not
for job- related purposes. DPS should also review i t s f l e e t t o
identify unnecessary vehicles; our analysis found 211 vehicles that
could be eliminated from DPS's total f l e e t ( see Finding I, pages 5
through 14). We also recommend that DPS comply with State laws
requiring specific markings on State- owned vehicles ( see Finding 1 1 ,
pages 15 through 19). In addition, DPS needs to take steps to ensure
a f a i r and objective system exists for d i s t r i b u t i n g CJEF monies ( see
Finding I I I, pages 21 through 26).
In addition, our previous reports showed that improvements could also
be made within other bureaus we reviewed. In some of these areas the
Department was, at the time of the audit, evaluating a course of
act i on or was i n the process of imp l emen t i ng changes recomended i n
the audit report. The following are some of the areas where we
determined efficiencies could be realized or greater effectiveness
could be achieved:
By establishing a fee of at least $ 10 for processing background
checks, the Department cou Id generate more than $ 600,000
annually. DPS i s one of only seven states that has not
established such a fee. The Department agrees with establishing a
processing fee and plans to seek authorizing l e g i s l a t i o n . I n
addition, during the audit, DPS began charging for a l l requested
copies of accident reports, a change we anticipate w i l l generate
an additional $ 108,000 annually ( see Performance Audit Report No.
90- 5) .
As a function of the Telecomunications Bureau, DPS needs to take
steps to upgrade the completeness and r e l i a b i l i t y of important
criminal history data which i t i s s t a t u t o r i ly required to
maintain. The i n t e g r i t y of the data i s compromised for several
reasons-- arrest data i s not always entered on the system in a
timely manner, a majority of arrest records on the system are
missing at least one disposition, and DPS does not routinely
v e r i f y data entered into the system to ensure accuracy ( see
Performance Audit Report No. 90- 5).
Although BPS handles drug evidence worth m i l l i o n s o f dollars, i t
does not provide adequate controls to prevent t h e f t o f these
drugs. Drugs are not adequately packaged to detect or prevent
t h e f t , are not stored in secured and adequately restricted areas,
and are not routinely inventoried. Further, witnesses do not
consistently oversee the disposal of the drugs. In addition, DPS
also has serious deficiencies regarding controls over the m i l l i o n s
o f d o l l a r s worth of drugs i t releases for reverse sting operations
( see Performance Audi t Report No. 91- 2).
DPS1s current a i r rescue operations ( medical evacuation, or
flmedevacl') are marginal due to equipment, training, and s t a f f i n g
inadequacies. Whi le this i s a valuable service, the Legislature
needs to determine i f it should continue to be provided. Some of
DPS1s he1 icopters are not adequately powered to perform missions
over much of the State's terrain, and the helicopters are
frequently out of service for maintenance-- an average of 31
percent of the time during 1990. Several factors exist favoring
the discontinuance of this service; however, discontinuance could
leave certain rural areas and persons lacking insurance
underserved. I f DPS i s to continue providing medevac services,
extensive funding i s needed, p a r t i c u l a r l y to upgrade two
helicopters at a cost of approximately $ 4 to $ 8 m i l l i o n in
addition t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y increased maintenance and other
operating costs. Several options to fund these expenses could be
considered, including establishing a surcharge, assessing special
taxes or user fees, or increasing General Fund appropriations ( see
Performance Audit Report No. 91- 2).
A new manpower model, currently in the early stages of
implementation by DPS, appears to provide a sound basis for
assessing Highway Patrol s t a f f i n g needs. However, because the
number of s t a f f needed can vary greatly as a result of c r i t e r i a
and other information input into the model, several c r i t i c a l
problems need to be addressed before the model can be used
e f f e c t i v e l y for determining patrol s t a f f i n g and accompanying
budgetary needs. To help ensure adequate information i s input
into the model, DPS needs to ( 1) develop r e a l i s t i c service levels,
including factors such as patrol frequency and response time, ( 2)
i n s t i t u t e uniform standards and definitions upon which to base i t s
s t a f f i n g requirements, and ( 3) develop a more r e l i a b l e and
complete data base. I f these changes are made and the model
successfuIIy implemented, not only would i t help DPS to better
assess i t s manpower needs, but i t could also eventually assist the
Legislature in making budgetary decisions based on various service
level options ( see Performance Audit Report No. 91- 51.
3. The extent to which the aaencv has operated within the ~ u b l i cin terest
The Department of Public Safety has operated in the pub1 i c interest
by providing a variety of important services to the general pub1 ic,
other law enforcement agencies and members of the criminal justice
system, government o f f i c i a l s , and other groups. Some of these
services include the p a t r o l l i n g of State and Federal highways and
freeways, enforcing t r a f f i c and criminal statutes, deterring
importation and d i s t r i b u t i o n of i l l e g a l narcotics, assisting other
law enforcement groups in the investigation of criminal cases using
s c i e n t i f i c techniques for i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and evaluation of physical
evidence, providing basic training for law enforcement o f f i c e r s
through the Arizona Law Enforcement Training Academy, and promoting
public safety programs by presenting information to local schools and
c i v i c groups.
The Department also cites a variety of special accomplishments in
recent years. For example, DPS s t a f f have participated in
multiagency task forces directed at narcotics and organized crime.
This has resulted in the department gaining assets from the seizure
of assets from narcotics violators. As another example, the Highway
Patrol Bureau's Violator Directed Patrol ( VDP) program saturates high
accident areas with patrol o f f i c e r s resulting in increased recoveries
of stolen vehicles, felony arrests, and drug seizures while
contributing to the reduction of t r a f f i c accidents. Other programs
implemented by DPS in recent years include the Drug Recognition
Expert ( DRE) p: qram, the Fatigued Driver Program, and the Drug Abuse
Resistance Edu ation ( DARE) program. Additionally, the department
has developed advances in forensic techniques such as DNA analysis.
4. The extent to which rules and regulations ~ romulaated bv the auencv
are consistent with the leuislative mandate
According to the Department's Attorney General representative, DPS
has promulgated rules for areas of the law as required, and those
rules are consistent with State laws.
5. The extent to which the aaencv has encouraaed input from the public
before ~ r o m u l g a t i ni~ ts rules and rwulations and the extent to which
it has informed the public as to its actions and their expected impact
on the ~ u b l i c
According to the Department's Deputy Director and Attorney General
Rep resen tat i ve , new ru l es have not been adopted nor have changes to
existing rules occurred in recent years ( f i s c a l years 1989- 90 and
1990- 91). New rules were proposed in 1990 in the area of tow truck
regulation; however, the Governor's Regulatory Review Council twice
rejected the proposed revisions. As a r e s u l t , public meetings have
not been held. However, when proposed rules or rule changes have
been considered, as in the case of tow trucks, DPS advertises them
and holds preliminary meetings with the general public and interested
parties for input p r i o r to submission to the Governor's Regulatory
Review Council.
6. The extent to which the aqencv has been able to investiaate and
resolve complaints within its jurisdiction
DPS investigates complaints against certain professions and
services. Complaint investigations against security guards, private
investigators, and polygraph examiners are restricted by the
Department's limited authority. Although not responsible for
l icensing tow trucks and school buses, DPS responds to certain
complaints regarding these vehicles.
Guards. Investigators. Polvara~ h Examiners - During our audit of the
Criminal Justice Support Bureau, we reviewed the complaint
investigation f i l e s for a l l but one of the 55 written complaints
f i l e d against security guards, private investigators, and polygraph
examiners during the 1990 calendar year.(') Of the 54 f i l e s we
reviewed, complaints were classified as follows:
Services or b i l l i n g disputes 30%
Operating without a license or improper license 30%
Other miscellaneous 15%
Harassment, threats or endangerment 13%
Private business disputes 6%
Wage or other employer/ employee disputes 6%
While the Licensing Section has improved i t s complaint
investigations, i t is constrained by limited authority and a lack of
resources .
The Licensing Section is Iimited in i t s authority to take
disciplinary action. The Section can either suspend or revoke the
defendant's license, or at the other extreme, send a letter notifying
the defendant of the violation. They have no authority to take
intermediate actions. During 1990, the majority of the written
complaints against licensees resulted in no substantive action being
taken against the defendant.
( 1 ) One complaint involving a , DPS Polygraph Examiner had been referred t o DPS Internal
A f f a i r s and was unavailable f o r our review since i t was an on- going criminal
investigation.
The Licensing Section has even fewer available courses of action in
pursuing cMplaints against persons who are operating unlicensed.
While i t is a misdemeanor to function as a Private Investigator or
Security Guard without a license, the Licensing Section usually does
not issue citations. According to the Section Commander,
misdemeanors are given such a low p r i o r i t y by police and prosecutors
that they would not be pursued.
In an attempt to gain compliance with statutes, the Licensing Section
has resorted to handling unlicensed operations administratively.
Because they are not authorized to issue cease and desist orders, the
Licensing Section sends a letter to defendants advising them that
they are in violation of statutes. However, i f an unlicensed
operation is extensive or a repeat offender, the Licensing Section
can attempt to close i t down through other means. For example, a
ease is currently being pursued through the Attorney General's Office
that w i l l be prosecuted as consumer fraud rather than DPS taking
act ion.
The Licensing Section could improve i t s resolution of complaints by
expanding the range of possible actions used to discipline
offenders. California, Nevada, and New Mexico are western states
with a broader range of disciplinary actions, including citations,
fines, public or private reprimands, suspensions of varying length,
and the requirement of remedial action.
Tow trucks and school buses - The Department also handles certain
complaints regarding tow trucks and school buses, although i t is not
responsible for licensing these services. For both of these areas,
DPS is responsible for conducting physical inspections of these
vehicles to ensure they conform to requirements set forth in statute
and rules concerning required structural characteristics and safety
features. Following an acceptable inspection ( vehicles are inspected
when new, when ownership has been transferred, and then annually
thereafter), DPS issues an operating permit ( Permit of Authorization)
which is affixed to the vehicle.
DPS receives few complaints about tow trucks and school buses. Most
complaints DPS receives about tow trucks are fee related, and since
DPS has no authority to act on this type of complaint, i t refers
complainants to other authorities for assistance. For other tow
truck complaints, DPS w i l l conduct an investigation, which can
include interviewing involved parties and inspecting the vehicle. I f
the complaint is found to be valid, DPS may remove the permit from
the vehicle u n t i l the vehicle or operating company meet requirements
to DPS's satisfaction. School bus complaints, which generally
question bus safety, are handled in a similar manner.
7. The extent to which the Attornev General. or anv other a ~ ~ l i c a b l e
acjencv of State government has the authoritv to rosec cute actions
under enablina leaislation
The Attorney General, County Attorneys, City Attorneys, and the U. S.
Attorney General may a l l prosecute cases resulting from DPS
enforcement a c t i v i t i e s . Prosecution of an enforcement action by any
of these groups depends upon various factors, including the level and
severity of the offense.
8. The extent to which the aQencv has addressed deficiencies in its
enablina statutes which prevent it from fulfilline its statutory mandates
According to the Department's Attorney General representative, DPS
? as made appropriate efforts to address deficiencies in i t s
statutes. In recent years, for example, the Department has pursued
legislation pertaining to various portions of the agency. During the
1990 Legislative session, the Automated Fingerprint Identification
System ( AFIS) b i l l was passed ( Chapter 304, SB 1001) which provided
for a statewide data base of fingerprint information accessed by
remote terminals. During the 1991 session, legislation passed
relating to fingerprint fees for the Arizona Criminal Justice
Information System ( Chapter 152, HB 2445). The Department also
introduced legislation which would have made t r a f f i c violations for
speed a c i v i l penalty rather than a criminal one; however, this
legisiation did not pass.
9. The extent to which chanws are necessarv in the laws of the aaencv
to adeauately complv with the factors listed in the Sunset Law
Based on our audit work, we have recmended that the Legislature
consider the following changes to DPS statutes.
Revise A. R. S. 541- 1750 to a l low DPS to establ ish a $ 10 fee for
conduct i ng other background checks of app l i cants for I i censes
and emp l oymen t at the State l eve I . Revenues not needed to
support t h i s processing should then be deposited into the
General Fund ( see Performance Audit Report No. 90- 5).
0 The Legislature needs to decide whether DPS should continue to
provide medevac service, taking into consideration current
operational deficiencies, the need for service, and the cost to
bring the service up to an acceptable level. I f the Legislature
decides not to continue t h i s service, i t should amend A. R. S.
541- 1834 to delete the provision for a i r medical service ( see
Performance Audit Report No. 91- 21.
10. The extent to which the termination of the aaencv would sianificantlv
harm the ~ ublic health, safetv, or welfare
DPS's role i s to protect the public and to assist other law
enforcement agencies in protecting the public. Termination of the
Department would undoubtedly harm the public's safety and welfare.
DPS i s needed to protect the public as i t i s the only agency
responsible for t r a f f i c enforcement on the State's highway and
freeway systems and the only agency with statewide enforcement powers
in criminal investigations, such as narcotics, organized
crime/ racketeering, and liquor.
In addition to i t s enforcement responsibilities, t* e Department also
helps to improve the protection of the ~ u b l i cb y providing assistance
to local law enforcement agencies in a variety of ways, including
s c i e n t i f i c analysis, criminal information systems, statewide
communications, investigative assis- . e, o f f i c e r training and a i r
rescue. Without t h i s assistance, lot*, agencies would either have to
provide the services individu- at potentially higher costs, or
wou Id lack such services.
The Department also has responsibility for specific regulatory
functions. However, termination of several of these functions-- the
licensing and regulating of private investigators, security guards,
and polygraph examiners-- as currently operated would not appear to
s i g n i f i c a n t l y harm the public health, safety, or welfare. For
examp l e , a l though DPS' s L i cens i ng Sect i on conducts a background check
to ensure that an applicant does not have a criminal record,
Licensing has limited authority to pursue complaints f i l e d against
licensees ( see Sunset Factor 6). A l l available complaints f i l e d in
1990 associated with the licensing function were reviewed. None of
the complaints f i l e d against licensees were of a very serious nature
and the resolution of the complaints indicated that other avenues of
r e l i e f are available to complainants. Of the complaints investigated
during 1990, the following resolutions occurred:
No evidence of wrongdoing or grounds f o r action
Letter sent to defendant advising of v i o l a t i o n
Referral to c i v i l action or bonding company
Referral to other agency
No response to complaint by defendant
On- going investigation
Request for more informat ion ( unobtained)
During 1990, the Licensing Section also suspended two private
investigators' licenses for a period of 30 and 60 days and revoked
one security guard's license after being advised of his arrest and
conviction. However, none of these actions were associated with a
formal complaint.
In the area of polygraph examiners, the Department feels that
consideration should be given to the deregulation of t h i s profession
by the State, as t h i s industry i s regulated by several Federal
statutes, possibly making State regulation redundant.
11. The extent to which the level of rsulation exercised bv the aQencv is
a~ propriate and whether less or more strinvnt levels of rqulation
should be a~ prmriate
The Licensing Section within DPS currently serves more of a
registration function than a licensing function. The section i s
responsible for the licensing of private investigators, security
guards, and' polygraph examiners. Fingerprinting and FBI clearance
assures that an applicant does not have a criminal record, and
private investigators and polygraph examiners are required to
demonstrate a certain level of experience. However, private
investigators and security guards are not tested prior to licensing
and training requirements are minimal. In addition, the Licensing
Section has limited authority to address complaints.
I f the Legislature wants to continue the current status of DPS's
regulatory operations for private investigators and security guards,
then registration is appropriate. However, i f the Legislature's
intent i s to have a true licensing function and stronger enforcement
options, then the statutory authority of DPS w i l l need to be reviewed
and strengthened.
The Department has plans to propose legislation during the 1992
Legislative Session to make i t s private investigator and security
guard regulatory programs more e f f i c i e n t . The intended changes w i l l
i nc l ude new qua l i f i cat ion standards , new suspens i on and revoca t ion
provisions, and new professional conduct standards, such as
compliance with worker's compensation laws.
In addition to the above functions, the Department is also
responsible for regulating tow trucks ( through the issuing of
permits, not licensing). According to the Department, elimination of
i t s regulatory requirements for tow trucks would not be in the best
interest of pub1 ic safety. Rather, DPS be1 ieves that the content of
tow truck rules and regulations are generally adequate, but expects
to rewrite the rules in the near future to ensure conformance with
current rule- making standards as outlined by the Governor's
Regulatory Review Council. Due to time constraints, we were unable
to study tow truck regulation by DPS.
The extent to which the aaencv has used ~ r i v a t e contractors in the
performance of its duties and how effective use of ~ r i v a t e contractors
could be accom~ lished
Due to the nature of many of the duties performed by DPS, use of
private sector contractors appears to be inappropriate or unavailable
for many functions. For example, according to DPS, existing State
and Federal laws and regulations prohibit private contractors from
col Iect ing, sorting, or disseminating criminal history record
information. In other areas, DPS policy prohibits the use of private
contractors in performing other functions. For example, use of
private sector maintenance personnel for actions requiring access to
radio equipment on remote DPS sites is not authorized by DPS policy
due to security considerations relating to law enforcement
communications.
DPS has, however, used private contractors in some areas where the
State may not have adequate human resources or technical expertise.
Some of these areas include:
Maintenance of the Phoenix Private Branch Exchange ( PBX)-- this is
the telephone switch which provides the capability for routing
calls, interoffice dialing, and intercoms.
e Most vehicle maintenance
Road and weather information service
Leasing and maintenance of pager equipment
Psychological services and medical services for job applicants and
emp l oyees
F a c i l i t y maintenance such as j a n i t o r i a l service, groundskeeping,
and repairs
Certain training programs
Maintenance of rotary and fixed wing a i r c r a f t , and repair of
navigational components in the a i r c r a f t
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
2102 WEST ENCANTO BLVD P 0. BOX 6638 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85005- 6638 ( 602) 223- 2000
FIFE SYMINGTON F. J. " RICK' AYARS
GOVERNOR DIRECTOR
September 25, 1991
Douglas R. Norton
Auditor General
2700 North Central Avenue
phoenix, Arizona 85004
Dear Mr. Norton:
The revised preliminary draft of the performance audit report
of this agency's Administration Bureau and Office of the
Director has been reviewed. A written response to that report
is hereby provided as requested in your September 18, 1991
transmittal letter.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide further comment on
this report.
Very truly yours,
F. J. " RICK" AYARS, COLONEL
Director
Deputy Director
cr
Attachment
RESPONSE TO THE PERFORMANCE AUDIT
OF THE
ADMINISTRATION BUREAU AND OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
INTRODUCTION
This response answers the Auditor General's revised preliminary
report, transmitted September 18, 1991, on the above cited
performance audit conducted as part of the Sunset Review process
pursuant to A. R. S. S41- 2351 through S41- 2379.
We were disappointed that the revised preliminary report did not
recognize progress the Department has made in correcting previously
noted deficiencies. We were even more disappointed by the scant
changes in the draft report, which failed to reflect the Director's
position on various matters of substance.
The central issue is departmental effectiveness -- the degree to
which we can perform our mission, maintain a decent reputation, and
be able to recruit and retain qualified employees. This requires
properly trained and equipped personnel, a visible presence, a
constant state of readiness and the logistical resources needed to
serve as a state- level law enforcement agency, whether in
metropolitan areas or remote stations throughout Arizona.
The Department of Public Safety was given a statutorily unique
purpose that distinguishes it from all other law enforcement
agencies in Arizona and differentiates it in character from other
State agencies. Accordingly, the Department's response takes into
consideration such unique factors as the dual nature of its
mission. One aspect of the mission is direct responsibility for
specific enforcement and regulatory functions; the other is
responsibility for providing support functions ( investigative,
enforcement, technical and opera