State of Arizona Project S.L.I.M. report on the Department of Public Safety

              I GV80.2: P81

COpy 2

I

I:

I

I

I

I

I,

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

STATE OF ARIZONA

PROJECT S. LI. M. REPORT ON THE

DEPARTMENT of PUBUC SAFElY

Jliy 2, 1992

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

It

I

I

I

I

DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC SAFETY

PROJECT SUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

~

EXEaJllVE~ 1

RECOUMENDAllONS

HIGHWAY PATROL BUREAU

Highway Patrol Bureau Organizational Summary .......•......................... 35

Special Services DMslon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Sergeant Enforcement ActMties ...............................•............. 67

OffIcer Report Writing and Information Processing 69

Officer Reporting Forms ...................................•............... 78

Accident Management 92

OffIcer ActMty Code 106 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Operations Reserve Program " 105

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BUREAU

Criminal Investigations Bureau Organizational Structure 111

Special InvestlgatlonsFuncdon 133

Tool Rooms 135

Department Report ( DR) Tracking 138

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUPPORT BUREAU

Criminal Justice Support Bureau Organization Summary 141

Aviation Organization Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 182

Air Rescue Units .......................................•...••........... 195

DEPARTMENT OF PlBJC SAFElY

PRO- ECTSUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( continued)

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUPPORT BUREAU

Paramedic Clvllianlzation ......................................•........... 214

Fixed Wing Aircraft 219

Publications 232

Intoxlyzer Unit .........................................•............... 234

DPS Polygraph Services 237

Evidence Management ........•.............•.•.............•.•.......... 240

Self Funding Licensing 245

Questioned Documents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

Federal Grant Positions - Scientific Analysis DMsion 250

ADMINISTRATION BUREAU

Administration Bureau Organization Summary 268

Recruitment ActivIty 303

TELECOMMUNICATION BUREAU ORGANIZATION

Telecommunication Bureau Organization Summary 307

Dispatch Center Consolidation ".............................. 350

OVERALL DPS ORGANIZATION SUMMARY ......•...•..........•..•..••...•••.... , .. 353

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I'

I

iii

I

I

I

I

1\

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

l'

I

I

ii'

I

I

I

I

DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC SAFETY

PROJECT SUM

TABlE OF CONTENTS

( continued)

RECOUMENDATIONS

QTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

Air Rescue Night Vision CapabUltles 397

EMSCOM Dispatching 399

Third Party Reimbursement For Medical Missions ............•................... 400

Aircraft For 55 Speed Enforcement ...............•.............••........... 405

Aircraft Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 408

Aircraft Scheduling and BUling Process 410

Photo Lab Materials Management 417

Ucensing Fee For Information Packets 421

Crime Lab Revenue Enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423

Manpower Deployment 425

DPS Vehicle Deployment 427

Armory Services Revenue Enhancement 434

EXHIBITS

Executive Summary

1 DPS Summary of Recommendation Titles and savings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

2 Department of Public Safety Interview Ust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3 ArIzona Department of Public Safety, Present Organizational Structure 35

4 ArIzona Department of Public Safety, Proposed Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

5 DPS Position Changes From Present to Proposed Organization ......•............... 37

III

DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC SAFETY

PROJECT SUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( continued)

EXHIBITS

Highway Patrol Bureau - Organization Structure

7 Highway Patrol Bureau. Present Organizational Structure ............•.....•....•... 47

8 Northern Highway Patrol Division .....................•...................... 48

9 Southern Highway Patrol DMsion ................•........................... 49

10 Central Highway Patrol DMsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . . . . . . . . 50

11 Metro Highway Patrol DMslon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . 51

12 Highway Patrol Bureau. Present Cost to Manage .......................•... . . . . . . 52

13 FTE Change Impact HPB 54

Special Services Division

14 Special Service DMsion, Highway Patrol Bureau - Present Organizational Structure 71

15 FTE Change Impact. Highway Patrol- Special Service 72

Sergeant Enforcement Activities

16 Sergeant Enforcement Savings ...........................•.................. 74

Officer Report Writing and Information Processing

17 Highway Patrol Bureau. Present Weekly Time and ActIvIty Report Process 78

18 Accident Reporting Process ( present) ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

19 Estimated Cost for Computer Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . • . • • . . . . . . 80

20 HPB Proposed Weekly Time and Activity Report Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

21 Highway Patrol Bureau. Proposed Accident Reporting Process .•...•......•.......... 82

Iv

I

I

I

il

'\ I"..

I

I

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

, I

I

II

I

I

t

II

I

I

I

I

I

t

I'

I

I

DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC SAFElY

PRo. ECTSUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( continued)

EXHIBITS

Officer Reporting Forms

22 Forms Explanation ......................•............•.•......••..•...... 90

23 Savings On OffIcer Reporting .....................•....•.........••.•..•.•.. 96

Accident Management

24 Level 2 Officer Man- hour Savings .........................................•. 100

25 Levell Cost Recovery .............................................••.... 101

Officer Activity Code 106

26 Weekly Activity Report ...............................•..........•........ 104

27 0106 Code OffIcer Activity Sam~' e ..........................•.......•........ 107

28 0106 Code Savings ....................................•........•.•...... 109

Qperations Reserve Program

29 EstImated Reserve Officer Hours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . .. 113

30 Value of Reserve Officer Hours 114

31 Human Resource Expense 115

Criminal Investigations Bureau - Organizational Structure

32 Crimina/ Investigations Bureau, Present Organizational Structure , 123

33 Organized Crime/ Narcotics I .......................•..........•.........•. , 124

34 Organized Crime/ Narcotics II ...............•............•••.•.••.••....... 125

35 Organized Crime Intelligence .............................•............... ~ 126

36 Criminal Investigation Bureau Cost to Manage ..........•.•••..................• 127

v

DEPARTl. 4ENT OF PUBUC SAFETY

PROJECrSUM

TABlE OF CONTENTS

( continued)

EXHIBITS

Crimina! Investigations Bureau - Organizational Structure - Continued

37 1991 Task Force Locations in Arizona ..•........•....•..•••...•....•.••..•... 128

38 FTE Change Impact CIB ................•............•.............•...•.. 129

39 FTE Change Impact CIB ..................•......•••.•..••.....•.......... 133

pepartment Report CDR) Tracking

40 CI Officer Man- hour Savings ........................................•...... 143

Crimina! Justice SupPOrt Bureau Organizational Summary

41 Criminal Justice Support Bureau ( CJSB) - Present Organizational Structure 153

42 Support Services Division - Present Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 154

43 Ucensing Section - Present Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . .• 155

44 Investlgative Support Section - Present Organizational Structure 156

45 Evidence Section - Present Organizational Structure ..........••................. 157

46 Sclenttflc Analysis Division - Present Organizational Structure ........•............. 158

47 Criminal Justice Support Bureau - Present Cost to Manage ...................•.•.. 160

48 Criminal Justice Support Functions - Proposed Organizational Structure 170

49 Support Services Functions - Proposed Organizational Structure . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 171

50 Ucensing Section - Proposed Organizational Structure 175

51 Scientific Analysis Division - Proposed Organizational Structure ....•........•....... 176

52 Criminal Justice Support Functions - Proposed Cost to Manage .•.................. 178

53 Ucensing Section ( Support Bureau Level) Proposed Cost to Manage 179

vi

I

I

I,

I

f

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

.1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

a

I

t

I

I,

DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC SAFETY

PROJECT SUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( continued)

EXHIBITS

Criminal Justice Sypoort Byreau Organizational Summary - ContlnYed

54 Investigative Support Functions - Proposed Cost to Manage ....•.................• 180

55 Scientific Analysis Division - Proposed Cost to Manage .......•............••..... 181

56 FTE Change Impact - CJSB - Sureau Staff .......•......•.•••.•...•••....•.••• 186

57 FTE Change Impact - CJSB - Support Services 187

58 FTE Change Impact - CJSB - Scientific Analysis ...............•...........•.... 188

59 Position Type Change Impact - CJSB - Scientific Analysis ....•..........•........ 189

Aviation Organization Summary

60 Aviation Division - Present Organizational Structure .......................•...... 195

61 Duties - Aviation Division Commander 196

62 Duties - Operations District Commander ..................•••........•.•...... 197

63 Aviation Division Personnel Cost - Present Organization Fully Staffed 198

64 Aviation Division - Proposed Organizational Structure ...................•.••....• 199

65 FTE Change Impact - CJSB Aviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

66 Position Type Change Impact - CJSB Aviation ..........••.....•......••....... 201

67 Aviation Division Personnel Cost - Proposed Organization Fully Staffed .....•....•.... 202

Air Rescue Units

68 Shift Analysis - Peak Demand, FY 90- 91, Hourty Mission Summary ............••.•.• 211

69 DPS Helicopters FY 90- 91 Missions: Types, Average Duration - Phoenix ......••••..•. 212

70 DPS Helicopters FY 90- 91 Missions: Types, Average Duration - Tucson •............. 213

71 Medical Air Evacuation Resources ( Helicopter) . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . • . . . . • • . . . . . . . . 214

72 Medical Air Transport Market - 1991 ................................•...•.... 215

73 Other Urban Area Helicopter Resources , . 216

74 CPS Helicopter Missions: Costs FY 90- 91 .................•.........•.•...•... 217

vII

DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC SAFETY

PROJECT SUM

TABLE OF CONTENrS

( continued)

EXHIBITS

Air Rescue Units - Continued

75 Non- Personnel Costs Per Right Hour, 89- 90 .....••......••......•...........•• 218

76 Personnel Costs FY 91/ 92 .........................••..............•...... 219

n OPS Air Rescue Units 60 Minute Hesponse Time ( Proposed) 220

78 casa Grande Moving Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . 221

Paramedic CIvDianization

79 Paramedic Civilianization Benefits Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

Fixed Wing

80 OPS AIrcraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

81 Sample of Missions by Requestor and Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . • • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236

82 Part 1: Aircraft Rates and Part 2: Pilo'~ Rates ...........................•...... 237

83 KingAlr B- 2oo Operating Costs vs Market Rate " 239

Self Funding Ucensing

84 1991- 92 Projected Ucensing Section Activity Levels and Costs " 255

Federal Grant positions

85 Ust of Services to All Law Enforcement Agencies .. '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

86 Agencies Served By The Crime Laboratory System .............•................ 263

87 Submissions By Type of Agency FY 1990/ 91 264

88 Staff Summary and Costs -- 16 FTEs , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . • . 265

89 OPS Crime Lab Cases Completed FY 83- 90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . 267

viII

I

I

I

I

I

I

, I

I

I a I

I

I

I

I a

I

I,

I,

I

I

t

I

I

I " t

I

I

I

I,

I

I

I

I

I

DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC SAFETY

PRO. ECTSUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( continued)

EXHIBITS

Administration Bureau Organization Summary

90 Current Cost to Manage - Administration Bureau . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279

91 Parts 1- 8 Administration Bureau - Personnel Costs, Current StaffIng . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . 280

92 FTE Change Impact Parts 1 and 2 - Administration 288

93 Position Type Change Impact - Administration .......•.........••.•............ 290

94 Administration Bureau, Present Organizational Structure ( parts 1- 3) 291

95 Support Bureau, Proposed Organizational Structure ( parts 1 and 2) 294

96 Proposed Cost to Manage - Administration Bureau . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

97 Administration Bureau, Personnel Costs Proposed StaffIng - Management S8rv1ces 297

98 Administration Bureau, Personnel Proposed Staffing - logistics and FacUlties DMsion 300

Recruitment Activities

99 Human Resources Section - Present Organizational Structure 305

100 Human Resources Section - Proposed Organizational Structure . . . . . . . • . • . . . . . . . . . . . 306

Telecommunication Byreay Organization Summary

101 Telecommunications Bureau, Present Organizational Structure 317

102 Telecommunications Bureau, Cost to Manage - Present 318

103 Telecommunications Division, Proposed Organizational Structure 319

104 Telecommunications DMsion, Cost to Manage - Proposed 320

105 FTE Change Impact Support Bureau - Telecommunications DMsion 321

106 Data Processing Division, Present Organizati0nai Structure . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • 322

107 Data Processing, Cost to Manage - Present ( parts 1 and 2) . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

108 Data Processing Section, Proposed Organizational Structure ..•..•....•.•.......... 325

i 09 Data Processing, Cos!: to Manage - Proposed ( Pans 1 ana 2) .......•.............. 326

Ix

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

PROJECT SUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( continued)

EXHIBITS

Telecommunication Bureau Organization Summary - Continued

110 FTE Change Impact TCB - Data Processing ............•...................... 328

111 Technical Communications Division, Present Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330

112 Technical Communications, Cost to Manage - Present ( parts 1 and 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

113 Technical Communications Section, Proposed Organizational Structure 333

114 Technical Communications, Cost to Manage - Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334

115 FTE Change Impact TCB - TCC 336

116 Operational Communications Division - Present Organizational Structure 338

117 Operational Communications Division - Present 339

118 Operational Communications Section, Proposed Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340

119 Operational Communications Division - Proposed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341

120 FTE Change Impact, TCB - Op Comm 342

121 ACJIS Division, Present Organizational Structure 343

122 ACJIS DMsion, Cost to Manage - Present . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344

123 ACJIS Section, Proposed Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 345

124 ACJIS Division. Cost to Manage - Proposed . ,.... 346

125 FTE Change Impact, TCB - ACJIS .........................•................ 347

126 Position Type Change Impact, TCB - ACJIS ,......... 349

Overall DPS Organization Summary

127 Office of the Director - Present Organizational Structure '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366

128 OffIce of the Director - Present Cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367

129 OffIce of the Director, Proposed Organizational Structure 368

130 Office of the Director, Proposed Cost 369

131 FTE Change Impact - Office of the Director ..................••................ 370

132 ProposedOperationsBureBu 373

x

1,

I

I

~

I

I

I,

l

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

J

II

I

I

I

t

I

I

1\

I

I

I,

I

I

I

DEPARTMENT OF PVBUC SAFETY

PRQJECTSUM

TABlE OF CONTENTS

( continued)

EXHIBITS

Overall DPS Organization Summary - Continued

133 Operations Bureau Narcotics 374

134 Operations Bureau Intelligence ..............•....•......................... 375

135 Operations Bureau Metro 1 376

136 Operations Bureau Metro 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3n

137 Operations Bureau Region 1 378

138 Operations Bureau Region 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379

139 Operations Bureau Region 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . 380

140 Operations Bureau Region 4 381

141 Operations Bureau Region 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382

142 Support Bureau, Proposed Organizational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 383

143 FTE Change Impact - Support Bureau ..............•........................ 384

144 Proposed Officer II Salary Increase ..............................•........... 386

145 Operations Bureau, Proposed Cost to Manage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387

146 Support Bureau, Proposed Cost to Manage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389

147 Department of Public Safety, Present Cost to Manage 390

148 Department of Public Safety, Proposed Cost to Manage 391

149 FTI: Change Impact - Operations Bureau 392

150 Savings from Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396

Third- Party Reimbursement for Medical Missions

151 Cost of Medical Missions ................................•................ 402

152 Benefits of Recovering Third- Party Funding .......................•............ 404

xl

DEPARTMENT OF PUBUC SAFETY

PRQJECTSUM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

( continued)

EXHIBITS

Aircraft Scheduling and BUling Process

153 Right Scheduling and BKllng Process Row Chart . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413

Photo Lab Materials Management

154 DPSI~ Requ~ Fonns 419

DPS Vehicle DePlQyment

' 55 Vehicle Assignment Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432

APPENDIX

Offlcer Reporting Forms Appendix A

xii

I

I

\ 1

I

I

1\

I

I ­t

I

\ 1

II

I

I

, I

I

I

I

I

I

, I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

l

Ii

I1I

I

I

t

July 2,1992

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Director

Arizona Department of Public Safety

2102 West Encanto Boulevard

Phoenix, Arizona 85005

Dear Colonel Ayars:

We have completed the Governor's State Long- Term Improved Management ( SUM) diagnostic

review of the Arizona Department of Public Safety ( DPS), and are pleased to present to you our report of

findings and recommendations. Our analysis was conducted from November 1991 through March 1992.

In this summary, we describe the objectives of the review, the approach we used throughout the

analysis, and the major changes we recommend as a result of the study. We have quantified the potentlal

benefits of the recommendations, recommended an Implementation schedule and identified those

recommendations requiring legislative support for Implementation.

In total, we identified benefits of $ 20.01 mUllon for the Department of Public Safety, Including $ 17.4

mOlion In recurring ( annual) benefits and $ 2.7 mUlion In non- recurrent ( one- time) benefits. Our summary of

recommendation titles and savings Is presented In exhibit 1, Summary of Recommendations, TItles and

Savings.

OUf proposed benefits can be obtained without reducing current service levels to the cttlzens of

ArIzona by a single hour of officer patrol or Investigation time. In addition, we have Included

recommendations which wUr allow DPS to Increase service levels without Increasing Its payroll costs ( see

RecommenoatlOns WIth - COSt Avoidance- exhibit 1, Summary of Recommendations. TlUes and savingS).

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 2

OBJECTIVES AND GOALS

The overall objective of our diagnostic review was to evaluate the Department eX Public Safety

using various business analysis and Total Quality Management ( TQM) techniques to identify Improvements

In the delivery of the Agency's services. Our goal was to streamline processes, eliminate nwvork and

unnecessary work, Improve systems and procedures, and realign groups with related functions to deliver

services at lower cost. In addition, our goal was to establish organizational structures that will support the

long- term goal of continuous Improvement.

APPRQAOi

We approached this study by taking an Integrated vIEMI of the organization. For each area

reviewed, we studied the mission and strategic focus, the product/ process delivery methodology, the

process technology, methods for using and managing Information, performance measurements, quality and

service issues and measurements, organizational structures, and the logistics and physical assets used by

the organization to deliver products and services.

We began by studying the " shelf data" provided to us by DPS to become famUlar with the mission,

size. structure and responsibUitles of the major areas of the Department We then conducted extensive

interviews at all levels of the organization, selecting those Individuals and groups best situated to help us

identity areas for improvement We placed special emphasis on Interviewing a large and representative

sample of Highway Patrol and Criminal Investigation OffIcers.

During the course of our review, over 330 Interviews were conducted of Agency and external

personnel located throughout ArIzona ( see Exhibit 2, Department of Public Safety, Interview Ust). Where

appropriate, detaUed process flows, were developed to identity non- value added elements that could be

eliminated.

In addition to developing process flows, the following analytical techniques were employed:

• Quantlflcation of cost to provide a quality service and opportunities to reduce related cost

elements

I

I

Ii

I

I

I

I,

I

' I

I

t

il

I,

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

t

I .'

l

IJI

I

I

I _ i

I,,

I

I

I

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 3

• Identification of prevention activities ( upstream) to reduce more costly falures In the process

• Identification of areas where root cause analysis can be used to assess the Incipient causes

of faUure

• Assessment of the organizational structures Including consideration of the following Issues:

Cost- to- manage

Span of control

Managerial layering

Alignment of missions

Sworn and cM/ lan job classifications

Distribution of responslbUities

Fragmentation of duties

Overtapplng or redundant functions

Degree of function standardization

Centralization versus decentralization.

The review was conducted through analytical rather than comparative techniques to provide the

Agency with an opportunity to identify breakpoint levels of improvement. This approach allows DPS

Management to expand the leadership role already established In the law enforcement community In fields

such as scientific analysis rather than simply matching the ' lrganlzatlonal practices of other States.

The first step In analyzing the Department of Public Safety's organization was to evaluate the

services provided in terms of the Agency's basic mission and top management's stated overall strategic

goals. Next, those services consistent with DPS strategy were analyzed to streamline their processes and

improve performance. Finally, a proposed organization structure was constructed to ( 1) support the

alignment of missions, ( 2) establish appropriate spans of control. ( 3) reduce layering ( which Impedes

organizational f1exibUity, communication, and the empowerment of those closest to the customers), ( 4)

eliminate duties, and ( 5) consolidate fragmented functions.

In order to quantify the Impact of changes under consideration, time estimates were obtained for

each task from Interviewees. In some Instances work activities were observed and measured. As an

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 4

example, a number of r1de- aJongs were conducted with patrol officers and criminal investigators. In addition,

statistics provided by DPS were used to assess the volumes and types of transactions performed. As an

example, complete 1991 Highway Patrol OffIcer man- hour statistics reported by activity code and District

were obtained and studied.

As findings and a1tematlve recommendations were developed, care was taken to review and test

them, taking into special consideration the Input from SUM team members with extensive law enforcement

experience. Findings and alternative recommendations were reviewed with appropriate DPS managerial

levels to determine the completeness and accuracy of the analyses. As higher levels of confidence In

findings and recommendations were reached, progress, findings and recommendations were reviewed with

DPS Senior Management. A total of 28 meetings were held between the Project SUM Team and members

of the DPS Executive Staff untU the Initial Draft Report was released on April 27, 1992.

SUMMARY OF ANOINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Department of Public Safety can realize major cost savings, revenue enhancements and

Increases In customer service without jeopardizing Its basic mission by ( 1) eliminating or reducing non- value

added aetlvltles, paperwork and assets, ( 2) streamlining processes, ( 3) Improving activity measurement and

analysis, ( 4) reorganizing and consolidating functions, and ( 5) staffing appropriately with both sworn and

cMllan personnel.

Savings which Impact personnel costs ( the largest cost category accounting for over 60% of the

Department's budget) are divided into two categories: ( 1) actual reductions In positions and ( 2) reductions

In man- hours expended on actMties.

Savings based on reductions In positions ( e. g. In middle management and administrative positions),

are counted as annual cost reductions In the Department's budget. Vacancies In the current organization

are eliminated in our proposed organization and are therefore counted as cost reductions ( except for two

vacancies to be fUled in the Scientific Analysis DMslon, two vacancies in the Telecommunications DMslon

and two vacancies In the Operations Bureau).

Based on our customer interviews, the current level of service provided by the fDled DPS positions

is satisfactory. In addition, we found that all Highway Patrol Bureau and Criminal Investigations Bureau

I

, I

I

I

\ t

­I

,,

I

I

I

: 1 ,.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I,

I

I

I

I

I

I

a

I

I

I

I

I

I

, I

I

I,

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

PageS

positions allowed by management to remain vacant were In Officer ranks which are closest to the

customers: there were no vacancJes In supervisory, management or administrative staff positions. However.

should higher customer service levels be require.. in Highway Patrol or CrIminal Investigations, we suggest

they be met with proposed Officer produetlvtty Improvement savings.

Officer productivity improvement savings. based on proposed reductions In non- value added

Officer man- hours. are counted as cost avoidance. Also counted as cost avoidance are Increased Squad

Sergeant patrol time, increases In Reserve OffIcers and Reserve Officer hours. The value of the costs

avoided Is determined by the number of Full- Time Equivalent ( FTE) positions which would have to be hired

to provide the equivalent additional man- hours of value- added service. These cost avoidance savings. which

total 84.5 FTE positions, should be sufficient to meet DPS needs tor Increased Officer service tor years to

come without filling current vacancies or increasing positions. In addition, the costs of unfunded vacancies

has also been moved from cost savings to cost reduction.

Based on the savings realized. and to support long- term Improvement. we recommend DPS

Increase Its investment in entry level personnel by raising ali DPS OffIcer II salaries to levels currently

competitive with the Phoenix Police D~ partment. The Agency Is a closed system which. In line with law

enforcement tradition. promotes only from within. As a result, the quality and motivation of entry level

personnel impacts DPS management far Into the future. We estimate the annual cost of this

recommendation wli be less than $ 2 millon.

We recommend. based on the savings realized, that DPS provide each squad with a personal

computer and appropriate software ( i. e. word processing and communications) to Increase Officer

productivity by saving time spent on reporting. We estimate the one- time cost of this recommendation will

be $ 700,000 and the annual cost wli be S8,5QO tor time and material costs.

We also recommend DPS supplement Its current investment In the management development of

Its supervisors and managers to exploit tully the benefits of our proposed organization: lower cost of quality

without reducing quality of service. We propose an annual investment of $ 200.000.

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 6

8iminatlon Or Redyction of AetMtles. Paoerwork and Assets

The Department of Public Safety engages In aetMtles which are not consistent with Its basic

mission of providing backup support to ArIzona law enforcement agencies. especially In rural areas. As an

example, DPS Air Rescue Units perfonn emergency medical services and hospital transfers In metro areas

where the private sector Is currently capable of meeting demand for these services.

We recommend DPS consolidate the two metro Air Rescue Units Into one rural Unit midway

between the two metro areas and focus on providing search and rescue and law enforcement support to

southern Arizona. This recommendation will result In the following benefits:

• Proceeds from the reduction of one Air Rescue Unit

• Sale of helicopter assets

• Reduction In aircraft operating and maintenance expenses

• 8iminatlon of competition with the private sector

• Renewed Agency focus on Its basic mission. Our detaUed findings and recommendations are

presented in our recommendation entitled " Air Rescue Units."

The DPS Aviation Division also provides the State of ArIzona and other external agencies with fixed

wing air services on a " no questions asked" basis and at below private sector rates. The largest category

of service Is recorded simply as " meetings" and accounts for approximately 40% of flights based on our

sample of FY 1991- 92 flights.

We recommend DPS raise Its rates to cover all actual costs and reduce internal and external

" meeting" flights by a total of 50% by tightening controls on flight requests. This recommendation will result

In the following benefits:

• Further reduction In aviation manpower requirements

I

I

I

I

JI

I

I

I

I

I

I

I,

I

l,

l

I

I

I

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 7

• Proceeds from the sale of all but two aircraft

• Reduction In fixed wing operating and maintenance expense. Our detailed findings and

recommendations are presented In our recommendation entitled " Fixed Wing Aircraft."

DPS reporting procedures currently require OffIcers to record duplicate Information on the Accident

Report forms. We recommend eliminating the " Accident Supplement" based on Information already recorded

elsewhere on the Accident report. Officers are also required to use a special D. U. 1. Offense Report when

the same information can be collected on the standard Offense Report. We recommend eliminating the

unnecessary D. U. 1. Offense Report. Our detaUed findings and recommendations are presented In our

recommendation entitled " Officer Reporting Forms."

Highway patrol Officers responding to accidents conduct Investigations and write Accident Reports

regardless of the level of damage to the vehicles Involved, even without injuries requiring transportation to

a medical facility. We recommend that when OffIcers respond to accidents, Investigations be conducted

only If one or more vehicles has over $ 1,000 worth of damage, or Injuries requiring transportation to a

medical facility occur. Our detailed findings and recommendations are presented In our recommendation

entitled " Accident Management."

Streamlining Processes

Accident, Arrest and Weekly ActIvity reports are produced manually by Officers, reviewed by their

Sergeants, and If necessary, redone manually. The reports are then hand carried to District headquarters

for review by the Ueutenant who, In some cases requires reports to be returned and corrected by the

Initiating OffIcers. Once approved by the Ueutenant, the data- frame reports are key punched Into the DPS

mainframe computer.

We recommend DPS provide each squad with a personal computer configured with the word

processing and communications capabUlties necessary for Officers to produce an electronic file of his/ her

own Accident, Arrest and Weekly Activity reports. These electronic flies can then be electronically

transmitted for review, correction and filing. The benefits include a reduction In man- hours spent on report

writing and hand delivery of reports. Our detaUed findings and recommendations are presented In our

recommendation entltJed " OffIcer Report Writing."

We recommend DPS Implement the following Improvements:

Reorganizing and Consolidating Fynctions Personnel

Improvement of Activity Measyrement and Analysis

The DPS organization currently includes 1,708 FTE positions ' organlzed as follows:

I

I

I

I

, I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I,

,

, I

, I

I,

• Director's OffIce: 49 FTE positions

• Enforce, In the OffIcer and supervisory ranks. the discipline necessary to Implement the

tracking procedures

• Develop and Implement procedures for tracking DR's and recording key case- related

Information

• Implement the current system specifications for a computerized DR tracking system on the

DPS mainframe. Our detailed findings and recommendations are presented in our

recommendation entitled " DR Tracking/ Case Management."

In the Agency's Criminal Investigations Bureau the tracking of Investigator aetMtles ( e. g. cases

started. cases In progress, cases finished, expenditures by case, case results or outcome) Is limited due to

the absence of procedures, supervision and a computerized Department Report ( DR) or case tracking

system. As a result, DPS cannot assess workloads, relate results to resources employed, and conduct

statistical analyses to Improve the management of Investigative activities.

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 8

Over the years the Department of Public Safety has added layers of management and units to Its

organization. The current situation Is recognized by DPS top management, as being " top heavy." At least

one reason for this development Is that limitations In pay Increases have resulted In the creation of

management positions as performance rewards.

• DUplication of management structures

• Reduced f1ex1bUIty In deploying personnel.

A. Operations

• Umlted communication and cooperation between officers performing patrol and Investigative

functions

194 FTE positions

286 FTE positions

173 FTE positions.

739 FTE positions

267 FTE positions

• Three support bureaus:

Administration

Telecommunications

Criminal Justice Support

• Two operations bureaus:

Highway Patrol

CrImin81lnvestigations

Each operations bureau organization Is composed of m~ lple layers of management. There are

six levels of management above the Officer level: Sergeants, Ueutenants, Captains, Majors, Lieutenant

Colonels, and a Colonel ( the Director). The functions of these levels are prirnarUy supervisory and general

administrative, with Sergeants most likely to be Involved In day- to- day Officer decisions. Administrative

layering IS runner Increasea at eacn level Dy an administratIVe staff wnlcn InclUde AamlntstratlVe omcers,

Administrative Sergeants and multiple levels of cMllan Administrative Service Officers ( ASOs).

Organizing sworn personnel Into two separate operations bureaus Instead of one has resulted In

the following Inefficiencies:

Approximately 60% of total FTE positions are sworn law enforcement officers. Over 90% of these

positions are located In the two operations bureaus. The present DPS organizational structure Is presented

In Exhibit 3. DPS Present Organization Structure.

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public safety

Page 9

I

I

I

I

'.'" J

I

I

II ,

Ii

I

I

I

I

I:

Ii

.',

I

I

t

Each operations bureau Is also characterized by narrow spans of control resUting In high costs

to manage. The cost to manage $ 1 of OffIcer time Is as follows:

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department d Public safety

Page 10

Our detaUed findings and recommendations related to the operations functions and bureaus are

presented In our recommendations entitled · Hlghway Patrol Bureau Organization Summary, · · Criminal

Investigations Bureau Organization Summary, · · Avlation Organization Summary" and · Overall DPS

Organization Summary. ·

The high number of management layers and the narrow spans of control In the operations bureaus

are not consistent with DPS's longstanding policy of empowering line OffIcers through selection and training

to act independently and generally without supervision. This policy of Independence and empowerment Is

one of the principal attractions of DPS over city police departments. The DPS OffIcer's job Is highly

structured, and each OffIcer receives extensive classroom, practical, and on- the- job training. Once an

Officer makes a decision and takes action in the field the sUbsequent role of supervisors, managers and

administrators Is primarily one of revleu, recording, and occasional correction.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

il ,

, I

I

J

I

I

I

~

I

I •

$ 0.47 O. e. 32% of total bureau personnel costs)

$ 0.33 O. e. 24% of total Bureau personnel costs are

spent on supervision and management)

• Criminal Investigations:

• Highway Patrol:

Operations related recommendations In this report place emphasis on Investing In line OffIcers

( such as raising their salaries. gMng them access to personal computers, Increasing their training by

experienced senior Investigators), and reducing middle management and administrative staff. This emphasis

Is based, not only on DPS's policy of Independence and empowerment, but on the proven management

practice that the best way to Improve quality of service whle reducing the cost Is to shift resources from

checking, reviewing, and correcting activities to helping those who deliver ~ e service. This phUosophy

allows the line OffIcer serving the customer to do the right thing ( effectiveness), the right way ( efficiency),

the first time.

B. Support Functions

experience levels of the OPS c! vllian staff. Funetjor- s such as .~ count! ng. Personnel. Facftttfes Management;

Each support bureau Is also characterized by narrow spans of control resulting In high costs to

manage. The cost to manage $ 1 of labor Is as follows:

The high number of management layers and narrow spans of control are not consistent with the

standard, structured and routine nature of the support bureau functions or with the high qualification and

$ 0.34 O. e. 25% of total Bureau personnel costs)

$ 0.39 O. e. 28% of total Bureau personnel costs)

$ 0.51 O. e. 34% of total Bureau personnel costs are

spent on supervision and management)

• Telecommunications:

• Criminal Justice Support:

• Administration:

Each support bureau organization Is composed of four to five layers of management. The

functions of these levels are primarily supervisory and general administrative. Administrative layering Is

increased at each level by an administrative staff which Includes multiple levels of clvHlan Administrative

Service Officers ( ASOs), Administrative Assistants and Secretaries.

Organizing support personnel. the majority of which are clvUlan, Into three support bureaus Instead

of one has resulted In ( 1) duplication of management structure. ( 2) fragmentation of support activities and

( 3) elevation of subordinate functions to the same level as the Department's primary operational functions.

The cost of these layers Is further Increased In these support bureaus by the DPS practice of

assigning high- cost sworn personnel to perform functions which do not require sworn powers and could

be performed by a qualified but less expensive clvUlan. The sworn occupant often has no experience related

to the function supervised and usually does not remain In the position long enough to become proficient;

after one to two years they are rotated to another position.

Aeet Management, Aviation Management, Computer Operations, Radio Repair and Data Entry are all

managed according to well established procedures and DPS has a longstanding commitment to retaining

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department eX Public Ssfety

Page 11

I

I

I

· 1 ·

I

I

I

I ·

II

I

I

I

I

1

I ·

I

1

l

C. Proposed Organizational Structure

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 12

highly qualified clvUlan personnel capable of working with limited supervision. Once a clvUlan expert makes

a decision and takes aetion, the subsequent role of supervisors, managers and administrators Is prlmarBy

one of review, recording, and occasional correctlon.

Our detailed findings and recommendations related to support functions are presented In our

recommendations entitled " Criminal Justice Support Bureau Organization Summary," " Administration Bureau

Organization Summary," " Telecommunications Bureau Organization Summary" and " Overall DPS

Organization Summary."

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

f

55 FTE positions

572 FTE positions.

868 FTE positions

• Support Bureau:

• Operations Bureau:

• Director's Office:

Our proposed organizational structure for the Department of Public safety Is comprised of 1,496

FTE positions organized into a Director's OffIce and two bureaus: an Operations Bureau and a Support

Bureau. Our proposed organizational structure Is presented In Exhibit 4, entitled " DPS Proposed

Organizational Structure. · The proposed FTE positions are organized as follows:

The 1,496 proposed FTE positions represent a net 12% reduction of 212 positions from the current

1,708 FTE positions. This net 212 FTE position reduction Includes 78 currently vacant positions. the transfer

of 11 Port of Entry Special OffIcers to the ArIzona Department of Transportation ( ADOT) and the transfer of

a capitol Police staff of 12 OffIcers, and 26 clvUlan from the Department of Administration ( DOA) to DPS.

Our recommendations place emphasis on reducing middle management and administrative staff

based on DPS's policy of hiring and retaining highly qualified clvUlan staff In support functions. The best

way to ensure continued high quality service, whle reducing the cost of quality, Is to continue this policy

while reducing the resources spent on checking, reviewing and correcting the aetMtles of the clvBlan

professional staff.

I

I

I

, I

j

I

I

I

a

I

.~

I

I

t

~

I

Ii

1I

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 13

Our organization excludes the Independently funded and managed Rocky Mountain Information Network

staff ( RMIN) and Arizona Law Enforcement OffIcers AdvIsory CooneR ( ALEOAC) staff. A breakdown by

bureau of our proposed changes by sworn rank and cMIlan categories Is presented In exhibit 5, entitled

· DPS Positions Changes. ·

By reducing organizational units, layers of management, and spans of control, our proposed

organization reduces the Agency's overall cost to manage by 26% from $ 0.43 to $ 0.32. Our proposed

overall cost to manage Is based on the following unit cost to manage, amounts:

• Operations Bureau: $ 0.26 ~. e. 21% of total Bureau personnel costs

are spent on supervision and

management)

• Support Bureau: $ 0.30 ( I. e. 23% of total Bureau personnel

costs).

Our detaUed findings and recommendations related to our proposed DPS organizational structure

are presented In our recommendation entitled · Overall DPS Organizational Summary.-

GENERAL. OBSERVATIONS

The team's recommendations and the accompanying exhibits are based on the situation as It

existed when the Interviews and analyses were conducted. Some of the recommendations may need to be

altered during the Implementation phase due to changes which have occurred since the Initial analysis.

Ukewise, because of the dynamic nature of personnel changes within DPS, the FTE calculations throughout

the document may vary within one to five positions.

Our effort In the diagnostic phase of this project was greatly assisted by the cooperation of the

DPS employees. All members of the SUM team were Impressed by employee dedication and competence.

In the course of our diagnostic assessment we noted a number of management practices which

we believe the Department of Public Safety should consider reviewing and changing, such as:

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 14

• Management performance measures focus more heavBy on managing the volume and cost

of DPS activities than on results expressed In terms of Impact on customer service level( s).

As examples. the Scientific Analysis DMslon collects voluminous statistics on analyses

performed but does not track which ones actually led to a useful outcome ( such as a trial).

The Aviation DMslon documents flight statistics but does not track the number of flight

requests unsatisfied

• The practice of assigning swom personnel to clvllan jobs which do not require the exercise

of law enforcement powers Is unnecessarily expensive. This practice has been used as a

method to provide functional tamUlarizatlon and training. or to remove officers from active

duty. The current practice of temporarUy assigning swom personnel for 60 or 90 days to

tamUiarize themselves with other functions appears to be a good alternative

• Rotating swom supervisors and managers In and out of swom and civilian positions every

year or two results In a critical loss of continuity and In management Inconsistencies. As

examples, Evidence Section management procedures have been loosened and tightened over

the years as managers have rotated into and out of the Criminal Justice Support Bureau. A

critically Important system to track CrIminal Investigator actMtles using Department Reports

( DRs) has been started and abandoned as leadership In that bureau has changed

• Replacement of capital equipment Is Impeded by laws that prohibit the department from

carrying funds from year to year for that purpose. As examples, the fees charged for use of

fixed wing aircraft should contain. In addition to operating costs. a component related to

replacing the plane after a pre- determlned number of flight hours. Telecommunications

charges to other agencies also do not Include an equipment cost replacement components.

IMPlEMENTATION

Implementation Is the critical step In the process of achieving savings and Improved customer

service. With the exception of our recommendation related to Increasing the Operations Reserve Program,

all our recommendations can be Implemented within one year. Our proposed preliminary Implementation

schedule is presented In exhibit 6, DPS Implementation Schedule. A detailed plan should be developed

prior to Implementation.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

, I

I

I

~

I

, I

I

I

I

I

I,

I

I

Ii

I

I

J

I

I

I

II

I

I

a

I

I

I

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 15

Six recommendations require law changes and two recommendations require rule changes. These

recommendations are identified In Exhibit 1, DPS Summary of Recommendations, Titles and Savings.

Successful implementations are dependent on the following actions:

• Demonstrate and pUblicize Management's strong commitment to achieve the benefits as soon

as possible. Send the message to the entire organization and DPS customers

• Start implementation as soon as possible after completion of the diagnostic review

• Specify, In writing, the objectives to be achieved by Implementing the recommendations.

Quantify the results and Indicate the date on which each Is to be achieved

• Identify and retain quickly the key people needed to make the new organization a success.

Oarlfy their authority and participation In Information loops

• Place responsibUIty for achieving the implementation objectives and for handling the - people

Issues- with the key people to be retained ( who form the core of the transition team)

• Implement programs to help people control stress by reducing uncertainty and buDding trust

• Implement education and training programs to help DPS management and staff understand

the management principles used to develop the recommended changes

• Maintain momentum, minimize further study and stay focused on the objectives and

deadlines.

*****

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 16

ADDENDUM TO DPS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following the public release on AprU 27, 1992 of the Project SUM recommendations regarding the

Department of Public Safety, a counter- proposal was received from DPS which highlighted areas of

agreement and disagreement with the SUM report. Subsequently, meetings between DPS and SUM

representatives have occurred to further discuss these areas of contention. The primary Issues are

summarized below:

1. Organizational Structure: The Project SUM Draft report contained recommendations for

reducing the number of bureaus from five to two. DPS Management, however, does not support

the two bureau concept as described by SUM. DPS Management believes a three bureau

organization Is necessary In order to maintain separate command and control structures for the

Criminal Investigations and the Highway Patrol functions. As stated In the DPS response, the

" basic difference between the DPS proposal and Project SUM Is the number of bureaus required

to meet our public mandate. · Although the DPS document delineates the proposed three bureau

structure, It does not provide specific detaUs regarding the additional cost of this structure when

compared to the SUM two bureau concept.

Project SUM views a three bureau concept as a potential option for the Department of Public

Safety at an additional cost to the Agency. We estimate that a third bureau for Criminai

Investigations can be developed with approximately 11 additional positions. The Bureau would

be created by taking Criminal Investigation functions from the proposed Operations Bureau. In

addition, the Scientific Analysis DMslon ( Crime Lab) could be moved to the third Bureau, as

suggested by DPS. The annual cost to add these 11 positions Is estimated at $ 475,000.

Moving Criminal Investigations functions from the Operations Bureau wUl impact spans of control

for Highway Patrol. Thus, we recommend that some management positions be reclassified. For

example, proposed Regions 1 - 5 Include locally- based Highway Patrol Squads and some CrIminal

Investigation Units with a management team consisting of one CaptaIn and one Ueutenant. The

elimination of Criminal Investigation Units wUl reduce spans of control and eliminate the need for

management expertise In this area. As a result, we recommend that the CaptaIn and Ueutenant

positions become Ueutenant and Sergeant positions. This change In positions would decrease

I

I

I

' I

I

( I

I

I,

I

I

J

I

I

I

t

I

I

, I

We recommend tBUng six vacancies In the following areas:

the overall management costs to operate the Highway Patrol Bureau and would assist In offsetting

the cost to add a third bureau.

3. Vacancies: At the time of Qur review, we found a total of 78 vacant positions ( excluding RMIN

and ALEOAC) which appeareJ In the following areas:

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 17

78

22

.2

6

2

17

31

7

11

12

TQtaI

Total

OffIce of the Director

Criminal Investigation Bureau

Highway Patrol Bureau

Administration Bureau

Criminal Justice Support Bureau

TelecQmmunlcatlon Bureau

Criminal Investigation Bureau

CrIminal Justice Support Bureau

Te1ecQmmunlcatlon Bureau

2. Number of Agency PosltiQns: Our original draft report Indicated a total of 1,699 positions

within DPS excluding the Rocky Mountain InfQrmatlQn NetwQrk ( RMIN) and the ArlzQna Law

Enforcement OffIcers Advisory CooncR ( ALEOAC). ThrQugh reviewing additional InformatiQn

provided by DPS, we have added 9 posItiQns tQ Qur original number tor a total of 1,708.

DPS has correctly stated that the agency Is authQrlzed 1,617 positions by the Arizona legislature.

In addition to these state funded posltiQns, however, DPS also has a number of posItiQns which

are funded through other sources such as federal grants, and RICO. Our review of the agency

was nQt limited to state funded posltlQns and Included posltlQns from Qther funding sources, thus

the total number of posltiQns discussed in Qur report reflects the number of posItlQns we fQund

during the course of Qur review.

We recommend that the remaining 72 vacant positions be eliminated. We estimate the cost of

S81ary, Employee Related Expenses ( ERE), and Other Costs assoclatea wtth these 72 posmons

tQ be $ 2,862,273. This cost was Qrlglnally reported as Cost Savings based Qn the fact that the

I

I

I

I,

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I,

,

a

I

I

I

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 18

positions continue to appear In the Department's Position Control Fie and organizational charts

which implies the Intent to fill the positions at some point.

Recent information provided by the Govemor's OffIce of Strategic Planning and Budget ( OSPB)

indicates that during state Fiscal year 1991- 92, DPS operated with a .75 vacancy factor and that

as a result, the Department was not provided funding for 10 vacant positions for a total of

$ 437.000. The OSPB has recommended that the vacancy factor for FY 1992- 93 increase and that

$ 1.099.400 not be avaUabie to fund some vacancies.

Based on this Information, we have moved $ 1.099,400 of the $ 2.862,273 from Cost Savings to Cost

Avoidance. Since the Intent to fill these vacant positions Is stUI implied. we view that the

Department can avoid the salary. ERE, and other costs associated with filling these positions even

though the $ 1.099,400 may not be avaUabie at this time.

4. Vehicles: SUM acknowledges a factual error made In the recommendation regarding the DPS

vehicle fleet. SUM does not, however, accept the figures presented In the DPS counter- proposal.

The vehicle recommendation has been revised to reflect the correction in the total number of

vehicles In the DPS fleet. and new dollar amounts have been determined in conjunction with the

Governor's OffIce of Strategic Planning and Budgeting ( OSPB). The DPS response Indicates a

total of 1325 vehicles within the Department's Inventory. SUM agrees with this figure, but It

excludes 126 new vehicles which do not appear In the current inventory sheets. SUM has

Included these vehicles as part of the current DPS vehicle Inventory.

5. FTE Reductions: The Project SUM report Indicates a net loss of 212 positions to DPS. The

DPS report stresses that 239 DPS positions are eliminated. The net loss of 212 positions Is

detaYed in exhibit 5 and reflects an elimination of 239 positions Oncludlng 72 vacancies), atransfer

of 11 positions out of DPS to the ArIzona Department of Transportation, and a transfer of 38

positions to DPS from the Department of Administration.

6. Manpower Deployment Model: DPS expresses concern with the SUM recommendation

entitled " Manpower Deployment" in the SUM report. At the time of the SUM review of this area.

DPS was in the process of training Highway Patrol OffIcers to use new time sheets for which data

would be Input Into the Personnel Department Deployment ( PDEP) system for use in the Police

I

I

I

IIt

I

II ,

I

t

I

I,

,

I

I

I

I

I,

I

I

I

I

I

I,

I

I

I

It

I

t

I

I

I

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 19

Allocation Model. Since the review was conducted, DPS has begun to Input data Into the system.

The DPS response Included manpower projections based on data collected from January through

April. It should be noted that these data are collected for the peak tourist season In Arizona. In

addition, eartler Interviews with DPS officials Indicate that two to three years of data are necessary

to develop reliable conclusions and ensure validity of data.

***

Colonel F. J. Ayars

Department of Public Safety

Page 20

We wish to thank you as the Director of the Department of Public Safety and your entire staff for

your cooperation, participation, suggestions and comments, and support for our efforts dUring this

diagnostic review.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to the Governor of ArIzona and the SUM Steering

Committee In this endeavor. Should you have any questions or comments regarding this report, please feel

free to contact the project executive Director or any member of your Project SUM Team:

• Bruce Hensley, AHCCCS

• Theron Jackson, Board of Pardons and Paroles

• Rick Marcum, Department of Economic Security

• Cindy Olvey, Department of Economic Security

• David Winston, Coopers & Lybrand

The Agency Director's comments follow this signature page.

Executive Dif8CtUtr'"""

Project SUM

I,

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

ItI

f

I

I

I

CPS - 20A

The Department of Public Safety has always been a supporter of the concepts of Project SLIM.

TQM principles and the idea of doing more with less have become part of the DPS culture,

primarily as a result of a depressed economy and an increased demand by others for available

dollars.

The Department's presentation on May 26, 1992, addressed only the elimination of positions,

not one- time savings and cost avoidance issues and produced an annual savings of $ 4.7 million.

Since that presentation, we have reviewed the SLIM recommendations in the other two

categories and revised our estimates to include one- time savings and cost avoidance issues.

Considering all these areas, as the SLIM report does, we estimate a savings of $ 12 million.

F. J. · RICK" AYARS

DIRECTOR

FIFE SYMINGTON

GOVERNOR

When our proposal for reducing management and the cost of government was presented, it was

assumed by many that DPS was making a counter proposal in opposition to Project SLIM. This

is far from the truth. What the Department submitted was a plan that was different than the

Project SLIM team's, not an opposing one. The Department's plan was formulated by

Departmental employees with a great deal of experience and expertise in the law enforcement

field. It is our belief the Department's proposal is not in opposition to the Governor's program,

but rather, in support of the Governor's mandate to reduce the cost of government while still

maintaining a service level to effectively provide for public safety.

Dear David,

2102 WEST ENCANTO BLVD. P. O. BOX 6638 PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85005- 6638 ( 602) 223- 2000

There has been considerable discussion on the dollar figures associated with the two proposals.

Project SLIM estimated $ 17 million in savings can be broken down into three areas. The first

is hard savings; i. e., the elimination of positions. The second is one- time savings; i. e., the sale

of equipment. The third is cost avoidance; Le., areas where we will restructure how we do

things. Cost avoidance will not cause a reduction in appropriated funds, but would focus the

expenditure of those monies to more appropriate areas.

Lt. Colonel David S1. John

Executive Director

Project SLIM

1700 West Washington

Phoenix, AZ 85007

June 8, 1992

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

I,

I

I,

I

I

I,

I,

I

I

I,

I

I

a

I

I

J

Ltc. David St. John

June 8, 1992

Page 2

The two proposals are actually fairly close as the difference is primarily the difference in the

number of personnel eliminated. Any differences or inaccuracies detected in either proposal can

be worked out during the implementation process.

It is important the SLIM Steering Committee understands my firm commitment and support of

the Governor's program and know that I am working diligently to provide the very best

recommendation on SLIM proposals.

Sincerely,

yars, Colonel

pm

DPS - 208

I,

I

I,

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

till ....- ~""""" t." __ ........ -

DPS SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION TITLES AND SAVINGS

($ millions)

EXHIBIT 1

1 OF 3 PAGES

~

C.../..),

Revenue Cost Cost Cost Systems Law Rule

Title Avoidance Reduction Increase Changes Changes Changes

Non- recurrent Annual Non- recurrent Annual Annual Non- recurrent Annual Required Required Required

ORGANIZATION RECOMMENDATIONS

HIGHWAY PATROL BUREAU

HPB Organization Summary

Special Services Division 2.066

Sergeant Enforcement Activities 0.149 0.362

Officer Report Writing 0.633 - 0.700 - 0.009 X

Officer Reporting Forms 0.319 X

Accident Management 0.17 0.414 X

Code 106 Activities 0.734 1.784

Operations ReseNe Program 0.558 - 0.524

CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BUREAU

cle Organization Summary

Special Investigations functions

Toolrooms

DR Tracking/ Cas€ i Management 0.468 1.138 X

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUPPORT BUREAU

Criminal Justice Support Org. Summ. 1.012

Aviation Organizalion Summary 1.496

Air Rescue Units 1.350 0.119

Paramedic Civilianlzation - 0.012

Fixed wing aircrafl 0.806 0.051

Publications 0.011

Intoxillizer unit

Polygraph Services - 0.012 X

Evidence Management

DPS SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION TITLES AND SAVINGS

($ millions)

EXHIBIT 1

2 OF 3 PAGES

.. .. -

o

" U

fJ)

~

Revenue Cost Cost Cost Systems Law Rule

Title Avoidance Reduction Increase Changes Changes Changes

Non- recurrent Annual Non- recurrent Annual Annual Non- recurrent Annual Required Required Required

Self Funding Licensing

-

X

Questioned Document Unit

Federal Grant Positions 0.524

ADMINISTRATION BUREAU

Administration Organization Summary 1.364

Recruitment Activity and Training

TELECOMMUNICATIONS BUREAU

TCB Organization Summary 0.926

Dispatch Center Consolidation - 0.174 X

OVERALL DPS ORG SUMMARY

Officer Salary Increase - 1.919 X

Additional Management Development - 0.200

Director's Office - 0.175

Operations Bureau 5.37

OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUPPORT

Night Vision Capabilities - 0.005

EMSCOM Dispatching

Third- party Reimb for Medical Missions 0,316 X

Aircraft for 55 Speed Enforcement

Aircraft Maintenance X

Aircraft Scheduling and Billing Process 0.004 - 0.005 X

........ - -

_.. - ~ _- •. - -

DPS SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION TITLES AND SAVINGS

($ millions)

EXHIBIT 1

3 OF 3 PAGES

~

en

tJ

Revenue Cost Cost Cost Systems Law Rule

Title Avoidance Reduction Increase Changes Changes Changes

Non- recurrent Annual Non- recurrent Annual Annual Non- recurrent Annual Required Required Required

Photo Lab Materials Management

Licensing Infornation X

Crime Lab Rev€' nue Enhancement 0.273 X

HIGHWAY PAT'~ OL

Manpower DeplDyment X

ADMINISTRATION

Vehicles 0.474 0.804

Revenue Enhancement - Armory Services 0.134 X

UNFUNDED VACANCIES 1.099 - 1.099

TOTAL ANNUAl.: 0.723 6.835 12.120 - 2.315

TOTAL NON- RI:: CURRENT: 2.630 1.521 - 1.420

GRAND TOTAL

TOT- A- L- A- NNUA: i.-:--------[ 17.3631

TOTAL NON- RECURRENT: [ 2.731

.. ..

Title Date Hensley Olvey Marcum Jackson Winston Location

-

DPS Executive Staff 11/ 05/ 91 X X X X X Phoenix

Deputy Director, DPS 11/ 06/ 91 X X X X X Phoenix

Ass!. Dir., Administration Bureau ( ADB) 11/ 07/ 91 X X X X X Phoenix

Ass!. Dir., Criminal Justice Support Bureau ( CJSB) 11/ 07/ 91 X X X X X Phoenix

Ass!. Dir., Highway Patrol Bureau ( HPB) 11/ 12/ 91 X X X X X Phoenix

Ass!. Dir., Criminal Investigations Bureau ( CIB) 11/ 13/ 91 X X X X X Phoenix

Ass!. Dir., Telecommunications Bureau ( TCB) 11/ 14/ 91 X X X X X Phoenix

Chief of Staff, CJSB 11/ 20/ 91 X X X X X Phoenix

Director, DPS Phoenix

I

11/ 20/ 91 X X X X X

Commander, Aviation Division 11/ 21/ 91 X X X X X Phoenix

Acting Sr. Pilot, Fixed Wing Unit 11/ 21/ 91 X Phoenix

Corporate Director, AirEvac 11/ 22/ 91 X Phoenix

Commander, Aviation, Air National Guard 11/ 22/ 91 X Phoenix

Commander, Southern Operations Section 11/ 22/ 91 X X Phoenix

Commander, Northern Operations Section 11/ 22/ 91 X X Phoenix

Supervisor, Aviation Support Staff 11/ 22/ 91 X Phoenix

Senior. Mechanic, Aircraft Mechanics 11/ 22/ 91 X Phoenix

Senior Pilot, Central Air Rescue Unit 11/ 25/ 91 X Phoenix

Acting Senior Pilot, Northern Air Rescue Unit 11/ 25/ 91 X Flagstaff

Pilot, Northern Air Rescue Unit 11/ 25/ 91 X Flagstaff

Operations Manager, Guardian Ambulance Services 11/ 25/ 91 X Flagstaff

Senior Pilot, Southern Air Rescue Unit 11/ 26/ 91 X X Tucson

Pilot, Southern Air Rescue Unit 11/ 26/ 91 X Tucson

Pilot, Southern Air Rescue Unit 11/ 26/ 91 X Tucson

Officer, Paramedic, Southern Air Rescue Unit 11/ 26/ 91 X Tucson

Officer, Paramedic, Southern Air Rescue Unit 11/ 26/ 91 X Tucson

Director, Trauma Center, Tuscon Medical Center 11/ 26/ 91 X Tucson

CEO, Southwest Helicopters ( Medevac 1) 11/ 26/ 91 X Tucson

Manager, MEDS ( Emergency Medical Services) 11/ 26/ 91 X Tucson

Secretary, Aviation Division 11/ 26/ 91 X Phoenix

Secretary, Aviation Division 11/ 26/ 91 X Phoenix

0-

....

~

~

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

INTERVIEW LIST

....... - ........

EXHIBIT 2

1 OF 11 PAGES

.. -_._ .... -

.. .. - ........... -!~..... _--- .. --

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

INTERVIEW LIST

EXHIBIT 2

2 OF 11 PAGES

~

~

Title Date Hensley Olvey Marcum Jackson Winston Location

Commander, Support Services Division 11/ 27/ 91 X X X X Phoenix

Acting Commander, Investigative Support Section 11/ 27/ 91 X X X X Phoenix

Comm, mder, Licensing Section 11/ 27/ 91 X X Phoenix

Comm, mder, Evidence Section 11/ 27/ 91 X X Phoenix

Supervisor, Photo LablPrint Shop Unit 12103/ 91 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Central Information Unit 12103/ 91 X Phoenix

Supervsor, Accident Reconstruction Unit 12103/ 91 X Phoenix

Supervsor, Questioned Documents Unit 12103191 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Emergency Medical Services Program, DHS 12104/ 91 X Phoenix

Officer, Paramedic, Southern Air Rescue Unit 12105/ 91 X Tucson

Pilot, Central Air Rescue Unit 12105/ 91 X Phoenix

Officer, Paramedic, Central Air Rescue Unit 12105/ 91 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Central & Northern Evidence Unit 12106/ 91 X Phoenix

Evidence Custodian, Central Evidence 12106191 X Phoenix

Evidence Custodian, Central Evidence 12106/ 91 X Phoenix

Commander, Aviation Div., Maricopa County 12106191 X Phoenix

Senior Pilot, Western Air Rescue Unit 12106/ 91 X Kingman

Marketi' 1g & Advertising, Sawyer Aviation 12106/ 91 X Phoenix

Cutter J\ viation Charter 12106/ 91 X Phoenix

DPS SL nset Hearings 12109/ 91 X X X X Phoenix

Sales Representative, Cutter Aviation 12109/ 91 X Phoenix

Officer, Paramedic, Western Air Rescue ( Phoenix) 12109/ 91 X Kingman

Pilot, Western Air Rescue 12109/ 91 X Kingman

Acting Senior Pilot, Northern Air Rescue Unit 12109/ 91 X Flagstaff

Superirtendent, SCientific Analysis Division 12110/ 91 X X X X Phoenix

Polygraoh technician, Central Polygraph Unit 12110/ 91 X Phoenix

Accider t Reconstructionist 12110/ 91 X Phoenix

Printer, Photo LablPrint Shop Unit 12110/ 91 X Phoenix

Printer, Photo LablPrint Shop Unit 12110/ 91 X Phoenix

Photographer, Photo LablPrlnt Shop Unit 12110/ 91 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Central Licensing Section 12110/ 91 X Phoenix

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

INTERVIEW LIST EXHIBIT 2

3 OF 11 PAGES

Title Date Hensley Olvey Marcum Jackson Winston Location

Admin. Assistant, Central Licensing Section 12/ 10/ 91 X Phoenix

Deputy Sheriff, Pima Co. 12/ 10/ 91 X Tucson

Acting Manager, FSDO for FAA 12/ 10/ 91 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Southern Regional Crime Lab 12/ 11/ 91 X X Tucson

Evidence Custodian, Southern Evidence Unit 12/ 11/ 91 X Tucson

Supervisor, Northern Regional Crime Lab 12/ 11/ 91 X X Flagstaff

Evidence Custodian, Northern Evidence Unit 12/ 11/ 91 X Flagstaff

Evidence Custodian, Northern Evidence Unit 12/ 11/ 91 X Flagstaff

Polygraph Examiner, Northern Polygraph Unit 12/ 11/ 91 X Flagstaff

Executive Vice President, NAU 12/ 11/ 91 X Flagstaff

Deputy Superintendent, Scientific Analysis Div. 12/ 12/ 91 X Phoenix

Manager, Central Regional Crime Lab 12/ 12/ 91 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Trace Analysis Unit 12/ 12/ 91 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Controlled Substances Unit 12/ 12/ 91 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Latent Print Unit 12/ 12/ 91 X Phoenix

Criminalist III, Serology Unit 12/ 12/ 91 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Toxicology Unit 12/ 12/ 91 X Phoenix

Officer, Paramedic, Western Air Rescue Unit 12/ 13/ 91 X Kingman

Pilot, City of Tuscon 12/ 13/ 91 X Tucson

Questioned Document Examiner 12/ 13/ 91 X Phoenix

Officer, Paramedic, Northern Air Rescue Unit 12/ 13/ 91 X Flagstaff

Grant Administrator, Director's Office ( 55 prog) 12/ 16/ 91 X Phoenix

Representitive, Department of Environmental Quality 12/ 16/ 91 X Phoenix

Director of Operations, Casa Grande Airport 12/ 16/ 91 X Casa Grande

Director of EMS, Casa Grande Regional Medical Center 12/ 16/ 91 X Casa Grande

Flight Supervisor, Phoenix Police Dept. 12/ 16/ 91 X Phoenix

Aviation Commander, Tuscon Police Dept. 12/ 16/ 91 X Tucson

Administrative Service Officer I, GOHS 12/ 16/ 91 X Phoenix

Clerk Typist III, Scientific Analysis Division 12/ 17/ 91 X Phoenix

Lab Technician II, Trace Analysis Unit 12/ 17/ 91 X Phoenix

Criminalist I, Toxicology Unit 12/ 17/ 91 X Phoenix

till

~

I

Ii

.. - ....... - - - '.... .. - - .. _.. --

.. _........ -- ...... ----- .. - J-DEPARTMENT

OF PUBLIC SAFETY

INTERVIEW LIST

EXHIBIT 2

4 OF 11 PAGES

~

~

r--"

Title Date Hensley Olvey Marcum Jackson Winston Location

Criminalist I, Controlled Substances Unit 12117/ 91 X Phoenix

Criminalist I, latent Print Unit 12117/ 91 X Phoenix

Commander, Northern Patrol Division, HPB 12130/ 91 X X Phoenix

Commander, Metro Patrol Division, HPB 12130/ 91 X X Phoenix

Sergnant, Intoxillizer Unit, Central Crime lab 01/ 03/ 92 X Phoenix

Presj, 1ent, Associated Highway Patrolmen of Arizona 01/ 06192 X X X X X Phoenix

Chief of Staff, HPB 01/ 07/ 92 X Phoenix

Commander, Central Patrol Division, HPB 01/ 07/ 92 X X Phoenix

Commander, Southern Patrol Division, HPB 01/ 07/ 92 X X Phoenix

OfficE! r, District 19, HPB 01/ 09/ 92 X Sun City

OffiCN, District 19; HPB 01109/ 92 X Sun City

OfficE- r, District 19, HPB 01/ 09/ 92 X Sun City

OffieN, District 19, HPB 01/ 09/ 92 X Sun City

OfficE'r, District 7, HPB 01/ 10/ 92 X Globe

OfficE. r, District 7, HPB 01/ 10/ 92 X Globe

OfficE'r, District 7, HPB 01110/ 92 X Globe

OfflcE'r, District 7, HPB 01110/ 92 X Globe

OfficE'r, District 1, HPB 01/ 09/ 92 X Kingman

Officer, District 1, HPB 01/ 09/ 92 X Kingman

Officer, District 1, HPB 01/ 09/ 92 X Kingman

Officer, District 1, HPB 01/ 09/ 92 X Kingman

Officer, District 12, HPB 01110192 X Prescott

Officer, District 12, HPB 01/ 10/ 92 X Prescott

Office r, District 12, HPB 01/ 10/ 92 X Prescott

Officer, District 12, HPB 01/ 10/ 92 X Prescott

Sergeant, District 12, HPB 01110192 X Prescott

Officer, District 9, HPB 01109/ 92 X Sierra Vista

~ lfice-, District 9, HPB 01/ 09/ 92 X Sierra Vista

Office", District 9, HPB 01109192 X Sierra Vista

Office", District 9, HPB 01109/ 92 X Sierra Vista

Office'", District 8, HPB 01110/ 92 X Tucson

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

INTERVIEW LIST

EXHIBIT 2

5 OF 11 PAGES

5i fn

~

Title Date Hensley Olvey Marcum Jackson Winston location

Officer, District 8, HPB 01/ 10/ 92 X Tucson

Officer, District 8, HPB 01/ 10/ 92 X Tucson

Officer. District 8, HPB 01/ 10/ 92 X Tucson

Officer, District 17, HPB 01109192 X Phoenix

Officer, District 17, HPB 01/ 09/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, District 5, HPB 01/ 09/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, District 18, HPB 01109192 X Phoenix

Officer, District 5, HPB 01/ 10/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, District 17, HPB 01110/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, District 18, HPB 01110/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, District 18, HPB 01/ 10/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, District 6, HPB 01/ 14/ 92 X X Casa Grande

Officer, District 6, HPB 01/ 14/ 92 X X Casa Grande

Officer, District 6, HPB 01/ 14/ 92 X X Casa Grande

Officer, District 6, HPB 01/ 14/ 92 X X Casa Grande

Officer, District 6, HPB 01114192 X X Casa Grande

Officer, District 6, HPB 01114/ 92 X X Casa Grande

Officer, District 6, HPB 01/ 14/ 92 X X CasaGrande

Officer, District 6, HPB 01114192 X X Casa Grande

Officer, District 2, HPB 01/ 14/ 92 X X Flagstaff

Officer, District 2, HPB 01/ 14/ 92 X X Flagstaff

Officer, District 2, HPB 01114192 X X Flagstaff

Officer, District 2, HPB 01114/ 92 X X Flagstaff

Officer, District 2, HPB 01114/ 92 X X Flagstaff

Officer, District 2, HPB 01114/ 92 X X Flagstaff

Officer, District 2, HPB 01114/ 92 X X Flagstaff

Officer, District 2, HPB 01/ 14/ 92 X X Flagstaff

Commander, Special Services Division 01/ 20/ 92 X X Phoenix

Commander, Special Activities District 15 01121192 X Phoenix

Commander, Enforcement Services District 16 01/ 21/ 92 X Phoenix

Sergeant, CHP, Sacramento Headquarters 01/ 21/ 92 X Sacramento

~~-~~~~-~-~~~-~-~~~

.. --.- r' ....... - __ - ..... - .....

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

INTERVIEW LIST EXHIBIT 2

6 OF 11 PAGES

~

fI)

18

Title Date Hensley Olvey Marcum Jackson Winston Location

Admir. Sergeant, Southern Division, HPB 01/ 21/ 92 X Phoenix

Area Supervisor, District 15/ CVSS 01/ 22192 X Phoenix

CVSS District 15 01122192 X Phoenix

Procuement Supervisor, Administration 01/ 22192 X X Phoenix

Buyer Administration 01122192 X X Phoenix

Buyer Administration 01/ 22192 X X Phoenix

Mananer, Finance Division 01/ 22192 X X Phoenix

Admin. Sergeant, District 7 01/ 22192 X Globe

Squad Sergeant, District 7 01/ 22192 X Globe

Chief of Police, Glendale PO 01123/ 92 X X Glendale

Commander. District 19 01123/ 92 X Phoenix

Motor Carrier Inspector. District 16 01/ 23192 X Phoenix

Evidepce Custodian, Central Evidence 01/ 23/ 92 X Phoenix

Squad Sergeant, District 7 01/ 23/ 92 X Safford

Sheriff, Graham County 01/ 23/ 92 X Safford

Squad Sergeant. District 12 01/ 24/ 92 X Cordes Junction

Officer, District 5 01/ 24192 X Phoenix

Sergeant, HPB Asst. Director Office 01/ 24/ 92 X Phoenix

Area Supervisor, District 16 01/ 24/ 92 X Phoenix

Administrative Service Officer I, MCSAP 01/ 24/ 92 X Phoenix

Personnel Analyst, Management Services 01/ 24192 X Phoenix

Sergeant, District 19 01/ 27/ 92 X Youngtown

Admin. Sergeant, District 19 01/ 27/ 92 X Youngtown

Office, • District 3 01/ 28192 X Holbrook

Commander District 3 01/ 28/ 92 X Holbrook

Captain. Sheriff's Office. Navajo County 01128192 X Holbrook

Sergeant, District 3 01/ 28/ 92 X Holbrook

Captain. California Highway Patrol 01/ 28192 X Sacramento

Commander. District 5 01/ 28/ 92 X Phoenix

Admin.. Sergeant, District 18 01128192 X Phoenix

Squad Sergeant, District 17 01/ 28/ 92 X Phoenix

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

INTERVIEW LIST

EXHIBIT 2

7 OF 11 PAGES

.. --~..... _--_ ..

~

CJ)

~

Title Date Hensley Olvey Marcum Jackson Winston Location

Admin. Sergeant, District 17 01128/ 92 X Phoenix

Admin. Sergeant, District 6 01/ 29/ 92 X Casa Grande

Squad Sergeant, District 6 01/ 29/ 92 X Coolidge

Officer, District 11 01129/ 92 X Show Low

Sergeant, District 11 01/ 29/ 92 X Show Low

Sergeant, District 11 01/ 29/ 92 X Show Low

Property Officer, LAPD 01/ 30/ 92 X Los Angeles

Commander, District 4 01/ 30/ 92 X Yuma

Admin. Sergeant, District 4 01/ 30/ 92 X Yuma

Squad Sergeant, District 4 01/ 30/ 92 X Yuma

Officer, District 4 01/ 30/ 92 X Yuma

Reserve Sergeant, District 19 01130/ 92 X Phoenix

Reserve Officer, District 19 01/ 30/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, District 4 01/ 31/ 92 X Yuma

Squad Sergeant, District 4 01/ 31/ 92 X Gila Bend

Sheriff, Maricopa County 01131192 X X Phoenix

Officer, Lead Duty Officer, DPS HQ 02103/ 92 X Phoenix

Admin. Sergeant, Ass!. Dir. Office, HPB 02103/ 92 X Phoenix

Admin. Service Officer I, Ass!. Dir., HPB 02103/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, District 5 02104/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, D, istrict 17 02104/ 92 X Phoenix

Secretary, District 17 02104/ 92 X Phoenix

Clerk Typist I, District 18 02104/ 92 X Phoenix

Commander, District 7 02105/ 92 X Mesa

Officer, District 7 02105/ 92 X Mesa

Officer, District 7 02/ 05/ 92 X Mesa

Chief of Pollee, Phoenix PD 02107/ 92 X X Phoenix

Major, Administration, Phoenix PD 02107/ 92 X X Phoenix

Sergeant, Graham Co. Investlg., OC/ N2 Region 1 02114/ 92 X Safford

Officer, Graham Co. Investig., OC/ N2 Region 1 02117/ 92 X Safford

Commander, Organized Crime/ Narcotics I 02119/ 92 X X Phoenix

_..... _.... -

.. ......... - ....... ... - .. - .. --

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

INTERVIEW LIST EXHIBIT 2

8 OF 11 PAGES

~

en

(. 0..)

.----

Title Date Hensley Olvey Marcum Jackson Winston Location

f---

Commander, Organized Crime/ Intelligence 02119/ 92 X X Phoenix

Officel, La Paz Co. Task Force, OC/ N1 Region 3 02120/ 92 X Parker

Officel , Organized Crime Unit 1, OCII Region 2 02120/ 92 X Yuma

Sergeant, Yuma Co. Task Force, OC/ N1 Region 3 02120/ 92 X Yuma

Officer, Yuma Co. Task Force, OC/ N1 Region 3 02120/ 92 X Yuma

Officer, DEA Task Force, OC/ N1 Region 2 02120/ 92 X Phoenix

Intell. l: tes. Tech I, CI Research Unit, OCII Region 3 02120/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, Liquor Unit, OC/ N1 Region 1 02120/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, Major Violators Unit, OC/ N1 Region 2 02120/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer. Service Unit, OC/ N1 Region 2 02120/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer. Organized Crime Unit 2, OCII Region 2 02120/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, Liquor Investig. Unit, OCIN2 Region 1 02120/ 92 X Tucson

Officer, Financiallnvestig. Unit, OC/ N2 Region 1 02120/ 92 X Tucson

Officer, DEA Task Force, OC/ N2 Region 2 02120/ 92 X Tucson

Officer, Major Violators Unit, OC/ N2 Region 2 02120/ 92 X Tucson

Serge, lnt, Santa Cruz Co. Task Force, OC/ N2 Region 1 02120/ 92 X Tucson

Officer, Santa Cruz Co. Task Force, OC/ N2 Region 1 02120/ 92 X Tucson

Officer, Sierra Vista Task Force, OC/ N2 Region 1 02120/ 92 X Sierra Vista

Officer, Sierra Vista Task Force, OC/ N2 Region 1 02120/ 92 X Sierra Vista

Officer, Conspiracy Unit, OC/ N1 Region 1 02121192 X Phoenix

Officer, Clandestine Lab Unit, OC/ N1 Region 2 02121/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer, Major Violators Unit, OCII Region 1 02121192 X Phoenix

Officer, Conspiracy Unit, OCII Region 1 02121192 X Phoenix

Sergecnt, Coconino Co. Task Force, OC/ N1 Region 1 02121192 X Flagstaff

Officer. Coconino Co. Task Force, OC/ N1 Region 1 02121/ 92 X Flagstaff

Officer, Yavapai Co. Task Force, OC/ N1 Region 1 02121/ 92 X Prescott

Sergeant, Yavapai Co. Task Force, OC/ N1 Region 1 02121/ 92 X Prescott

Officer Fugitive Detail Unit, OC/ N1 Region 2 02121/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer Organized Crime Unit 1, OCII Region 2 02121192 X Phoenix

Crim. Illtei. Analyst III, Intel. Analy. Unit, OCII Region 3 02121/ 92 X Phoenix

Officer. Financiallnvestig. Unit, OCII Region 1 02121/ 92 X Phoenix

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

INTERVIEW LIST

EXHIBIT 2

9 OF 11 PAGES

.. -_ ....... _- .. - ..

~•~

Title Date Hensley Olvey Marcum Jackson Winston Location

Officer, Conspiracy Unit, OC/ N2 Region 1 02121/ 92 X Tucson

Officer, Commercial Narc. Unit, OC/ N2 Region 2 02121192 X Tucson

Commander, OC/ N2 02121/ 92 X Tucson

Officer, MANTIS, OC/ N2 Region 3 02121/ 92 X Tucson

SLIM Sub- Committee 02124/ 92 X X X X X Phoenix

Captain, Administration, CIB 02125/ 92 X X Phoenix

Director, Cori!. Substances, Maricopa Co Atty Office 02127/ 92 X Phoenix

Owner, Southwest Polygraph 02127/ 92 X Tucson

Officer, Organized Crime Unit 2, OCII Region 2 02127/ 92 X Phoenix

Squad Sergeant, HPS, Dist. 6 02127/ 92 X Phoenix

Commander, District 11, HPS 02128/ 92 X Phoenix

Trustee, Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 32 03/ 03/ 92 X X Phoenix

Lieutenant, Executive Security 03/ 03/ 92 X Phoenix

Manager, Management Services Division 03/ 03/ 92 X Phoenix

Manager, Facilities Division 03/ 03/ 92 X Phoenix

Chief of Staff, Administration Bureau 03/ 03192 X Phoenix

Systems and Programming Manager 03/ 03/ 92 X Phoenix

Computer Operations Supervisor 03/ 03/ 92 X Phoenix

Manager of ACJIS Programming Support 03/ 03/ 92 X Phoenix

Data Processing Manager 03/ 03192 X Phoenix

Manager of Technical Support 03/ 03/ 92 X Phoenix

Data Center Operations Manager 03/ 03/ 92 X Phoenix

Production Control Supervisor 03/ 04/ 92 X Phoenix

Management Information Systems Manager 03/ 04/ 92 X Phoenix

Technical Communication Division Manager 03/ 04/ 92 X Phoenix

Radio Services Section Manager 03/ 04/ 92 X Phoenix

Manager, Advanced Training 03/ 04/ 92 X X Phoenix

Manager, Human Resources 03/ 04/ 92 X X Phoenix

Admin. Sergeant, Ass!. Dir. Office, CIB 03/ 04/ 92 X Phoenix

Lieutenant, Administration, Ass!. Dir. Office, CIS 03/ 04/ 92 X Phoenix

AS01, Ass!. Dir. Office, CIS 03/ 04192 X Phoenix

.. - ... _.....

.. -_: ...... - .. --- .. - - .. - _.. -

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

INTERVIEW LIST EXHIBIT 2

10 OF 11 PAGES

Title Date Hensley Olvey Marcum Jackson Winston Location

mder, Region 2 OC/ N1 03/ 04/ 92 X Phoenix

~ r Carrier Services Section 03/ 05/ 92 X Phoenix

~ r Telephone & Data Services Section 03/ 05/ 92 X Phoenix

s Supervisor, ACJIS 03/ 05/ 92 X Phoenix

s Supervisor, ACJIS 03/ 05/ 92 X Phoenix

Sergeant 03/ 05/ 92 X Phoenix

I, Division Commander, ACJIS 03/ 06/ 92 X Phoenix

s Supervisor, ACJIS 03/ 06/ 92 X Phoenix

s Supervisor, ACJIS 03/ 06/ 92 X Phoenix

s Supervisor, ACJIS 03/ 06/ 92 X Phoenix

~ r, Finance 03/ 06/ 92 X Phoenix

ant, OCII 03/ 06/ 92 X Phoenix

nt, Explosives Disposal, Special Ops Units 03/ 06192 X Phoenix

ant, MANTIS Task Force, Region 3, OC/ N2 03/ 06/ 92 X Tucson

Sergeant, OCIN2 03/ 06/ 92 X Tucson

nt, Service Unit, OC/ N2 03/ 06/ 92 X Tucson

nt, Liquor Detail, OC/ N2 03/ 06/ 92 X Tucson

Ilion Support Section Manager 03/ 09/ 92 X Phoenix

II History Records Section Manager 03/ 09/ 92 X Phoenix

nt, Special Investigations Unit 03/ 09/ 92 X Phoenix

ant, Manager, Fleet Services 03/ 09/ 92 X Phoenix

~ r, Logistics Division 03/ 09/ 92 X Phoenix

~ r, Supply 03/ 09/ 92 X Phoenix

rn Region Manager, Op Comm 03110/ 92 X Tucson

\ ervices Southern Area Supervisor 03/ 10/ 92 X Tucson

ant, ALETA Training 03/ 10/ 92 X Tucson

lr, ALETA Facilities 03/ 10/ 92 X Tucson

anal Communication Division Manager 03/ 11/ 92 X Phoenix

Region Manager Op Comm 03111192 X Phoenix

lr Engineering Services Section 03111/ 92 X Phoenix

; Supervisor, ACJIS 03/ 11/ 92 X Phoenix

Comm

Mana!)

Mana!)

Recor(

Recor<

Admin

Captai

Recore

Recore

Recore

Manag

Lieuter

Sergea

Lieuter

Admin

Sergea

Sergea

Inform

Crimin

Sergea

Lieute

Manag

Manag

Southe

Radio

Lieuter

Manag

Operat

Centra

Manag

Record

~

en

tj

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

INTERVIEW LIST EXHIBIT 2

11 OF 11 PAGES

~

en

i

Title Date Hensley Olvey Marcum Jackson Winston Location

Northern Regional Manager Op Comm 03/ 12192 X Flagstaff

Radio Services Northern Area Supervisor 03/ 12192 X Flagstaff

Officer, Special Operations, OC/ N1 03/ 12192 X X Phoenix

Storekeeper, Phoenix Tool Room 03/ 12192 X X Phoenix

Sergeant, Internal Affairs, Management Supp., Dir. Offie 03/ 13/ 92 X Phoenix

Commander, Human Resources Division 03/ 16/ 92 X Phoenix

Personnel Analyst, Human Resources 03/ 16/ 92 X Phoenix

Captain, Phoenix PD Regional Training Academy 03/ 16/ 92 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Admin. Support, Advanced Training 03/ 17/ 92 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Video Productions. Advanced Training 03/ 17/ 92 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Operational Training, Advanced Training 03/ 17/ 92 X Phoenix

Admin. Sergeant, District 6. HPS 03/ 19/ 92 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Terminal Audits, Special Services Div. 03/ 19/ 92 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Design & Construction, Facilities Mgt. 03/ 20/ 92 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Information Analysis. Management Services 03/ 20/ 92 X Phoenix

Director, RMIN, CIS 03/ 20/ 92 X Phoenix

Deputy Director, RMIN, CIS 03/ 20/ 92 X Phoenix

Commander, Region 4, OCII 03/ 20/ 92 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Planning & Admin, Facilities Management 03/ 23/ 92 X Phoenix

Supervisor, DOA Facilities 03/ 24/ 92 X Phoenix

Appraiser, Arizona State Land Department 03/ 24/ 92 X Phoenix

Sargeant. Special Projects, Advanced Training 03/ 24/ 92 X Phoenix

Supervisor, Armory, Advanced Training 03/ 24/ 92 X Phoenix

Director DOA Fleet Management 04/ 02192 X Phoenix

DOA Fleet Management 04/ 02192 X Phoenix

Officer, Driver Training Supervisor, Phx P. D. 04/ 02192 X Phoenix

.. -_ .. ., .. - ... -- .. - .... _.... -

.. - .; ... .. .. .. .. .. - - - - .. .. .. .. - -

~,

~

* INCLUDES VACANCIES AND

EXCLUDES ALEOAC ANI' RM

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

PRESENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE *

1718 FTI!

DIRECTOII 49

739 I 267 173 286 194

HIeHlIAY CRIIlINAL CRIIlINAL JUSTICE TELE- ADII IN ISTRATION

PATROL 18 INVESTIGATIONS 34 SUP'I'ORT 6 CONIIUNICATIONS BUREAU

BUREAU BUREAU BUREAU BUREAU

IIOIITHERN ORGAIIIZED DATA NAIlAOEIIENT - P'ATROL 177 - CRIIIE I ,. - AVIATION 57 r- P'ROCESSIIlG 57 - SERVICES

DIVISION NARCOTICS I

SOUTHERII OIIGANIZED SUP'P'OIIT TECHNICAL FACILITIES - P'ATROL 173 r- CRIIIE I 72 - SERVICES 39 f- CONIIUNICATION 73 I- MANAGEIIENT

DIVISION NARCOTICS II

CENTRAL ORGAIIIZED SCIENTIFIC OPERATIONAL - P'ATROL I. - CRIME 71 ....... ANALYSIS 71 I- CONIIUNICATION aa ,.... LOGISTIC5

DIVISION INTELLIGENCE

IIETRO ROCKY ARIZONA LAW - PATROL 143 '-- MOUNTAIN ( 27) - ACJIS 64 - ENFOIICEMENT

DIVISION INFOIIIIATION TRAINING

NETWORK ACADEMY

SPECIAL - SERVICES aa ADVANCED

DIVISION - TRAINING

OTHER FUNDED POSITIONS - FINANCE

IN

15

36

...

34

17

34

III

EXHIBIT 3

. .....'._.,..._......_---_......_..'~._.'._._ .. - .....

CDPSI

Ol. 1/ G'lA/ Q?

ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY

PROPOSED ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE *

EXHIBIT 4

1496 FTE

• INCLUDES VACANCIES AND OTHER FUNDED POSITIONS

EXCLUDES ALEOAC AND RIIlN

•

CDPS2

.. - .. .'/ 0lA

73

265

63

113

llll

- - .. - ..

DIRECTOR 56

868 572

OI'ERATION SUP'P'OIIT

211 IlUREAU BUREAU

REGION MANAGEMENT

AVIATION I-- I-- I 1.3 - SERVICES

REGION TELE-NARCOTICS

I-- I-- 2 112 f-- COIIIIIUNICATION

REGION SCIENTIFIC

INTELLIGI! NCE I-- ""- 3 113 ,.... ANALYSIS

METRO REGION FACILITIES

1 I-- - 4 1.7 L.- AND

LOGISTICS

METRO REGION

74 2 1--""- 5 111

46

35

67

72

~,

& l

.... I-_- I_~---------------.- ... _

- __ I ........ _--- .. _........ - -

DPS POSITION CHANGES FROM PRESENT TO PROPOSED ORGANIZATION EXHIBIT ! 5

POSITION

1 1 0 0

el 3 1 - 2 1 0 - 1 1 0 - 1 - 4

2 1 - 1 1 0 - 1 2 0 - 2 - 4

10 6 - 4 3 1 - 2 0 1 0 - 1 4 5 1 - 6

nt 31 11 - 20 9 3 - 6 3 0 - 3 3 4 1 2 2 - 26

t 115 105 - 10 8 5 - 3 4 1 - 3 9 9 0 2. 2 - 14

gt 31 6 - 25 - 25

' fficer 14 1 - 13 - 13

, r 150 146 - 4 - 4

er 460 456 - 4 - 4

3r 41 14 - 27 - 27

25 15 - 10 4 2 - 2 2 6 4 9 9 1

lrn 42 30 - 12 - 12

: e Off. 0 11 11 11

ed 899 777 - 122 47 24 - 23 13 3 - 10 1 0 - 1 20 25 5 0 24 24 - 127

: ant 51 0 - 51 2 0 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 - 1 0 0 0 - 54

om: 950 777 - 173 49 24 - 25 13 3 - 10 1 0 - 1 21 24 3 0 24 24 - 182 ,

ainee 12 6 - 6 - 6

s 1 0 - 1 10 5 - 5 3 2 - 1 17 12 - 5 2 2 0 0 2 2 - 10

ors 7 1 - 6 23 27 4 15 13 - 2 26 20 - 6 0 1 1 0 2 2 - 7

80 84 4 107 100 - 7 79 68 - 11 232 231 - 1 25 29 4 0 9 9 - 2

toADOT 11 0 - 11

Civ 0 26 26 26

ed 111 89 - 22 140 132 - 8 97 83 - 14 275 263 - 12 27 32 5 0 39 39 - 12

; ant 2 2 0 5 0 - 5 6 2 - 4 10 2 - 8 1 0 - 1 0 0 0 - 18

i1ian: 113 91 - 22 145 132 - 13 103 85 - 18 285 265 - 20 28 32 4 0 39 39 - 30

CIVIUAr

Officer t

Manage

Supervi~

Staff

Transfer

CapP~

Total Fil

- Tot- al V- a

Total Ci\

SWORN

Colonel

U Color

Major

Captain

lieuten,

Sergear

Admin ~

Admin (

CIOfficI

HP Offie

AV Offie

Officer

SSDSw

Cap PI?!

Total Fil

- To- ta_ l V. a

Total S\'\

~

en

•~

Total 1063 868 - 195 194 156 - 38 116 88 - 28 286 265 - 21 49 56 7 o 63 63 - 212

Assumpl ions:

- Includes: vacancies, federally funded positions, Capitol Police, transfer of Port of Entry personnel to ADOT, reclassification of sworn to civilian.

- Excludes: RMIN, ALEOAC

- Senicr Pilots are counted as Sergeants, Pilots and Paramedics are counted as Officers

- Speci alty Officers transferred to ADOT are counted as civilians

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY - IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE EXHIBIT 8

( PRELIMINARY) " AGE I f6 3

I MONTHS

TITLE I I I 2 I 3 I 4 I S I 6 I 7 I e I 9 I 10 I II I 12 I 13 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 I 18 I 19 I 20 I I 24

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SU" PORT BUREAU

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUPPORT ORG. SUMMARY

I I I

I I I I I I I I I I I

AVIATION ORGANIZATION SUMMARY I

I I I I I AIR RESCUE UNITS ,

I I I I I PARAMEDIC CIVILIANIZATION I

I I I I I FIXED WING AIRCRAFT I

I I PUBLICATIONS I

I I INTOXILYlER ,

C e.. u n POLYOftAI'H SERVICES II II ,

I EVID£ IICE MANAGEMENT I

I I I SELF FUNDING LICENSING I

I I QUESTIONED DOCUMENT UNIT I

I I FEDERAL GRANT POSITIONS ,

I I

HIGHWAY PATROL BUREAU

HPB ORGANIZATION SUMMARY

I ! ,

I I I I I I I I I I I

SPECIAL SERVICES DIVISION ,

I I SERGEANT ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ,

I I OFFICER REPORT WRITING ,

I I I I I I I I

OFFICER REPORT FORMS , I I I I , ACCIDENT MANAGEMENT I

I I

II I I

CODE 106 ACTIVITIES I I OPERATIONS RESERVE PROGRAM ,

· s' · - - ; t: ' 7- '~,- k= 1 .1 = 1. ' J: b '. !.: I .. Lr I .1. 1:: 1': - .... - 1- 1 --

.. - .. ... - .. - - .. - - .. - - .. .. .. - -

~

en

f8

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY - IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE EXHIBIT 8 ( PRELIMINARY) PAOl! I 01' ,

I MONTHS

TITLE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I S I 6 I 7 I 8 I 9 111 1" In 113 I 14 I IS I 16 I 17 1,8 I 19 I 2. I I

C~ IMINAL INVESTIGATIONS BU~ EAU

CIB ORGANIZATION SUMM", R'" I

I I I SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS fUNCTIONS I

I I

I TOOL~ OOMS I I I DR T~ ACKINO/ CASE MANAGE~ ENT I

I

ADNI~ ISTRATION BUREAU

ADMINISTRATION ORGANIZATION SUNMA~ Y I

I I I I I I I I I I I ~ ECRUITIIENT ACTIVITY ANI TRAINING I

TELECC~ MUNICATION BUREAU

I I

TCB ORGANIZATION SUNIIARl I I I I I I I I I I I I DISPATCH CENTER CONSOLICATION I

OVERALL OfS ORGANIZATION SUMMARY

OVERALL DPS ORGANIZATION SUNMARY I

- OFFICER SALARY INC~ EASE

- ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT DEVELOPIIENT

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUPPORT

NIGHT VISION CAPABILITIES I

I I I EMSCON DISPACTCHING I

I I THIRD- PARTY REIMB FOR MEDICAL MISSIONS I

I I

I

AIRCRAFT FOR SS SPEED E~ FORCEMENT I

I I ,- " ..

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY - IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE EXHIBIT 8

( PRELIMINARY) PAlE J 01' J

I MONTHS

TITlE I 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 I 5 I 6 I 7 I II I 9 I .. 111 112 113 I 14 I 15 I 16 I 17 118 I 19 I 2. I I

CRIMINAL JUSTICE SUPPORT

AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE I I I AIRCRAFT SCHEDULING AND BILLING PROCESS I I I PHOTO LAB MATERIALS MANAGEMENT I I I LICENSING INFORMATION I I I CRIME LAB REVENUE ENHANCEMENT I

HIGHWAY PATROL

I

: Ot: PLOY1I! IIT I

»

AONINISTRATION

VEHICLES I

I I REVENUE ENHANCEMENT - ARMORY 5ERVICES I

- •• •• 1- .. .. - I- ••

~

~

en

ali

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

HIGHWAY PATROL BUREAU - ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

The Highway Patrol Bureau ( HPB) is responsible for patrolling and enforcing traffic laws on

ArIzona's State highways and is one of two Bureaus within DPS that is responsible for law enforcement

activities. The Bureau contains administrative and middle management positions which are not required to

maintain the current levels of patrol and enforcement services throughout the State.

The Highway Patrol Bureau consists of four Patrol Divisions - Northern, Southern, central, and

Metro - and one Special Services DMslon ( see exhibit 7, Highway Patrol Bureau, Present Organizational

Structure). The Bureau has 739 positions ( including 31 vacancies) and an operating budget of

approximately $ 33 mUlion.

The Bureau is administered by an AssIstant Director with the rank of Usutenant Colonel. Each

DMsion is managed by a Division Commander with the rank of Captain. All DMslon Commanders are based

in Phoenix although three of the four Patrol DMsions are responsible for geographical areas outside of

Phoenix. Interviews with DMsion Commanders identified the following responslbUltles:

• Supervising District Commanders

• Ensuring that goals and objectives are followed

• Ensuring that Districts are participating In various programs

• Planning

• Program development

• Reviewing statistics

• Identifying trends and causes for issues such as traffic accidents and Driving Under the

Influence ( D. U. I)

DPS - 41

• Reviewing administrative paperwork such as travel requests and personnel Issues

• Coordinating and developing report/ projects for DPS management.

Each Patrol Division Is further divided Into Districts which deploy Highway Patrol Squads

throughout Arizona ( see Exhibits 8 through 11, Northem, Southern, Central and Metro Highway Patrol

DMsions). The number of Squads assigned to each District varies from three to six. Districts are managed

by regionally based District Commanders with the rank of Ueutenant and consist of varying numbers of

Squads of Highway Patrol OffIcers assigned to specific geographical areas. While some aetlvltles mayvary,

Interviews found Dlstrlet Commanders are primarily administrative and Include the following responsibilities:

• Supervising Sergeants within the District

• Reviewing routine and ad hoc management reports

• Ensuring compliance with departmental policy

• Interfacing with other law enforcement officials.

Interviews with staff revealed some District Commanders. particularly In metropolitan areas, spend

time in the field. particularly during commuter " rush hours." This was confirmed through observation. With

these and few other exceptions. however, primary contact between Dlstriet Commanders and Squads

appears to be through telephone conversations and weekly meetings with Squad Sergeants at the OffIce

of the District Commander. The District Commander Is kept apprised of all major Incidents. but generally

after an Incident has already occurred. All District Commanders appear to have call- out responslbHIty for

major vehicular accidents.

Each Squad consists of one Squad Sergeant and an average of six to seven OffIcers. However

the actual size varies from four to ten and may be further Impacted by vacancies. Squad Sergeants are

generally responsible for supervising OffIcers and have the following responslbUltles:

• Observation and training through riding along In the field with OffIcers

• Reviewing and assisting with reports completed by Officers ( e. g., AcclCiem Repons. D. V. i.

Reports and Offense Reports)

DPS - 42

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

• Scheduling officers to ensure coverage

• Writing reports for management

• Assisting officers at accident scenes.

Through interviews with Sergeants In outlying areas of the State and a sampling of officials from

other law enforcement agencies, we find that Squad Sergeants also Interface with local law enforcement

agencies/ officials.

WIthin each Squad, OffIcers are assigned specific areas of highway. ResponsibUlties Include, but

are not limited to, patrolling, enforcing traffic laws, managing accident scenes, accident Investigation, and

assisting stranded motorists. If, during the course of a routine traffic stop, OffIcers find that motorists are

wanted on outstanding warrants or In violation of other laws, such as transporting narcotics or driving under

the Influence of drugs/ alcohol. OffIcers are responsible for arresting and transporting violators. In addition

to patrol and enforcement duties, we find OffIcers carry numerous other responsibUltles Including providing

Instruction within the Department In various speclattles, maintaining Intoxllyzer units located In local law

enforcement agencies throughout the state, speaking to schools and communities on the Issue of drugs,

and general office duties. We find that the amount of time spent on these activities results In less time spent

on direct law enforcement and patrolling activities.

Highway Patrol Squads are responsible for day- tCHiay operations In the field and function

Independently because of the nature of activities performed and the need for Immediate decisions. Staff

stated that Squad Sergeants and OffIcers make approximately 95 to 99% of the decisions necessary for daUy

operations.

Highway Patrol Squads are operationally Independent because of the following reasons:

• OffIcers must make decisions In the field at the time an Incident occurs

• The work environment Is highly structured

• Services are standardized and routine

• OffIcers and Sergeants are highly trained and experienced.

DPS - 43

The Highway Patrol Special Services Division Is discussed In detaU in our Recommendation

entitled · SpecIaI Services Division. ·

Creating two separate Bureaus and management structures responsible for law enforcement has

created barriers In communication and coordination of activities In the field.

The present cost to manage $ 1 of labor In the Highway Patrol Bureau Is $. 33 ( see exhibit 12,

Highway Patrol Bureau. Present Cost to Manage). This equates to, on average, three subordinates to one

supervisor. Within the Bureau, the Department has created two levels of middle management- Division and

District levels - with both levels working on simUar Issues with varying levels of responsibHIty. These areas

include, but are not limited to, personnel Issues. monitoring/ developing goals, objectives and the budget,

completing/ reviewing administrative paperwork, completing projects for management. and ensuring

compliance with Departmental policy/ procedures. WhUe these activities may be necessary, we do not

believe that they must be performed at two different levels.

We found that operational decisions are made at the local level through Patrol Officers/ Squads.

Administrative decisions impacting operations are made at the regional ( District) and State ( Division) levels.

The Impact of the Special Services Division within HPB Is discussed in our Recommendation

entitled · Speclal Services Division, ·

R~

We recommend the following actions by DPS:

1. Combine the Highway Patrol and Criminal Investigation Bureaus into one Operations Bureau

( see Recommendation entitled. · Overall DPS Organization Summary")

2. Incorporate the Aviation Division into the Operations Bureau ( see Recommendation entitled,

· Overall DPS Organization Summary")

3. Decentralize the existing Division Command Structure and responslbUlties Into locai areas

and eliminate the existing Division Commander positions

DPS - 44

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

4. Combine the four Patrol Districts within the Metro DMsion to form Metro 1 and Metro 2. We

recommend each section be managed by a U8utenant with one Administrative Sergeant.

two secretaries and one OffIcer Trainee ( see Recommendation entitled. · Overall DPS

Organization Summary)

5. Combine the remaining 11 Patrol Districts Into five Regions - each administered by a

regionally- based Captain and Ueutenant with one secretary, one Data Entry Operator and

one OffIcer Trainee. Each Region wUl be responsible for all Patrol Squads assigned to the

area, Including Motor CarrIer OffIcers, Task Force Units ( from the existing CrIminal

Investigations Bureau) based In the area, and one Investigation Unit which wUl be created

for each Region. We recommend the manager ( Captain or ueutenant) responsible for the

Task Force and Investigation Units have experience In criminal Investigations ( see

Recommendation entitled. · Overall DPS Organization Summary-)

6. Maintain the current deployment of Highway Patrol squads In existing locations at current

staffing levels, In the absence of data from a deployment model. We also recommend

eliminating 26 vacant OffIcer positions ( excludes Special Services DMsion) until such time

the Department Is prepared to Implement a deployment model. Once avaUable, we

recommend the Department deploy Officers according to the model

7. Eliminate the management structure of the Special Services DlvlsIon. We recommend

transferring eleven positions responsible for the Ports of Entry to the ArIzona Department

of Transportation, and decentralizing Motor Carrier OffIcer positions throughout ArIzona by

deploying these positions to Regions 1 through 5 as well as Metro 1 and Metro 2 ( see

Recommendation entitled, · Speclal Services DMslonj.

8. Redeploy computer equipment assigned to eliminated management positions to Patrol

Squads.

DPS - 45

NORTHERN HIGHWAY PATROL DIVISION

EXHIBIT 8

1n TOTAL FTEI

~~ I S~ I 3S I ~ 3

~

1 1

tn I DISTRICT 1 I DISTRICT 2 - I 1DISTRICT 3 I DISTRICT 12

• LIElIIEIEHT LIEUTENAHT lIEUTENAHT lIEUmWIT

&

- - .. - - - .. - - - - - - .. - .. - - I « HE, _ CJ' VACAOCIES IIIlICATED IN () ARE INClltlED IN _ CJ' ( FfICERS _ IN EAot SWAn. ..

.. - - .. - - - .. - - - - .. - .. - .. - -

HIGHWAY PATROL BUREAU PRESENT ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE

739 TOTAL FTE

ASSISTANT

DIRECTal

IB

LIEUTENANT

COlCtEl

CHIEF CF STAFF

HAJal

EXHIBIT 7

~

~

In

IOlTIERH

HIGHWAY PATROl

DIYISICll

sa: EXHIBIT

I7J

sroT1£ AN

HIGHWAY PATROl

DIYISICll

sa: EXHIBIT

141

CENTRAL

HIGHWAY PATROl

DIVISICll

sa: EXHIBIT

143

I£ TRO

HIGHWAY PATROl

DIVISICll

sa: EXHIBIT

88

HIGHWAY PATROl

SPECIAL SERVICES

DIYISICll

sa: EXHIBIT

1. Creating one Bureau for enforcement activities will faclltate communication and coordination

of law enforcement aetMtles at local levels. In addition. the cost to manage the proposed

Operations Bureau Is $. 26 ( see Recommendation entitled - Overall DPS Organization

Summary").

Although Exhibit 13. FTE Change Impact, shows the elimination of most management

positions, additional management staff needed to staff the new Operations Bureau are In our

Recommendation entitled, · Overall DPS Organization Summary. ·

2. Placlng the Aviation DMslon In the Operations Bureau will provide control over law

enforcement missions directly within the Bureau.

3. Decentralizing existing DMslon command from Phoenix Into regional areas will facilitate

decision making based on local needs.

4. Creating Metro 1 and Metro 2 with responsibility for Patrol Squads only will decentralize

DMsion command, broaden the existing span of control for U8utenants, and enable

U8utenants In the area with the most freeway traffic to focus on patrol/ enforcement

activities.

5. Creating Regions 1 through 5 wli decentraJize DMslon command and provide

regionally- based management for all Highway Patrol Squads outside of the Phoenix area,

Motor Carrier OffIcers, all Task Force Units based outside of Phoenix and Tucson, as well

as newly created Investigation Units designed to provide support to local law enforcement

agencies.

6. Elimination of 26 vacant OffIcer positions will resutt In the reduction of $ 1.052,194 In

salaries/ ERE and $ 80,080 in other related costs for a total of $ 1,132,274.

7. eliminating the management structure of the Special Servlces DMslon, transfer of OffIcer

positions to the Arizona Department of Transportation and deploying Motor C& rrier OffIces

throughout Arizona will provide local management over services provided.

DPS - 46

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

.. - .. - - - - .. - - - - .. - .. - .. - -

SOUTHERN HIGHWAY PATROL DIVISION

In TOTAL FTEs

SOJTIERN

HIGt/ lIAV PATROl.

DIVISIOO

CAPTAIN

EXHIBIT 9

37 I 39 I 61 I 16

0 1 0

"'" ]

'"' 0 I DISTRICT 6 I I DISTRICT a I I DISTRICT 9 en lIEIIIDWlT lIEIIIDWlT lIEIIIDWlT lIEIIIDWlT

OOTE, tuIlER CI' VACANCIES IHOl CATED IN () ARE INClOOED IN tuIlER CI' Cl'FICERS _ IN EACH scmo.

CENTRAL HIGHWAY PATROL DIVISION EXHIBIT 10

148 TOTAL FTEs

~

en '" 35 58

Pl OISl1IICT 7

LIEUTaWIT

OISTIRICT II

LIEUTaWIT

OISl1IICT 19

LT. HALLIDAY

- - - - - - - - - - .. - .. - - 1 « J1£. IU1IlER CF YACAHtIES II « JICA1£ D IN () ARE INClLlJEO IN IUtIlER CF CFFICfRS 5IUnll IN EACH SQUAD. .. - - -

.. - - .. - - - - - - - - - - .. - .. - -

METRO HIGHWAY PATROL DIVISION

I~ 3 TOTAL FTEo

EXHIBIT 11

~

" 11 2] I 39 I 37

en I DI!' TRICT 5 1

1DISTRICT 13- 1 1DISTRICT 17 I I DISTlllCT 18

eI n U111TB1ANT LIEIITEIWIT LIEIITEIWIT LIEIITEIWIT ....

NJTE: IUtlER rF VACANCIES I'll tCATED IN () ARE INCllAlED IN IlJHIlER rF rFFICERS _ IN EACH SQUAD.

I

HIGHWAY PATROL BUREAU EPXaHgeIB1ITo1f2 2 I

Present Cost to Manage

I

MANAGEMENT · I Bureau

Lt. Colonel 1 99,260 Major 1 77,816 I

Exec. Sec. I 1 31,664

Secretary III 2 49,379 Operational Sgt. 3 144,028 I

Squad Sgt. 1 48,009

Officer II 5 207,144

Officer Trainee 1 21,991 I Admin. Svc. Off. I 1 37,270

Admin. Asst. 1 28,618 I Patrol Divisions

Captains 4 268,980

Operational S9tS. 4 199,212 I Officer Trainee 1 21,991

Patrol Districts I Lieutenants 15 868,608

Operational S9tS. 14 708,802

Squad S9tS. 72 3,666,096 ** I Officer II 5 202,345

Special Services Divisions Captain 1 64,260 I

Operational S9t. 3 149,126

Lieutenant 1 61,880 Motor Carrier Admin. 1 52,360 I

Squad S9ts. 5 253,470

Supervisors 6 270,991 I TOTAL MANAGEMENT 149 7,533,300

NON- MANAGEMENT I

Officers 486 19,667,934 Officer Trainees 10 219,920 I

Secretary II 15 368,055

Clerk Typist I 2 34,911 Vehicle Service Asst. 5 104,829 I

DPS - 52 I

I

Special Services Districts

Officers 42 1,699,698 **

Motor Carrier Invest. 23 793,891 **

Hazmat Coordinator 1 49,094

Admin. Svc. Off. I 1 36,142

Clerk Typist III 2 38,298

Secretary II 1 51,474

TOTAL NON- MANAGEMENT 588 23,064,246

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

HIGHWAY PATROL BUREAU

Present Cost to Manage

Cost to Manage Ratio

Total Management

Divided by Non- Management

Cost to Manage $ 1 of Labor

* Actual salaries used where available: if unavailable, mid- range salary

used. Excludes vacancies.

* * Mid- range salary used.

DPS - 53

EXHIBIT 12

Page 2 of 2

$ 7,533,300

$ 23,064,246

$ 0.33

FfE CHANGE IMPACf

BUREAU: HPB DMSIONBUREAU CHIEF

EXHIBIT 13

1 OF9 PAGES

5i f/)

I

~

Annual Cost Total

Savings (-), Comments

+/- Position # Sal & ERE* Other Cost(+)

- LT. COLONEL 1 $ 99,260 $ 3,080 ($ 102,340)

- MAJOR I $ 77,816 $ 3,080 ($ 80,896)

- EXECUTIVE SECRETARY I 1 $ 31,664 $ 1,000 ($ 32,664)

- SECRETARY III 2 $ 49,379 $ 2,000 ($ 51,379)

- OPERATION SGT. 2 $ 96,028 $ 6,160 ($ 102,188)

- OFFICERS II 3 $ 123,693 $ 9,240 ($ 132,933)

- OFFICER TRAINEE 1 $ 21,991 $ 1,000 ($ 22,991)

- ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT 1 $ 28,618 $ 1,000 ($ 29,618)

- OPERATION SGT. 2 $ 96,018 $ 6,160 ($ 102,178)

- OFFICER II 1 $ 46,938 $ 3,080 ($ 50,018) Transfer positions to PACElDir. Office

($ 707,205)

* ERE @ 19%

OOIHPB

--~-------------~~-

----------------~- ­EXHIBIT

13

FfE CHANGE IMPACf 2 OF 9 PAGES

BUREAU: HPB DMSIONNORTHERN PATROL DIVISION

C

."

C. h

8:

Annual Cost Total

Savings (-), Comments

+ 1- Position # Sal & ERE · Other Cost (+)

- LIEUTENANTS 4 $ 229,322 $ 12,320 ($ 241,642)

- OPERATIONS SGT. 5 $ 250,290 $ 15,400 ($ 265,690)

- OFHCER TRAINEE 4 $ 87,964 $ 4,000 ($ 91,964)

- SECRETARY II 4 $ 95,547 $ 4,000 ($ 99,547)

- OFFlCER II 1 $ 36,456 $ 3,080 ($ 39,536)

- CAPTAIN 1 $ 67,500 $ 3,080 ($ 70,580)

($ 808,959)

* ERE @ 19%

004HPB

FfE CHANGE IMPACf

C

" V en

I g;

EXHIBIT 13

3 OF9 PAGES

BUREAU: HPB DMSIONSOUTHERN PATROL DIVISION

Annual Cost Total

Savings (-), Comments

+/- Position # Sal & ERE · Other Cost (+)

- LIEUTENANTS 4 $ 232,449 $ 12,320 ($ 244,769)

- OPERAnONS SGT. 5 $ 254,476 $ 15,400 ($ 269,876)

- OFFICER TRAINEE 4 $ 87,964 $ 4,000 ($ 91,964)

- SECRETARY II 5 $ 130,905 $ 5,000 ($ 135,905)

- OFFICER II 2 $ 80,688 $ 3,080 ($ 83,768)

- CAPTAIN 1 $ 67,500 $ 3,080 ($ 70,580)

- OFFICER II 1 $ 42,852 $ 3,080 $ 45,932 Transfer to PACE ProjectlDirector's Office

- CLERK TYPIST I 1 $ 18,832 $ 1,000 $ 19,832

($ 831,098)

• ERE @ 19%

005HPB

----------------~--

----------------~--

FfE CHANGE IMPACT

BUREAU: HPB DMSIONCENTRAL PATROL DIVISION

EXHIBIT 13

40F9 PAGES

~

en

I

~

Annual Cost Total

Savings (-), Comments

+/- Position # Sal & ERE · Other Cost (+)

- LIEUTENANTS 3 $ 176,496 $ 9,240 ($ 185,736)

- OPERATIONS SGT. 4 $ 205,562 $ 12,320 ($ 217,882)

- OFFICER TRAINEE 2 $ 43,982 $ 2,000 ($ 45,982)

- SECRETARY II 3 $ 73,536 $ 3,000 ($ 76,536)

- OFFICER II 2 $ 94,536 $ 6,160 ($ 100,696)

- CAPTAIN 1 $ 69,264 $ 3,080 ($ 72,344)

- OFFICER II 1 $ 41,208 $ 3,080 ($ 44,288) Transfer positions to PACE ProjectIDir. Office

($ 743,464)

• ERE @ 19%

002HPB

FfE CHANGE IMPACT

BUREAU: HPH DMSIONMETRO PATROL DIVISION

EXHIBIT 13

5 OF9 PAGES

~

C. J)

81

Annual Cost Total

Savings (-), Comments

+/- Position # Sal & ERE* Other Cost (+)

- LIEUTENANTS 4 $ 230,336 $ 12,320 ($ 242,656)

- OPERATIONS SGT. 4 $ 197,004 $ 12,320 ($ 209,324)

- OFFICER TRAINEE 1 $ 21,991 $ 1,000 ($ 22,991)

- SECRETARYII 3 $ 77,808 $ 3,000 ($ 80,808)

- CLERK TYPIST I 1 $ 16,068 $ 1,000 ($ 17,068)

- CAPTAIN 1 $ 64,716 $ 3,080 ($ 67,796)

- SQUAD SGT. 1 $. 50,918 $ 3,080 ($ 53,998)

($ 694,641)

* ERE @ 19%

003HPB

----------------~--

----------------~--

~

UJ, m

FfE CHANGE IMPACT

BUREAU: HPB DMSIONNORTHERN PATROL DIVISION

Annual Cost Total

Savings (-), Comments

+/- Position # Sal & ERE. Other Cost (+)

- OFFICER II 9 $ 364,221 $ 27,720 ($ 391,941) Currently vacant

($ 391,941)

• ERE @ 19%

013HPB

EXHIBIT 14

60F9PAGES

~

I 8

FfE CHANGE IMPACT

BUREAU: HPB DIVISION SOUTHERN PATROL DIVISION

Annual Cost Total

Savings (-), Comments

+/- Position # Sal & ERE. Other Cost (+)

- OFFICER II 7 $ 283,283 $ 21,560 ($ 304,843) Currently vacant

($ 304,843)

• ERE @ 19%

Type: SW, CV, SWR, CVR

014HPB

EXHIBIT 13

7 OF 9 PAGES

----------------~--

----------------~--

o~,

.0..).

FfE CHANGE IMPACT

BUREAU: HPB DMSIONCENTRAL PATROL DIVISION

Annual Cost Total

Savings (-), Comments

+/- Position # Sal & ERE* Other Cost (+)

- OFFICER II 3 $ 121,407 $ 9,240 ($ 130,647) Currently vacant

($ 130,647)

• ERE @ 19%

Type: SW, CV, SWR, CVR

Ol7HPB

EXHIBIT 13

8 OF 9 PAGES

~,

i

FfE CHANGE IMPACT

BUREAU: HPB DMSIONMETRO PATROL DIVISION

Annual Cost Total

Savings (-), Comments

+/- Position # Sal & ERE · Other Cost (+)

- OFFICER II 7 $ 283,283 $ 21,560 ($ 304,843) Currently vacant

($ 304,843)

• ERE @ 19%

Type: SW, CV, SWR, CVR

015HPB

EXHIBIT 14

9 OF 9 PAGES

-------------------

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

SPECIAL SERVICES DIVISION

The Special Services DMslon ( SSD) Is a sub- unlt of the Highway Patrol Bureau ( HPB) ( see exhibit

14, Special ServIces Division, Highway Patrol Bureau - Present Organizational Structure). ThIs Division

contains a category eX officer called Specialty OffIcers, who have limited enforcement powers In the area

of motor carrier laws. These officers were transferred to DPS during the past several years from the ArIzona

Department of Transportation ( ADeT) and from the ArIzona Corporation Commission. The addition of the

Specialty OffIcers to DPS led to the creation of a duplicate command and control structure within the

Highway Patrol Bureau ( HP) as fully swom HP OffIcers were performing many of the motor carrier functions

currently being performed by the Specialty OffIcers. This situation was made even more complex when DPS

management made the decision to begin adding fully swom officers to the ranks of the Specialty OffIcers,

and had them perform the exact same duties as the Specialty OffIcers. This created a situation whereby

two officers were performing the same tasks, but for different pay ( Specialty OffIcers average $ 3,000 to

$ 7,000 less than fully sworn officers). Today, these Issues and others surrounding the SSD have grown to

the level of becoming a major morale concem within both the Highway Patrol In general and the SSD

specifically.

The principal mission of the Special Services DMsion Is as follows:

• Enforce state commercial vehicle safety regulations for 18 wheelers, cargo tankers, school

buses, tow trucks, and hazardous materials ( HazMat) response

• Perform vehicle theft Interdiction aetMtles

• Perform other specific regulatory functions relating to commercial vehicles.

Organization and Duties

The SSD Is organized Into two main districts: District 15 for Special ActlvItIes and District 16 for

Enforcement Services. ( The Special ActMtJes Division contains most of the swom officers, whOe the

enforcement Services DMsion contains most of the Soeclaltv OffIcers,) The responsibUlties of Special

Activities District 15 include:

DPS - 63

• Conducting roadside Inspections of commercial molor vehicles

• FacHltatlng response to commercial vehicle crashes and hazardous materials Incidents

• Directing Vehicle Theft Interdiction ( VTI) operations focusing on training

• Conducting annual Inspections of the state's school buses, and tow trucks.

The responsibilities of Enforcement Services District 16 Include:

• Conducting commercial vehicle Inspections at seven Arizona ports of entry ( Topock,

Ehrenburg, Yuma, Nogales, San Simon, Sanders, St. George)

• Conducting weight enforcement programs to detect and cite overweight vehicles

• Conducting on- site Inspections In carrier tennlnals ( tennlnal audits).

The personnel of DIstricts 15 and 16 are deployed In 18 locations statewide. All supervisory

personnel are based in Phoenix, Tucson, or Flagstaff. In addition, SSD has several ancllary functions related

to commercial vehicle enforcement:

• AMotor Carrier Safety Assistance Program ( MCSAP)/ Safetynet coordination unit, with a staff

of three cMlians reporting to the DMslon Commander, administers the MCSAP program and

coordinates the Safetynet program ( a Federal data base Into which each state Inputs Its

commercial vehicle enforcement aetMtles)

• An OSHA Safety OffIcer/ HazMat civilian specialist In District 15 Is responsible for conducting

training and providing technical advice to the HazMat specialists In the field

• A High Risk Driver program, with a staff of two civilians In District 16, Is responsible tor

another MCSAP funded aetMty Involving the detection and removal of fatigue- Impaired truck

drivers from the roadways.

DPS - 64

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

There are 88 FTEposttions In SSD of which five are vacant. Of the 88 positions, 51 are fully

sworn Highway Patrol OffIcers, 32 Specialty OffIcers and five cNBlans. Specialty Officers are not fully sworn

but have limited enforcement powers and are currenUy armed.

Mixed Qasslflcation of OffIcer Duties

The category of Specialty OffIcer currently poses a number of problems related to their role,

responsibUlties, and level of training and preparation. They are not fully sworn, but because they have some

enforcement powers and are armed they cannot be considered strictly civilians. To clarify this situation, the

SSD Commander recently proposed to DPS Management the following changes:

• Umlt the responslbUltles of Specialty OffIcers to the tow truck enforcement, terminal audits,

and port of entry duties

• Disarm the Specialty OffIcers and provide them with different uniforms and vehicle types to

distinguish them from regUlar sworn officers

• Replace all Specialty OffIcers with swom officers through attrition.

Qperational Concerns

The relationship between the Special Services DMslon and the other Highway Patrol DMslons has

been negatively affected by a number of Issues. SSD personnel operating in the Phoenix metropolitan area

use a different radio frequency than the regular Highway Patrol OffIcers. The two groups are unable to

communicate directly with each other and therefore cannot serve as mutual back- up when needed unless

a dispatcher Is used as an Intermediary. Many of the SSD OffIcers have purchased CItizen Band ( CB) radios

on their own to hear the radio calls of the Highway Patrol OffIcers In the metro area.

OffIcer Morale

Highway Patrol OffIcers frequently express the opinion that Sworn SSD OffIcers are making the

same money as themselves but doing only part of the job. Regular Highway Patrol OffIcers are responsible

for all areas of law enforcement, including motor carrier enforcement ( they receive 40 hours of motor carrier

training at. the Academy, plus additional advanced training from SSD). SSD OffIcers only have to

DPS · 65

concentrate on the motor carrier functions, and are not required to back up Highway Patrol Officers even

though they are operating In the same district. Highway Patrol Offlcers believe that the SSD Is performing

many functions which duplicate those performed by the regular patrol dMslons, and that the SSD manpower

could be better utUized.

Most of the SSD Officers, both sworn and non- sworn, believe they are viewed as - second class

citizens,- or - outsiders,- within the Highway Patrol Bureau. This perception Is compounded by their

administrative isolation from the regular patrol districts, an isolation made even more pronounced In the

metro areas due to the lack of a common radio frequency with the regular Highway Patrol. The sworn SSD

Officers are trained to function In all the areas as the regular patrolman. The non- sworn SSD personnel

believe that with a minimum of additional training, they can function In the same capacity as sworn officers,

and are feeling threatened by the current SSD proPOSal to curtaU their enforcement powers.

Terminal Audits

The terminal audit function ~ n SSD, according to A. R. S. Title 28- 2403, Is not mandated but may

be performed at the DPS Director's discretion. During terminal audits, SSD personnel conduct on- site

inspections of trucking terminals, analyze company records and perform safety Inspections. Currently, the

terminal audit function requires 13 FTEs: six In Phoenix, six In Tucson, and one In Flagstaff. Last year these

units conducted 1,620 audits, the majority of which were requested by the federal government. ( Currently,

the Federal government has several truck audit staff In ArIzona.)

Ports of Entry

The control of ArIzona's ports of entry Is undermined by the fact that port administration Is under

the authority of ADOT whUe law enforcement at the ports Is under SSD authority In DPS. We understand

that ADOT Is not satisfied with the level of support provided by DPS port of entry law enforcement

personnel.

Federal FYnding

Sixteen of SSD's FTE positions are funded with 80/ 20 Federal/ State dollars from the Federal

MCSAP. We understand that this funding wUl continue at least through 1997.

DPS - 66

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

There Is duplication of Management structures, functions and responslblltles between SSD and

the other Highway Patrol DMsIons. Both SSD and Highway Patrol Officers are trained to be generalists In

the area of law enforcement, which Includes training In the area of motor carrier enforcement ( although

some of the Specialty OffIcers would need additional training to satisfy DPS management). SSD OffIcers

simply specialize In the area of motor carrier enforcement and hazardous materials response.

The consequences of a separate Support ServIces Division Is a redundant speciatty function that

crosses all regliar Highway Patrol administrative districts and authority structures. The price paid by DPS

for such an organizational structure Includes Inefficient utilization of manpower, duplicate command

structures and morale Issues between Divisions.

Maintaining the SSD as a separate entity requires additional office space at the University Station,

as well as the following redundant command and administrative personnel:

II of

~ Position Title

1 - captain

1 - U9utenant

1 - DMslon Commander ( non- swom equivalent to Ueutenant)

5 - Sergeants

5 - Area Supervisors ( non- swom equivalent to Sergeant)

2 - Administrative Sergeants

2 - Secretaries

We recommend separating SSD Into three groups: one group redeployed In the proposed Support

Bureau ( four positions); a second group transferred to the ArIzona Department of Transportation ( ADOT ­11

positions); and a third group redeployed with the swam officers In the proposed Operations Bureau ( 41

positions). The resources of the Highway Patrol Bureau's Special Services Division can be utilized more

effectively by redeploying them In other organizational units.

DPS · 67

Sworn and Soeclalty Officers:

We recommend redeploying the 88 Special Services Division positions as follows:

{ I of

Positions

Affected

40

2

11

1

1

11

1

10

Prooosecj Action

Redeploy sworn and Specialty OffIcers to the seven DMslons of

the proposed Operations Bureau which absorbs the primary

fuhctlons of the SSD

Eliminate two District Commander positions

Transfer ports of entry positions ( MCSAP funded), Including two vacancies,

to the Arizona Department of Transportation ( ADOT). This will bring all port

of entry personnel at the ports under a unified command

Transfer Hazardous Materials coordinator to the Scientific Analysis DMslon in our

proposed Operations Bureau

Redeploy Terminal Audit position to a metro Division In our proposed Operations

Bureau. this position would be responsible for performing Terminal Audits

resulting from specific complains, and for training others to perform Terminal

Audits, on an as- needed basis

Eliminate Terminal Audit positions by discontinuing this function unless totally

Federally funded. We recommend DPS discontinue the Terminal Audit function,

unless in direct response to a complaint about a trucking company

Eliminate Division Commander position based on the elimination of the SSD

management structure

Eliminate Sergeant positions ( Area Supervisors) based on the elimination of the

SSD management structure

DPS - 68

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

DPS - 69

3 Transfer FTE positions In the MCSAPjSafetynet unit to the Telecommunications

Division of our proposed Support Bureau

2 Eliminate District Commander Secretaries based on the elimination of the SSD

management structure.

Eliminate a total of three vacancies In Port of Entry, CVSS Inspection, VTI, School

Bus & Tow Truck Tech, and Terminal Audit

Transfer the Administrative Sergeant position CHer the COHS Project to the

GCHemor'S OffIce of Highway Safety In the OffIce of the Director

Eliminate Administrative Sergeants based on the elimination of the SSD

management structure

Proposed Action

1

2

3

CM!! an:

# ci

Positions

Affected

Finally, we recommend that the specialty functions and the activity levels of these officer be

maintained, even thought the command structure will change. this should not be a problem If upper

management Involvement Is maintained.

The DPS Weight Enforcement Officers who are redeployed to the seven Divisions In our proposed

Operations Bureau will assume the responsibility for issuing motor carrier