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