Georgia State Patrol

Performance Audit  10-15 November 2011

Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts Performance Audit Operations Russell Hinton, State Auditor Leslie McGuire, Director

Why we did this review Georgia State Patrol This audit was conducted to determine the extent to which GSP Opportunities exist to better align troopers assesses its effectiveness in achieving and resources with GSP’s core mission its core mission of accident investigations and traffic enforcement What We Found and to assess whether organizational changes could result in an increase in According to its enabling legislation, the Georgia State GSP’s productivity. Patrol’s (GSP) primary purpose is to investigate accidents, enforce traffic laws, and safeguard the public. However, as it currently operates, GSP is unable to demonstrate that its current resources are being used efficiently and effectively

to meet its core mission.

To demonstrate its impact, GSP should develop a strategic plan that aligns its operations with its organizational mission and goals. In addition, it should measure and evaluate its own performance relative to its goals and objectives. As discussed throughout the report, GSP should take steps to ensure that it is maximizing the use of its

Who we are current resources. For example, our analyses identified variations in the productivity levels of both posts and The Performance Audit Operations troopers. While some variation is expected due to different Division was established in 1971 to conduct in-depth reviews of state operating environments (rural vs. urban), GSP’s current programs. The purpose of our reviews method of assessing productivity does not enable it to is to determine if programs are determine if the variation is acceptable. In addition, we meeting their goals and objectives; noted that troopers’ shifts do not necessarily correlate with provide measurements of program the times of day and the days of the week in which the results and effectiveness; identify highest incidences of traffic violations and accidents occur. other means of meeting goals; evaluate We also found variation in the level of traffic enforcement the efficiency of resource allocation; and accident investigation assistance that counties receive assess compliance with laws and from GSP. These variations, however, were not necessarily regulations; and provide credible related to a county’s need for services. management information to decision- makers. While GSP management indicates that it is understaffed, Website: www.audits.ga.gov GSP has not conducted a needs assessment using accurate Phone: 404-657-5220 and complete information to determine an appropriate Fax: 404-656-7535 staffing level. By improving the alignment of its resources with its core mission and by measuring its performance,

GSP can better demonstrate its impact on investigating accidents, enforcing traffic laws, and safeguarding the public. In addition, decision makers can better assess whether its current staffing level is sufficient and the potential impact of additional resources.

Our review also found that the number and location of GSP’s 48 posts, which have evolved over many years, may no longer serve a strategic purpose. A management study commissioned by DPS in 2005 concluded that the new communication dispatch systems allow for a smaller number of posts, each with larger territories. The study recommended GSP reduce its number of posts from 48 to 24. We estimate this consolidation could save GSP approximately $1.25 million annually in post operating costs. In addition, the study estimated the consolidation would increase the number of troopers on patrol by 22.5% by modifying the current command structure. Using current staffing numbers, if GSP implemented this recommendation, 107 more troopers would be available for patrol.

A survey of local law enforcement officials found that respondents generally rated the quality of GSP services in their area as effective. The survey also revealed that less than half of the respondents frequently rely on GSP services.

GSP is a division within the Department of Public Safety. At the end of fiscal year 2011, GSP was authorized 953 positions. In February 2011, GSP had approximately 780 troopers assigned to GSP’s posts and specialty units. GSP expended $86.7 million (of which approximately 70% is funded through state appropriations) in fiscal year 2011.

DPS Response: “The overall conclusions of this audit are based upon data derived by hardworking analysts who have no professional expertise in law enforcement. While some of the opinions offered on personnel management are useful, the application of the law between the Trooper and the citizen should not be driven by a numerical analysis with an emphasis on revenue generation.”

“The audit was conducted during the most challenging budgetary and operational transitional periods in GSP history...The productivity captured during the time of the audit is not reflective of GSP activities during a normal fiscal year without the following impediments…GSP’s budget was cut from the initial Appropriated Budget in fiscal year 2009 by over $9 million.” To meet the budget reductions the following actions were taken:

• reduction of 85 radio dispatch operators statewide due to consolidation and budget reductions,

• removal of the entire state-appropriated patrol car budget,

• 12 furlough days for all of the GSP Troopers in fiscal year 2010 which resulted in a loss of 7200 patrol days,

• detachment of 40 GSP Troopers to Motor Carrier Compliance Division and 20 GSP Troopers to the Capitol Police for budgetary purposes,

• detachment of 10 GSP Troopers to a new, grant funded DUI Task Force in South Georgia, and

• fuel rationing limited the amount of patrols while increasing the number of license checks and other operational duties that did not require increased amounts of fuel.

“GSP completed the installation of in-car computer generated citations, a records management system, computer aided dispatch, and real-time GPS tracking and mapping of GSP Troopers. This process was ongoing throughout the audit..The CAD/RMS system required 80 hours of additional training per Trooper.”

Auditor’s Response: The focus of the audit was on GSP’s management controls, not on technical aspects of GSP’s law enforcement activities (i.e., pulling over vehicles, high-speed pursuits, use of force, interactions between Trooper and citizen, etc.). Management controls are an integral part of any organization, regardless of its mission. A properly developed system of management controls increases the likelihood that an organization will meet its goals as well as helps ensure efficient and effective operations. As noted throughout the report, we found deficiencies in GSP’s management controls.

Throughout its response DPS notes that it is planning to utilize the data from the recently implemented CAD/RMS system to assess performance. However, it should be noted that the data sources used by the audit team to assess GSP performance, which included electronic daily duty rosters, statewide crash data, and enforcement activity records, have been available to DPS for several years.

While GSP’s budget reduction may have impacted its activities in aggregate, our analyses are primarily based on calculations of average daily activity levels per trooper on patrol duty. Therefore, any items such as training, furlough days, detachments, etc., have been taken into account in our analyses.

Lastly, the report includes information regarding citation revenue generated by GSP simply as background information. The report does not offer any recommendations regarding revenue generation.

Georgia State Patrol i

Table of Contents Audit Purpose 1 Background 1 State Law 1 Organizational Structure 2 Staffing and Activity 5 Financial Information 7 Citation Revenue 8 Post Buildings 9 Law Enforcement Resources in Georgia 10 Findings and Recommendations 11 Strategic Management GSP should develop a comprehensive strategic plan to guide its operations and to clearly demonstrate it is fulfilling its core mission in an efficient and effective manner. 11 GSP should conduct a needs assessment utilizing accurate and complete information to determine an appropriate staffing level. 14 There does not appear to be a strategic basis for the current number or locations of GSP’s 48 posts and the resulting number of supervisors. 16

Operational Management

GSP should establish measurable objectives and performance indicators to evaluate post and trooper productivity. 18 GSP should allocate staffing resources at each post during the times of day and the days of the week that correlate with potential workload or need. 24 GSP should allocate staffing resources to areas of the state in a manner that correlates with potential workload or need. 28 According to a survey of Georgia local law enforcement officials, respondents generally rated GSP effective in its quality of services; however, less than half of the respondents frequently rely on GSP’s services. 32 Appendices Appendix A: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 35 Appendix B: GSP Troops and Posts 38 Appendix C: Accidents and Citations by County 43 Appendix D: Local Law Enforcement Survey 48 Georgia State Patrol ii Georgia State Patrol 1

Audit Purpose This report examines the Department of Public Safety’s Uniform Division, known as the Georgia State Patrol (GSP). Specifically, the audit determined: 1. The extent to which GSP assesses its effectiveness in achieving its mission; 2. Whether GSP’s activity, as measured through accidents investigated, vehicles stopped, and citations issued, has increased or decreased; the factors contributing to activity levels; and the impact on local law enforcement and the citizens of Georgia; 3. Whether GSP has determined the optimal number of troopers required to effectively accomplish its mission; 4. The extent to which GSP has allocated existing resources to focus on areas with the highest need; 5. The extent to which GSP’s mission and organizational structure could be modified and the impact of these modifications; and 6. The extent to which GSP uses available data to strategically enforce traffic laws. Details regarding our objectives, scope, and methodology are located in Appendix A. This report has been discussed with the appropriate personnel representing DPS. A draft copy of this report was provided for their review, and they were invited to provide a written response, including any areas in which they plan to take corrective action. Pertinent responses have been included in the report as appropriate.

Background State Law O.C.G.A. §35-2-30 establishes a division of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) known as the Uniform Division, members of which are designated as the “Georgia State Patrol” (GSP). According to the law, GSP shall have jurisdiction throughout this state with such duties and powers as are prescribed by law. The law states: It shall be the primary duty of the Uniform Division [GSP] to patrol the public roads and highways of this state, including interstate and state maintained highways, and to safeguard the lives and property of the public; and such duty shall also include accident investigation and traffic enforcement.

O.C.G.A. §35-2-33 also gives GSP the authority to conduct traditional law enforcement duties such as arresting fugitives and enforcing criminal laws on state property. The law further states that GSP may not usurp any of the duties or authority of any sheriff of any county, any chief of police of any municipality, or any chief of police of any county police force while performing its duties.

In addition to state law, several Attorney General opinions further define GSP’s statutory authority. A 1987 opinion requires GSP to obtain further authorization to perform functions beyond the enforcement of traffic and motor vehicle laws, the enforcement of criminal laws on state property, or apprehending fugitives. Further authorization may be a gubernatorial directive to suppress a riot or a local law enforcement request to assist in criminal matters. According to a 1997 opinion, however, a local law enforcement agency may not prevent GSP from investigating accidents and patrolling the roads within the local agency’s jurisdiction. Georgia State Patrol 2

Organizational Structure Exhibits 1a and 1b show the organizational structure of DPS and GSP. The State Patrol is largely comprised of sworn officers (known as troopers) who primarily investigate accidents and enforce traffic laws. DPS has divided the state into nine districts known as troops, and each troop is further divided into posts to which the troopers are assigned. GSP also has specialty units, including the Criminal Interdiction Unit, Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT), and Specialized Collision Reconstruction Teams (SCRT).

Currently, there are 48 posts across the state, as shown on the map in Exhibit 2 (page 4). Each post conducts law enforcement activities in specific counties within the troop’s assigned area. For example, Troop G is responsible for 23 counties in Southwest Georgia, and troopers assigned to Post 14 patrol four of those counties. Post territories range from two counties in Northeast Georgia to six counties in the southern part of the state. Details on each post and its territory, including the number of counties, traffic volume, and accidents, are detailed in Appendix B.

Each troop has a troop commander who is supported by no more than two lieutenants. Troop command conducts monthly post inspections to ensure facilities and personnel meet policy standards. These post inspection reports are then submitted to GSP command staff. The troop commander also communicates directives from headquarters staff to the post commanders.

Exhibit 1a Troop and Post Command Structure

Assistant Troop Troop Troop Commander Commanders Secretary (Captain) (Lieutenant)

Post Commander Assistant Post Post (Sergeant First Commanders Secretary Class) (Sergeant, Corporal)

Field Troopers

Source: GSP Documents

Each post has its own command structure, which typically consists of three non- commissioned officers (NCOs). The post commander manages the day-to-day operations of the post, which include assigning patrol schedules, managing performance, and maintaining facilities, property, and equipment. Post commanders are supported by a sergeant and a corporal, who split their time between patrol and administrative duties. Georgia State Patrol 3 ( 5 ) ( 8 ) Crisis ( SWAT ) Dive Team and Tactics Negotiations Motor Carrier Compliance Special Weapons ( 7 ) ( 4 ) Reconstruction Teams ( SCRT ) Specialized Collision Capital Police Other Enforcement Divisions Administrative Divisions Georgia State Patrol ( 10 ) ( 6 ) Unit Criminal Interdiction Nighthawks Services Post 11 Post 22 Post 23 Post 35 Post 42 Executive Security Troop I Post 13 Post 15 Post 30 Post 31 Post 36 Troop H Aviation Post 10 Post 12 Post 14 Post 39 Post 40 Troop G Post 16 Post 18 Post 19 Post 20 Post 21 Post 45 Troop F Commissioner GSP Field Operations Deputy Commissioner Board of Public Safety Department of Public Safety Post 8 Post 17 Post 25 Post 33 Post 46 Troop E ( 3 ) Post 1 Post 2 Post 4 Post 24 Post 26 Post 34 Post 44 Troop D Adjutant Exhibit 1 b : DPS Organization Chart Headquarters ( 10 ) ( 9 ) Unit Night - Post 9 hawks Post 47 Post 48 Motorcycle Troop C ( 2 ) Post 6 Post 7 Post 27 Post 32 Post 37 Comptroller Troop B ( 1 ) Post 3 Post 5 Post 28 Post 29 Post 38 Post 41 Post 43 Troop A Human Resources Source : GSP Documents ( 1 ) The Human Resources Department handles personnel services such as recruitment , job development compensation analysis background screening and promotional for DPS . ( 2 ) The Comptroller provides fiscal support to DPS through the offices of accounting , payroll budget grants management and purchasing . ( 3 ) The Headquarters Adjutant oversees daily operations of computer services , telecommunications facilities maintenance and construction vehicle property management . ( 4 ) Capitol Police provides primary law enforcement and security duties for the Hill complex , including State legislative judicial buildings other state - owned . ( 5 ) The Motor Carrier Compliance Division conducts safety inspections of commercial motor vehicles , inspects highway shipments hazardous materials and performs audits on carriers . ( 6 ) The Criminal Interdiction Unit is a full - time special unit within GSP that networks with federal , state and local law enforcement agencies as well drug programs to reduce trafficking . ( 7 ) SCRT is composed of five teams across the state that investigate fatal crashes and document evidence to be used in court pros ecution . ( 8 ) The SWAT team is a dual role for troopers who receive special training to assist law enforcement agencies in critical inciden ts . This also includes the Dive Team and Crisis Negotiations Unit ( 9 ) The Motorcycle Unit was established in 2006 to patrol the metro Atlanta area for traffic violations . ( 10 ) The Nighthawks DUI Task Force is funded through a grant from the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety to patrol metro Atlanta and Savannah during peak times for impaired driving .

Georgia State Patrol 4

Exhibit 2 Troop and Post Locations

Towns Catoosa 27 Fannin Union Whitfield Murray Rabun Dade Walker 5 41 Gilmer Troop A

White Habersham Lumpkin 7 Troop B 43 Stephens 28 Chattooga Gordon Troop C Pickens Dawson Franklin Hall Banks Hart Troop D Bartow 37 38 Cherokee 6 3 Forsyth Troop E Floyd Jackson Madison Elbert Troop F 29 Barrow 32 Gwinnett Polk Paulding Clarke Troop G Cobb Oconee Oglethorpe Haralson 17 Dekalb 46 Lincoln Troop H 9, Fulton 4 Douglas Wilkes 48 Walton Troop I Clayton Rockdale 8 Carroll Taliaferro Columbia Newton Morgan Greene 47 McDuffie 25 Fayette Henry 24 Warren Richmond Coweta Jasper Putnam Heard Butts 1 Hancock Spalding Glascock

Lamar 33 2 Pike Meriwether 44 Jefferson Burke Jones Baldwin Washington Troup Monroe 26 Bibb Screven 34 Upson Wilkinson Jenkins Harris 21 Talbot Crawford Twiggs Johnson 19 Taylor Peach Muscogee 20 Houston Emanuel

Bleckley Laurens 45 Effingham 15 Treutlen Candler Chattahoochee Marion Macon Bulloch 42 Schley Pulaski Dodge Dooly Evans Wheeler Toombs Stewart Webster 10 Montgomery 18 16 Bryan Chatham Wilcox Sumter Tattnall 30 Telfair Quitman 11 Crisp 39 Terrell Jeff Davis Liberty Long Lee Ben Hill Appling Randolph Turner Clay Irwin 36 Bacon Wayne Calhoun 40 Worth McIntosh Dougherty 13 Coffee Tift Early Pierce Baker Berrien Atkinson 22 Glynn Colquitt Ware Brantley 14 Mitchell Cook 23 Miller Lanier 35 Seminole Camden 12 31 Clinch Decatur Grady Brooks Charlton Thomas Lowndes Echols

Posts 1 – Griffin 7 – Toccoa 13 – Tifton 19 – Swainsboro 25 – Grovetown 31 – Valdosta 37 – Cumming 43 – Calhoun 2 – LaGrange 8 – Madison 14 – Colquitt 20 – Dublin 26 – Thomaston 32 – Athens 38 – Rome 44 – Forsyth 3 – Cartersville 9 – Marietta 15 – Perry 21 – Sylvania 27 – Blue Ridge 33 – Milledgeville 39 – Cuthbert 45 – Statesboro 4 – Villa Rica 10 – Americus 16 – Helena 22 – Waycross 28 – Jasper 34 – Manchester 40 – Albany 46 – Monroe 5 – Dalton 11 – Hinesville 17 – Washington 23 – Brunswick 29 – Cedartown 35 – Jekyll Island 41 – LaFayette 47 – Forest Park 6 – Gainesville 12 – Thomasville 18 – Reidsville 24 – Newnan 30 – Cordele 36 – Douglas 42 – Rincon 48 – Atlanta Source: GSP Documents Note: Posts 9 and 48 (located in the metro Atlanta area) share a post facility; however, GSP considers them to be two separate posts each with their own command structure.

Georgia State Patrol 5

Staffing and Activity Staffing At the end of fiscal year 2011, GSP was authorized 953 positions. Data from February 2011 shows approximately 780 troopers were assigned to GSP’s posts and specialty units. Exhibit 3 shows that the number of troopers has ranged from 743 to 826 between January 2008 and February 2011. The number of troopers follows a cycle of gradual attrition due to a variety of personnel reasons (such as retirements and resignations). Trooper counts then increase following a trooper school graduation.1

GSP may temporarily detach a trooper to other areas within DPS, such as Capitol Police or the Motor Carrier Compliance Division (typically for budgetary reasons). As shown in Exhibit 3, 61 (8%) of GSP’s troopers were detached from GSP in August 2010, leaving 712 troopers at GSP full time. In August 2010, 601 of GSP’s 712 full-time troopers (84%) were assigned to units directly involved in accident investigation and traffic enforcement (Posts 1-48, the Motorcycle Unit, and the Nighthawks).

Exhibit 3 Trooper Strength

GSP-wide Trooper Strength: Jan.2008-Feb.2011 Full-Time GSP Officers: August 2010 Full-Time (Filled Positions) Unit Assignment Officers Traffic Enforcement Officers 1000 Posts 1-48 (Troopers and Supervisors) 552 Motorcycle Unit 26 900 826 822 Nighthawks DUI Task Force 23 791 Total 601 800 Specialized Field Services 783 791 781 Aviation 13 700 763 743 Criminal Interdiction Unit 16 2/20/09: Specialized Collision Reconstruction Team (SCRT) 37 Trooper School 600 (47 Troopers) Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) (1) 4 Special Projects 2 2/19/10: 500 Trooper School Total 72 (31 Troopers) Command Staff 400 Headquarters Command 2 8/22/08: Trooper School Troop Command 34 (49 Troopers) 300 SCRT Command 3 Total 39 200 Total Full-Time GSP Officers 712 Full-time Detachments from GSP to DPS 100 Motor Carrier Compliance Division 39 Capitol Police 6 Executive Security 3 0 Governor's Task Force 5 Special Project 1 Commissioner's Office 7 1/1/2008 4/1/2008 7/1/2008 1/1/2009 4/1/2009 7/1/2009 1/1/2010 4/1/2010 7/1/2010 1/1/2011 10/1/2008 10/1/2009 10/1/2010 Total 61 Total Trooper Strength 773 Source: GSP Field Roster (August 2010) Source: GSP records (1) The SWAT team also includes 26 part-time detachments from the posts.

1 According to GSP headquarters staff at the time of the audit, the next trooper school was to begin in April 2011. It was expected to add 45 new troopers. Georgia State Patrol 6

Activity Exhibit 4 shows GSP’s activity related to its primary functions of enforcing traffic laws and investigating accidents from calendar years 2008 through 2010. Over the past three years, GSP’s accident investigations and impaired driving arrests increased by 16% and 20%, respectively; however, vehicle stops and citations/arrests decreased by 7% and 11%, respectively.

Exhibit 4 GSP Statewide Activity Numbers(1) Activity 2008 2009 2010 Accident Investigations Total Accidents Worked 40,407 43,140 47,043 Fatal Accidents 822 672 708 Traffic Enforcement Vehicle Stops(2) 473,345 462,918 439,555 Citations and Arrests 342,136 319,938 304,308 Impaired Driving Arrests 11,646 12,412 13,935 Warnings 323,829 323,351 336,057

Source: GSP Documents (1) Activity generated by Posts 1-48, the Nighthawks, and Motorcycle Unit. (2) One vehicle stop may result in multiple citations and/or warnings.

Vehicle stops are a primary indicator of enforcement activity because they represent a trooper’s active involvement in identifying and stopping drivers who violate traffic laws. During a vehicle stop, troopers may write a warning (written documentation of non-punitive enforcement) or a citation (may result in financial penalty and points on the violator’s driving record). As shown in Exhibit 5, less than half (48%) of GSP’s traffic enforcement activity resulted in a citation. Posts 1-48 issued approximately 285,000 citations, which comprised 47% of the posts’ traffic enforcement activity. In contrast, approximately 74% of the Motorcycle Unit’s traffic enforcement activity resulted in a citation. Citations comprised approximately 64% and 31% of the Nighthawks North and South Units’ traffic enforcement activity, respectively.

Georgia State Patrol 7

A trooper may issue a citation for a wide variety of infractions. Exhibit 6 shows the percentage of GSP-issued citations by type of infraction. The majority (60%) of GSP’s citations were written for speeding or seat belt and child restraint violations.

Exhibit 6 Types of Citations Issued by GSP in FY 2010

9% Speeding

Seat Belt/Child Restraint

13% DUI

43% Window Tint

Mechanical Defect 10% License/Registration

1% Other Moving Hazardous 2% 5% Other Non-Moving Hazardous

17%

Source: GSP Data

Financial Information GSP’s 2012 annual budgeted revenue and expenditures total approximately $86.3 million. Exhibit 7 details GSP’s revenue and expenditures for fiscal years 2009 through 2012.

GSP’s total revenue has basically remained unchanged, increasing by $341,434 from the 2009 amended budget2 to the 2012 budget. However, it should be noted that state revenues decreased by approximately $15 million (19%) between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2011. This decrease in state revenues was offset by federal stimulus funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) (approximately $10.4 million each year). Primarily as a result of the ARRA funds, the federal portion of GSP’s revenue increased from $7.1 million (8%) in 2009 to $21.6 million (24%) in 2011. ARRA funds ended in 2011 but were replaced by state funds in fiscal year 2012. As a result, the $73.6 million in state appropriations will comprise approximately 85% of GSP’s revenue in fiscal year 2012.

In addition to ARRA funds, other federal funds to GSP have increased over the past three fiscal years. GSP received federal funds for its Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) project, a technology upgrade that began in 2009 and included installing computers in troopers’ cars. Federal funding for GSP’s Nighthawks unit also increased from 2009 to 2011. In addition, asset forfeitures from the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) have increased. Finally, increased funding from the Georgia Emergency Management Association beginning in 2009 has supported GSP’s dive team and various equipment needs.

2 During fiscal year 2009, GSP’s state revenue decreased from $90,670,897 in its original budget to $77,935,878 in the amended budget. Federal funds increased from $3,118,316 to $7,145,882 during the same budget cycle. This resulted in a $9 million net decrease between these two funding sources. Georgia State Patrol 8

As shown in Exhibit 7, GSP’s primary expenditure is for personal services (specifically its troopers). In fiscal year 2012, GSP budgeted $64.2 million (74% of its total expenditures) for personnel services.

Exhibit 7 GSP Revenues and Expenditures Fiscal Years 2009-2012 2012 2009 2010 2011 (Budgeted) Revenue State $77,935,878(1) $62,014,595 $62,872,254 $73,577,438 Federal 7,145,882 23,056,616 19,972,923 11,492,428 Operations(2) 899,072 1,823,956 3,912,898 1,252,400 Total Revenue $85,980,832 $86,895,167 $86,758,075 86,322,266 Expenditures Personal Services $60,969,378 $60,628,271 $62,246,990 $64,215,228 Regular Operating Expenses 9,040,962 10,113,889 10,788,241 8,450,434 Motor Vehicle Purchases(3) 2,195,712 1,911,065 3,218,420 0 Equipment 3,545,002 3,049,463 2,055,546 6,512,313 Computer Charges 3,849,054 5,794,581 3,686,661 3,422,175 Real Estate Rentals 396,359 229,457 197,062 214,881 Telecommunications 2,655,394 2,131,038 3,074,351 2,977,565 Contracts 1,092,004 2,589,142 1,179,632 429,670 State Patrol Post Repairs and 167,791 114,926 200,393 100,000 Maintenance Miscellaneous 0 181,463 2,565 0 Total Expenditures $83,911,990 $86,743,296 $86,649,861 $86,322,266

Source: PeopleSoft Accounting System (1) DPS, along with other state agencies, was required by executive order to withhold 25% of its last installment of state funds in fiscal year 2009. This resulted in a $1.8 million decrease in state funds and overall revenue. (2) Operation revenue includes money from restitution, Motorcycle Unit citations, accident/citation report revenue, escort services, security services, insurance, DOT work zone security, and overtime. GSP received bond funds totaling $2.4 million in FY 2011 and is budgeted to receive $5 million in FY 2012 to purchase patrol vehicles. This bond revenue is included in operations revenue for FY 2011 but is not included in the 2012 budgeted amount. (3) GSP was given bond money for its motor vehicle purchases in fiscal year 2011.

Finally, GSP receives in-kind donations from public and private entities. In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, GSP received approximately $259,000 and $700,000 in donations, respectively. Approximately 80% of the donations were from local governments who typically donate directly to either one of the posts, the Criminal Interdiction Unit, or to GSP’s overall operations.

Citation Revenue According to O.C.G.A §15-21-2 and §40-13-26, revenue generated from fines paid for GSP-issued traffic citations is remitted to the local jurisdiction where the violation occurred and the citation was adjudicated. For example, Columbia County receives the fine revenue when GSP cites an individual who exceeds the speed limit in Columbia County. The only exception to distributing the fine revenue to the local jurisdiction involves citations issued by GSP’s Motorcycle Unit. O.C.G.A §15-21- Georgia State Patrol 9

2(a)(2) allows the revenue from citations issued by GSP’s Motorcycle Unit for violations of Chapter 6 of Title 40 of the Georgia code to be remitted directly to DPS for the maintenance and enhancement of the motorcycle enforcement program. In fiscal year 2010, local courts remitted to DPS $916,848 in revenue from citations issued by GSP’s Motorcycle Unit.

Although the amount of revenue generated for local jurisdictions from GSP-issued citations is not tracked, we estimate that GSP generated approximately $31.5 million in base fine revenue for local governments.3 We derived the estimate by first identifying the average base fine revenue4 generated per citation ($108) and then multiplying this average by the total number of citations issued by GSP in fiscal year 2010 (292,0005). A detailed explanation of our methodology can be found in Appendix A.

It should be noted that GSP management staff stated they have historically assumed that GSP-issued citations yield about $90 million in revenue annually; however, they could not provide any documentation or calculations to support that revenue assumption.

Post Buildings GSP’s 48 posts are currently housed in 47 buildings.6 As shown in Exhibit 8, the post buildings currently in operation have been constructed from 1939 to 2010, and four new post facilities are scheduled to open in 2011.

Exhibit 8 Post Construction Timeline

1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 1939 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Source: GSP Documents

Note: Four new post facilities are scheduled to open in 2011. Three of the buildings to be replaced were built in the 1970s, and one was built in 1988.

GSP has used a variety of methods to acquire the buildings in which its posts are housed. According to O.C.G.A. §35-2-41, local governments may purchase, deed, gift, rent, or lease property for a GSP post building. It appears that local governments have provided at least 36 of the 47 buildings to GSP through a lease or deed.7 GSP acquired other post facilities by building on state land, leasing from other state entities, and purchasing from a private individual.

While counties have funded the entire cost of building the majority of the post facilities, state funds have been used to finance the construction or renovation of at

3 We estimate that local governments receive approximately 86% of base fines. The remaining 14% is remitted to various state-mandated funds, such as the Sheriffs’ Retirement Fund and the Law Library Fund. Different fines apply based on the type of citation and court in which it was adjudicated. 4 Base fine revenue is the amount of the penalty remitted to the local government. Additional fines and fees are added to the violator’s final penalty amount. 5 This includes all GSP-issued citations. Only Motorcycle Unit citations were excluded. 6 Two metro Atlanta posts (9 and 48) share a building. 7 Leases and deeds for five post properties were not available. Georgia State Patrol 10

least five facilities.8 In addition, GSP incurs annual costs to operate, maintain, and repair the post buildings, as discussed in the finding on page 16.

Law Enforcement Resources in Georgia According to FBI statistics, local sworn officers (county sheriffs, county police, and city police) comprise 93% of Georgia’s total law enforcement staffing. FBI statistics also indicate that Georgia has approximately 272 sworn officers for every 100,000 residents.9 This is the 7th highest ratio nationwide and exceeds the national average of 230 sworn officers per 100,000 residents by 18%.

Local law enforcement officers typically provide the majority of traffic services in their respective jurisdictions. In calendar year 2009, county and municipal officers investigated 246,448 accidents (85% of the total that occurred) and wrote approximately 1.9 million citations (87% of the total citations written). Of the 160 sheriffs and police chiefs who responded to our survey, 72 (45%) indicated they have a unit dedicated to traffic enforcement and/or accident investigations. Seventy-six percent of these units have between one to 10 officers.

Some local traffic units receive funding through the Highway Enforcement of Aggressive Traffic (HEAT) program administered by the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety (GOHS). HEAT teams are charged with reducing driving incidents through enforcement and education, particularly focusing on impaired driving and speeding. In fiscal year 2011, GOHS provided $3.2 million in grants to 12 police departments and eight sheriffs’ offices for HEAT units. Additionally, GOHS coordinates 16 Regional Traffic Enforcement Networks to mobilize law enforcement statewide for traffic enforcement initiatives.

8 We were unable to calculate the total amount of state money that has been invested in the post buildings due to the age and condition of the files available for review. 9 There are approximately 24,200 sworn officers for 8.9 million people in Georgia. The number of officers includes those at state highway patrol and state agencies (such as the Department of Natural Resources and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation); municipal and county law enforcement offices; and other local entities such as colleges and universities, transit agencies, and schools. Georgia State Patrol 11

Findings and Recommendations

Strategic Management GSP should develop a comprehensive strategic plan to guide its operations and to clearly demonstrate it is fulfilling its core mission in an efficient and effective manner.

According to statute, GSP’s primary purpose is to investigate accidents, enforce traffic laws, and safeguard the public. However, as it currently operates, GSP is unable to demonstrate whether its current resources are being used efficiently and effectively to meet its core mission. Specifically, our review found that GSP does not measure and evaluate its own performance, and it has not developed a strategic plan that aligns its organizational mission and goals with its operations. These issues are discussed below.

Performance Measurement GSP has not used the data its collects to evaluate its performance or guide its operations. While DPS’s Annual Report and the Governor’s Budget Report include some activity data for GSP, the data is not presented in any context that would inform whether GSP is productive or efficient. For example, while the Governor’s Budget Report includes the number of vehicle stops for the previous and current year, information is not provided regarding the desired number of stops or the number of stops per trooper. Additionally, the Annual Report includes data related to each troop, including the number of accidents investigated, warnings issued, and citations issued by type; however, no context is provided regarding this data, such as the percent of accidents GSP investigated in each jurisdiction or the number of citations issued per trooper per day in each troop.

Exhibit 9 provides an example of how the various components of a performance management process could be used by GSP to strategically guide its operations and measure its efficiency and effectiveness in meeting its statutory purpose.

Exhibit 9 Potential Strategies, Objectives, and Performance Indicators Potential Strategies and Objectives Current Performance Indicator Strategy: Assist local law enforcement by investigating more vehicle accidents GSP should investigate at least X% of accidents outside of CY 2009: GSP investigated 22% metropolitan Atlanta. GSP should investigate at least X% of accidents in metropolitan CY 2009: GSP investigated 5% Atlanta. Strategy: Increase patrols at night and on the weekend to decrease DUI accidents FY 2010: 32% of assignments At least X% of patrol duty assignments should be at night. were between 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM. FY 2010: 25% of assignments At least X% of patrol duty assignments should be on the weekend. were on Saturday and Sunday. Strategy: Increase enforcement of traffic laws by maximizing trooper productivity CY 2009: daily average of 4 Troopers should stop an average of X vehicles each day. vehicles stopped. CY 2009: daily average of 0.4 Troopers should investigate an average of X accidents each day. accidents investigated each day.

Sources: GSP data and GDOT accident data Georgia State Patrol 12

Strategic Management In addition to not evaluating its efficiency and effectiveness, DPS’s strategic plan does not align its operations with its goal and mission. As shown in Exhibit 10, in the strategic plan DPS submits to the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (OPB), GSP’s goal is to “provide for the overall safety on Georgia’s highways by reducing the number of traffic crashes resulting in death, injury, and property damage.” However, the strategies and objectives for achieving this goal do not address how current resources are going to be deployed to have the desired impact. Rather, GSP’s strategies and objectives are to acquire additional resources in the form of technology improvements and additional troopers. Furthermore, the plan does not articulate how the additional resources will impact its goal in a measurable way. During our review, GSP staff stated that until they meet the objective of increasing the number of troopers from 821 to 953 (their full authorized trooper strength), they are unable to demonstrate their ability to reduce the number of traffic accidents. However, without measuring the impact of current resources, GSP cannot demonstrate the impact that an increased level of resources would have on increasing accident investigations, enforcing traffic laws, and, consequently, safeguarding the public. GSP staff stated that its strategic plan has been created to satisfy budget requirements and is not used to manage GSP operations.

Georgia State Patrol 13

Separate from the state’s strategic planning process, GSP indicated that it has developed three objectives for its posts. Specifically, the three objectives established for fiscal year 2010 were:

1. increase accident investigations by 10%, 2. increase DUI arrests by 10%, and 3. increase occupancy protection (seat belt use) by an unspecified amount.

Although more directly related to GSP’s core mission, these objectives are missing several critical components needed to demonstrate GSP’s impact. For example, specific strategies for achieving these objectives have not been articulated to the posts. Performance indicators have not been established for each post to measure accomplishment of these objectives. Therefore, the extent to which these objectives were met collectively or by each post was not measured. Because GSP does not measure or monitor each post’s performance in relation to these objectives, it cannot systematically identify or establish corrective action plans for under-performing posts.

By measuring its performance and improving its strategic management, GSP can better demonstrate its impact on investigating accidents, enforcing traffic laws, and safeguarding the public. In addition, decision makers can better assess whether GSP’s current staffing level is sufficient and the potential impact of additional resources.

DPS Response: “The audit finds that GSP does not measure and evaluate its own performance relative to its mission. GSP has completed the implementation of its Computer Aided Dispatch and Records Management System (CAD/RMS). GSP will utilize the data that is available from the system in conjunction with revised performance measure to implement strategic dispatch in each Troop geographic area. It is clear that one size does not fit all with regard to a strategic plan for statewide law enforcement. Each of the nine Troop territories have unique needs and varying levels of requests from local law enforcement officials. The best strategic response is designed at the Troop level in conjunction with the counties and cities within its boundaries. GSP will continue to work with the newly-implemented technology to address local law enforcement needs.”

“In performing the primary purpose of patrolling public roads and highways and safeguarding the lives and property of the public, there are elements that are impossible to measure. The mere presence of a marked GSP vehicle provides a deterrent to dangerous driving behavior because the motorist believes that his unlawful behavior will be detected and interrupted by a Trooper.”

“Finally, traffic enforcement is reactionary. Troopers respond to accidents as they occur and they react when they observe violations of traffic laws. GSP will not establish a requirement that Troopers stop a particular number of vehicles because this may lead to traffic stops based on an established quota rather than for legitimate public safety reasons. With regard to accident investigations, Troopers investigate accidents as they occur and cannot generate accident investigations to meet a quota. GSP strives to create an environment where actions are taken based upon public safety needs rather than an environment that urges the generation of tickets based upon a quota.”

Auditor’s Response: While “mere presence” may have an impact and may not be measurable, there are many activities of the GSP that are measurable. While we are Georgia State Patrol 14

not advocating the use of quotas, we believe setting clear expectations at the trooper level that are consistent with the organization’s goals and objectives are necessary for ensuring resources are being appropriately focused.

Our research found examples from other state patrols that use data to strategically focus resources or achieve desired goals and objectives. For example, as stated in the Nebraska State Patrol Strategic Plan, “The agency invests considerable time and effort in our planning activities. In the short term, troop area and division commanders develop performance-based goals and objectives to address effective measures for targeting specific law enforcement initiatives. Our employees are tasked with monitoring and measuring our progress towards these goals.” The plan further states, “Key to this effort [regarding reducing fatal accidents] were our planning activities and relying on a data-driven allocation of resources model. The analysis of data and deploying our enforcement resources accordingly has paid dividends in increased safety for the motoring public.”

GSP should conduct a needs assessment utilizing accurate and complete information to determine an appropriate staffing level. Through the state’s strategic planning process, GSP managers have indicated that GSP needs additional troopers to increase presence on the highways, to deter unsafe driving, and to allow a faster response to calls for service. To support the need for additional troopers, command staff has used three methods to show that GSP is currently understaffed: Police Allocation Manual (PAM) analysis, county-based analysis, and other states comparison. Our review found that each of the three methods GSP used to identify staffing needs included inaccurate and incomplete information. These analyses and their limitations are discussed in detail below.

Police Allocation Manual (PAM) Analysis The Police Allocation Manual (PAM), which was developed by the Traffic Institute at Northwestern University under a grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), is a widely accepted method of identifying patrol staffing needs for a variety of law enforcement entities (local, state patrol, etc.). The PAM applies a number of formulas to over 50 variables to estimate the minimum number of officers needed to adequately patrol an area (e.g., the state’s roadways). These variables, which reflect actual or potential workload, are unique to each entity and are time- and policy-based. The time-based variables include the average amount of time spent per accident, the percent of time that should be dedicated to patrolling, and the percent of time that should be spent on administrative tasks. Policy-based variables reflect the entity’s actual or desired service/activity levels, including the number of accidents investigated or the number of road miles to be patrolled.

Based on a November 2008 PAM analysis, GSP concluded that it needed 1,224 troopers and field supervisors, approximately double its actual staffing level.10 However, we found that GSP staff did not ensure accurate data inputs were used in the analysis. In addition, GSP staff entered a policy-based minimum accepted daily trooper staffing level of 630 into the PAM model. PAM compares this minimum daily staffing number to its own estimate based on the data inputs

10 Based on August 2010 staffing levels Georgia State Patrol 15

described above. The larger of the two is then used to calculate the total number of personnel needed. In GSP’s PAM, the minimum daily staffing level of 630 was larger than its data-driven estimate; as a result, PAM calculated that GSP needed 1,224 troopers and field supervisors based on GSP’s number (630) rather than the data inputs. GSP staff could not provide an explanation of how the minimum daily staffing level of 630 troopers was determined or why they included it in the analysis. In addition, it appears that GSP staff were unaware that the inclusion of the minimum daily staffing level negated the value of the data inputs.

County-Based Analysis GSP completed a manpower analysis that calculated staffing needs based on a 24/7 (24 hours a day and seven days a week) presence in each of Georgia’s 159 counties. GSP assumed that all taxpayers are entitled to at least an equal minimum level of service, and, consequently, each county should have around the clock service…with a single trooper assigned to the county for each 8 hour shift. Based on this methodology, GSP estimated that 477 troopers should be on patrol duty each day (159 x 3 = 477). GSP doubled this number to 954 (477 x 2) to also account for weekends, annual leave, sick leave, etc. In addition, GSP calculated that 954 troopers required 191 supervisors, based on a span of control of one supervisor for every five troopers (954 ÷ 5 = 191) bringing the total staffing needs to 1,145 (954 + 191). While this analysis is based on a desired equal minimum-level of presence in each of Georgia’s 159 counties, it is entirely based on political boundaries rather than accepted indicators such as traffic volume or accident incidence.

Other State Comparisons Finally, GSP routinely compares its staffing levels with other states. This analysis shows Georgia as having the 2nd lowest trooper staffing per capita among southeastern states and the 6th lowest staffing per capita in the nation. While these analyses consider each state’s population differences by presenting the data in a “trooper per capita” context, they do not adjust for the varying duties and responsibilities of each state’s highway safety agency. For example, while the information shows Alabama, ranked 28th in staffing levels per capita nationwide, as having 729 officers, our research revealed that these numbers include staff from Alabama’s Investigative Division (similar to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, a separate agency). We also noted that many other state highway safety agencies, unlike GSP, operate as “state police” with primary law enforcement responsibilities in addition to traffic enforcement. In addition, as previously noted, when local law enforcement officers are considered, Georgia has the 7th highest ratio nationwide of sworn officers to residents. GSP’s analysis was limited solely to a comparison of state agencies and did not consider overall law enforcement presence or differences in responsibility.

GSP’s overall staffing level should be dependent on a desired level of service that is determined by GSP in coordination with decision makers. GSP should then expend the appropriate amount of time and develop accurate data inputs for a needs assessment. In addition, as discussed in the remainder of the report, GSP should measure the productivity of current staffing. Once these tasks have been accomplished, GSP should calculate a desired staffing level.

DPS Response: “GSP agrees that staffing levels should be dependent on a desired level of service. GSP cannot unilaterally decide what staffing services should be provided, where they should be Georgia State Patrol 16

provided, and at what level. It is meaningless for the organization to set a service level statewide that has neither been requested and perhaps is not desired in each area of the state. A staffing analysis for GSP cannot realistically consider the number of local law enforcement officers in an area because GSP does not control the activities of the local officers.”

There does not appear to be a strategic basis for the current number or locations of GSP’s 48 posts and the resulting number of supervisors.

The number and location of GSP’s 48 posts have evolved over many years without a documented strategic analysis that supports the current structure. As previously discussed, county governments have played a major role in providing GSP most of the facilities that house its posts. Consequently, it appears the location of each post building is largely based on available local funding as opposed to identifying the best strategic location of a post. Although GSP has attempted to relocate at least one post to a more strategic location, it appears the attempt was abandoned due to political considerations.

A management study commissioned by DPS in 2005 identified the optimal number of posts. This study, which was completed by GRA, Inc. and Appian Corporation, concluded that new communication dispatch systems allow for a smaller number of posts, each with larger territories. The study recommended GSP reduce its number of posts from 48 to 24. Based on the study’s recommendations, we estimated this consolidation would save GSP approximately $1.22 million annually in post personal services and operating costs. In addition, the consolidation was estimated to increase the number of troopers on patrol by 22.5% by modifying the current command structure.

Operating Costs of Post Facilities One benefit of decreasing the number of posts would be the reduction in overhead costs associated with 48 posts. As shown in Exhibit 11, GSP spends an average of $21,000 annually to operate each post, which totaled approximately $3 million from fiscal years 2008-2010. Consequently, reducing the number of posts from 48 to 24 would save approximately $500,000 in annual operating costs. Additionally, eliminating 24 post secretary positions would save GSP approximately $720,000 in personnel costs, or approximately $30,000 per post annually.11 In total, GSP would save $51,000 per post; closing 24 posts would save GSP approximately $1.22 million annually.

11 Benefits are not included in this estimate. Georgia State Patrol 17

Exhibit 11 Operating Expenditures for Post Buildings Fiscal Year 2008-2010 Avg. Annual 2008 2009 2010 Total Cost Per Post Energy $618,635 $618,869 $640,128 $1,877,632 $13,316 Repairs and Maintenance* 180,737 179,997 134,971 495,705 3,515 Capital Leasing 94,296 76,219 124,494 295,008 2,092 Water 64,253 69,210 72,508 205,972 1,460 Insurance 33,936 33,936 33,936 101,807 722 Building Real Estate 12 8,791 27,426 36,229 257 Total Post Operations $991,869 $987,022 $1,033,461 $3,012,353 $21,362

Source: PeopleSoft Accounting System *Post Repairs and Maintenance include expenditures that GSP classified as regular operating expenses in its accounting records. As such, the total does not match the numbers presented in Exhibit 7.

Supervisory Staffing Costs for Post Facilities In addition to the costs associated with operating each post building, GSP’s 48 posts require 48 separate command structures that typically consist of three NCOs who operate primarily at the post building rather than on the road. Based on our analysis, GSP currently employs one supervisor for every two to three subordinate troopers (a ratio of 1 to 2.5). According to the Department of Homeland Security, a large-scale law enforcement operation should have one supervisor for every eight to ten subordinates. Smaller scale activities should have ratios of one supervisor for every three to seven subordinates, with five being ideal. Since GSP troopers who serve in a supervisory capacity typically spend less, and in some instances significantly less, of their work day on the road actively patrolling, they report fewer citations and accident investigations than non-supervisory troopers. For example, while supervisors make up approximately 25% of daily staffing, they contributed to 17% of the accident investigations and 12% of the citations written in 2010.

According to the 2005 management study, reducing the number of posts would alter the command structure and increase trooper presence in the field. The recommendations included reducing each troop’s command from three officers (one captain and two lieutenants) to only one captain. Each of the 24 posts would then be commanded by one lieutenant and supported by two sergeants first class who would operate as shift commanders (1st and 2nd shifts). Most of the current sergeants and all of the current corporals (who currently operate as post command staff) would be on patrol and continue their supervisory responsibilities. The study estimated that these changes would have resulted in a 22.5% increase in the number of road troopers at no additional cost. Using current staffing and activity numbers, if GSP implemented these recommendations, 107 more troopers with primary patrol responsibilities would be available.

The recent installation of a computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system enables the reduction in the number of posts and the change in command structure. GSP also installed a central records management system (RMS) with online reporting using mobile data terminals (computers in each patrol vehicle) with the CAD. Together, these systems allow troopers to significantly reduce the amount of time spent at the post completing paperwork and thus eliminate the need for a trooper to report at the Georgia State Patrol 18

post building daily. Additionally, post commanders are able to conduct administrative duties while on patrol, rather than at the post building.

GSP should consider restructuring its post organization and command structure to maximize productivity and to minimize costs. A starting point for this restructuring should be to reexamine the recommendations of DPS’s 2005 management study. Recognizing the inherently political nature of decisions regarding post locations and closures, the General Assembly should consider implementing a method similar to the federal government’s Defense Base Realignment and Closure Commission (BRAC). The BRAC is an independent nine-member panel appointed by the President that evaluates a list of potential military installation closures. The BRAC Commission was created to provide an objective, thorough, accurate, and non- partisan review and analysis of the list of bases and military installations that the Department of Defense has recommended to be closed and/or realigned.

DPS Response: DPS stated that consolidating posts does not change the unique needs of the geographic area or the required number of personnel needed to accomplish those needs. Additionally, DPS stated that the conclusions regarding the cost savings from closing the physical GSP posts are not realistic because there is a false assumption that posts could be closed and positions eliminated without impact on the law enforcement operations of GSP. Also, DPS cited additional barriers to reducing the number of posts, such as the need to provide barracks for GSP Troopers, and that posts house needed computer and communications equipment. Lastly, DPS noted that, for multiple reasons, supervisors spend less of their work-time performing law enforcement duties.

Auditor’s Response: The management study commissioned by DPS recommended reducing the number of posts. In addition, the new CAD/RMS system reduces the operational need for troopers to use the post. As a result we recommend that the current post structure should be reviewed by, as stated in the management study, an “objective team” to identify potential cost savings and opportunities to put more troopers on patrol.

Operational Management GSP should establish measurable objectives and performance indicators to evaluate post and trooper productivity. Productivity levels related to GSP’s core mission (accident investigations, vehicle stops, and DUI arrests) vary significantly between posts and troopers. While some variation is expected due different operating environments (rural vs. urban), GSP’s current method of assessing productivity does not enable them to determine why there are significant variations in productivity. GSP should improve its monitoring to ensure that productivity for each post is at an acceptable level.

While GSP headquarters command staff indicated they are aware of under- performing posts and troopers, the current method of identifying under-performing posts and troopers is not accomplished in a systematic manner. Currently, GSP headquarters command staff rely on monthly post inspection reports, completed by troop commanders, to determine whether overall post performance is acceptable. While the reports do present post-level activity data for the current month and the same month in the previous year, no additional information is provided regarding acceptable activity levels. Additionally, while the post inspection reports typically Georgia State Patrol 19

name the highest performing troopers for various activities, their activity levels are not compared to expected performance goals. For example, one post inspection report named the trooper with the highest number of accidents investigated during the month (six) but did not provide information regarding other troopers’ performance.

Currently, GSP has not established acceptable productivity goals and has not analyzed available data to identify current productivity levels. We analyzed data to identify average trooper activity levels within each post and found significant variations in estimated productivity. Without established performance expectations, we could not determine if the activity levels we identified in our analysis are adequate or if the wide variations are justified. However, we did identify a number of relatively low-performing posts that, based on the potential workload in their territory, appear to have the opportunity to increase productivity.

GSP has an average of 287 troopers on patrol duty each day at the 48 posts.12 Statewide, GSP’s 48 posts investigated 40,128 accidents in calendar year 2009, or approximately 110 accidents per day. Additionally, GSP troopers stopped 443,933 vehicles, or 1,216 vehicles per day, and wrote 303,548 citations, or 832 per day. The estimated average daily trooper productivity in the 48 posts is shown in Exhibit 12.

Exhibit 12 Post Distribution based on Average Trooper Productivity (n=48)

Accident Investigations Vehicle Stops Accidents Investigated Vehicle Stops Per Trooper Per Day Per Trooper Per Day 10 14 9

9 9 7 7 8 6 7 5 4 Number of of Number Posts 1 of Number Posts

1 Accident Investigated Every X Days Number Stopped Per Day Source: GSP Records Source: GSP Records Statewide average of 0.4 (less than one every two Statewide average of 4.2, with average trooper days), with average trooper activity levels in each activity levels in each post ranging from 2.8 to 6.6 post ranging from 0.04 (less than one per week) to per day. 1.2 per day. Citations Issued Citations Issued Per Trooper Per Day

12 10 10

7 5 3 Number of of Number Posts 1

Number Written Per Day Source: GSP Records Statewide average of 2.9, with average trooper activity levels ranging from 1.1 to 4.9 per day.

12 This is based on the average number of troopers on patrol duty during FY 2010. Georgia State Patrol 20

Exhibit 13 illustrates that post productivity within troops also varies. For example, in Troop D, Post 1 troopers investigated an estimate of 0.52 accidents per day, while troopers in Post 44 (which borders Post 1) investigated an estimate of 0.15 accidents per day.

Exhibit 13 Number of Accidents Investigated by a GSP Trooper Per Day (by Post Territory)

Towns Catoosa 27 Fannin Whitfield Murray Union Rabun Dade Walker 5 41 Gilmer Less than 1 accident every 5 days (0.10 to 0.19) B Habersham 7 1 accident every 4-5 days (0.20 to 0.25) White 43 Stephens 28 Lumpkin 1 accident every 3-4 days (0.26 to 0.33) Chattooga Gordon Pickens Dawson Franklin Hall Banks Hart 1 accident every 2-3 days (0.34 to 0.50) 38A Bartow 37 Cherokee 6 3 Forsyth 1 accident every 1-2 days (0.51 to 0.99) Floyd Jackson Madison Elbert 1 to 1.24 accidents per day 29 Gwinnett Barrow 32 Polk Paulding Clarke Cobb Oconee Oglethorpe Haralson Note: Since the posts in Troop C 17 Lincoln 46 share the same jurisdiction, the Wilkes 4 Douglas 9, Fulton DekalbC Walton number of accidents represented Greene 48 Clayton Rockdale 8 here is an average of the three posts’ Carroll Taliaferro Columbia Newton Morgan productivity. Post 9, 47, and 48 47 McDuffie 25 Fayette Henry troopers investigated 0.29, 0.26, and 24 Warren Richmond 0.64 accidents per day, respectively. Jasper Putnam Heard Coweta Butts 1 Hancock Spalding E Glascock Lamar 33 2 Pike 44 Jefferson Burke Jones Baldwin Washington Troup Monroe MeriwetherD 26 Bibb Screven 34 Upson Wilkinson Jenkins Harris 21 Talbot Crawford Twiggs Johnson F 19 Taylor Peach Muscogee 20 Houston Emanuel

Bleckley Laurens 45 Effingham 15 Treutlen Candler Chattahoochee Marion Macon Bulloch 42 Schley Pulaski Dodge Dooly Evans Wheeler Toombs 18 Stewart Webster 10 Montgomery 16 Bryan Chatham Wilcox Sumter Tattnall 30 Telfair Quitman 11 Crisp 39 Jeff Davis Liberty Long Lee Ben Hill Appling Randolph GTerrell Turner Clay Irwin 36 Bacon Wayne Calhoun 40 Worth 13 McIntosh Dougherty Coffee I Tift Early Pierce Baker Atkinson 22 BerrienH Glynn Colquitt Ware Brantley 14 Mitchell Cook 23 Miller Lanier 35 Each trooper at Seminole Camden Post 35 worked 12 31 Clinch Decatur Grady 0.03 accidents Brooks Charlton Thomas per day. Lowndes Echols

Georgia State Patrol 21

GSP command does not have a method to measure trooper and post productivity that takes into consideration the various types of activities performed by troopers and the time typically involved with each activity type. During our visits to posts, we noted that one post commander had developed such a system for assessing overall trooper productivity. This system applied points to activities based on the estimated amount of time involved with each activity. For example, activities such as accident investigations and DUI arrests involve significantly more time than a simple vehicle stop that only results in a warning. As a result, to control for time, the post commander assigns two points to each accident investigation and DUI arrest and only one point to each vehicle stop and motorist assist. Troopers are expected to produce a similar number of points each day.

Although GSP should conduct a formal study to determine how to measure and evaluate productivity, we applied the methodology previously described to compare the average productivity of troopers in each of the 48 posts. This analysis applied points to three measurable activities—accident investigations, DUI arrests, and vehicle stops. Our review of data shows that posts with comparatively low numbers of daily accidents investigated per trooper do not always have corresponding higher traffic enforcement activity. Six of the 10 posts with the lowest number of accidents investigated were also among those with the lowest numbers of DUI arrests and vehicle stops. As shown in Exhibit 14, the average estimated number of points generated daily by each trooper in each of the 48 posts varied from 2.9 to 7.0 with a statewide average of 5.2.

Georgia State Patrol 22

Exhibit 14 Daily Activity Points Per Trooper Points Per - 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 Accident DUI Vehicle Trooper Per Post 35 Post Investigations Arrests Stops Day Post 21 Post 35 0.1 0.1 2.7 2.9 Post 39 Post 21 0.3 0.2 2.8 3.3 Post 16 Post 39 0.2 0.1 3.0 3.3 Post 27 Post 16 0.3 0.2 3.0 3.5 Post 18 Post 27 0.5 0.2 2.9 3.6 Post 19 Post 18 0.4 0.2 3.2 3.8 Post 31 Post 19 0.4 0.2 3.3 3.8 Post 17 Post 31 0.9 0.2 2.9 4.0 Post 11 Post 17 0.3 0.2 3.5 4.0 Post 07 Post 11 0.4 0.3 3.5 4.2 Post 22 Post 07 0.7 0.4 3.2 4.2 Post 09 Post 22 0.4 0.2 3.6 4.3 Post 45 Post 09 0.6 0.1 3.8 4.5 Post 14 Post 45 1.0 0.3 3.2 4.5 Post 15 Post 14 0.3 0.4 4.1 4.8 Post 08 Post 15 0.4 0.2 4.1 4.8 Post 02 Post 08 0.4 0.2 4.3 4.8 Post 32 Post 02 1.0 0.2 3.6 4.8 Post 20 Post 32 1.0 0.2 3.7 5.0 Post 40 Post 20 0.5 0.2 4.3 5.0 Post 36 Post 40 0.2 0.2 4.7 5.1 Post 28 Post 36 0.5 0.2 4.4 5.1 Post 48 Post 28 0.3 0.2 4.6 5.1 GS P AVG Post 48 1.3 0.1 3.8 5.1 Post 38 GSP AVG 0.8 0.2 4.2 5.2 Post 41 Post 38 0.7 0.1 4.4 5.2 Post 37 Post 41 1.1 0.2 4.0 5.3 Post 24 Post 37 0.8 0.2 4.4 5.4 Post 43 Post 24 1.3 0.1 4.1 5.5 Post 05 Post 43 1.0 0.1 4.4 5.5 Post 34 Post 05 1.3 0.2 4.0 5.5 Post 44 Post 34 0.5 0.3 4.8 5.6 Post 04 Post 44 0.3 0.1 5.2 5.6 Post 26 Post 04 2.5 0.2 2.9 5.7 Post 23 Post 26 0.6 0.1 5.0 5.7 Post 03 Post 23 0.7 0.3 4.7 5.8 Post 46 Post 03 1.9 0.2 3.6 5.8 Post 06 Post 25 Post 46 0.8 0.2 4.9 5.8 Post 30 Post 06 1.5 0.1 4.3 6.0 Post 12 Post 25 0.6 0.2 5.2 6.1 Post 10 Post 30 0.5 0.3 5.3 6.1 Post 33 Post 12 0.4 0.3 5.5 6.2 Post 13 Post 10 0.4 0.2 5.9 6.4 Post 29 Post 33 0.5 0.2 5.7 6.5 Post 47 Post 13 0.7 0.4 5.6 6.7 Post 01 Post 29 0.8 0.1 5.8 6.7 Post 42 Post 47 0.5 0.1 6.3 6.9 Post 01 1.0 0.1 5.8 7.0 Accident Investigations DUI Arrests Vehicle Stops Post 42 0.3 0.3 6.4 7.0

Source: GSP Data

Georgia State Patrol 23

In addition, while the five lowest performing posts may be located in sparsely populated areas, the opportunity exists to investigate more accidents in their territory and to stop more vehicles. As shown in Exhibit 15, these five posts (circled in red) are located in areas where GSP investigated less than 60% of the total accidents, with one as low as 20%. In addition, four of the 10 posts with the highest estimated numbers of vehicles stopped per trooper per day are also located in rural counties without major interstates.

Exhibit 15 Percent of Total Accidents Investigated by GSP (by Post Territory)

Towns Catoosa 27 Fannin Union Whitfield Murray Rabun Dade Walker 0% to 19% 5 41 Gilmer 20% to 39% Habersham 7 White 40% to 59% 43 Stephens 28 Lumpkin Chattooga Gordon Pickens Dawson 60% to 79% Franklin A Hall Hart Banks 80% to 100% 38 Bartow 37 Lowest Productivity Points Cherokee 6 B 3 Forsyth Per Trooper Per Day Floyd Jackson Madison Elbert Troop Post Points 29 9 Gwinnett Barrow 32 B 27 3.6 Polk Paulding Clarke Cobb 48 Oconee Oglethorpe F 16 3.5 Haralson 46 17 Lincoln G 39 3.3 Wilkes F 21 3.3 4 Douglas Fulton Dekalb Walton CRockdale Greene I 35 2.9 Clayton 8 Carroll Taliaferro Columbia Newton Morgan 47 McDuffie 25 Fayette Henry Note: Since the posts in Troop 24 Warren Richmond C share the same jurisdiction, Jasper Putnam Heard Coweta Butts the number of accidents 1 Hancock Spalding E Glascock represented here is a total of the three posts. Lamar 33 2 Pike 44 Jefferson Burke Jones Baldwin Washington Troup Meriwether Monroe D 26 Bibb Screven 34 Upson Wilkinson Jenkins Harris 21 Talbot Crawford Twiggs Johnson 19 Taylor Peach Muscogee F 20 Houston Emanuel

Bleckley Laurens 45 Effingham 15 Treutlen Candler Chattahoochee Marion Macon Bulloch 42 Schley Pulaski Dodge Dooly Evans Wheeler Toombs 18 Stewart Webster 10 Montgomery 16 Bryan Chatham Wilcox Sumter Tattnall 30 Telfair Quitman 11 Crisp 39 Jeff Davis Liberty Long Lee Ben Hill Appling Randolph TerrellG Turner Clay Irwin 36 Bacon Wayne Calhoun 40 Worth McIntosh Dougherty 13 Coffee Tift Early Pierce Baker Atkinson 22 I Berrien Glynn 14 Colquitt H Ware Brantley Mitchell Cook 23 Miller Lanier 35 Seminole Camden 12 31 Clinch Decatur Grady Brooks Charlton Thomas Lowndes Echols

Posts 1 – Griffin 7 – Toccoa 13 – Tifton 19 – Swainsboro 25 – Grovetown 31 – Valdosta 37 – Cumming 43 – Calhoun 2 – LaGrange 8 – Madison 14 – Colquitt 20 – Dublin 26 – Thomaston 32 – Athens 38 – Rome 44 – Forsyth 3 – Cartersville 9 – Marietta 15 – Perry 21 – Sylvania 27 – Blue Ridge 33 – Milledgeville 39 – Cuthbert 45 – Statesboro 4 – Villa Rica 10 – Americus 16 – Helena 22 – Waycross 28 – Jasper 34 – Manchester 40 – Albany 46 – Monroe 5 – Dalton 11 – Hinesville 17 – Washington 23 – Brunswick 29 – Cedartown 35 – Jekyll Island 41 – LaFayette 47 – Forest Park 6 – Gainesville 12 – Thomasville 18 – Reidsville 24 – Newnan 30 – Cordele 36 – Douglas 42 – Rincon 48 – Atlanta Note: Post 35 covers only Jekyll Island and investigated 100% of the 62 accidents that occurred there in CY09. However, Post 23, which is adjacent to Post 35, investigated only 19% of the crashes in its jurisdiction. Post 35 could increase its trooper productivity by investigating some of the crashes that occur in Post 23. Source: GSP Data and Georgia Department of Transportation accident data Georgia State Patrol 24

GSP management should develop productivity expectations for both troopers and posts. GSP should then analyze readily available data to determine if posts and troopers are achieving these goals. In addition, GSP should review variations in post productivity and determine if productivity could increase at posts performing below the average.

DPS Response: “GSP will utilize its newly implemented CAD/RMS system to analyze the performance of individual Troopers. Troopers cannot be measured in the same manner. The duties of a Trooper are varied. Effectively managing the GSP workforce requires management to understand that Troopers are not machines which can be calibrated to perform at a desired rate. The duties they perform, and the circumstances in which they perform, vary greatly...”

“The audit points out that six of the ten posts with the lowest number of accidents investigated were also among those with the lowest numbers of DUI arrests and vehicle stops. Rather than indicating poor performance, those Posts may have achieved one of GSP’s most important goals: to reduce the number of traffic violations, including DUIs, and, thereby, reduce the number of crashes that occur. It is possible that the low number of DUI violations is directly related to the low number of traffic crashes.”

Auditor’s Response: The concept of measuring and monitoring productivity is important to all organizations, including law enforcement agencies. An article in the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,13 for example, indicates that “…organizational effectiveness rests directly on personnel productivity” and that “Law enforcement agencies are judged by their record of achievement. Measuring police performance proves vital to success and has implications for employees, as well as the organization.”

In addition, as a point of clarification, the report does not indicate that there is a low number of traffic crashes in the areas served by six of the ten posts. Rather, we indicate that given the lower percentage of accidents currently worked by GSP in these areas, the opportunity exists for GSP to increase its productivity by working more crashes. If GSP believes that the productivity of these posts cannot increase due to a low number of traffic violations, DUIs, and accidents in these post areas, it should consider reallocating troopers from these areas into areas with a higher workload.

GSP should allocate staffing resources at each post during the times of day and the days of the week that correlate with potential workload or need.

Our review of GSP’s activity data indicates there is the potential to maximize GSP’s impact by improving staffing patterns. Troopers’ schedules are primarily determined by post commanders. We noted during our site visits that post commanders, while they did use some data, primarily relied upon experience and anecdotal information to determine when to schedule troopers. Although experience is an important aspect in determining when to schedule troopers, a systematic review of applicable data would be helpful in improving staffing patterns.

13 Jon M. Shane, “Developing a Police Performance Measurement System,” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, September 2008. Georgia State Patrol 25

As discussed below, GSP’s current staffing pattern may not correlate with the predictable occurrence of events such as fatal accidents and impaired driving. We reviewed readily available accident data from the Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) and from the National Highway Transportation Safety Agency (NHTSA) to identify the times of day and days of the week that vehicle accidents and fatal vehicle accidents were most likely to occur. To determine if GSP could better align troopers during these times, we first reviewed fiscal year 2010 daily duty rosters for all GSP troopers to identify when troopers were on duty and then compared these staffing patterns with GDOT and NHTSA data.

 When Troopers are on Patrol: Most staffing resources are allocated Monday through Thursday from 6:00 AM to 4:00 PM. Staffing drops significantly after 8:00 PM and during the weekend.

 When Fatal Accidents Involving DUI Occur: Nationwide, 79% of fatal DUI single vehicle accidents occur at night (between 6:00 PM and 6:00 AM). Fifty-eight percent of fatal DUI single vehicle accidents occur during the weekend, and 83% of those occur at night. Seventy-four percent of fatal DUI multiple vehicle accidents also occur at night. However, as shown in the graph to the right, GSP’s staffing decreases during these times, even during the weekend. To reduce fatal accidents due to DUI, GSP may need to assign more troopers to the night and weekend shifts.

 Start Times for Road Checks: As shown in the graph, GSP road checks typically (56%) start between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Road checks rapidly decline after 6:00 PM, with less than 25% starting after 8:00 PM. With an average duration of two hours, road checks are less likely to occur late at night. If road checks are intended to reduce drunk driving, given the data, start-times of road checks may need to be shifted.

Georgia State Patrol 26

 Patterns of Staffing and Accident Occurrence: As shown in the graph, statewide accident data available from GDOT shows that accidents, regardless of severity, are most prevalent between 2:00 PM and 6:00 PM; however, the portion of GSP’s staff on patrol duty decreases during this time period. To maximize impact, GSP should ensure that the staffing distribution is correlated with the accident occurrence by time of day.

 Staffing Compared to Fatal Accidents: Statewide data available from NHTSA shows that fatal accidents increase after noon to their highest level between 8:00 PM and 10:00 PM; however, GSP staffing drops significantly during this time period. Conversely, GSP staffing is at its highest level during the morning and early afternoon hours, a period of relatively low fatal accident occurrence. Likewise, the following graph shows that fatal accidents are most likely to occur during the weekend; however, GSP staffing drops significantly during these days. These graphs suggest that efforts to reduce fatal accidents may require a shift in staffing to later at night and during the weekend.

Exhibit 16 provides several snapshots of statewide staffing distribution. As shown, Posts 1-48 have virtually no presence between midnight and 5:00 AM.

While GSP command staff has not conducted similar analyses of traffic patterns, we did note that in several post inspection reports the inspector (troop commander) indicated that the post commanders were not scheduling sufficient staffing resources at night and on the weekends. For example, one post inspection report stated that the post did not have sufficient DUI arrests and that this was likely the result of not adequately staffing at night.

Georgia State Patrol 27

Exhibit 16 Staffing by the Numbers (Posts 1-48) Fiscal Year 2010 Average number of troopers on duty 95 statewide at any given time (Posts 1-48)

Post 6 Post with the maximum average number 6.7 troopers on duty at of troopers on duty at a given time 2:00 PM Average number of troopers on duty Less than one between midnight and 5:00 AM at Post 6 Average: 0.4 Post staffing statistics between midnight Median: 0.2 and 5:00 AM Mode: 0

Maximum number of troopers on duty 197 statewide at a given time (2:00 PM Wednesdays)

Lowest number of troopers on duty 6 statewide at a given time (4:00 AM Wednesday)

Source: GSP Records

To maximize its impact, GSP should use available information to schedule staffing in a systematic and strategic manner. Given unique traffic patterns, accident incidence, and DUI incidence in each area, staffing at each troop and post should be customized to meet the particular needs of each territory. Staffing should also be customized to meet the strategic goals and initiatives of GSP.

DPS Response: “This audit recommendation has caused GSP to look at staffing to ensure that adjustments in staffing are made where appropriate. However, shifting resources may have the result of simply shifting the times of occurrences due to the lack of a law enforcement presence. Additionally, the day and the time of occurrence of crashes are not static, but fluid. Historical data regarding when crashes occur may or may not be valid for future crashes. Deploying resources to the times and locations where crashes occurred in prior years may or may not be effective in the future.”

“The audit advocates starting road checks later. Night road checks are not conducted as often because they are inherently more dangerous, require more specific locations, and are easily bypassed. Because of these circumstances, GSP policy requires more personnel and supervision to conduct night road checks.”

“The audit indicates that manpower is not deployed during peak crash occurrence periods. The specific period noted coincides with the period during which shifts must change to ensure adequate coverage.”

“The audit advocates increasing the number of Troopers deployed on the midnight shift. With current staffing levels, increasing the number of Troopers on the midnight shift would seriously deplete manpower available on other shifts, without a corresponding impact on traffic safety.” Georgia State Patrol 28

Auditor’s Response: The audit recommends maximizing GSP’s impact by analyzing available data to improve staffing patterns. DPS also stated in its 2008 annual report that implementation of the CAD/RMS should allow for data-driven decisions by stating, “Currently, many local agencies already have an in-car electronic data capability. By moving in this direction we can achieve information interoperability with other law enforcement agencies and develop a Compstat approach to the use of traffic enforcement assets aimed at high crash corridors. Decisions will be data driven and will concentrate on outcomes in reduction of traffic accidents, injuries, and fatalities.” Compstat is a method that can be used to plot specific incidents of crime by time, day, and location. Compstat enables police departments to allocate their resources more effectively.

Our research found examples from other state patrols that use data to strategically focus resources. For example, the Colorado State Patrol Strategic Plan states, “The use of timely and accurate data to drive law enforcement operations toward a more efficient and effective resource deployment is the benchmark for 21st century policing and the foundation of intelligence-led policing. Intelligence-led policing has been in use within the United States for many years and has been a valuable method in reducing crime. Whether related to potential traffic crashes, terrorism, drug trafficking, auto-theft, or any other criminal act, the collection and analysis of disparate pieces of data are valuable when utilized as a potential predictive indicator of future illegal behavior.”

GSP should allocate staffing resources to areas of the state in a manner that correlates with potential workload or need.

Our review of GSP’s accident investigation and traffic enforcement data indicate that GSP activity does not correlate with traffic volume or accident incidence. In addition, we found that GSP’s staffing does not appear to be based on local law enforcement resources. These analyses are discussed in more detail on the following pages.

Relative Need Based on Traffic Volume and Accident Occurrence GSP traffic enforcement and accident investigation activity significantly varies among counties within the same troop. As discussed in the following examples, this variation does not appear to be aligned with potential workload or need. Appendix B details information regarding the counties within each troop and location of the posts. Appendix C details GSP activity levels within each county.

• In Troop A (14 counties), Cherokee County has the highest total traffic volume (measured by vehicle miles traveled or VMT14) and the highest number of accidents, yet it receives the lowest amount of GSP services within the troop. During 2009, GSP investigated 100 vehicle accidents in Cherokee County, which represent only 2% of the 4,135 total accidents in that county, while, on average, GSP investigated almost 40% of the accidents occurring in each of Troop A’s counties. In 2010, GSP issued 1,745 citations in Cherokee County (0.34 citations per 1,000 VMT), although the average

14 Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) is a statistic that shows how many miles are driven by vehicles in a given area. This is different than road miles, which are the actual miles of roadway in the area. Georgia State Patrol 29

number of citations issued in Troop A counties was 2,826 (1.28 citations per 1,000 VMT).

• In Troop D (20 counties), Henry County has the highest total VMT and the second highest number of vehicle accidents, yet only Fayette County receives a lower level of service. During 2009, GSP investigated 47 accidents in Henry County, representing less than 1% of the 6,282 accidents in that county, while, on average, GSP investigated 22% of the accidents occurring in Troop D counties. In 2010, GSP issued 327 citations in Henry County (0.05 citations per 1,000 VMT), although the average number of citations issued in Troop D counties was 2,332 (1.06 citations per 1,000 VMT).

• In Troop H (19 counties), Houston County has the highest total VMT and the second highest accident incidence, yet it receives the lowest amount of GSP services. In 2009, GSP investigated 156 (7%) of the 2,331 vehicle accidents in the county, although on average GSP investigated 182, or 30%, of the accidents in each county within Troop H. In 2010, GSP issued 3,261 citations in Houston County (0.86 citations per 1,000 VMT), although the average number of citations issued per 1,000 VMT was 1.84.

• Troop C (metropolitan Atlanta – 5 counties) has particularly wide variation of GSP citation and accident investigation activity in each county, as shown in Exhibit 17 on the next page. Troop C counties, with the exception of Clayton County, are fairly similar in terms of the total number of accidents that occur and the number of VMT. However, Fulton County receives the vast majority of services from GSP. Approximately 93% of the accidents investigated and 57% of the citations issued by GSP (Troop C) were in Fulton County. By contrast, GSP has virtually no presence in Gwinnett County, even though the county has 19% of the accidents that occurred and 21% of VMT in Troop C’s territory.

Exhibit 17 GSP Activity in Troop C Counties % of Total % of Total # Accidents % of Total GSP % of Total VMT Total Accidents Accidents in Investigated GSP Citations GSP- issued (000’s) VMT (2009) Troop C by GSP Accidents (2010) citations (2009) Clayton 7,228 8% 8,781 7% 90 2% 2,898 11% Cobb 18,239 19% 18,907 15% 146 3% 3,707 14% DeKalb 20,295 21% 25,620 21% 133 2% 3,913 15% Fulton 30,352 32% 45,952 37% 5,220 93% 15,014 57% Gwinnett 19,670 21% 23,777 19% 15 0% 664 3% Sources: GSP records and GDOT data

Relative Need Based on Local Resource Availability Because GSP indicated that some counties with higher traffic volumes and accident incidence may have more local resources to manage this workload, we assessed counties’ relative need by considering local law enforcement staffing per 1,000 VMT along with accident incidence. This assessment identified each county’s relative risk as “high,” “medium,” or “low” based on the following classifications: Georgia State Patrol 30

Local Law Enforcement Staffing Levels Low High

High Risk Medium Risk High Accident Incidence/Low Local Law High Accident Incidence/High Local Enforcement Staff per VMT Law Enforcement Staff per VMT Medium Risk Low Risk # of Accidents of # Low High Low Accident Incidence/Low Local Law Low Accident Incidence/High Local Enforcement Staff per VMT Law Enforcement Staff per VMT

We found that GSP’s enforcement activities and accident investigations are not concentrated in the “highest risk” counties. As shown in Exhibit 18, we identified 16 counties as having the highest risk, due to having more accidents than the state average but less local law enforcement availability per VMT. In nine of these counties, GSP issued fewer citations per VMT than the state average. Six of the highest risk counties were among the bottom 10% of counties in terms of citations issued per VMT. In fact, the county identified as having the highest risk (Gwinnett, with almost 14 times more accidents than the statewide average) had the lowest number of GSP-issued citations per VMT. Exhibit 18 Highest Risk Counties Based on Local Law Enforcement Staffing and Accident Incidence 3-year total Indexed to the Indexed to accident Statewide Total Local VMT Total State average: Average Officers (1) 2009 Officers Per Average Troop Post County 2006-2008 (2,064) 2009 (000's) 1,000 VMT (0.08) A 3 BARTOW 3,560 1.72 260 4,849 0.05 0.67 D 4 CARROLL 3,605 1.75 219 3,322 0.07 0.82 C 9, 47, 48 CLAYTON 10,401 5.04 497 7,228 0.07 0.86 C 9, 47, 48 COBB 25,251 12.23 1425 18,239 0.08 0.98 D 24 COWETA 3,630 1.76 227 3,873 0.06 0.73 D 4 DOUGLAS 4,805 2.33 304 4,292 0.07 0.89 A 38 FLOYD 3,767 1.83 175 2,959 0.06 0.74 I 23 GLYNN 3,003 1.45 112 2,875 0.04 0.49 C 9, 47, 48 GWINNETT 28,883 13.99 974 19,670 0.05 0.62 D 1 HENRY 6,980 3.38 313 6,097 0.05 0.64 H 15 HOUSTON 3,409 1.65 278 3,778 0.07 0.92 H 31 LOWNDES 3,450 1.67 295 3,714 0.08 0.99 E 46 NEWTON 2,674 1.30 195 2,934 0.07 0.83 A 3 PAULDING 2,539 1.23 178 2,825 0.06 0.79 D 2 TROUP 2,181 1.06 188 2,627 0.07 0.89 A 5 WHITFIELD 3,261 1.58 260 3,653 0.07 0.89 Note: (1) These figures are as reported by local agencies to the FBI and may not be complete.

Sources: GDOT accident data and VMT data; Federal Bureau of Investigation staffing data Additionally, the vast majority of accidents in high-risk counties are investigated by local law enforcement rather than GSP. For example, as shown in Exhibit 19, GSP investigates less than 10% of the accidents in five of the 16 high-risk counties. Again, GSP provides the lowest level of accident investigations in the highest-risk county (Gwinnett County), investigating less than 1% of the county’s accidents. Georgia State Patrol 31

Exhibit 19 Counties Ranked By Percent of Accidents Investigated by GSP (1) CY 2009 Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Total Reported Reported Total Reported Reported Total Reported Reported County Crashes by GSP by GSP County Crashes by GSP by GSP County Crashes by GSP by GSP Jenkins 77 77 100% Pierce 276 137 50% Jasper 294 60 20% Montgomery 54 54 100% Carroll 3,098 1,490 48% Bryan 661 130 20% Quitman 17 17 100% Banks 486 229 47% Toombs 684 127 19% Wilkes 144 144 100% Spalding 1,785 837 47% Colquitt 924 171 19% Madison 168 167 99% Hancock 78 36 46% Lincoln 33 6 18% Warren 129 126 98% Hall 5,057 2,326 46% Calhoun 39 7 18% Webster 43 42 98% Tift 1,086 492 45% Habersham 910 161 18% Talbot 128 124 97% Coweta 3,468 1,561 45% Peach 905 160 18% Echols 37 35 95% Fannin 490 218 44% Camden 969 171 18% Wilcox 16 15 94% Brooks 303 132 44% Lee 629 110 17% Clay 17 15 88% Glascok 46 20 43% Greene 448 76 17% Chattooga 404 332 82% Evans 173 75 43% Newton 2,337 372 16% Taliaferro 46 37 80% Ben Hill 124 53 43% Mitchell 412 64 16% Long 122 98 80% Troup 2,074 883 43% Liberty 1,597 247 15% Atkinson 71 57 80% Seminole 106 45 42% Sumter 717 107 15% McIntosh 90 68 76% Marion 197 83 42% Bacon 190 27 14% Lumpkin 819 618 75% Whitfield 2,674 1,117 42% Charlton 147 19 13% Dooly 268 200 75% Bulloch 1,968 818 42% Wayne 594 70 12% Tattnall 272 194 71% Lamar 325 133 41% Rabun 391 45 12% Wheeler 38 27 71% Cook 449 175 39% Dawson 725 83 11% Lanier 102 72 71% Walton 1,406 547 39% Fulton 45,952 5,220 11% Candler 218 152 70% Crisp 693 267 39% Floyd 3,514 395 11% Walker 1,279 855 67% Polk 877 333 38% Jackson 1,425 158 11% Baker 15 10 67% Hart 527 197 37% Bleckley 221 23 10% Meriwether 389 254 65% Jeff Davis 241 90 37% Thomas 1,318 137 10% Chattahoochee 51 33 65% Laurens 1,312 489 37% Clarke 4,904 509 10% Douglas 4,162 2,657 64% Turner 208 77 37% Monroe 896 87 10% Upson 665 424 64% Miller 85 31 36% Wilkinson 215 18 8% Bartow 3,075 1,927 63% Brantley 223 81 36% White 683 51 7% Terrell 98 61 62% Pickens 545 193 35% Houston 2,331 156 7% Screven 245 149 61% Morgan 503 165 33% Burke 826 51 6% Paulding 2,667 1,592 60% Telfair 130 42 32% Elbert 409 25 6% Johnson 109 65 60% Union 351 113 32% Ware 1,123 61 5% Murray 626 358 57% Oglethorpe 230 73 32% Gilmer 324 16 5% Harris 413 236 57% Coffee 858 264 31% Pike 340 14 4% Treutlen 93 53 57% Towns 71 21 30% Rockdale 2,886 114 4% Schley 77 43 56% Lowndes 3,366 989 29% Putnam 568 21 4% Jefferson 144 79 55% Heard 168 49 29% Barrow 1,557 52 3% Stewart 53 29 55% Clinch 123 35 28% Cherokee 4,135 100 2% Randolph 97 53 55% Twiggs 153 43 28% Columbia 3,652 39 1% Catoosa 1,833 997 54% Butts 295 82 28% Clayton 8,781 90 1% Berrien 227 121 53% Washington 339 91 27% Bibb 5,916 51 1% Worth 287 152 53% Decatur 560 148 26% Cobb 18,907 146 1% Irwin 111 58 52% Franklin 595 155 26% Dougherty 2,856 22 1% Pulaski 102 53 52% Macon 300 75 25% Henry 6,282 47 1% McDuffie 763 395 52% Stephens 692 173 25% Jones 670 5 1% Dade 403 206 51% Effingham 626 153 24% Chatham 12,013 89 1% Taylor 135 69 51% Early 90 21 23% Forsyth 3,683 23 1% Gordon 1,376 697 51% Glynn 2,464 567 23% Fayette 2,685 16 1% Dodge 188 94 50% Grady 389 88 23% Richmond 9,938 58 1% Emanuel 404 202 50% Appling 516 109 21% Dekalb 25,620 133 1% Haralson 634 317 50% Crawford 266 56 21% Muscogee 7,033 21 0% Oconee 810 403 50% Baldwin 1,634 342 21% Gwinnett 23,777 15 0% Note: (1) Counties highlighted in red are the "high risk" counties identified by the audit team. These counties were found to have more accidents than the statewide average but less local law enforcement availability per VMT than the statewide average.

Source: GDOT crash data Georgia State Patrol 32

GSP should determine the need for trooper presence in each of Georgia’s 159 counties by identifying the relative traffic volume (VMT) and accident incidence in each county. GSP should also identify areas of the state that may have less local law enforcement availability for critical traffic enforcement and accident investigation services. GSP should consider each county’s relative need when allocating staffing resources to ensure that such resources are allocated in an efficient and effective manner.

DPS Response: “GSP is currently maintaining minimum staffing levels across the state. There is currently not a sufficient number of Troopers to reallocate some to higher crash areas without leaving other areas without enough Troopers to function at all.”

“The areas identified in the audit are primarily metropolitan and have a high number of local law enforcement officers. The audit indicates in one area GSP does not require additional manpower because Georgia has a large number of local law enforcement, and then criticizes the agency for leveraging these officers to compensate for our staffing shortage.”

“GSP disagrees that the mandate for staffing is purely determined by data and statistical models. If a local entity does not desire assistance, regardless of a statistical need, it is difficult to bring resources to the area. Additionally, the staffing level and budgetary constraints limit staffing and operations to area that request assistance and work in conjunction with GSP to operationally address concerns.”

Auditor’s Response: As shown by the examples included in the finding, there is not a correlation between enforcement activity and VMT or accidents even within a post or a troop. It is unclear how GSP currently evaluates a local entity’s desire or need for assistance when making resource deployment decisions. A comprehensive assessment of need includes more than just a count of the number of local law enforcement officers or the assumption that metropolitan areas have sufficient resources. As explained in detail in this finding, although metropolitan areas may have a high number of local law enforcement officers, the number of these officers in relation to traffic volume in their jurisdiction may be relatively low. Our communication with local law enforcement personnel (either through our survey or in interviews) in several metropolitan jurisdictions indicated that they welcome assistance from GSP.

According to a survey of Georgia local law enforcement officials, respondents generally rated GSP effective in its quality of services; however, less than half of the respondents frequently rely on GSP’s services.

To measure local law enforcement opinion of GSP, the audit team distributed a survey to 274 local law enforcement officials including: (1) all county sheriffs’ offices, (2) a sample of city police chiefs, and (3) the five county police departments operating in the metro Atlanta area. Of the 274 distributed surveys, 161 (59%) responded. Overall, respondents indicated that they find GSP to be effective in its primary services (traffic enforcement, DUI enforcement, and accident investigations). However, most local jurisdictions surveyed do not frequently rely on GSP for these activities. The survey response rate and answers to each question can be found in Appendix D. Georgia State Patrol 33

Local Assessment of GSP Effectiveness As shown in Exhibit 20, more than half of all respondents indicated that GSP is effective in activities related to traffic enforcement and accident investigations. Over 70% of all respondents indicated that GSP was effective in its enforcement of laws related to speeding, occupant restraints, and DUIs. Respondents were only slightly less likely to deem GSP effective at responding to accidents in a timely manner.

Local Reliance on GSP for Primary Services Despite generally positive ratings, local law enforcement respondents indicated they do not necessarily rely on GSP for its primary services (traffic enforcement, DUI enforcement, and accident investigation.) As shown in Exhibit 21, only 38% and 31% frequently rely on GSP for traffic and DUI enforcement, respectively, and less than half frequently rely on GSP to investigate accidents. Additional points related to local reliance on GSP are discussed below:

• Local reliance on GSP for accident investigations increases with the severity of the accident. Respondents were more likely to rely on GSP for accidents with injuries or fatalities than those involving a single vehicle. • County sheriffs, as opposed to city or county police departments, are most likely to rely on GSP frequently for primary services. • For all primary services (traffic enforcement, DUI enforcement, and accident investigation), rural jurisdictions rely on GSP more frequently than urban jurisdictions. • Respondents with a small number of officers (less than 50) more frequently rely on GSP than those with a large number of officers. • Local jurisdictions with traffic units (approximately 72 of 274 respondents) are less likely to frequently rely on GSP than those without a traffic unit.

More than half of the respondents indicated that they would like the same level of traffic enforcement (90 or 57%) and accident investigation services (100 or 63%) in the future. Generally, the more a jurisdiction relies on GSP, the more likely the respondent was to indicate a desire for more GSP involvement in that service. For Georgia State Patrol 34

example, of the 60 of respondents who frequently rely on GSP for traffic enforcement, 29 also desire more traffic enforcement services from GSP. Conversely, of the 65 respondents who rarely to never rely on GSP for traffic enforcement, 22 want more GSP involvement in traffic enforcement.

Local Reliance on GSP for Secondary Services As shown in Exhibit 22, local jurisdictions do not frequently rely on GSP for secondary services such as SWAT, aviation, or added presence at special events. Local law enforcement is least reliant on the SWAT team; 89% rarely to never rely on SWAT. Of all the secondary services, county law enforcement are more likely to frequently utilize GSP for aviation (35%) and additional law enforcement backup (35%), while municipal law enforcement are more likely to rely on GSP frequently for additional law enforcement backup (17%).

Georgia State Patrol 35

Appendix A Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

This report examines the Department of Public Safety’s Field Offices and Services Division, known as the Georgia State Patrol (GSP). Our review set out to determine the following:

1. The extent to which GSP assesses its effectiveness in achieving its mission; 2. Whether GSP’s activity, as measured through accidents investigated, vehicles stopped, and citations issued, has increased or decreased; the factors contributing to activity levels; and the impact on local law enforcement and the citizens of Georgia; 3. Whether GSP has determined the optimal number of troopers required to effectively accomplish its mission; 4. The extent to which GSP has allocated existing resources to focus on areas with the highest need; 5. The extent to which GSP’s mission and organizational structure could be modified and the impact of these modifications; and 6. The extent to which GSP uses available data to strategically enforce traffic laws.

Our review primarily focused on the management and activity related to GSP’s 48 posts in calendar years 2009 and 2010. We used the following sources of information in our analysis:

• Laws, Rules and Regulations • GSP Activity Data: We obtained activity numbers specifically for accident investigations, vehicle stops, and DUI arrests for calendar years 2008 through 2010. Productivity analyses were conducted using calendar years 2009 and 2010 activity data. • GSP Daily Duty Rosters: GSP’s staffing data for fiscal year 2010 was used to determine the number of troopers and supervisors on duty each day and the staffing distributions by time of day and day of week. • Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) Accident Data: GDOT accident data was obtained for calendar years 2006 through 2009. This data details each accident that occurred in the state, who investigated the accident, in what county it occurred, the day and time it occurred, the number of vehicles involved, and the number of injuries and/or fatalities. • GSP Police Allocation Manual (PAM): The audit team validated GSP’s inputs into its 2008 PAM by tracking the calculations and interviewing an expert at Northwestern University’s Traffic Institute, which developed the PAM. • Interviews: We interviewed GSP management staff at the headquarters, troop, and post levels. Additionally, the audit team conducted site visits at 11 posts in all nine troops.15 During the site visits, the audit team interviewed the post commander and conducted a ride-along with a trooper at seven of the sites. Posts were selected based on input from headquarters command, as well as the posts’ unique attributes (e.g., the posts in the metro Atlanta area).

15 The audit team conducted site visits at Post 41 in Troop A; Post 7 in Troop B; Posts 9, 47, and 48 in Troop C; Post 24 in Troop D; Post 25 in Troop E; Post 45 in Troop F; Post 12 in Troop G; Post 13 in Troop H; and Post 42 in Troop I. Georgia State Patrol 36

• Post Facility Documents: Files for each post facility included deeds or leases and historic documents. The file review yielded information related to the age of the post buildings, GSP’s financial obligations to each building for maintenance and operations, and a limited picture of the state’s involvement in constructing post facilities. • Survey of Local Law Enforcement Officials: The audit team surveyed 279 local law enforcement officials to determine how often they rely on GSP and how effective they believe GSP to be. Survey recipients included all 159 sheriffs, 115 of the approximately 260 city police chiefs (including 57 cities with a population of more than 10,000 and a random selection of 52 from the remaining cities), and all five county police chiefs in the metro Atlanta area. We received 161 responses, a 58% response rate.

Below is a detailed explanation of the methodology the audit team used to estimate the $31.5 million in revenue that GSP-issued citations generated for local governments in fiscal year 2010, as discussed on page 8 of the report.

• To calculate the value of GSP citations, we obtained fine schedules from a diverse sample of Georgia courts and compared these schedules with detailed GSP data for citations issued in those jurisdictions during fiscal year 2010.16 A total of 22 court jurisdictions were included in the sample that was geographically and demographically diverse, including urban areas such as the City of Atlanta and rural areas such as Sumter County.17 From this analysis, we found that the average base fine associated with each citation was $107.86. Applying this average to the 292,000 citations issued statewide by GSP during fiscal year 2010, we estimate that GSP citations generated at least $31.5 million for local jurisdictions statewide.

• To test the reasonableness of our estimate, we obtained traffic citation data from three state agencies that collect and report information related to traffic citations. These include the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), the Georgia Superior Court Clerks Cooperative Authority (GSCCCA), and the Department of Driver Services (DDS). While each of these agencies do compile and report some types of information concerning traffic citations, none of the entities have complete information regarding the total revenue generated specifically from GSP-issued citations. We also reviewed the average fine amount per citation issued by GSP’s Motorcycle Unit. The results of these analyses and the issues encountered using the information is detailed below.

o GSCCCA/AOC: O.C.G.A §15-21-179(a) requires courts to impose an additional penalty equal to 5% of the original fine amount for every case involving a violation of a traffic law for the “Drivers Education and Training Fund” (DETF). The revenue generated from this surcharge is remitted to GSCCCA for deposit into the state’s general fund. According to GSCCCA data, approximately $10,163,000 in DETF surcharge revenue was remitted in fiscal year 2009. Since

16 GSP may issue citations for serious criminal offenses such as the possession of marijuana. These may require a court appearance, at which time the judge determines the fine for that specific instance. Since these criminal offenses are often not included on the court’s base fine schedule, many of these fine amounts were not included in our calculation of the average fine per citation. However, these offenses represent less than 10% of GSP’s citation mix. 17 Our initial sample included 46 jurisdictions that accounted for approximately 80% of all GSP-issued citations. Only 22 of these courts provided fine schedules that specified the “base” fine amount as opposed to the total fine (the base fine plus additional fines and surcharges). Georgia State Patrol 37

this revenue is generated from a 5% surcharge on any fine resulting from a violation of traffic laws (violations defined in Chapters 6, 8, and 14 of O.C.G.A Title 40), we estimate that approximately $203 million in base fine revenue was generated from traffic citations issued by all law enforcement agencies in Georgia. The GSCCCA data does not separately identify surcharge revenue generated by each law enforcement agency or the total number of traffic cases adjudicated. As a result, this data alone cannot be used to estimate revenue generated by GSP.

State courts, probate courts, municipal courts, and magistrate courts report on an annual basis their traffic related caseload count to the AOC. According to AOC data, a total of 2,187,864 traffic cases were adjudicated in these four types of courts during fiscal year 2009. GSCCCA data shows that a total of $9,971,013 in DETF surcharges18 were remitted from these four types of courts, which produced an estimated $199,420,265 in base fine revenue. After adjusting for the issuance of safety restraint citations, which are not subject to the DETF surcharge, the revenue estimate is approximately $95 per traffic citation for all law enforcement agencies, including GSP.

o DDS: Courts that adjudicate traffic citations in Georgia are required to submit information on traffic convictions to DDS to be used in compiling individual driver records. The information provided should include the assessed fine and whether the arresting officer was employed with a county, a city, or GSP. DDS provided a report that included summary information for fiscal year 2010 traffic convictions associated with GSP-issued citations. After analyzing this information, we found that GSP citations appeared to be underreported in the DDS data by approximately 46%, or 135,000 citations. DDS representatives stated that this discrepancy could be due to reporting time lags and the likelihood that courts failed to indicate the organizational association of the arresting officer. As a result, we did not rely upon the total number of convictions and resulting revenue associated with GSP-issued citations using DDS data.

o Motorcycle Unit Citation Revenue: During fiscal year 2010, a total of $916,848 was remitted to DPS from local courts for traffic citations issued by GSP’s Motorcycle Unit. According to GSP citation data, approximately 6,500 such citations were issued during fiscal year 2010. Therefore, these citations generated an average of $141 per citation. It should be noted that these citations only include violations of Chapter 6 of Title 40 of Georgia law and those violations that occur within the metropolitan Atlanta area. As a result, this average may not be representative of all citations issued by GSP statewide.

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

18 The remaining $192,000 remitted to DETF was from traffic cases adjudicated in either superior or juvenile courts. However, these courts do not specify the number of traffic tickets in their submission to AOC. Georgia State Patrol 38

Appendix B GSP Troops and Posts (End of Fiscal Year 2011) Troop A Post 5: Dalton Post 3: Cartersville Year Built: 1972 VMT: 5,815 Year Built: 1973 (new post to open in 2011) Road Miles: 1,489 VMT: 7,764 Full-time Troopers: 16 Dade Catoosa Whitfield Road Miles: 2,260 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 4.3 Walker Full-time Troopers: 18 Total Crashes in CY09: 4,507 5 Murray NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 3.5 Crashes Worked by GSP: 2,114 (47%) Total Crashes in CY09: 5,742 41 Crashes Worked by GSP: 3,519 (61%) Post 29: Cedartown Year Built: 2005 Post 28: Jasper VMT: 2,105 Chattooga 43 Gordon 28 Year Built: 2004 Road Miles: 1,375 Pickens VMT: 6,147 Full-time Troopers: 10 Floyd Road Miles: 1,839 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.3 Bartow Full-time Troopers: 10 Total Crashes in CY09: 1,511 Cherokee NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.3 Crashes Worked by GSP: 650 (43%) 38 3 Total Crashes in CY09: 4,680 Crashes Worked by GSP: 293 (6%) Post 41: LaFayette Year Built: 1967 29 VMT: 2,558 Polk Post 38: Rome Road Miles: 1,267 Paulding Year Built: 1966 Full-time Troopers: 11 VMT: 3,614 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.3 Haralson Road Miles: 1,680 Total Crashes in CY09: 1,682 Full-time Troopers: 10 Crashes Worked by GSP: 1,061 (63%) NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.3 Total Crashes in CY09: 3,918 Crashes Worked by GSP: 727 (19%) Post 43: Calhoun Year Built: 2003 VMT: 3,054 Road Miles: 1,349 Full-time Troopers: 11 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.7 Total Crashes in CY09: 2,002 Crashes Worked by GSP: 1,055 (53%) Troop B Post 6: Gainesville Post 7: Toccoa Year Built: 2010 Year Built: 1968 Towns VMT: 6,226 VMT: 4,766 Fannin Union Rabun Road Miles: 2,304 Road Miles: 3,058 27 Full-time Troopers: 17 Full-time Troopers: 12 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 3.3 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 3

Gilmer Total Crashes in CY09: 6,226 Total Crashes in CY09: 3,115 White Habersham Crashes Worked by GSP: 2,606 (42%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 731 (23%) 7 Lumpkin Stephens Post 27: Blue Ridge Year Built: 1961 Dawson Hall Franklin VMT: 2,542 Banks Hart Road Miles: 1,972

Forsyth 6 Full-time Troopers: 10 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.3 37 Total Crashes in CY09: 1,236 Jackson Madison Crashes Worked by GSP: 368 (30%)

Barrow Post 32: Athens Post 37: Cumming Clarke 32 Year Built: 1972 Year Built: 1999 VMT: 8,987 VMT: 5,069 Road Miles: 2,897 Road Miles: 1,744 Post and Troop Oconee Command Full-time Troopers: 13 Full-time Troopers: 9 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 5.5 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.0 Post and Total Crashes in CY09: 8,864 Total Crashes in CY09: 5,227 Communication Center Crashes Worked by GSP: 1,289 (15%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 724 (14%)

Full-time Troopers include troopers and supervisors at the post as of August, 2010. Georgia State Patrol 39

Appendix B (Continued)

Troop C Troop C

*Troop C posts and the motorcycle unit share jurisdictions. VMT: 95,784 Road Miles: 13,099 Total Crashes in CY09: 123,037 Crashes Worked by GSP: 5,604 (5%)

Cobb Gwinnett 9, Post 9: Marietta Post 47: Forest Park 48 Moto *Post 9 is currently housed in Post 48's building. Year Built: 1991 Unit Dekalb HQ Counties Served: Cobb, Fulton Counties Served: Clayton, DeKalb, Fulton Full-time Troopers: 10 Full-time Troopers: 9 Fulton NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.3 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 8.0 47 % of GSP Crashes Worked by Post 9: 9% % of GSP Crashes Worked by Post 47: 7%

Clayton Post 48: Atlanta Motorcycle Unit Year Built: 1980 Counties Served: Clayton, Cobb, DeKalb, Counties Served: All Troop C Fulton Full-time Troopers: 16 Full-time Troopers: 26 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.2 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 5.5 % of GSP Crashes Worked by Post 48: 32% % of GSP Crashes Worked by Post 48: 48%

Post 1: Griffin Post 2: LaGrange Year Built: 1995 Year Built: 1973 (new post to open in 2011) Troop D VMT: 8,751 VMT: 3,818 Road Miles: 2,607 Road Miles: 1,627 Full-time Troopers: 13 Full-time Troopers: 12 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.3 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 5.0 Total Crashes in CY09: 8,362 Total Crashes in CY09: 2,487 Douglas 4 Crashes Worked by GSP: 966 (12%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 1,119 (45%)

Carroll Post 4: Villa Rica Post 24: Newnan

Henry Year Built: 1962 Year Built: 2006 Fayette 24 VMT: 7,614 VMT: 7,206 Road Miles: 2,279 Road Miles: 2,631 Heard Coweta Butts Full-time Troopers: 19 Full-time Troopers: 11 1 Spalding NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.8 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.7 Total Crashes in CY09: 7,260 Total Crashes in CY09: 6,321

Pike Lamar Crashes Worked by GSP: 4,147 (57%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 1,626 (26%) 2 44 Meriwether Troup 26 Monroe Post 26: Thomaston 34 Year Built: 1997

Bibb VMT: 1,972 Upson Road Miles: 2,004 Harris Crawford Talbot Full-time Troopers: 10 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.3

Taylor Total Crashes in CY09: 1,406 Muscogee Crashes Worked by GSP: 563 (40%) Post 34: Manchester Post 44: Forsyth

Post and Troop Year Built: 1961 Year Built: 1971 (new post to open in 2011) Command VMT: 5,721 VMT: 8,762 Road Miles: 2,281 Road Miles: 2,203 Full-time Troopers: 9 Full-time Troopers: 10 Post and NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.0 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 4.0 Communication Center Total Crashes in CY09: 7,550 Total Crashes in CY09: 7,137 Crashes Worked by GSP: 399 (5%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 271 (4%) Full-time Troopers include troopers and supervisors at the post as of August, 2010. Georgia State Patrol 40

Appendix B (Continued)

Post 8: Madison Post 17: Washington Year Built: 1939 Year Built: 1967 Troop E VMT: 3,477 VMT: 2,020 Road Miles: 2,275 Road Miles: 2,378 Elbert Full-Time Troopers: 9 Full-Time Troopers: 11 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.0 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.7 Total Crashes in CY09: 1,813 Total Crashes in CY09: 862 Oglethorpe Crashes Worked by GSP: 322 (18%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 285 (33%) 46 17 Lincoln

Walton Wilkes Post 25: Grovetown 8 Year Built: 2009 Greene Rockdale Newton Taliaferro Columbia VMT: 9,600 Morgan McDuffie 25 Road Miles: 3,285 Warren Full-time Troopers: 12 Richmond Jasper Putnam NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.0 Hancock Total Crashes in CY09: 14,528 Glascock Crashes Worked by GSP: 638 (4%)

33 Post 33: Milledgeville Post 46: Monroe Jones Baldwin Washington Year Built: 1970 Year Built: 1983 VMT: 3,058 VMT: 7,805 Road Miles: 2,640 Road Miles: 2,483 Full-time Troopers: 9 Full-time Troopers: 14 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 3.5 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.5 Total Crashes in CY09: 2,721 Total Crashes in CY09: 6,629 Crashes Worked by GSP: 474 (17%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 1,033 (16%)

Post 16: Helena Year Built: 1962 VMT: 2,122 Troop F Road Miles: 3,063 Jefferson Burke Full-time Troopers: 10 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.3 Total Crashes in CY09: 651 Crashes Worked by GSP: 307 (47%)

Wilkinson Jenkins 21 Post 18: Reidsville Johnson Twiggs 19 Screven Year Built: 1967 VMT: 2,281 20 Emanuel Road Miles: 2,849 45 Bleckley Full-time Troopers: 11 Treutlen Candler Laurens NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.7 Bulloch Total Crashes in CY09: 1,472 Crashes Worked by GSP: 430 (29%)

Dodge Evans Wheeler Toombs 18 Montgomery Post 19: Swainsboro Post 20: Dublin

16 Tattnall Year Built: 1964 Year Built: 2005 VMT: 2,631 VMT: 3,874 Telfair Road Miles: 3,016 Road Miles: 2,966

Jeff Davis Full-time Troopers: 11 Full-time Troopers: 11 Appling NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.7 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 4.5 Total Crashes in CY09: 750 Total Crashes in CY09: 1,901 Crashes Worked by GSP: 399 (53%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 573 (30%)

Post and Troop Post 21: Sylvania Post 45: Statesboro Command Year Built: 1963 Year Built: 2005 VMT: 1,801 VMT: 3,289 Post and Road Miles: 2,380 Road Miles: 2,343 Communication Center Full-time Troopers: 11 Full-time Troopers: 12 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.7 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 3.0 Full-time Troopers include troopers and Total Crashes in CY09: 1,148 Total Crashes in CY09: 2,359 supervisors at the post as of August, 2010. Crashes Worked by GSP: 277 (24%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 1,045 (44%) Georgia State Patrol 41

Appendix B (Continued)

Troop G

Post 10: Americus Post 12: Thomasville Marion Year Built: 1988 (new post to open in 2011) Year Built: 1998 Chattahoochee VMT: 1,957 VMT: 4,379 Schley Road Miles: 2,372 Road Miles: 3,835 Full-time Troopers: 10 Full-time Troopers: 12 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.3 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 3.0 Stewart Webster Sumter 10 Total Crashes in CY09: 1,132 Total Crashes in CY09: 3,043 Crashes Worked by GSP: 336 (30%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 460 (15%)

Quitman 39 Post 14: Colquitt Terrell Lee Randolph Year Built: 2008 VMT: 2,203 Road Miles: 2,641 Clay 40 Calhoun Worth Full-time Troopers: 9 Dougherty NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 3.5 Total Crashes in CY09: 841

Early Baker Crashes Worked by GSP: 245 (29%)

14 Mitchell Colquitt Post 39: Cuthbert Post 40: Albany Miller Year Built: 1966 Year Built: 1971 VMT: 1,333 VMT: 4,618 Seminole Thomas Road Miles: 1,819 Road Miles: 2,677

Decatur Grady Full-time Troopers: 9 Full-time Troopers: 10 12 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.0 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.3 Total Crashes in CY09: 274 Total Crashes in CY09: 3,787 Crashes Worked by GSP: 154 (56%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 294 (8%)

Troop H Post 13: Tifton Post 15: Perry

Houston Year Built: 2005 Year Built: 2000 Peach VMT: 3,625 VMT: 5,950 Road Miles: 2,137 Road Miles: 2,376 15 Full-time Troopers: 15 Full-time Troopers: 12 Macon NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 4.0 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 3.0 Total Crashes in CY09: 1,762 Total Crashes in CY09: 3,638 Pulaski Crashes Worked by GSP: 788 (45%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 444 (12%) Dooly Post 30: Cordele

Wilcox Year Built: 2004 30 VMT: 3,787

Crisp Road Miles: 2,633 Full-time Troopers: 12 Ben Hill NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 4.5 Turner Total Crashes in CY09: 1,185 Crashes Worked by GSP: 559 (47%) Irwin Coffee 36 13 Post 31: Valdosta Post 36: Douglas Tift Year Built: 1999 Year Built: 2002 VMT: 4,691 VMT: 2,435 Berrien Atkinson Road Miles: 2,619 Road Miles: 2,765 Full-time Troopers: 16 Full-time Troopers: 11 Cook NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 4.3 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.7 Total Crashes in CY09: 3,808 Total Crashes in CY09: 1,164 Lanier Crashes Worked by GSP: 1,228 (32%) Crashes Worked by GSP: 432 (37%) 31 Brooks Lowndes

Echols

Post and Troop Command

Post and Communication Center

Full-time Troopers include troopers and supervisors at the post as of August, 2010. Georgia State Patrol 42

Appendix B (Continued)

Post 11: Hinesville Year Built: 1999 VMT: 3,576 Road Miles: 1,283 Full-time Troopers: 10 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.3 Total Crashes in CY09: 1,809 Crashes Worked by GSP: 413 (23%) Effingham

Troop I 42 Post 22: Waycross Year Built: 1966 VMT: 3,440 Bryan Road Miles: 3,940 Chatham Full-time Troopers: 10 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 4.0 11 Total Crashes in CY09: 2,082 Liberty Crashes Worked by GSP: 360 (17%) Long Post 23: Brunswick Bacon Wayne Year Built: 2009 McIntosh VMT: 6,036 Road Miles: 2,254 Pierce Ware Full-time Troopers: 12

Glynn NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 3.0 Total Crashes in CY09: 3,965 Brantley 22 23 Crashes Worked by GSP: 746 (19%)

35 Post 35: Jekyll Island Clinch Camden Charlton Year Built: 2000 Full-time Troopers: 8 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 1.7 Total Crashes in CY09: 62 Crashes Worked by GSP: 62 (100%) *Post 35 serves as the local police force on Jekyll Island.

Post 42: Rincon Year Built: 2001 VMT: 10,717 Road Miles: 2,456 Full-time Troopers: 11 NCO to Trooper Ratio: 1 to 2.7 Total Crashes in CY09: 13,300 Crashes Worked by GSP: 372 (3%)

Post and Troop Command

Post and Communication Center

Full-time Troopers include troopers and supervisors at the post as of August, 2010.

Georgia State Patrol 43

Appendix C Accidents and Citations by County % of Total Total Accidents Total Accidents VMT Citations Troop Post County Accidents Worked Citations Worked by (000’s) Per VMT (CY 2009) by GSP (FY 2010) GSP F 18 Appling 516 109 21% 819 722 1.13 H 36 Atkinson 71 57 80% 1,161 361 3.22 I 22 Bacon 190 27 14% 409 361 1.13 G 40 Baker 15 10 67% 589 187 3.15 E 33 Baldwin 1,634 342 21% 2,237 1,168 1.92 B 6 Banks 486 229 47% 2,399 763 3.14 B 32 Barrow 1,557 52 3% 267 1,681 0.16 A 3 Bartow 3,075 1,927 63% 5,220 4,849 1.08 H 36 Ben Hill 124 53 43% 573 478 1.20 H 13 Berrien 227 121 53% 1,365 559 2.44 D 44 Bibb 5,916 51 1% 4,348 5,727 0.76 F 20 Bleckley 221 23 10% 664 427 1.56 I 22 Brantley 223 81 36% 905 502 1.80 H 31 Brooks 303 132 44% 1,591 603 2.64 I 42 Bryan 661 130 20% 1,608 1,609 1.00 F 45 Bulloch 1,968 818 42% 3,225 2,329 1.38 F 21 Burke 826 51 6% 1,283 878 1.46 D 1 Butts 295 82 28% 1,304 902 1.45 G 39 Calhoun 39 7 18% 457 215 2.13 I 23 Camden 969 171 18% 1,337 2,158 0.62 F 45 Candler 218 152 70% 1,024 625 1.64 D 4 Carroll 3,098 1,490 48% 3,603 3,322 1.08 A 5 Catoosa 1,833 997 54% 5,252 2,162 2.43 I 22 Charlton 147 19 13% 279 422 0.66 I 42 Chatham 12,013 89 1% 4,948 7,817 0.63 G 39 Chattahoochee 51 33 65% 269 228 1.18 A 38 Chattooga 404 332 82% 2,155 655 3.29 A 28 Cherokee 4,135 100 2% 1,745 5,203 0.34 B 32 Clarke 4,904 509 10% 2,667 2,674 1.00 G 39 Clay 17 15 88% 415 152 2.73 C 9, 47, 48 Clayton 8,781 90 1% 2,898 7,228 0.40 I 22 Clinch 123 35 28% 408 336 1.21 C 9, 47, 48 Cobb 18,907 146 1% 3,707 18,239 0.20 H 36 Coffee 858 264 31% 3,346 1,194 2.80 G 12 Colquitt 924 171 19% 2,389 1,270 1.88 E 25 Columbia 3,652 39 1% 1,354 2,688 0.50 H 13 Cook 449 175 39% 1,769 1,195 1.48 D 24 Coweta 3,468 1,561 45% 6,058 3,873 1.56 D 26 Crawford 266 56 21% 1,293 353 3.66 H 30 Crisp 693 267 39% 3,253 1,343 2.42 A 41 Dade 403 206 51% 1,460 956 1.53 B 37 Dawson 725 83 11% 472 605 0.78 G 14 Decatur 560 148 26% 2,440 1,052 2.32 Georgia State Patrol 44

Appendix C (Continued) % of Total Total Accidents Total Accidents VMT Citations Troop Post County Accidents Worked by Citations Worked (000’s) Per VMT (CY 2009) GSP (FY 2010) by GSP C 9, 47,48 DeKalb 25,620 133 1% 3,913 20,295 0.19 F 16 Dodge 188 94 50% 1,048 668 1.57 H 30 Dooly 268 200 75% 2,236 1,248 1.79 G 40 Dougherty 2,856 22 1% 2,400 2,702 0.89 D 4 Douglas 4,162 2,657 64% 3,369 4,292 0.78 G 14 Early 90 21 23% 781 539 1.45 H 31 Echols 37 35 95% 400 121 3.31 I 42 Effingham 626 153 24% 1,931 1,291 1.50 E 17 Elbert 409 25 6% 837 605 1.38 F 19 Emanuel 404 202 50% 2,145 1,066 2.01 F 45 Evans 173 75 43% 613 335 1.83 B 27 Fannin 490 218 44% 1,492 689 2.17 D 24 Fayette 2,685 16 1% 58 2,958 0.02 A 38 Floyd 3,514 395 11% 2,204 2,959 0.74 B 37 Forsyth 3,683 23 1% 1,161 3,770 0.31 B 7 Franklin 595 155 26% 1,664 1,469 1.13 C 9, 47,48 Fulton 45,952 5,220 11% 15,014 30,352 0.49 B 27 Gilmer 324 16 5% 863 850 1.02 E 25 Glascock 46 20 43% 47 114 0.41 I 23 Glynn 2,402 505 21% 6,529 2,875 2.27 A 43 Gordon 1,376 697 51% 2,898 2,241 1.29 G 12 Grady 389 88 23% 1,888 807 2.34 E 8 Greene 448 76 17% 622 952 0.65 C 9, 47,48 Gwinnett 23,777 15 0% 664 19,670 0.03 B 7 Habersham 910 161 18% 165 1,226 0.13 B 6 Hall 5,057 2,326 46% 8,099 4,896 1.65 E 33 Hancock 78 36 46% 847 338 2.51 A 29 Haralson 634 317 50% 2,350 1,025 2.29 D 2 Harris 413 236 57% 3,484 1,191 2.93 B 7 Hart 527 197 37% 1,070 778 1.38 D 24 Heard 168 49 29% 306 375 0.82 D 1 Henry 6,282 47 1% 327 6,097 0.05 H 15 Houston 2,331 156 7% 3,261 3,778 0.86 H 36 Irwin 111 58 52% 507 402 1.26 B 32 Jackson 1,425 158 11% 601 2,536 0.24 E 8 Jasper 294 60 20% 489 417 1.17 F 16 Jeff Davis 241 90 37% 498 461 1.08 Georgia State Patrol 45

Appendix C (Continued) % of Total Total Accidents Total Accidents VMT Citations Troop Post County Accidents Worked by Citations Worked (000’s) Per VMT (CY 2009) GSP (FY 2010) by GSP F 19 Jefferson 144 79 55% 650 711 0.91 F 21 Jenkins 77 77 100% 1,561 356 4.38 F 19 Johnson 109 65 60% 681 323 2.11 E 33 Jones 670 5 1% 481 828 0.58 D 44 Lamar 325 133 41% 774 729 1.06 H 31 Lanier 102 72 71% 904 253 3.57 F 20 Laurens 1,312 489 37% 2,870 2,189 1.31 G 40 Lee 629 110 17% 1,640 782 2.10 I 11 Liberty 1,597 247 15% 1,585 1,945 0.81 E 17 Lincoln 33 6 18% 136 255 0.53 I 11 Long 122 98 80% 1,278 387 3.30 H 31 Lowndes 3,366 989 29% 5,923 3,714 1.59 B 37 Lumpkin 819 618 75% 2,504 694 3.61 H 15 Macon 300 75 25% 958 459 2.09 B 32 Madison 168 167 99% 867 824 1.05 G 10 Marion 197 83 42% 653 259 2.52 E 25 McDuffie 763 395 52% 2,594 913 2.84 I 11 McIntosh 90 68 76% 637 1,244 0.51 D 34 Meriwether 389 254 65% 910 878 1.04 G 14 Miller 85 31 36% 992 277 3.58 G 12 Mitchell 412 64 16% 1,267 817 1.55 D 44 Monroe 896 87 10% 3,488 2,306 1.51 F 16 Montgomery 54 54 100% 477 329 1.45 E 8 Morgan 503 165 33% 2,266 1,333 1.70 A 43 Murray 626 358 57% 2,303 813 2.83 D 34 Muscogee 7,033 21 0% 2,175 4,481 0.49 E 46 Newton 2,337 372 16% 3,933 2,934 1.34 B 32 Oconee 810 403 50% 1,835 1,272 1.44 E 17 Oglethorpe 230 73 32% 664 429 1.55 A 3 Paulding 2,667 1,592 60% 3,160 2,825 1.12 H 15 Peach 905 160 18% 2,072 1,370 1.51 A 28 Pickens 545 193 35% 1,828 944 1.94 I 22 Pierce 276 137 50% 981 583 1.68 D 26 Pike 340 14 4% 1,233 473 2.61 A 29 Polk 877 333 38% 1,124 1,080 1.04 H 15 Pulaski 102 53 52% 1,118 343 3.26 E 8 Putnam 568 21 4% 1,740 775 2.25 Georgia State Patrol 46

Appendix C (Continued) % of Total Total Accidents Total Accidents VMT Citations Troop Post County Accidents Worked by Citations Worked (000’s) Per VMT (CY 2009) GSP (FY 2010) by GSP G 39 Quitman 17 17 100% 348 136 2.56 B 7 Rabun 391 45 12% 290 578 0.50 G 39 Randolph 97 53 55% 1,510 293 5.15 E 25 Richmond 9,938 58 1% 2,864 5,329 0.54 E 46 Rockdale 2,886 114 4% 828 2,779 0.30 G 10 Schley 77 43 56% 490 147 3.33 F 21 Screven 245 149 61% 735 567 1.30 G 14 Seminole 106 45 42% 786 335 2.35 D 1 Spalding 1,785 837 47% 4,504 1,752 2.57 B 7 Stephens 692 173 25% 1,622 715 2.27 G 39 Stewart 53 29 55% 1,629 309 5.27 G 10 Sumter 717 107 15% 1,229 908 1.35 D 34 Talbot 128 124 97% 615 362 1.70 E 17 Taliaferro 46 37 80% 1,007 316 3.19 F 18 Tattnall 272 194 71% 1,020 689 1.48 D 26 Taylor 135 69 51% 863 403 2.14 F 16 Telfair 130 42 32% 734 409 1.79 G 10 Terrell 98 61 62% 851 467 1.82 G 12 Thomas 1,318 137 10% 1,844 1,485 1.24 H 13 Tift 1,086 492 45% 5,162 1,871 2.76 F 18 Toombs 684 127 19% 1,771 870 2.04 B 27 Towns 71 21 30% 278 353 0.79 F 19 Treutlen 93 53 57% 840 531 1.58 D 2 Troup 2,074 883 43% 4,705 2,627 1.79 H 30 Turner 208 77 37% 1,423 893 1.59 F 20 Twiggs 153 43 28% 561 838 0.67 B 27 Union 351 113 32% 868 650 1.34 D 26 Upson 665 424 64% 3,214 743 4.33 A 41 Walker 1,279 855 67% 3,816 1,602 2.38 E 46 Walton 1,406 547 39% 3,765 2,092 1.80 I 22 Ware 1,123 61 5% 708 1,236 0.57 E 25 Warren 129 126 98% 884 556 1.59 E 33 Washington 339 91 27% 1,671 724 2.31 I 23 Wayne 594 70 12% 1,216 1,003 1.21 G 10 Webster 43 42 98% 742 176 4.22 F 16 Wheeler 38 27 71% 666 255 2.61 B 6 White 683 51 7% 593 567 1.05 Georgia State Patrol 47

Appendix C (Continued)

% of Total Total Accidents Total Accidents VMT Citations Troop Post County Accidents Worked Citations Worked (000’s) Per VMT (CY 2009) by GSP (FY 2010) by GSP A 5 Whitfield 2,674 1,117 42% 4,046 3,653 1.11 H 30 Wilcox 16 15 94% 708 303 2.34 E 17 Wilkes 144 144 100% 1,922 415 4.63 F 20 Wilkinson 215 18 8% 318 420 0.76 G 40 Worth 287 152 53% 2,306 947 2.44 State Total 288,956 42,508 15% 292,090* 298,890 0.98

Source: GDOT, GSP Accident Data; GSP Citation Data * GSP wrote an additional 4,130 citations that were not assigned to a county. These citations are included in the total.

Georgia State Patrol 48

Appendix D Local Law Enforcement Survey

The audit team surveyed 279 local law enforcement officials, including all 159 sheriffs, 115 city police chiefs, and the five county police chiefs in the metro Atlanta area. The survey was intended to gauge local opinion of GSP, specifically regarding local reliance on GSP for certain services and GSP’s effectiveness in meeting local needs. The audit team received 161 responses, a 58% response rate.19 Because not all individuals responded to each question, the number of respondents is noted for each question.

General Information 1. In which jurisdiction does your office operate? (161 responses)

County Sheriff’s Office: 55% (89) County Police Department: 4% (6) City Police Department: 40% (65) Combined Government: 1% (1)

2. Please indicate whether your jurisdiction is rural or urban (155 responses).

Rural: 62% (96) Urban: 38% (59)

3. Please estimate the number of sworn officers in your department. (161 responses)

1-10: 17% (27) 11-20: 16% (25) 21-50: 29% (46) 51-100: 19% (31) 101-200: 11% (17) 201-400: 5% (8) Over 400: 4% (7)

4. Please estimate the number of officers/deputies who conduct traffic enforcement patrols in your jurisdiction. (161 responses)

1-10: 39% (63) 11-20: 19% (30) 21-50: 23% (37) 51-100: 12% (20) 101-200: 3% (5) 201-400: 2% (4) Over 400: 1% (2)

19 We received responses from 56% of the sheriffs, 58% of city police chiefs, and 100% of the county police chiefs surveyed. Georgia State Patrol 49

5. Does your office have a unit dedicated to traffic enforcement/crash investigations? (161 responses)

Yes: 45% (72) No: 55% (89)

6. How many officers are in the unit dedicated to traffic enforcement/crash investigations? (71 responses)

1-10: 77% (55) 11-20: 15% (11) 21-50: 4% (3) 51-100: 1% (1) 101-200: 1% (1) 201-400: 0% (0) Over 400: 0% (0)

Local Reliance on GSP 1. Please indicate how often your jurisdiction relies on GSP for the following activities:

Very Very Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Rarely Frequently Patrolling the jurisdiction to pull over drivers violating speed 17% 15% 11% 20% 17% 21% limits and other traffic laws (26) (22) (17) (32) (27) (33) (157 responses)

Conducting road checks to arrest drivers under the 11% 13% 12% 32% 18% 13% influence of alcohol or drugs (17) (21) (19) (51) (28) (21)

(157 responses)

Investigating single vehicle crashes 14% 19% 11% 25% 17% 14% (22) (30) (18) (39) (27) (22) (158 responses)

Investigating multiple vehicle crashes 13% 15% 8% 22% 16% 25% (21) (23) (13) (35) (26) (40) (158 responses)

Investigating crashes resulting in injuries or fatalities 14% 10% 8% 18% 15% 34% (22) (16) (13) (29) (24) (54) (158 responses)

Georgia State Patrol 50

2. Please indicate how often your jurisdiction relies on GSP’s support services:

Very Very Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Rarely Frequently

SWAT 52% 24% 13% 11% 1% 0% (158 responses) (82) (38) (20) (17) (1) (0)

Specialized Collision Reconstruction Team 16% 21% 16% 27% 16% 4% (26) (33) (25) (43) (26) (6) (159 responses)

Aviation 17% 15% 19% 28% 15% 6% (159 responses) (27) (24) (30) (45) (24) (9)

Criminal Interdiction Unit 36% 21% 20% 17% 4% 3% (159 responses) (57) (33) (31) (27) (7) (4)

Added presence at special events 19% 19% 11% 35% 12% 4% (158 responses) (30) (30) (17) (55) (19) (7)

Additional law enforcement backup 8% 18% 11% 37% 20% 6% (12) (29) (17) (59) (32) (10) (159 responses)

3. Please indicate the level of GSP involvement in crash investigations you would like to see in your jurisdiction (as compared to the current level). (160 responses)

Much Less: 3% (4) Less: 1% (1) Same: 63% (100) More: 25% (40) Much More: 9% (15)

4. If you answered that you would like GSP to conduct crash investigations “Much Less” or “Less” than the current level, please indicate why you selected that answer (please check all that apply): (5 responses)

GSP does not typically respond to crashes in a reasonable amount of time: 40% (2)

My office has a sufficient number of officers to conduct crash investigations in my area: 60% (3)

My officers are sufficiently trained to conduct crash investigations in my jurisdiction: 100% (5)

Other: 0% (0)

Georgia State Patrol 51

5. If you answered that you would like GSP to conduct crash investigations “More” or “Much More” than the current level, please indicate why you selected that answer (please check all that apply): (55 responses)

My office does not have enough officers to conduct crash investigations: 44% (24)

The more crashes GSP works, the more time my officers have to focus on criminal law enforcement in our area: 69% (38)

GSP is better trained to handle crash investigations than my officers: 49% (27)

GSP should be the primary agency to conduct crash investigations in my area: 29% (16)

GSP can typically respond to calls for crash investigations quicker than my office: 2% (1)

Other: 9% (5) Responses included a desire for more GSP coverage on the interstates and for GSP to work more fatal accidents.

Additional comments related to GSP’s crash investigation in your jurisdiction: (22 comments) Multiple responders indicated they believed GSP was understaffed and could not respond to crashes in a timely manner. Responders also indicated they are more likely to utilize GSP for fatal crashes or those that involve one of their local officers. Finally, two responders indicated that GSP should focus more on assisting rural areas, and one responder stated GSP should focus on more crashes than drug interdiction.

6. Please indicate the level of GSP involvement in traffic enforcement you would like to see in your jurisdiction (as compared to the current level): (159 responses)

Much Less: 1% (1) Less: 1% (1) Same: 57% (90) More: 31% (49) Much More: 11% (18)

Georgia State Patrol 52

7. If you answered that you would like GSP to conduct traffic enforcement “Much Less” or “Less” than the current level, please indicate why you selected that answer (please check all that apply): (2 responses)

I have a sufficient number of officers to conduct traffic enforcement in my jurisdiction: 100% (2)

My officers are sufficiently trained to conduct traffic enforcement in my jurisdiction: 50% (1)

My office has its own strategic plan for traffic enforcement that does not rely on GSP involvement: 50% (1)

Traffic laws are usually adhered to by motorists, and, consequently, GSP’s assistance is not needed: 0% (0)

Other: 0% (0)

8. If you answered that you would like GSP to conduct traffic enforcement “More” or “Much More” than the current level, please indicate why you selected that answer (please check all that apply): (67 responses)

GSP’s traffic enforcement increases public safety in my jurisdiction. GSP has specific training to conduct traffic enforcement: 69% (46)

The more traffic enforcement GSP conducts, the more time my officers can devote to criminal law enforcement in my jurisdiction: 63% (42)

My office does not have enough officers to conduct a satisfactory level of traffic enforcement in my jurisdiction: 40% (27)

The more citations GSP writes for traffic violations, the more revenue my jurisdiction receives: 13% (9)

Other: 12% (9) Additional reasons included increasing public safety and reducing crashes; deterring crime; and demonstrating law enforcement collaboration.

Additional comments related to GSP’s traffic enforcement in your jurisdiction: (14 responses) Multiple responders indicated that GSP was too understaffed to provide a constant presence in their area. Additionally, multiple responders stated they would like more GSP enforcement on the interstates.

Georgia State Patrol 53

9. Please indicate the level of GSP involvement in DUI enforcement you would like to see in your jurisdiction (as compared to the current level): (160 responses)

Much Less: 1% (1) Less: 1% (2) Same: 52% (83) More: 33% (52) Much More: 14% (22)

10. If you answered that you would like GSP to conduct DUI enforcement “Much Less” or “Less” than the current level, please indicate why you selected that answer (please check all that apply): (3 responses)

I have a sufficient number of officers to conduct DUI enforcement in my jurisdiction: 100% (3)

My officers are sufficiently trained to conduct DUI enforcement in my jurisdiction: 66% (2)

My office has its own strategic plan for DUI enforcement that does not rely on GSP involvement: 33% (1)

My jurisdiction does not have a major DUI problem that requires GSP involvement: 0% (0)

Other: 33% (1) Additional reason was for GSP to focus more on traffic enforcement on the interstate.

11. If you answered that you would like GSP to conduct DUI enforcement “More” or “Much More” than the current level, please indicate why you selected that answer (please check all that apply): (74 responses)

GSP’s DUI enforcement increase public safety in my jurisdiction: 78% (58)

GSP has specific training to conduct DUI enforcement: 41% (30)

The more DUI enforcement GSP conducts, the more time my officers can devote to criminal law enforcement in my jurisdiction: 53% (39)

My office does not have enough officers to conduct a satisfactory level of DUI enforcement in my jurisdiction: 34% (25)

Other: 3% (2) Responder indicated that GSP does all they can with limited funding.

Additional comments related to GSP’s DUI enforcement in your jurisdiction: (14 responses) Multiple responders indicated a desire to increase the number of DUI road checks they conduct in collaboration with GSP.

Georgia State Patrol 54

GSP Effectiveness 1. To what extent, if at all, do you believe GSP is effective at the following activities in your jurisdiction:

Somewhat Moderately Very Not Ineffective Effective Effective Effective Effective Applicable

Enforcing laws related to speeding 2% 15% 6% 35% 36% 6% (3) (24) (10) (56) (57) (9) (159 responses)

Enforcing laws related to occupant 3% 14% 7% 39% 32% 6% restraints (4) (22) (11) (62) (50) (9) (158 responses)

Identifying and arresting drivers who are under the 3% 14% 9% 31% 39% 4% influence of drugs and (4) (22) (14) (49) (62) (7) alcohol. (158 responses)

Responding to crashes in a timely 6% 10% 14% 34% 25% 10% manner (10) (16) (22) (54) (40) (16) (158 responses)

Clearing crashes from the road in a timely 4% 9% 9% 37% 31% 10% manner. (6) (14) (15) (58) (49) (16) (158 responses)

Additional comments related to GSP’s effectiveness in your jurisdiction: (37 responses) Multiple responders commented that GSP’s response time is not satisfactory. Some suggested this was due to low manpower, with one responder citing troopers’ involvement in other duties such as SWAT and drug interdiction. Some responders indicated GSP is rarely in their jurisdiction, while others praised GSP for its professionalism and partnership with their office.

Georgia State Patrol 55

Coordination with GSP 1. To what extent, if at all, does GSP coordinate with your office to plan for the following activities?

Very Very Not Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently Rarely Frequently Applicable Standard Traffic Enforcement Patrols 19% 14% 17% 23% 21% 4% 3 (29) (21) (26) (36) (33) (6) (4) (155 responses)

Concentrated Patrol Efforts 17% 11% 18% 25% 21% 6% 2% (26) (17) (27) (39) (32) (10) (3) (154 responses)

Road Checks 10% 11% 12% 37% 20% 10% 1% (156 responses) (15) (17) (18) (58) (31) (15) (2)

DUI Enforcement 15% 9% 18% 26% 21% 9% 1% (155 responses) (24) (14) (28) (40) (33) (14) (2)

Crash Investigation Availability 14% 14% 10% 27% 23% 12% 1% (21) (21) (16) (42) (35) (18) (2) (155 responses)

Holiday/Special Event Traffic 15% 9% 13% 27% 24% 11% 1% Enforcement (24) (14) (20) (42) (37) (17) (1) (155 responses)

Additional comments related to GSP’s coordination with your office to plan: (29 responses) Multiple responders indicated that they have a good working relationship with GSP.

For additional information or for copies of this report call 404-657-5220 or see our website: http://www.audits.ga.gov/rsaAudits