2910 NORTH 44th STREET • SUITE 410 • PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85018 • (602) 553-0333 • FAX (602) 553-0051

WILLIAM THOMSON DEPUTY AUDITOR GENERAL

DEBRA K. DAVENPORT, CPA AUDITOR GENERAL

STATE OF ARIZONA

OFFICE OF THE

AUDITOR GENERAL

January 19, 2010

Members of the Arizona Legislature

The Honorable Janice K. Brewer, Governor

Roger Vanderpool, Director Arizona Department of Public Safety

Transmitted herewith is a report of the Auditor General, A Questions-and-Answers document on the Department of Public Safety—Photo Enforcement Program. This document was prepared in response to a November 3, 2009, resolution of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. This work was conducted as part of the sunset review process prescribed in Arizona Revised Statutes §41-2951 et seq.

Our questions-and-answers documents were created to provide answers to multiple questions on a particular subject area. We hope that these questions-and-answers documents will fill a need and provide you with timely and useful information on topics of particular interest.

My staff and I will be pleased to discuss or clarify items in the report.

This report will be released to the public on January 20, 2010.

Sincerely,

Debbie Davenport Auditor General

Attachment

2010

Department ofPublic Safety—Photo Enforcement Program

QUESTIONSand

ANSWERSSummary

The Department’s photoenforcement program beganoperating in October 2008.The program has 76 photoenforcement camera unitson highways state-wide.These cameras take photosof vehicles exceeding thespeed limit by 11 mph ormore. If the Department canidentify the driver, it notifieshim/her of the offense bymail. Individuals can pay thefine, deny responsibility, orrequest a hearing. Projectedrevenue for the program’sfirst year was $90 million,but only $37 million in fineswas collected. Reasonsinclude that detectionsdecrease as motoristsbecome aware of theprogram and change theirdriving behavior. Moniescollected are used forprogram operations, andsome revenue is depositedin the State General Fund—$19 million as of October2009. Surveys indicate thatthe majority of Arizonanssupport photo enforcement.

January • Report No. 10 - 02

In 2008, Arizona Revised Statutes(A.R.S.) §41-1722 established theDepartment’s photo enforcementprogram with the stated purpose ofenforcing speed requirements andproviding traffic control, but the conceptwas studied and piloted earlier. In July2008, the Department contracted with avendor to construct and operate thestate-wide speed photo enforcementsystem. The first units went into operationin October 2008. Prior to this, in 2005,the Arizona Department of Transportationinitiated a research study on thetechnical feasibility of setting up a photoenforcement system on MetropolitanPhoenix freeways. As noted in this study,extreme speeding on freewayscontributes to increased collisionfatalities, injuries, property damage, andpublic safety costs. The study also notedthat photo enforcement had been proven

effective in reducing speeding on citystreets, but using this technology onfreeways is technically more challengingand was largely untested. The studyidentified 12 ideal characteristics for asystem to be effective, including theability to identify both the driver and rearlicense plate, and to cover five trafficlanes in one direction. Based on detailedinformation from 6 vendors, the studyfound that most of these vendors couldmeet the majority of the characteristics,but none could meet all 12.

Following that study, the Department wasinvolved in two photo enforcement pilotprojects. Specifically, in July 2007, theDepartment entered into anintergovernmental agreement with theCity of Scottsdale to continue operatingthe photo enforcement system thatScottsdale had established in January2006 on its 8-mile section of the Loop101 freeway. The Department operatedthis system until June 2008 when,according to department officials,construction in this section made itimpossible to keep fixed camera unitsthere. In addition, in August 2007, as partof a pilot project, the Departmentcontracted with a vendor to operate twomobile photo enforcement units on statehighways. According to departmentofficials, one mobile unit operated solelyin Pinal County because that countyfunded the project and was experiencinghigh collision levels, and the otheroperated on highways throughout theState. This pilot project ended when thecontract ended in August 2009.

Question 1: When did theDepartment of Public Safety’s(Department’s) photoenforcement program beginand what is its purpose?

The Department’s photoenforcement program, whichenforces speed requirementsand provides traffic control,began operating in October2008. However, the feasibility ofimplementing such a programwas studied as early as 2005,and in 2007, the Department wasinvolved in two pilot projects.

The Department’s photo enforcement systemconsists of fixed and mobile photo enforcementunits operating on highways state-wide.1 As ofDecember 2009, there were 36 fixed photoenforcement units on freeways, all of which arelocated in Maricopa County (see textbox). The

Department’s contract allows for up to 120 fixedunits. The Department, in collaboration with theArizona Department of Transportation, determinedthe location of the fixed units based on severalfactors, including placing fixed units in areas wherecollision data showed a high number of speed-related injury and fatal collisions; and in transitionareas where two or more freeways merge in orderto slow traffic and reduce stopping distances andto allow motorists to more safely react to lanechanges and merging traffic. The Departmenteliminated areas with current or pendingconstruction as potential sites to avoid having tomove the cameras during the construction process.A.R.S. §28-654 requires that at least two warningsigns be placed ahead of a photo enforcementunit: one at more than 300 feet before the unit, andanother at approximately 300 feet before the unit.

As of December 2009, 40 mobile photoenforcement units were in operation on highwaysstate-wide, with approximately 21 units being

deployed in high-collision areasoutside MaricopaCounty. Thecontract allows forup to 50 mobileunits. According todepartmentofficials, photoenforcementprogram staff ineach of its districtsstate-widedetermine theweekly locationschedule for themobile units basedon collision datafrom theDepartment’sdatabase systemand onobservations bylocal officersindicating the needfor a mobile unit ina specific area.2

1 As of December 2009, the Department’s photo enforcement system consisted only of speed enforcement units. However, its contract alsoenables the Department to deploy red light enforcement systems. Local Arizona communities are responsible for administering red lightand speed photo enforcement systems on city streets or intersections (see Question 3, page 3 through 4). In some instances, sections ofstate routes, such as State Route 260 in Star Valley, fall under local jurisdiction.

2 The Department divides its state-wide operations into 15 geographical locations, or districts.page 2

Question 2: What are the componentsof the Department’s photo enforcementsystem, and how are they monitored?

As of December 2009, the Department’sphoto enforcement system consisted of 36fixed and 40 mobile photo enforcementunits operating on highways state-wide.The Department determines the locationsfor both the fixed and mobile units basedon collision data and other factors, suchas current or pending construction.

Photo Enforcement Fixed Unit Locations

Source: Auditor General staff analysis of information on the Department’s Web site athttp://www.azdps.gov/Services/Photo_Enforcement/Cameras.

NumberFreeway of Units Direction Location

I-10 16 Eastbound 287th Avenue, Miller Road, Watson Road, 59th Avenue,43rd Avenue, 31st Avenue, 15th Avenue, 16th Street

Westbound 40th Street, 24th Street, 16th Street, Buckeye Road,15th Avenue, 59th Avenue, 75th Avenue, 91st Avenue

SR-101 8 Northbound Glendale Avenue

Southbound Olive Avenue, Bethany Home Road, Indian SchoolRoad, McDowell Road

Eastbound 75th Avenue, 59th Avenue, 35th Avenue

I-17 6 Northbound Thunderbird Road, Bell Road

Southbound Bethany Home Road, Indian School Road, 15thAvenue, 12th Street

SR-51 3 Southbound Bethany Home Road, Highland Avenue, Thomas Road

US-60 3 Westbound Alma School Road, Mesa Drive, Gilbert Road

page 3

only, 1 allows for speed only, and 11 states,including Arizona and the District of Columbia, allowfor both red light and speed photo enforcementprograms (see textbox).

Arizona appears to have one of the most extensivespeed photo enforcement programs. According tothe Insurance Institute’s information, of the 12 statesand the District of Columbia that allow for speedphoto enforcement programs, only Arizona and theDistrict of Columbia have laws that specificallyprovide for its use state-wide or jurisdiction-wide.2

Of the remaining 11 states, 3 have no lawsspecifically addressing its use, and 8 have laws that

Question 3: How does theDepartment’s photo enforcementprogram compare to other states’programs?

Based on the Insurance Institute forHighway Safety’s (Insurance Institute)photo enforcement system information,Arizona appears to have one of the mostextensive speed photo enforcementprograms. The Insurance Institute reportsthat there are 25 states, including Arizonaand the District of Columbia, that allow foror have photo enforcement programs. Ofthe jurisdictions that allow speed photoenforcement, only Arizona and the Districtof Columbia have laws that specificallyallow its jurisdiction-wide use, while theothers either have no laws specificallyallowing its use or laws that restrict whereor how it can be used. In addition to thesestate efforts, there are almost 450communities nation-wide that are involvedin photo enforcement operations, including14 within Arizona.

Mobile units are also used in construction zones.The Department’s mobile units have the samesignage requirements as the fixed units.1

The Department and its photo enforcement systemvendor share responsibility for monitoring thesystem. According to the Department’s contract,the vendor is responsible for providing, installing,operating, and maintaining the equipment,including mobile unit vehicle maintenance. Photoenforcement equipment should be capable ofoperating 24 hours per day, 7 days per week,except when maintenance or repair is beingperformed, and each mobile unit must be deployed

a minimum of 425 hours each quarter. The vendormust provide weekly and monthly statistics to theDepartment regarding equipment failures.According to department officials, the vendor’semployees check speed detection calibration onthe fixed units monthly, and on the mobile units atthe beginning and end of each shift. In addition, aspart of its efforts to provide further oversight of itsvendor, department officers conduct spot checkson mobile units to check speed detectioncalibration and system set-up requirements,including unit location, sign placement, and correctspeed limit.

As of September 2009, according to the InsuranceInstitute’s Web site, 25 states and the District ofColumbia allow for or have red light and/or speedphoto enforcement programs. Of those 25 statesand the District of Columbia, 13 allow for red light

1 According to a department official, up to four signs are often deployed per photo enforcement unit in large construction projects to solicit ahigher rate of voluntary compliance to the speed limit.

2 A department official reported that Arizona’s photo enforcement program was the first state-wide photo enforcement program run by a lawenforcement agency.

States and District with PhotoEnforcement Programs

Red lightAlabama, California, Delaware, Florida, Georgia,Missouri, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia

SpeedMassachusetts

Red light and speedArizona, Colorado, District of Columbia, Illinois,Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, New Mexico, Ohio,Oregon, Tennessee, and Washington

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, HighwayLoss Data Institute. (2009, September).Automated enforcement laws. RetrievedSeptember 18, 2009, from www.iihs.org.

1 If the driver’s information is not available, such as when a person is speeding while in a rental vehicle, a notice will be sent to the registeredowner requesting him/her to identify who the driver is.

2 The Maricopa County Attorney requires that the Department contact, interview, and report to the County Attorney on each person chargedwith a criminal traffic violation.

page 4

the process stops. During the program’s first yearof operation, according to vendor data, more than785,000 (or 47 percent) of the nearly 1.7 milliondetections were rejected.

If both the driver and license plate photos are clear,the Department and its vendor use driver’s licenseinformation, including photos and/or registrationinformation from Arizona and other states’ motorvehicle departments, to identify the vehicle’s driver,who may or may not be the registered owner. If adriver is identified, the Department’s photoenforcement vendor mails him/her a notice foreither a civil traffic offense, which is used when thedriver was traveling at least 11 mph over the postedspeed limit, or a criminal traffic citation, which isused when the driver’s speed is consideredexcessive as outlined in law (see textbox, page 5).1In the program’s first year, according to vendordata, approximately 3,500, or 0.4 percent, of thenearly 898,000 photo enforcement violations werefor criminal violations. Criminal traffic offensescommitted in Maricopa County require theDepartment to personally interview and provideindividuals with criminal citations.2 For all otherArizona counties, the Department mails the criminaltraffic citation.

restrict where or how speed photo enforcement canbe used. For example, Colorado restricts theplacement of its speed enforcement cameras toconstruction and school zones, residential areas, orareas adjacent to a municipal park; and Oregonlimits its use to no more than 4 hours per day inany one location.

In addition to state photo enforcement efforts, manylocal communities have programs. According to theInsurance Institute, as of September 2009, almost450 communities are involved in operating photoenforcement systems within the 25 states that allowfor systems. In Arizona, besides the Department’sprogram, 14 communities administer red light,speed, or a combination of photo enforcementprograms (see textbox).

Arizona Communities with PhotoEnforcement Programs

Red lightAvondale, Glendale, and Peoria

SpeedEl Mirage, Eloy, and Star Valley

Red light and speedChandler, Mesa, Paradise Valley, Phoenix,Prescott Valley, Scottsdale, Tempe, and Tucson

Source: Insurance Institute, 2009; informationobtained from the Pinal County Sheriff’s Website on January 6, 2010, which indicates thatin January 2009 Pinal County discontinuedits program; and information obtained fromthe City of Eloy’s Web site on January 6,2010, which indicates that it intended tobegin a photo speed enforcement program inJuly 2009.

Question 4: How does the photoenforcement process work?

If a driver exceeds the posted speed limitby 11 miles per hour (mph) or more in aphoto enforcement zone, the camera willflash and take photographs of the driverand rear license plate. If the Departmentcan identify the driver, it will notify him/herof the offense by mail. Individuals canrespond to the traffic violation notice bypaying the fine, denying responsibility, orrequesting a hearing.

The Department’s photo enforcement processinvolves multiple steps and other entities. Theprocess begins when one of its fixed or mobilephoto enforcement units is triggered by a driverwho has exceeded the posted speed limit by 11mph or more. The system photographs thevehicle’s driver and the rear license plate. Then theDepartment’s photo enforcement vendor ensuresthe photos are clear. If either the driver or licenseplate photo is not clear because of issues such assun glare or another vehicle obstructing the picture,

Once the driver receives notice of a civil or criminaloffense, he/she has several options:1

DDrriivveerr mmaayy ppaayy ffiinnee——The driver can takeresponsibility for the civil or criminal traffic offenseand pay the fine. The Administrative Office of theCourts contracts with a vendor to collect andprocess all of the fines. Depending on courtjurisdiction, the fine can be paid in person, bytelephone, on the Internet, or through the mail. Acivil traffic violation costs $181.50, which includes a10 percent surcharge for the Clean ElectionsCommission, and it does not add any points to thedriver’s license. However, effective September 30,2009, for commercial driver’s license holders, thecourt shall transmit records of these violations tothe Arizona Department of Transportation, whichuses this information to add points to the driver’slicense and subsequently to determine whether tosuspend or revoke the license. According tostatute, an accumulation of 8 or more points withina 12-month period shall result in requiring the driverto attend traffic survival school or his/her driver’slicense being suspended. The monies collectedfrom civil traffic violations are deposited in the PhotoEnforcement Fund and subject to legislativeappropriations for the program’s operation (seeQuestion 6, pages 9 through 12, for further detailson the program’s appropriations).

1 According to a department official, the number of individuals reported under each option is not mutually exclusive because individuals mayfirst take one action and then another. For example, an individual may be counted as requesting a hearing in one month and then be countedagain in a later month if he/she pays the fine.

2 A department official indicated that although the Department receives some monies from the extra fees associated with criminal photoenforcement traffic violations, by statute, none of these monies go to Highway Patrol, but rather support other activities, such as its crimelab.

3 Insurance institute for Highway Safety, Highway Loss Data Institute. (2009, September). Automated enforcement laws. Retrieved September18, 2009, from www.iihs.org. The Insurance Institute’s information does not comment on Arizona’s practice to hold the driver liable, soauditors also used department information such as its business rules and sample traffic speed citations.

page 5

According to statute, a criminal speed traffic citationhas a base fine of up to $500, is subject tosurcharges, which in some cases can more thandouble the base amount, and will add points to thedriver’s license if the violation results in conviction orjudgment. In Maricopa County, the current fines,including surcharges, range from $235 to $460depending on the miles per hour over the postedspeed limit. According to the Administrative Officeof the Courts, the base fine amounts for photoenforcement criminal citations are processed in thesame manner as criminal speed complaints issuedby a law enforcement officer and according tostatute are deposited with the County Treasurer inthe county where the violation occurred. Thesurcharges are also distributed according tostatutory requirements.2

In the program’s first year, according to vendordata, of the almost 653,000 payable notices ofviolations sent, approximately 246,000 individualspaid the fine. According to a department official, itdoes not consider all of the notices sent to bepayable. For example, notices sent to registeredowners whose information did not match thedriver’s, such as notices sent to rental carcompanies, are not considered payable becausethe registered owner has the option but is notrequired to report who the driver is.

IInnddiivviidduuaall mmaayy ddeennyy rreessppoonnssiibbiilliittyy——If the individualreceiving the notice believes he/she was not thedriver, he/she can send an affidavit stating he/shewas not the driver along with a copy of his/herdriver’s license. According to the Insurance Institutefor Highway Safety, of the 12 states and the Districtof Columbia that allow for speed photoenforcement programs, 3 states, including Arizona,hold the driver liable for the violation, 5 hold theowner liable, and the remaining 5 do not indicatewhom they hold liable for the violation.3 Theindividual receiving the notice also has the option ofnotifying the Department who the driver was so thatthe Department can send the civil notice or criminalcitation to the driver. During the program’s first year,according to vendor data, of the more than 550,000

Examples of Speed Photo EnforcementCivil and Criminal Traffic Offenses in

Arizona

Postedspeed limit Civil Criminal55 mph 66 to 85 mph 86 mph or more65 mph 76 to 85 mph 86 mph or more75 mph 86 to 89 mph 90 mph or more

Source: Auditor General staff analysis of the Department’sphoto enforcement program policy related to civiland criminal traffic offenses developed inaccordance with A.R.S. Title 28, Chapter 3, Article 6.

If the individual does not take any of the previouslylisted actions, either the Department or the court willtake additional actions:

CCiivviill cciittaattiioonn wwiillll bbee iissssuueedd——If the individual doesnot respond to a civil traffic offense notice within 60days of the photo enforcement speeding incident,the Department will send a civil citation. A civilcitation requires the individual to now respond tothe court. If the individual ignores the citation, thecourt will notify the Department that the individualneeds to be process served (i.e., have the citationdelivered to a responsible person at the individual’saddress of record by a contracted process server).3

By law, civil citations have to be served within 90days after the citation is mailed or they aredismissed. However, if the individual requests ahearing or is process served, but fails to appear incourt, the court can take further actions such asautomatically finding the driver responsible for theviolation, suspending his/her driver’s license forfailure to appear, or sending the amount owed tocollections. In addition, if the individual was processserved, he/she would be subject to paying a $40process service fee. In the program’s first year,according to vendor data, nearly 184,000 driverswere eligible to be process served because theyhad ignored the civil citation. Of those eligible to beserved, almost 34,000, or 18 percent, were served.

CCrriimmiinnaall cciittaattiioonn mmaayy bbee pprroocceessss sseerrvveedd——If theindividual does not respond to an initial criminalcitation, the Department will attempt to processserve (i.e., deliver directly to) the individual thecriminal citation for up to a year, after which time itwill be dismissed. If the individual has been servedand ignores the criminal citation, the court mayissue a warrant for his/her arrest and suspendhis/her driver’s license. In addition, the individual issubject to paying the $40 process service fee ifsuccessfully served, whether or not he/she is foundguilty of the criminal traffic offense, and any localcourt costs if he/she is found guilty. In theprogram’s first year, according to vendor data,nearly 1,100 drivers, or 31 percent, of the almost3,500 individuals issued criminal citations ignoredthe citations. Of those eligible to be process served,163, or 15 percent, were served by a process

notices sent to registered owners who could havebeen the driver, almost 349,000 individualsidentified other drivers. Of the more than 347,000registered owners whose information did not matchthe driver’s, more than 102,000 identified the driver.If the Department confirms that the individual is notthe driver based on the information submitted, andthe individual does not indicate who the driver was,the process stops.1 However, if the Departmentconfirms that the individual is the driver based onthe information submitted, the process will continue,and the individual will have to pay the fine or go tocourt. In the program’s first year, according tovendor data, the Department rejected the claims of765, or 0.2 percent, of the nearly 349,000individuals who could have been the driver butdeclared they were not.

IInnddiivviidduuaall mmaayy rreeqquueesstt aa hheeaarriinngg——The individualcan request a hearing to contest the civil or criminaltraffic offense. The justice court in the county wherethe speeding violation occurred will hold thehearing. During the program’s first year ofoperations, according to vendor data, more than348,000 individuals requested hearings or endedup in court by not taking any action.2 If at thehearing the court determines that the individual isnot responsible, the process stops. On the otherhand, if the individual is found responsible for a civilviolation, he/she must pay the fine, and may havehis/her license revoked or suspended if he/sheholds a commercial driver’s license. In addition, thecourt has other options available for criminalcitations, including adding points to or suspendingthe individual’s driver’s license, and in some casesallowing the driver to attend defensive drivingschool. Once the fine is paid and other courtrequirements are met, the process stops. However,if the individual fails to appear at the court hearingor pay the fine, the court can take other actions,such as suspending the driver’s license, or issuingan arrest warrant if the individual fails to appear forthe criminal citation hearing. Further, the court mayattempt to collect the fine through a collectionagency or in cooperation with the Motor VehicleDivision by placing a hold on an individual’s vehicleregistration until he/she pays any unpaid trafficviolation fees to the court or the court waives thosefees.

page 6

1 According to a department official, its photo enforcement vendor does not have an automatic means for identifying the number of individualswho denied that they were the driver and did not nominate another driver or provided insufficient information to identify the driver.

2 The vendor’s data does not separately track those individuals who requested a hearing from those who ended up in court by not taking anyaction.

3 According to a department official, as allowed, it has delegated its process serving responsibilities for civil citations to its photo enforcementvendor who subcontracts with another vendor. The person who was served the citation, received directly or through a responsible person athis/her home, pays a $40 fee to the Administrative Office of the Courts, which covers the cost of this service.

page 7

1 According to the Department, the amount of revenue generated from citations issued during the first year may be higher because the $37million in revenue does not include revenue that will be generated from pending court cases. According to the vendor, as of December 18,2009, of approximately 500,000 citations filed into the justice courts state-wide, 67,000 (or 13 percent) are not yet disposed.

2 A total of 78 units were in operation from February 2009 to August 2009 at which time two mobile units, operating under a prior contract,were removed because that contract ended. As of August 2009, a total of 76 units were in operation.

2008 to September 2009 (see Question 6, pages 9through 12, for how this money was distributed).1 Inshort, the revenue is less than projected becausethere are fewer paid violations than projected, inpart because some individuals are ignoring theirviolations, resulting in the need to process servemore violations than can be processed within theestablished time frame (see Question 4, pages 4through 7 for more information). In addition, there isless revenue than projected because there havebeen fewer violations than projected, for severalreasons:

FFeewweerr uunniittss iinn ppllaaccee——The initial projection wasbased on having a total of 100 cameras in place,but, according to department officials, in January2009, the Department and Governor’s Officemutually decided to limit the program to the 78units in operation or in the installation process atthat time because there were multiple bills beforethe Legislature about photo enforcement.2 Somebills involved eliminating the program, or addingrequirements to it. However, it is unknown whetherthe revenue projection would have been attainedeven with 100 units in operation.

DDeetteeccttiioonn iissssuueess uunnddeerreessttiimmaatteedd——Although itappears that the initial projection considereddetection issues such as blurry photos, the extentof those issues may have been underestimated.According to the Department’s photo enforcementvendor’s data, in the first year of operation, morethan 785,000 of the approximately 1.7 milliondetections (or 47 percent) were rejected. Accordingto the Department, rejections occur because thedriver or license plate cannot be identified becauseof issues such as sun glare, another vehicleblocking the speeding vehicle, poor picture quality,or motorists’ efforts to block or hide their faces. TheGovernor’s budget documents did not specify thenumber or percentage of unusable photosaccounted for in its revenue projections.

Former Governor Napolitano’s fiscal year 2009budget documents projected that if 100 photoenforcement cameras were added on highways,first-year revenue from these cameras couldprovide $90 million for department operations. Inaddition, the documents noted that photoenforcement would reduce collisions and injuriesand the resulting economic burden on government,motorists, and passengers. Although theGovernor’s budget documents did not providedetails of how this figure was determined,according to information from the Department andJoint Legislative Budget Committee staff, it appearsthat this projection was based on data from aninitial photo enforcement program that the City ofScottsdale administered on its section of the Loop101 freeway.

Actual revenues for the first year of the photoenforcement program were significantly less thaninitial projections. Specifically, based on departmentinformation, the program generated approximately$37 million during its first year of operation, October

Question 5: Has the program raisedthe revenues it was projected to raise?Why or why not?

Former Governor Napolitano’s Officeprojected that the photo enforcementprogram would raise $90 million during itsfirst year, but the program raised only $37million. The program has not raised theprojected revenues for various reasons,including fewer units in place thanoriginally projected and that, according tothe Department, detections decrease asmotorists become aware of the programand change their driving behavior.

service vendor. A department official reported that ifthe criminal speed violator fails to appear in court,for up to one year from the date of the violation, the

photo enforcement officers will continue to locate,serve, and possibly arrest him/her.

page 8

FFeewweerr ddeetteeccttiioonnss bbyy mmoobbiillee uunniittss——The Scottsdalephoto enforcement program that was considered inthe revenue projections that the Governor’s Officedeveloped used only fixed units, whereas theDepartment’s program also includes mobile units.Department reports indicate that from October 2008to September 2009, fixed units captured four timesas many violations as the mobile units, even thoughthere were more mobile units than fixed units.Department officials reported several reasons thatmobile units capture fewer violations. Mobile unitscover fewer lanes of traffic and are usually locatedon less-traveled highways than fixed units. Inaddition, the fully marked vehicles are morenoticeable than the fixed units, and the signsindicating the presence of a mobile unit stand outmore on the less traveled, open highways.According to the Department, while this negativelyaffects revenue, it increases voluntary compliance,which is the purpose of speed enforcement.

VVoolluunnttaarryy ccoommpplliiaannccee bbyy mmoottoorriissttss——According todepartment officials, as people become aware ofthe photo enforcement program, their drivingbehavior changes and they slow down in thoseareas, resulting in fewer violations and thus lessrevenue. For example, for two fixed units at busylocations on State Route 51, the number ofdetections increased from approximately 1,000each when the units first were put into operation onOctober 31, 2008, to over 20,000 speed violationseach by the following month (see Table 1).However, the number of detections for each unitdeclined significantly in December and hascontinued at a much lower level. Similar results areindicated for fixed units as a whole, as seen inFigure 1. For example, 10 fixed units went intooperation in October 2008 followed by an increasein detections in November, and 26 units went intoplace by February 2009 with an increase indetections in March.

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

Oct. 08 Nov. 08 Dec. 08 Jan. 09 Feb. 09 Mar. 09 Apr. 09 May-10 Jun. 09 Jul. 09 Aug. 09 Sep. 09

Dete

ction

s

Month of Operation

Total Mobile Unit Detections Total Fixed Unit Detections Total Detections

Figure 1: Number of Photo Enforcement Speed Violations Detected per MonthOctober 2008 through September 2009

Source: Auditor General staff analysis of monthly photo enforcement data provided to the Department by its photoenforcement vendor for October 2008 through September 2009.

Location Oct. 081 Nov. 08 Dec. 08 Jan. 09 Feb. 09 Mar. 09 Apr. 09 May 09 Jun. 09 Jul. 09 Aug. 09 Sep. 09

SR 51 Highland Avenue

1,040 21,027 8,216 4,734 4,662 5,458 4,769 4,779 3,647 3,261 2,457 2,495

SR 51 Bethany Home Road

1,363 23,595 5,002 4,904 4,811 4,975 5,308 3,860 4,480 6,592 3,613 2,576

Table 1: Number of Detected Speed Violations for Two Selected Fixed UnitsOctober 2008 through September 2009

Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data provided to the Department by its photo enforcement vendor for October 2008 throughSeptember 2009.

1 The units were put into operation on October 31, 2008.

page 9

According to A.R.S. §41-1722, monies resultingfrom civil traffic violations and citations issuedthrough the state photo enforcement program aredeposited in the Fund, are subject to legislativeappropriation, and are to be used for programadministration and personnel costs. TheDepartment is responsible for distributing fundmonies to the entities involved in operating theprogram. According to the Department, becausethe program is new and does not have a history of

revenue and expenditures, the Departmentdistributes a percentage of all incoming revenue toeach entity. The Department determined thesepercentages based on estimated program revenue,appropriation amounts, and contract requirements.In fiscal years 2009 and 2010, three entitiesreceived appropriations for their responsibilitiesrelated to operating the program.

AApppprroopprriiaattiioonn ffoorr vveennddoorr’’ss sseerrvviicceess——TheDepartment’s photo enforcement vendor isresponsible for installing, operating, andmaintaining the photo enforcement equipment;generating and mailing notices of violation;providing court testimony; collecting and reportingviolation data; providing training for department andcourt staff; and providing public service andsupport. In fiscal year 2009, the Legislatureappropriated approximately $20.4 million from theFund to the Department for vendor payments, butas shown in Table 2 (see page 10) the vendorreceived only $4.6 million because, according to itscontract, it is paid per paid violation. The number ofpaid violations is less than initially projected for anumber of reasons including that there have beenfewer violations than projected, resulting in fewernotices and citations being issued than initiallyprojected (see Question 5, pages 7 through 9, formore about initial projections for the photoenforcement program). The maximum to be paid tothe vendor according to legislative appropriationsfor fiscal year 2010 remained the same, but theappropriations report noted that the Legislatureintended to reduce the appropriation if payments tothe vendor are less than the amount originally usedto calculate the appropriation.

Question 6: How are the moniescollected from civil photo enforcementviolations and citations distributed?

Monies collected from civil photoenforcement violations and citations aredeposited in the Photo Enforcement Fund(Fund). The Department distributes moniesfrom the Fund to the photo enforcementprogram vendor, the Administrative Officeof the Courts, and itself, according tolegislative appropriations. A 10 percentsurcharge on the fines goes to the CleanElections Commission, and moniesremaining in the Fund in excess of$250,000 at the end of each calendarquarter are deposited in the State GeneralFund. County justice courts are notappropriated monies directly from theFund, but receive some fund moniesthrough the Administrative Office of theCourts to help cover the costs they incur ifdrivers dispute the citations in court.

moved to other counties state-wide where there isless traffic, resulting in fewer detections in thefollowing months. Further, after a mobile unitoperator homicide in April 2009, all units weretemporarily retired while the vendor finisheddeveloping a remote operations center that allows itto remotely monitor mobile units from a centrallocation without having to staff the units. Oncecompleted in May 2009, the unmanned mobileunits were again dispersed in Metropolitan Phoenixbefore moving to other counties. Further, theunmanned mobile units can operate for longerperiods than manned units, resulting in aconsistently greater number of detections in thethird quarter of 2009.

Further, mobile units are in operation fewer hoursper day as an average of 4 hours per day is spentmoving, setting up, calibrating, and sometimesrepairing each unit.

According to the Department, fluctuations in thenumber of mobile unit detections are due primarilyto their location and the amount of time theyoperate (see Figure 1, page 8, for mobile unitfluctuations). For example, the Department reportedthat when the mobile units were first dispersed byNovember 2008, they were placed in MetropolitanPhoenix where there is more traffic, resulting in alarge increase in detections by December 2009. InFebruary 2009, many of the mobile units were

AApppprroopprriiaattiioonn ffoorr ccoouurrtt pprroocceesssseess——TheAdministrative Office of the Courts wasappropriated $4 million from the Fund in fiscal year2009 to assist the courts in processing photoenforcement cases, and received approximately$3.1 million of that appropriation. Although theappropriation was based on a projected number ofcitations that would be processed by the courts, alarge amount of money was expended during thefirst year to set up the photo enforcement programprocess within the courts. According to the

Administrative Office of the Courts, it expendedapproximately $2.4 million of the $3.1 million that itreceived, as follows:1

Almost $1.1 million was used to upgrade network linesto accommodate electronic filing and dispositionphoto enforcement;

$745,000 was paid to a vendor for development andmaintenance of a Web site and interactive voiceresponse system to be used by motorists to pay theirfines, and for vendor processing of payments that aremailed in;

2009 (Actual)

2010 (Estimate)

Revenues: Photo enforcement fines 1 $23,950,123 $36,439,100

Expenditures and distributions: Operating expenditures:

Department operating expenditures 2,093,650 2,173,000 Program vendor payments 4,644,324 7,066,100 Administrative Office of the Courts payments 3,075,196 4,056,600

Total operating expenditures 9,813,170 13,295,700 Distributions:

Clean Elections Commission 2 1,471,685 2,239,100 State General Fund 3 4,879,732 21,488,800

Total distributions 6,351,417 23,727,900 Total expenditures and distributions 16,164,587 37,023,600

Net change in fund balance 7,785,536 (584,500) Fund balance, beginning of year . 7,785,536 Fund balance, end of year 4 $ 7,785,536 $ 7,201,036

Table 2: Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund BalancesFiscal Years 2009 (beginning October 2008) and 2010(Unaudited)

Source: Auditor General staff analysis of department-provided financial information for fiscal years 2009 (beginning October2008) and 2010.

1 Consists of fines collected for notices of violation and civil citations, the statutorily assessed Clean Elections Commissionsurcharge for notices of violation, and the $40 process service fee that drivers pay when they are successfully served. TheClean Elections Commission surcharges associated with civil citations are not included because they are directly distributed bythe courts.

2 Consists of amounts the Department distributed to the Clean Elections Commission for the statutorily assessed Clean ElectionsCommission surcharge.

3 In accordance with statute, unencumbered monies remaining in the Fund each quarter in excess of $250,000 are distributedto the State General Fund.

4 According to a department official, approximately $250,000 of each year’s ending fund balance is uncommitted. The remainderof the balances are committed to pay for expenditures that have not yet been paid, such as amounts owed to the programvendor for services already performed, or owed to the Clean Elections Commission and State General Fund. Amounts aredistributed to the Commission and State General Fund throughout the year; however, timing differences affect the amountsdistributed and create balances due to the Commission and State General Fund at various times during the year.

page 10

1 Laws 2009, 5th S.S., Ch. 1, requires the Administrative Office of the Courts to transfer $700,000 in excess Photo Enforcement Fund moniesto the State General Fund no later than June 30, 2010.

judge requires that an officer rather than a vendoremployee attend. Department responsibilities alsoinclude evaluating whether to accept or reject amotorist’s denial of responsibility for a violation;investigating and arresting, as appropriate,individuals who appear to be avoiding respondingto citations; responding to public questions andconcerns about the program; and conducting spotchecks of photo enforcement units to determinecorrect speed calibration and system set-uprequirements, including unit location, signplacement, and correct speed limit. According tothe Department, it was not appropriated full-timeemployees (FTEs) for the program so it uses FTEauthority from other areas according to operationalneed, while keeping within the limits of itsappropriation. The Department reported that duringits first year, from October 2008 to September 2009,the program operated with 11 FTEs.

Prior to the program’s implementation, theDepartment estimated a first-year cost of $8.7million, which included 64 FTEs for activities directlyrelated to the program and 10 FTEs for indirectactivities, as well as other program expenditures.According to the Department, these estimates werebased on a projected number of violations that 100photo enforcement units would generate. About$1.9 million of the $8.7 million was included asstart-up costs. However, for fiscal years 2009 and2010 the Department was appropriated only $2.2million, or about 25 percent of that amount, toadminister and oversee the program. TheDepartment reported that although legislation andcourt rules allow for many of the operational tasksto be conducted by the vendor, the currentappropriation does not allow for adequate oversightof all vendor activities, such as checking all unitsweekly to ensure system set-up requirements,including unit location, sign placement, and correctspeed limit, or conducting more frequent speeddetection calibration tests. The Department alsobelieves that its current appropriation does notallow it to use enough staff to administer theprogram. For example, according to theDepartment, in December 2009 it had to void 6,000civil photo enforcement notices of violation wherethe registered owner had denied responsibility andnominated another individual as the driver, becausethe time frame the Department has to work onreviewing those cases can be as short as 5 daysby the time it receives the nomination and the 60

$82,000 was utilized for program administrationincluding establishing new court rules and courttraining; negotiations and oversight of vendor services;and collaboration with the Department, the vendors,and local courts to implement the program; and

More than $472,000 was distributed to local courts toassist with their workload. According to theAdministrative Office of the Courts, based on dataprovided by the Department, in fiscal year 2009 thephoto enforcement program added approximately283,000 citations to the courts’ current caseloads, with98 percent of those being in Maricopa County whereall of the Department’s fixed photo enforcement unitsare located.

The Administrative Office of the Courts’appropriation for fiscal year 2010 remained thesame as for fiscal year 2009. According to theAdministrative Office of the Courts, it will distributefunds to local courts at a rate of $2 per filed citationand anticipates that at the current rate of citationsbeing filed, by the end of fiscal year 2010 it willhave distributed more than $1 million to localcourts. In addition, to help cover its justice courts’citation processing costs, estimated at $21.60 percase, Maricopa County has established a court feefor photo enforcement citations. In November 2009,the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted toassess a photo enforcement fee of $20, effectiveDecember 1, 2009. Individuals who pay notice ofviolation fines through the designated court Website or by mail to the Department without filing acourt complaint, and defendants found notresponsible for a citation by the justice courts, willnot be assessed the $20 fee. Individuals who payfines through the justice courts either in person orby mail will be assessed the $20 fee. The moniesresulting from this increase will be deposited in ajustice courts photo enforcement fund to be usedto support the direct and indirect costs associatedwith processing photo enforcement cases filed inMaricopa County Justice Courts.

AApppprroopprriiaattiioonn ffoorr aaddmmiinniissttrraattiioonn aanndd oovveerrssiigghhtt——TheDepartment also receives an appropriation to coverits costs for administering and overseeing thephoto enforcement program. Its responsibilitiesinclude determining the location for the photoenforcement units; overseeing the photoenforcement vendor; identifying, contacting, andissuing citations to criminal violators; compiling filesfor and appearing in court for criminal violations;and appearing in court for civil violations when the

page 11

page 12

Approximately 246,000 of the nearly 653,000payable photo enforcement violations sent, or 38percent, were paid in the program’s first year ofoperations.2 The number of paid violations isimpacted by the following factors:

DDiiffffeerreenntt ooppttiioonnss aavvaaiillaabbllee ffoorr rreessoollvviinngg tthheevviioollaattiioonn——Instead of paying the fine, the individualwho receives the photo enforcement violation hasother options available for resolving it. For example,in Arizona the driver is held liable for the violation,so if the individual receiving the notice is not thedriver, he/she can indicate that he/she was not thedriver and can (but does not have to) identify thedriver so that the citation can be sent to the driver.During the program’s first year of operations,according to the Department’s photo enforcementvendor’s data, of the more than 550,000 noticessent to registered owners who could have been the

Question 7: How many people whoreceive photo enforcement speedviolations pay the fine?

During the photo enforcement program’sfirst year of operation, approximately246,000 violations were paid, whichrepresents about 38 percent of the totalpayable violations sent.

driver, almost 349,000 individuals identified otherdrivers.3 Of the more than 347,000 registeredowners whose information did not match thedriver’s, more than 102,000 identified the driver. Theindividual can also request a court hearing todispute the violation and more than 348,000individuals requested hearings or ended up in courtby not taking any action. According to vendor data,as of January 4, 2010, almost 60,000 civil courtcases are still pending (see Question 4, pages 4through 7, for more information on the options forresolving the complaint).

SSoommee vviioollaattiioonnss iiggnnoorreedd——If an individual does notrespond to his/her civil or criminal notice and theDepartment or its vendor does not successfullyserve the individual within the allowed time frame,neither the Department nor the courts can take anyfurther legal action, such as imposing a fine.However, the Department or its vendor will continueto attempt to serve the citation as long as thecitation is valid. The Department pays particularattention to those individuals who have notresponded to multiple violations (15 or more) orthose who were cited for extremely high speeds(100 mph or more). The Department reported thatduring September through December 2009, therewere more than 50 individuals who had activemultiple citations ranging from 15 to 68 citationseach, and almost 250 individuals cited for speedingat 100 mph or more.

1 According to the Department, unencumbered monies remaining in the Fund in excess of $250,000 at the end of each quarter are depositedin the State General Fund. Specifically, some monies in the Fund are encumbered to cover what is owed to an entity, for example, citationsprocessed by the vendor for which it has not yet sent a bill.

2 According to a department official, it does not consider all of the notices sent to be payable. For example, notices sent to registered ownerswhose information did not match the driver’s, such as notices sent to rental car companies, are not considered payable as the registeredowner has the option but is not required to report who the driver is.

3 According to a department official, its photo enforcement vendor does not have an automatic means for identifying the number of individualswho denied they were the driver and did not nominate another driver or provided insufficient information to identify the driver.

days from the violation occurring has elapsed. TheDepartment requested an increase in itsappropriation to $2.9 million for fiscal year 2010, butthe request was not granted.

SSttaattee GGeenneerraall FFuunndd ddeeppoossiittss——The State GeneralFund also receives photo enforcement monies.A.R.S. §41-1722 requires that monies remaining inthe Fund in excess of $250,000 at the end of each

calendar quarter be deposited in the State GeneralFund.1 As shown in Table 2 (see page 10), duringfiscal year 2009, approximately $5 million wasdeposited in the State General Fund. Further, as ofOctober 16, 2009, a total of about $19 million wasdeposited in the State General Fund. In addition,the Clean Elections Commission receives moniesfrom a surcharge on fines equaling 10 percent ofthe fine, or $16.50.

1 According to an Arizona Department of Transportation official, no specific cities or sites have yet been chosen and it is uncertain whetherthis specific objective will be completed because several cities have been unable to provide the necessary pre- and post-data, such asannual traffic volume counts.

2 From January 2006 through October 2006, the City of Scottsdale operated a speed photo enforcement demonstration project on an 8-milesegment of the Loop 101 freeway. The Scottsdale City Council reactivated the program from February 2007 to June 2007, and the programoperated through an intergovernmental agreement with the Department from July 2007 to June 2008.

3 Washington, S., Shin, K., & van Shalkwyk, I. (2007). Evaluation of the City of Scottsdale Loop 101 photo enforcement demonstration program[Final Report AZ 684]. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Transportation.

4 The study looked at the reduction in crashes during nonpeak hours because of the limited expected influence of photo enforcement camerasduring slow-moving peak periods.

5 Travel time savings were calculated assuming a $15-per-hour value of travel-time savings for one-lane collision blockage, and $20 per hourof value of travel-time savings for two-lane collision blockage.

MMeettrrooppoolliittaann PPhhooeenniixx pphhoottoo eennffoorrcceemmeenntt ssttuuddyyuunnddeerrwwaayy——A study of the effectiveness of photoenforcement on traffic safety in MetropolitanPhoenix is underway. In October 2009, the ArizonaDepartment of Transportation, in collaboration withthe Department, contracted for a research study tobe completed by September 2010. Specificobjectives include:

Documenting the impact of speed photo enforcementon traffic crashes on specific freeways within MaricopaCounty for periods before and after the fixed cameraunits were operational;

Evaluating the effectiveness of the program from asystem perspective as opposed to a single pointalong the system; and

Evaluating the effectiveness of speed and/or red-lightrunning photo enforcement at selected intersections.1

The study also plans to provide guidance on howto use the study’s results to assess current photoenforcement unit locations and in planning futurelocations.

SSttuuddyy ooff SSccoottttssddaallee’’ss pphhoottoo eennffoorrcceemmeenntt pprroojjeeccttffoouunndd iimmpprroovveedd ssaaffeettyy——Although the study relatedto the Department’s program has not yet beencompleted, a study related to the City ofScottsdale’s Loop 101 freeway photo enforcementpilot project found that photo enforcementimproved safety in that area.2 In November 2007,Arizona State University completed acomprehensive statistical analysis of Scottsdale’sphoto enforcement pilot project’s impact on trafficsafety, speed, speeding behavior, and travel time,and found, among other things:3

Average speeds at the photo enforcement sitesdecreased by approximately 9 mph;

Total number of crashes decreased 44 to 54 percentdepending on the type of analysis;4

Total number of injury crashes decreased 28 to 48percent, depending on the type of analysis;

Annual estimated economic benefits of the programranged from $16.5 million to $17.1 million includingmedical, long-term care, and quality of life costs; andlost productivity and wages; and

Mobility improved through travel time savings andimproved travel time reliability, with the annual benefitof travel time savings ranging from a low of $20,000 toa high of $901,000.5

CCoolllliissiioonn ddaattaa aannaallyyssiiss iiss nneeeeddeedd——Findings fromthe study being conducted in Metropolitan Phoenixwill be helpful in determining whether theDepartment’s photo enforcement program hasbeen a factor in decreasing fatal and injurycollisions. The Department’s state-wide dataindicates that the number of fatal collisions hasdecreased in three of four quarters and injurycollisions have decreased every quarter sincephoto enforcement was implemented, whencompared to the same quarters in the 2 yearsbefore the program’s implementation (see Figures2 and 3, page 14). However, similar decreases areevident when comparing quarters within the 2 yearsbefore photo enforcement. In addition, similar to thegeneral downward trend in state data, national datashows a general downward trend in fatal collisions.

page 13

Question 8: Has the Department’sphoto enforcement program improvedArizona freeway safety?

More research is needed to determine theeffect of the Department’s photoenforcement program on Arizona freewaysafety. A study of the effectiveness ofphoto enforcement on traffic safety inMetropolitan Phoenix is in progress. Anearlier study conducted on a Scottsdalephoto enforcement pilot project on itssection of the Loop 101 freeway found thatphoto enforcement improved safety in thatarea. The Department also indicates thatthe program has other benefits such asassisting in felony crime investigationsand allowing officers more time to focuson proactive enforcement activities.

70

120128

84

62

85

103

7372 7182

63

48

71

49

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

January-March April-June July-September October-December

Fatal

Coll

ision

s

Quarter

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 2: Comparison of Number of Fatal Collisions State-wide by QuarterCalendar Years 2006 through 2009

Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data provided by the Department from its Department Automated ReportTracking (DART) database for calendar years 2006, 2007, 2008, and January through September 2009.

2,274 2,213 2,434 2,469

2,305 2,255 2,229 2,270

2,216 1,805 1,861

1,830 1,648 1,644 1,627

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

January-March April-June July-September October-December

Injur

y Coll

ision

s

Quarter

2006

2007

2008

2009

Figure 3: Comparison of Number of Injury Collisions State-wide by QuarterCalendar Years 2006 through 2009

Source: Auditor General staff analysis of data provided by the Department from its Department Automated ReportTracking (DART) database for calendar years 2006, 2007, 2008, and January through September 2009.

in a high-speed pursuit that is approaching a photoenforcement area, its officers may terminate pursuitof the vehicle and instead obtain data related to thespeeding vehicle and driver from its photoenforcement system to identify and help apprehendthe suspect. Further, according to the Department,

DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt rreeppoorrtteedd ootthheerr bbeenneeffiittss——According tothe Department, along with improving safety, thephoto enforcement program has other benefits. TheDepartment reported that data from the photoenforcement program can assist in law enforcementactivities. For example, if the Department is involved

page 14

Question 9: What is the public’sperception of photo enforcement andhow does the Department address thepublic’s questions and concerns?

Both a 2009 and an earlier 2007 state-wide, research-based survey conducted tomeasure the public’s perception of photoenforcement found that the majority ofthose interviewed supported photoenforcement. The Department addressesmany questions and concerns aboutphoto enforcement from the publicthrough its Web site.

use speed cameras to ticket drivers exceeding thespeed limit by 11 mph or more. In addition, 55percent of those interviewed who had received ared-light-running or speeding ticket as a result ofphoto enforcement reported that the Departmentshould continue to use speed enforcementcameras.

Another state-wide survey conducted about 14months earlier, and before the Department’s photoenforcement program was in place, found similarresults.2 Specifically, a November 2007 phonesurvey of 800 heads of household throughoutArizona to measure attitudes about photoenforcement state-wide found that 72 percent ofthose interviewed supported the use of photoenforcement. Further, 75 percent of thoseinterviewed who were living in Maricopa Countysupported photo enforcement. All of theDepartment’s fixed photo enforcement units arelocated in Maricopa County. Likewise, even thoughthe majority of those interviewed supported photoenforcement, 30 percent of those interviewedthought that most Arizonans oppose its use.

DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt WWeebb ssiittee aaddddrreesssseess ppuubblliicc iinnqquuiirriieess——The Department responds to phone calls aboutphoto enforcement and also addresses questionsand concerns about the program through the photoenforcement page on its Web site athttp://www.azdps.gov/Services/Photo_Enforcement.The Department’s Web site provides ways for thepublic to comment and ask questions regardingphoto enforcement, including a general Questions-and-Answers page, a page where someone canenter his/her specific citation numbers and getinformation about the process, and a contactinformation page informing the public of where to e-mail comments or inquiries. The Departmentindicated that it responds to all the e-mailsreceived, but due to a shortage of resources, hasnot tracked how many it has received related to

In January 2009, a phone survey of 500 registeredvoters state-wide was conducted about photo-based traffic enforcement.1 Findings from this studyincluded:

MMoosstt ssuuppppoorrtt uussee ooff pphhoottoo eennffoorrcceemmeenntt——Themajority of individuals surveyed support the use ofphoto enforcement technology, but also think thatmost Arizonans oppose it. Sixty-seven percent ofthose interviewed supported the use of photoenforcement technology to catch speeders on citystreets, and 61 percent supported its use to catchspeeders on freeways in the cities. Even though themajority of those interviewed supported photoenforcement, 55 percent of those interviewedthought that most Arizonans oppose its use.

MMaajjoorriittyy ssuuppppoorrtt ccoonnttiinnuueedd uussee,, iinncclluuddiinngg tthhoosseewwhhoo hhaavvee rreecceeiivveedd ttiicckkeettss——Regardless of whetherthe individual surveyed had received a photoenforcement ticket, the majority of those surveyedsupport the Department’s continued use of thistechnology. Sixty-three percent of those interviewedreported that the Department should continue to

1 Public Opinion Strategies. (2009). Arizona statewide survey: Key findings from a statewide survey of 500 registered voters in Arizona January13-14, 2009. Retrieved December 16, 2009, from http://www.azcentral.com/flash/photoradarsurvey.pdf.

2 Behavior Research Center, Inc. (2007). Photo-based traffic enforcement attitude study. Retrieved December 16, 2009, fromhttp://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/Assets/documents/photoradar/2007-Nov+Report.pdf.

it receives data requests related to felony crimeinvestigations such as homicide, robbery, andburglary at least once per week. Moreover, theDepartment reported that, as the number ofcollisions has decreased, officers are able to spendmore time on other proactive enforcement activities.For example, in its October 2009 media report the

Department noted that its officer activity data for thefirst 9 months of the photo enforcement programshows that in Metropolitan Phoenix and state-wideofficers have conducted more traffic stops, mademore total arrests, and arrested more impaireddrivers and drug offenders than before theprogram’s implementation.

page 15

specific topics. According to the Department, fromJanuary 2008 to December 2009, it had receivedand responded to approximately 5,600 e-mails. Allof the Department’s Phoenix photo enforcementoffice’s full-time employees are involved in

responding to these e-mails. According to adepartment official, the majority of e-mails that theDepartment receives are questions about theprocess for handling the notice of violation that theperson received.

1 The legislation does not specify or distinguish between the streaming videos or still photos that the photo enforcement system captures.

2 A department official reported that it has no plans to expand the program until policymakers provide further direction.

Question 10: What changes have beenmade to improve the program since itsinception?

During the 2009 legislative session,various bills proposed eliminating theprogram or modifying various aspects ofthe program. In addition to a fewlegislative changes, the Department andits vendor continue working to improve theprogram’s quality and operations.

calculations, which are used to determine revenuefor each court through fiscal year 2010.

DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt iimmpprroovviinngg pprrooggrraamm ooppeerraattiioonnss——Inaddition to legislative changes made to theprogram during 2009, the Department reported thatit and its photo enforcement vendor are makingoperational improvements along the way thataddress employee safety, public concerns andcommunications, and the photo enforcementprocess.2 For example, in January 2009, due topublic concerns about the brightness of the photoflash, the Department worked with its vendor to fixthis by switching from a white light to a red lightflash. In November 2009, to improve publiccommunications, the Department modified thenotice of violation instructions to advise anindividual who denies that he/she was the driver tocontact the court on his/her scheduled courtappearance date if he/she does not receive adismissal notice from either the court or theDepartment. The notice had previously advisedhim/her that as long as he/she sent in his/her photoand affidavit, he/she need not take any furtheraction. Further, in December 2009, the Departmentstarted sending reminder notices if the individualhad not taken any action at 25 days from theviolation date.

VVeennddoorr mmaakkiinngg eeqquuiippmmeenntt aanndd ootthheerr cchhaannggeess——The Department reported that its photoenforcement vendor is also making changes. Forexample, starting in May 2009, the vendordeveloped a remote operations center that allows itto remotely monitor and operate mobile units froma central location without having to staff the units.According to the Department, this process wasunderway before the vendor staff homicide in April2009. The vendor reported that the switch tounmanned mobile units allowed it to reducepersonnel by almost 50 FTEs, which savedapproximately $151,000 per month and almosttripled its mobile units’ hours in service per day.However, the vendor also indicated that the

PPhhoottoo eennffoorrcceemmeenntt lleeggiissllaattiioonn pprrooppoosseedd——Duringthe 2009 legislative session, there were several billsrelated to the photo enforcement program,including some to eliminate the program and othersto strengthen program practices. For example, onebill sought to prevent the use of a state photoenforcement system on state highways to detecttraffic violations, whereas another bill sought tochange the photo enforcement signage placementrequirements from two signs (one at more than 300feet and one at 300 feet) to three signs (one each at600, 300, and 100 feet) approaching a photoenforcement system. This same bill sought toprevent anyone from using recordings of personsinnocent of any violation for any purpose.1 Althoughnone of these bills passed, during the 2009legislative sessions, a few other changes related tothe photo enforcement program were passed. Forexample, effective September 30, 2009, firstresponders such as ambulance and other on-dutyemergency vehicles’ drivers are exempted fromphoto enforcement violations; and for commercialdriver’s license holders, the court shall transmitrecords of these violations to the ArizonaDepartment of Transportation, which uses thisinformation to add points to the driver’s license andsubsequently to determine whether to suspend orrevoke the license. Further, retroactive to June 30,2009, the Legislature extended the exclusion ofphoto enforcement violations from court productivity

page 16

Question 11: What could potentiallyhappen if the DPS photo enforcementprogram were discontinued?

If the program were discontinued, theState and the Department may incurfinancial, safety, and operational impacts.

Enforcement Fund each calendar quarter aredeposited in the State General Fund. As of October16, 2009, a total of about $19 million was depositedin the State General Fund. (see Question 6, pages9 through 12, for further details).

As indicated in Question 8 (see pages 13 through15), traffic safety and officers’ activities may also beimpacted if the photo enforcement program werediscontinued. Specifically:

SSttuuddyy ooff SSccoottttssddaallee’’ss pphhoottoo eennffoorrcceemmeenntt pprroojjeeccttffoouunndd iimmpprroovveedd ssaaffeettyy——Although the study relatedto the Department’s program has not yet beencompleted, a study related to the City ofScottsdale’s Loop 101 freeway photo enforcementpilot project found that photo enforcementimproved safety in that area.2 In November 2007,Arizona State University completed acomprehensive statistical analysis of Scottsdale’sphoto enforcement pilot project’s impact on trafficsafety, speed, speeding behavior, and travel time,and found, among other things:3

Average speeds at the photo enforcement sitesdecreased by approximately 9 mph;

Total number of crashes decreased 44 to 54 percentdepending on the type of analysis;4

Total number of injury crashes decreased 28 to 48percent, depending on the type of analysis;

Annual estimated economic benefits of the programranged from $16.5 million to $17.1 million includingmedical, long-term care, and quality of life costs; andlost productivity and wages; and

The State may be liable for some photoenforcement vendor costs and would not receiveany monies collected from civil photo enforcementtraffic offenses if the photo enforcement programwere discontinued. The contract ends in July 2010,but allows for three 1-year extensions after thattime. If the contract were discontinued, although theState would not be liable for equipment costsbecause the vendor owns all the equipment,hardware, and software used to operate theprogram, and must remove that equipment within120 days from contract termination, the State andthe Department may incur costs related to resolvingany outstanding violations. For example, thecontract entitles the contractor to compensation forwork in progress such as violations in process. Inaddition, a department official reported that theDepartment would still have responsibilities relatedto handling any outstanding violations.Discontinuing the program would also eliminate themonies the State receives from civil photoenforcement traffic fines. According to statute, anyamounts in excess of $250,000 in the Photo

page 17

unmanned units operate at a loss because extravehicles are needed to operate the program, suchas those used to transport personnel after the unithas been put in place, and the associated costssuch as fuel, registration, and insurance. In addition,since May 2009, the vendor takes two photos of thespeeding vehicle’s license plate to help eliminate

the number of cases that are dropped because ofunclear photos. However, the vendor reported that itdoes not yet have enough data to determine theimpact of this change. Further, in August 2009, thevendor added an office located at the Department’smain facility in Phoenix to allow the public a meansfor paying their fines in person.1

1 The Department reported that payments made at the photo enforcement vendor’s office are sent daily to a separate Administrative Officeof the Courts’ vendor who processes the payments.

2 From January 2006 through October 2006, the City of Scottsdale operated a speed photo enforcement demonstration project on an 8-milesegment of the Loop 101 freeway. The Scottsdale City Council reactivated the program from February 2007 to June 2007, and the programoperated through an intergovernmental agreement with the Department from July 2007 to June 2008.

3 Washington, S., Shin, K., & van Shalkwyk, I. (2007). Evaluation of the City of Scottsdale Loop 101 photo enforcement demonstration program[Final Report AZ 684]. Phoenix, AZ: Arizona Department of Transportation.

4 The study looked at the reduction in crashes during nonpeak hours because of the limited expected influence of photo enforcement camerasduring slow-moving peak periods.

page 18

photo enforcement program has other benefits. TheDepartment reported that data from the photoenforcement program can assist in lawenforcement activities. For example, if theDepartment is involved in a high-speed pursuit thatis approaching a photo enforcement area, itsofficers may terminate pursuit of the vehicle andinstead obtain data related to the speeding vehicleand driver from its photo enforcement system toidentify and help apprehend the suspect. Further,according to the Department, it receives datarequests related to felony crime investigations suchas homicide, robbery, and burglary at least onceper week. Moreover, the Department reported that,as the number of collisions has decreased, officersare able to spend more time on other proactiveenforcement activities. For example, in its October2009 media report the Department noted that itsofficer activity data for the first 9 months of thephoto enforcement program shows that inMetropolitan Phoenix and state-wide officers haveconducted more traffic stops, made more totalarrests, and arrested more impaired drivers anddrug offenders than before the program’simplementation.

Mobility improved through travel time savings andimproved travel time reliability, with the annual benefitof travel time savings ranging from a low of $20,000 toa high of $901,000.1

CCoolllliissiioonn ddaattaa aannaallyyssiiss iiss nneeeeddeedd——Findings fromthe study being conducted in Metropolitan Phoenixwill be helpful in determining whether theDepartment’s photo enforcement program hasbeen a factor in decreasing fatal and injurycollisions. The Department’s state-wide dataindicates that the number of fatal collisions hasdecreased in three of four quarters and injurycollisions have decreased every quarter sincephoto enforcement was implemented, whencompared to the same quarters in the 2 yearsbefore the program’s implementation (see Figures2 and 3, page 14). However, similar decreases areevident when comparing quarters within the 2 yearsbefore photo enforcement. In addition, similar to thegeneral downward trend in state data, national datashows a general downward trend in fatal collisions.

DDeeppaarrttmmeenntt rreeppoorrtteedd ootthheerr bbeenneeffiittss——According tothe Department, along with improving safety, the

1 Travel time savings were calculated assuming a $15-per-hour value of travel-time savings for one-lane collision blockage, and $20 per hourof value of travel-time savings for two-lane collision blockage.

Performance Audit Division reports issued within the last 24 months

Future Performance Audit Division reports

Arizona State Lottery Commission

Department of Agriculture—Food Safety and Quality Assurance Inspection Programs

09-05 State Compensation Fund09-06 Gila County Transportation

Excise Tax09-07 Department of Health Services,

Division of Behavioral HealthServices—Substance AbuseTreatment Programs

09-08 Arizona Department of LiquorLicenses and Control

0099-0099 Arizona Department of JuvenileCorrections—Suicide Preventionand Violence and AbuseReduction Efforts

0099-1100 Arizona Department of JuvenileCorrections—Sunset Factors

0099-1111 Department of HealthServices—Sunset Factors

1100-0011 Office of Pest Management—Restructuring

08-01 Electric Competition08-02 Arizona’s Universities—

Technology Transfer Programs08-03 Arizona’s Universities—Capital

Project Financing08-04 Arizona’s Universities—

Information Technology Security08-05 Arizona Biomedical Research

Commission08-06 Board of Podiatry Examiners09-01 Department of Health Services,

Division of Licensing Services—Healthcare and Child CareFacility Licensing Fees

09-02 Arizona Department of JuvenileCorrections—Rehabilitation andCommunity Re-entry Programs

09-03 Maricopa County Special HealthCare District

09-04 Arizona Sports and TourismAuthority

Department ofPublic Safety—Photo Enforcement Program

QUESTIONS andANSWERS

January 2010 • 10 - 02

A copy of the full report is available at:www.azauditor.govContact person:

Dot Reinhard (602) 553-0333