dThis chapter provides comparisons between similar types of law enforcement agencies. First, where possible, comparisons were made for the statewide agencies. Then, the sheriff and county agencies were combined for examination, followed by the city LEAs. Finally, overall comparisons among all the law enforcement agencies are provided.
Population estimates (from the U.S. Census Bureau) for the three states in which the statewide law enforcement agencies were examined are listed below along with the number of licensed drivers in those states (provided by the state DMVs). Florida is known to have a large population of retirees, many whom do not live in the state year-round. But in all three states, a large percentage of the population are licensed drivers.
The following figure (Figure 72)shows the recent ratio of licensed drivers per officer at each of the three statewide law enforcement agencies (California Highway Patrol, Delaware State Police, and Florida Highway Patrol). The agencies in California and Florida show extremely large ratios of drivers in proportion to uniformed officers.
Figure 72: Statewide LEAs - Ratios of Licensed Drivers to Officers, 1998-1999
The Florida Highway Patrol was the only statewide agency from which we received detailed information regarding traffic violations for specific offenses for all ten years. Therefore, we were not able to make any comparisons of trends by specific offense for the statewide LEAs. However, all three of the statewide LEAs, which were examined as a part of this project, experienced declines in overall traffic law enforcement (all offenses combined) over a recent nine-year period, as depicted in Figure 73.
Figure 73: Statewide LEAs - Traffic Enforcement Trends, All Citations Combined
All three curves were indexed to their value at Year 1 to normalize the records.5 It is possible the Delaware State Police are reversing this trend based on conversations with that agency and data for the two most recent years.
The statewide LEAs we contacted appear to be facing increasing pressures due to rising populations and numbers of licensed drivers and have been unable to keep pace, despite the fact that traffic law enforcement has always been a priority for these agencies. Interestingly, training requirements which have been legislated to better prepare officers to safely perform their duties (a necessary and worthwhile cost) also have resulted in less time spent patrolling the roads and enforcing traffic laws. Without the necessary patrol and support staff, it is difficult for the statewide law enforcement agencies to adequately patrol and provide public safety protection on the roadways within their states.
The five counties served by the Sheriff and County law enforcement agencies studied during this project all showed increasing population growth, but Douglas County grew at a phenomenal rate. The rate of population growth (indexed to Year 1) for each county is shown in Figure 74.
Figure 74: County Trends in Population Growth
We presume a similar rate of growth in numbers of licensed drivers, although we were not able to obtain figures for all five counties. Figure 75, shows the ratio of persons per officer in 1999.
Figure 75: Ratio of Population/Drivers per Officer, Sheriff/County LEAs, 1999
Figure 76 shows the trend of all combined traffic law enforcement activities for each Sheriff and County LEA. Again, all the curves are indexed to Year 1. The first three agencies (Guilford, Douglas and Seminole Sheriff Organizations) have shown increasing trends. (Douglas County has increased activity significantly due to a rapidly increasing population, resulting in increased funding and local support of traffic law enforcement.) The Orange County Sheriff's Office and the Fairfax County Police have shown small declines in traffic law enforcement citation activity.
Figure 76: Sheriff and County LEA - Traffic Enforcement Trends, All Citations Combined
We also were able to separate out several types of offenses for comparison. The following figure (Figure 77) shows the trend for each of these agencies for speeding citations. Since more citations are written for speeding violations than any other traffic-related offense, the trends mirror those for total traffic citations combined.
Figure 77: Sheriff and County LEA Trends - Speeding Citations
Figure 78 shows the comparison of the trends for each referenced agency regarding safety belt citations (adult and child restraint categories have been combined). Douglas County is the only agency with significantly increasing numbers of safety belt citations. Seminole County, despite the three year increase in citations issued for safety belt violations from years four through six, showed only a slight upward trend line pattern. The other three agencies showed flat or slightly decreasing trends.
Figure 78: Sheriff and County LEA Trends - DWI Citations
And finally, the trends by LEA for DWI-related citations are depicted in Figure79.
Figure 79: Sheriff and County LEA Trends - Safety Belt Citations
Seminole and Douglas County Sheriff's Offices show significantly increasing trends in this category. The Guilford County Sheriff's Department also has an upward trend, although the number of years for which we have information is low and the most recent year showed a decrease in the number of DWI-related citations issued by the Department. Both the Orange and Fairfax County LEAs show a declining trend in the number of citations issued for DWI-related offenses, with the number of citations issued by the Fairfax County Police having leveled off over the past couple of years.
To summarize, the charts in this section depict that the overall trend of all traffic citations combined, issued for each LEA, generally holds true for the individual types of offenses. This is shown in the table below which provides a very broad indication of trend by category, and for all citations combined, for each of the four sheriff and one county law enforcement agencies.
Table 7 Note:
Again, please note that while an upward (UP) or downward ( DOWN) trend is indicated for each category and for total citations for each LEA referenced above, degrees are not indicated, and some trend lines are actually fairly "flat;" that is, the degree of the upward or downward trend is slight and not statistically significant. But the purpose of the table is to provide an illustration of a great deal of condensed information.
Concerns surrounding aggressive driving behavior are mounting among the LEAs. Douglas County has legally defined aggressive driving as two or more moving violations within close proximity to other vehicles. Beginning in 1998, they began a special program with an unmarked car and an officer dedicated to detecting and citing motorists driving aggressively. Fairfax County has begun a "road shark" program utilizing unmarked patrol vehicles. Most of the LEAs which are targeting aggressive drivers have not been doing so long enough for us to report on trends. For the purposes of this study, careless and reckless driving citations were included under the aggressive driving category.
Four of these five law enforcement organizations recounted that the public requested in recent years that their agencies become increasingly more involved with enforcing traffic laws. Speeding motorists were most often cited as a concern by the public and, in fact, speed-related citations are issued more frequently by the sheriff and county law enforcement agencies (as well as the statewide LEAs) than any other type of traffic citation. Persons we spoke with at the LEAs often found it difficult to recollect the reasons for "peaks" in the number of citations issued for other offenses (e.g., DWI, safety belt violations). Special programs and enforcement efforts, which were at least partially funded by grants and sometimes conducted with other LEAs, often were believed to be the source. It appears that the Sheriff and County LEAs, which participated in this project, are filling some of the gaps in traffic law enforcement left by other types of LEAs, such as statewide agencies which have been beleaguered with staffing and training issues, and city LEAs which increasingly have had to deal with non-traffic issues (e.g., gang violence and illegal drug activity as well as community policing demands).
Figure 80 shows the trend of all combined traffic law enforcement citations for each city LEA. San Diego and Palos Heights have declining trends in traffic law enforcement citation activity. Austin has a fairly flat trend line when all types of traffic citations are combined.
Figure 80: City LEAs - Traffic Enforcement Trends, All Citations Combined
We were able to separate the numbers of citations for speeding for two of the agencies. Both showed declining trends, from their index year, which are illustrated in Figure 81.
Figure 81: City LEAs - Traffic Enforcement Trends, Speeding Citations
Figure 82 shows the three city law enforcement agencies' trends for DWI citations. Due to the erratic nature of the charted percentages, the trend lines have been added to the figure.
Figure 82: City LEAs - Traffic Enforcement Trends - DWI Citations
As shown, the number of citations issued by the Austin Police Department for DWI offenses has a slight upward trend. The other agencies show declining trend lines. Based on conversations with both the Austin and Palos Heights Police Departments, we have learned both agencies are committed to continuing the upward trend indicated by the performance during the past three years.
To summarize, the city LEAs illustrate the importance of command emphasis on traffic law enforcement efforts, but this must be accomplished through innovation as well. The city agencies have many demands placed on their departments with community policing efforts and the creation of specialized enforcement units. Additionally, most city police departments have not experienced growth in staffing levels that are commensurate with their population growth. They always must respond to calls for service, which are to a large extent a function of population size. This translates into fewer resources for traffic enforcement.
City police departments traditionally have considered traffic enforcement to be one of their charges, whereas county enforcement agencies (particularly sheriff's departments) generally have only recently embraced traffic enforcement. Thus city police agencies often have had a history of obtaining grants for traffic enforcement and historically have relied on them. Subsequently, they are less likely to be able to use that mechanism to offset other recent pressure to divert precious enforcement resources in response to increased calls for service or other specialized assignments.
Thus, city police administrators may have to find innovative solutions to this quandary. In one jurisdiction we studied, a new law (a primary enforcement safety belt law) served to provide an impetus to increase traffic safety enforcement. In another, an innovative hands-off procedure for DWI arrests seemingly stimulated general patrol officers to initiate more arrests of that nature. Automated speed and red light enforcement also have been used to supplement traditional traffic enforcement. Changes such as these, as well as efforts to encourage general patrol officers to continue to perform traffic enforcement when possible, are necessary to reverse the trend of decreasing volume of traffic enforcement actions in municipal areas.
The following table indicates which law enforcement agencies have trends showing that traffic law enforcement overall (that is, the total of all traffic-related citations combined) increased or decreased over the past decade. Since all traffic-related violations were combined, this is a rough estimate, because certain agencies include different violations, or more types of violations than do other agencies. This table is only meant to provide a rough picture; no indications are made as to the degree of increase or decrease.
Table 8 Note:*currently on upward trend
