CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE

The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee is a joint, bipartisan, statutory committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. It was established in 1972 to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, and statutory compliance of selected state agencies and programs, recommending remedies where needed. In 1975, the General Assembly expanded the committee's function to include investigations, and during the 1977 session added responsibility for "sunset" (automatic program termination) performance reviews. The committee was given authority to raise and report bills in 1985.

The program review committee is composed of 12 members. The president pro tempore of the Senate, the Senate minority leader, the speaker of the house, and the House minority leader each appoint three members.

2005-2006 Committee Members

Committee Staff

Carrie Vibert, Director

Catherine M. Conlin, Chief Analyst

Jill Jensen, Chief Analyst

Brian R. Beisel, Principal Analyst

Michelle Castillo, Principal Analyst

Maryellen Duffy, Principal Analyst

Miriam P. Kluger, Principal Analyst

Anne E. McAloon, Principal Analyst

Renee La Mark Muir, Principal Analyst

Scott M. Simoneau, Principal Analyst

Carrie O. Evangelinos, Legislative Analyst II

Bonnine T. Labbadia, Executive Secretary

Project Staff

Scott M. Simoneau

Carrie O. Evangelinos

STATE CAPITOL ROOM 506 HARTFORD, CT 06106 (860) 240-0300

Email: pri@cga.ct.gov www.cga.ct.gov/pri/index.htm

Legislative Program Review

& Investigations Committee

State Environmental Conservation Police

December 2006

Table of Contents

Executive Summary i

Introduction 1

I. Authority

Overview 3

Purpose, Mission, and Authority 3

Evolution of Current Authority 5

Interviews and Survey Results 7

Technical Issues Re: Enumerated Provisions 8

Further Description of Major Responsibilities 10

II. Selection and Training

Selection 17

Training and Recertification 20

III. Budget

Operating Budget 23

Revenue 25

IV. Organization and Structure

Major Roles and Functions 27

Deployment 29

Incidents and Enforcement Actions by Location 32

Areas of Responsibility: Recent Changes 36

V. Incidents and Enforcement Actions

Regulated Activities 38

Incidents, Enforcement Actions, and Warnings 41

Incidents and Staff Deployment 48

VI. Staffing

Overall Considerations for Staffing 51

Principles of Police Staffing 58

Police Staffing Model 62

Projected Retirements 65

VII. Equipment

Condition of Equipment 67

Adequacy of Equipment 67

Use of Technology 68

Division Facilities 70

Evidence Storage 70

VIII. Selected Management Practices

General Orders 73

Complaint System 77

Emergency Dispatch Center and Computer Aided Dispatch 80

Coordination 83

APPENDICES

A. LRR&IC Survey of Conservation Officers

B. LPR&IC Survey of Park Supervisors

C. Statutory Authority

D. Incidents and Enforcement Actions by Town

E. Mission Comparison

F. Top 20 Parks for Incidents

G. Delayed and No Response Calls

H. Summary of the Law Enforcement Division Space Needs Study

I. Agency Response

Executive Summary

State Environmental Conservation Police

In April 2006, the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee voted to undertake a study of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) State Environmental Conservation Police (EnCon police). The focus of the study was to evaluate their performance in enforcing fish and game laws, state parks and forest rules, boating laws, and applicable criminal laws, and in conducting related functions.

The current State Environmental Conservation Police can trace their origins to the first ten men appointed as “Special Game Protectors” by the Commission of Fisheries and Game, which was established by the General Assembly in 1895. Under the authority of the commission, the game protectors were assigned to enforce fish and game laws anywhere within the state. Since then the duties and responsibilities of the conservation officers have expanded from the original role of protecting fish and game to also include:

• enforcement of boating law;

• enforcement of snowmobile and all terrain vehicle laws;

• enforcement of motor vehicle law;

• enforcement of criminal law;

• policing the 137 state parks and forests;

• assisting and supporting state and municipal police departments;

• assisting and supporting homeland security;

• assisting and supporting the U.S. Coast Guard on Long Island Sound; and

• responding to search and rescue missions and missing person incidents in state parks and forests, on state lakes and rivers, and on Long Island Sound.

This study examined the adequacy of the division's authority, the deployment of officers and sufficiency of overall staffing, the trends in the nature and types of incidents and enforcement actions, the condition of EnCon equipment and facilities, and a number of selected management practices. The committee found that while overall operational trends tend to indicate the division could benefit from additional staffing, a more detailed assessment of staffing needs requires that EnCon and DEP management clearly identify and define the mission, goals, and objectives the division is expected to achieve.

While the division is highly regarded by those organizations and agencies that depend on it, some fundamental questions have to be answered before a fair assessment of its needs and achievements can be performed. The committee made a number of recommendations regarding the development of a policing philosophy, a strategic plan, and the creation of standards for the level of service EnCon police should be providing to assist the division in answering those questions.

The committee also developed specific recommendations in a number of areas to improve the current operation of the division. These include modifications to its authority, a re-examination of its deployment practices, revisions to its General Orders, training and equipment improvements, standardization of procedures for the department's dispatch center, and improvements to other selected administrative practices.

At its December 14, 2006 meeting, the committee adopted 26 recommendations. The approved recommendations are listed below.

Recommendations

1. The authority of EnCon police should be modified to allow conservation officers to enforce narcotics violations, traffic signal violations, and larceny in the fifth and sixth degree off of DEP owned and controlled property, without having the violation enforced in conjunction with a breach of the laws enumerated in C.G.S. Section 26-6(a). In addition, the crimes of negligent hunting and hunting under the influence should be explicitly enumerated in C.G.S. Section 26-6(a).

2. The division should regularly assess the training needs of its personnel to ensure the training they receive allows them to perform their duties with confidence in the field.

3. The administrative sergeant located at the Central Headquarters in Hartford should be responsible for finding appropriate elective training events and implementing a system to notify all officers of the dates of such events as well as deadlines for application.

4. Officer deployment and the patrol zone structure should be reexamined, along with a review as to how incidents are monitored and distributed, to better allocate the caseload among field officers.

5. EnCon police should institute a protocol to obtain information from state and municipal police departments regarding police activity on DEP property, beginning with parks with high attendance, to fully understand the amount of enforcement activity occurring on DEP property.

6. EnCon officer work schedules should be better aligned with the occurrence of incidents.

7. Department of Environmental Protection management needs to explicitly determine the expected role and performance of the EnCon police and develop policy statements on the desired policing style and service philosophy of the division.

8. The EnCon police should develop a new strategic plan with explicit objectives and performance indicators for the division related to its mission. Performance measures should address expected levels of service in parks and for other organizations that depend on EnCon services, and its accomplishments related to its resource protection functions, as well as traditional process and output measures such as response times, length of time for case closure, and clearance rates for crime. Performance should be closely monitored against established plans and standards.

9. Explicit standards should be created in consultation with the 22 park management units, lake authorities, and other organizations that depend on EnCon police services regarding the expected level of service from EnCon.

10. The Department of Environmental Protection should explore expanding training requirements for park aides to include conflict management and methods for dealing with difficult people, especially in parks with high attendance.

11. The Department of Environmental Protection should develop a long-term plan, along with a commitment for funding in the next budget cycle, for the expected replacement of retiring officers. It should be phased-in to address anticipated shortages of sworn personnel and recognize the need for extended training of new officers.

12. The division should expand the opportunities for conservation officers to participate in the selection of equipment.

13. DEP should explore the potential benefits of the use of surveillance technology, especially for historically significant buildings and other vulnerable park buildings, and expand the use of mobile data technology to increase the safety and efficiency of officers in the field.

14. The department should plan for and phase in facility improvements that accommodate the unique needs of the EnCon police in a timely manner as funds are made available, in accordance with the recommendations provided by the 2002 independent facilities review to provide each district's headquarters with additional space and modern amenities.

15. The division shall ensure compliance with the chain of custody requirements recommended by accreditation standards such as CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.) or POSTC (Police Officer Standards and Training Council).

16. The division should revise the General Orders to include topics that are either missing or underdeveloped and establish a process for periodic review and update.

17. The division should also consider seeking accreditation from either POSTC or CALEA.

18. Supervisors should adhere to the report format presented in General Orders Chapter 4, Section 2, Appendix A for internal affairs investigations and administrative inquiries to ensure the accuracy and completeness of these files. Appendix A should be amended to include a description of the method of corrective action decided upon.

19. The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center should develop and periodically update a standard operating procedures manual to include, but not be limited to call handling procedures on how emergency and non-emergency calls are handled and how calls are to be managed when there is no officer on duty. These protocols should be followed and well documented to increase the accountability of both officers and dispatch operators. The procedures manual should be available in an easy to use and easy to reference format.

20. EnCon should review, validate, and further refine the underlying incident and activity data codes along with the input criteria for its Computer Aided Dispatch system.

21. The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center should develop a quality assurance program to ensure appropriate and defensible dispatch procedures are followed. The program should include a periodic review of recorded calls to ensure each dispatch operator asked the right questions, provided the correct answers, and followed protocol. DEP dispatch will need to retrain operators to address any deficiencies that are revealed.

22. The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center should develop a clear, safe, and consistent strategy for handling calls that require medical assistance, such as transferring calls to emergency 9-1-1.

23. The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center should develop and report annually performance measures related to dispatch functions and operations, including but not limited to dispatcher response times and accuracy standards.

24. Personnel representing the DEP Emergency Dispatch Center and the Division of State Environmental Conservation Police should meet at least annually to formally review the trends and findings revealed by dispatch documentation. Any changes in codes, policies, procedures, and deployment, and when those changes are to be implemented should be documented.

25. EnCon police should examine becoming a member of regional mutual aid agreements throughout the state, and enter into mutual aid agreements or memoranda of understanding with municipalities where it will be beneficial for both agencies to formally define their relationship and respective responsibilities in areas of mutual concern or in the event of an emergency situation.

26. EnCon should institute a practice of having captains meet with the relevant local chiefs of police before and after the summer season to discuss areas of mutual concern in areas with high attendance parks.

Introduction

State Environmental Conservation Police

In April 2006 the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee voted to undertake a study of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) State Environmental Conservation Police (EnCon police). The focus of the study was to evaluate their performance in enforcing fish and game laws, state parks and forest rules, boating laws, and applicable criminal laws, and in conducting related functions.

There are a few themes that condition any discussion of the EnCon police, and they involve the unique characteristics of the EnCon law enforcement environment and the evolving and changing role of the division.

EnCon officers operate in a variety of work environments. The variations in inland and coastal geography can present very different demands on law enforcement in those areas. The seasonality of the work also poses challenges. Knowing the changing patterns of an area by season, the wildlife habitats, and such things as where a boat or vehicle can get access to a body of water or a piece of property are important to being an effective EnCon police officer.

Coverage areas can be large. The current area covered by an inland officer can be over 200 square miles. Marine officers are responsible for a patrol area that includes coastal towns out to the middle of Long Island Sound.

The work often requires special equipment, in addition to four-wheel drive patrol vehicles. EnCon officers use all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles, as well as boats of various sizes to accommodate ponds, rivers, and the ocean. In cooperation with the Connecticut State Police, EnCon officers also engage in aerial surveillance of the shellfish industry, as well as of recreational vehicles trespassing on state property. Officers are at times required to switch modes of transportation to patrol or respond to incidents. Transfers from boats to vehicles or vehicles to boats (and boats sometimes have to be transported to a launch) can be time consuming.

The role of the conservation officer has changed over the years and has become more demanding and more complex. At one time, the fish and game role of the conservation officer was separate from that of providing public safety services in the parks. Even though those roles started to merge in 1992, the division still experiences some lingering challenges in resolving the tension between the roles.

An appreciation and knowledge of hunting, fishing, and trapping are the traditional reasons many are attracted to this occupation. While fish and game enforcement continues to be a focus of the job, law enforcement in park and recreational facilities often requires a different mix of skills. Drug and alcohol problems along with domestic disputes and other types of related social concerns can be found in the state's park system. Further, conservation officers have also been called upon to take a greater and specific role in providing security during terrorism threats.

Methodology. The program review committee and its staff relied on a number of information sources and a variety of research methods to complete this study. A number of governmental and professional studies and reports on topics related to conservation law enforcement and staffing were reviewed. This included in-depth staffing studies of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, National Park Service, National Wildlife Refuge System, Camden County Park Police, and U.S. Park Police. A number of best practice guides were examined including those developed by the International Association of Police Chiefs as well as accreditation standards developed by Connecticut's Police Officer Standards and Training Council, and the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.

Numerous interviews were conducted with the command staff of the EnCon police as well as a number of its officers, other employees of the Department of Environmental Protection who interact with the EnCon Police, the Connecticut State Police, various municipal police departments, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Marine Fisheries Council, U.S. Coast Guard, and a number of organized stakeholders representing the fish and game community in Connecticut. A primary source of data for the study was obtained from the EnCon computer aided dispatch system, which stores a variety of data including the types of EnCon enforcement and patrol activity, individual officer activity, workload by time of day, and information about officer deployment. Certain concerns about the completeness of the data are more fully noted in Chapter V.

The committee also conducted two surveys. The division's 46 full-time conservation officers and sergeants were surveyed to obtain their opinions about various operational aspects of the division. Thirty-nine responses were received from the officers, for a response rate of 85 percent. The full survey results are located in Appendix A. The second survey was directed at DEP's 23 park supervisors to understand their views on how well the EnCon police were doing in providing law enforcement services in the state's parks and forests. Twenty responses were received from the park supervisors, for a response rate of 87 percent. The full survey results are located in Appendix B.

Report organization. This report has eight chapters and a number of appendices. The first chapter examines the law enforcement authority of the EnCon police. Chapters II and III present information on the selection and training of officers and historical budget trends. Chapter IV provides an overview of the organizational structure of the division and the current deployment of officers across the state. Chapter V analyzes incidents handled by the division, while Chapter VI examines the adequacy of overall conservation officer staffing. Chapter VII evaluates EnCon's equipment and facilities. Finally, Section VIII discusses a number of current management practices. Committee findings and proposed recommendations may be found in each chapter.

Agency Response

It is the policy of the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee to provide agencies subject to a study with an opportunity to review and comment on the recommendations prior to publication for the final report. Appendix I contains the response from the Department of Environmental Protection.

Chapter I

Overview

This chapter reviews the Division of State Environmental Conservation Police's mission and scope of statutory authority, and recommends certain changes. The major responsibilities are also described.

The law enforcement authority of conservation officers was primarily limited to hunting and fishing laws in 1971 when the modern day Department of Environmental Protection was created out of the merger of three separate commissions.¹ Despite periodic attempts to establish general statewide law enforcement jurisdiction, conservation officer enforcement authority has always been statutorily limited. Their law enforcement authority, though, has grown significantly reflecting their expanded responsibilities since 1971.

Purpose, Mission, and Authority

Purpose, mission, and goals. The EnCon police are certified police officers with specific duties and authority under state law. The Division of State Environmental Conservation Police is located in the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation within the Department of Environmental Protection. The division's mission, as stated in its annual report, “is the protection of the public and our natural resources through the efficient and effective use of Division resources for education and public outreach, the prevention of crime and accidents, and the enforcement of laws and regulations.” The goals of the division are to:

• fairly and impartially enforce state and federal laws and regulations;

• enhance the protection of the public and our natural resources through cooperative crime prevention and awareness efforts with constituency groups and the public;

• promote a progressive work environment through training, career development, and equal opportunity for advancement;

• maintain the professionalism of officers and staff and promote public service;

• promote cooperation with other disciplines both inside and outside the division; and

• acquire and maintain technology and equipment to improve efficiency, effectiveness, and safety.

Statutory law enforcement authority. EnCon police officers, referred to as conservation officers (COs) and special conservation officers (SCOs) in statute, are appointed by the commissioner of environmental protection. Conservation officers are the regular full-time sworn personnel of the division. Special conservation officers are seasonal employees who typically work from May through October and also must be certified police officers. Conservation officers and special conservation officers have somewhat different powers and duties as summarized in Table I-1 and described in more detail below.

• C.G.S. Section 26-6 (a) provides the primary enforcement authority of EnCon police officers. Subsection (a) outlines specific areas of the law that both COs and SCOs are allowed to enforce, including state laws relating to fish and game, parks and recreation, boating, motor vehicles, and certain criminal acts such as assault, bribery, and larceny. (The specific authority provided by C.G.S. Section 26-6(a) is detailed in Appendix C.)

• Conservation officers are permitted to arrest anyone, without a warrant, in any part of the state for the specific violations listed in C.G.S. Section 26-6(a) on or off DEP property. Special conservation officers only have the authority to enforce C.G.S. Section 26-6(a) on DEP property.

• Conservation officers are also appointed “special policeman for state property” by the commissioner of public safety under the provisions of C.G.S. Section 29-18. This appointment effectively allows conservation officers (but not SCOs) to enforce all criminal laws on DEP property.

• In 1992, EnCon police powers were expanded to allow conservation officers, “incident to a lawful arrest” for the violations listed in C.G.S. Section 26-6(a), the ability to enforce criminal laws not specifically enumerated in Section 26-6(a), regardless of location. This means conservation officers may cite or arrest someone for any violation of the law as long as it is in conjunction with a violation listed in Section 26-6(a).

• Both COs and SCOs are permitted to search any boat, ship, vehicle, various containers, or packages without a warrant but with probable cause for violations of fish and game laws anywhere within the boundaries of the state. In addition, conservation officers have fairly broad authority to go onto private property with probable cause to determine if hunting or fishing violations have occurred.

• In addition, conservation officers are appointed as Deputy Special Agents of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and enforce federal fish and wildlife laws. Under recently passed state legislation, federal law enforcement officers of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service may be appointed as SCOs and exercise such authority when working with a full-time DEP conservation officer.

The extent and limit of EnCon police authority may be demonstrated in an example. The enforcement of criminal narcotics laws are not specifically mentioned in C.G.S. Sec. 26-6(a). However, if a person was in possession of a narcotic on DEP property, a conservation officer would have the authority to arrest that person for the narcotics violation (per 29-18). If the person was off DEP property and was in the possession of a narcotic and was also in violation of a hunting law, a conservation officer could arrest that person for the narcotic violation and the hunting violation. If the person was off DEP property and only in possession of a narcotic, a conservation officer could detain that person, like any citizen under common law, but could not arrest that person. EnCon police would have to call either the local or state police to perform the arrest. (Special conservation officers could detain but would not have the authority to arrest the person in any of the above scenarios).

Evolution of Current Authority

EnCon law enforcement authority has evolved since 1971, primarily through the passage of three public acts—P.A. 74-245 in 1974, P.A. 81-227 in 1981, and P.A. 91-402 in 1991. Appendix C, in addition to providing the full text of C.G.S. Sec. 26-6, identifies the specific subject matter of the enumerated statutes cited in C.G.S. Section 26-6(a) in some detail in Table C-1. The table organizes the enumerated statutes in the order in which they were added so the incremental growth in authority is apparent, beginning with the provisions in place in 1971. Discussed here are three key changes.

1974. Many of the expansions in 1974 were in belated recognition that due to the 1971 creation of DEP from three separate boards, DEP conservation officers now needed to enforce not only game and fish laws, but also laws and regulations covering “order, safety, and sanitation” at state parks and forests, and boating laws. Selected penal code violations were added also, including assaults, larcenies, and robberies, among others.

1981. The provisions added in 1981 were in large part to resolve a statutory interpretation question that arose in 1978². The House sponsor of the 1981 bill that became P.A. 81-227 said the bill “would provide DEP conservation officers with the authority to enforce certain specific sections of the General Statutes. This has been the practice in the past and until an Attorney General's opinion in 1978 which stated that a conservation officer per se does not have the power to enforce state laws other than those set forth in 26-6a. This bill would allow these officers to carry out their responsibilities.” (emphasis added) (House of Representatives Proceedings, Statement of Representative Theresa Bertinuson, May 5, 1981, p. 4212)

As Appendix C (Table C-1) shows, the 1981 additions include many motor vehicle violations, provisions to support the execution of search warrants, littering, and some gun-related laws. At the public hearing on the bill that was eventually enacted, a union representative supporting the bill said “although we feel that full law enforcement powers should be extended to our conservation officers…this bill does represent an acceptable compromise which shall enhance the ability of our conservation officers to effectively [en]force their obligations to the public…” ³

1991. P.A. 91-402 did not add any additional enumerated statutory provisions to 26-6(a), but provided another compromise response to continued calls for granting conservation officers full enforcement powers. Per P.A. 91-402, a sentence was added to subsection (b) of Section 26-6 (a) to provide: “Any full-time conservation officer shall, incident to a lawful arrest while enforcing such laws [the enumerated ones] in the performance of his duties in any part of the state, shall have the same powers with respect to criminal matters and the enforcement of the law relating thereto as policemen or constables have in their respective jurisdictions.” (emphasis added).

As explained by Rep. Douglas Mintz, Judiciary Committee member, as he introduced the bill that would become P.A. 91-402 for full House action:

…This piece of legislation is a compromise piece of legislation to give the conservation officers some expanded power, but what we don't want to do is set up a separate and complete state police department in the state of Connecticut. So while recognizing that the conservation officers do run into these situations where they're making lawful arrests, if there is no violation under their jurisdiction, they would have to bring in the state or local police to make that arrest. ⁴

Arguments for and against full enforcement powers. Since 1991, legislation has been re-introduced twice, unsuccessfully, to provide full-time conservation officers with full law enforcement powers: 1999 (SB 991) and 2000 (SB 35). Proponents have offered the following arguments:

• Conservation officers are required to get the same training as state and municipal police so they should have the same authority.

• Conservation officers already have full law enforcement authority to enforce all criminal laws in state parks because of their designation as special police under Section 29-18, so this is not really a new type of law enforcement for them.

• The lack of full authority creates unnecessary confusion.

Opponents, on the other hand, have countered with the following concerns:

• Some municipal police departments do not want conservation officers making arrests in their jurisdictions as they would be unfamiliar with local community policing policies. Also, despite the equivalent training, the conservation officers' experience is focused on environmental enforcement issues.

• There is no need to create what would be in effect another state police entity.

Interviews and Survey Results

Program review staff surveyed all conservation officers and sergeants, and interviewed the division's command staff regarding their law enforcement authority. (Full survey results are available in Appendix A). Most EnCon officers do not believe the enforcement authority granted to them is sufficient. Seventy-two percent of respondents thought their power was insufficient, given their areas of responsibility. Officers described various problems with the current delineation of powers, including: the belief that their current authority was at times confusing or problematic when a violation occurs off DEP property, the need to rely on other police departments or on occasion let violators go, and that their authority has not kept pace with the expansion of their duties. Forty-one percent expressed the need for full police powers.

In response to their limited authority, EnCon officers say they have either called another police agency to handle an arrest or selected a different violation to make an arrest themselves. Seventy-seven percent of officers say they have had to call another law enforcement agency in the last year to effect an arrest. Seventy-six percent said they have had to select a different violation to make an arrest because they did not have the appropriate authority, though only about half said they had done that in the last year.

A review of the incidents in the department's computer-aided dispatch system reveals that EnCon officers turned cases over to either the state or the local police 15 times in the last six years because of limits to their statutory authority. The Connecticut State Police data system was unable to readily confirm how many times DEP cases were turned over to them.

Narcotics and certain motor vehicle violations. Conservation officers have indicated the police powers that they believe are most lacking are the ability to enforce narcotics laws on private property and certain motor vehicle violations. As described above, EnCon officers have the authority to enforce narcotics violations on property owned or controlled by DEP and can enforce narcotics violations in conjunction with some other violation in Section 26-6 (a) anywhere else in the state, including private property. Thus, while officers have the training and experience to perform this type of arrest anywhere within their statewide jurisdiction, and are often on private property because of their hunting and fishing enforcement responsibilities, they are barred from drug law enforcement unless there is also a Section 26-6 (a) violation.

Officers reported to PRI staff that sometimes they try to find a violation of Section 26-6 (a) by looking for some minor violation, like littering, to trigger an arrest for narcotics. Many believe calling another police department can be inefficient because that means for some period of time personnel from two departments, who are all trained to make this type of arrest, are being used where one department's officers should suffice. On average, the EnCon police handle about 140 narcotics cases per year. It could not be immediately determined how many have been enforced in conjunction with a Section 26-6 (a) violation.

In terms of motor vehicle violations, the EnCon police have the ability to enforce most of the motor vehicle violations covered under Title 14 of the Connecticut General Statutes, such as speeding and reckless driving. The major exceptions are related to traffic signal violations contained in Chapter 249 of the General Statues, such as not stopping at a stop sign, a red light, or for a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

Although EnCon already has had significant motor vehicle enforcement authority since 1981, the division recognizes that its primary mission is to enforce the laws related to fish, game, and boating on a statewide basis and provide full police services on department property. Thus division policy limits the officer's motor vehicle enforcement activity. The policy states conservation officers “shall not actively patrol for the purposes of enforcing motor vehicle laws and regulations on public property outside of department owned or controlled property.” Nonetheless, there are situations where officers witness stop sign and red light violations that represent an obvious safety concern but do not have the ability to enforce the law. Some parks are bisected by highways and some parks are situated near major intersections or roads, such as Hammonasset Beach State Park near Route 1, where these types of violations may be found.

Technical Issues Re: Enumerated Provisions

A review of the history of the enumerated provisions of Section 26-6(a) shows the challenge of keeping a proscribed list up to date. Here are some examples.

• In 1971, C.G.S. Sections 53a-115, 53a-116, and 53a-117 were added to 26-6(a), covering criminal mischief in the first, second, and third degrees respectively. In 1983, the crime of criminal mischief in the fourth degree was enacted and codified at C.G.S. 53a-117a. While it would seem logical that the new crime should also be included under EnCon jurisdiction, it was not until 2005 that 26-6(a) was amended to include it.

• In contrast, in 1974, a range of assault crimes were added to EnCon jurisdiction via 26-6, namely C.G.S. Sections 53a-59 to 53a-64 inclusive. Since 1974, nine different variations of assault crimes have been enacted, and codified within the range between 53a-59 and 53a-64. For example, 53a-59a is the crime enacted in 1977 of assault of an elderly, blind, disabled, pregnant or mentally person in the first degree. Because of how the crime was codified, within the existing range, it automatically came under EnCon jurisdiction per 26-6 without an explicit amendment to do so.

• A gap that remains relates to the crime of larceny. In 1974, larceny in the first through fourth degrees were added to 26-6(a) (C.G.S. Sections 53a-122 to 53a-125). In 1982, the crimes of larceny in the fifth and sixth degree were created (C.G.S. Sections 125a-125b), but have not been added to 26-6(a).

• Another gap relates to negligent hunting, a specific crime established in 2000 (P.A. 00-142). This provision, enacted after the shooting death of a conservation officer by a hunter in 1998 and codified in 53a-217e, is not currently listed in 26-6(a). Indeed, the negligent hunting statute reference to conservation officers having enforcement authority is fairly indirect. (C.G.S. Sec. 53a-217e(h)(2): “Such property shall be confiscated at the time of arrest by a police officer or conservation officer.”)

• Also in 2000, hunting under the influence of alcohol or drugs was made a specific crime (C.G.S. Sec. 53-206d(b)(2)). While that statute specifically states DEP enforcement officers are empowered to arrest for that crime, it is not currently listed in 26-6 (a).

Recommendation:

1. The authority of EnCon police should be modified to allow conservation officers to enforce narcotics violations, traffic signal violations, and larceny in the fifth and sixth degree off of DEP owned and controlled property, without having the violation enforced in conjunction with a breach of the laws enumerated in C.G.S. Section 26-6 (a). In addition, the crimes of negligent hunting and hunting under the influence should be explicitly enumerated in C.G.S. Section 26-6 (a).

These suggested changes are consistent with the historical and gradual evolution of EnCon law enforcement authority. This recommendation will allow for a more efficient use of police resources and maintains the majority of the limitations on EnCon's police authority, while addressing concerns for greater public safety.

Further Description of Major Responsibilities

Historically, EnCon police officers were called “Game Wardens,” but the role of these officers has changed over time. The current State Environmental Conservation Police can trace their origins to the first ten men appointed as “Special Game Protectors” by the Commission of Fisheries and Game, which was established by the General Assembly in 1895. Under the authority of the commission, the game protectors were assigned to enforce fish and game laws anywhere within the state.

In 1971, the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) was established combining under its jurisdiction all the operations of the State Board of Fisheries and Game, and the Boating, and the State Park and Forest Commissions, which were all eliminated. At this time, DEP created two separate law enforcement positions with separate chains of command: (1) the Conservation Officer; and (2) the Environmental Protection Law Enforcement Officer (state parks). In 1994, these two positions and their accompanying responsibilities were consolidated into one, the Conservation Enforcement Officer position. The park superintendents, who were also certified police officers in addition to performing park management responsibilities, retained their law enforcement role (until recently due to a 2005 change).

The title the department uses to refer to this position was changed in 2004 from Conservation Enforcement Officer to State Environmental Conservation Police Officer (emphasis added) in response to the evolution of the position and its expanding responsibilities. Their major responsibilities are summarized below. More detailed information on activities is presented in Chapter V.

Fish and game enforcement. The principle areas of enforcement under this category include hunting, recreational and commercial fishing, trapping, and shellfishing. The enforcement of laws related to fish and game help to ensure the sustainability of the state's fish and game populations by preventing the excessive or illegal harvesting of various species. In the case of shellfish regulation, vigilant enforcement also assists in preventing public health concerns related to contaminated shellfish and in preserving a multimillion dollar industry in Connecticut.

EnCon police also enforce federal fisheries laws by participating in an operation plan called the Joint Enforcement Agreement with the federal National Marine Fisheries Services. The agreement calls for consistent officer presence at landing ports along the Connecticut shoreline, commercial seafood dealers, and on the water to monitor transactions and fishing activity. The officers enforce trip and possession limits, gear requirements, permits, logbooks, and compliance with established standards for the Northeast multispecies/groundfish, scallop fisheries, and mid-Atlantic possession limits.

The division also enforces the hunting and fishing license program administered by DEP. Under state law, hunters and fishermen who are arrested or issued an infraction for violations have their licenses suspended upon conviction. Typically, the license suspensions are for one year, although under certain serious or repeat circumstances, a license may be suspended for additional years or even indefinitely. Table I-2 provides some selected statistics related to fish and game as well as boating enforcement. (Chapter V contains more detailed analysis of EnCon police activities over time).

Boating enforcement. Activities related to boating enforcement include: lake, river, and coastal patrols; inspections for compliance with safety and equipment requirements; boat accident investigations; search and rescue missions; and checks for boating under the influence (BUI). All of the navigable waters in Connecticut, Long Island Sound, and other bodies of water where recreational boating can occur fall under the responsibility of the EnCon police. The division also has a specialized boating accident investigation unit called the Boating Accident Reconstruction Unit (BARU). Ten officers and a supervisory sergeant have received special training in boating accident reconstruction. The unit is used in cases that involve death or serious physical injury.

Public safety in state parks and forests. As the principle police agency within the state's 137 parks and forests, the division is responsible for patrolling these areas to deter criminal activity and provide for the safety of the public. EnCon police enforce laws regarding all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles on state-owned property and on frozen bodies of water. EnCon police officers also respond to missing person incidents, such as lost hikers, and the recovery of drowning victims, in state parks and forests. The division is also responsible for patrolling the land owned and leased by the White Memorial Foundation, which is mostly located in the northwestern part of the state. Various recreational activities are allowed on the White Memorial properties. Table I-3 provides some selected statistics related to parks and forests. Figure I-1, on the following page, is a map of the park locations in Connecticut. The shaded areas represent the geographic territory EnCon police are responsible for patrolling.

Wildlife management. The EnCon police are responsible for responding to reports of sick, injured, or nuisance wildlife with the goal of relocating the animal to a more suitable habitat in the state. Licensed wildlife rehabilitators assist in this goal by caring for injured animals until they can return to the wild. Connecticut has experienced an increasing black bear and moose population. There were 1,788 reports of bear sightings and nuisance calls in 2005. Connecticut also has 57 wildlife management areas and 21 federal management plans to encourage the propagation of certain species of fish and wildlife. Each area has different regulatory requirements that must be monitored and enforced by the division. EnCon officers also assist in the stocking of Connecticut's lakes and streams during fishing season.

Homeland security. Since September 11, 2001, whenever the federal homeland security threat level is raised to a certain point, EnCon police officers conduct security patrols in the waters off the Millstone Point Nuclear Power Plant in Waterford on a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week basis. Other EnCon police homeland security responsibilities and protective measures vary depending on the nature of the threat. EnCon police have provided escort services to cross-sound ferries, patrolled public watersheds, and conducted waterborne security patrols of major harbor areas. EnCon police also augment the Coast Guard in performing its duties when called upon.

Public outreach. Public education is an integral part of the job of being an EnCon police officer. While there are numerous informal opportunities to educate the public about protection of the state's natural resources during the course of a normal day, the officers also appear at agricultural fairs, schools, fish and game clubs, and various business and civic organizations. In 2005, the EnCon police reached over 15,000 people through 114 public outreach programs.

Lake authority patrol supervision. Lake authorities are entities created by two or more towns that engage in various lake management activities on behalf of member towns, through the use of lake patrolmen. These authorities may work with the commissioner of environmental protection to enforce boating laws. Although the lake patrolmen are employees of the lake authorities or the municipalities, the DEP commissioner is the only legal authority empowered to appoint lake patrolmen to enforce any boating laws. Two lake authorities (Candlewood Lake and Lake Housatonic) employ lake patrolmen. Candlewood Lake employs about 30 lake patrolmen and Lake Housatonic employs about six.

These patrol units are supervised by an EnCon sergeant and each lake patrolman must complete a 60-hour training course that includes instruction in boating laws, boating under the influence enforcement, vessel boarding procedures, officer safety, and first aid. Lake patrolmen may be authorized to carry a firearm by the commissioner after completion of a firearms safety course. By practice, it is the lake authorities that request that their officers carry a firearm. Currently, only Candlewood Lake patrolmen carry firearms.

Recent legislation allows the commissioner to appoint any lake patrolman as a special conservation officer (SCO). These SCOs are not considered state employees and must be certified police officers. If a lake patrolman becomes an SCO, he or she must obtain the permission of the municipalities in which the lake patrolman serves to carry a firearm.

Amount of time spent per activity. Figure I-2 illustrates the amount of time EnCon officers collectively spent on specific activities in 2005. This information is based on the patrol history maintained in the computer aided dispatch (CAD) system in the DEP Emergency Dispatch Center. The system captures information about every incident and the current status of the officers on duty. In addition, each officer is required to call the dispatcher when beginning a new activity and the dispatcher records a daily log of each officer's activities in the computer system.

The figure shows the primary focus of the division's time is split between park and forest (30 percent) and boating activities (27 percent). This is followed by hunting and fishing activities (18 percent), of which commercial fishing takes up most of the time (13 percent). It is important to note the cyclical and seasonal nature of the work performed by the EnCon police. Boating concerns will dominate the summer months, for example, while hunting and fishing activities will be the focal point in the spring and fall.

Chapter II

Selection, Training, and Certification Requirements

This chapter provides descriptive information about the division's selection, training, and certification requirements for EnCon officers and makes recommendations related to re-certification training. While EnCon police receive the same basic training and fulfill the same certification requirements as other law enforcement organizations in the state, their areas of expertise are specialized and different from traditional police work and require additional training as described below. Despite the division's additional training requirements and EnCon officers consistently exceeding the amount of training required by the Police Officers Standards and Training Council, the program review survey of sergeants and conservation officers revealed that a significant number of officers request additional training.

Selection

In order to be considered for the position of EnCon police officer, a person must first meet all selection standards for appointment such as age and citizenship, and then pass a screening process that includes:

• a background investigation;

• interviews;

• a comprehensive medical examination including controlled substance screening;

• a physical fitness assessment;

• a psychological test; and

• a polygraph test.

Once through the screening process, a person can be hired as a probationary trainee, and go through one of the two main training processes, depending on the person's background and prior experience. The first, and traditional, avenue shown on the left-hand side of Figure II-1 requires four years of prior experience in the field of wildlife conservation, fish culture, commercial shellfishing, commercial fishing, farm management, forestry or law enforcement. This experience may be substituted by a bachelor's degree in a related field with at least fifteen semester hours in natural resource management, recreation management, biological sciences, agriculture or law enforcement.

The second avenue, shown on the right-hand side of Figure II-1 and available since 2005, allows a person who does not meet the previously mentioned standards with an opportunity to obtain the needed experience while working for the division. This method is based on a new job series created in 2005 to diversify the pool of candidates.

Figure II-1: Paths to Become an EnCon Police Officer

POSTC training requirements. Upon becoming trainees, DEP probationary trainees attend entrance-level training at the Police Officer Standards and Training Council (POSTC) facility in Meriden. The program schedule is five days a week for 21 to 22 weeks depending on the number of candidates attending. POSTC is authorized to have a maximum of 50 candidates per class with a total of two classes – the extra week is sometimes necessary to accommodate driver and firearms training. There are six main subjects included in the curriculum: Introduction to Law Enforcement; Police and the Law; Practical Police Skills; Human Relations; Criminal Investigation; and Patrol Procedures. There are a number of courses required within each subject amounting to a total of 650 hours of training. Of the 44 states that mandate a minimum number of hours for law enforcement basic training, Connecticut ranks fifth highest in required number of hours.⁵

After graduating from the academy, POSTC requires all probationary trainees to complete a minimum of 400 hours (10 weeks) of field training at their departments. The POSTC model for field training time is divided into progressive stages of trainee observation, participation, and performance. The DEP field training schedule operationalizes the POSTC model in four phases.

Phase I: Working with a primary Field Training Officer (FTO), the probationary officer is expected to perform 25 percent of the workload.

Phase II: The probationary officer is rotated to a second FTO and is expected to perform 50 percent of the workload.

Phase III: The probationary officer is rotated to a third FTO and is expected to perform 75 percent of the workload.

Phase IV: The probationary officer returns to the primary FTO and is expected to perform 100 percent of the workload.

The FTOs (EnCon police who have received training on how to train probationary candidates in the field) are responsible for completing daily observation reports and biweekly evaluation reports for the district or FTO Supervisor on a biweekly basis during this period.

DEP field training requirements. In addition to all POSTC requirements, DEP probationary trainees must also complete specialized training to prepare them to perform the wide variety of functions unique to their position. The additional training required by DEP extends the field training program for their trainees by four weeks. DEP topics include but are not limited to:

• Department Orientation

• Aquatic Nuisance Plants and Prevention

• Radio Use/Communications

• Commercial/Recreational Shellfishing

• Fish ID

• Small Game Hunting

• Rabies

• Deer Hunting

• Federal Wildlife Law

• Sportsmen's/Commercial Licenses and Tags

• Waterfowl Species ID and Hunting

• Wildlife Species ID

• Commercial/Recreational Marine Fishing

• Commercial Lobster Fishing

• All-terrain Vehicle (ATV) Patrol

• Hunting Related Shootings

• Archery Hunting

• Park and Forest Regulations

• Boating Laws and Regulations (including Boating Under the Influence)

• ATV, Snowmobile and Boating Operation

• Tranquilizer Use

Agency police officer status. Upon completion of POSTC entrance-level training requirements and the field training, the trainee is promoted to the position of Agency Police Officer (APO). APOs can work independently on DEP property but are required to work alongside a full-time EnCon officer when off DEP grounds. As shown on the left-hand side of Figure II-1, an APO with prior experience advances to the position of EnCon Police Officer after completing specialized DEP field training requirements. APOs without prior experience, represented on the right-hand side of the figure, will advance to the EnCon police officer status after obtaining experience equivalent to the traditional qualifications.

Training and Recertification

Certification expires three years after the date issued. Since 1982, EnCon police officers, like all other police officers in Connecticut, are required to maintain their certification status by completing review training. POSTC is the agency responsible for adopting and enforcing the professional standards for the certification and recertification of Connecticut's police officers.

Of the 32 states that mandate review training for recertification, Connecticut ranks ninth or within the top 28 percent for the number of hours required.⁶ Connecticut police officers are required to complete a minimum of 60 hours of review training every three years to renew their certification.⁷ Twenty-eight of the total required hours are specifically mandated. Specific areas are:

• Firearms with 3 hours required annually (9 hours)

• Rape Crisis (2 hours)

• Domestic Violence (2 hours)

• Human Relations (3 hours)

• Handling Juveniles (1 hour)

• Police and Law (7 hours)

• Patrol Procedures (2 hours)

• Gang Violence (1 hour)

• Bias Crimes (1 hour)

The remaining 32 hours are fulfilled by electives. Division command staff report that EnCon police officers consistently exceed the required number of hours for recertification. Over the 2003 to 2006 cycle, EnCon police officers (including seasonal officers) averaged 80 hours of review training. Excluding seasonal officers, EnCon police officers averaged 100 hours of review training over this time period.

However, according to the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, most police departments exceed these requirements. Through the survey of sergeants and conservation officers, program review staff assessed officer opinion about training. A significant number of the officers surveyed expressed dissatisfaction with both the amount and type of training they currently receive to perform their job. Results from the survey indicate that 39 percent of the respondents were either “unsatisfied” or “very unsatisfied” with the amount of training they receive to do their job; 38 percent reported being either “unsatisfied” or “very unsatisfied” with the type of training they receive. When asked “what type of training is needed” the officers suggested a variety of training, including:

• Firearms (50 percent)

• Legal/DMV/Policy and Procedure Updates (39 percent)

• Boating (28 percent)

• Wildlife Identification and Fish & Game (17 percent)

• Increase Review Training (11 percent)

• Investigative Techniques (6 percent)

• Outdoorsmen Knowledge for New Hires (6 percent)

• Critical Incident (6 percent)

• Search and Rescue (6 percent)

While only 6 percent of the respondents specifically requested training in investigative techniques in the comments section of the survey, when asked directly whether they agree or disagree with the statement “I have been provided with appropriate training to conduct investigations,” 36 percent disagreed, indicating a need for additional training in this area. Approximately 20 percent of the respondents also expressed the view that the division needs more specialized units. The examples provided included a special investigative unit and a canine unit.

The division has one administrative sergeant dedicated to training. The sergeant is responsible for notifying, scheduling, and tracking all POSTC mandated training for the officers in the division. Training not required by POSTC or “elective training” is not researched or recorded by the sergeant; however, it is advertised on the POSTC website and sometimes in flyers sent to the district offices.

Interviews with staff at all levels within the division revealed that the division lacks a systematic approach for offering and/or notifying officers of upcoming elective training opportunities. Finding and applying for desired training is considered the responsibility of the individual officer. More actively addressing the needs of the officers will enhance the performance of the division as a unit.

Recommendations:

2. The division should regularly assess the training needs of its personnel to ensure the training they receive allows them to perform their duties with confidence in the field.

3. The administrative sergeant located at the Central Headquarters in Hartford should be responsible for finding appropriate elective training events and implementing a system to notify all officers of the dates of such events as well as deadlines for application.

Chapter III

Budget

This chapter presents the budget and revenue trends over time for the division. The trends indicate that:

• there appears to be an emphasis on reducing the division's impact on the state's General Fund;

• currently 52 percent of the division's expenses and 36 percent of the officer positions are supported by fees, the federal government, and special funding; and

• revenue generated by DEP law enforcement activity has decreased by approximately $100,000 since FY 2001.

Operating Budget

Sources of funding. Funding for the division comes from four main sources: the state General Fund, fees (the Environmental Conservation Fund and the State Boating Fund), the federal government (Coast Guard and Homeland Security) and special funding⁸ (i.e., Joint Enforcement Agreement with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Nuclear Safety Emergency Response Fund, and White Memorial trust fund). Figure III-1 shows the percentage each of these sources contributed to the FY 2006 operating budget of $6.1 million, the most recently completed state fiscal year.

The state General Fund provided for nearly half of the budget ($3 million). The majority of these funds were earmarked for personnel and fixed expenses. Thirty-four percent or $2 million of the budget came from fees collected from state parks, hunting and fishing licenses, and boating registrations. Fee-based, federal and special funds contributed to salaries and benefits, other expenses, and also provide for equipment.

Trends. Figure III-2 presents the operating budget for the division in both actual and constant dollars for the past seven years. The constant budget (when adjusted for inflation) appears to remain fairly steady over this period except in FY 04 and FY 05 when the budget decreased by approximately $500,000. The reduction in funding reflects the impact of the decrease in personnel costs caused by early retirements (12 officers) and layoffs (9 officers) that occurred in FY 03. While the division was able to rehire those lost from layoffs in a matter of months, recovering from the impact of early retirements is taking more time.

Expenditures. The operating budget is broken down into salaries and benefits, equipment, and other expenses -- of which approximately 85 percent are fixed costs (i.e., leased vehicles, uniform dry cleaning, phones, gas, beepers, etc.). Figure III-3 below demonstrates the trend in what portion of expenses went toward each of these categories between FY 00 and FY 06.

On average, the division spent 85 percent of its funding on salaries and benefits. Although not shown in the figure, an average of 8 percent of total salary costs (not including benefits) was spent on overtime – with the lowest at 6 percent in FY 03 and the highest at 9 percent in FY 05. In FY 06, 30 percent of the overtime was supported by a combination of federal, private, and fee-based funding. The need for overtime slightly increased in 2006 due to the shortage of staff in the DEP Emergency Dispatch unit. Five EnCon police officers, who have previous dispatch training, worked overtime to help cover the extra shifts. From May 26 to July 6, 2006, they covered four to five shifts per week for a total of 26 shifts (208 hours).

Starting in FY 06, 93 percent of other expenses are supported by fee-based funding sources. This is due to recent legislation that decreased the General Fund share of the operating budget by $1.7 million and replaced this funding with the total revenue collected from fees. The percent of the budget committed to other expenses has grown in recent years due to increases in communications equipment, the cost of vehicles and gas, and new legislative requirements (i.e., rabies and hepatitis B vaccinations, CPR certifications, various trainings including training that is provided to lake patrolmen, etc.). Since 2000, 55 percent of equipment expenditures have been supported by federal and special funds. Spending on equipment significantly increased in FY 06 (91 percent). This is due to the recent purchase of two new boats. (The increase in spending on equipment in FY 06 as a percent of division spending is shown in Figure III-3.)

Revenue

Money generated from DEP enforcement activities is deposited into the General Fund. The Judicial Branch's Central Infractions Bureau compiled a report for the committee on the amount of revenue derived from the tickets and fines or payable infractions produced by the EnCon officers from FY 00 to FY 06. The amount of money collected from misdemeanors and violations that are brought to court was provided by judicial caseload statisticians.

The program review committee's analysis of the revenue generated by DEP law enforcement indicates that a decrease in enforcement activity has had a negative impact on the department's contribution to the state's General Fund. The Judicial Branch's Central Infractions Bureau reports that the number of tickets and fines or payable infractions produced by EnCon officers has decreased from 3,782 in FY 01 to 1,895 in FY 06. Consequently, revenue derived from these infractions has also decreased over this same time period by approximately $100,000 (see Figure III-4).

Also shown in the figure above is the amount of money collected from misdemeanors and violations that are brought to court. Such non-ticket revenue decreased more than half during this time, from $44,682 in FY 01 to $20,706 in FY 06. The figure also shows a significant revenue decrease in FY 03 when the division lost 21 officers due to early retirements and layoffs.

Chapter IV

Organization and Structure

This chapter describes the organization and structure of the Division of Environmental Conservation Police, outlining the major functions performed at each level. This chapter also provides an overview of how personnel are deployed, the trends in various types of incidents and enforcements actions compared to the deployment of officers, and recent changes impacting the division's areas of responsibility.

Major Roles and Functions

The organizational structure of the Division of Environmental Conservation Police, as of May 2006, is illustrated in Figure IV-1. Total full–time staffing is 50 officers and three trainees. The division consists of three districts (East, West, and Marine) and the headquarters staff. The staff for each district consists of a captain, two to three sergeants, and a combination of conservation police officers, agency police officers, and trainees. Headquarters for the division command staff is located in Hartford. The major functions performed at each level of law enforcement personnel are summarized below.

Headquarters staff. The headquarters staff includes the director with the rank of colonel, a captain, two sergeants, a secretary, and a clerk. The office establishes the policy and direction for the division, oversees planning, the budget, and organizational development, tracks the dispositions of cases and the outcomes of investigations, oversees training, coordinates public education and outreach, researches grants, and procures new equipment. As the organization chart illustrates, the colonel reports to the bureau chief for outdoor recreation and the chain of command continues up through the deputy commissioner for natural resources and outdoor recreation to the commissioner.

Captains. The captains are the operational commanders of the division. In the field, they are responsible for evaluating the sergeants, deploying officers in their district, identifying problem areas, and developing and implementing “enforcement initiatives” to address those problem areas. Administratively, they are responsible for maintaining the budget for their district, approving overtime, ensuring proper maintenance of equipment, reviewing reports, and maintaining evidence and court records.

Sergeants. Typically, the sergeants are the direct supervisors of four to seven field officers. They conduct officer performance evaluations and assess the condition of each officer's equipment on a monthly basis. They oversee special teams such as the Tranquilizer team and the Boating Accident Reconstruction Unit. Administrative duties include approving mileage and timesheets and reviewing reports for submission to the captains. Covering as much territory as 1.5 counties each, sergeants also work as liaisons to the communities as well as to state and local police. There is also a sergeant in the Western district assigned as the direct supervisor of all lake authority patrolmen.

Figure IV-1: Organization Chart (As of May 2006)

Conservation officers. Conservation officers are responsible for patrolling assigned areas and enforcing various laws and regulations involving fish, shellfish, wildlife, parks, forests, boats, off-road vehicles, and the use of DEP-owned or controlled properties. The full range of criminal laws is also enforced on DEP-owned property by conservation officers. As discussed in Chapter II, there are two job classes below conservation officer -- trainee and agency police officer -- which are used as training positions until the person becomes eligible for appointment to conservation officer. The limitations of each position are also described in Chapter II.

Deployment

Demonstrated on the map on the following page (Figure IV-2), the state is divided into three districts for the purposes of deploying conservation officers: East, West, and Marine. Each district is commanded by a captain. The districts are subdivided into sectors. Each sector consists of a supervising sergeant and a combination of conservation police officers, APOs and trainees.

The Eastern and Western districts each consist of two sectors (North and South). Each sector is further broken down into two zones, which are essentially an officer's area of responsibility while on duty. The Eastern district consists the Northeast and Southeast sectors, which are broken down into the following zones: NE I (Northeast I), NE II (Northeast II), SE I (Southeast I), and SE II (Southeast II). The Western district consists of the Northwest and Southwest sectors, which are broken down into the following zones: NW I (Northwest I), NW II (Northwest II), SW I (Southwest I), SW II (Southwest II). The Marine district has three sectors – WM (Western Marine), CM (Central Marine), and EM (Eastern Marine). The Eastern and Western districts are also called the inland districts.

Table IV-1 lists each district and indicates for each sector the number of towns per zone and sector. The number of towns range from 29 to 43 per inland sector (11 to 25 per zone). In addition to the coastline, the number of towns in the marine sectors range from five to 13.

Despite these jurisdictions, there are times when an officer will work outside of his/her assigned zone, sector, or even district. Such cases include where an emergency is occurring in another part of the state, as part of an enforcement initiative, while working on “species-specific” patrols, or special event coverage.

The division does not employ any staffing formula or discrete methodology to determine the deployment of patrol personnel. According to EnCon command staff, the primary considerations for the current design of the field organization and deployment of personnel include:

• the presence of the Connecticut River that creates a natural divide between the eastern and western sides of the state;

• routes of travel and overall accessibility to highways;

• location of State Police barracks, because EnCon police use their facilities for processing arrests and lock-ups;

• span of control for supervisors; and

• number and location of past incidents.

Schedule. While conservation police work an eight-hour day and a 40-hour week, the scheduled workday and workweek are flexible based on the demands of the job and the particular needs of the season or area patrolled. While the DEP dispatch center, which is operated by the DEP Bureau of Financial and Support Services and handles calls from other parts of the department, is open on a 24-hour, seven-days-per-week basis, the EnCon police do not maintain 24-hour coverage. There is one mandatory late shift per sector, the length of which varies with the season. While a late shift can go as late as midnight in the summer, typically, there is no officer on duty in any part of the state after 8:00 p.m. If a complaint is reported to DEP after hours, depending on the nature of the incident, conservation officers can be called in or municipal or State Police may be asked to respond depending on the nature and location of the complaint. If the event is not an ongoing criminal activity or an emergency, an EnCon officer may not respond until the following day.

Enforcement initiatives. The captains are responsible for ensuring officer coverage is adequate in their districts, consistent with the duties EnCon police are expected to perform. As mentioned above, the captains are responsible for designing and implementing enforcement initiatives in response to enforcement problem areas in their regions. EnCon command staff report these initiatives began in 2004 in response to a shortage of full-time patrol personnel. Usually, an initiative will emanate from a large number of violations or complaints in an area. The captains will design a plan to respond to the problem, and this usually results in a large conservation officer presence. The initiative can be as short as a day or as long as several days.

Specialized units. The EnCon police have developed specialized units made up of personnel with advanced training and special equipment to address particular issues. Each unit is composed of existing full-time conservation officers.

• Boating Accident Reconstruction Unit (BARU). This unit was formed in 1998 and consists of six conservation officers. The BARU responds to any boating accident that involves a fatality or serious physical injury. This unit, the only one like it in the state, is available to all other law enforcement agencies to assist them in investigating serious boating accidents.

• Tranquilizer teams. Because of the increasing public safety hazard involving black bears and moose entering populated areas and highways, the animals are often tranquilized and released back into the wild. The tranquilizer unit consists of eight conservation officers as well as several wildlife biologists who are trained in the use of sedatives and specialized “darting” equipment. There are two tranquilizer teams with one posted east and one west of the Connecticut River.

• Reconstruction of Hunting Related Shooting. Two officers are trained in investigating and reconstructing hunting-related incidents involving a shooting. These two officers attended a school specializing in such training and have been available to the force as a special resource since 2005. They investigated one serious incident in 2005.

• Personal watercraft (PWC) enforcement unit. Personal watercraft (e.g., jet skis) are used by EnCon police for routine fishing enforcement and boating patrol purposes. PWCs are effective in entering shallow areas that boats cannot. This unit was formed in 2001. Currently there are eight officers trained in PWC enforcement.

• All terrain vehicle (ATV) enforcement unit. The division is currently working towards developing an official ATV enforcement unit. About 20 officers are trained in the appropriate use of ATVs. Due to the high number of ATV violations on DEP property and limited staff resources, EnCon police have had to focus enforcement efforts on ATV violations that occur on DEP property. Violations involving ATVs that routinely occur on state property include trespass, misuse of walking and hiking trails, and unregistered vehicles.

Incidents and Enforcement Actions by Location

Patrol zones and deployment. To examine the appropriateness of the deployment of EnCon personnel, the program review committee compared the annual average percentage of incidents and enforcement actions between 2000 and 2005 to the percentage of officers assigned, including the full time equivalent of seasonal officers, by patrol zone. While this comparison does not convey what the appropriate number of officers should be per zone, it does give an indication of where incidents and enforcement actions are occurring relative to the resources devoted to each zone. (See also Appendix D for a listing of average incidents and enforcement actions by town.)

As presented in Figure IV-3, some zones appear out of balance. For example, the Northwest II zone has 12 percent of the incidents and 7 percent of the enforcement actions with 8 percent of the officers. The Northeast II zone, in comparison, has a lower percentage of incidents (8 percent), a lower percent of the enforcement actions (6 percent), and the same percent of officers (8 percent).

To see this comparison more clearly, the incidents and enforcement actions were added together in each zone to develop an overall activity number. The results were ranked from 1 (lowest percentage of activity) to 11 (highest percentage of activity). Similarly, the number of officers per zone was ranked from 1 (least officers) to 11 (most officers).

The point of the exercise is to see how much activity is going on in each zone relative to one another and the relative amount of officers that are located in each zone. The result is presented in Figure IV-4. There are relatively more officers than activity in Southwest II, Northeast II, Central Marine, while in Northwest I, Northeast I, and Southeast I, there is more activity than officers.

The comparison suggests that resources may need to be shifted to areas with more activity. This does not necessarily mean that there are too many officers in the areas with less activity because there could be, for example, a need in certain parks to provide more of a police officer presence. In addition, due to the nature of the maritime environment, the marine district often needs two officers on a boat to conduct enforcement activities. Further analysis should be done on the specific types of incidents in each zone to see if there are any substantive differences in the type of patrolling necessary in each zone.

Another way to consider the appropriateness of the workload in each patrol zone is to examine the number of incidents that could be assigned per officer based on the average annual number of incidents that have been received by DEP since 2000. The actual number per officer may be different because officers may work out of their zone and more than one officer may respond to an incident. In addition, the zone configurations changed between 2005 and 2006, making comparisons of actual incidents by officers in the new 2006 zone configuration difficult. The actual assignments per officer, without regard to zone, are analyzed further below.

Figure IV-5 shows the number of incidents that would be assigned per officer based on the average number of annual incidents divided by the number of officers assigned (conservation officers and FTE seasonal officers) by zone. The annual average incidents per officer is about 300. Five zones exceed this average – three exceed it by more than 33 percent (Southeast I, Northwest II, and Northwest I). Six zones are under the average. Like the previous analysis, this suggests a potential imbalance in workload distribution based on the way the zones are constructed or in the way officers are distributed.

The actual distribution of incidents also suggests an imbalance among officer assignments. Figure IV-6 shows the actual number of incidents handled per officer for the full-time conservation officers in the field in 2005, excluding supervisors and seasonal officers. Full-time conservation officers as opposed to seasonal officers handle the bulk of the incidents (86 to 89 percent).

There were four conservation officers who responded to less than 100 incidents. These officers retired, resigned, or were injured during the year. Sixteen officers responded to between 101 and 199 incidents comprising about one-third of incidents. Fourteen officers were responsible for 45 percent of the incidents, while four officers were responsible for over 300 incidents apiece or 20 percent of incidents. While there will always be some variation in the number of incidents handled by officers - based on location, type of activity, and opportunity - to have nearly one-fifth of the conservation officer workload handled by four officers appears disproportionate.

Recommendations:

4. Officer deployment and the patrol zone structure should be reexamined, along with a review as to how incidents are monitored and distributed, to better allocate the caseload among field officers.

5. EnCon police should institute a protocol to obtain information from state and municipal police departments regarding police activity on DEP property, beginning with parks with high attendance, to fully understand the amount of enforcement activity occurring on DEP property.

Areas of Responsibility: Recent Changes

There have been some recent changes in how EnCon personnel are deployed and the type of personnel that perform the law enforcement function at DEP as noted below.

• The decline in the overall number of officers has resulted in the need for a more flexible alignment of personnel into the zones described above. Full-time conservation officers are no longer assigned to work primarily in specific park management units, as defined by the state parks division. (A park management unit could include more than one park). Last year, five conservation officers were assigned to work in park management units. Previously, as many as 12 officers were assigned to the parks.

• The marine district expanded from two sectors into three and also added a sergeant supervisor. The marine district's area of responsibility on land had been confined to the portions of the land area south of Interstate-95 in each town along the coast. This has been expanded to the entirety of the coastal towns along I-95 plus three additional towns. The creation of a third sector was done to reduce the span of control for the Eastern Marine sector sergeant, who was supervising 10 officers and was also responsible for two of the most popular parks – Hammonasset and Rocky Neck. The realignment also enhanced public safety in inland districts by reducing the number of towns and the areas of responsibility in those districts.

• Until last year, three park supervisors were certified as police officers. Park supervisors essentially served as police officers and park managers, with the majority of their time devoted to the latter. This dual role has been gradually phased out. Because of concerns raised about the demands of the two disparate roles, dual reporting requirements to a park administrator and an EnCon police supervisor, the increasing demands of park management, and an increasing emphasis on professionalism for law enforcement personnel, the department made the decision not to continue the park supervisor positions as certified police officers.

Chapter V

Incidents and Enforcement Actions

This chapter examines the trends in the various types of incidents and enforcement actions taken by EnCon police over time. The growth in division responsibilities and the areas regulated by the division are also analyzed. In addition, these activities are compared to the deployment of officers. In summary, the following discussion demonstrates that:

• the responsibilities of the EnCon police have expanded over time;

• most, but not all, measures of EnCon coverage area and regulated entities have increased;

• while the total number of incidents and enforcement actions have declined between 2001 and 2005, the number of incidents on a per officer basis has increased on average in the last four years;

• in general, the percentage of recreational/criminal incidents declined, while that of fish and game incidents increased;

• the incidence of more serious crimes handled by the EnCon police (i.e., vice, controlled substances, and crimes against property and people) has declined in the last three years;

• most patrol time is devoted to fish and game activities and yields the most amount of incidents, but the least amount of enforcement actions;

• from 2000 to 2005, an average of 70 percent of incidents were generated by officer observation of violations rather than reported complaints, though this percentage has declined in recent years; and

• in general, the EnCon police have more staffing during the busiest days, though officers do not appear to be scheduled at optimal times as incidents appear to be peaking when officers are beginning to sign off.

Special data concerns. Most of the data analyzed in this chapter is based on information collected by the DEP dispatch center. It should be noted that concerns have been brought to program review staff attention that indicate the number of incidents reported to DEP may be undercounted. Various people in different parts of the department have raised this concern and offer different reasons for the undercounting. One reported practice seems to involve possible screening by the dispatch center, so that all calls for service are not recorded. The dispatch center does not have an appropriate quality control procedure or practice in place to confirm or deny the occurrence of dispatch screening in an objective way. (See the related discussion and finding about the Emergency Dispatch Center in Chapter VIII).

Moreover, nearly 75 percent of Connecticut park supervisors who responded to the program review survey stated they at times refrained from calling the EnCon police for routine park infractions because of the lack of timeliness in response.

In addition, both state and municipal police respond to incidents in state parks and forests and these incidents may not be in DEP's count. Joint enforcement activities are accounted for in the division's statistics but the occasional uncoordinated response to a call for service by other police departments is not captured in DEP data in any systematic way. Like the other items mentioned above, this denies the division a true understanding of the number and type of incidents occurring on property within its primary jurisdiction. However, it is the best and only information currently available about EnCon activity.

Regulated Activities

The next few figures explore how various aspects of the scope of the EnCon police's responsibilities and the type and volume of regulated activities have changed over time. The figures show that:

• the duties assumed by the EnCon police have increased;

• the number of licensed fishermen and hunters has decreased, while the number of regulated hunting and fishing areas has increased;

• the number of marine anglers, in total and on a per officer basis, has generally increased in the last 10 years;

• park attendance per officer has increased over the last 15 years; and

• the number of licensed boats and the amount of DEP-owned property have increased.

Revisions to primary responsibilities. The primary responsibilities given to the EnCon police have grown in number over the years. Figure V-1 shows the change in the number of responsibilities, as defined by the EnCon police, since 1976. For example, the EnCon police (or their predecessors) were responsible for basic fish, game, and boating law enforcement in 1976, which represented about 11 distinct responsibilities. Gradually, additional functions were added either through statute or programmatic changes, both internal and external to the division. For example:

• turkey hunting was reintroduced in Connecticut in 1980;

• a wildlife tranquilizer team was created in 1981;

• boating under the influence of alcohol was made a crime in 1989;

• the oversight of lake authority patrolmen was turned over from the state police in 1988;

• salmon fishing was reintroduced in Connecticut, along with certain regulatory requirements; and

• homeland security functions were created in 2001.

Appendix E shows the responsibility changes in detail.

Boating. Figure V-2 presents the total number of boats registered in Connecticut and the total number of registered boats per full-time conservation officer over time. A per officer metric is used to capture the magnitude of the changes to both the EnCon police force (excluding seasonal SCOs) and the regulated population at the same point in time. The number of registered boats increased from about 69,000 in 1975 to 112,000 in 2005, while the number of boats per officer increased from about 1,600 to about 2,100.

Fishing and hunting. Figure V-3 shows the number of licensed fishermen and hunters per officer has declined since 1986. In 1986, there were about 1,400 hunters and 2,600 fishermen per officer. By 2005, the number of licensed hunters per officer had declined about 29 percent to 980, while the number of licensed fishermen per officer declined by about 19 percent to 2,100.

Ironically, while the number of licensed fishermen and hunters has declined, the number of regulated hunting areas and fish management areas has increased, as shown in Figure V-4. EnCon police have responsibility to patrol hunting areas open to the public as well as hunting areas where a permit is required to hunt on the property (e.g., fish and game clubs). As the figure shows, the number of hunting areas has increased from 88 in 1975 to 135 in 2005. The hunting areas open to the public include 43 parks and forests totaling over 150,000 acres

As discussed earlier, state fish management areas (for trout, bass, pike, and walleye), and federal fish management plans regulate certain ponds, lakes, streams, rivers, estuaries, and Long Island Sound or parts of each to improve the propagation of particular species of fish. Both federal and state programs have expanded in the last 15 years.

Marine anglers. Fishermen are required to obtain a license to legally fish in inland areas. No license is required for the marine area (i.e., essentially saltwater fishing). An ongoing joint federal and state study project provides estimates about the number of marine anglers and number of fishing trips taken by those anglers in Connecticut. As Table V-1 shows, the number of marine anglers increased in the 1980s, decreased in the 1990s, and increased again in the 2000s. The number of marine anglers per officer was the highest in 2004, the last year data were available. Similarly, the number of fishing trips was the highest in 2004 at 1.6 million trips.

Parks. After a period of decline on a per officer basis from 1975 through 1990, park attendance has been generally increasing over the last 14 years, as shown in Figure V-5. There were about 94,000 park attendees per officer in 1995, nearly 160,000 in 2004, and a drop in 2005 to 123,000.

Similarly, the amount of acreage managed by the Department of Environmental Protection has increased since 1975 from about 181,000 acres to about 250,000 acres in 2005. After a period of decline from 1975 through 1985 and a period of relative stability through 2000, the amount of acres per officer has increased from 3,400 acres in 2000 to over 4,700 acres in 2005, as shown in Figure V-6.

Incidents, Enforcement Actions, and Warnings

The trend in the number of incidents, enforcement actions, and warnings reported by the division from 1998 through 2005 was also examined. Because the apparent trends can be distorted by the number of available full-time sworn personnel, the activities of the division were also examined on a per officer basis. Overall, the data show:

• the total number of incidents, enforcement actions, and warnings has declined since 2001; and

• on a per officer basis, the number of incidents recorded by the EnCon police has increased on average in the last four years, while the number of enforcement actions and warnings issued has decreased.

Total incidents, enforcement actions, and warnings. Figure V-7 shows the total number of incidents, enforcement actions, and warnings recorded by the division between 1998 and 2005. An incident is a call for service or a self-generated enforcement activity. It does not include routine patrol, directing traffic, or general engagement with the community. An incident can lead to a warning being issued or an enforcement action. Enforcement actions include a written misdemeanor court summons, an infraction, or the actual taking of an alleged violator into physical custody (i.e., custodial arrest). Warnings include written notices of violations of certain motor vehicle laws, boating laws, park and forest regulations, and fish and game offenses.

In general, the numbers for each of those activities increased from 1998 through 2001 and then generally decreased through 2005. The total number of incidents, for example, increased from about 10,800 in 1998 to nearly 15,400 in 2001 and then decreased to about 11,200. The division had the highest number of sworn full-time personnel in 2000 and 2001.

Incidents per officer. Figure V-8 shows the number of incidents per officer for each year between 1998 and 2005 as well as the four-year average ending in 2001 and 2005. On a per officer basis, the first four-year timeframe indicates an increase nearly each year. After a decline in 2002, there was again an increase in the number of incidents per officer, and then a decline in 2005. Even though there are fewer officers in each year after 2001, based on the four-year average, the officers were more productive in terms of the number of incidents they investigated (219 in 2001 versus 224 in 2005).

Warnings per officer. Figure V-9 illustrates the number of warnings per officer issued between 1998 and 2005 and the 4-year average ending in 2001 and 2005. The figure shows an increase in the number of warnings until 2001 and a general decrease after that. The 4-year average also reflects this decline.

Enforcement actions per officer. Figure V-10 illustrates the number of enforcement actions per officer issued between 1998 and 2005 and the 4-year average ending in 2001 and 2005. Similar to the trend noted in the previous figure, the number of enforcement actions generally increased until 2001 and there was a decrease after that. The four-year averages of 102 in 2001 and of 70 in 2005 also mirror this decline.

Ratio of enforcement actions and warnings to incidents. The same trends are also illustrated in Figure V-11. This figure shows the ratio of enforcement actions and warnings to total incidents from 1998 through 2005. In 1998, 50 percent of all incidents resulted in an arrest and about 14 percent of all incidents resulted in a warning. By 2005, only about one-quarter of all incidents resulted in an enforcement action and 11 percent resulted in a warning.

The proportion of enforcement actions remained between 45 and 50 percent until 2001, after which the ratio begins to decline. Part of the explanation for the drop off is that the nature and types of incidents have changed. For example, the number of “bear nuisance” incidents in 1998 was 70. By 2005, the number of bear incidents rose to nearly 1,800. No matter how ornery a bear may have been, the encounter would not result in an arrest or a warning being issued.

Type of incidents. Figure V-12 shows how the type of incidents the EnCon police handle has changed over time. In general, the percentage of recreational/criminal incidents has declined, while that of fish and game incidents has increased. Fish and game type of incidents represented most of EnCon activities (44 percent) in the last two years. This category is split between hunting and fishing (44 percent) and nuisance and sick wildlife (56 percent).

Boating incidents have remained fairly constant between 12 and 14 percent of total incidents. Boating incidents include various violations of boating law including boating under the influence, license and operator violations, and insufficient safety equipment.

Recreational/criminal type of incidents include various park and forest infractions, motor vehicle violations and crimes against people and property, as well as medical emergencies. Park and forest violations (29 percent) make up the largest portion within this category.

Similar to the recreational/criminal category overall, the trend in the incidence of more serious crimes (i.e., vice, controlled substances, and crimes against property and people) also declined in the last three years. As depicted in Figure V-13, the proportion of these more serious crimes decreased from 15 percent of all incidents in 2003 to 7 percent of all incidents in 2005.

Type of enforcement actions. Figure V-14 shows enforcement actions by category between 2000 and 2005. The recreational/criminal category has consistently provided the majority of enforcement actions. Fish and game enforcement actions have declined, while boating actions have increased recently. The predominant statutory violations for fish and game enforcement actions include fishing/hunting without a license and various marine fisheries violations (e.g., closed season, too many fish), while boating enforcement actions include insufficient flotation devices and violation of safety regulations (e.g., speeding, wake violations). The recreational/criminal category includes breach of peace, narcotics violations, failure to pay previous infractions, and various park and forest infractions.

Parks and forests. Park and forest activity was isolated for analysis purposes because nearly one-third of patrol time is spent in parks and forests. Figure V-15 compares park and forest incidents and enforcement actions as a percent of total incidents and enforcement actions from 1998 through 2005. It should be noted that park and forest incidents and enforcement actions refer to specific violations of park rules and regulations, not all violations that occur in state parks and forests. For example, there are specific rules against the possession of alcoholic beverages in certain parts of all parks, and an infraction of this sort would be counted in the park and forest category. If a boating violation occurs in a state park, it is classified in the boating category. Thus, while not a complete picture of all incidents and enforcement activity in the parks, this category does give an indication of the trend in most of the activity. (See Appendix F for a listing of the 20 parks with the highest number of incidents in 2005.)

Two distinct periods emerge from the figure. In general, from 1998 through 2002, both incidents and enforcement actions were in the high 20 to mid-30 percent range. From 2003 through 2005, incidents and enforcement actions ranged from 6 and 7 percent in 2003 to 12 and 17 percent in 2005. EnCon management cited several reasons for this apparent decline. In 2003, a new colonel took over the division and changed how the data were reported for this category – limiting it to true park and forest infractions. In addition, nine officers were laid off during 2003 and 12 retired. Although the nine laid off officers were rehired within a short period of time, lingering low morale may have contributed to the decline, according to EnCon management. Since 2003, park and forest violations have doubled.

Figure V-16 compares incidents and enforcement actions by area type with the amount of officer time devoted to those tasks for 2005. The fish and game category has the most patrol time and the most incidents but yields the least amount of enforcement actions. There appear to be a couple of possible explanations for this. In regard to the incident/enforcement action numbers, over half of the fish and game incidents involve injured or nuisance wildlife, including bear incidents. Nuisance and injured wildlife has increased as a proportion of overall incidents from 11 percent in 2000 to 25 percent in 2005. Obviously, wildlife incidents, while increasing the number of incidents, usually do not result in any enforcement actions. In regard to the patrol time, it is asserted that fish and game enforcement often takes more time to develop than other types of incidents. Thus, more patrol time is needed to generate a fish and game enforcement action.

Figure V-17 shows the outcome of the more than 23,000 EnCon enforcement actions from 2000 to 2005. Most (74 percent) enforcement actions resulted in a finding or admission of guilt. This category also includes cases of bond forfeiture (11 percent of total enforcement outcomes). In some hunting cases, the defendant is allowed to forfeit bail bond money in exchange for the promise of no further prosecution. Twenty-three percent of cases are “nolled.” Typically, in nolled cases the prosecutor agrees the case will not be prosecuted for some period of time as long as the defendant does not have any further trouble with the law. The remaining three percent (other category) include cases where the charges were reduced (1.7 percent), accelerated rehabilitation was granted (less than .5 percent) or motor vehicle licenses were suspended (1.2 percent), as well as cases where the defendant was found not guilty (less than .5 percent). These outcomes do not include approximately 5,700 cases where the results are still pending or unknown.

Source of incidents. As demonstrated in Figure V-18, the source of the majority of incidents is generated by officers themselves. From 2000 to 2005, an average of 70 percent of incidents was generated by officers as opposed to the public or other DEP employees. This figure, though, has been declining from a high of 82 percent in 2000 to a low of 55 percent in 2005. Of the non-officer generated incidents in 2005, 53 percent were wildlife complaints, 21 percent were fish and game, 19 percent were recreational/criminal, and about 7 percent were boating.

Incidents and Staff Deployment

The trend in EnCon police staff deployment is compared to the trend in incidents across different modes of time below. This type of analysis does not reveal whether there are enough or too many officers overall, but will indicate if existing staffing levels change with different measures of time. Specifically, incidents and staffing are compared in terms of time of the year, day of the week, and hour of the day. As the figures below show, there is a fairly parallel relationship between incidents and staffing when examined on a day of the week and on a seasonal basis. However, when staffing is compared to incidents by hour of the day, there does not appear to be as close a relationship.

Figure V-19 compares incidents to the proportion of officer time by day of the week. For example, 13 percent of all officer on-duty time (excluding training time) and 9.7 percent of all incidents occurred on Mondays. An exact match in proportion of officer time and number of incidents is not expected. However, one would expect more officer time is put in during the peak incident days. In general, the EnCon police have more staffing during the busiest days in terms of incidents on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and reduced staffing during the rest of the week.

Similarly, Figure V-20 compares the percentage of incidents to the proportion of EnCon officer time by season. The bulk of officer time was spent during the summer, which corresponds with the peak in incidents. The least amount of time was expended in the winter – during the lowest proportion of incidents. Nearly one-quarter of time was spent each in the spring and fall, closely matching the proportion of incidents. EnCon staffing levels seem to coincide with seasonal peaks of activity.

Figure V-21 compares the actual times officers sign on and off for duty throughout the year and the times that incidents occur. Officers usually sign on to work between 6:00 A.M. and 9:59 A.M. (60 percent) and sign off between 2:00 P.M. and 5:59 P.M. (49.5 percent). However, almost half of the incidents (47 percent) begin between 2:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. Officers do not appear to be scheduled at optimal times as incidents appear to be peaking when officers are beginning to sign off. Typically, in each patrol zone two officers usually work the A.M. shift, and one is assigned to a P.M. shift.

Recommendation:

6. EnCon officer work schedules should be better aligned with the occurrence of incidents.

Chapter VI

Conservation Officer Staffing

Chapter IV examined how DEP deploys and distributes the conservation officers it currently employs. This chapter looks at the question of whether DEP employs an adequate number of conservation officers. Appropriate conservation officer staffing is a central requirement to ensure the adequate provision of visitor safety in Connecticut's parks and forests and the protection of the state's natural resources.

The adequacy of EnCon staffing has been a concern in the recent past. In 1993, the Governor's Task Force on Hunting and Public Safety reviewed hunting and public safety in Connecticut in the wake of a tragic hunting accident that took the life of a jogger, apparently mistaken for a deer. Based on the increase in regulated activities, the increase in outdoor activities that compete with hunting, and the spread of wildlife habitats, the task force recommended that the number of DEP conservation officers be increased from 49 officers to 75 (an addition of 24 officers and 2 supervisors).⁹

This chapter provides: 1) an analysis of the overall trends that have an impact on staffing and operations; 2) an explanation of police staffing principles, along with the results of an incident-based model for projecting EnCon staffing; and 3) an examination of the projections for the retirement of EnCon police officers in light of the revised qualifications to become a conservation officer.

Taken as a whole, overall operational trends tend to indicate that EnCon could benefit from additional staffing. A more detailed assessment of staffing needs, though, requires that EnCon and DEP management clearly identify and define the mission, goals, and objectives that the division is expected to achieve. Nonetheless, just maintaining the current level of staffing will require DEP to plan for, budget for, and actually hire replacement officers earlier than it has in the past, due to the changes in the training needs of new officer candidates.

Overall Considerations for Staffing

The capacity of the division to meet its public safety and natural resource protection obligations is interwoven with a complex mix of trends and factors. Presented below are some of the factors and recent trends considered together that impact EnCon police staffing and operations.

• In recent years, the number of EnCon police officers has declined and not recovered from the early retirement program offered in 2003.

• Overall, the scope of EnCon police statewide responsibilities has been increasing and most, but not all, of the measures related to EnCon coverage area and regulated entities have increased.

• The percentage of officer-generated actions has declined, while enforcement initiatives, which are considered more reactive policing strategies, have increased.

• The number of delayed/no-response calls has been increasing, but these calls tend to be for non-life threatening incidents and represent a relatively small percentage of all incidents.

• The recent trend in more serious crime and total incidents appears to be down, but incidents overall per officer have increased somewhat.

• While acknowledging the professionalism of EnCon officers, nearly all EnCon “customers” contacted by program review staff expressed some level of dissatisfaction with the level of service provided by the EnCon police, related to staffing.

• There is little data to indicate whether the actual incidence of fish and game violations is increasing or decreasing.

• Conservation officers do not feel there are enough staff to manage the division's responsibilities.

Number of officers. In recent years, the number of EnCon police officers has declined and not recovered from the early retirement program offered in 2003. Figure VI-1 presents the average number of sworn full-time conservation officers since 1975 by three-year intervals. For example, the 42 officers in 1975 represent the average number of officers in December for the years 1973, 1974, and 1975. Except for 1993 and 1999, the three-year average of sworn personnel has generally increased through 2002. The latest three-year average shows a decline of 13 officers to 51.

The highest number of sworn personnel in any single year since 1972 was 64 in 2000 and 2001. In the last six years, the lowest number of personnel was 50 in 2004, largely as a result of the early retirement program offered in 2003. Twelve offices retired in 2003, and nine officers were laid off. The officers who were laid off were rehired within a short period of time.

The current number of authorized sworn personnel positions is 56, of which 51 positions were filled as of October 2006. This includes one trainee and three agency police officers. As discussed earlier in Chapter II, neither trainees nor APOs have the full enforcement authority of conservation officers. The three APOs will not be able to patrol non-DEP property or respond to complaints off of DEP property on their own until July 2007.

The permanent sworn police personnel at DEP (conservation officers) are augmented during the summer and early fall by seasonal officers. (Prior to 1994, seasonal officers, called patrolmen, were limited to carrying batons and pepper spray, and could only issue infractions.) Figure VI-2 shows the number of full-time equivalent seasonal officers hired by the division since 1982, compared to the total number of permanent sworn personnel.

From a historical perspective, the number of seasonal officers hired in recent years has only been a fraction of what it had been in the 1980s and 1990s. Part of the reason is because prior to 1994, seasonal officers were not required to be certified police officers and therefore required less training. As of 1994, seasonal officers became special conservation officers (SCOs). The majority of today's SCOs serve as full-time police officers for a municipal force or have recently retired from such employment.

In the last few years, the number of SCOs has doubled from 3.5 full-time equivalents (FTEs) in 2002 to 7.4 FTEs in 2006. The total number of conservation officers and FTE SCOs totaled about 67 or more in 2000, 2001, and 2002. However, from 2003 through the summer of 2006, the total has been lower - between 54.9 and 58.5.

Administrative, supervisory and patrol personnel. Figure VI-3 shows the distribution of sworn personnel in percentage terms. In 2005, nearly three-quarters (39) of all EnCon sworn personnel were regular conservation officers, while about 21 percent were supervisors and the remaining 6 percent performed administrative functions. Three captains and eight sergeants made up the supervisors, all of whom were expected to perform some patrol functions for a portion of their time. The remaining personnel (6 percent) carried out administrative functions and comprised the headquarters staff.

Another way to consider staffing is to examine the number of officers on duty in any given day throughout the state and by district. Figure VI-4 shows the number of full-time equivalent officers on duty (including seasonal officers and field sergeants) in total for the entire state in a percentile format for 2005. This means, for example, in 2005 for 10 percent of the year (or for about 37 days), there were 22.1 or less officers on duty in the entire state (or for 90 percent of the time there were more than 22.1 officers on duty). For most of the time (60 percent), a total of 33.2 officers or less were on duty.

When the number of officers on duty by district is examined in Figure VI-5, it can be noted that for 10 percent of the time there were 5.4 officers or less on duty in the eastern district, 6.9 officers in the west, and 7.0 in the marine district. For most of the time (60 percent), there were 12 or less officers on duty in any one of the districts.

The minimum number of officers in the eastern district that were on duty on any day in 2005 was three, and the maximum number of officers was 20.8. The minimum in the western district was two officers and the maximum was 41, while the marine minimum was 2.5 and the maximum was 31.8. The minimum for total staffing was eight officers for an entire day and the maximum was 80.

Scope of responsibility. Overall, the scope of EnCon police responsibilities has been increasing and most, but not all, of the measures related to EnCon coverage area and regulated entities have increased. Items detailed in Chapter V demonstrate the changes in EnCon police responsibilities and the areas regulated by the division; all but one mark an increase in coverage. These changes include the increase in: EnCon duties from about 11 distinct responsibilities in 1976 to about 27 today; the number of registered boats per officer the last 30 years from about 1,600 to about 2,100; the acreage managed by DEP from about 181,000 acres in 1975 (1,807 per officer) to about 250,000 acres in 2005 (2,500 per officer); and the inland patrol area per officer from about 147 square miles in 2000 to about 218 square miles in 2005. The number of licensed hunters and inland fishermen, though, has declined since 1986.

Officer-generated incidents. The percentage of officer-generated actions has declined, while enforcement initiatives, which are considered more reactive policing strategies, have increased. As noted earlier, the percentage of incidents generated by EnCon officers has declined from about 82 percent of all incidents in 2000 to 55 percent in 2006. Enforcement initiatives began in 2004 as a reaction to the decline in officer staffing. Enforcement initiatives are designed in response to enforcement problems that have already presented themselves in particular regions. They are considered a reactive rather than a proactive response. No overtime is used for these initiatives. An initiative can be as short as a day or as long as several days. In 2004, the division developed 14 initiatives; in 2005, 24 initiatives were implemented. By the first week of June 2006, 10 initiatives were executed.

Delayed/no response calls. The number of delayed/no-response calls has been increasing, but these calls tend to be for non-life threatening incidents and represent a relatively small percentage of all incidents. The average number of delayed/no response calls between 1998 and 2001 was 222. The average between 2002 and 2005 more than doubled to 557. In 1998, the delayed/no response calls represented about 2 percent of all incidents; by 2005 that number rose to 6 percent. Although, as suggested in Chapter V, the time officers are on duty needs to be adjusted, that modification alone will not resolve problems with delayed/no response calls. The majority (54 percent) of the late/no response calls came in between 7:00 A.M. and 2:59 P.M., when most officers are on duty. For a more detailed analysis of the delayed/no response calls, refer to Appendix G.

The most likely type of delayed/no response incidents are not crimes against people or property, but are fish and game incidents (38 percent) followed by nuisance wildlife (33 percent). Nonetheless, fish and game incidents can represent violations of the law that often require a swift response to catch any potential lawbreakers. Many conservation officers believe a decline in information provided from the public regarding fish and game violations is because of the lack of officers who can respond in a timely manner.

A program called Turn in Poachers (TIP), which exists in some form in every state, assists with soliciting information from the public regarding the illegal taking of fish, game, and non-game wildlife. The program is administered by a non-profit organization, TIP, Inc., and provides reward money, anonymously if desired, to informants. The Connecticut program administrator has stated that the lack of timely officer follow up and a deficiency in funding for reward money (typically provided through court-encouraged donations from law breakers) have hampered its effectiveness in this state. Only about a half dozen payouts were made in each of the last three years. Insufficient data were provided to validate the longer-term trend in TIP activities.

Serious crimes. The recent trend in more serious crime and total incidents appears to be down, but incidents overall per officer have increased somewhat. As stated earlier, total incidents and enforcement actions handled by EnCon police have declined. However, overall park and forest infractions have increased since 2003, while the more serious crimes handled by the EnCon police (i.e., vice, controlled substances, and crimes against property and people) have dropped from 15 percent of all incidents in 2003 to 7 percent in 2005.

The decline could reflect an actual reduction in incidents (both overall and in the parks) or it could be an artifact of fewer officers. EnCon police have asserted that not only are there fewer officers to find violations (most incidents are officer-generated), but both the public and park staff call on them less because they have become less reliable. Results of interviews with stakeholders and the survey of park staff have highlighted this trend. Some calls could also be shifting to the Connecticut State Police (CSP) or local police. The CSP data system is not able to provide detailed information about their activity in state parks at this time. Staff also examined calls to the Madison Police Department, where the state's largest park, Hammonasset, is located. Non-medical calls to the Madison Police Department regarding Hammonasset from 2005 through the summer of 2006, increased from 18 to 24 calls.

As discussed previously in Chapter V, the number of incidents and enforcement actions increased with the higher levels of staffing. Interestingly, the number of incidents per officer has increased. Program review staff calculated the four-year average of the number of incidents per officer for two time periods. From 1998 through 2001, the average number of incidents per officer was 219 and for the period between 2002 through 2005, the average rose to 224, an increase of 2 percent.

Customer satisfaction. Nearly all EnCon “customers” contacted by program review staff expressed some level of dissatisfaction with the level of service provided by the EnCon police related to staffing. Program review staff surveyed all DEP park supervisors and interviewed a number of stakeholders in the fish and game community. While all those contacted commended EnCon officers' level of professionalism and competency, they indicated varying level of dissatisfaction with the services provided by the EnCon police. For example, of those responding to the survey of park supervisors:

• 58 percent were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with EnCon's response time;

• for the summer months, weekend coverage was cited as a problem. Sixty-one percent were dissatisfied with the coverage provided by the EnCon police during the day Friday through Sunday, while 60 percent were dissatisfied or very dissatisfied with coverage after midnight Friday through Sunday, during the summer;

• those managers with state campgrounds were also dissatisfied with coverage provided in the summer months after midnight Monday through Thursday (57 percent) and half were dissatisfied with coverage during the day Friday through Sunday;

• 53 percent did not agree with the idea that relying on state or local police to provide park coverage is an adequate substitute for EnCon police coverage;

• 74 percent reported that either they or their staff have avoided calling EnCon police for routine park infractions because EnCon police may not be available in a timely manner, while nearly half (47 percent) of the park supervisors reported that within the last year there have been instances when the EnCon police have not physically responded at all to minor incidents or park infractions;

• 58 percent reported that either they or their staff have had to engage in more enforcement-type activity (e.g., monitoring of people, and confrontation or eviction of park violators) compared to past years because of the lack of EnCon coverage; and

• 47 percent report that they think law enforcement services have been getting worse in the last three years, while 63 percent think crime in the parks has been about the same.

Program review staff interviewed other stakeholders, including members of lake authorities, representatives of the White Memorial Trust, and other members of the organized fish and game community.¹⁰ All expressed disappointment about the reduced EnCon coverage. A number of anecdotal examples were provided regarding a lack of response by DEP.

Fish and game data. There is little data to indicate the level of fish and game violations is increasing or decreasing. Normally, increases in crime or a decrease in police coverage grab headlines and sometimes lead to pressure to provide additional police officers in many municipalities. While there is a body of evidence that suggests that crime, in general, may be underreported, fish and game crimes seem to be particularly difficult to calculate. A fairly obvious problem is that there are no traditional victims who can report fish and game violations. In addition, the primary program in place to encourage the reporting of illegal fish and game activity, the TIP program described above, is not extensively publicized and is reportedly underfunded. Consequently, it is difficult to know the rate at which these violations are occurring - this is significant because detecting and preventing fish and game violations are part of the primary mission of the EnCon police.

Conservation officer opinions. Conservation officers do not feel there are enough officers to manage the division's responsibilities. In the survey of the full-time conservation officers (Appendix A), the majority of respondents indicated a need for more officers in every season. In written comments officers expressed concerns about having too few officers and too many responsibilities, as well as the inability to properly investigate all incidents. The majority also cited officer safety as an issue and was concerned about not having timely back up from the state, local or other EnCon police. Most (54 percent) felt crime in the parks was getting worse. On the other hand, most officers believed that boating (54 percent) and fish and game violations (61 percent) were about the same or getting better.

Principles of Police Staffing

Program review staff researched general police staffing and deployment methodologies to assist in evaluating the staffing practices of the EnCon police. Different staffing models are available for the patrol function that work particularly well in areas where the service population is concentrated and calls for service are fairly constant and heavy.

However, alternative approaches must be used for special environments such as college campuses, transportation venues, and parks. These areas pose challenges that are different than most municipal settings and require a more customized approach to determining staffing levels. Thus, staff also reviewed a number of staffing and deployment studies of specialized law enforcement agencies, including the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Park Police, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, and the Camden County Park Police.

Each study required a detailed job task analysis and the identification of various workload variables. The National Park Service, for example, developed a staffing model to systematically examine and calculate law enforcement requirements in 1997. Individual tasks of officers to ensure resource and visitor protection were identified. A profile of each park unit was developed based on such factors as size in acres, visitation, miles of roads, number of trails, miles of river, and acres of lakes. Tasks were linked with staffing requirements and park attributes. The model was refined after it was tested and retested in 61 parks and reviewed by an expert panel.

The International Police Chiefs Association (IPCA) points out that there are a series of principles to consider and a sizeable body of data required to properly define patrol staffing requirements. The mix of factors is unique to each agency. Some examples of the factors for consideration are provided below.

Policing style/philosophy. This is probably the most important factor in determining staffing levels. Deliberate decisions need to be made as to how officer time should be divided. Generally, one goal that is often established is having an officer's time equally divided among three duties -- response to calls for service; crime prevention, community relations, and other proactive duties; and administrative duties such as report writing, conferring with supervisors, meal time, etc. Variations will occur and depend on what a community decides the role it wants the police force to emphasize. For example, if a jurisdiction wanted to stress more community-oriented policing and community relations- type activities, the portion of time allocated to proactive activities must be greater. This emphasis, in turn, increases the requirements for staff.

Service philosophy. Police agencies must also formally determine how each type of complaint or request will be handled. Agencies can classify calls as urgent or non-urgent and provide different responses to different type of incidents. Alternative strategies can be developed so that an officer may not need to respond to all calls for service.

Response time standards. Response times to high priority calls should be as quick as possible. Generally, high priority calls would include those incidents that endanger the lives of citizens and officers, and those cases where an arrest of an alleged offender can be realized. The faster the desired response time the more demand placed on staffing requirements.

Supervision style. Several considerations go into determining the number of supervisors required, including the amount of time available to supervise, the experience and quality of the supervisors, and the experience of patrol personnel. In addition, the preferred supervisory style of the organization (e.g., control-oriented, coaching, facilitator) must be factored in.

The EnCon police and the Department of Environmental Protection management have not consciously deliberated and explicitly defined their policy preference in the areas of policing philosophy, service philosophy, response time standards, and supervision philosophy. In addition, EnCon's strategic plan is out of date, and its current goals do not have any associated performance indicators for measuring progress against those goals. Fundamental building blocks are missing that any appropriate staffing calculation would require.

A well designed strategic plan would answer basic questions about what the division is supposed to do, where the division is going, and how it is going to get there, and be sensitive to the type of environment in which it exists. The division's last strategic plan was created in February 2002 for fiscal years 2002 through 2004. At that time, each division within the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation created its own goal statement, objectives, and strategies to achieve its objectives. The division maintains a mission statement in its General Orders and has also published a different mission statement in its 2005 annual report along with six goals. However, the division has not created any specific performance measures to determine if those goals have been achieved. The division does not exist in a vacuum as its own entity, and its needs must be considered in relation to other divisions in DEP. It is not clear how the larger department (DEP) views the importance of establishing management objectives and measurement.

Strategic planning is more than just long-term planning. The Office of Policy and Management defines strategic planning as “a process of organizational self assessment, goal setting, strategy development, and performance monitoring.”¹¹ Strategic planning helps to shape and guide what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it. It has been long recognized as an important part of successful, results-oriented management. Among other things, the strategic planning process, when conducted properly, not only identifies agency objectives but assists in ascertaining an agency's strengths and weaknesses and determines if its internal capabilities are adequate to accomplish its mission and goals.

Performance measurement is closely related to strategic planning. The development of a performance measurement system helps in understanding the links between the department's performance and successful accomplishment of its strategic objectives. Law enforcement outcomes must define the results the division is trying to achieve. Objectives must be defined with sufficient precision to yield valid measurements. Clear law enforcement objectives should exist for each park unit and for each of the division's major functions.

One performance measure that predates the most recent goal statements is found in the division's General Orders. It is the requirement that initial incident reports be submitted to supervisors no later than five days from the date of an incident for arrests and infractions, and 14 days from the date of the incident for ongoing investigations. While there is an electronic tracking system, supervisors have stated they follow different practices for ensuring this requirement is met. In interviews with program review staff, supervisors have stated that they check this measure monthly, periodically, or a few times per year.

Program review staff examined all cases requiring an incident report for a one-year period ending in December 31, 2005, to determine the number of days that had elapsed from the time of incident until an initial report was turned in. It was not clear which investigations were intended to be ongoing. Staff found that 40 percent of all cases had an initial report turned in within five days, and in 86 percent of the cases initial reports were turned in within 14 days. Still, 14 percent of the cases were not meeting the latest deadline. Staff also noted that 51 percent of the cases were closed within seven days and 96 percent were closed within 30 days. The division does not calculate a clearance rate for crimes. Clearance means an arrest is made, a violation is charged, a case is referred to a court, or an enforcement action is issued.

Recommendations:

7. Department of Environmental Protection management needs to explicitly determine the expected role and performance of the EnCon police and develop policy statements on the desired policing style and service philosophy of the division.

8. The EnCon police should develop a new strategic plan with explicit objectives and performance indicators for the division related to its mission. Performance measures should address expected levels of service in parks and for other organizations that depend on EnCon services, and its accomplishments related to its resource protection functions, as well as traditional process and output measures such as response times, length of time for case closure, and clearance rates for crime. Performance should be closely monitored against established plans and standards.

It is clear through personal interviews and surveying park supervisors, that the supervisors emphasize the need for a steady police presence and a more community-oriented type of patrol style. This is also true of other organizations that depend on EnCon services, as described previously. Many feel that more time should be devoted to working in the parks to prevent problems from occurring, as opposed to responding to problems. Currently, only a few parks have a significant daily presence of officers, and no park or campground has 24-hour coverage. This type of coverage requires significant resources. For example, if it were decided that the six campgrounds in Connecticut with 75 or more campsites should have 12 hours of coverage every day for 14 weeks in the summer, that staffing requirement alone would consume over 8,200 hours. (In the last year, seasonal officer time totaled 13,000 hours.) Currently, park coverage is determined through a number of informal factors including the number of incidents and historical coverage patterns.

Accurate staffing calculations for police coverage require that each of the 22 park management units of the Department of Environmental Protection be formally assessed separately along with any other organization that depends on EnCon police services. There is a good deal of information already collected on a park-by-park basis that should be systematically compared and evaluated. This assessment should include all pertinent factors that impact staffing, including the specific attributes of each park or area (e.g., visitors, number of campers, miles of road, special considerations, etc.) in combination with the overall policing goal or philosophy of the department, as discussed above. This type of analysis will also allow for greater uniformity in policing style and the level of expectations among the EnCon police, park supervisors, and others who depend on the EnCon police to provide services.

Recommendation:

9. Explicit standards should be created in consultation with the 22 park management units, lake authorities, and other organizations that depend on EnCon police services regarding the expected level of service from EnCon.

Expanded training for park personnel. Earlier in this chapter, the dissatisfaction of park supervisors with the lack of an EnCon presence was discussed. While certain situations can only be handled by law enforcement personnel, the perceived security in parks is not only provided through the EnCon police but also through the presence of other park personnel, including seasonal supervisors, maintainers, park aides, and other seasonal personnel. Park aides not only assist with operational and maintenance duties, but also act as the “eyes and ears” of the parks. They are on the front line of contact with the public providing information and are also often the first to notify a member of the public of violations of park rules.

While some basic training is provided to seasonal park aides, the department does not provide training in conflict management. This type of training may not be appropriate in all situations for all aides. However, it would appear to be worthwhile for the department to begin to examine the viability of such an approach by identifying a group of appropriate candidates and concentrate efforts on parks with high attendance or in other areas of concern.

Properly trained park aides may be able to curtail or diffuse difficult situations and may ultimately reduce the need for police intervention. It does not mean that park aides should be doing the work of a law enforcement officer. Volatile or dangerous situations need to be handled by the appropriate police authority. However, this type of approach, if successful, would allow the parks division to better address some minor violations early on and not allow the atmosphere of the parks to be degraded or allow inappropriate behavior to go unaddressed.

Recommendation:

10. The Department of Environmental Protection should explore expanding training requirements for park aides to include conflict management and methods for dealing with difficult people, especially in parks with high attendance.

Police Staffing Model

Given that fundamental questions, like the style or philosophy of EnCon policing, are not answered yet, and the effort and time needed to collect detailed data go beyond the scope of this study, an in-depth examination of the appropriate level of EnCon staffing is not possible here. However, program review staff sought a methodology to provide an approximate estimation of the adequacy of current staffing, in addition to the previous indicators. In the end, program review staff utilized a simplified IPCA method for examining the number of patrol officers needed.

The IPCA method relies on an incident-based methodology. While not an entirely appropriate substitute for accommodating all the demands on the EnCon police as explained above, it does give a very rough estimate of the minimum number of officers that may be needed. The steps for using the formula are outlined below in relation to Table VI-1 for the number of conservation officers and special conservation officers.

• Determine the number of incidents received and responded to by the department. Incidents include all forms of police activity where an officer responded or took action, except for things like internal department matters. Because of officer reductions in recent years and a lack of information about the rate of fish and game violations separate from the number of incidents, program review staff selected a high year for incidents (2001) and estimated (based on an average) that EnCon police would respond to about 95 percent of the 15,392 incidents. The number was further reduced (by a total of 16 percent) to reflect calls responded to by supervisory staff (5 percent) and special conservation officers (11 percent).

• The total incidents are then multiplied by the amount of time required to handle an incident. According to the IPCA, the average amount of time to handle a complaint in a municipal setting is about forty-five minutes. EnCon police estimate that their average call takes about 1.33 hours to handle based on a sample of calls. Factors that tend to increase call time for the EnCon police include the response time, given the large area an officer is expected to cover (147 to 218 square miles), and the type of incidents. Some responses also require the launching of a boat or returning from a boat patrol and transitioning to a vehicle. Also, the majority of the EnCon officers' work involves fish and game and wildlife incidents, which often require an extended amount of time to pursue or find their quarry.

• Time is added for patrol and administrative activities. Patrol time was estimated to be about 60 percent of an officer's time and administration time was set at about 20 percent of an officer's time. Sixty percent patrol time was chosen because of the type of work EnCon does and for the amount of area they have to cover. Most of their incidents are officer-generated, which increases the demands for patrol time.

• Divide the total time for conservation officers by 2,920 – the total number of hours (365 days x 8 hours) necessary to staff one basic one-officer patrol unit for one year. Divide total time for special conservation officers by 1,464 – the total number of hours to staff one basic one-officer patrol unit for one half of a year.

If officers worked eight hours per day, 365 days each year, there would be a need for about 28 conservation officers and eight special conservation officers. Of course, these totals must be adjusted to account for normal time-off periods, which will increase the number of officers that are needed.

For conservation officers, time off can total 1,248 hours.¹² Out of a potential of 2,920 hours (8 hours x 365 days per year), 1,248 hours for time off would reduce the available time to 1,672 hours per year per officer. Thus, when time off is included in the calculation for conservation officers, the total for conservation officers rises to about 48 officers. Similarly, for special conservation officers, time off is only adjusted for a five-day work week and three days off for being sick, and the SCO total rises to about 11 officers. An additional sergeant position was added because each sergeant is responsible for between four and six officers.

Table VI-2 shows the difference between the number of conservation officers authorized and filled, versus the amount suggested by the formula. The total formula difference from filled is 13 positions and difference from authorized is eight. A basic incident-based staffing model suggests that the number of EnCon police officers is inadequate.

The total cost for hiring a new conservation officer at the trainee level is about $72,000. This includes salary ($32,700), benefits ($19,000), and equipment ($20,260). The total cost to increase the number of authorized officers by eight is about $576,000.

Although the incident-based formula calculates about 11 SCOs are needed, based on about 1,700 incidents and 11,300 hours of time, the number of SCO positions is most likely undercounted. In the last year, SCOs actual time totaled about 13,000 hours. The incident-based formula may not properly account for the “watchman” type of role that may be necessary in certain state parks – that is, regardless of the number of incidents, a police presence may be desirable to prevent incidents and provide a greater sense of security. The primary focus of special conservation officers is to provide park security during the summer.

Projected Retirements

Separate and apart from determining the appropriate level of staffing in the foregoing discussion, the division is also projecting that 16 of the current 51 officers will be retiring between 2006 and 2009. What compounds the problem of the normal replacement process is the fact that the division has implemented a new job series. In order to attract a larger and more diverse pool of job candidates, the division has added an alternative entry level option for the job, which extends the training time for trainees before they become a full conservation officer.

New candidates hired under the alternative, now will serve in a trainee or agency police officer status for two to four years. Agency police officers are not authorized to perform work outside of DEP property unless they are working with another conservation officer. Consequently, new officers need to be hired at least two years, and possibly four years, before retirements are expected to allow the division to maintain its effectiveness and operational capability on private or other state lands. It does not appear the department has planned appropriately to replace retiring conservation officers in a timely manner to maintain the division's current level of effectiveness as a law enforcement agency.

Recommendation:

11. The Department of Environmental Protection should develop a long-term plan, along with a commitment for funding in the next budget cycle, for the expected replacement of retiring officers. It should be phased-in to address anticipated shortages of sworn personnel and recognize the need for extended training of new officers.

Chapter VII

Equipment and Facilities

This chapter provides an evaluation of the condition of the equipment, a review of the officers' opinions on the adequacy of the division's equipment issued, an assessment of the use of technology, and a summary of the results of the 2002 independent facilities review. The committee finds that while the majority of the equipment issued to the officers is in good condition, according to some, the type of equipment is not always sufficient to perform their tasks. In addition, committee is in agreement with the results and conclusions of the previous facilities review.

Condition of Equipment

Division vehicles. The division has 62 cars of which seven appear to be spare cars dedicated to the various districts. There are three types (Ford Expedition, Ford Crown Victoria or Ford F250); the ages of the vehicles range from about two to six years old. In addition, the division also has a number of unconventional patrol vehicles such as snowmobiles (2), all-terrain vehicles or ATVs (7), and bicycles (9) that are used for various law enforcement activities in state parks and forests. Vehicles are inspected monthly by a supervisor along with the rest of each officer's equipment. Spare cars are used by SCOs and when an officer's vehicle is undergoing repair or required maintenance. The vehicles are leased and replaced after approximately 80,000 to 100,000 miles. During the next replacement period the division plans on phasing in pick-up trucks in place of the more expensive and less fuel efficient SUVs.

Division vessels. The division has 36 vessels. There are 22 types (including various sizes). The oldest boat is a 1984 17' Boston Whaler, and the newest are the 2005 Tracker, Safe boat, and Wesmac.¹³ The conditions of the vessels are evaluated annually by a staff sergeant, and were recently given a rating of “excellent” (8 vessels), “good” (26 vessels), and “fair” (2 vessels).¹⁴ Some of the older vessels had newer motors installed; in such cases, the condition of the vessel and the motor are evaluated separately. In general, the division is satisfied with its current fleet, but sees a benefit in obtaining one more all-season boat for the Long Island Sound. The division has three, but reports that one is not suited for homeland security detail.

Adequacy of Equipment

Adequacy of equipment was a topic on the survey committee staff sent to all EnCon sergeants and conservation officers for their opinions. Results from the survey indicate an overall satisfaction with most equipment, dissatisfaction with communications equipment and computers, and frustrations with being unable to participate in equipment selection.

Respondents rated the following equipment as adequate:

• weapons (97 percent),

• vehicles (89 percent),

• safety equipment (82 percent),

• uniforms (69 percent), and

• boats (64 percent).

Respondents rated the following equipment as poor/needs improvement:

• communications equipment (64 percent), and

• computers (51 percent).

Additional comments offered by the officers indicated that 16 percent felt there should be a review of equipment as they were critical of computer and radio equipment, and/or the availability of fully equipped spare patrol cars. Another 12 percent reported frustrations with slow or limited computers. One individual reported that department e-mail is not available at some locations, and according to division administrative staff, not all officers have working email addresses.

The survey also revealed that 33 percent of the officers felt that, in general, their supervisor was not receptive to their feedback and input. While most officers report satisfaction with the quality of their equipment, some expressed frustrations with their inability to participate in equipment selection, indicating that the type of equipment selected does not always meet their needs. Examples provided included the quality of the uniforms, lack of winter parkas, small size of patrol boats, and a preference for the size and professional look of SUVs over pick-up trucks.

Recommendation:

12. The division should expand the opportunities for conservation officers to participate in the selection of equipment.

Currently there is a uniform committee composed of conservation officers, not supervisors, from each of the three districts. This committee could be expanded to offer the supervisors and the sergeant responsible for purchasing equipment feedback and opinions from conservation officers on all types of equipment. Considering some of the examples provided above pertained to uniforms, the committee should establish a more systematic method of obtaining input from the officers in their districts.

Use of Technology

The division's use of technology should be expanded. Historically significant park buildings and museums have alarm systems for possible break-ins but lack surveillance technology, such as security cameras. The state has recently invested millions of dollars improving certain park structures, like the $11 million refurbishing of Gillette Castle. Surveillance technology can extend the reach of the EnCon police without hiring additional officers and assist in criminal identification or prevention of external damage and destruction of property. Park buildings are often in remote or fairly secluded areas and do not benefit from the natural deterrent effect of a strong public presence. The parks division believes that if afforded, security cameras could deter crime and vandalism but at this time reviews of park security are not conducted.

In the survey of park supervisors, one-third of respondents indicated that historically significant buildings were not adequately secured, while nearly half believed that park offices and maintenance buildings were vulnerable to theft and vandalism. Several thefts of park equipment have been reported in recent years.

Another innovation in police equipment is MDTs (mobile data terminals), which are laptop computers that connect to the various state and national law enforcement databases such as the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the Connecticut On-Line Law Enforcement Communication Teleprocessing (COLLECT) systems. The MDTs allow an officer to check an individual's criminal and motor vehicle records before approaching the person or vehicle. Some of the benefits of this technology are:

• fast and silent transmittal of information;

• increased efficiency;

• reduced workload of dispatch;

• increased officer and public safety; and

• e-mail capability

- officers do not have to call dispatch for technicalities;

- can be used with digital cameras to enable real time sharing of information with headquarters;

- EnCon officers can notify the local and state police of their situation and location in case of an emergency or need for backup.

The division is currently one of only a few police departments in Connecticut that does not equip its patrol vehicles with MDTs. The use of MDTs is commonplace in law enforcement. It is currently used by the state police, and in interviews with the Connecticut Police Chiefs Association, it was noted that nearly all the 100 organized departments in the state have MDTs. Eighty departments in the Hartford area share one type of MDT system.

The department is currently looking into investing in this technology. At this time they are planning on piloting the software in 12 patrol vehicles at an estimated total cost of about $75,000. If the department ultimately decided to implement the technology in all EnCon patrol vehicles, the cost would be approximately $300,000, which includes the cost of the trial for 12 patrol vehicles plus the remaining 34 vehicles (MDTs would not be placed in spare vehicles or those issued to command staff). The estimated yearly reoccurring expenses would be $945 per MDT.¹⁵

Recommendation:

13. DEP should explore the potential benefits of the use of surveillance technology, especially for historically significant buildings and other vulnerable park buildings, and expand the use of mobile data technology to increase the safety and efficiency of officers in the field.

Division Facilities

The program review committee did not conduct an independent study of EnCon facilities, though staff did visit all major EnCon installations and noted general conditions. The deficiencies noted were consistent with a more extensive recent independent study of the facilities. In 2002 an independent company¹⁶ conducted an assessment of the space needs for the Division of State Environmental Conservation Police. Overall, the study found the central division and nearly all district headquarters to be lacking space, security, and confidentiality.

Common concerns were:

• shared use of DEP offices compromising the security and confidentiality of voice transmissions, records management, and evidence storage;

• space limitations;

• evidence areas vulnerability to forced entry;

• evidence areas lacking appropriate ventilation for confiscated plant materials; and

• chain of custody not meeting accreditation standards.

(A more detailed summary of the report findings are in Appendix H.)

Recommendation:

14. The department should plan for and phase in facility improvements that accommodate the unique needs of the EnCon police in a timely manner as funds are made available, in accordance with the recommendations provided by the 2002 independent facilities review to provide each district's headquarters with additional space and modern amenities.

Evidence Storage

The property and evidence collected by EnCon police range from weapons and narcotics, to illegally hunted animals and to stolen vessels, to boats involved in accidents. As the independent facilities review indicated and committee confirm, the evidence storage facilities at each district are lacking in capacity and security. The evidence storage facilities and practices of the EnCon police raise serious concerns regarding compliance with chain of custody legal requirements. Seized property and evidence needs to be secure to prevent damage or loss while in the division's custody. Although interviews with several state's attorneys reveal that EnCon's chain of custody for evidence has not yet been challenged, it is important that the division maintain strict measures for the receipt, handling, security, and return or destruction of evidence for supporting investigations and successful prosecution in trials.

• Narcotics evidence is typically stored in a safe at each district headquarters; however, the facility in the Western District is so old and fragile that it cannot withstand the weight of a safe. Evidence is instead stored in a locked closet or it is transported to another district.

• The carcasses of illegally hunted animals need to be stored in freezers. The freezers need to be large enough to hold several animals as some remain there for years before a case is tried and concluded. The Eastern District is the only facility with its own freezer. That freezer is also used by the DEP Fisheries Division and, therefore, presents concerns with assuring chain of custody. A larger freezer is also available at the Burlington Trout Hatchery; however, the independent facilities review determined that it was not designed to process or handle evidence for court proceedings, had limited security, and did not meet chain of custody requirements. Furthermore it did not have the equipment necessary to transport an animal from a vehicle to the facility.¹⁷

• The division lacks a centrally located evidence storage facility. There is no such facility at the division's headquarters in Hartford.

• Large pieces of evidence are stored at the boat storage facility at the Marine District headquarters. This facility is shared by other DEP offices and is vulnerable to unauthorized entry as it does not have restricted access.

• Forty-five percent of the conservation officers who responded to the program review survey stated they felt the evidence storage facilities were not sufficient to perform their job in a professional manner. Twenty-six percent specifically commented on the limited capacity for larger items.

• When asked, “Within the last two years, how often have you stored evidence overnight in a place other than the Eastern, Western, and Marine headquarters or the DEP Portland facility, such as at home or in your vehicle” 79 percent answered either “frequently,” “occasionally,” or “rarely” and 21 percent answered “never.” Storing evidence overnight at a private home or in a vehicle does not typically meet chain of custody legal requirements.

• The division also uses its facilities to store evidence for the National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service cases as needed.

Recommendation:

15. The division shall ensure compliance with the chain of custody requirements recommended by accreditation standards such as CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.) or POSTC (Police Officer Standards and Training Council).

Chapter VIII

Selected Management Practices

This chapter presents committee's analysis, findings, and recommendations on a variety of management practices including: establishing and maintaining written standards, the complaint system, and the DEP Emergency Dispatch Center. The discussion indicates that:

• the policies and procedures manual, called the General Orders, could be more comprehensive to minimize liabilities and maximize each officer's understanding of operations;

• the majority of the complaints received were from private citizens alleging an officer's attitude or conduct did not meet their expectations;

• several files in the complaint system lacked information required by the General Orders;

• the DEP Emergency Dispatch Center is in the process of developing its first annual training program for dispatchers;

• the dispatch center does not have a formal or sufficiently organized and accessible manual of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) or guidelines;

• there is no established program or practice for evaluating DEP dispatchers for quality control purposes;

• the dispatch center and the division do not currently meet to review trends and findings revealed by dispatch documentation or to notify each other of important changes in a timely manner;

• most agencies have expressed satisfaction with the coordination and working relationship with the EnCon police; and

• the division does not have mutual aid agreements or MOUs with municipal departments.

General Orders

The committee compared the division's policy and procedures manual, called the General Orders (G.O.), to the standards provided by both the state and national credentialing authorities POSTC (Police Officer Standards and Training Council) and CALEA (Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Inc.). Using these two models as examples of best practices enabled the committee to identify any gaps that, if clarified, could maximize officer understanding of certain procedures and processes as well as minimize potential liabilities. Overall the General Orders manual does a good job covering a variety of topics specific to EnCon police activities and situations they come across; however, other topics are either missing or underdeveloped. Below is a summary of these items by topic.

Law enforcement role, responsibilities, and relationships. While the G.O. does contain a chapter dedicated to some of these issues such as the limits of the division's authority, rules of conduct, and use of force, the following items were not included:

• the role of the division (i.e., its values, goals, basic programs, and priorities);

• limits of authority by position/rank (i.e., special conservation officer, trainee, agency police officer, and conservation officer);

• jurisdiction; and

• all agreements with other federal, state, and local agencies – the G.O. currently contains the memorandum of understanding with the state police but not the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Coast Guard, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services.

Organization, management, and administration. The G.O. discusses several topics under this category, such as unity of command/rank structure, authority and responsibility, and general management and administration regarding reports and forms. However, the following items are not covered:

• organizational structure (including both sworn and civilian personnel);

• goals and objectives for each component within the division and a system for evaluating progress;

• planning and research --

- a person responsible for the research and planning functions of the division, and

- a multi-year plan with long-term goals and objectives for the division (see Chapter VI);

• direction --

- a written directive establishing the succession of leadership should the colonel be unavailable, and

- established procedures for communication, coordination, and cooperation between all functions of the division;

• crime analysis – while the division has a CAD system, it currently underutilizes the information collected;

• allocation and distribution of personnel and personnel alternatives (e.g., use of overtime or reserves). The G.O. does contain a section detailing the authorization of overtime, but currently does not describe how the districts, sectors, and zones are divided and workloads measured and assigned; and

• fiscal management and property – i.e., identify procedures and personnel responsible for carrying out these functions (fiscal management, budget, purchasing, accounting, managing and maintaining the division's property). While the Bureau of Financial and Support Services oversees much of the division's fiscal management and budgetary decisions, this relationship and the division's responsibility and function are not clearly articulated.

Personnel structure. Much of the information under this topic is covered by either DEP human resources or DAS (Department of Administrative Services). However, it would be beneficial to either duplicate this information or indicate where it can be found, to provide personnel with a centralized source of information to reference. The G.O. has a section on the disciplinary process, but not information about:

• classification and delineation of duties and responsibilities resulting from a task analysis;

• compensation, benefits, and conditions of work;

• collective bargaining and contract management; and

• grievance procedures.

Personnel process. Again, some of this information is covered by human resources and DAS but deserves repeating for ease of reference. The G.O. contains a thorough and detailed explanation of union training reimbursement, firearms training, the field training process, and performance observation reports (POR), but it does not explain:

• the recruitment process – specifically identify who is responsible for this function, who is eligible (equal employment opportunity and recruitment), and how job announcements are publicized;

• the selection process (professional and legal requirements and administrative practices and procedures); and

• the promotion process – how candidates are selected as well as all professional and legal requirements.

Law enforcement operations. The G.O. appears to cover all of the issues under this topic (administration of patrol assignments, procedures for routine and emergency calls, and use of equipment).

Operations support. The G.O. adequately covers nearly all of the issues under this topic that are relevant to the work of the division such as: internal affairs and line and staff inspections. It does not discuss:

• victim/witness assistance; and

• public information and media relations – The department handles this function for the division; however, the survey and interviews indicate improvement is needed. For this purpose, the roles and expectations could be more clearly articulated in the General Orders.

Prisoner and court-related duties. Many of the issues under this topic do not pertain to DEP law enforcement. For instance, the division does not provide court security nor does it have its own holding facility. However, the G.O. does not address the following issue, which is relevant to EnCon work:

• prisoner transportation (i.e., handling and processing of prisoners, transportation operations and procedure, special situations, transport equipment, and documentation). This is of particular importance as the division must rely on the resources, such as a holding facility, of other departments.

Auxiliary and technical services. The G.O. appears to adequately cover all of the issues under EnCon purview for this topic. As with media relations, communications or dispatch is a function provided for the division by the department. As mentioned later in this chapter, some concerns and issues have been raised regarding the accuracy of information recorded in the computer aided dispatch system (CAD) as well as procedural inconsistencies on the part of both officers and dispatchers. Bearing this in mind, a section outlining the expectations of both the officers and dispatchers in regards to communications would be beneficial. This section should also establish procedures for obtaining and recording relevant information for criminal and non-criminal service.

Recommendation:

16. The division should revise the General Orders to include topics that are either missing or underdeveloped and establish a process for periodic review and update.

It is important for the division to have these standards in place to either prevent or prepare for such situations – even if they deal with issues the division has not yet encountered in its lengthy history – and minimize potential liabilities. Comprehensive General Orders will also clarify for sworn and civilian personnel their responsibilities and expected behavior as well as provide standards to measure the performance of the division. Supplementing the existing General Orders with the topics that are currently missing or underdeveloped would provide division personnel with a centralized source of information, guidelines, and instruction. The General Orders should be updated periodically as changes are made.

Recommendation:

17. The division should also consider seeking accreditation from either POSTC or CALEA.

Accreditation is awarded to agencies that have undergone an extensive process of reviewing and revising their standards to be in compliance with the model standards provided by either POSTC or CALEA. Accreditation can be sought from one or both of these state and national credentialing authorities. Generally, the benefits of accreditation are increased accountability, lower liability insurance costs, and a stronger defense against lawsuits. The cost associated with CALEA accreditation for a department the size of the division is approximately $8,400 plus the cost of staff time dedicated to the process. CALEA has 439 standards, whereas POSTC has 350. There is no cost associated with accreditation from POSTC other than the investment of staff time. Maintaining accreditation is an on-going process requiring monitoring and periodic review to ensure compliance with the standards. Over 600 public safety agencies and departments throughout the United States, Canada, Barbados, and Mexico have received CALEA accreditation and about 40 departments in Connecticut are at various stages in the process with POSTC.

Complaint System

The complaint system for the division consists of internal affairs investigations and administrative inquiries. Internal affairs investigations are investigations of either allegations of serious violations of department policy or General Orders, or criminal matters involving department personnel. Administrative inquiries are investigations concerning allegations of less serious violations of department policy or General Orders. The committee examined all complaints on file from 2001 to 2006. Almost 70 percent of the 46 cases from 2001 to 2006 were administrative inquiries. A review of these files revealed that private citizens were the source of the majority (69 percent) of the complaints received during this time period. Seventeen percent were from other officers, 12 percent were from an anonymous source, and 2 percent were from park staff. The subject of most of the complaints was conservation officers (76 percent), while the remainder of the cases was evenly split between seasonal staff (SCOs) and sergeants.

For the purpose of analysis, the committee categorized the allegations into the following categories: performance/officer conduct not meeting citizen expectations, improper investigatory procedure, other violations of policies and procedures, attitude/conduct, and equipment. Table VIII-1 on the following page presents examples of allegations that fall under each category as well as the percentage of allegations and cases involving each. There are a total of 82 separate allegations among the 46 total cases analyzed.¹⁸

The most common allegations (46 percent of all allegations) fall into the performance/officer conduct not meeting citizen expectations category. Examples include conduct unbecoming an officer and being rude. The second most common allegations (17 percent of the allegations) are in the category of other violations of policies and procedure. Examples of this type include unauthorized use of emergency lights and siren, failing to notify dispatch of duty status, and covering the badge.

After investigating an allegation, investigators determine the disposition. Table VIII-2 below provides a description of each of the five disposition classifications as well as the percentage of dispositions and cases involving each.

The analysis also showed that one case is currently pending the result of another investigation, and in three of the cases, the officer involved either resigned or retired before the investigation was completed.

Although the most common disposition was “sustained with discipline,” for many officers it was their first offense, and supervisors elected to either just document the officer's performance in their POR or provide counseling. Both of these corrective actions are considered practical supervisory tools rather than “discipline.” Of the thirteen cases requiring discipline, two officers were given a letter of reprimand; one was dismissed/not rehired (seasonal officer); one resigned; one is waiting for the outcome of another investigation; and the remaining either had their performance documented in their PORs or were provided counseling.

Overall it is difficult to analyze these investigations as many of the files reviewed were incomplete. Several cases were missing important dates, written reports, and/or outcomes. Nine of the 46 cases also failed to identify whether it was an internal affairs investigation or an administrative inquiry.

Recommendation:

18. Supervisors should adhere to the report format presented in General Orders Chapter 4, Section 2, Appendix A for internal affairs investigations and administrative inquiries to ensure the accuracy and completeness of these files. Appendix A should be amended to include a description of the method of corrective action decided upon.

Emergency Dispatch Center and Computer Aided Dispatch

The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center is within the Agency Support Services of the Bureau of Financial and Support Services. Located at the department's main office in Hartford, the DEP Emergency Dispatch Center is the 365 day, 24-hour emergency dispatch and communications center for calls regarding DEP law enforcement, oil and chemical spills, radiation control, parks, forestry, or other DEP related issues. Dispatch also accepts and forwards all agency emergency phone calls after normal work hours.

The dispatchers are a vital link in the emergency communications system. They are often referred to as a lifeline for the officers in the field. In addition, information collected by the dispatchers, and entered into the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system, provides a real time detailed record of the division's activities that can aid in understanding how well management strategies are working, including staffing and deployment arrangements.

Currently there are eight environmental protection dispatchers (including one dedicated to oil and chemical spills) and one supervisor. Four of the dispatchers were recently hired. According to the job description, the position requires a minimum of one year of prior experience in dispatching and operation of communication equipment. Additional special requirements state that new environmental protection dispatchers must receive certification as a Telecommunicator within one year and certification in National Crime Information Center (NCIC) and the Connecticut On-Line Law Enforcement Communications Teleprocessing (COLLECT) systems within three months of appointment. These are information networks that provide 24-hour access to criminal and other records for law enforcement and criminal justice organizations. All four experienced dispatchers have attended telecommunicator certification training. Those recently hired will be scheduled to attend training once the 2007 training schedule is released. According to the supervisor, new hires attend NCIC and COLLECT training within the first few weeks of their employment. The department is also, for the first time, developing an annual training program for dispatchers. Most training occurs on the job under the supervision of a more experienced dispatcher or the supervisor.

The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center does not have a formal or sufficiently organized and accessible manual of Standard Operating Procedures or guidelines. What is available to dispatchers is essentially an internal webpage consisting of links to various guides, codes, maps, statutes, and directories as well as binders of information for each division for which they handle calls. In many cases the binders were poorly organized, lacked tables of contents and clearly stated comprehensive procedures for each type of call or situation, including what questions to ask, answers to provide, etc. What is provided is topical information and in some cases procedures for who to call along with a directory. The dispatch administrator noted the need to update sections of the procedures and some of the contact information.

Dispatchers must be knowledgeable about these procedures or guidelines in order to do their jobs consistently and accurately. Interviews at all levels within the division and results from the survey of EnCon officers indicate that overall the division feels that the environmental protection dispatchers perform their work in a professional manner (66 percent). Seventy-seven percent rated the quality of their personal working relationship with the DEP Emergency Dispatch Center as “excellent” or “good.” However, concerns have been raised about the accuracy of the information recorded (64 percent) and inconsistency in the application of procedures between dispatchers. Examples provided were that not all dispatchers check all available databases for license suspensions, warrants, etc. and that dispatchers were using their discretion when handling calls after normal working hours – some calling the EnCon officers directly, instead of calling the sergeant to approve overtime.

Interviews with the DEP Emergency Dispatch Center indicate similar concerns regarding inconsistency in procedures followed by officers. For example, in a review of system data some entries would appear where the dispatch time, the arrival time, and the cleared time for an incident were all the same. This may be because some officers call dispatch prior to initiating an investigation of an incident and others may call to report the incident upon completion of their investigation, or it could be because of dispatcher error. This results in an incorrect understanding of the time it takes to clear an incident. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of EnCon management to ensure that EnCon officers are following the correct reporting procedures.

In addition to the inaccurate recording of information, the committee also noted during the course of the review the CAD system had multiple or non-exclusive labeling of incidents. Further, not all officer time is captured in the level of detail that may assist in a more comprehensive understanding of what officers are doing. While most incident codes were clear, some were repetitive. For example, wildlife incidents included the following three categories -- Wildlife Injured/Nuisance, Wildlife Injured/Nuisance/Sick, and Wildlife Sick. Shellfish included the following five categories -- Shellfish, Shellfish Commercial, Shellfish rec inland, Shellfish/Commercial, and Shellfish/Recreational. Definitions of incident categories are not provided in the General Orders manual. It is not clear if these categories were officially sanctioned by EnCon or were coded incorrectly by dispatchers. Some of these labeling issues have been corrected during the course of this study. Also, time spent on administrative or investigatory duties is not captured, and officer time for vehicle maintenance is recorded as a patrol activity. It would be helpful if officer time were divided and further detailed among operational (law enforcement work), administrative (maintenance and other organizational-type of work), and service activities (educational and community work).

Recommendations:

19. The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center should develop and periodically update a standard operating procedures manual to include, but not be limited to call handling procedures on how emergency and non-emergency calls are handled and how calls are to be managed when there is no officer on duty. These protocols should be followed and well documented to increase the accountability of both officers and dispatch operators. The procedures manual should be available in an easy to use and easy to reference format.

20. EnCon should review, validate, and further refine the underlying incident and activity data codes along with the input criteria for its Computer Aided Dispatch system.

The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center does not have an established program or practice for evaluating its dispatchers to ensure quality control and adherence to procedure. The dispatch center has one supervisor for a 365 day, 24-hour operation; therefore, every call cannot be monitored merely by the presence of the supervisor. Although each call is recorded and stored for 31 days, they are not reviewed for quality control purposes. This in conjunction with a lack of a formal standard operating procedures manual leaves the dispatch center vulnerable to potential liabilities.

Some interviewees have suggested that dispatchers screen out certain incidents in response to the lack of police coverage and that these incidents may not be recorded in the division's computer aided dispatch system. If so, this results in an incorrect understanding of the division's workload. Program review staff attempted to detect this practice by listening to the calls-for-service tapes. Unfortunately, the tapes are only maintained for 31 days and the specific incidents staff were aware of happened before that timeframe.

In addition, the committee has noted several inconsistencies in the data provided from the CAD system that is entered by dispatchers. This includes misspellings, avoidance of preset dropdown choices, and incorrect time entries. The dispatch administrator has also noted the relatively high turnover in the dispatch position. This makes the need for clear and accessible guidelines and a rigorous quality control system even more pressing.

Recommendation:

21. The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center should develop a quality assurance program to ensure appropriate and defensible dispatch procedures are followed. The program should include a periodic review of recorded calls to ensure each dispatch operator asked the right questions, provided the correct answers, and followed protocol. DEP dispatch will need to retrain operators to address any deficiencies that are revealed.

The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center is not a recognized Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP). DEP dispatchers do not receive specific training for calls requiring medical assistance nor is there a formal written procedure providing guidance for such situations. Currently, dispatchers use their discretion in handling these calls. The provision of freestyle first-aid instructions is not advisable.

Recommendation:

22. The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center should develop a clear, safe, and consistent strategy for handling calls that require medical assistance, such as transferring calls to emergency 9-1-1.

Both the EnCon police and the dispatch center report issues and frustrations with the infrequency and informality of their communications with one another. Dispatch management claims it is not always notified in a timely manner of changes made by the EnCon police (i.e., codes, policies, procedures, etc.). Both agencies do not fully utilize the information currently captured in the CAD system to report important performance indicators for both officers and dispatchers. Information such as response times, call volume, and transfers to other agencies would assist both the division and dispatch in resource planning.

Recommendations:

23. The DEP Emergency Dispatch Center should develop and report annually performance measures related to dispatch functions and operations, including but not limited to dispatcher response times and accuracy standards.

24. Personnel representing the DEP Emergency Dispatch Center and the Division of State Environmental Conservation Police should meet at least annually to formally review the trends and findings revealed by dispatch documentation. Any changes in codes, policies, procedures, and deployment, and when those changes are to be implemented should be documented.

The CAD system, when appropriately configured, monitored, and utilized, can be the most important element in the data collection process with which to manage the division. The system collects data on individual officer activities, workload by time of day and day of the week, and information about deployment, and can assist in identifying emerging problems. It is important that the information going into the system be accurate in order to get a proper understanding of the division's activities.

Coordination

The study scope directed staff to examine how the division interacts and coordinates its activities with other law enforcement agencies. Program review staff interviewed a number of agencies to assess the degree of coordination that exists with EnCon, including the following:

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

• U.S. Marine Fisheries Council

• U.S. Coast Guard

• Connecticut State Police

• Various municipal police departments (via their chiefs)

All interviewees expressed positive comments about the performance and professionalism of EnCon officers. Most agencies expressed satisfaction with the coordination and working relationship with EnCon. The level of coordination differed depending on the agency.

With the exception of municipalities, all of the above entities also maintain formal MOUs with EnCon that delineate the respective duties and responsibilities of each partner. For example, the U.S. Coast Guard agreement places the primary responsibility for recreational boating law enforcement on the state, within the waters of concurrent jurisdiction, and inspections of commercial vessels remain under the purview of the Coast Guard. Further, the agreement calls for the coordination of any efforts related to the enforcement of boating under the influence (BUI) of alcohol or a dangerous drug. In practice, due to logistical concerns, this usually means the state will take BUI cases. (An MOU related to specific homeland security functions is under development.) The Coast Guard also notes that it relies on EnCon to provide resources in the event of emergencies and for search and rescue operations.

Similarly, the Connecticut State Police (CSP) agreement recognizes that DEP is the lead agency when investigating boating, hunting, fishing, and environmental violations, while the CSP is the lead agency for serious felony and homicide investigations. On occasion the two agencies have also engaged in what they refer to as joint operations. In such situations both agencies are the first responders or DEP provides certain equipment or security for the scene while the CSP conducts the investigation. From 2004 to 2006 there were 15 joint operations and over 30 assists from DEP to the CSP.

Other agencies also have agreements that outline specific enforcement duties for EnCon. For example, in exchange for funding ($249,942 for 2005 to 2007) the National Marine Fisheries Service requires EnCon to devote a minimum of 2,248 patrol hours per year to the enforcement of federal and state fisheries laws and regulations.

EnCon does not have any mutual aid or MOU agreements with municipal police departments. In interviews with program review staff, some municipal police chiefs expressed dissatisfaction with the level of communication with EnCon, especially at the beginning of the summer season. State parks and forests can represent a significant portion of a municipality's land area and also can be one of the biggest attractions for people in many municipalities during the summer. The EnCon police and municipal police chiefs have a mutual interest in what is going on in the parks.

In addition, EnCon relies on municipal departments, as well as the CSP, to provide back- up personnel in an emergency situation as well as access to facilities to process an arrest. Further, there may come a time when an extraordinary situation may arise and the law enforcement capabilities of the EnCon police may need to be augmented with municipal police officers.

There is a concern for the unwieldiness of maintaining dozens of mutual aid agreements with different municipalities. However, regional compacts currently exist that may facilitate EnCon's ability to enter into mutual aid agreements with several municipalities at once. The greater Hartford area, for example, has a regional mutual aid agreement that defines the procedures and law enforcement resources available to its 35 members in advance of any emergency. (This compact is in addition to the regional “RED” plan, which relates to catastrophic emergencies.)

Recommendations:

25. EnCon police should examine becoming a member of regional mutual aid agreements throughout the state, and enter into mutual aid agreements or memoranda of understanding with municipalities where it will be beneficial for both agencies to formally define their relationship and respective responsibilities in areas of mutual concern or in the event of an emergency situation.

26. EnCon should institute a practice of having captains meet with the relevant local chiefs of police before and after the summer season to discuss areas of mutual concern in areas with high attendance parks.

Mutual aid agreements should provide the information necessary to initiate cooperative activities among different police departments when law enforcement capabilities need to be augmented. These recommendations should allow EnCon police to identify and develop appropriate linkages with municipalities before situations arise that require assistance from or to those municipalities.

Appendices

APPENDIX A

Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee

Survey of Environmental Conservation Police

If no, please explain.

• want full police powers/statewide authority (12 officers or 41.4%)

• report they frequently witness violations that they cannot act upon legislatively (6 officers or 20.7%)

• say that their current authority is confusing/problematic (5 officers or 17.2%)

• say they need to rely on other police or let a violations go (5 officers 17.2%)

• felt that their authority has not kept pace with the expansion of their duties (1 officer)

• skipped this question (10)

If yes, estimate how many times has this occurred in the past year?

• 0 times (10 officers or 33.3%)

• 2 times (8 officers or 26.7%)

• 3 times (4 officers or 13.3%)

• 1 time (4 officers or 13.3%)

• 6 times (2 officers or 6.7%)

• 30 times (1 officer)

• 4 times (1 officer)

• skipped this question(9)

If yes, estimate how many times has this occurred in the past year?

• 0 times (7 officers or 25.9%)

• 6 times (4 officers or 14.8%)

• 5 times (4 officers or 14.8%)

• 1 time (3 officers or 11.1%)

• 2 times (2 officers or 7.4%)

• 200 times (1 officer)

• 25 times (1 officer)

• 20 times (1 officer)

• 10 times (1 officer)

• 4 times (1 officer)

• skipped this question (12)

If you responded that you are unsatisfied or very unsatisfied, what type of training is needed?

• Firearms (9 officers or 50%)

• Legal/DMV/Policy and Procedure Updates (7 officers or 38.9%)

• Boating (5 officers or 27.8%)

• Wildlife Identification and Fish & Game (3 officers 16.7%)

• Increase Review Training (2 officers or 11.1%)

• Investigative Techniques (1 officer)

• Training Received is Rushed/Too Short (1 officer)

• Outdoorsmen Knowledge for New Hires (1 officer)

• Critical Incident (1 officer)

• Search & Rescue (1 officer)

• skipped this question (21)

If no, please specify the season/s and explain.

• There are too few officers for the numerous responsibilities (18 officers or 50%)

• They cannot investigate or respond to all calls/violations (11 officers or 30.6%)

• Fish and game is lacking service because of park demands (6 officers or 16.7%)

• That at times they are covering huge areas alone (4 officers or 11.1%)

• Shifts go uncovered (3 officers or 8.3%)

• Boats need to be appropriately staffed and be able to remain on water for the full shift (3 officers or 8.3%)

• SCOs should only be supplemental; need more full-time officers (2 officers or 5.6%)

• Officer and public safety is at risk (1 officer)

• There is no backup or supervision (1 officer)

• There needs to be an even distribution of overtime across sectors (1 officer)

• SCOs should cover parks through the open year (1 officer)

• Officers are routinely relied on during time/days off (1 officer)

• The division needs at least 75 officers (1 officer)

• Minimum staffing would help (1 officer)

• Raising the salary of SCOs to attract more of them (1 officer)

• skipped this question (3)

9. Please rate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements :

a. If you answered “No” to any one of the above, please explain below.

• Because there is no holding facility they must rely on other agencies (23 officers or 67.6%)

• More office space is needed (17 officers or 50%)

• Evidence storage is limited and lacking for larger pieces (9 officers or 26.5%)

• The computers are slow/limited (4 officers or 11.8%)

• The Western District is inadequate/falling apart (3 officers or 8.8%)

• The Eastern District headquarters is inadequate/not secure (2 officers or 5.9%)

• Due to limitations on space they store records at home or in their cruisers (2 officers 5.9%)

• Officers need lockers/gun lockers at the district headquarters (1 officer)

• The lack of a holding facility is not a problem because other agencies are willing to help (1 officer)

• Officers are unable to receive department email at some locations (1 officer)

• The MOU with the CSP should include holding facility use (1 officer)

• Officer mailboxes at district headquarters are not secure (1 officer)

• skipped this question (5)

15. Does the following equipment provided by DEP adequately meet your needs?

16. Please rate the overall quality of your personal working relationship with the following:

17. Overall, how would you rate the Division of State Environmental Conservation Police's success in:

18. (Optional) Do you have any additional comments or concerns that you would like to provide? Add additional sheets if necessary.

• Need more staff to cover the responsibilities (17 officers or 53.1%)

• Critical of the new hiring process, the quality of the hires, and/or the low salary (7 officers or 21.9%)

• The division needs more specialized units (examples included a special investigative unit and a canine unit) (6 officers or 18.8%)

• The limitations on authority is problematic (5 officers or 15.6%)

• There needs to be a review of equipment (officers were critical of computer and radio equipment and the availability of fully equipped spare patrol cars) (5 officers or 15.6%)

• There needs to be an on-going review of dispatch for procedures and quality control (5 officers or 15.6%)

• Expressed concern over low morale (4 officers or 12.5%)

• Report scheduling problems and say that time off is routinely denied (4 officers or 12.5%)

• Promotions lack oversight and accountability (3 officers or 9.3%)

• There is poor communication between ranks or that they have poor relationships with supervisors (3 officers or 9.3%)

• Money is an obstacle for the division (3 officers or 9.3%)

• Suggest reverting back to parks being its own sector or district (3 officers or 9.3%)

• Report favoritism with overtime (2 officers or 6.3%)

• The current administration/Colonel Nelson is doing a good job (2 officers or 6.3%)

• The division lacks clear goals and objectives (2 officers or 5%)

• Working far from home is difficult (2 officers or 6.3%)

• Suggested conducting exit interviews to learn from retirees (1 officer)

• Suggested reviewing/updating procedures including paperwork requirements (1 officer)

• Suggested taking over the TIP program (1 officer)

• Suggested taking over the Boating Division (1 officer)

• The department does a terrible job of PR (media exposure) (1 officer)

• Suggested using UConn-Storrs lab for rabies testing (1 officer)

• There is a lack of recognition/appreciation for performance (1 officer)

• Recommended the badges be returned to Park Managers (1 officer)

• Suggested training administrative staff to help supervisors with duties such as payroll (1 officer)

• There should be a supervisor on duty in the evenings during high priority times (1 officer)

• skipped this question (7)

Survey Methodology

Program review committee staff sent surveys to the 46 DEP conservation officers and sergeants.  The survey was mailed to each officer's home address on September 18, 2006, based on addresses available through the Division of State Environmental Conservation Police.  A follow-up notice was sent by mail on September 27, 2006, and by email on October 10, 2006.

Thirty-nine responses were received, for a response rate of 85 percent.

APPENDIX B

Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee

Survey of Park Supervisors