Skip navigation

Advisory Commission Report on Polygraph Examiners, TX Sunset, 2008

Download original document:
Brief thumbnail
This text is machine-read, and may contain errors. Check the original document to verify accuracy.
SUNSET ADVISORY COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT

Department of Public Safety
Private Security Board
Polygraph Examiners Board

May 2008

Sunset Advisory Commission

Representative Carl Isett, Chair
Senator Glenn Hegar, Jr., Vice Chair
Representative Dan Flynn

Senator Kim Brimer

Representative Linda Harper-Brown

Senator Robert F. Deuell, M.D.

Representative Lois Kolkhorst

Senator Craig Estes

Representative Ruth Jones McClendon

Senator Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa

Ike Sugg, Public Member

Michael Stevens, Public Member
Joey Longley
Director

In 1977, the Texas Legislature created the Sunset Advisory Commission to identify and eliminate waste,
duplication, and inefficiency in government agencies. The 12-member Commission is a legislative body that
reviews the policies and programs of more than 150 government agencies every 12 years. The Commission
questions the need for each agency, looks for potential duplication of other public services or programs, and
considers new and innovative changes to improve each agency’s operations and activities. The Commission
seeks public input through hearings on every agency under Sunset review and recommends actions on each
agency to the full Legislature. In most cases, agencies under Sunset review are automatically abolished unless
legislation is enacted to continue them.

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
PRIVATE SECURITY BOARD
POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS BOARD

SUNSET STAFF REPORT
MAY 2008

Table of Contents
PAGE

SUMMARY
................................................................................................................................

1

ISSUES/RECOMMENDATIONS
1

The Department of Public Safety’s Operating Structure Diminishes
Its Potential Effectiveness .......................................................................................

5

The Department Fails to Effectively Manage the Vehicle Inspection
Program ..................................................................................................................

13

Clarifying Roles and Exempting GDEM From Capital Expenditure
Caps Would Assist Texas’ Emergency Management Function ...............................

21

The Administrative Hearing Process for Suspending Driver Licenses
of Individuals Arrested for DWI Wastes Government Resources ..........................

27

DPS’ Law Enforcement Promotion Policy May Impede the Department
From Making the Best Use of Its Workforce. .........................................................

33

Key Elements of the Private Security Bureau’s Licensing and Regulatory
Functions Do Not Conform to Commonly Applied Licensing Practices. ..............

39

Texas Has a Continuing Need to Regulate the Private Security Industry
Through the Private Security Bureau ......................................................................

47

8

Texas Has a Continuing Need for the Department of Public Safety ......................

53

9

Transfer the Regulation of Polygraph Examiners to the Department
of Licensing and Regulation ...................................................................................

57

2
3
4
5
6
7

ACROSS-THE-BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS (ATBS)
................................................................................................................................

67

AGENCY INFORMATION
Department of Public Safety...................................................................................

69

Polygraph Examiners Board....................................................................................

91

APPENDICES
Appendix A — Equal Employment Opportunity Statistics ...................................

95

Appendix B — Historically Underutilized Businesses Statistics ............................

99

Appendix C — Staff Review Activities...................................................................

103

SUMMARY

Summary
Few state agencies touch as many Texans’ lives as the Department of Public
Safety (DPS). Virtually every adult in the state has a driver license or
identification card issued by the agency, and automobile owners must get their
vehicles inspected at stations regulated by DPS. Because Texas ranks first
among the states for frequency of tornados and flash floods, DPS’s emergency
management efforts also impact large numbers of Texans. The Department’s
law enforcement functions also affect many in the state, from the black and
white patrol cars on rural highways to Texas Rangers investigating major
crimes.
Given the broad reach of the agency and the importance of its mission –
enforcing laws to protect public safety and preventing and detecting crime
– Sunset staff found that DPS has significant room for improvement.
Despite its many dedicated employees, the Department’s
tendency to do things “because they’ve always been done
that way,” and not carefully scrutinize operations reduces
Sunset staff sought ways
the agency’s success. In its review of the agency, Sunset staff
to promote modernization
sought ways to promote modernization and effectiveness
and internal scrutiny
of the Department. For example, a management and
at the Department.
organizational study would provide an objective look at the
functions and structure of the law enforcement operations
of the agency and recommend improvements. The study
would examine mismatched regional boundaries, information silos, and other
areas. At the direction of the Public Safety Commission, the Department is
in the process of contracting for an information technology audit. This audit
would outline a strategy to correct years of neglect of this function so vital to
modern law enforcement agencies.
The Department’s promotion policy provides an example of the agency’s
resistance to change. Requiring commissioned officers to regularly move
their families across the state to receive a promotion made more sense in
the 1950s when fewer spouses worked outside the home, but not today, and
adjustments should be made to the policy.
Sunset staff found that the Department’s Vehicle Inspection program suffers
from a lack of agency scrutiny. Staff was surprised to learn that DPS does not
study statewide data on citations and warnings issued to vehicle inspection
stations, and therefore could not explain regional variations in this program
so susceptible to fraudulent activity by the stations.
The Sunset review also assessed the need to continue the Private Security
Board, operated by the Department as the Private Security Bureau (Bureau).
The Department assumed regulation of the private security industry in 2003
when the Legislature abolished the Texas Commission on Private Security as
a stand-alone agency and transferred its functions to the Department. Sunset
staff found that the Bureau has cleared the backlog of enforcement cases
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Summary

1

inherited from its predecessor and effectively regulates the industry. Because the Bureau will continue
to be reviewed along with DPS in the future, the Private Security Board no longer needs a separate
Sunset date.
Sunset staff also evaluated the Polygraph Examiners Board, which is administratively housed at the
Department of Public Safety, and is separately subject to review under the Sunset Act. Given the
Polygraph Board’s small number of staff and licensees, potential Board member conflicts of interest,
and an increasingly antagonistic relationship between DPS and the Polygraph Board, Sunset staff
determined that transferring polygraph regulation to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
would best serve the public.
The following material provides a summary of the Sunset staff recommendations on the Department
of Public Safety, Private Security Board, and Polygraph Examiners Board.

Issues and Recommendations
Issue 1
The Department of Public Safety’s Operating Structure Diminishes Its Potential
Effectiveness.
Key Recommendations
The Department should contract for a management review and organizational study to examine the
Department’s structure, communication, and policies.
DPS should operate the Driver License program using a civilian business management model.

Issue 2
The Department Fails to Effectively Manage the Vehicle Inspection Program.
Key Recommendations
DPS should manage the Vehicle Inspection program as a civilian business and licensing
operation.
Establish Vehicle Inspection goals and expected performance outcomes.

Issue 3
Clarifying Roles and Exempting GDEM From Capital Expenditure Caps Would Assist
Texas’ Emergency Management Function.
Key Recommendations
Specify that the Department’s Director appoints the chief of GDEM, subject to approval of the
Governor, and require coordination between DPS, GDEM, and the Governor’s Office of Homeland
Security.

2

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Summary

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Change GDEM’s name to the Texas Division of Emergency Management, and clarify that it is a
division of the Department.
The Sunset Commission should recommend that the Legislature exclude GDEM from the
Department’s cap on capital budget expenses paid for with federal funds, with certain precautions.

Issue 4
The Administrative Hearing Process for Suspending Driver Licenses of Individuals Arrested
for DWI Wastes Government Resources.
Key Recommendations
Require hearings to be held by telephone, and allow witnesses to testify by telephone, unless the
judge finds that an in-person hearing or appearance is necessary for the fair administration of
justice.
Require affidavits of the breath test operators or breath test supervisors to be admissible without
the witness’s appearance unless the judge finds that justice requires their presence.
Require the defense to request breath test operators and breath test supervisors by subpoena.

Issue 5
DPS’ Law Enforcement Promotion Policy May Impede the Department From Making the
Best Use of Its Workforce.
Key Recommendation
The Department of Public Safety should modify its promotional policy to provide officers with
location options when applying for promotions.

Issue 6
Key Elements of the Private Security Bureau’s Licensing and Regulatory Functions Do
Not Conform to Commonly Applied Licensing Practices.
Key Recommendations
Standardize the Bureau’s licensing functions by allowing the Bureau to license by industry class
endorsement, and authorize jurisprudence examinations.
Provide more flexibility and fairness in application approval by allowing the Private Security
Bureau to consider extenuating circumstances in approving or denying occupational licenses due to
criminal histories.
Update elements relating to enforcement such as allowing appeals of Private Security Board
decisions to civil district court under the substantial evidence rule; and increasing the maximum
administrative penalty to $5,000 per violation, per day.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Summary

3

Issue 7
Texas Has a Continuing Need to Regulate the Private Security Industry Through the
Private Security Bureau.
Key Recommendations
Remove the separate Sunset date for the Private Security Board, continuing the Private Security
Act and the Board.
Prohibit Private Security Bureau troopers from having outside employment as security officers.

Issue 8
Texas Has a Continuing Need for the Department of Public Safety.
Key Recommendation
Continue the Department of Public Safety for 12 years.

Issue 9
Transfer the Regulation of Polygraph Examiners to the Department of Licensing and
Regulation.
Key Recommendations
Abolish the Polygraph Examiners Board and transfer its functions to the Texas Department of
Licensing and Regulation.
Establish a polygraph advisory committee to assist with the regulation of polygraph examiners.
Conform elements of polygraph licensing and regulation to commonly applied licensing practices.

Fiscal Implication Summary
One recommendation in this report would have a fiscal impact to the State.
Issue 9 – Transferring the functions of the Polygraph Examiners Board to the Texas Department of
Licensing and Regulation would result in an estimated annual savings to the State of $41,740. This
recommendation would result in a reduction of one FTE, based on eliminating the administrative
support position. The reduction of this FTE would result in an annual savings of about $32,740
based on the average salary and fringe benefits for the position. The recommendation would also
result in a savings of approximately $9,000 due to a reduction of travel costs for Board members,
based on average travel reimbursements for fiscal year 2007.

4

Fiscal
Year

Savings to the
General Revenue Fund

Change in Number of
FTEs From FY 2007

2010

$41,740

-1

2011

$41,740

-1

2012

$41,740

-1

2013

$41,740

-1

2014

$41,740

-1

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Summary

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

ISSUES

Issue 1
The Department of Public Safety’s Operating Structure Diminishes
Its Potential Effectiveness.
Summary
Key Recommendations
The Department should contract for a management review and organizational study to examine the
Department’s structure, communication, and policies.
DPS should operate the Driver License program using a civilian business management model.

Key Findings
DPS’ organizational structure hampers communication and crime analysis.
DPS lacks certain tools needed to prevent and respond to terrorism and other crimes.
The levels of mid-management in the Department’s law enforcement functions need further
study.
Driver license services operate through a law enforcement command structure rather than as a
business service.
Consulting firms provide objective, outside expertise that can increase law enforcement agencies’
efficiency and effectiveness.

Conclusion
The Department of Public Safety (DPS) operates under a basic management and organizational
structure that has not changed significantly in many years. The law enforcement functions operate in
a chain of command style that works well for carrying out individual law enforcement activities, but
hinders communication and sharing of information and ideas. This “silo” effect works to the detriment
of the agency.
As Sunset staff further examined agency operations, it identified other potentially inefficient law
enforcement operations. For example, DPS law enforcement functions appear to have significant
numbers of officers assigned to mid-management positions, regional boundaries differ unnecessarily
for different programs, the fusion center has not gotten far off the ground, and the agency’s information
technology systems also operate in silos. In the driver license program, staff found that DPS manages
the program with a law enforcement command structure unnecessary to carry out what is primarily
a business sales and customer service operation, albeit one with needs for a strong law enforcement
presence.
Early in its review, Sunset staff identified the organizational inefficiencies discussed above. However,
some of these problems dealt directly with law enforcement operations. Given that law enforcement
is a specialty service that affects the safety of citizens as well as DPS officers, Sunset staff was not as
confident about the impact of potential recommendations. Instead, staff focused on identifying the
problems and examining whether an outside management evaluation with law enforcement expertise
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 1

5

would more appropriately identify the solutions. Recently, the Public Safety Commission recognized
similar organizational issues and has issued a request for qualifications to procure a firm to perform
a management and organizational study of DPS. The problems identified in this issue could be
incorporated into that study.

Support
The Department provides statewide public safety services.
The Department of Public Safety (DPS) seeks to accomplish its mission
to provide public safety services through four main functions: traffic
law enforcement, criminal law enforcement, license regulation, and
emergency management. DPS organizes its 7,800 employees into six
divisions: Texas Highway Patrol, Criminal Law Enforcement, Texas
Rangers, Driver License, Administration, and the Governor’s Division
of Emergency Management. These divisions, in turn, have staff located
throughout the state in regional offices to provide services at the local
level. The Department of Public Safety Organizational Chart, shows the
basic structure of the agency and fiscal year 2007 FTEs.
Department of Public Safety
Organizational Chart
Public Safety
Commission

Office of Audit
and Inspection
20 FTEs

Director
441 FTEs

Texas
Highway Patrol

Criminal Law
Enforcement

3,658.5 FTEs

1,051.5 FTEs

Texas Rangers

Driver License

Administration

135 FTEs

1,667.5 FTEs

657 FTEs

Emergency
Management
144 FTEs

DPS’ organizational structure hampers communication and
crime analysis.
Effective communication at DPS is stymied by the Department’s
organization into six divisions which often act as silos, a command
structure that limits delegation of authority, the divisions’ regional
boundaries across the state, and separate information systems. Sunset
staff interviews with DPS personnel revealed that staff within a certain
division must often go up their chain of command to get assistance or
resources from staff in another division, rather than communicating
directly with their counterparts in the other division.
While the threats to public safety that DPS is charged with combating
have changed over the years, particularly since the September 11, 2001

6

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 1

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

attacks, the agency has not changed its structure in response. For example,
the agency continues to maintain separate programs for Criminal
Intelligence, Narcotics, and Motor Vehicle Theft, even though they may
all be dealing with the same transnational gang that is smuggling humans,
trafficking narcotics, and stealing automobiles. While the agency locates
these programs in the Criminal Law Enforcement Division, each have
separate staff and separate performance measures, which impede effective
communication and cooperation.
To facilitate information sharing and leverage a wider array of knowledge,
the Department created the Bureau of Information Analysis (BIA) in late
2007 by transferring 158 DPS crime analysts from the Texas Rangers,
Driver License Fraud Unit, Criminal Intelligence, Motor Vehicle Theft,
and Narcotics services into one unit. Collocating has helped coordination
and information sharing to some degree already – each service formerly
handled its own administrative subpoenas, for example, but they are now
combined into one tracking system – but the analysts largely perform
the same tasks as before DPS consolidated them, and the effectiveness of
BIA remains to be seen.

Most divisions,
and even some
programs within
divisions, have
different regional
boundaries.

Most divisions, and even some programs within divisions, at DPS have
different regional boundaries. DPS maintains that regional boundaries
depend on the span of control for each of the divisions or services,
but having different regions creates communication and operational
difficulties. For example, a Narcotics Service captain may discuss an
investigation with a THP lieutenant, but that lieutenant cannot make
any decisions without consulting his captain, who may be located in a
different regional office.
Interviews with DPS field staff have revealed frustration with the
mismatched boundaries, with staff saying they sometimes have difficulty
even determining where their counterpart in another region is located.
Adjustments to regional boundaries occur on an ad hoc basis, and
Department staff could not recall the last time DPS evaluated them as a
whole.
Several of the Department’s divisions have separate databases and
reporting systems that cannot easily share information, further
complicating communication. For example, DPS staff indicated that
the Texas Rangers, Criminal Law Enforcement, and Highway Patrol
divisions have three separate case reporting programs that cannot share
information.

Several of the
Department’s
divisions
have separate
databases and
reporting systems
that cannot easily
share information.

DPS also operates the separate driver licensing system with its longdelayed re-engineering and manages the state’s TDEx information sharing
system that pulls together information from local law enforcement, DPS,
Department of Criminal Justice, and other sources. With guidance from
the Public Safety Commission, the Department recently issued a request
for qualifications for a consultant to assess its information technology
strategy and provide direction for improvement.
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 1

7

DPS lacks certain tools needed to prevent and respond to
terrorism and other crimes.
Since the attacks of September 11, most states and several local
governments have established fusion centers, which are collaborative
efforts designed to detect, prevent, investigate, and respond to criminal
or terrorist activity.1 While fusion centers vary based on state and local
needs, they generally all involve two or more federal, state, or local
agencies combining information from different sources – including law
enforcement, public safety, and the private sector – since informationsharing weaknesses have been recognized as a major contributing factor
in the nation’s lack of preparedness for the 9/11 attacks. 2

The Department’s
fusion center
does not yet
have the local,
state, and federal
participation
to provide the
analytical
approach
envisioned in a
fusion center.

The Department established its fusion center, now called the Texas
Intelligence Center, in 2003, and it works mainly as a call center from
which law enforcement agencies can request assistance with simple tasks
such as obtaining individuals’ dates of birth or addresses. The Center
also provides daily security updates using federal databases and open
source information such as newspaper articles and arrests. The Center’s
operation within the BIA provides some ability to analyze information
from multiple sources, but it does not currently have the local, state, and
federal participation and resulting analytical capabilities to provide the
integrated approach envisioned in a fusion center. While many fusion
centers have expressed concern about the uncertainty of long-term
federal funding, and many states do not yet meet baseline capabilities,
the Department should be taking a leading role in development of an
effective fusion center.
DPS, like agencies in many other states, has struggled to pull its fusion
center effort together. The agency is still working to enter participation
agreements with federal and local agencies. While DPS has identified
sufficient space for a fusion center at headquarters and remodeling has
begun, development of information technology resources has stalled.
Since much of the information and analyses that a fusion center must
pull together is law enforcement related, a management analysis could
identify additional roadblocks and provide best practices for fusion center
development and operation.

Levels of mid-management in the Department’s
enforcement functions need further study.

law

DPS uses a command structure that in some cases incorporates a major
or commander, assistant commanders, captains, lieutenants, sergeants,
corporals, and troopers. Several DPS divisions that use this type of
structure have management ratios that appear out of line with standards
used in non-law enforcement agencies. DPS does not have a written
policy on management-to-staff ratios.
For example, the Private Security Bureau has one civilian assistant chief,
one captain, one lieutenant, and three sergeants in its management

8

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 1

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

structure. The Bureau of Information Analysis has one commander,
one assistant commander, two captains, and four lieutenants in its
management structure. Evaluating the need for each of these positions
requires a background in law enforcement to ensure that public and
officer safety are fully considered. Again, a law enforcement management
analysis could best assess this question.

Driver license services operate through a law enforcement
command structure rather than as a business service.
The DPS driver license services primarily constitute a retail sales operation.
Texans obtain driver licenses by passing a test, verifying identity, and
paying a fee. Like many businesses, the operation has a significant online
component for Texans to renew their licenses. As shown in the textbox,
Key Driver License Business Outputs, the Division has a very busy business
operation.

A law
enforcement
management
analysis could
best assess
DPS’ command
structure.

Key Driver License Business Outputs
About 16.3 million Texans hold driver licenses.
DPS issues about 6.2 million driver licenses and identification cards each year.
About 16 percent of renewal transactions occur online.
DPS performs about 6 million driver license tests a year.
The Division collected $95 million in driver license fees in fiscal year 2007.
DPS also collected $61 million in driver record fees.

The Driver License Division employs roughly 1,600 staff, 220 or 14
percent of which are commissioned officers. DPS operates 256 driver
license offices located throughout the state. In fiscal year 2007, DPS
spent $104 million to operate the Division.
The Driver License Division does not effectively meet consumer needs.
DPS has long had high-profile problems with customer service, such as
long wait times for citizens in driver license offices and in its call centers.
While the agency does not have overall statistics on wait time in its driver
license offices, the staff strives for an average time in line of no more than
20 minutes. This wait time is very different for each office, although peak
wait times usually occur during lunch hours and are much longer than the
20 minute target. For example, the agency reports that the average wait
time at the Houston-Gessner office is 33 minutes.

The Driver License
Division does not
effectively meet
consumer needs.

As opposed to most businesses, DPS has not adjusted its operating hours
to meet consumer needs. Even the most crowded DPS driver license
offices generally open from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Lines at the Gessner office
in Houston are reported to snake outside and around the building at peak
times.
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 1

9

DPS’ call center is also a source of frustration for customers. Of the
70,000 monthly phone calls, about 10,000 use the automated system to
answer their questions. After navigating the menu tree, other callers wait
an average 13 ½ minutes before being able to speak to a staff person. The
agency admits most callers hang up before reaching a live person and
that only about 35 percent of calls are actually completed. The call center
closes at 5 p.m. and on weekends.

DPS’ call center
closes at 5 p.m.
and on weekends.

While primarily a business function, DPS manages the Driver License
program through a law enforcement model. The Chief of the Division is
a civilian, but the consumer-related field operations are overseen by two
majors. At the regional level, DPS manages driver license functions with
a captain who oversees two or three lieutenants who oversee sergeants
that manage the day-to-day functions. No civilian management exists
in the regions. Other than management, law enforcement is present to
ensure security of the operations, investigate use of fraudulent documents,
and arrest people that show up with outstanding warrants. Peace officer
participation will likely also be integral to the changeover to the federal
REAL ID program.
Law enforcement officer training does not focus on business management.
While some officers may bring business acumen to the job, such skills
are not required. Well-trained business managers could better focus
on customer service improvements and provide civilian personnel
management techniques that may not be in the repertoire of officers.

Most other states
operate the driver
license function
through civilian
management.

The Legislature and DPS have made efforts to increase the number of troops
in the field. While many driver license commissioned officer positions
must remain at those offices for security purposes, some management
level officer positions would become available for reassignment if the
offices changed to civilian business management.
Most other states operate the driver licensing function through civilian
management. Based on information from the American Association
of Motor Vehicle Administrators, only 10 states use their public safety
department for issuance of driver licenses. Thirty-eight states issue
licenses through a department of motor vehicles. The remainder use a
combination of other state agencies and local governments.

Consulting firms provide objective, outside expertise that
can increase law enforcement agencies’ efficiency and
effectiveness.
Numerous consulting firms perform management reviews to help improve
practices at law enforcement agencies, including state police agencies
such as the Department of Public Safety. For example, a series of studies
of the New Jersey State Police made recommendations on staffing levels
for patrol and investigation functions, the promotions policy, and the use
of intelligence. A recent audit of the City of Austin Police Department
recommended organizing units based on common mission to eliminate

10

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 1

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

overlapping duties, and reducing the number of command areas to focus
resources and eliminate overhead costs.
State legislative oversight agencies generally have a limited history of
conducting detailed reviews of law enforcement agency operations,
reducing the best practices Sunset staff could draw from for the
Department’s review. Contracting with an outside consulting firm
would help DPS make the organizational and other changes necessary to
accomplish its mission in the 21st Century.
The Public Safety Commission recently recognized and discussed
organizational issues similar to those identified in this report. It has
started a process of procuring a firm to perform a management and
organizational study of the Department.

Recommendations
Management Action
1.1

The Department should contract for a management and organizational study
to examine the Department’s structure, communication, and policies.

DPS has significant challenges ahead on how best to modernize and organize for changes in criminal
activity, technology, and the need for threat assessment and response. Under this recommendation,
DPS would contract with a consulting firm that has law enforcement expertise for a management
and organizational study. The study should identify problems and opportunities for improvement and
recommend solutions for each problem or opportunity discussed in the report. DPS should begin this
process as soon as possible to ensure any changes can be identified quickly, and be ready to provide
any statutory solutions, if needed, to the 81st Legislature. DPS should report the study’s findings
and recommendations to the Lieutenant Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the appropriate
legislative oversight committees, including the Sunset Commission.
A management and organizational evaluation can take many forms. The list below provides some, but
certainly not all, of the items that DPS could consider for inclusion in the management review. This
effort should be done in concert with the management review process recently begun by the Public
Safety Commission.
–

Organizational structure

–

Communication between functions and divisions

–

Law enforcement span of control and levels of delegation

–

Staff allocation process

–

Regional boundaries

–

Organizing licensing programs functionally

–

Customer service in business/consumer activities

–

Whether ethnic, gender, and cultural barriers exist

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 1

11

1.2

DPS should operate the Driver License program using a civilian business
management model.

The Driver License program is a combination of a basic business activity with law enforcement
components. The State has significant public safety responsibilities related to the licensing function,
but the transactions related to obtaining and renewing driver licenses and ID cards are primarily a
consumer service function. While DPS needs law enforcement to secure operations and detect and
investigate fraud, DPS does not need to manage the program with law enforcement personnel.
With the advent of federal REAL ID requirements and the continuing growth of identification theft and
fraud, having a strong law enforcement presence in the driver licenses offices remains important. This
presence could continue as a separate Driver License Division, or DPS could transfer this responsibility
and troops to the Texas Highway Patrol. The Department should include evaluation of this question
in the management study. Regardless of this decision, DPS should continue to use the expertise and
training of experienced driver license troopers in this activity.

Fiscal Implication
An external management review would have a significant cost, depending on the scope developed by
DPS and the Public Safety Commission. The Commission has indicated that funds are available at
this time to pay for such a study.

1
U.S. Department of Justice, Fusion Center Guidelines: Law Enforcement Intelligence, Public Safety, and the Private Sector (Washington, D.C.,
August 2006), p. 2.
2
Eileen R. Larence, Director Homeland Security and Justice Issues - U.S. General Accountability Office, Testimony before the U.S. Senate
ad hoc subcommittee on State, Local, and Private Sector Preparedness and Integration, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, April 17, 2008.

12

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 1

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Issue 2
The Department Fails to Effectively Manage the Vehicle Inspection
Program.
Summary
Key Recommendations
DPS should manage the Vehicle Inspection program as a civilian business and licensing
operation.
Establish Vehicle Inspection goals and expected performance outcomes.

Key Findings
DPS fails to adequately supervise the Vehicle Inspection program.
Lack of statewide oversight leads to performance disparities among the regions.
Operating a business function as an offshoot of a law enforcement function has led to a lack of
effective oversight.

Conclusion
Under the current structure of the Vehicle Inspection Service (VI), program quality and effectiveness
are not in anyone’s chain of command at the Department of Public Safety (DPS). Obviously, senior
executives have responsibility for the program, but no person is assigned primary oversight to ensure
that the program works well overall, and in each of the DPS regions. This missing link impedes the
program from operating as effectively as possible.
The safety inspection of vehicles is a major DPS activity. DPS oversees more than 10,000 vehicle
inspection stations in Texas, employing about 38,000 licensed inspectors who perform approximately 16
million inspections annually. Sunset staff examined DPS’ approach to overseeing the vehicle inspection
system and found the lack of a basic business operational and supervisory structure disquieting. Texas
Highway Patrol (THP) majors oversee the VI program at the regional level, along with a myriad of
other responsibilities. At the headquarters level, DPS assigns a THP captain to oversee a Bureau to
manage distribution of inspection certificates and maintain records of licensed stations and inspectors.
This Bureau is not responsible for overall program performance.
The recommendations in this issue would establish a civilian business and occupational licensing
structure for the vehicle inspection activity at DPS. The agency should establish performance goals
and outcome expectations for the VI program by the end of this year and ensure it has a management
structure to track and improve performance.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 2

13

Support
The Department of Public Safety, through its Vehicle
Inspection program, oversees the annual inspection of 16
million motor vehicles by 10,000 licensed inspection stations.

The State
implemented the
current Vehicle
Inspection
program in 1952
to stem the growth
in automobile
accidents due
to defective
equipment.

Compulsory inspection of vehicles registered in Texas is mandated by
law. Texas has inspected motor vehicles since 1925 to ensure compliance
with equipment standards beginning with the inspection of automobile
headlights. The State implemented the current inspection program in
1952 to stem the growth in both fatal and nonfatal automobile accidents
attributed to defective equipment. In 1952, Texas accident statistics
reflected that 13 percent of fatal accidents and 12 percent of nonfatal
accidents had defective equipment as a contributing factor. Those
numbers were reduced to 1 percent and 2 percent, respectively, by 2001.1
Currently, the state has about 10,000 licensed vehicle inspection stations
of which 6,500 perform only safety inspections and an additional 3,500
perform both safety and emissions inspections. These stations employ
more than 32,000 inspectors trained and certified by the Department,
who perform approximately 16 million vehicle inspections annually.
The State requires emissions testing in 17 urban counties. These counties
are mainly in the Dallas, Houston, Austin and El Paso metropolitan
areas. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality develops the
standards for emission testing, and DPS Vehicle Inspection enforces
those standards in the counties that require emission inspections.
The DPS Vehicle Inspection Service licenses and supervises all vehicle
inspection stations throughout Texas. The inspection program requires
motorists to have their vehicles inspected annually for conditions and
defects in an effort to prevent traffic crashes and eliminate other health
and safety risks. The 264 civilian employees of the Vehicle Inspection
Service train and examine prospective inspectors, conduct routine quality
control checks, investigate citizen complaints, and take administrative
enforcement action against certified inspection stations and inspectors
found in noncompliance with program requirements.
Twenty Highway Patrol vehicle inspection troopers located in Dallas and
Houston focus on counterfeit document enforcement, ensuring integrity
of government documents related to the program, and conducting
regulatory duties in support of the vehicle inspection program. The
troopers also conduct traffic patrol directed toward compliance with
vehicle inspection, driver license, registration, insurance, and other laws
and regulations.
The Vehicle Inspection Records and Emissions Bureau is a headquartersbased organization that supports the Vehicle Inspection Service by
managing the distribution of inspection certificates. The Bureau also
maintains official records of certified stations and inspectors in addition

14

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 2

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

to providing support functions for the emissions inspection program.
Although the Bureau is headed by a Texas Highway Patrol captain, it
is primarily composed of civilian employees as is the Vehicle Inspection
Service.

DPS fails to adequately supervise the Vehicle Inspection
program.
Direct supervision of the Vehicle Inspection program only occurs at
the regional level. Civilian vehicle inspection technicians report to field
supervisors managed by regional supervisors. The regional supervisors
report to the regional commander of their respective regions. This
regional commander is a THP major who also supervises all Highway
Patrol activities in the region, including captains for Highway Patrol and
Commercial Vehicle Enforcement, and reports to the chief of the Texas
Highway Patrol. See the following chart for more detail.

DPS does not
compile statewide
information to
assess overall
program
performance.

Highway Patrol Division
Organizational Chart
Chief

Regional Commander*

Assistant Chief
Highway Patrol
Support
Major

Personnel Policy
Major

Secondary
Employment
Information Services
Major

Commercial Vehicle
Enforcement
Major

Major

Highway Patrol

Major

Captain

Commercial Vehicle
Enforcement
Captain

Vehicle Inspection
GDEM Contact

Communications

TxDOT STEP Contact
Safety Education
Coordination of Seized
Drug Funds
Purchasing

Vehicle Inspection
Bureau

Regional Supervisor

Vehicle Inspection

Adjutant Services

Regional Supervisor
Civilian

Regional Supervisor

Field Supervisors – Civilian
Technicians – Civilian

Captain

*

All regions have substantially the same organization

Supervision of statewide performance in the Vehicle Inspection program
is lacking. Headquarters managers do not compile statewide information
to assess the performance of the program overall. The regional THP
major is responsible for managing the performance of the regional vehicle
inspection team. However, the commander does not receive information
from Vehicle Inspection staff at headquarters providing performance
indicators to allow comparison of a region’s performance to other regions
in the state.
The headquarters Vehicle Inspection Bureau is not assigned responsibility
for statewide performance measurements, trend analysis, or reviewing
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 2

15

reports from the regions. Vehicle Inspection Bureau personnel stated that
the responsibility for those issues were “not in my chain of command.”
When asked about communication between the groups of commissioned
troopers in Dallas and Houston to discuss fraud activities and trends,
Bureau staff did not have an answer as those groups were also not in their
chain of command. When asked who is responsible for these management
functions on a statewide level, staff did not really know, but guessed the
responsibility was either the THP chief or assistant chief. This lack of
review oversight and ability to communicate performance information is
hampered by the law enforcement command structure of DPS and does
not allow necessary business management functions to take place.
Performance Measurements not
Tracked by VI Bureau Management
Citations issued by region
Technician performance by region
Fraud citations by region
Statewide emission testing performance results
Statewide inspection trends from past three years

Limited oversight and knowledge of statewide
trends and performance hampers effective
management of this program. For example,
DPS has not developed standards for use as
tools for managing performance in the regions.
Information is not available at the state level
to track fraudulent activity and determine
how effective the regions are in their efforts to
combat fraud. Also, best practice information
is not often shared with the regions to enhance
performance.

Lack of statewide oversight contributes to continued
performance disparities among the regions.
As shown above, the Vehicle Inspection program does not review
performance by region nor does it review statewide performance
indicators. DPS systems have data available
Vehicle Inspection Citations and Warnings
to detail both safety and emissions inspection
FYs 2005 – 2007
results, in addition to enforcement activity
Region
FY 05 FY 06 FY 07
by region, but is not being accessed. This
information would give management
Troopers
62
27
74
1 Garland
the ability to compare performance on a
Technicians
645
598
596
region by region basis. However, no one
Troopers
50
18
121
on the headquarters staff reviews statewide
2 Houston
performance of the program. As a result, the
Technicians
652
439
389
trends go unnoticed. For example, citations
3 Corpus Christi
248
182
183
and warnings issued statewide dropped 29
4 Midland
472
321
283
percent from a total of 2,815 in fiscal year
5 Lubbock
304
147
150
2005 to 1,996 in fiscal year 2007 with one
region showing a 50 percent reduction
6 Waco
292
138
156
over that time period. See the table, Vehicle
8 McAllen
90
47
44
Inspection Citations and Warnings, for more
Total
2,815 1,917 1,996
information.

16

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 2

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Regional disparities for technician performance are not being reviewed.
Citations and warnings issued in each region vary greatly on a per
technician basis. For example, from fiscal years 2005 to 2007, Region
4 headquartered in Midland averaged 27 citations and warnings per
technician, per year versus an average of 10 per technician in Region 8
(McAllen), over the same time period. These types of variations from
region to region should be reviewed on a regular basis to determine if the
numbers are reasonable for the demographic makeup of that region or if
adjustments are needed to enhance performance.
Sunset staff requested this data which DPS had not previously analyzed.
These performance indicators are also key elements in the efforts to
combat fraudulent activity such as the sale of inspection stickers without
completing a valid inspection and use of counterfeit inspection stickers
and other documents. For example, Sunset staff analysis of the regional
data shows that Region 8 (McAllen) issued only seven fraud citations in
fiscal year 2007, the only region in single digits. In comparison, Region
4 (Midland) issued 104 fraud citations. If management assessed this
data, they would know to focus training for Region 8 and set higher
expectations.

In fiscal year
2007 the McAllen
region issued
only seven vehicle
inspection fraud
citations while the
Midland region
issued 104.

Operating a business function as an offshoot of a law
enforcement function has led to a lack of effective oversight.
The Vehicle Inspection program is essentially a business and occupational
licensing process run using a law enforcement model. In September 1991,
following directives of the Legislature, DPS began transitioning from
using commissioned DPS troopers to inspect stations to using civilian
technicians. The Vehicle Inspection program now has approximately
264 civilian employees with 194 of those located in seven DPS regions.
The civilian regional employees report up through the Highway Patrol
command structure and are managed with a regional focus. As discussed
previously, performance comparisons with other regions are not done;
analyses of statewide trends are not completed and shared with the regional
commanders to focus on areas needing improvement; and results of VI
fraud detection efforts and practices are not tracked or communicated.
Sunset staff repeatedly were told in interviews that the management
philosophy is to react when something goes wrong and fix it. Constant
oversight is needed in business functions to analyze results and trends
and make adjustments beforehand to avoid problems. Performance
evaluations and analysis are needed at both the regional and state level to
provide effective management and leadership to this program. Achieving
overall goals requires several ongoing activities, including identification
and prioritization of desired results, tracking and measuring progress
towards results, periodically reviewing progress, and intervening to
improve progress where needed.2

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

The agency’s
management
philosophy is
to react when
something goes
wrong and fix it.

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 2

17

Nineteen states mandate vehicle safety inspections.3 Eleven of those
19, including New Jersey and Pennsylvania, manage their programs in
a civilian state agency environment. Managing a business function with
command and control type oversight does not promote the most efficient
operation of the program.

Other state agencies manage business programs out of Austin
using both local and state-level management structure.
Most large state agencies in Texas have a regional and local presence around
the state. However, statewide programs are directed and monitored at the
state level as well as the region level. Agencies manage personnel locally
including individual performance. Program evaluations are agencylevel responsibilities reviewed at headquarters with input from regional
management.
For example, the Texas Department of Agriculture has several programs
in its regulatory, pesticide, and marketing areas that have employees in the
regions dedicated to those individual programs. The regional program
specialists report to the regional operations manager for day-to-day
management and performance issues. The regional operations manager
reports to a senior-level manager in headquarters. However, at the
headquarters level, a program manager is responsible for each program’s
statewide performance. This program manager has the authority to contact
directly either the regional program specialist or the regional operations
manager to discuss issues or trends in the program. No person is outside
the “chain of command.” This statewide accountability is missing in the
DPS Vehicle Inspection program.

Recommendations
Change in Statute
2.1

DPS should manage the Vehicle Inspection program as a civilian business
and licensing operation.
The Legislature envisioned the Vehicle Inspection Service as a primarily civilian function when it
mandated civilian technicians for the program. While DPS accomplished the transition to civilian
technicians, the program continued as a law enforcement activity and not a civilian business function.
This change would place the program in a business model environment where DPS analyzes expectations,
results, and information flow in a more effective structure to improve the program and maintain a
high level of performance. Under this approach, DPS would manage the program from headquarters.
Regional supervisors would manage area VI activity with primary responsibility for performance and
results. DPS executive management would set overall program goals with the VI program director
setting and monitoring regional goals and expectations. The VI program would continue to use the
regional administrative infrastructure for administrative matters.
Highway Patrol would need to continue to provide law enforcement support as they do now. The
regional VI supervisor must work with the regional THP captain(s) on performance expectations and
program needs for troopers assigned to support VI activities.

18

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 2

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Management Action
2.2

Establish Vehicle Inspection goals and expected performance
outcomes.
DPS needs to set the goals and performance outcome measures for both the overall VI program and
for each of the regions. Each region currently operates in a vacuum as it relates to vehicle inspection.
Tasking DPS management to establish a performance measurement system will ensure overall program
improvement and enable VI employees to understand performance expectations. DPS should establish
the new goals and outcome measures no later than December 31, 2008. The agency should also obtain
input from regional VI staff when developing the system. Finally, as part of the new system, DPS should
stress the importance of detecting issuance and use of fraudulent inspection stickers. The performance
measures should also take into account geographical and opportunity differences between the regions.
Best practices developed and used in improving performance should be shared within the regions.

Fiscal Implication
These recommendations would not have a fiscal impact on the State as the existing program budget
would allow for the reengineering of the program.

1

Texas Department of Public Safety, Self-Evaluation Report, submitted to the Sunset Advisory Commission (August 2007) p. 101.

2
Carter McNamara, “Field Guide to Consulting and Organization Development,” www.managementhelp.org/ perf_mng/overview.htm.
Accessed: April 25, 2008.
3

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Safety Inspections, www.aamva.org. Accessed: April 20, 2008.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 2

19

20

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 2

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Issue 3
Clarifying Roles and Exempting GDEM From Capital Expenditure
Caps Would Assist Texas’ Emergency Management Function.
Summary
Key Recommendations
Specify that the Department’s Director appoints the chief of GDEM, subject to approval of the
Governor, and require coordination between DPS, GDEM, and the Governor’s Office of Homeland
Security.
Change GDEM’s name to the Texas Division of Emergency Management, and clarify that it is a
division of the Department.
The Sunset Commission should recommend that the Legislature exclude GDEM from the
Department’s cap on capital budget expenses paid for with federal funds, with certain precautions.

Key Findings
The Department of Public Safety houses the Governor’s Division of Emergency Management.
The Governor of Texas plays a large role in the State’s emergency management function, particularly
during a disaster.
The Legislature caps certain state agency expenditures through the General Appropriations Act.
Lines of authority between DPS, GDEM, and the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security are
unclear.
GDEM’s unpredictable receipt of federal funds contributes to DPS quickly reaching its cap on
capital expenses.

Conclusion
With Texas experiencing more federally declared disasters than any other state in recent years,
emergency management clearly presents enormous challenges. The Governor’s Division of Emergency
Management (GDEM) at the Department of Public Safety (DPS) helps local officials across the state
prepare for and respond to disasters of all kinds, both manmade and natural. GDEM also helps
implement the Governor’s statewide homeland security strategy.
From the beginning of its review of DPS, Sunset staff heard from many individuals about the lack of
defined roles between GDEM, DPS, and the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security. Clarifying
in statute that the DPS Director appoints the chief of GDEM, with the approval of the Governor,
will help alleviate confusion. While Sunset staff found that GDEM is highly regarded, exempting
GDEM’s capital expenses from DPS’ cap on such expenses would ensure GDEM remains prepared for
and able to fully respond to disasters. In combination with changes resulting from the management and
organizational study recommended earlier in this report, these recommendations will help the State’s
preparedness and emergency management functions continue as some of the best in the nation.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 3

21

Support
The Department of Public Safety houses the Governor’s
Division of Emergency Management.

Texas law
specifies that the
State’s emergency
management
function is a
division of the
Governor’s Office.

The Governor’s Division of Emergency Management (GDEM) is
charged with preparing for all threats to Texas, manmade and natural.
The Division’s 144 FTEs help local officials across the state prepare for
and mitigate disasters; distribute (mostly federal) grant funds to disaster
victims; and develop the state emergency management plan. The Division
also maintains the State Operations Center, which serves as the State’s
principal command and control facility during a disaster; and the Border
Security Operations Center, which coordinates state law enforcement
activities along the Texas-Mexico border with local governments and
federal agencies.
Texas law specifies that the State’s emergency management function
is a division of the Governor’s Office, and that the Governor appoints
its director who, in turn, appoints a state coordinator. In practice, state
emergency management has been directed by the Department of Public
Safety (DPS) Director, and housed at DPS, since 1963 through executive
orders issued by the Governor.1
In January 2004, Governor Perry released executive order RP32 that
designated the director of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security
(OHS) as GDEM’s director. The Homeland Security director kept the
same state coordinator in place, referred to as the chief of GDEM, who
conducts GDEM’s day-to-day activities under the direction and guidance
of the OHS director. RP32 also specified that GDEM personnel have
the same rights and obligations as DPS employees.

GDEM passed
almost 90 percent
of its fiscal year
2007 budget of
$290 million
through to local
governments.

22

GDEM’s budget appears as four strategies in DPS’ portion of the state
budget. GDEM passed almost 90 percent of its fiscal year 2007 budget
of $290 million through to local governments, which spent much of it on
recovering from Hurricane Rita.

The Governor of Texas plays a large role in the State’s
emergency management function, particularly during a
disaster.
Texas law broadly charges the Governor with meeting the dangers that
disasters present to the state and to people, and authorizes the Governor
to declare a state of emergency if a disaster has occurred or if disaster
is imminent.2 The Governor has numerous powers during a state of
emergency, including the ability to suspend procedural laws and rules
governing state business if necessary to cope with a disaster, and being
commander in chief of state agencies, boards, and commissions having
emergency responsibilities.3

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 3

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

The Legislature caps certain state agency expenditures
through the General Appropriations Act.
Texas state agencies are not funded for specific line items, but rather
the Legislature funds agencies by establishing goals and strategies in
the General Appropriations Act (GAA). The Legislature then holds
agencies accountable for achieving specific performance measures. In the
current GAA, the Legislature established six goals, 37 strategies, and 26
performance measures for the Department of Public Safety.
While state agencies are given funding flexibility to achieve their goals, the
Legislature caps certain spending in specific areas to ensure accountability.
These caps include travel expenditures, the number of full-time equivalent
positions, and capital expenditures. A capital budget project is defined as
an item or asset with a unit cost exceeding $25,000.4 Examples include
buildings, computer hardware, and machinery.
For fiscal year 2008, the Legislature granted DPS $298.3 million in
capital expenditures and an additional $5.8 million in capital budget
rider authority. Major components of DPS’ capital budget include
$218.4 million for facility construction, $26.7 million in information
resource technology, and $45 million in transportation items – vehicles
and helicopters.

The Legislature
exempts some
state agencies
from expenditure
caps.

The Legislature broadly exempts some state agencies from expenditure
caps. For example, the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality have exemptions from
capital budget rider provisions when they receive federal and other
funds in excess of their appropriated capital budget rider amount. The
Legislature requires these agencies to notify the Legislative Budget Board
and the Governor when receiving such funds, the amount received, and
the items the agencies plan to purchase.

Lines of authority between DPS, GDEM, and the Governor’s
Office of Homeland Security are unclear.
While DPS has housed the State’s emergency management function for
the past 45 years, changes brought about by RP32 have contributed to
some confusion and frustration, both at DPS and within the Legislature.
For example, DPS staff noted that for several years after RP32’s issuance,
the authority for DPS to perform internal audits on GDEM or whether
DPS’ general counsel could sign off on GDEM rules was unclear.
Direction from the Governor’s Office in December 2007 clarified DPS’
authority on these matters, but some operational confusion remains.

Authority for
rules, internal
audits, and
signing of
contracts has
been unclear.

For example, DPS staff noted that it is not always clear who should sign
certain contracts and grant applications – the director of Homeland
Security, the DPS Director, or GDEM’s chief. While coordination has
improved, and Texas continues to be looked to as an example of a successful
emergency management program, should the individuals occupying the
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 3

23

Enough conflict
has occurred to
require better
defined roles and
expectations.

Homeland Security director, GDEM chief, or DPS Director positions
change, new conflicts could arise because statute does not establish their
responsibilities.
Legislative staff have indicated that the unclear relationship between
GDEM, DPS, and OHS caused some concern last session among
members of the Legislature regarding funding for homeland security
efforts. In the end, most homeland security funding went into the
Department’s budget, where it had more visibility, and less money went
directly to GDEM via a rider.
Some individuals assert that DPS has been reluctant to carry out the
Governor’s homeland security priorities, and therefore the Governor
placed the director of the Office of Homeland Security in charge
of GDEM to carry out those priorities. Others assert that DPS is
too constrained by its current structure set by the Legislature – FTE
allocation and required performance measures, for example – to carry
out those priorities. Without assigning absolute truth to either assertion,
Sunset staff determined that enough conflict has occurred to require
better defined roles and expectations regarding DPS, GDEM, and OHS
cooperation.

GDEM’s unpredictable receipt of federal funds contributes to
DPS quickly reaching its cap on capital expenses.
GDEM’s budget comes almost exclusively from federal funds, with
just $1,279,000 in state funds in fiscal year 2007. GDEM frequently
receives unexpected federal grants, but sometimes has difficulty spending
the funds because they cause the Department to reach its cap on capital
budget expenses.

GDEM frequently
receives
unexpected
federal grants.

For example, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced in
early 2006 that Operation Stonegarden funds would be available to local
law enforcement later that year for equipment and operating costs to
address border security. While Texas received $3 million in these funds,
which GDEM passed through to local law enforcement agencies, such
short notice makes it difficult for GDEM to predict federal funds two
and three years in the future when preparing its part of the Department’s
Legislative Appropriations Request.
Agencies must request an exemption from the LBB and the Governor’s
Office to exceed the cap on capital expenditures. In emergency situations,
the time involved in sending requests to those offices to exceed caps may
cause critical delays. After Hurricanes Rita and Katrina, a Governor’s
task force recommended that Texas purchase a system to track the elderly
and individuals with special needs during future evacuations. Due to cap
restrictions, purchase of the equipment was delayed for months because
the Department had reached its cap and had to request an exemption.
While in this case the equipment was not needed immediately, speed is
often essential with emergency management.

24

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 3

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Recommendations
Change in Statute
3.1

Specify that the Department’s Director appoints the chief of GDEM, subject to
approval of the Governor, and require coordination between DPS, GDEM, and
the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security.

This recommendation would amend statute to specify that DPS’ Director appoints GDEM’s chief,
with the approval of the Governor. DPS, GDEM, and OHS should meet bimonthly to coordinate
efforts, prevent overlap of activities, and ensure no gaps exist in the State’s approach to emergency
management and homeland security. The Chair of the Homeland Security Council and a state agency
representative from the Emergency Management Council, designated by the chair of that Council,
should participate in these bimonthly meetings. The coordination meetings would ensure that the
Governor’s responsibility for directing Texas’ homeland security strategy would continue to integrate
with emergency management. This recommendation would not affect the Governor’s powers during a
declared disaster.
3.2

Change GDEM’s name to the Texas Division of Emergency Management, and
clarify that it is a division of the Department.

This recommendation would help eliminate confusion surrounding who directs day-to-day emergency
management functions in Texas by specifying in statute that the Texas Division of Emergency
Management at the Department of Public Safety performs the functions.

Change in Appropriations
3.3

The Sunset Commission should recommend that the Legislature exclude
GDEM from the Department’s cap on capital budget expenses paid for with
federal funds, with certain precautions.

This recommendation would express the will of the Sunset Commission that the Legislature exempt
GDEM from the Department’s cap on capital budget expenses paid for with federal funds. GDEM
should provide the Legislative Budget Board and the Governor with the fund amounts and the items
to be purchased to help ensure GDEM spends the money in the State’s best interest.

Fiscal Implication
While the capital expenditure exemption for federal funds would better ensure the flow of
homeland security and emergency management funds to state agencies and local governments, these
recommendations would not have a direct fiscal impact to the State.

1

Governor John Connally, Executive Order No. 1, January 17, 1963.

2

Texas Government Code, sec. 418.011 and sec. 418.014.

3

Texas Government Code, sec. 418.016 and sec. 418.015(c).

4

Texas Legislative Budget Board, 2008–09 Legislative Appropriations Request Detailed Instructions, ( June 2006) p. 31. Online. Available:
http://www.lbb.state.tx.us/LAR/LAR-80R_Agency_Instructions_0406.pdf. Accessed: April 28, 2008.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 3

25

26

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 3

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Issue 4
The Administrative Hearing Process for Suspending Driver Licenses
of Individuals Arrested for DWI Wastes Government Resources.
Summary
Key Recommendations
Require hearings to be held by telephone, and allow witnesses to testify by telephone, unless the
judge finds that an in-person hearing or appearance is necessary for the fair administration of
justice.
Require affidavits of the breath test operators or breath test supervisors to be admissible without
the witness’s appearance unless the judge finds that justice requires their presence.
Require the defense to request breath test operators and breath test supervisors by subpoena.

Key Findings
DPS’ Administrative License Revocation program reflects the State’s interest in keeping impaired
drivers off the road.
The administrative license suspension process, as currently administered, wastes government
resources.
Other state agencies hold hearings primarily by phone.

Conclusion
Protecting citizens from drunk drivers is paramount for the Texas Legislature. As a result, the Legislature
established the Administrative License Revocation (ALR) program in 1995 to discourage drunk driving
by authorizing DPS to swiftly suspend the license of a person arrested for driving while intoxicated. The
law and rules governing the hearings in which drivers may contest their license suspensions, however,
have in some cases led to proceedings where law enforcement officers and employees are routinely
requested or subpoenaed as in-person witnesses even when their testimony may not be needed. In
fact, having all witnesses appear in person at an administrative hearing is inefficient, and generally
unnecessary. Allowing the State Office of Administrative Hearings to conduct more ALR hearings
by telephone, and making other statutory modifications to discourage the misuse of law enforcement
witnesses, will result in a more efficient ALR system.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 4

27

Support
DPS’ Administrative License Revocation program reflects the
State’s interest in keeping impaired drivers off the road.
The Texas Legislature established the Administrative License Revocation
(ALR)1 program in 1995 to discourage drunk driving and prevent drivers
arrested for driving while intoxicated from continuing to drive while their
criminal cases are pending. State law allows a peace officer to request a
breath specimen and arrest any individual the officer has probable cause
to believe is operating a motor vehicle or watercraft while intoxicated.
Law defines intoxication as having a blood alcohol concentration
of 0.08 or higher, or not having the normal use of mental or physical
faculties because of alcohol, a controlled substance, or any other drug or
combination of substances. Alcohol concentration limits are lower for
minors and commercial motor vehicle operators.
Peace officers and other individuals certified by DPS can administer breath
tests. Technical supervisors, employed by DPS or other governmental
entities, maintain and direct the operation of breath test instruments.
Currently 53 technical supervisors oversee 5,300 breath test operators
from more than 900 law enforcement agencies.

A peace officer
must confiscate
the license of
someone arrested
for driving while
intoxicated.

With some exceptions, the law requires a peace officer to immediately
confiscate the license of a driver who is arrested for driving while
intoxicated and whose specimen exceeds the limit; these cases are referred
to as failure cases, because the individual failed the breath test. The officer
must also confiscate the license of an individual who refuses to submit
to a test after being arrested, referred to as refusal cases. The officer then
issues the driver a temporary permit. The arrested driver receives notice of
the right to request a hearing to contest the proposed license suspension,
including notice that a request for a hearing stays the suspension until
the judge rules, and that if the driver does not request a hearing within
15 days the suspension will automatically go into effect in 40 days. DPS
charges a $125 fee to reinstate the license after a suspension expires. The
following textbox describes ALR license suspension periods.
License Suspension Periods*
Refusal to submit specimen – adult ...................................................................180 days
Specimen of .08 or greater – adult .......................................................................90 days
Refusal to submit specimen – minor .................................................................180 days
Specimen of .01 or greater – minor .....................................................................60 days
Refusal to submit specimen – commercial motor vehicle operator ................... One year
Specimen of .04 or greater – commercial motor vehicle operator ..................... One year

* Suspension enhancements for subsequent offenses apply in all categories.

28

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 4

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

State law authorizes the State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH)
to conduct administrative license suspension hearings, presided over by
administrative law judges (ALJs). The issues the defendant can challenge
at the hearing include: whether the peace officer had reasonable suspicion
to stop the individual, probable cause to arrest the individual, the validity
of the test results if the individual consented to a test after being arrested,
or certain aspects of the arrest in cases where the individual did not
consent to provide a breath sample.

Defendants are
not required to
be present at
ALR hearings.

Hearings take place in regional SOAH offices or by telephone conference
call. An attorney represents the Department in the hearings. Defendants
have the right to be represented by counsel, but are not required to be
present at the hearing. Certain constitutional protections apply to the
process for revoking a license to some extent, but not at the level afforded
a defendant in a criminal process.
DPS issued 100,472 notices of suspension to drivers in fiscal year 2007.
Defendants requested hearings in 26,492, or 26 percent of the cases. The
outcomes of the hearings appear in the table, Hearing Dispositions.
Hearing Dispositions – FY 2007
Disposition

Explanation

ALJ upholds revocation, or defendant
Affirmed, defaulted, or waived defaults by not appearing or waiving the
hearing.

Number

Percent of
Hearings

19,512

74%

Dismissed

Case dismissed due to unavailability of
witnesses or for other reasons. Defendant
wins.

4,842

18%

Negative

ALJ finds DPS did not meet burden of
proof. Defendant wins.

2,138

8%

The administrative license suspension process, as currently
administered, wastes government resources.
Texas law does not allow the ALR hearing to be held by telephone unless
all the parties consent, regardless of whether a valid need exists for an inperson hearing. In fiscal year 2007, only 5,181 ALR hearings took place
by telephone – 20 percent of all cases scheduled and decided. Conducting
a hearing in person rather than allowing the parties or witnesses to attend
via telephone results in higher travel and hearing expenses for the State,
as well as wasting local law enforcement resources when peace officers are
taken off patrol or paid overtime to make live appearances. The officers
must be compensated for any overtime spent attending hearings, and
often must spend hours at the hearing location waiting to be called to
testify but then get dismissed without ever being summoned.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

In fiscal year
2007, only 20
percent of ALR
hearings were
conducted by
telephone.

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 4

29

Sunset staff interviews with peace officers reflected their frustration
with misuses of the process that may compromise their job as public
safety officers by interfering with their scheduled off-duty rest hours.
The officers noted that most DWI arrests are made during evening and
overnight shifts.
Breath test operators and breath test supervisors must attend hearings
when requested by the defendant, even if an affidavit could sufficiently
attest to the validity of the test or the reliability of the instrument used to
analyze the specimen. The law requires DPS to ensure the appearance of
the relevant breath test operator or technical supervisor if the defendant
in a failure case requests, without a subpoena or showing of need for the
testimony. Without the requirement for a subpoena, no controls exist to
ensure witnesses are not called as a matter of course in each failure case,
whether needed or not.
The law allows the operator or supervisor to attest to the reliability of the
test and the test equipment by affidavit in lieu of personal appearance at the
hearing. If the defendant requests one or both of them in person, however,
the witness must attend or the affidavit is not admissible. Without being
allowed to admit the affidavit as evidence, the Department cannot put its
proof of the defendant’s blood alcohol level before the judge, and the case
must be dismissed or continued.

Judges dismiss
many cases
because witnesses
are unable
to attend the
hearings.

In 2007, defendants requested the breath test operators and supervisors in
30 percent of all failure hearings; 41 percent of these cases were dismissed.
Although DPS does not regularly track data on the reason for case
dismissals, numerous individuals interviewed by Sunset staff indicated
that ALJs must dismiss many cases because requested witnesses were
unavailable to attend the hearing, even though no question regarding the
test results or equipment existed. Requesting witnesses without a clear
need for their presence suggests defendants hope the witnesses cannot
attend and their case will be dismissed.

Other state agencies hold hearings primarily by phone.
Unemployment compensation hearings conducted by the Texas Workforce
Commission take place by telephone conference call unless the hearing
administrator determines that an in-person hearing is necessary. Factors
that the administrator may consider include a party with a physical
impairment who cannot effectively participate by telephone, evidence
a party wishes to present that would make a hearing by telephone
impractical, or any other reason in the administrator’s discretion.
North Dakota allows ALR hearings to be conducted by phone or electronic
means as long as each participant has an opportunity to participate in the
entire proceeding and if the procedure does not substantially prejudice
or infringe on the rights and interests of any party. Hearing officers in

30

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 4

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Colorado have discretion whether to conduct ALR hearings in person
or by phone, and several other states routinely hold all ALR hearings by
phone.

Recommendations
Change in Statute
4.1

Require hearings to be held by telephone, and allow witnesses to testify by
telephone, unless the judge finds that an in-person hearing or appearance is
necessary for the fair administration of justice.

This recommendation would establish a telephone hearing as the procedure to be used in ALR hearings,
unless the judge affirmatively finds that a hearing cannot be fairly held by telephone and a specific
situation requires an in-person meeting. If SOAH holds an in-person hearing, the law would allow
individual witnesses, including peace officers, to testify by telephone unless the judge finds that such
testimony will prejudice one of the parties. Holding hearings by phone would save travel and hearing
expenses for the State, increase the hours peace officers may spend on patrol, and reduce the need for
local law enforcement departments to pay overtime.
4.2

Require affidavits of the breath test operators or breath test supervisors to
be admissible without the witness’s appearance unless the judge finds that
justice requires their presence.

This recommendation would apply to in-person hearings. The Transportation Code would prohibit a
party to a hearing from requiring the presence of the breath test operator or supervisor if they submitted
properly certified affidavits that contained the information necessary to confirm the breath test results
and the reliability of the equipment, unless the administrative law judge determined their presence is
necessary. This recommendation would prevent breath test operators and supervisors from being taken
off duty to attend hearings where their testimony is not needed, using state and local law enforcement
agencies’ resources more efficiently.
4.3

Require the defense to request breath test operators and breath test
supervisors by subpoena.

This recommendation would apply to cases where a breath test operator and breath test supervisor were
needed at the hearing to provide testimony in addition to their affidavits. The statute would require the
defendant to issue a subpoena to request the presence of operators and supervisors, rather than merely
filing a request for the witnesses from the Department. Requiring subpoenas would help eliminate the
potential for defendants to request breath test operators and supervisors without a clear need for their
presence.

Fiscal Implication
Allowing hearings to be held by telephone would have a positive fiscal impact to the State and local
communities. Peace officers, breath test operators, and breath test supervisors would be available to
participate in ALR hearings when necessary, but would not frequently be pulled from job-related
duties to do so. While ALJs may spend some additional time evaluating requests for live hearings
and subpoenas, those costs would be overshadowed by savings in travel and overtime. Also, costs
for telephone conferencing would increase. The actual fiscal impact on the State, as well as local
governments, cannot be estimated for this report.
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 4

31

1

The term administrative license revocation is commonly used to describe the process of administratively suspending a license, so the terms
revocation and suspension will be used interchangeably.

32

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 4

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Issue 5
DPS’ Law Enforcement Promotion Policy May Impede the
Department From Making the Best Use of Its Workforce.
Summary
Key Recommendation
The Department of Public Safety should modify its promotional policy to provide officers with
location options when applying for promotions.

Key Findings
The State has made a large investment in hiring and training DPS’ commissioned officer
workforce.
DPS is facing a critical personnel shortage, weakening its ability to protect the public.
The Department uses a list-based promotion system that does not allow applicants to apply for a
specific duty station.
The Department’s promotion policy does not take into account individual differences in duty
stations and can be a disincentive for officers to promote.
Most other law enforcement entities in Texas that compete with DPS for personnel do not require
commissioned officers to relocate when applying for promotions.

Conclusion
The trained troopers working for the Department of Public Safety (DPS) are the critical first responders
that Texas looks to when facing disasters, and in controlling crime and highway traffic. As Texas grows,
the need for these front-line troops becomes more critical. In recent years, DPS has fallen increasingly
behind its recruitment goals, and the agency now projects an 8 percent vacancy rate in commissioned
officer ranks at the start of the next legislative session.
In view of legislative interest in increasing the number of commissioned personnel, the Sunset staff
review assessed the Department’s personnel needs. Although DPS’ staffing is affected by an increased
national need for security personnel and the agency has placed a great focus on recruitment, the staff
review found that DPS’ own policies are limiting its ability to make the most of its available staff.
Currently, the Department’s promotional process does not allow officers any options regarding location
at the time of applying for a promotion. From numerous conversations with DPS staff, this policy
appears to deprive the agency of personnel who could perform well in the positions but choose to not
move their families across the state, and can have an impact on morale. Staff concluded that DPS
should make every effort to change its promotion policy, which might relieve some of its shortage in
commissioned officers. The Department should seriously question whether doing it the way they have
always done it is best in this case.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 5

33

Support
The Department of Public Safety relies on its trained,
commissioned officer workforce to protect the public from
unsafe drivers and criminal behavior.
The Department of Public Safety (DPS) had a total of 3,458 commissioned
officer positions in fiscal year 2007. Most of these officers serve either as
Texas Rangers, or officers in the Criminal Law Enforcement, Highway
Patrol, or Driver License divisions. The vast majority of these officers
are protecting Texans as front-line peace officers or direct supervisors of
front-line officers. These officers patrol more than 225,000 miles of rural
highways; provide security for the state Capitol and Texas Governor;
enforce commercial vehicle and vehicle inspection regulations; assist city,
county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies with investigations
and intelligence; and enforce criminal laws by investigating unsolved
crimes and apprehending suspected criminals.

The State has
invested more
than $138 million
in training
DPS’ current
commissioned
officer workforce.

The State makes a large investment in hiring and training
DPS’ commissioned officer workforce.
Each DPS officer has received extensive, state-funded training through
attendance at the 26-week DPS academy, biennial 40-hour continuing
education courses, and specialized in-service trainings. As hiring and
training a single trooper is estimated to cost $40,000, the State has invested
more than $138 million, in current dollars, in DPS’ commissioned officer
workforce.
DPS’ training and recruitment costs continue to escalate. In fiscal year
2007, DPS spent more than $5.2 million on recruit schools – an increase
of more than double the amount spent in the previous year.

DPS is facing a critical personnel shortage, weakening its
ability to protect the public.
After the last legislative session, the Department reported 248 vacancies
among its commissioned officers – 7 percent of all its commissioned
positions. The Department’s personnel needs have greatly increased
through a renewed focus on protecting Texas’ border with Mexico.
Currently, the Department is attempting to meet this focus with Operation
Border Star, a surge tactic that removes troopers from normal duty
stations to serve temporarily in the Texas-Mexico border area. Without
new personnel, this operation causes a loss of personnel available to focus
on traditional law enforcement duties.
Increasing DPS’ challenge to put ‘boots on the ground’ are the addition
of new commissioned positions through the appropriations act, and
increasing turnover. The Legislature authorized 187 new commissioned
officer positions for the Department last session. In response, the
Department has ramped up its recruiting and training functions and

34

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 5

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

even conducted two recruit schools simultaneously. However, as DPS is
struggling to fill its existing vacancies, the new positions mean that the
Department now has a need for about 249 new officers.
In addition, DPS loses officers at a rate of about 150 per year due to
retirement and attrition.1 Internal estimates by DPS project this turnover
rate to greatly increase due to pay increases that took effect three years
ago and are now becoming an incentive to retire. This trend is expected
to peak with a retirement of 100 officers in a single month – August 2008.
As a result, despite its best efforts, DPS projects that it will start the next
legislative session with 323 commissioned officer vacancies – an increase
of 58 percent over the start of the previous session, and a vacancy rate of
more than 8 percent.

DPS expects to
lose 100 officers
to retirement in
August 2008.

DPS’ difficulties in filling vacancies come at a time of a noted decline
in interest in applicants pursuing law enforcement careers due to higher
paying jobs in the private sector, negative publicity due to high profile
incidents of racial profiling and excessive use of force, and an increased
need for personnel in the U.S. military.2 Compounding this decline is an
increased demand for security personnel in other federal, state, and local
law enforcement agencies, as well as in the private sector.

The Department uses a list-based promotion system that does
not allow applicants to apply for a specific duty station.
DPS’ complex promotional process, explained in 23 pages in its General
Manual, involves written exams and interview panels to produce a list
of candidates eligible for future promotions in unspecified locations.
Division chiefs assign troopers from the eligibility list, in the order of
their scores, to duty stations in the order that vacancies occur.
DPS’ promotional process does not consider the location wishes of its
staff as promoting troopers must either move to the location of the first
available supervisory vacancy or turn down the offer. While DPS does
pay actual moving expenses for promotions, costs of buying and selling
houses or spouses leaving jobs are not covered. While a trooper may
always decline a promotion to an undesirable area, this refusal results in
being placed at the bottom of the promotion list. Two refusals result in
being dropped from the list altogether.

DPS officers
must apply for
promotions
without knowing
the location of
the duty station.

The Department’s promotion policy does not take into
account individual differences in duty stations and can be a
disincentive for officers to promote.
DPS’ promotional process sometimes deprives the agency of the ability to
have the best person in a position. While the Department designed the
process to ensure neutrality in its promotional decisions, the rigidity of a
single list of eligible candidates for future promotions is a ‘one size fits all’
strategy that does not consider the special needs of each position, or the
unique qualities of each candidate. As supervisors in each region must
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 5

35

accept the next candidate in line for a promotion, the supervisor cannot
choose the best candidate for a specific position. The Department argues
that the system produces the best candidates in the state, but, by ignoring
the fact that each position is different, the system does not always match
needs of each position and the qualities of the individual.
This process also creates situations where people end up in positions where
they are not content and therefore not as effective. Since the Department
permits promoting officers to apply for lateral transfers any time after
assuming a new duty station, Sunset staff also heard frequent anecdotes
about troopers who promoted and only held the new duty station for a
brief time before seeking a lateral transfer back home.
The promotional process also has an impact on morale. Throughout the
review, Sunset staff heard repeated complaints about DPS’ promotional
process from both the officers involved and from their supervisors. One
high ranking DPS supervisor characterized the promotional process as
“terrible,” another highly placed observer referred to the process as being
“broken,” and a third member of DPS’ senior management team said the
process is a “waste of a lot of staff resources.”
While few officers get to the point of turning down a promotion due to
the location of the duty assignment, Sunset staff also frequently heard
about officers who would be very good at the next level that never apply
for promotions because of family situations that prevent them from
relocating across the state. Former DPS officers also cited the promotional
process as the reason they left the Department.

Most other law enforcement entities in Texas that compete
with DPS for personnel do not require commissioned officers
to relocate when applying for promotions.

Both of Texas’
other statewide
police forces allow
promoting officers
to apply for a
specific geographic
location.

Within Texas, DPS competes with local police departments and sheriff
offices for personnel. As these local police agencies can all offer a predetermined duty station to promoting employees, the Department’s policy
requiring troopers to accept assignment anywhere in Texas if promoting
can make it a less attractive choice.
Both of Texas’ two other large statewide police forces – the game wardens
at the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and the agents of
the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) – allow promoting
officers to apply for a specific geographic area. TPWD’s promotion
process is specific for each position and includes the input of the
receiving supervisor. Because of its strong commitment to communityoriented policing, TPWD also requires a minimum two-year duty station
commitment for promotions.
Like DPS, TABC administers a written test for all agents desiring a
promotion. Unlike DPS, agents with qualifying test scores are permitted
to apply for specific promotions when the duty station becomes available.

36

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 5

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

While the number of law enforcement personnel assigned to TPWD and
TABC are much fewer than DPS, the fact that both agencies structure
their promotional processes to allow for greater choice in assignment of
duty stations demonstrates that such a system is possible and that it has
advantages in a statewide organization.

Recommendation
Management Action
5.1

The Department of Public Safety should modify its promotional policy to
provide officers with location options when applying for promotions.

DPS should change its promotional system to allow greater preference in choosing duty stations
to its commissioned officers promoting to a higher rank. The Department could implement this
recommendation in various ways. One method would be for DPS to open unfilled promotional
positions to direct application, allowing troopers who have passed the test to be interviewed by panels
that include prospective supervisors for a specific duty station. A second approach the Department
could consider is to create a regional approach to promotions and allow supervisors greater choice
in picking specific applicants for specific positions. To prevent regions from being isolated from the
Department as a whole, DPS should continue its current policy of offering vacancies to lateral transfers
within the entire agency first, before opening the vacancy to a promotion. Promoting troopers could also
place themselves on one or more regional promotion lists. The Department should also consider other
options, based on its experience, to achieve the goal of increased geographic selectivity in promotions.
Keeping the current promotions approach simply because it has worked well in the past should no
longer be the automatic response to this subject.

Fiscal Implication
This recommendation would not have a direct fiscal impact to the State. The Department would
experience intangible benefits that could not be estimated for this report.

1

Department of Public Safety, Self Evaluation Report, August 2007, p. 43.

2

Ibid.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 5

37

38

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 5

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Issue 6
Key Elements of the Private Security Bureau’s Licensing and
Regulatory Functions Do Not Conform to Commonly Applied
Licensing Practices.
Summary
Key Recommendations
Standardize the Bureau’s licensing functions by allowing the Bureau to license by industry class
endorsement, and authorize jurisprudence examinations.
Provide more flexibility and fairness in application approval by allowing the Private Security
Bureau to consider extenuating circumstances in approving or denying occupational licenses due to
criminal histories.
Update elements relating to enforcement such as allowing appeals of Private Security Board
decisions to civil district court under the substantial evidence rule; and increasing the maximum
administrative penalty to $5,000 per violation, per day.

Key Findings
Licensing provisions of the private security statute do not follow model licensing practices and
could potentially allow over-burdensome regulation.
Nonstandard enforcement provisions of the private security statute could reduce the Bureau’s
effectiveness in protecting the public.
Certain administrative provisions of the private security statute conflict with standard practice,
potentially reducing the Bureau’s efficiency.

Conclusion
Over the past 31 years, Sunset staff has reviewed more than 90 occupational licensing agencies. In
doing so, the staff has identified standards that are common practices throughout the agencies’ statutes,
rules, and procedures. In reviewing the Private Security Bureau, staff found that various licensing,
enforcement, and administrative processes in the private security statute do not match these model
licensing standards. The Sunset review compared the statute, rules, and practices to the model licensing
standards to identify variations. Based on these variations, staff identified the recommendations needed
to bring the Bureau in line with the model standards.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 6

39

Support
Regulating occupations, such as private security, requires
common activities that the Sunset Commission has observed
and documented over more than 30 years of reviews.

The Private
Security Bureau
oversees more
than 60,000
individuals and
4,900 schools
and businesses.

The Private Security Bureau (PSB) is a unit of the Department of
Public Safety responsible for administering rules initiated by the Private
Security Board and regulating the private security industries. The Private
Security Board is a seven-member Board appointed by the Governor to
recommend rules for the administration of the Private Security Act and
hear appeals by applicants. The Public Safety Commission must give
final approval for the rules recommended by the Board.
The industries regulated by PSB include private security companies in
addition to alarm, guard dog, armored car, armed courier, electronic access
control, and locksmith companies. The Bureau licenses individuals that
work for those companies as well as private investigators and personal
protection officers. The Bureau regulates these industries by enforcing
the Private Security Act, investigating and resolving complaints alleging
violations of the Act or rules, and taking disciplinary action when necessary.
This oversight responsibility includes more than 60,000 individuals and
4,900 schools and businesses. The Bureau is also responsible for protecting
the public from unlicensed security activity.
The Sunset Advisory Commission has a historic role in evaluating licensing
agencies, as the increase of occupational licensing programs served as an
impetus behind the creation of the Commission in 1977. Since then,
the Sunset Commission has completed more than 93 licensing agency
reviews.

The Sunset
Commission has
reviewed more
than 93 licensing
agencies.

Sunset staff has documented standards in reviewing licensing programs
to guide future reviews of licensing agencies. While these standards
provide a guide for evaluating a licensing program’s structure, they are
not intended for blanket application. The following material highlights
areas where the private security statute and rules differ from these model
standards, and describes the potential benefits of conforming to standard
practices.

Licensing provisions of the private security statute do not
follow model licensing practices and could potentially allow
over-burdensome regulation.
Level of regulation.
Licensing standards suggest implementing
regulation at the minimum level necessary to protect the public. State law
authorizes nine classes of company licenses and 19 individual licenses for
security occupations. Currently, many license holders must have multiple
licenses for the same company if they perform multiple functions with
the company. For example, an employee of an alarm company who has
sales and installation responsibilities must have an alarm salesperson

40

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 6

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

license and an alarm installer license. A change in statute that would
allow the Bureau, by rule, to issue endorsements by class of license would
streamline the licensing process and potentially reduce licensing fees for
some applicants.
For example, an employee of a company with a Class B company license
would have a Class B individual license with endorsements by approved
job title instead of a separate license for each position that person is
approved to perform. Endorsements added to an existing license would
have the same expiration date as the original license and the fee would be
pro-rated accordingly.
Criminal convictions. Unlike PSB, the State evaluates the criminal
history of most applicants and licensees for regulated occupations through
Chapter 53 of the Occupations Code. Chapter 53 permits licensing
agencies to revoke, suspend, or deny a license for conviction of a felony or
misdemeanor that directly relates to the duties of the licensee, and requires
agencies to consider extenuating circumstances in approving or denying a
license due to criminal history. These circumstances include an applicant’s
age at the time the crime was committed, number of years since conviction,
work and personal history since conviction, and recommendations of law
enforcement officials and work supervisors. Since by statute Chapter
53 does not apply to the Private Security Act, applicants with a felony
criminal conviction within the past 20 years or a Class A misdemeanor
within the past 10 years may not receive licenses.1 Applying Chapter
53 to the Private Security Act would give the Bureau more flexibility in
reviewing occupational license applications that include criminal history
and potentially allow applicants to be treated more fairly.
For example, when the Private Security Board received oversight of
the previously unregulated locksmith industry in 2003, law prevented
the Board from considering extenuating circumstances when deciding
whether to issue a license to a locksmith applicant with a criminal
history. As a result, locksmiths who committed crimes unrelated to their
occupation many years before, with no subsequent criminal convictions,
were unable to receive licenses and had to close their businesses.
Jurisprudence examinations. Licensing agencies should have some
assurance that practitioners are familiar with state law and regulations
related to the profession. Current statute requires only guard dog
handlers, personal protection officers, and company managers to
take jurisprudence examinations. Authorizing the Bureau to require
other license applicants to pass jurisprudence exams would ensure a
better understanding of the laws and rules that guide the applicants’
profession.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

The Bureau lacks
flexibility to
license individuals
with minor
criminal histories
or those unrelated
to private security.

The previously
unregulated
locksmith
industry was
added to the
Private Security
Board’s oversight
in 2003.

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 6

41

Nonstandard enforcement provisions of the private security
statute could reduce the Bureau’s effectiveness in protecting
the public.

Updating
requirements
in the Private
Security Bureau
appeals process
would save time
and expense
during appeals.

Increasing
the Bureau’s
administrative
penalty maximum
to $5,000 per day
would help deter
serious violations.

Appeals. Board actions relating to appeals should be subject to review in
district court under the substantial evidence rule. Under the substantial
evidence rule, the appeal allows review of the case record to ensure that
evidence presented bears out the ruling. Current statute allows Bureau
licensees to appeal to civil court but does not specify the substantial
evidence rule requirement. Updating language in the statute to reflect
this common practice would save time and expense while providing a
sufficient level of protection on appeal.
Complaint investigations. In general, board members should not be
involved in both the investigation of complaints and the determination
of disciplinary action. Private Security Board members are not involved
in the investigation of complaints, but updating and clarifying statute
would ensure that current and future Board members are familiar with
this provision, and follow this practice.
Administrative penalties. An agency’s administrative penalty authority
should authorize penalty amounts that reflect the severity of the violation
and serve as a deterrent to violations of the law. The Bureau has authority
to impose administrative penalties of up to $500 per violation per
day.2 Given the harm that can result from illegal activity, the current
administrative penalty amount may not be adequate to deter illegal
behavior. Many other occupational licensing programs are authorized
to impose a penalty amount of up to $5,000 per violation per day for
violations of state law, including those under the Texas Department of
Licensing and Regulation. Increasing the maximum administrative
penalty amount to $5,000 per violation per day for a violation of the
private security statute or rules would give the Bureau flexibility to address
the potentially severe nature of illegal behavior. The Bureau would only
impose a penalty of $5,000 for the most egregious violations.
Agencies that use administrative penalties should also use a penalty
matrix to establish penalties for specific violations in a way that is fair
and consistent for all violators. While PSB currently has a penalty matrix
on its website, a matrix should be recommended by the Board in rule so
that opportunity exists for public comment.

Certain administrative provisions of the private security
statute conflict with standard practice, potentially reducing
the Bureau’s efficiency.
Compensation. Board members should be subject to reasonable standards
for travel reimbursement, which should be reflected in statute. While the
General Appropriations Act indicates that reimbursement for policy body
members includes transportation, meals, lodging, and incidental expenses,
the private security statute prohibits compensation for travel expenses

42

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 6

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

other than transportation.3 In practice, the Private Security Bureau
reimburses Board members according to the General Appropriations
Act. Eliminating the prohibition on travel reimbursement would make
the statute consistent with the General Appropriations Act.
Flexible fees. A licensing agency should have authority to set fees. The
ability to set fees allows for greater administrative flexibility and reduces
the need for the Legislature to continually update agency statutes to
accurately reflect the costs of providing services. The private security
statute currently establishes that fees should produce revenue sufficient
to offset expenses without producing unnecessary funds, but also contains
specific fee amounts. Removing the fee caps would give the Board the
ability to recommend fees in response to changing conditions.

Recommendations
Licensing – Change in Statute
6.1

Authorize the Bureau to license by endorsement to streamline the licensing
process and reduce regulation.

This recommendation would allow the Private Security Bureau to streamline its licensing process by
eliminating overlapping license requirements for individual licenses by allowing the Bureau to issue
industry class licenses with individual endorsements. The endorsements would correspond with job
titles that the individual is approved for and would expire with the industry license. Key industry class
licenses would include alarm company license with endorsements for installer, salesperson, and monitor;
and security company license with endorsements for owner, manager, salesperson, and consultant.
6.2

Apply Occupations Code, Chapter 53 to the Private Security Act to provide
flexibility and fairness in licensing applicants with criminal histories.

Applying Chapter 53 of the Occupations Code to the Private Security Act would give the Bureau
the flexibility to consider extenuating circumstances when considering license applicants with
criminal histories. These circumstances include age at the time the crime was committed, work and
personal history since conviction, whether the crime was related to the industry being applied for, and
recommendations of law enforcement officials and work supervisors familiar with the applicant. This
recommendation would also require the Board to develop rules, under the provisions of Chapter 53,
defining which crimes relate to each private security license and would affect the licensees’ ability to
practice.
6.3

Authorize the Bureau to require jurisprudence examinations for all security
licensees.

Authorizing the Bureau to require jurisprudence exams would ensure that licensees have a clear
understanding of the laws and rules that guide their profession. This recommendation builds on
existing licensure requirements by allowing the Bureau to require all applicants to pass a jurisprudence
exam to be eligible for licensure. The Bureau would have the flexibility to design and administer the
exams to minimize impact on licensees. The Board would also establish rules regarding examination
development, fees, administration, re-examination, grading, and notice of results.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 6

43

Enforcement – Change in Statute
6.4

Require appeals of Board actions to district civil court under the substantial
evidence rule.

Under substantial evidence, the appeal allows review of the case record to ensure that evidence presented
bears out the ruling. Updating language in the private security statute to reflect this common practice
would save time and expense while providing a sufficient level of protection on appeal.
6.5

Prohibit Board members from being involved in both the investigation of
complaints and the determination of disciplinary action.

Private Security Board members are not involved in the investigation of complaints, but updating
and clarifying statute would ensure that current and future Board members will be familiar with this
provision and follow this practice.

6.6

Increase the amount of the Bureau’s administrative penalty authority, and
require the Private Security Board to recommend an administrative penalty
matrix in rule for adoption by the Public Safety Commission.

The amount of an administrative penalty the Bureau is able to impose on an individual who violates the
Private Security Act or rule would be increased to $5,000 per violation per day, from the current $500
per violation per day. The provision that each day a violation continues or occurs is a separate violation
for purposes of imposing the penalty would continue to apply. The Act would require the Board to
recommend an administrative penalty matrix in rules to ensure that the Board develops administrative
penalty sanctions that appropriately relate to different violations of the Act or rules. By requiring the
Board to recommend the matrix in rule, for final adoption by the Public Safety Commission, the public
would have the opportunity to comment.

Administration – Change in Statute
6.7

Authorize Board members to receive reimbursement for travel expenses.

Eliminating the prohibition on travel reimbursement other than transportation would make the Board’s
statute consistent with the General Appropriations Act. As a result, Board members would have clear
authority to receive reimbursement for all travel expenses, including transportation, meals, and lodging
expenses, incurred while conducting Board business.
6.8

Allow the Private Security Board to recommend fee levels.

This recommendation would eliminate statutory language that sets and caps fees and give the Board
the flexibility to recommend fees at the level necessary to recover costs as conditions change. All fees
would be set by rule allowing for public comment on any fee adjustments. The Legislature would
maintain control over fees by setting spending levels in the General Appropriations Act.

Fiscal Implication
Using endorsements to streamline the licensing process could allow the Bureau to reduce fees on some
licenses after evaluation of the new licensing structure and procedures. The Bureau would experience
a cost to develop jurisprudence exam questions, but this cost would be recovered through examination
fees.

44

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 6

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

1

Texas Occupations Code, sec. 1702.004(b) and 1702.113.

2

Texas Occupations Code, sec. 1702.402.

3

Texas Occupations Code, sec. 1702.028.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 6

45

46

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 6

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Issue 7
Texas Has a Continuing Need to Regulate the Private Security
Industry Through the Private Security Bureau.
Summary
Key Recommendations
Remove the separate Sunset date for the Private Security Board, continuing the Private Security
Act and the Board.
Prohibit Private Security Bureau troopers from having outside employment as security officers.

Key Findings
Texas has a continuing need to regulate the private security industry.
The Private Security Bureau is the most appropriate organization to license and regulate the private
security industry in Texas.
Allowing Private Security Bureau troopers to work part time as security officers is a potential
conflict of interest.

Conclusion
The Private Security Bureau (PSB) protects the public by ensuring that only qualified individuals,
businesses, and schools become licensed to provide private security services in Texas. The Private
Security Bureau is a unit of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) charged with administering the
Private Security Act and rules recommended by the Private Security Board and adopted by the Public
Safety Commission. The Bureau licenses and regulates private security companies and guards, private
investigators, personal protection agents, locksmiths, alarm businesses, and others.
Sunset staff ’s evaluation of PSB’s functions and structure found a continuing need to regulate the
private security industry due to the potential risk to public safety of an unregulated security industry.
Sunset staff also found that PSB’s public safety expertise makes it the appropriate organization to
regulate the private security industry. The Board, however, does not need a separate Sunset date and
should be included as part of future DPS Sunset reviews. The review also noted a potential for conflicts
of interest when troopers that regulate the private security industry also work part time in that industry.
DPS should eliminate this potential conflict.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 7

47

Support
The Private Security Bureau protects the public by regulating
individuals and companies involved in the private security
industry.
In 1969, the Legislature created the Texas Board of Private Detectives,
Private Investigators, Private Patrolmen, and Private Guard Watchmen,
and gradually added other private security occupations to its jurisdiction.
The Legislature changed the name of the agency over the years and in
2003 abolished the Texas Commission on Private Security as a standalone agency and transferred its functions to DPS as the Department’s
Private Security Bureau (PSB).

The Public Safety
Commission
has final
approval over
Private Security
Bureau rules.

The Private Security Board is a seven-member board appointed by the
Governor to hear appeals by applicants under the Private Security Act,
and to recommend rules necessary for the administration of the Act.
After the Board takes public comments on proposed rules and makes
recommendations, the Public Safety Commission has final approval over
the rules.
The Private Security Bureau seeks to protect the public by ensuring that
only qualified individuals become licensed and by sanctioning violators
of the private security statute or rules. To achieve this goal, the Bureau
performs two core functions: licensing and enforcement. The Bureau
has 57 employees with 27 located at DPS’ Austin headquarters, and 30
investigators, who are plainclothes commissioned officers, located around
the state. The Bureau oversees more than 60,000 individual licensees
and 4,900 private security schools and businesses. See the table, Private
Security Board Regulated Titles, for numbers and types of individual
licenses.
Private Security Board Regulated Titles

Occupational License

Noncommissioned Security Officer

Number of
Licensees

36,145

Instructor

588

Commissioned Security Officer

9,303

Employee of License Holder

453

Owner/Partner/Shareholder/Officer

4,213

Electronic Access Control Device Installer

391

Alarm Installer

2,955

Security Salesperson

290

Alarm Salesperson

1,992

Personal Protection Officer

201

Alarm System Monitor

1,734

Branch Office Manager

122

Private Investigator

1,638

Security Consultant

94

614

Guard Dog Trainer

46

Locksmith
Total number of licensees

48

Number of
Licensees

Occupational License

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 7

60,779

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Texas has a continuing need to regulate the private security
industry.
Regulation of the private security industry continues to be important due
to the potential risk untrained licensees or unlicensed activity pose to
public safety. For example, commissioned private security officers may
carry guns and are properly trained in their use. Both commissioned and
noncommissioned security officers protect critical infrastructure such
as power plants, seaports, and major medical centers. Locksmiths and
alarm installers work inside homes and have access to sensitive security
information and keys.
After investigating more than 1,000 cases in fiscal year 2007 of armed
security guards working either without a license or with a suspended
license, PSB investigators focused on more priority inspections which
involve critical infrastructure facilities such as petrochemical companies,
major ports, and metropolitan medical centers. During priority inspections
from August 2007 through January 2008, PSB inspected 15 companies,
60 facilities, 66 individuals, and made four arrests.
Investigations and complaints involving unlicensed
Private Security Bureau
individuals who are in the country illegally may involve
Enforcement Activity – FY 2007
other government agencies such as Immigration and
8,400 complaints resolved
Customs Enforcement.
The Bureau’s large enforcement caseload further
illustrates the need to regulate private security
activities. In fiscal year 2007, the Bureau issued 952
administrative penalties and 534 reprimands. See the
textbox, Private Security Bureau Enforcement Activity,
for more information.

948 complaints received from public
3,700 complaints initiated by agency
952 administrative penalties issued
534 reprimands issued

The Private Security Bureau is the most appropriate
organization to license and regulate the private security
industry in Texas.
While other agencies perform functions similar to the Bureau’s, they
lack the expertise to perform the needed functions of PSB. For example,
the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) performs
licensing and regulatory functions for more than 20 types of businesses,
industries, trades, and occupations licensed by the State. However, TDLR
has little public safety expertise and does not have commissioned officers
to investigate and make criminal arrests of unlicensed security guards
who may be armed.
The Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and
Education (TCLEOSE) establishes minimum competency for public
peace officers and regulates law enforcement academies and curricula used
to instruct these peace officers. However, TCLEOSE’s functions relate
to public law enforcement officials and not the private investigations and
private security industries. TCLEOSE does not investigate complaints
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

The Private
Security Bureau
has the expertise
in licensing and
enforcement
needed to regulate
the industry.

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 7

49

against officers and only initiates enforcement action after the employing
police agency investigates and takes action. The Bureau, on the other
hand, directly investigates all complaints. Consolidating the functions
of PSB with TCLEOSE would not provide a significant benefit to the
State as merging the responsibilities would require similar resources at
TCLEOSE as needed to operate the program at PSB.
The Private Security Bureau has the expertise needed to regulate
the private security industry through its licensing and enforcement
procedures. DPS trains PSB troopers in criminal law enforcement
techniques, investigative techniques, managing surveillance situations,
and working in a plainclothes environment. The investigators also receive
training on how to detect possible high risk terrorist targets when working
investigations in industrial settings such as refineries or chemical plants.

Private security
services are
regulated in 49
of 50 states.

The Legislature has shown confidence in PSB in recent years by increasing
its responsibilities to include regulation of the locksmith industry and by
increasing its funding by $3.4 million over the last two fiscal years. The
Bureau used this increased funding to eliminate much of the complaint and
licensing backlog inherited from its predecessor, the Texas Commission
on Private Security.

Almost all states regulate the private security industry
although organizational structures vary.
Twenty-six states, including Texas, use their public safety or justice
departments for oversight of private security entities. Eighteen states
regulate private security occupations through various licensing agencies.
These agencies include economic development, occupational licensing,
and labor departments. Five states do not regulate the private security
industry statewide but allow regulation through county or city public
safety organizations. One state, Rhode Island, has no regulation of private
security at all.
Private Security Regulation in the United States
Structure

Number
of States

Key States

State – Public Safety

26

Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Virginia

State – Licensing Agency

18

California, Florida, Illinois, Michigan, New Mexico

5

Missouri, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Wyoming, Idaho

Counties, Cities – Public Safety

Allowing Private Security Bureau troopers to work part time
as security officers is a potential conflict of interest.
The Bureau has 30 commissioned DPS troopers and sergeants who
work as investigators to enforce the Private Security Act. According
to PSB management, about half of these troopers work during their off
time as part-time security officers. For example, troopers may work as

50

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 7

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

security officers at events like football games or other large gatherings.
This part-time employment could be perceived as a conflict of interest
as the troopers are working in an industry that they also regulate and
could potentially treat licensees unfairly. The Bureau has not received any
official complaints or allegations of unfair treatment related to troopers’
outside employment. The Board and the Bureau have addressed this issue
at Board meetings and requested that licensees bring any allegations of
wrongdoing to the Board’s attention.
DPS recognized the potential conflicts of interest when it gained oversight
of these industries, and developed policies intended to prevent problems
from occurring. For example, DPS policy does not allow its employees
to perform any function that requires licensing under the private security
statute. DPS troopers, including PSB troopers, may not work for security
companies directly, but must work as independent contractors. All DPS
troopers are also prohibited from soliciting security employment, but PSB
troopers receive more individual scrutiny from management in approval
of off-duty employment than other DPS troopers. Nevertheless, in this
highly competitive environment, some security contractors perceive
allowing this part-time employment as unfair competition.

About half of the
Private Security
Bureau’s 30
troopers work
during their off
time as part-time
security officers.

Recommendations
Change in Statute
7.1

Remove the separate Sunset date for the Private Security Board, continuing
the Private Security Act and the Board.

This recommendation would continue the Private Security Board but not have a separate Sunset review
in the future. The Sunset Commission would review the Bureau as part of its review of DPS.

Management Action
7.2

Prohibit PSB troopers from having outside employment as security
officers.
This recommendation would eliminate the appearance of and the potential for conflicts of interest in
DPS’ regulation of the private security industry. The change would prevent PSB troopers from working
part time in the security industry they regulate. While DPS has taken steps to prevent conflicts of
interest, and has not received any formal allegations of abuse, without this change the potential for
misuse of authority remains.

Fiscal Implication
If the Legislature continues the Private Security Act using the existing organizational structure, the
State would continue to need the Bureau’s annual appropriation of $4.05 million.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 7

51

52

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 7

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Issue 8
Texas Has a Continuing Need for the Department of Public Safety.
Summary
Key Recommendation
Continue the Department of Public Safety for 12 years.

Key Findings
Performing statewide law enforcement and other public safety activities continues to be needed.
No substantial benefit or savings would result from transferring the Department’s functions to
other agencies.
While organizational structures vary widely, all 50 states have some form of public safety
department.

Conclusion
The Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) mission to provide statewide law enforcement and other
public safety services continues to be important to Texas, more than 70 years after the agency’s
establishment. Sunset staff ’s evaluation of DPS’ functions and structure found that while other agencies
could potentially perform DPS’ duties, no significant benefit would be realized by transferring the
Department’s programs, and DPS should be continued for 12 years.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 8

53

Support
The Department of Public Safety seeks to protect individuals
through statewide law enforcement and other public safety
activities.
To provide statewide law enforcement, the Legislature created the
Department of Public Safety (DPS) in 1935 by merging the Texas
Rangers and the Texas Highway Patrol. Since that time, the Legislature
has gradually added to the agency’s responsibilities though its mission
to provide public safety services largely remains unchanged. Today,
DPS accomplishes its mission through four main functions: traffic law
enforcement; criminal law enforcement; license regulation; and emergency
management.
In fiscal year 2007, DPS spent $851 million, primarily derived from the
State Highway Fund and federal funds. That year the agency had 7,776
employees at its Austin headquarters and in field offices throughout
the state. Of this total, 3,458, or 45 percent, were commissioned law
enforcement officers.

Performing statewide law enforcement and other public safety
activities continues to be needed.

Only a statewide
organization
can coordinate
law enforcement
and public safety
activities across
jurisdictional
boundaries.

While many cities and counties perform functions similar to DPS, only a
statewide organization can coordinate law enforcement and public safety
activities across jurisdictional boundaries. Texas continues to need the
Department’s four main functions.
Motor vehicle crashes injure and kill motorists every day on Texas public
roadways, with an average of 3,500 motorists dying each year.1 DPS’
Texas Highway Patrol enforces all manner of highway safety laws on
rural highways to protect motorists. In 2007, Texas Highway Patrol made
more than 85,000 arrests and investigated almost 73,000 crashes. While
no one enjoys receiving a speeding ticket, excessive speed is a major cause
of highway crashes.2 In 2007, Texas Highway Patrol issued more than
500,000 citations for speeding. The Department also ensures the safe
operation of commercial motor vehicles, as more than 3 million trucks
travel across Texas highways every day. Commercial vehicle enforcement
staff conducted more than 300,000 roadside inspections in 2007, and put
71,000 vehicles out of service for serious safety violations.
The State’s efforts to control criminal activities by assisting local law
enforcement agencies continue to be needed. For example, DPS operates
programs to stop narcotics trafficking and automobile theft rings. While
the crime rate in Texas went down 5 percent from 2005 to 2006 (the most
recent data available), more than 1 million major violent and property
crimes occurred in Texas in 2006.3 An agency with statewide jurisdiction
is essential to plan and coordinate effective crime prevention and
detection and provide technical assistance. For example, DPS provides a

54

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 8

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

statewide law enforcement communications system, training for criminal
investigators, and extensive crime lab services.
Through its licensing programs, DPS provides an essential public safety
function by ensuring that only qualified Texans receive driver licenses,
concealed handgun licenses, or private security occupational licenses.
In 2007, more than 16 million Texans had driver licenses and almost
300,000 had concealed handgun licenses. The Department also regulated
more than 60,000 private security licensees.
The effects of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are fading to a memory for
most Texans, but the need to prepare for the next hurricane, wildfire,
or even an act of terrorism remains present. The Governor’s Division
of Emergency Management (GDEM), a division of DPS, helps state
and local governments prepare for disasters and coordinates the State’s
response when disasters occur. In fiscal year 2007, GDEM helped almost
90 percent of local governments achieve acceptable levels of preparedness
and coordinated the response to more than 10,000 emergency incidents.
In addition, federal guidelines require a State Administrative Agency,
currently located within GDEM, to receive funds from the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security. In fiscal year 2007, Texas received
$92 million of these funds.

In 2007, more
than 16 million
Texans had driver
licenses and
almost 300,000
had concealed
handgun licenses.

No substantial benefit or savings would result from
transferring the Department’s functions to other agencies.
While other state agencies perform some similar functions, none perform
the range of public safety functions provided by DPS. For example, the
state’s other agencies with major law enforcement components, the Texas
Alcoholic Beverage Commission (TABC) and the Texas Parks and
Wildlife Department (TPWD), also train and commission peace officers
to enforce state laws, but the missions of those agencies are much more
limited than the Department’s – TABC regulates the alcoholic beverage
industry and TPWD enforces wildlife laws. No substantial benefit could
be achieved by transferring DPS’ law enforcement programs.
The Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation regulates a wide
variety of occupations and could potentially handle DPS’ regulatory
programs, including private security regulation and concealed handgun
licensing. However, both programs benefit from being housed at DPS.
For example, commissioned DPS officers investigate and may arrest,
if necessary, armed private security guards acting illegally, and Texas
Highway Patrol troopers perform in-depth background checks on
concealed handgun license applicants across the state.
Although the Texas Department of Transportation handles vehicle
registrations in partnership with counties and could potentially absorb the
driver license program from DPS, staff found no compelling reason for
such a major transfer. Housing the State’s driver license function at DPS
has also provided benefits as Texas prepares to meet the requirements
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 8

55

of the federal REAL ID Act, including the physical security that DPS
already has in place at its headquarters where it produces driver licenses
and ID cards, and at its driver license offices across the state.

While organizational structures vary widely, all 50 states have
some form of public safety department.
Each state recognizes that ensuring public safety is an essential and
appropriate state-level function, although other state organizational
structures vary widely. Some states, like Texas, have single agencies
dedicated to public safety, while others use a combination of agencies to
provide statewide services. For example, California performs its criminal
investigation function in its Attorney General’s Office, traffic safety in
California Highway Patrol, and driver license in the Department of
Motor Vehicles. Other states also separate their highway patrol functions
from criminal law enforcement activities. Ten states, including Texas,
house their driver license function at public safety agencies.

Recommendation
Change in Statute
8.1

Continue the Department of Public Safety for 12 years.

While the previous issues in this report show that DPS has significant opportunities for improvement,
the agency is still clearly needed to provide public safety services at the statewide level. This
recommendation would continue the Department for 12 years.

Fiscal Implication
If the Legislature continues the Department of Public Safety using the existing organizational structure,
the need for the agency’s annual appropriation of $851 million for operations would continue.

56

1

Interview with Texas Department of Transportation, Traffic Operations Division staff (Austin, Texas, April 16, 2008).

2

Ibid.

3

Department of Public Safety, Crime in Texas 2006 (Austin, Texas), p. 10.

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 8

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Issue 9
Transfer the Regulation of Polygraph Examiners to the Department
of Licensing and Regulation.
Summary
Key Recommendations
Abolish the Polygraph Examiners Board (Board) and transfer its functions to the Texas Department
of Licensing and Regulation.
Establish a polygraph advisory committee to assist with the regulation of polygraph examiners.
Conform elements of polygraph licensing and regulation to commonly applied licensing practices.

Key Findings
Regulation of polygraph examiners continues to be needed.
Portions of the Board’s licensing exam for polygraph examiners are overly subjective, and the Board
inconsistently applies grading standards.
The Board’s enforcement efforts do not adequately protect the public.
The Board has made several decisions potentially based on interests of Board members rather than
on the protection of the public, and has adopted rules that create the appearance of a conflict of
interest.
The function of polygraph regulation is not well placed at DPS.
Consolidating the agency’s functions with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation
(TDLR) will resolve problems with licensing and enforcement, and remove potential conflicts of
interest.

Conclusion
The Legislature has charged the Polygraph Examiners Board (Board) with licensing and regulating
polygraph examiners in Texas for the protection of the public. The Sunset review evaluated the
effectiveness of regulation at the agency and found that the Board’s ability to protect the public is
compromised by the real and potential conflicts of interest inherent in the Board’s processes and
administrative placement, its licensing examination procedures, and the small size of the agency and
number of licensees.
The review concluded that transferring the agency’s functions to the Texas Department of Licensing
and Regulation (TDLR) would improve the regulation of the industry. Creating a separate advisory
committee at TDLR devoted to giving technical and rulemaking advice would ensure that licensees
and the public continue to have a voice, while improving current regulation.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 9

57

Support
The mission of the Polygraph Examiners Board is to protect
the public by regulating polygraph examiners.
The Texas Legislature passed the Polygraph Examiners Act (Act) in 1965,
created the Polygraph Examiners Board (Board) in 1981, and appropriated
funds for implementation of the Act beginning in 1984. Of the seven
members on the Board, two must be law enforcement examiners, two
must be private (commercial) examiners, and three must represent the
public. The Board enforces the Polygraph Examiners Act by licensing
qualified examiners, investigating complaints against licensees, and taking
disciplinary action when necessary.

The Board is
administratively
housed at the
Department of
Public Safety.

The Board currently has two FTEs, employing an Executive Officer and
an administrative assistant. The Board’s fiscal year 2007 appropriation
was $94,440, supported by licensing fees. The Board is an independent
agency administratively housed at the Department of Public Safety
(DPS) – DPS provides administrative support of about $600 annually.
In 2007, the Board issued 16 new licenses and renewed 227 licenses for
polygraph examiners.
In 2007, the Board approved 13 polygraph schools in the United States
as having a curriculum that meets minimum Board standards. Texas
has two of the approved schools: the DPS Law Enforcement Polygraph
School in Austin and a privately owned school in Corpus Christi. The
Board administers the polygraph licensing examination four times a year
in Austin, at regularly scheduled Board meetings. The exam has three
parts, described in the textbox, Polygraph Licensing Exam.
Polygraph Licensing Exam
The polygraph licensing exam includes:
an academic section with objective questions about state law, anatomy,
physiology, chart interpretation, and other aspects of polygraph;
a scenarios section which requires a candidate to draft polygraph examinations
for hypothetical situations where polygraph exams might be used; and
an oral interview where Board members review the candidate’s actual,
completed polygraph exam results and interpretation.

Board staff estimate that approximately 70 percent of licensed examiners
in Texas are employed by law enforcement agencies, including DPS.
Police agency examiners test crime witnesses, suspects, peace officers
or fire fighters in internal investigations, candidates for certain types of
law enforcement jobs, and other populations. Commercial polygraph
examiners conduct exams for private-pay customers such as defendants

58

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 9

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

in criminal cases; civilly committed sex offenders; private employers who
are investigating employee theft or fraud (cases exempt from the federal
Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 19881); parties to civil actions,
such as divorcing couples; sports and tournament competitors; or police
agencies that do not have their own examiners. Many examiners employed
by law enforcement agencies also work part time performing commercial
exams.

Regulation of polygraph examiners continues to be needed.
Sunset Commission staff did not attempt to evaluate the validity or
reliability of polygraph examinations in its review of the Board. The U.S.
Supreme Court wrote in 1998 that, “To this day, the scientific community
remains extremely polarized about the reliability of polygraph techniques.
Some studies have concluded that polygraph tests overall are accurate
and reliable…Others have found that polygraph tests assess truthfulness
significantly less accurately.”2 Instead, staff studied whether Texas
continues to need the Board and the Act.

Sunset did
not attempt
to evaluate
the validity
or reliability
of polygraph
examinations.

While courts in Texas generally do not allow parties to offer polygraph
examinations as evidence because of doubts about their reliability, their
frequent use in situations where the exam results can have serious
consequences for the examinee requires the continued regulation of the
industry to ensure basic qualifications of examiners and oversight.
For example, Sunset staff interviewed numerous individuals who said that
in many instances, one of the chief purposes of a polygraph exam is to
pressure an allegedly guilty party into making a confession – an event that
could have a significant impact on many aspects of the individual’s life,
including their employment, reputation, or freedom from imprisonment.
Although submitting to a test is voluntary, some populations can be
required or pressured to take an exam under certain conditions. Some
examples follow.
–

Juvenile justice agencies and courts may require a juvenile to submit to
polygraph exams as a condition of release for purposes of evaluating
treatment progress.

–

Convicted sex offenders often must submit to polygraph exams as a
condition of community commitment or release. Failing an exam can
result in a revocation of probation or parole.

–

DPS requires applicants for peace officer or police communications
operator positions to submit to a polygraph exam, although the law
prohibits a DPS peace officer from being required to take an exam
once commissioned. Most local police agencies require an exam
before hiring.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Regulation
of polygraph
examiners
continues to
be needed.

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 9

59

Portions of the Board’s licensing exam for polygraph
examiners are overly subjective, and the Board inconsistently
applies grading standards.
Two of the three sections of the Board’s licensing exam are potentially
biased. The scenarios and oral interview sections of the exam are subjective,
and are graded by whichever Board members are present at the meeting
where the exam is given. Board members have a checklist to use while
evaluating a candidate’s work, but are not given scoring guidelines that
could help standardize the actual grading of the exam.
Differing approaches among Board members and the Executive Officer
regarding proper polygraph test construction and administration can
lead to inconsistent grading practices. As an illustration, during the
past years when the Executive Officer graded the scenarios section of
the exam, passing rates were generally above 90 percent. The Board
took over grading the scenarios section of the licensing exam during the
August 2007 test administration and failed 11 of 13 candidates. In some
cases, different Board members assigned widely divergent scores to the
same examinees. Although subsequent licensing exam sessions have not
resulted in the same elevated failure rate, the percentage of candidates
who failed the exam after the transition to the new grading system raised
concerns regarding the subjectivity of the test and the grading process.

The Board’s enforcement efforts do not adequately protect
the public.
The agency is inconsistent in its method of investigating, classifying,
and reporting the complaints it receives, preventing it from effectively
analyzing the amount and type of complaints. Without such standardized
complaint data, the Board is unable to conduct trend analyses and direct
relevant, targeted information to the licensed examiners.

The Board
received and
investigated six
complaints in
fiscal year 2007.

In fiscal year 2007, the agency received six complaints, all of which the
Executive Officer investigated with oversight from one Board member
designated as the complaint officer. The Board held three of the
complaints to be unfounded because the allegations were not supported
by the facts. Three complaints were dismissed because the agency was
unable to investigate the allegations – one of which because it went “stale,”
an unusual classification that implies inaction by the Board. When asked
why the Board was unable to investigate the complaints, agency staff
could not provide a clear explanation. The Board classified numerous
other inquiries from the public as concerns and investigated them to some
degree, but did not track them in the complaint system.
Depending solely on the limited complaint process currently in place
does not adequately protect the public. In many cases, the “consumer”
of polygraph services is not a truly voluntary participant nor the person
that purchased the services of the polygraph examiner. The consumer
may not know what constitutes appropriate examiner behavior, or how

60

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 9

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

to file a complaint. Without methods of enforcement other than the
current complaint procedures, the Board may not be aware of instances
of inappropriate practice.
The Board takes almost no disciplinary action. The Act authorizes the
Board to discipline a licensee who violates the Polygraph Examiners Act
or rules, including issuing a reprimand or denying, suspending, or revoking
the examiner’s license. In the last 10 years, the agency has taken just two
enforcement actions – revoking one license because the examiner was
convicted of a felony, and suspending one for 90 days when the examiner
temporarily practiced with an expired license. While such a low number
of actions does not necessarily indicate a problem, it is unusual among
licensing agencies.

The Board
takes almost
no disciplinary
action.

The Board has made several decisions potentially based on
interests of Board members rather than on the protection of
the public, and of adopting rules that create the appearance
of a conflict of interest.
The Act requires most polygraph examiner candidates to graduate
from a Board-approved polygraph school, and rules outline the Board’s
mechanism to approve schools. In 2001, Board rules stipulated that, in
addition to the school’s training schedule, approval would be based on
American Polygraph Association (APA) accreditation. In August of
2003 a private polygraph school owned by a Board member lost its APA
accreditation. In June of 2006, the Board amended its rules to allow
the Board to approve a school even if it had not met APA accreditation.
As owner of the school that had lost accreditation, the then-Presiding
Officer voted in favor of proposing the rule change at the February 2006
Board meeting, though he voted “present” on final adoption at the May
2006 meeting.
The Board’s rationale for amending its rules was that requiring
school accreditation by an outside entity might “limit proprietorship.”
However, numerous agencies, licensing boards, and educational systems
rely on accreditation by a regional or national organization to ensure
standardization and quality of schools, including the Texas Medical
Board, the State Board of Dental Examiners, the State Board of Podiatric
Medical Examiners, and the University of Texas System.
Current rules allow Board members to grade the exams of their interns,
and a Board member who owns a polygraph school may grade the exams
of its graduates. An intern sponsored by a Board member, or one who
attended a school owned by a Board member, could potentially have an
advantage during the exam process since Board members have access to
exam questions and grade the exams. From 2003 to 2006, Board rules
prohibited Board members from even sponsoring interns; the Board
amended those rules to allow Board sponsorship after a Board member,
who later became the Presiding Officer, sued the Board protesting the
policy.
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Current rules
allow Board
members to
grade exams
of their interns
or students.

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 9

61

The Board’s staffing is not sufficient to effectively regulate a
licensed occupation.

Polygraph
examiner
licensing fees are
among the highest
of any profession
licensed in Texas.

The Board has only two employees and has difficulty keeping up with
agency responsibilities. For example, agency staff struggled to get
requested information to Sunset staff in a timely manner and has required
several deadline extensions. Should the Executive Officer need to be out
of the office for any extended period, such as an illness or vacation, agency
operations would effectively shut down.
Polygraph initial licensing and renewal fees are currently set at $500 and
$450, respectively. These fees are among the highest of those paid by
any other profession in Texas subject to occupational licensing, including
physicians, podiatrists, dentists, and attorneys. Because of the small
number of licensees, however, even with these high fees, the agency has
difficulty operating efficiently. Economies of scale are absent when only a
small number of licensees are regulated. An umbrella agency would merge
the licensing and enforcement functions with those of other occupations,
taking advantage of economies of scale.

The function of polygraph regulation is not well placed at
DPS.
DPS both operates a polygraph school and houses the agency that licenses
the school’s graduates, creating the potential for a conflict of interest.
Most polygraph school graduates who seek licensure from the Polygraph
Examiners Board graduated from the DPS polygraph school, at times
creating a possible conflict between the licensing agency and the school
administration if the interests of the two entities differ.

The Texas
Attorney General
ruled that the
Board violated
the Public
Information Act.

Numerous stakeholders interviewed by Sunset staff commented on the
increasingly antagonistic relationship between the Board and DPS. As
an example, in September 2007, DPS made a Public Information Act
request to the Board for documents related to the August 2007 licensing
exam administration. The Board did not send the requested documents
to DPS for more than four months, and in February of 2008 DPS filed
a complaint against the Board with the Office of the Attorney General
for failing to respond appropriately to its request. At one point, the
Polygraph Board submitted a bill to DPS to produce the documents, in
essence charging its administering agency for the records. In late April
2008, the Attorney General ruled that the Polygraph Examiners Board
violated the Public Information Act.

Consolidating the agency’s functions with the Texas
Department of Licensing and Regulation (TDLR) will resolve
problems with licensing and enforcement, and remove
potential conflicts of interest.
TDLR effectively regulates a wide variety of occupational licensing
programs and offers an opportunity to improve the current regulation of
polygraph examiners. TDLR’s functional alignment and use of technical

62

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 9

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

advisory committees allow the agency to oversee appropriate and efficient
regulation of its programs. The Legislature has recognized TDLR as
the State’s model for occupational licensing, continuously adding new
programs and relying on the agency’s licensing expertise to help with
start-up licensing programs. TDLR’s ability to successfully incorporate
new programs sets the stage for continued consolidation of smaller
licensing agencies.
TDLR has the existing framework to absorb this agency and ensure
overall effectiveness. The Department currently oversees more than 20
types of businesses, industries, trades, and occupations, and is organized
along workflow functions – licensing, enforcement, and administration
and support services – to achieve streamlined processes for each of its
programs. TDLR’s licensing process is already efficient and offers many
examinations remotely and electronically. TDLR also has the financial
and technological support functions in place to meet the agency’s needs.
The Commission on Licensing and Regulation (Commission), TDLR’s
policymaking body, is comprised of seven public members appointed by
the Governor. The Commission receives assistance from 15 advisory
committees which provide rulemaking and technical advice. Typically,
agency staff presents draft rules to the specialized advisory committees for
development and comment. After the advisory committee approves the
rules for recommendation to the full Commission, the agency publishes
the rules for public comment, and then the Commission votes on them.
Creating a new advisory committee to address polygraph regulation
would ensure that the Commission would receive technical expertise from
stakeholders in policy and rulemaking, as well as ensuring public input
when proposed changes go to the full Commission. Having the TDLR
Commission make the final decisions on polygraph matters removes the
potential for conflicts of interest in the current board setup.

The Department
of Licensing
and Regulation
has the ability
to absorb the
Polygraph
Examiners Board.

Elements of polygraph licensing and regulation do not
conform to commonly applied licensing practices.
The Sunset Advisory Commission has a historic role in evaluating licensing
agencies, as the increase of occupational licensing programs served as an
impetus behind the creation of the Sunset Commission in 1977. Since
then, the Sunset Commission has completed more than 93 licensing
agency reviews. Sunset staff has documented standards in reviewing
licensing programs to guide future reviews of licensing agencies.
Licensure application. Licensure processes should not overburden
applicants or unreasonably restrict entry into practice. Currently, the
Act requires applicants to notarize applications to ensure the accuracy
of information.3 This notarization requirement is an unnecessary burden
on applicants because other state law already prohibits a person from
knowingly making a false entry in a government record.4 Removing the
requirement would simplify the licensure process.
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 9

63

Criminal convictions. Chapter 53 of the Occupations Code permits a
licensing agency to revoke, suspend, or deny an occupational license for
conviction of a felony or misdemeanor that directly relates to the duties of
the licensee. The Polygraph Examiners Act contains a general statutory
provision that permits denial of a license for a felony conviction or a
crime that involves moral turpitude, but the Board does not have rules
identifying specific convictions that could affect a polygraph examiner’s
ability to practice safely.5 Amending the Act to direct the Board, or its
successor agency, to adopt rules that specify the type of criminal offenses
that directly relate to the duties and responsibilities of a polygraph
examiner would provide licensees and their governing board the clarity
needed to determine which offenses warrant the denial of a license.

Examiners should
be required to
inform a person
undergoing a
polygraph test
how to file a
complaint.

Consumer complaints. The Board should have processes in place to
inform polygraph consumers of its complaint procedures. Although
the agency’s website provides clear information for the public on how
to file a complaint against a polygraph examiner, and the Act requires
examiners to inform test subjects of the Board’s mailing address and
phone number, the Act does not specifically require a licensee to inform
a person undergoing a polygraph test how to file a complaint with the
Board. Requiring licensees to provide this information would help ensure
the agency receives complaints about inappropriate polygraph exams.
Appeals. Board actions relating to appeals should be subject to review in
district court under the substantial evidence rule. Under the substantial
evidence standard, the appeal allows review of the case record to ensure that
evidence presented supports the ruling. Current statute allows licensees
to appeal to civil court but does not specify the substantial evidence
standard. Updating language in the Act to reflect this common practice
would save time and expense while generally providing a sufficient level
of protection on appeal.
Flexible fees. A licensing agency should have authority to set fees by
rule. The ability to set fees allows for greater administrative flexibility
and reduces the need for the Legislature to continually update agency
statutes. The Polygraph Examiners Act specifies fee caps that are
routinely exceeded by General Appropriations Act rider.6 Removing fee
caps from the Act would allow the Board or its successor agency to adopt
appropriate fee schedules.

Recommendations
Change in Statute
9.1

Abolish the Polygraph Examiners Board and transfer its functions to the
Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation.

Under this recommendation, the Polygraph Examiners Board would cease to exist as an independent
agency, and its testing and regulatory functions transferred to TDLR. The recommendation would align
all regulatory provisions in the Polygraph Examiners Act with TDLR’s enabling statute to streamline

64

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 9

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

administration. This recommendation would also remove the Sunset provision in the Polygraph
Examiners Act, as it would be subject to TDLR’s existing Sunset provision.
9.2

Establish a polygraph advisory committee to assist with the regulation of
polygraph examiners.

This recommendation would create a polygraph advisory committee at TDLR to advise the
Commission on Licensing and Regulation regarding rules and standards related to the profession,
educational curricula for applicants, licensing examination content, and other technical issues related
to the industry. For example, the advisory committee could provide critical input to TDLR regarding
methods for modifying the polygraph licensing exam to ensure the exam is as objective as possible
while still accurately assessing an examiner’s proficiency to practice.
The presiding officer of the Commission, with the Commission’s approval, would appoint five
members to the advisory committee for six-year staggered terms, and would designate one member
of the committee as the presiding officer. The membership would include two commercial polygraph
examiners, two law enforcement examiners, and one public member.
9.3

Eliminate notarization requirements for individuals applying for licensure.

This recommendation would remove requirements from the Polygraph Examiners Act that applicants
must notarize polygraph examiner license applications. Current provisions of the Penal Code that
make falsifying a government record a crime would continue to apply to these applications.

9.4

Clarify that the Act must address felony and misdemeanor convictions in the
standard manner defined in the Occupations Code.

This recommendation would require the Board or its successor agency to follow the general guidelines
in Chapter 53 of the Occupations Code for dealing with criminal convictions by requiring the Board
or agency to develop rules, under the provisions of Chapter 53, defining which specific types of
crimes affect the licensee’s ability to administer polygraph exams.

9.5

Require Polygraph
procedures.

examiners

to

inform

consumers

of

complaint

This recommendation would amend the Polygraph Examiners Act to require a polygraph examiner
to inform an individual undergoing a polygraph exam of the process for filing a complaint against the
examiner with the Board or its successor agency. Requiring this specific notice to individuals subject
to polygraph services would help ensure the agency receives complaints from individuals who feel that
the examiner or the exam process was inappropriate.

9.6

Require appeals of Board actions to district court to be reviewed under the
substantial evidence standard.

This recommendation would require appeals of actions of the Board or its successor agency in district
court to be reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Updating language in the Polygraph
Examiners Act to reflect this common practice would save time and expense while providing a sufficient
level of protection on appeal.
9.7

Remove fee caps in statute.

This recommendation would remove the schedule of fees for polygraph licensing activities currently
found in the Polygraph Examiners Act and authorize the Board or its successor agency to establish
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 9

65

fees in rule. This allows for greater administrative flexibility and is consistent with a provision in the
General Appropriations Act that requires agencies to set fee amounts necessary to recover the cost of
regulation.

Fiscal Implication
Transferring the functions of the Polygraph Examiners Board to the Texas Department of Licensing and
Regulation would result in an estimated annual savings to the State of $41,740. This recommendation
would result in a reduction of one FTE, based on eliminating the administrative support position.
The reduction of this FTE would result in an annual savings of about $32,740 based on the average
salary and fringe benefits for the position. The recommendation would also result in a savings of
approximately $9,000 due to a reduction of travel costs for Board members, based on average travel
reimbursements for fiscal year 2007.
The Polygraph Board’s current appropriation and FTE level, less the reductions discussed above, would
be continued and transferred to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation.
Fiscal
Savings to the
Change in Number of
Year General Revenue Fund FTEs From FY 2007

2010

$41,740

-1

2011

$41,740

-1

2012

$41,740

-1

2013

$41,740

-1

2014

$41,740

-1

1

The Employee Polygraph Protection Act of 1988, 29 U.S.C. 2006, prohibits most private employers from using polygraph tests either for
pre-employment screening or during the course of employment.

66

2

U. S. v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303 (1998).

3

Texas Occupations Code, sec. 1703.202 (1).

4

Texas Penal Code, sec. 37.10.

5

Texas Occupations Code, sec. 1703.203 (a)(1).

6

Texas Occupations Code, sec. 1703.102 (a).

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Issue 9

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

ACROSS-THE-BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS

ATBs
Department of Public Safety
Recommendations

Not Applicable
Update

Across-the-Board Provisions

1. Require public membership on the agency’s policymaking body.
2. Require provisions relating to conflicts of interest.

Already in Statute

3. Require unbiased appointments to the agency’s policymaking body.

Already in Statute

4. Provide that the Governor designate the presiding officer of the
policymaking body.

Already in Statute

5. Specify grounds for removal of a member of the policymaking body.

Already in Statute

6. Require training for members of the policymaking body.

Apply
Already in Statute
Update

7. Require separation of policymaking and agency staff functions.
8. Provide for public testimony at meetings of the policymaking body.
9. Require information to be maintained on complaints.

Apply

10. Require the agency to use technology to increase public access.

Apply

11. Develop and use appropriate alternative rulemaking and dispute
resolution procedures.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
ATBs

67

Private Security Board
Recommendations

Already in Statute

1. Require public membership on the agency’s policymaking body.

Already in Statute

2. Require provisions relating to conflicts of interest.

Already in Statute

3. Require unbiased appointments to the agency’s policymaking body.

Already in Statute

4. Provide that the Governor designate the presiding officer of the
policymaking body.

Already in Statute

5. Specify grounds for removal of a member of the policymaking body.

Already in Statute

6. Require training for members of the policymaking body.

Already in Statute

7. Require separation of policymaking and agency staff functions.

Already in Statute

8. Provide for public testimony at meetings of the policymaking body.

Update

68

Across-the-Board Provisions

9. Require information to be maintained on complaints.

Apply

10. Require the agency to use technology to increase public access.

Apply

11. Develop and use appropriate alternative rulemaking and dispute
resolution procedures.

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
ATBs

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

AGENCY INFORMATION

Agency Information
Department of Public Safety
Agency at a Glance
The Legislature created the Department of Public Safety (DPS) in 1935 by
consolidating the Texas Rangers from the Adjutant General, and the Texas
Highway Patrol from the State Highway Department. The Rangers trace their
history to 1823 when Stephen F. Austin hired 10 men to protect the colonists,
and the Highway Patrol dates back to the late 1920s. Today, DPS’ mission
is to enforce laws to protect public safety, and to prevent and detect crime.
The agency accomplishes its mission through four main functions: traffic law
enforcement; criminal law enforcement; license regulation, including driver
licenses; and emergency management.

Key Facts
Funding. In fiscal year 2007, DPS spent $851 million, primarily
derived from the State Highway Fund and federal funds.
Staffing. DPS had 7,776 employees in fiscal year 2007. Of this
total, 3,458, or 45 percent, are commissioned law enforcement
officers.

DPS’ mission is to enforce
laws to protect public
safety and to prevent
and detect crime.

Texas Highway Patrol. DPS’ largest and most visible division, Texas
Highway Patrol enforces traffic laws on more than 225,000 miles of rural
highways, provides security for the state Capitol, enforces commercial
vehicle regulations, and oversees operation of the vehicle inspection
program.
Criminal Law Enforcement. The Criminal Law Enforcement Division
works in cooperation with city, county, state, and federal law enforcement
agencies with investigations and intelligence involving drug trafficking,
auto theft, organized crime, terrorism, gambling, and other criminal
activity.
Texas Rangers. Texas’ 134 Rangers assist local law enforcement
agencies in enforcing criminal laws by investigating unsolved crimes and
apprehending suspected criminals.
Driver Licenses. DPS issues more than six million driver licenses
and identification cards annually and maintains more than 21 million
records.
Governor’s Division of Emergency Management. DPS coordinates
Texas’ response to natural and manmade disasters and assists cities,
counties, and state agencies in planning and implementing emergency
management programs.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

69

Major Events in Agency History

The five-member
Public Safety
Commission
oversees the
Department.

1935

The Legislature creates the Department by consolidating the Texas
Highway Patrol and the Texas Rangers.

1937

The Legislature gives DPS responsibility for licensing drivers and
creates the Narcotics Section.

1951

The Legislature gives DPS responsibility for enforcing the Motor
Vehicle Inspection Act.

1952

Passage of the Safety Responsibility Act requiring motor vehicle
owners to pay for damages caused to others.

1963

Collocation of the Governor’s State Civil Defense Office, responsible
for disaster relief preparations, with DPS.

1989

Establishment of the Automated Fingerprint Identification System
to provide rapid identification of arrested persons and analysis of
latent prints found at crime scenes.

1994

DPS Crime Laboratory begins DNA analysis.

2004

The Governor, by executive order, designates the director of the
Governor’s Office of Homeland Security as the director of the
Governor’s Division of Emergency Management.

2007

Expansion of the Public Safety Commission from three to five
members.

Organization
Policy Body
The five-member Public Safety Commission oversees the Department. The
Governor appoints members to serve six-year terms and selects the chair.
Members of the Commission must be selected because of their knowledge
of laws, experience in law enforcement, honesty, integrity, education, training,
and executive ability.
The
Public Safety Commission
table, Public Safety Commission,
provides information about each
Term
member.
Member
City
Expires
The Commission sets policies
for enforcement of state
criminal, traffic, and safety laws,
and prevention and detection
of crime; organizes the
Department; and adopts rules.

Allan B. Polunsky
Chairman

San Antonio

2009

Elizabeth Anderson

Dallas

2011

Carin Marcy Barth

Houston

2013

C. Tom Clowe, Jr.

Waco

2010

Vacant

70

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Staff
The Commission appoints a Director to administer the daily operations
of the Department. The Director must be a citizen of Texas and have five
years of experience in police or public administration. The Director adopts
rules for the control of the Department, subject to Commission approval;
issues law enforcement commissions to the Department’s officers; appoints
assistant directors and division heads; and reports expenditure information
to the Commission and the Governor. The Department of Public Safety
Organizational Chart depicts the basic structure of the agency’s 7,776
employees.
Department of Public Safety
Organizational Chart
Public Safety
Commission
Office of Audit
and Inspection
Director

Texas
Highway Patrol

Criminal Law
Enforcement

Texas Rangers

Driver License

Administration

Emergency
Management

The agency employs both commissioned and noncommissioned staff.
The distribution of staff across divisions is shown in the graph, Divisional
Breakdown of Commissioned and Noncommissioned Employees.
Divisional Breakdown of Commissioned
and Noncommissioned Employees
Texas Highway Patrol
Driver License
Criminal Law Enforcement
Texas Rangers

Governor’s Division of
of Emergency Management
Emergency Management
Director’s Staff
Administration
0

500

1,000

Noncommissioned

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

Commissioned

Appendix A compares the agency’s workforce composition to the minority
civilian labor force. The agency has had a mixed record over the past three
years, performing well in some categories while falling short in others.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

71

Funding
Revenues

The State
Highway Fund
supported 54
percent of DPS’
budget in fiscal
year 2007.

The Department receives the majority of its revenue, $851 million in fiscal
year 2007, from two sources – the State Highway Fund and federal funds
which comprise 54 percent and 38 percent, respectively. The Department’s
remaining funds come from general revenue, appropriated receipts, bond
proceeds, and other state funds. The pie chart, Sources of Revenue, shows total
revenue by funding source during fiscal year 2007.

Sources of Revenue
FY 2007
General Revenue Funds, $20,911,301 (2%)
G

Appropriated Receipts, $22,504,860 (3%)
A

Other State Funds,* $12,485,997 (1%)O

Federal Funds
$327,057,982 (38%)

Bond Proceeds, $16,540,048 (2%)

State Highway Fund
$451,280,468 (54%)

Total: $850,780,656

*

Other state funds include Criminal Justice Grants and Interagency Contracts.

The Department collects more than 80 different fees that generated more
than $530 million in revenue for the State in fiscal year 2007. Fee revenue is
deposited in the General Revenue Fund, Texas Mobility Fund, State Highway
Fund, and other funds. The table, Selected DPS Fees, provides detail on the five
fees that generated about 80 percent of the revenue during fiscal year 2007.
Selected DPS Fees – FY 2007
Description

Driver Responsibility
Program

Fee Collected
by DPS

$100 – $2,000

Number
of Payers

1,296,056

Amount
Collected
$77,037,534

Trauma Fund

$77,037,534

General Revenue

$1,556,314

General Revenue (appropriated to
DPS)

Driver License Fees

$5 – $60

5,201,764

$95,295,744

General Revenue

Driver Record Fees

$4 – $22

11,683,300

$60,808,697

General Revenue

Motor Vehicle Safety
Inspection Fees

$3.50

14,661,657

$51,315,800

Texas Mobility Fund

$2

14,661,657

$29,285,700

Clean Air Fund

$6

4,980,457

$29,841,270

Low Income Repair Replacement
Assistance Program Fund

Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Fees

72

Revenue Deposited To

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Expenditures
The pie chart, Expenditures by Major Goal, shows the amounts DPS spent
on its five major appropriations goals during fiscal year 2007. Emergency
Management spending consumed the largest portion of the agency’s budget
at 35 percent. Much of the $290 million spent on Emergency Management
was federal funding to help the state continue to recover from Hurricane
Rita, and DPS passed almost all of the funds through to local governments.
The table on the following page, Expenditures by Division, details expended
amounts by DPS division during fiscal year 2007.
Expenditures by Major Goal
FY 2007
Driver Safety and Records
$105,281,552 (12%)
Indirect Administration
$128,879,302 (15%)

Law Enforcement on Highways
$229,849,224 (27%)

Prevent and Detect Crime
$88,124,757 (10%)
Regulatory Programs
$8,474,575 (1%)

Emergency Management
$290,171,246 (35%)

Total: $850,780,656

Appendix B describes the Department’s use of Historically Underutilized
Businesses (HUBs) in purchasing goods and services for fiscal years 2004 to
2007. During the last four years, the agency has fallen short of the goals for
special trade and other services. The agency has had mixed success achieving
the statewide goals for building construction and professional services, and
has exceeded the goal for commodities purchasing.

Agency Operations
The Department of Public Safety provides a range of services to Texans
including traffic law enforcement on rural highways, criminal law enforcement,
regulatory programs, and emergency management. The Department provides
some services directly to the public, such as driver licenses, while it provides
other services, such as criminal histories and crime labs, to law enforcement
jurisdictions. The following section discusses the Department’s major
functions by program area.

Texas Highway Patrol Division

With more than
3,650 staff, the
Texas Highway
Patrol is the
largest division in
the Department.

With more than 3,650 staff and an annual budget of $249 million, the Texas
Highway Patrol (THP) is the largest division in the Department. THP’s
major duties include enforcing criminal and traffic laws on Texas’ 225,000
miles of rural highways, administering the State’s vehicle inspection program,
and enforcing commercial vehicle regulations.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

73

Expenditures by Division – FY 2007
Division

Expenditure

Highway Patrol Division
Highway Patrol

$152,407,183

Commercial Vehicle Enforcement

$46,172,253

Vehicle Inspection

$15,208,977

Breath Alcohol Testing

$2,239,173

Capitol Complex Security

$13,821,638

Communications Service

$8,715,592

Regional Administration

$10,872,482

Highway Patrol Subtotal

$249,437,298

Criminal Law Enforcement Division
Narcotics

$33,284,021

Motor Vehicle Theft

$10,941,979

Criminal Intelligence Service

$15,594,555

Crime Labs

$17,923,728

CLE Subtotal

$77,744,283

Texas Rangers Division
Texas Rangers

$10,380,474

Driver License Division
Driver License and Records

$83,521,147

Driver License Reengineering

$15,127,433

Traffic Accident Records
Crash Records Information Systems
Driver License Subtotal

$1,316,767
$4,555,553*
$104,520,900

Administration Division
Motorcycle Operator Training
Concealed Handgun Licensing
Private Security Bureau
Crime Records

$760,530
$5,488,349
$2,891,786
$27,003,466

Fleet Operations

$2,640,169

Training Academy

$7,466,593

Physical Plant

$27,306,983

Administration Subtotal

$73,557,876

The Division has eight field regions, as shown in the
map, Texas Highway Patrol Regions. Each region is
overseen by a regional commander with the rank
of major, and is divided into districts, each led by a
captain. Among other duties, captains serve as Disaster
District Committee chairs during emergencies,
responsible for validating requests for state assistance
from local governments, and coordinating delivery
of the resources. The Highway Patrol Division
Organizational Chart depicts THP’s structure.

Highway Patrol Service
The Highway Patrol Service is the largest component
of the Division and includes 1,990 troopers conducting
traffic and criminal law enforcement on rural
highways, along with crash investigations. Troopers
seek to prevent violations by maintaining a visible
presence in marked police cars along the roadways
and by ticketing or arresting violators. Enforcement
priorities include violations of laws prohibiting
driving while intoxicated, speeding, and failure to use
seatbelts. Highway Patrol troopers also educate the
public on traffic safety and crime prevention. The
table on page 76, Highway Patrol Activity, provides
detail on troopers’ activities in 2007.
Highway Patrol Region 7, the smallest region, only
covers the 46 blocks in downtown Austin that make
up the Capitol Complex. Region 7 staff seeks to
provide a safe environment for individuals within the
Capitol Complex, enforces traffic laws and parking
regulations, and investigates criminal activity. The
Governor’s Protective Detail, based in Region 7,
provides security for the Governor, the Governor’s
family, and the Governor’s Mansion.

Vehicle Inspection Service

Governor’s Division of Emergency Management
Emergency Management

$290,171,246

Director’s Staff
Central Administration

$11,621,887

Information Resources

$23,228,195

Aircraft Operations

$4,745,503

Other Support Services

$5,278,554

Director’s Staff Subtotal

$44,874,139

Polygraph Examiners Board
TOTAL

$94,440
$850,780,656

* Crash Records Program moved to the Texas Department of
Transportation on October 1, 2007.

74

The objectives of the Vehicle Inspection Service are to
contribute to traffic safety and improve air quality in
Texas by ensuring that vehicles comply with the State’s
safety inspection and emissions testing program.
Emissions testing is performed in 17 counties to
comply with federal requirements for improving
air quality in Texas. The Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality determines the type of vehicle
emissions testing needed, and DPS implements the
emissions testing in conjunction with annual vehicle
safety inspections.

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Dallam

Texas Highway Patrol Regions

5B

Moore Hutchinson Roberts Hemphill

Oldham

Deaf Smith

Parmer

Lip
sc
om
b

Sherman Hansford Ochiltree

Hartley

Potter

Carson

Gray

Wheeler

Randall

Armstrong

Donley

Collingsworth

Swisher

Castro

Briscoe

Hall

Childress

Hardeman

Region

Yoakum

Martin

Howard

Mitchell

Culberson

Ward

Midland

Crane

Upton

Reeves

4A

Pecos

ss

co

ck

Reagan

Taylor

Nolan

4B

Sterling Coke

Runnels

Callahan

Palo
Pinto

Hood
Erath

Tom
Green

Irion

Schleicher

Concho

Kimble

Sutton

Real

Brewster

Waco
Austin
Bryan

A
B
C

7

Austin Capitol

Ö

8

McAllen
Laredo

A
B

Kinney

Uvalde

Medina

3B

Frio

Fayette

Lavaca

Atascosa

Karnes

La Salle

Webb

Duval

co

gd

oc

he

s

Angelina

Trinity

2B

Polk

Tyler

Hardin

Orange

Jefferson
Harris

Fort Bend

Chambers

Gal

vest

Wharton

Jackson

3A

Shelby

Na

Liberty

2C

Victoria

Panola

Rusk

Brazoria
De Witt

Bee

8B

Gregg

Smith

San
Jacinto
Mo
ntg
om
ery

Wilson

Goliad
Dimmit

Harrison

Walker

Colorado
Gonzales

1B

Madison

ton
hing
Was

Austin

Guadalupe

Maverick
Zavala

Lee

Cass
Marion

Upshur

6C

Br
az
os

Bastrop

Ca
ldw
ell

Comal

Bandera

en
ull
cM
M

6

Travis

Kendall

Bowie

Houston

Leon

Burleson

Hays

Kerr

Edwards

Val Verde

Bexar

5

7Ö

Blanco

Presidio

Freestone

Robertson

Milam

Camp

Ch
ero
ke
e
Anderson

Falls
Bell

Williamson

LLano

Gillespie

Terrell

Coryell

Burnet

Titus

Wood

Henderson
Navarro

McLennan

6B

Rains

Ka
ufm
an

Ellis

Hill

6A

Hamilton

Mason

Johnson

Bosque

Comanche

Mc
L
Cu
San Saba ampa
llo
sas
ch

Menard

Dallas

Somervell

Mills

Crockett

Tarrant

Parker

Eastland

Brown

Coleman

Rockwall

Ste
ph
en
s

Hopkins

Hunt

er
sp
Ja

Jeff Davis

Gla

Shackelford

Jones

Collin

Delta

ton
New

A
B

Andrews

Fisher

Young

Fannin

r
Walle

Lubbock
Amarillo

Scurry

Throckmorton

Denton

Re
dR
ive
r

Lamar

1A

Grayson

Cooke

Wise

es
rim
G

A
B

Borden

Haskell

Jack

ine
Sab

Hudspeth

A
B

Midland
Abilene

Dawson

Ector

Mo
nta
gue

Archer

Baylor

Knox

Stonewall

Kent

Garza

Gaines

Winkler

Wichita
Clay

Crosby

Lynn

El Paso
Loving

King

W
ilb
arg
er

San
Augustine

A
B
C

Terry

Dickens

Foard

Morris

Corpus Christi
San Antonio

Lubbock

Cottle

t
nd
Za

4

Houston
Beaumont
Conroe

A
B

5A

Hockley

Motley

e
ton
es
Lim

3

Garland
Tyler

Co
ch
ra
n

Hale

n
Va

2

District

Floyd

Lamb

Franklin

1

Location

Bailey

Matagorda

on

2A

Calhoun

Refugio

Live Oak
Jim
Wells

as
ns
ra
San Patricio A

Nueces
Kleberg

Zapata

Jim
Hogg

Starr

Brooks
Kenedy

8A

Hidalgo

Willacy
Ca
me
ron

More than 32,000 DPS-certified vehicle inspectors perform inspections at
10,000 privately owned vehicle inspection stations across the state. DPS
oversees inspection operations by training and testing inspectors, conducting
routine and covert quality control checks, and investigating complaints. The
Department may take administrative enforcement action, such as license
revocation, against inspection stations and certified inspectors who violate
vehicle inspection laws or rules. Staff issued 1,996 citations and warnings in
fiscal year 2007, and suspended 589 licenses.
Highway Patrol Division
Organizational Chart
Chief

Assistant
Chief
Motor Carrier
Bureau

Garland
Region 1

Houston
Region 2

Communications

*

Corpus Christi
Region 3

Highway
Patrol

Midland*
Region 4

Communications

Lubbock
Region 5

Commercial Vehicle
Enforcement

Waco
Region 6

Vehicle
Inspection

Breath Alcohol
Testing

Capitol
Region 7

McAllen
Region 8

Adjutant
Services

All regions have substantially the same organization

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

75

Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Service
The Commercial Vehicle Enforcement (CVE) Service seeks to reduce
commercial motor vehicle crashes and highway damage by enforcing safety
and weight regulations. CVE staff, composed
of both troopers and noncommissioned staff,
Highway Patrol Activity – 2007
inspects and weighs commercial trucks at
Speeding tickets issued
527,915
border checkpoints and 102 inspection stations
Crashes investigated
72,775
statewide. CVE staff also patrols roadways
Concealed handgun applicants investigated
68,987
and conducts inspections using portable scales.
Criminal arrests
49,851
When finding a violation, staff may issue a
DWI arrests
35,249
warning or citation, or take the truck or driver
Safety programs presented
16,408
out of service.
Pounds of marijuana seized
Pounds of cocaine seized
Value of currency seized

57,631

To augment CVE staff, certain local law
enforcement officers may go through DPS
$10,931,452
training to become certified to conduct roadside
inspections. As of January 2007, DPS certified
125 local officers from 31 police and sheriffs’ departments across the state
to conduct inspections. Cities and counties may keep fine revenue from
enforcement actions performed by local authorities – up to 110 percent of
the cost to perform the inspections, and the remainder of the fines go to the
State. The table, Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Activity, details actions taken
by CVE staff in 2007.
1,948

The Motor Carrier Bureau supports THP’s enforcement
efforts by maintaining files and developing safety profiles
on motor carriers, or trucking companies, using information
Vehicles checked
491,050
from crash and violation reports. The Bureau reports to
a federal database that maintains information on safety
Vehicles weighed
759,902
violations by trucking and transportation companies. Using
Roadside inspections
328,294
information from the safety profiles, the Bureau also audits
Vehicles placed out of service
71,638
motor carriers at their place of business to review compliance
with requirements on commercial driver licenses, alcohol
Drivers placed out of service
15,588
and drug testing policies, hours of service, and vehicle
Speeding tickets issued
39,105
maintenance. Although investigators conducted more than
DWI arrests
2,065
1,100 audits in fiscal year 2007, this represents less than 1
percent of Texas’ 220,000 motor carriers. The Bureau also
assesses administrative penalties and conducts informal hearings to settle
disputed enforcement cases. The Bureau collected more than $2 million in
administrative penalties in 2007.
Commercial Vehicle
Enforcement Activity – 2007

Breath Alcohol Testing Bureau
The Breath Alcohol Testing Bureau regulates both the forensic breath alcohol
testing program and the breath alcohol ignition interlock program. DPS
certifies more than 5,300 DPS troopers and other peace officers throughout
the state to administer breath alcohol tests to drivers they believe to be
intoxicated, and those tests may be admitted as evidence in driving while
intoxicated (DWI) legal proceedings and adminstrative license revocation

76

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

hearings. The Bureau also regulates 53 technical supervisors who oversee
certified breath test operators. About half of the technical supervisors work
for DPS while the others work for various agencies including police and
sheriffs’ departments, medical examiners, colleges, or private contractors.
About 100,000 motorists are arrested for DWI annually, and, of those
arrested, 56,000 voluntarily submit to a breath alcohol test.
Courts have ordered some 16,000 drivers with DWI convictions to have
an ignition interlock installed in their cars. An ignition interlock prevents
the car from operating when detecting alcohol on the driver’s breath. DPS
regulates about 250 ignition interlock installers who work at 120 service
centers statewide.

Communications Service
The Communications Service operates a statewide network of 32
communications facilities on a 24-hour-a-day basis to serve DPS and other
law enforcement agencies. The Service uses radio, telephone, and landline
connections to the Texas and National Law Enforcement Telecommunications
Systems to transmit information on wanted persons, criminal histories, driver
licenses, concealed handgun licenses, and vehicle registrations to DPS troopers
and other law enforcement officers who do not have in-car computers. The
facilities also play an important role in the State’s disaster management plan
by providing communications during disasters.

The
Communications
Service operates
a statewide
communications
network 24 hours
a day for DPS
and other law
enforcement
officers.

Criminal Law Enforcement Division
The Criminal Law Enforcement Division (CLE) works in cooperation with
city, county, state, and federal law enforcement agencies with investigations and
intelligence involving drug trafficking, auto theft, organized crime, terrorism,
gambling, and other criminal activity. The Division has five components:
Narcotics, Motor Vehicle Theft, Criminal Intelligence, Crime Laboratory, and
the Bureau of Information Analysis. CLE also supervises the state Special
Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team composed of 20 commissioned officers
from the Driver License, Texas Highway Patrol, and CLE divisions.
In fiscal year 2007, the Division had 543 commissioned employees, 497
noncommissioned employees, and a budget of $77.7 million. The Criminal
Law Enforcement Division Organizational Chart depicts CLE’s structure.
Criminal Law Enforcement Division
Organizational Chart
Chief

Narcotics

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Motor Vehicle
Theft

Criminal
Intelligence

Crime Lab

Bureau of
Information
Analysis

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

77

Narcotics Service
The Narcotics Service works to enforce state and federal drug laws and
administers three regulatory programs: Prescription Drug Program,
Controlled Substances Regulation, and the Precursor Chemical/Laboratory
Apparatus Program. The Service has 285 commissioned officers and 132
regulatory and support staff.

DPS Narcotics
officers perform
undercover
operations, collect
information
and disseminate
it to other law
enforcement
agencies, and
arrest criminal
violators.

Narcotics personnel are stationed at the Austin DPS headquarters and across
the state in DPS field offices. Officers initiate investigations of drug trafficking
and respond to requests for assistance from local police departments, the
Drug Enforcement Administration, and other law enforcement entities.
With a focus on long-term investigations to determine the underlying source
of trafficking, Narcotics officers perform undercover operations, collect
information, disseminate it to other law enforcement agencies, and arrest
criminal violators.
Narcotics regulatory programs register doctors, pharmacists, and healthcare
facilities that prescribe or dispense controlled substances. State law requires
doctors to use forms issued by DPS to write prescriptions for controlled
substances. Pharmacists who dispense the drugs must electronically
transmit a record of the prescription to DPS, where the agency monitors
prescribing patterns and investigates suspected prescription abuse or misuse.
The Department may inspect any registered facility, take enforcement action
against an individual or facility’s registration, and report health professionals
to the appropriate licensing board when finding illegal activity. The Precursor
Chemical/Laboratory Apparatus Program issues permits to entities that
legitimately use equipment and chemicals that could be diverted for use in
the illegal manufacture of drugs.

Motor Vehicle Theft Service
The Motor Vehicle Theft Service (MVTS) works with public and private
agencies to investigate thefts involving automobiles, aircraft, watercraft, farm
machinery, construction equipment, and trailers. More than 100 commissioned
officers based in five districts throughout Texas
Motor Vehicle Theft Service Activities
coordinate with local automobile theft prevention
FYs 2005 – 2007
authorities and task forces to help prevent theft,
Fiscal
Vehicles
Recovered
Arrests
identify and arrest motor vehicle theft suspects,
Year
Recovered
Value
break up auto crime smuggling rings, and recover
2005
1,680
4,238
$66,866,735
stolen vehicles. The table, Motor Vehicle Theft
2006
1,815
4,049
$69,929,067
Service Activities, shows the number of arrests,
vehicles, and amounts recovered for the past three
2007
1,659
4,135
$77,213,793
fiscal years.
The Service coordinates agency participation in the Border Auto Theft
Information Center (BATIC), a grant-funded program which attempts to
locate and recover stolen vehicles crossing the border with Mexico. In 2007,
3,133 additional vehicles were recovered through the BATIC system, with a
recovered value of more than $49.7 million.

78

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

The Service also coordinates fugitive apprehension of the Texas Ten Most
Wanted, and works with the Texas Racing Commission to investigate
violations of law at horse and greyhound pari-mutual racetracks.

Criminal Intelligence Service
The Criminal Intelligence Service (CIS) collects intelligence on terrorism and
organized criminal activity. CIS personnel initiate investigations, locate and
arrest fugitives, execute search warrants, conduct interviews and polygraph
exams, participate in surveillance and undercover operations, and provide
investigation support to other law enforcement agencies and DPS divisions.
Staff also assists local police agencies with tracking and monitoring civilly
committed sex offenders, and with providing protection for the Governor
and visiting dignitaries. In fiscal year 2007, CIS had 153 commissioned and
79 support personnel. The DPS polygraph school, established in 1995, trains
about 25 polygraph examiners a year from DPS and local law enforcement
agencies.

Texas law
requires DPS to
accredit crime
labs that submit
evidence to
Texas courts.

Crime Laboratory Service
The Crime Laboratory Service operates 13 DPS crime labs across the state
that analyze forensic evidence and DNA for DPS investigators and local
police agencies. Texas law requires DPS accreditation of crime laboratories
that submit evidence to Texas courts. DPS currently accredits 72 labs,
including all DPS labs, 20 Texas local law enforcement labs, nine federal labs,
and 30 private labs used by Texas law enforcement agencies.
More than 100 forensic scientists work in the DPS lab system helping police
with crime scene investigations, analyzing physical evidence in criminal
cases, and testifying in court regarding findings. Areas of analysis include
DNA, drugs, blood alcohol, firearms, toxicology, latent fingerprints, and trace
evidence from murders, rapes, hit-and-run traffic accidents, arsons, and other
crimes. Labs generally accept evidence specimens from police agencies within
a 150-mile radius, although not all labs perform all types of testing. DPS also
maintains the Combined DNA Indexing System (CODIS) database, which
attempts to match DNA blood samples from crime scene evidence against
convicted offender DNA profiles. Only labs that meet FBI standards can
participate in CODIS.
The Legislature allocated $1.7
million in additional funding
to the DPS crime lab system
in 2007 to hire 64 employees,
but an evidence processing
backlog still remains. See the
table, 2007 Crime Lab Backlog,
for numbers of samples tested
and waiting.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

2007 Crime Lab Backlog
Type of Evidence

Cases
Received

Cases
Tested

Case Samples
Waiting

Average
Wait Time

Blood Alcohol

6,279

6,105

669

1 month

Controlled Substances

53,558

54,165

4,440

1 month

DNA

4,663

4,479

1,897

5 months

Firearms

1,011

692

1,111

19 months

Toxicology

4,044

2,937

2,948

12 months

655

685

369

6.5 months

Trace Evidence

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

79

Bureau of Information Analysis

DPS created
the Bureau of
Information
Analysis in late
2007 to bring
together all case
support and
strategic analysts
into one unit.

DPS created the Bureau of Information Analysis in late 2007 by transferring
all DPS crime analysts from the Texas Rangers, Driver License Fraud Unit,
Criminal Intelligence, Motor Vehicle Theft, and Narcotics into one unit.
Previously, each of these areas conducted its own analysis, which sometimes
hindered information sharing and crime trend identification. The Bureau has
158 positions in Austin headquarters and in field offices across the state.
The Bureau seeks to provide two types of analysis for criminal justice agencies
in Texas and throughout the United States: tactical case support such as
analyzing photos and fingerprints, wiretapping, and conducting background
checks; and strategic analysis which includes identifying trends regarding
terrorist or criminal groups, and developing threat assessments and long-term
action plans. The Bureau also includes the Post-Seizure Analysis Team, which
develops and disseminates intelligence on drug trafficking organizations, and
the Missing Persons Clearinghouse, which tracks information on missing
children and adults in Texas. The Clearinghouse also coordinates with other
services in issuing Amber Alerts, to help locate abducted children, and Silver
Alerts, to help locate lost Texans 65 or older.

Texas Rangers

Texas Rangers
assist local law
enforcement
agencies with
investigations
on major crimes
including murder,
rape, and public
corruption.

Texas Rangers assist local law enforcement agencies with investigations
on major crimes including murder, rape, and public corruption, and also
help suppress prison riots and locate escaped convicts. Rangers investigate
all shootings involving DPS officers, and upon request will investigate
shootings involving other law enforcement officers. Rangers coordinate their
investigations with local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies, and
may use polygraph tests, forensic hypnotists, and forensic artists to help solve
crimes. The Unsolved Crimes Investigation Team, formerly centralized in
San Antonio but now dispersed throughout the state, focuses on investigating
unsolved murders and other major crimes.
DPS recently tasked the Rangers with coordinating the Joint Operations
Intelligence Centers ( JOICs) established along the Texas-Mexico border.
The six JOICs function as centralized command posts and regional hubs for
coordinating local, state, and federal agencies in border security initiatives.
The Texas Rangers Division had 114 commissioned officer positions in fiscal
year 2007 divided into seven field companies, including the recently created
Company G that encompasses the border region. In fiscal year 2007, the
Rangers conducted 5,347 criminal investigations, made 2,212 arrests, and
recovered property and contraband worth more than $18,350,000.

Driver License
The Department created the Driver License Division in 1998 by consolidating
activities from Highway Patrol, Administration, and Legal Services. The
major responsibilities of the Division are to issue Texas driver licenses
and identification cards; collect, maintain, and provide driver records; and

80

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

investigate and prevent identity fraud related to
licenses and identity cards. The table, Driver License
Division Workload, shows some of the Division’s output.
The Division has 1,667 employees, including 215
commissioned officers and 1,452 noncommissioned
personnel, and had a fiscal year 2007 budget of
$104 million. The Division’s components appear in
the graphic, Driver License Division Organizational
Chart.

Driver License Division Workload
Total valid licenses, FY 2007

16,330,825

Average number of licenses
issued each year

5,099,748

Average number of identification
cards issued each year

759,725

Driver License Division
Organizational Chart
Chief

Administrative
License Revocation

Driver License
Reengineering

Headquarters

Commercial Driver
License

Field Service

Regional Field
Locations

Customer Service

Driver Records

Driver Improvement
and Compliance

Driver Responsibility
Program

License Issuance

Fraud Investigation
Unit

Conroe
Corpus Christi
Garland
Hurst
Houston
Lubbock
Midland
Waco

Field Service
Field Service operates 256 driver license (DL) offices across the state. This unit’s
major responsibilities are to accept and review driver license and identification
card applications, and to test new applicants on both written and driving tests.
Field Service operates a DL mobile unit that can process simple transactions
such as renewals and duplicate licenses remotely on college campuses or
workplaces. Other field customer service initiatives include automated driver
license testing in 96 DL offices and the use of auto-queuing systems where
customers receive numbers upon arrival and are directed to the appropriate
customer service station. DPS uses these systems in high volume locations,
such as the Gessner Road office in Houston, and can route customers to any
of several specialized work stations areas depending on need.

DPS operates
256 driver license
offices across
the state.

Field Service’s commissioned troopers receive training to detect fraud
associated with driver license issuance, perform road tests on applicants, and
provide security in DL offices. The troopers also make frequent arrests of
applicants with outstanding criminal warrants who attempt to get licenses. In
2007, DL troopers made 1,673 felony arrests and 4,809 misdemeanor arrests
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

81

on driver license office premises. Driver license troopers also supplement
the Highway Patrol’s efforts in traffic law enforcement 16 hours per month,
during holidays, and during daily commutes to and from duty stations. In
2007, DL troopers issued 18,216 traffic tickets and 7,377 warnings while on
patrol.

Headquarters Service
Headquarters Service has four functions that support driver license activities:
customer service, driver improvement and compliance, license issuance, and
driver records. In addition, Headquarters Service oversees special projects
to implement process changes within the Division, including the project
described in the textbox, Driver License Reengineering.
Driver License Reengineering
Initiated in 2003, the $45 million project will
completely revamp outdated driver license
technology and better position DPS to meet
criteria of the federal REAL ID Act. After
a series of delays, DPS plans to install new
equipment in DL offices across the state by
the end of 2008.

Customer service staff assists the public and
field service personnel in driver license and
records matters. DPS handles more than 70,000
customer service calls and more than 6,000
e-mails per month. During business hours,
customer service staff answers the DPS main
telephone switchboard.

Driver improvement and compliance personnel
evaluate certain traffic convictions involving
Texas drivers to identify potentially dangerous
drivers and take corrective action that may result in license revocation. DPS
refers reported medical conditions that could affect driving performance to
a medical board under the Department of State Health Services for further
evaluation. This bureau collects reinstatement fees paid to the Department for
withdrawing driver license suspensions, and administratively enforces Texas
statutes requiring motorists to have liability insurance coverage on vehicles
registered in Texas.

DPS handles
more than 70,000
customer service
calls and about
6,000 e-mails
per month.

The License Issuance Bureau has multiple responsibilities including
verification of an applicant’s eligibility to be issued a Texas driver license or
identification card before mailing. Staff monitors the production, quality,
and automated mailing of driver licenses and identification cards, in addition
to assisting the public and DL field offices with administrative and technical
issues.
The Driver Records Bureau administers, processes, and maintains records on
all driver licenses and identification cards issued by the Division. The Bureau’s
major responsibilities are maintaining microfilm records for each driver license
or identification card holder and updating traffic conviction information on
each record. The Bureau also sells driver records and certifications to eligible
requestors including insurance companies and the general public.
Headquarters Service also manages the commercial driver license program.
Texas had more than 767,000 licensed commercial drivers in fiscal year 2007,
which is about 5 percent of the total number of licenses issued. Texas has
reciprocity agreements with other states to issue a Texas commercial license if

82

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

a driver holds a valid commercial license from another state. Since states must
follow federal guidelines in commercial licensing, reciprocity is fairly simple.
For example, if an out-of-state commercial driver is ticketed in Texas, the
issuing state receives notice. The table, Commercial License Types, shows the
different classes of commercial licenses and the number of each license type
issued in fiscal year 2007. Drivers may supplement these license types with
endorsements that allow for transport of passengers, tank trailers, hazardous
materials, and other options.
Commercial License Types
Type

Number of Valid
Licenses FY 07

Description

Class A tractor trailer vehicles with 18 wheels

543,557

Class B small combination units where a truck pulls a certain type of trailer

211,777

Class C small delivery vehicles

12,264

The Legislature created the Driver Responsibility Program to prevent the
repeated behavior of problem drivers and to improve traffic safety through
the assessment of surcharges for various traffic violations. The agency retains
1 percent of surcharges collected with the remainder divided between state
trauma centers and the General Revenue Fund. The program has exceeded
$1 billion dollars in total assessments to more than 1 million drivers since
inception in September 2004. However, as of February 2008, the agency has
collected about 34 percent of the total assessments. See the table, Driver
Responsibility Program Assessments, for more details.
Driver Responsibility Program Assessments
Violation
Points for Moving Violations

Surcharge
Amount*

Number of
Notices

Amount
Billed

Amount
Collected

Collection
Rate

$100

99,540

$11,116,291

$7,329,795

66%

$1,000

409,071

$431,134,900

$146,995,330

34%

No Insurance / Driving With Invalid
License

$250

1,912,624

$520,914,227

$185,868,362

36%

No Driver License

$100

908,908

$106,482,805

$25,791,343

24%

3,330,143

$1,069,648,223

$365,984,830

34%

DWI

Total

* Excluding points for moving violations, DPS assesses surcharges annually for three years, and the surcharge amount
increases with additional violations.

Administrative License Revocation
In Texas, drivers may have their driver licenses suspended if they refuse
to submit to a breath test or if they provide a specimen with an alcohol
concentration of .08 or greater. Youth can have driver licenses suspended for
any detectable amount of alcohol concentration, while commercial drivers
cannot exceed .04. DPS suspends licenses for driving or boating while
intoxicated, and presents breath alcohol test failure or refusal to test evidence
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

83

at the subsequent State Office of Administrative Hearings (SOAH) hearings.
DPS has 40 staff attorneys spread across the state who participated in more
than 32,000 contested SOAH hearings in fiscal year 2007.

SOAH held more
than 32,000
license suspension
hearings in fiscal
year 2007 for
DWI cases.

Administration Division
The Administration Division supports the five major divisions and provides
information and assistance to the public. The Division consists of 669 staff
who work in Crime Records, Staff Support, and Regulatory Licensing as
shown in the Administration Division Organizational Chart. The Division
had a fiscal year 2007 budget of $73.5 million.

Crime Records
The Crime Records Service has two major functions: keeping criminal history
records and providing information on crime. Through these activities, the
Service maintains arrest records, fingerprint files, criminal justice information,
and statistical data on crime in Texas that serve the law enforcement
community and the public.
In 2007, Crime Records maintained more than 7 million fingerprint files in
its Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) and is preparing
to expand the database up to a capacity of 15 million sets of fingerprints.
The Department also keeps records of fingerprints
Administration Division
that have been found at crime scenes, but have not
Organizational Chart
been identified. These fingerprints, known as latent
fingerprints, comprise 105,000 fingerprint records,
Chief
and the Department is working to expand the capacity
for unsolved latent fingerprint records to a total of
two million. The AFIS computer has largely replaced
Crime
Regulatory
the manual classification, search, and verification of
Staff Support
Records
Licensing
fingerprints and has a newly expanded capacity to
process 12,000 sets of fingerprints per day. In recent
Training
Texas Crime
Concealed
Academy
Information
Handgun
years, DPS has emphasized the electronic capture and
Center
Licensing
submission of fingerprints, and now about 80 percent
Building
Program
of all fingerprints are recorded on live scan devices.
Private
Texas
Security
Criminal
The graph, Submissions of Fingerprints From Arrest and
Fleet
Bureau
History
Services
Court Dispositions, shows the relative distribution of
Uniform
electronic and paper submission of fingerprints from
Crime
2000 to 2006.
Reporting
Major users of the computerized criminal history records and fingerprint
data include law enforcement officials, licensing agencies, criminal justice
agencies, and other authorized non-law enforcement agencies. DPS
currently maintains about 1.5 million records submitted by persons applying
for licensure or employment by one of these authorized submitters.
Crime Records also maintains records on specific crime information for law
enforcement agencies and general records that provide trend information
for research purposes. The Texas Crime Information Center (TCIC)

84

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Submissions of Fingerprints From
is a computerized filing system of
Arrest and Court Dispositions
information on wanted criminals,
1,600,000
missing persons, and stolen vehicles and
property. TCIC also maintains a link 1,400,000
with the Federal Bureau of Investigation 1,200,000
whose National Crime Information
1,000,000
Center provides Texas law enforcement
800,000
agencies with similar information
600,000
from other states. The Texas Data
Exchange (TDEx) is an information
400,000
sharing system that maintains records
200,000
on crime information and jail activities
0
for investigative purposes.
Crime
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
Records maintains TDEx through a
Paper
Electronic
Memorandum of Understanding with
the Governor’s Office, which originally
began the system. The Uniform Crime Reporting function collects statistical
data about the crimes committed in Texas from local law enforcement agencies.
DPS compiles the data to provide information on crimes committed in Texas.
DPS also forwards the data to the U.S. Department of Justice to track crime
rates across the nation.

2006

Staff Support Services
Staff Support Services provides human resources, training, supplies, building
and grounds maintenance, and fleet services to the Department.
The DPS Training Academy provides training to DPS personnel and other
Texas law enforcement agencies. The Academy operates a 26-week trooper
school that each DPS recruit must successfully complete. Subjects taught
include firearm use, communication equipment skills, use-of-force laws,
advanced first aid, DWI detection, and fundamental Spanish. The Academy
also trains DPS employees in management skills, concealed handgun
instructors, and motorcycle operators.
DPS’ building program provides for construction and maintenance of 1.9
million square feet of space in 132 office buildings and 35 leased facilities.
The program includes facility design, construction, and repair of office space
as well as underground fueling tanks, telephone systems, electrical systems,
HVAC, and housekeeping. DPS is under oversight of the Texas Facilities
Commission for construction of new facilities but not the renovation of
existing buildings.

DPS operates a
26-week trooper
school that each
DPS recruit
must successfully
complete.

The Department’s fleet operations purchases all the vehicles used by DPS,
installs equipment into the cars, and repairs disabled vehicles. DPS currently
has about 3,700 vehicles. To support this number of vehicles, DPS operates
a full-service auto shop in Austin capable of all types of mechanical and body
repair; and a smaller satellite shop in Houston. DPS plans two more satellite
shops in Lubbock and Hidalgo County.
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

85

Regulatory Licensing Service

The Department
issued 288,900
concealed
handgun licensees
by the end of
fiscal year 2007.

The Regulatory Licensing Service provides two programs – Concealed
Handgun and Private Security licensing. Concealed Handgun Licensing
(CHL) issues licenses to persons wanting to carry handguns in public
places and to handgun instructors. CHL receives and evaluates applications
for instructors and licensees. To obtain a license, a person must meet the
requirements shown in the textbox, Major Requirements for a Concealed
Handgun License. The Department began taking applications for concealed
handgun licenses in November 1995 and by the end of fiscal year 2007 had
288,900 licensees.
Major Requirements for a Concealed Handgun License
21 years of age, or a member or honorable discharge of the U.S. military and 18
years of age
No felony convictions
No Class A or Class B misdemeanor convictions within five years
Not in arrears for child support, student loans, or taxes
Completion of a handgun training class with demonstrated proficiency

The Private Security Bureau regulates the private security industry in Texas,
including armed (commissioned) and unarmed security guards, and several
related occupations and companies. The Bureau has 27 employees located
at the Department’s Austin headquarters, as well as 30 investigators located
throughout the state. Full-time employed peace officers working second jobs
while off-duty are exempt from some provisions of the Private Security Act.
The table, Private Security Licensing Program, lists the occupational licenses
issued by this program to more than 60,000 individuals in fiscal year 2007.

Private Security Licensing Program – FY 2007
Occupational License

Noncommissioned Security Officer

36,145

Number of
Licensees

Occupational License

Instructor

588

Commissioned Security Officer

9,303

Employee of License Holder

453

Owner/Partner/Shareholder/Officer

4,213

Electronic Access Control Device Installer

391

Alarm Installer

2,955

Security Salesperson

290

Alarm Salesperson

1,992

Personal Protection Officer

201

Alarm System Monitor

1,734

Branch Office Manager

122

Private Investigator

1,638

Security Consultant

94

614

Guard Dog Trainer

46

Locksmith

86

Number of
Licensees

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Private Security Board
In 1969, the Legislature created the Texas Board of Private Detectives,
Private Investigators, Private Patrolmen, and Private Guard Watchmen, and
gradually added other private security occupations to its jurisdiction. The
Legislature changed the name of the agency over the years, and in 2003,
abolished the Texas Commission on Private Security as a stand-alone agency
and transferred its functions to DPS as the Department’s Private Security
Bureau.
The Private Security Board (formerly the Commission) is a seven-member
Board appointed by the Governor to hear appeals by applicants under the
Private Security Act, in addition to recommending rules necessary for the
administration of the Act.
Of the seven members, one
Texas Private Security Board
must be a licensed private
investigator, one must be
Member
City
Qualification
employed by a licensed
alarm system company, John E. Chism
Irving
Private Investigator
Chairman
one must be licensed as the
owner or operator of a guard
Stella Caldera
Houston
Public Member
company, and four must be
Charles E. Crenshaw
Austin
Alarm Systems Company
public members. The current
membership of the Private
Howard H. Johnsen
Dallas
Public Member
Security Board is listed
Mark L. Smith
Dallas
Guard Company
in the table, Texas Private
Security Board. The Board is
Harold G. Warren
Austin
Public Member
separately subject to the Texas
Doris Davis Washington Arlington
Public Member
Sunset Act and is abolished
September 1, 2009, unless
continued by the Legislature.

Term
Expires

2009
2011
2013
2011
2011
2009
2013

Governor’s Division of Emergency Management
The Governor’s Division of Emergency Management (GDEM) seeks to
protect the public from natural and manmade disasters by providing a system
for planning, mitigation, response, and recovery. State law establishes GDEM
as part of the Governor’s Office, though it has been administratively located
at DPS since the 1960s, and its 144 staff are DPS employees. An Executive
Order by the Governor designates the director of the Governor’s Office of
Homeland Security as the director of the Division, while the DPS Division
Chief manages day-to-day operations. The Division had a fiscal year 2007
budget of $290 million, much of which was federal funding passed through
to local governments and other entities. The Division also serves as Texas’
State Administrative Agency, a requirement to receive grant funds from the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security. The graphic on the following page
Governor’s Division of Emergency Management Organizational Chart, illustrates
GDEM’s structure.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

87

GDEM staff develops and maintains state-level emergency and hazard
mitigation plans, and assists local governments with developing their plans.
Staff provides numerous emergency management, hazardous materials, and
hazard mitigation training courses for emergency responders; state, regional,
and local officials; and volunteer groups. GDEM also employs 28 Regional
Liaison Officers across the state who work closely with local officials planning
and carrying out emergency preparedness programs, and helping coordinate
state resources during an emergency. After disasters have struck, GDEM
recovery staff coordinates damage surveys and the recovery process with local
and federal agencies.
Governor’s Division of Emergency Management
Organizational Chart
Chief

Assistant Chief

Preparedness &
Operations

Operation
Border Star is a
high intensity,
multi-agency
effort focused on
reducing crime in
targeted regions
along the TexasMexico border.

88

Response &
Recovery

Administration

Resources &
Logistics

The Division maintains the State Operations Center (SOC), the State’s
principal command and control facility during a disaster. The SOC is staffed
24 hours a day, seven days a week and is located in a reinforced concrete bunker
three stories below ground level. During major emergencies, the SOC houses
the State Emergency Management Council, composed of 30 representatives
from state agencies and two nonprofit organizations. The textbox on the
following page, State Emergency Management Council Members, provides a list
of members. The Director of the Governor’s Office of Homeland Security
chairs the Council. Council members convene to mobilize and deploy
resources in response to emergencies. The SOC also broadcasts Silver and
Amber Alerts, with 19 Silver Alerts helping recover 15 senior citizens since
the program’s inception in 2007, and 36 Amber Alerts helping recover 41
children since 2002.
A separate Border Security Operations Center (BSOC), collocated with the
SOC, monitors activity along the Texas-Mexico border and coordinates state
law enforcement activities in that area with local governments and federal
agencies. BSOC is currently coordinating Operation Border Star, a high
intensity, multi-agency effort focused on reducing crime in targeted regions
along the border. BSOC’s 20 staff are primarily private, civilian contractors.

Director’s Staff
The Director’s Staff includes 463 personnel that prepare and supervise the
Department’s budget, manage legal affairs, operate the Department’s aircraft,
perform internal affairs and audit functions, manage information technology,
and manage employee relations. The Director’s Staff operated with a fiscal
year 2007 budget of $44.9 million.

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

State Emergency Management Council Members
State Agencies
Adjutant General’s Department
Agriculture, Texas Department of
Animal Health Commission, Texas
Attorney General, Office of
Comptroller of Public Accounts
Criminal Justice, Texas Board and Department of
Education Agency, Texas
Engineering Extension Service, Texas
Environmental Quality, Texas Commission on
Facilities Commission, Texas
Fire Protection, Texas Commission on
Forest Service, Texas
Governor’s Division of Emergency Management
General Land Office, Texas

Health and Human Services Commission, Texas
Aging and Disability Services, Department of
Assistive and Rehabilitative Services, Department of
Family and Protective Services, Department of
Health Services, Department of State
Housing and Community Affairs, Texas Department of
Information Resources, Department of
Insurance, Texas Department of
Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas
Public Safety, Department of
Railroad Commission of Texas
Rural Community Affairs, Office of
State Auditor’s Office
Transportation, Texas Department of
Workforce Commission, Texas

Nonprofit Organizations
American Red Cross
Salvation Army

The Office of General Counsel (OGC) advises the Director and agency
management on laws and policies affecting DPS. DPS attorneys also represent
the Department in SOAH hearings. During fiscal year 2007, OGC oversaw
73 active lawsuits; processed 2,830 open records requests; assisted in handling
83 subpoenas; and processed 225 contested cases.
The DPS Aircraft Section uses eight planes and nine helicopters to support
local and state law enforcement and public safety operations. Missions include
investigations; searches for suspects, evidence, and victims; and search-andrescue flights. DPS helicopters flew a total of 3,703
DPS Aircraft Selected Duties
hours and the planes flew 2,533 hours in fiscal year
and Hours Flown – FY 2007
2007. See the table, DPS Aircraft Selected Duties and
Duty
Helicopters
Planes
Hours Flown, for detail on operations. DPS currently
has 29 pilots in nine locations, but will add five
Investigations
2,048
638
helicopters, 17 pilots, and 10 tactical flight officers
Traffic Enforcement
1,154
112
as a result of action by the 80th Legislature. The
Criminal Searches
1,126
190
Department is also increasing the number of aircraft
Search and Rescue
94
3
duty stations to 14, with new stations in Amarillo, El
Paso, Alpine, Del Rio, and Laredo.
Internal Affairs conducts investigations of complaints made against DPS
personnel as assigned by the Director, Assistant Director, or Public Safety
Commission. Internal Affairs investigates all employee firearm discharges
resulting in injury or death. Internal Affairs staff review investigations and
inquiries conducted by field management for completeness, investigative
thoroughness, and sufficiency of evidence.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

89

The Office of Audit and Inspection seeks to conduct independent, objective
reviews and appraisals of DPS operations and procedures. Staff report findings
and recommendations from these reviews to the Public Safety Commission,
executive management, and appropriate program managers. Audit and
Inspection staff also perform standard internal audit functions, including
evaluating the existence of assets and proper safeguards for their protection.

The Employee
Relations Office
reviews all
discrimination
and sexual
harassment
complaints.

90

The Information Management Service provides information technology
services to DPS, including network management, application development,
and systems support. DPS also provides law enforcement agencies across the
state and country with access to critical systems 24 hours a day, 365 days a
year. In addition, staff seeks to formulate policies and procedures to ensure
effective use of agency information systems and automation technologies.
The Employee Relations Office manages two agency programs: conflict
management and dispute resolution, and discrimination and sexual harassment
complaint investigation. These programs provide training, one-on-one conflict
resolution coaching, interest-based problem solving, workplace facilitation,
and mediation to all employees and managers. Through discrimination and
sexual harassment complaint investigation, the Office reviews all complaints
and investigations involving unprofessional conduct, discrimination, sexual
harassment, and related retaliation.

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Department of Public Safety Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Agency Information
Polygraph Examiners Board
Agency at a Glance
To protect the public from untrained polygraph examiners, the Legislature
has provided, since 1965, that only persons licensed by the Polygraph
Examiners Board may use instruments designed to detect deception or verify
truth. Originally part of the Engineering Extension Service at Texas A&M
University, since 1981 the licensing of polygraph examiners has been housed
within the Department of Public Safety (DPS) with a stand-alone Board.
The Board’s primary function is to test, license, and take enforcement action
against violators of the Polygraph Examiners Act.

Key Facts
Funding. In fiscal year 2007, the Polygraph Examiners Board
operated on a budget of $94,440.
Staffing. The Board had two employees in fiscal year 2007.
Licensing. In 2007, the Board issued 16 new licenses and
renewed 227 licenses for polygraph examiners.
Enforcement. The Board investigated and resolved six
complaints in fiscal year 2007.

Only persons licensed
by the Polygraph
Examiners Board may
use instruments designed
to detect deception
or verify truth.

Major Events in Agency History
1965

The Legislature creates the Polygraph Examiners Board within the
Engineering Extension Service at Texas A&M.

1969

The Texas Supreme Court declares the Polygraph Examiners Act
as unconstitutional because of an insufficient bill caption that did
not give proper notice of the Act’s intent. In this same year, the
Legislature reenacted the legislation with few modifications.

1981

The Board’s first Sunset review continues the agency with an
administrative attachment to the Department of Public Safety.

Organization
Policy Body
The Polygraph Examiners Board consists of seven members appointed by the
Governor for six-year terms. The Board includes two polygraph examiners
employed by law enforcement agencies, two commercial polygraph examiners,
and three members of the public. No two Board members may be employed by

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Polygraph Examiners Board Agency Information

91

Polygraph Examiners Board
Term
Expires

Member

City

Qualification

Andy Sheppard
Presiding Officer

Fate

Commercial
Examiner

2009

Commercial
Examiner

2007

Horace Ortiz
Corpus Christi
Assistant Presiding Officer
Priscilla Kleinpeter
Secretary

Amarillo

Public Member

2009

Elizabeth P. “Liz” Bellegarde

El Paso

Public Member

2007

Gory Loveday

Winona

Law Enforcement
Examiner

2011

Lawrence D. Mann

Plano

Public Member

2009

Donald Kevin Schutte

Hooks

Law Enforcement
Examiner

2011

the same person. The Board
elects a presiding officer. The
table, Polygraph Examiners
Board, contains information
on each Board member.
The Board adopts rules
to enforce the Polygraph
Examiners Act, and develops
and grades the licensing
exam. Board rules specify
that all Board members
act as complaint officers
on a rotating basis to assist
the Executive Officer with
complaint investigations,
though in practice, complaints
are usually processed by the
staff. The Board generally
meets four times a year.

Staff
The Board has two staff, both based in Austin at the DPS headquarters.
Employees perform two main functions – licensing and enforcement. The
Executive Officer, under the direction of the Board, manages the agency’s
day-to-day operations and implements Board policy. Generally, the agency’s
staff processes license applications, renewals, and fees, and investigates
complaints. DPS performs administrative functions for the Board, such as
accounting and financial reporting. Because of the agency’s small number
of staff, Sunset staff did not prepare an analysis of the agency’s workforce
composition compared to the overall civilian labor force.

Funding
The Board
receives its
funding through
a line-item
appropriation in
DPS’ bill pattern.

The Board receives its funding through a line-item appropriation in DPS’ bill
pattern in the General Appropriations Act. In fiscal year 2007, the regulation
of polygraph examiners generated total revenues of $119,345 through various
fees and assessments. That same year, the Board spent $94,440 on licensing
and enforcement. The Board deposits its revenue to the credit of the General
Revenue Fund. The administrative functions DPS performs for the Board
cost about $600 annually. Because the Board’s budget is incorporated in DPS’
budget, Sunset staff did not separately analyze the Board’s use of Historically
Underutilized Businesses in its purchases of goods and services.

Agency Operations
The Polygraph Examiners Board regulates polygraph examiners in Texas
through two core functions – licensing and enforcement.

92

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Polygraph Examiners Board Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Licensing
The Board issues licenses for polygraph examiners who meet statutory
requirements, as described in the textbox, Polygraph Examiner License
Requirements. Once licensed, polygraph examiners may conduct polygraph
tests in accordance with the Act and applicable federal law. In 2007, the
Board issued 16 new licenses and renewed 227 licenses.
Polygraph Examiner License Requirements
Bachelor’s degree from an accredited college, or five years of active investigative
experience
Graduation from an approved polygraph school and completion of a six-month
internship, or a 12-month internship
No felony convictions or convictions for misdemeanors involving moral
turpitude
Pass licensing exam

The Board approves polygraph schools based on the school’s training
curriculum, but does not require the school to meet any accreditation
standards. In 2007, the Board approved 13 polygraph schools in the U.S. Two
of the recognized schools are in Texas: the DPS Law Enforcement Polygraph
School and a privately owned school in Corpus Christi. Graduates must
complete 432 hours of instruction in the history and development of the
polygraph exam, law and ethics, physiology, psychology, interrogation and
interviewing techniques, chart interpretation, question formulation and test
construction, and instrumentation.
The required polygraph internship can begin while the applicant is in polygraph
school. The applicant must pay a $150 internship license application fee, pass
the criminal background check, obtain a surety bond or insurance policy for
$5,000, and have an approved intern sponsor. Sponsors must monitor an
intern’s polygraph exams and make regular reports to the Board.
Board members and staff conduct and grade the
three-part licensing exam. Portions of the exam
requiring polygraph subject matter knowledge
are graded by Board members who are licensed
polygraph examiners; public members grade
two of five parts of the oral exam; and agency
staff grades the academic section. A candidate
pays a $150 fee to take the exam and must pass
all three parts to be licensed. Individuals who
fail the test more than three times must wait
12 months to retest. A grade of 70 percent
is required for passing. The textbox, Polygraph
Licensing Exam, outlines the three components
of the exam.
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Polygraph Licensing Exam
The polygraph licensing exam includes:
an academic section which includes objective
questions about state law, anatomy, physiology, chart
interpretation, and other aspects of polygraph;
a scenarios section which requires a candidate to draft
polygraph examinations for hypothetical situations
where exams might be used; and
an oral interview where Board members review the
candidate’s actual, completed polygraph exam results
and interpretation.

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Polygraph Examiners Board Agency Information

93

Polygraph Examiner Fees
Type

Fee

Internship License Application

$150

Examination

$150

Polygraph Examiner License

$500

Examiner License Renewal

$450

The Board issues new licenses for $500, and
licensees must renew annually for a fee of $450.
Licensees must also register in the county where
the examiner maintains a business address. State
law does not require continuing education.
The table, Polygraph Examiner Fees, shows
a summary of fees applicable to polygraph
examiners, excluding late fees.

Enforcement
The agency administratively enforces the Polygraph Examiners Act and
Board rules by investigating complaints and taking enforcement action
against violators if necessary.

In fiscal year
2007, the Board
received and
investigated six
complaints.

A person who alleges a violation of the Act or Board rules must file a
written complaint using a form available from the agency. The agency
notifies the examiner against whom the complaint is filed and investigates
the complaint. The Board does not have authority to perform unannounced,
on-site inspections of polygraph examiners or instruments, but may request
information relevant to the complaint from the examiner.
If investigation shows that the subject of the complaint is not a matter
over which the Board has authority, the Board closes the nonjurisdictional
complaint. In fiscal year 2007, the Board received and investigated six
complaints. Three complaints were held to be unfounded because the
allegations were not supported by the facts. Three complaints were dismissed
because the Board was unable to investigate the allegations.
The Board may take disciplinary action against those who violate the
Polygraph Examiners Act or Board rules, including issuing a reprimand or
denying, suspending, or revoking an examiner’s license. The licensee is entitled
to an administrative hearing, and may appeal a Board decision to district
court. Selected violations for which the Board can take action are included in
the textbox, Examples of Causes for Disciplinary Action.
Examples of Causes for Disciplinary Action
Allowing a license to be used by an unlicensed person.
Falsifying information submitted to the Board for licensing purposes.
Failing to follow prescribed procedures for conducting a polygraph exam.
Using instrumentation that does not meet standards.
Demonstrating unworthiness or incompetency to act as a polygraph examiner.

94

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Polygraph Examiners Board Agency Information

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

APPENDICES

Appendix A
Equal Employment Opportunity Statistics
2005 to 2007
In accordance with the requirements of the Sunset Act, the following material shows trend information
for the Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) employment of minorities and females in all applicable
categories.1 The agency maintains and reports this information under guidelines established by the
Texas Workforce Commission.2 In the charts, the flat lines represent the percentages of the statewide
civilian workforce for African-Americans, Hispanics, and females in each job category. These
percentages provide a yardstick for measuring agencies’ performance in employing persons in each of
these groups. The diamond lines represent the agency’s actual employment percentages in each job
category from 2005 to 2007. The agency met or exceeded statewide civilian labor force percentages for
African-Americans in five of the six categories in all three years. The agency had mixed results with
the Hispanic and female categories.

Administration
African-American

100

40

Agency

Workforce

80

60
40

Workforce

Agency

Percent

Percent

60

Workforce

60
40

20

20

20

0

0

0

Positions:

Female

100

80

80
Percent

Hispanic

100

Agency

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

93

91

75

93

91

75

93

91

75

The agency met the statewide civilian workforce percentages for African-Americans and Hispanic
employees in this category, but fell below for females.

Professional
African-American

60
Agency

Workforce

20

80

60
40 Workforce

Agency

20

0

Female

100

80
Percent

Percent

80

40

Hispanic

100

Percent

100

60
40
20

0

Workforce

Agency

0

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

Positions: 1,192

1,273

1,337

1,192

1,273

1,337

1,192

1,273

1,337

DPS met or exceeded the percentages for African-Americans and Hispanics in this category, but fell
short of percentages for female employment in all three years.
Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Appendix A

95

Appendix A
Technical
African-American

60
40 Agency
20

Workforce

80

60

Agency

40
20

0

Female

100

80
Percent

80
Percent

Hispanic

100

Percent

100

Agency

60
40

Workforce

20
Workforce

0

0

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

Positions: 1,843

1,819

2,003

1,843

1,819

2,003

1,843

1,819

2,003

The agency fell short of percentages for African-Americans in all three years in this category, but
consistently met or exceeded the goals for Hispanics and females.

Administrative Support
African-American

Percent

Percent

60
Agency

Workforce

60

80
Workforce

Agency

40

40

Workforce

0

0

0

Agency

60

20

20

20

Female

100

80

80

40

Hispanic

100

Percent

100

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

Positions: 1,165

1,139

914

1,165

1,139

914

1,165

1,139

914

DPS has consistently exceeded statewide percentages for African-Americans and females in this
category, and consistently met the percentages for Hispanics.

96

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Appendix A

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Appendix A
Service/Maintenance3
African-American

Percent

Percent

60
Agency

Workforce

60

80
Workforce

40
20

20

Workforce

60
40
20

Agency

0

0

Female

100

80

80

40

Hispanic

100

Percent

100

Agency

0

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

Positions: 4,255

4,209

4,343

4,255

4,209

4,343

4,255

4,209

4,343

DPS met the percentages for African-Americans in all three years in this category, but consistently fell
below in the Hispanic and female categories.

Skilled Craft
African-American

60
Agency
Workforce

20

80
Workforce

40
20

0
Positions:

60

Female

100

80
Percent

Percent

80

40

Hispanic

100

Percent

100

40
20

Agency

0

60
Workforce
Agency

0

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

2005

2006

2007

82

99

98

82

99

98

82

99

98

The agency has consistently exceeded the percentages in the African-American category. Percentages
for females have been met in all three years but consistently not met in the Hispanic category.

1

Texas Government Code, sec. 325.011(9)(A).

2

Texas Labor Code, sec. 21.501.

3

The Service/Maintenance category includes three distinct occupational categories: Service/Maintenance, Para-Professionals, and
Protective Services. Protective Service Workers and Para-Professionals used to be reported as separate groups.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Appendix A

97

98

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Appendix A

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Appendix B
Historically Underutilized Businesses Statistics
2004 to 2007
The Legislature has encouraged state agencies to increase their use of Historically Underutilized
Businesses (HUBs) to promote full and equal opportunities for all businesses in state procurement.
The Legislature also requires the Sunset Commission to consider agencies’ compliance with laws and
rules regarding HUB use in its reviews.1
The following material shows trend information for the Department of Public Safety’s (DPS) use of
HUBs in purchasing goods and services. The agency maintains and reports this information under
guidelines in statute.2 In the charts, the flat lines represent the goal for HUB purchasing in each
category, as established by the Comptroller’s Office. The diamond lines represent the percentage of
agency spending with HUBs in each purchasing category from 2004 to 2007. Finally, the number
in parentheses under each year shows the total amount the agency spent in each purchasing category.
Over the last four years, the agency has fallen short of the goals for special trade and other services. The
agency has had mixed success achieving the statewide goals for building construction and professional
services, and has exceeded the goal for commodities purchasing.

Building Construction
100

Percent

80
60

Agency
Goal

40
20
0
2004
($0)

2005
($0)

2006
($332,563)

2007
($2,239,864)

DPS exceeded the goal for building construction in 2007, the first year it spent a significant amount of
funding in that category.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Appendix B

99

Appendix B

Special Trade
100

Percent

80

Goal

60
40

Agency

20
0
2004
($1,173,913)

2005
($1,176,807)

2006
($1,610,417)

2007
($1,732,637)

The agency fell below the statewide special trade goal in all four years.

Professional Services
100

Percent

80
60

Agency

40

Goal

20
0
2004
($259,879)

2005
($385,413)

2006
($213,114)

2007
($371,700)

DPS has exceeded the statewide professional services goal twice in the past four years.

100

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Appendix B

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Appendix B

Other Services
100

Percent

80
60

Goal

40

Agency

20
0
2004
($31,625,705)

2005
($36,004,842)

2006
($45,916,404)

2007
($61,521,882)

DPS has not achieved this goal in the past four years.

Commodities
100

Percent

80
60
40

Agency

20

Goal

0
2004
($54,568,489)

2005
($66,955,213)

2006
($80,415,352)

2007
($83,506,959)

DPS has met or exceeded the commodities goal in the past four years.

1

Texas Government Code, sec. 325.011(9)(B).

2

Texas Government Code, ch. 2161.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Appendix B

101

102

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Appendix B

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Appendix C
Staff Review Activities
During the review of the Department of Public Safety, the Private Security Board, and the Polygraph
Examiners Board, Sunset staff engaged in the following activities that are standard to all Sunset reviews.
Sunset staff worked extensively with agency personnel; spoke with staff from key legislative offices;
conducted interviews and solicited written comments from interest groups and the public; reviewed
agency documents and reports, state statutes, legislative reports, previous legislation, and literature;
researched the organization and functions of similar state agencies in other states; and performed
background and comparative research.
In addition, Sunset staff also performed the following activities unique to this agency.
Attended meetings and interviewed individual members of the Public Safety Commission, the
Private Security Board, and the Polygraph Examiners Board.
Interviewed staff from the Legislative Budget Board, State Auditor’s Office, Texas State Office of
Administrative Hearings, Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation, Texas Department of
Information Resources, Texas Commission on Law Enforcement Officer Standards and Education,
Governor’s Office of Homeland Security, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the Texas
Alcoholic Beverage Commission.
Interviewed officials of law enforcement agencies from other states.
Interviewed law enforcement consultants and academics.
Interviewed regional and local officials involved in emergency management.
Attended a Governor’s Division of Emergency Management Homeland Security conference in
San Antonio.
Toured DPS regional offices in Houston, McAllen, and Lubbock, including crime laboratories,
and visited with representatives of the different services in those regions. Also visited driver license
offices in Levelland, Lubbock, McAllen, and Houston-Gessner.
Toured the DPS commercial vehicle inspection facility in Pharr.
Toured U.S. Border Patrol facility and Joint Operations Intelligence Center in Edinburg.
Toured the DPS firing range and site of future vehicle training track in Florence.
Observed DPS Training Academy tactical simulation drill.
Accompanied DPS Highway Patrol Troopers on patrol and observed traffic stops.
Accompanied vehicle inspection technician on field inspections of licensed inspection stations and
inspectors.
Attended meeting of vehicle inspection regional supervisors.

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Appendix C

103

Appendix C
Accompanied Texas Racing Commission and DPS investigators on an unannounced racetrack
inspection in Schertz.
Observed a polygraph examiner administering an abbreviated exam to a volunteer test subject, and
observed the Polygraph Examiners Board administering the oral boards portion of the polygraph
licensing exam.

104

Department of Public Safety / Polygraph Examiners Board
Appendix C

Sunset Staff Report
May 2008

SUNSET COMMISSION REVIEW OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY
PRIVATE SECURITY BOARD
POLYGRAPH EXAMINERS BOARD

REPORT PREPARED BY:
Amy Trost, Project Manager
Denise Brady
Steve Hopson
Ken Martin
Janet Wood
Ken Levine, Project Supervisor
Joey Longley
Director

Sunset Advisory Commission
PO Box 13066
Austin, TX 78711
Robert E. Johnson Bldg., 6th Floor
1501 North Congress Avenue
Austin, TX 78701
512-463-1300

Fax 512-463-0705

To obtain an electronic version of this report please visit our website at www.sunset.state.tx.us.
In compliance with the Americans With Disabilities Act, this document may be requested in alternative forms.

 

 

The Habeas Citebook Ineffective Counsel Side
PLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x450
Prison Profiteers - Side