HD2 - An Assessment of Eligibility for State Police Officers Retirement System Benefits
Executive Summary: The State Police Officers Retirement System (SPORS) was established in 1950 to provide for earlier retirement of State Police officers. Officers may retire as early as age 55. However, they receive full benefits only if they have completed 30 years of service or remain on the force until age 60. Over the years, other law enforcement groups have sought inclusion in SPORS. However, only local law enforcement groups have been granted retirement benefits similar to those for the State Police. In 1970, the General Assembly extended the option of providing SPORS-like benefits to local jurisdictions. Currently, 48 local governments provide these benefits to their law enforcement officers. The 1986 Appropriations Act directed JLARC to review SPORS and to identify the criteria used to establish it as a separate system. JLARC was further directed to determine which, if any, other groups of law enforcement officers with general police powers would be eligible for SPORS benefits. Analysis of legislative reports on SPORS indicates that the earlier retirement age for SPORS members was intended to counter the effects of age on officer ability to perform State Police duties which regularly placed officers in hazardous situations. A set of criteria was developed to reflect the parameters of State Police work. These criteria were used to compare other law enforcement groups to the State Police. The conclusion drawn from the comparison is that the Department of State Police is unique among all other law enforcement groups in the State. The other groups are not consistently exposed to hazards and risks comparable to those faced by the State Police. A survey of the other 47 contiguous states indicated that all states but one allow their state police to retire earlier than other state employees. While many states also allow certain other law enforcement personnel to retire earlier, Virginia is not alone in restricting this benefit to state police. Based on the findings from the comparisons within Virginia and the survey of the other states, JLARC recommends that SPORS benefits should not be extended to any other State law enforcement groups at this time. Study Methodology In response to Item 13 of the 1986 Appropriations Act, JLARC staff designed a study to: • determine the legislature's intent in establishing SPORS, • establish criteria to regulate membership in SPORS, and • determine which other groups, if any, would be eligible for SPORS benefits. One of the first steps was to develop a comprehensive list of all agencies that appeared to employ sworn law enforcement officers. Twenty groups, including the State Police, were identified as providing a law enforcement function. Second, a set of duty-based criteria was developed to quantify the hazards and risks of law enforcement. Legislative commission reports, interviews with experts in policing, and the study mandate were used to develop four assessment criteria: • sworn law enforcement officers, • general police powers, • unlimited statewide jurisdiction, and • face hazards and risks comparable to the State Police. To be considered eligible for inclusion in SPORS, a law enforcement group had to be comparable to the State Police on all four criteria. Third, the law enforcement groups were contacted and asked to provide the necessary data for the comparisons. Structured data collection instruments were mailed to those groups with a primary law enforcement function. The State Police completed the data collection instrument at the same time as did the other groups. In-person interviews were conducted at all groups sent data collection forms. Initial analysis showed that two groups met the first three screening criteria and encountered some of the same hazards and risks as the Department of State Police. Therefore, field observations were conducted with three agencies: the Department of State Police, the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries (GIF), and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC). Finally, national data on current law enforcement retirement policies were collected. Telephone interviews were conducted with retirement administrators in the other 47 contiguous states. Comparison of Law Enforcement Groups to the State Police All law enforcement groups who participated in the data collection effort were compared to the State Police on all four criteria. However, for discussion purposes within the report, each criterion is considered a screen to each subsequent criterion. This screening process reduces the number of groups discussed in each successive section of the report. Only three groups meet the first three screening criteria. The Department of State Police, the Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries, and the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control employ sworn law enforcement officers with general police powers and unlimited statewide jurisdiction. Therefore, comparisons to the State Police on the criterion of comparable hazards and risks are discussed only for GIF and ABC. ABC enforcement officers and GIF game wardens do not face the same magnitude of hazards and risks as State Police officers. Of nine hazard and risk variables, ABC and GIF are comparable to the State Police on only two variables each. The duties of the State Police are such that they face hazards and risks more consistently than other law enforcement officers. On this criterion, no other group of law enforcement officers in Virginia is comparable to the State Police. Law Enforcement Retirement in Other States The retirement practices in the 48 contiguous states were reviewed to identify any trends in law enforcement retirement. This analysis found that all but one of the states allow their state police officers to retire at an earlier age than other state employees. Virginia is one of 15 states that restricts this benefit to members of its state police. The remaining states permit earlier retirement for certain other law enforcement groups in addition to state police. Game wardens are included in earlier retirement plans in 22 states, and alcoholic beverage enforcement officers are included in 16 states. The retirement systems in most states are funded at least in part by employee contributions. Since State employees in Virginia do not contribute to their retirement, a more meaningful comparison would be among the ten states with non-contributory earlier retirement of law enforcement personnel. State police are eligible for earlier retirement in all ten states. Four states, including Virginia, limit non-contributory earlier retirement to their state police. Game wardens and alcoholic beverage enforcement officers are included in four states and one state, respectively. Two states have non-contributory earlier retirement for state police and certain other law enforcement officers, but not game wardens or alcoholic beverage enforcement officers. Conclusion and Recommendation Within Virginia, the Department of State Police has a unique responsibility to the citizens of the State. This responsibility results in the State Police facing a greater number and degree of hazards and risks than the other law enforcement groups. This comparison is not meant to imply that the other law enforcement groups within the State do not face hazards or physical hardships. However, according to the study data, these hazards are not comparable to those faced by the State Police. Assessment of the retirement trends for law enforcement personnel in other states shows that the only prevailing practice is that State Police can retire earlier than other employees. There is no predominate trend for the earlier retirement of other law enforcement officers. In light of these findings, JLARC recommends that the State Police Officers Retirement System should remain solely for those positions within the State Police that are currently covered. No other law enforcement groups should be added at this time. |
Menu
Published Documents
