LIST OF ACRONYMS
DAS
Deputy Assistant Secretary
DHS
U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOI
United States Department of the Interior
ELO
Emergency Law and Order [funds]
FLETC
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
FOIA
Freedom of Information Act
FY
Fiscal Year
GGNRA
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
GNRA
Gateway National Recreation Area
GSA
General Services Administration
HRED
Human Resources and Employee Development
IACP
International Association of Chief’s of Police
IG
Inspector General
LENA
Law Enforcement Needs Assessment
LETF
Law Enforcement Task Force
MPD
[Washington, DC] Metropolitan Police Department
NCR
National Capital Region
NLC
National Leadership Council
NPS
National Park Service
OFS
Operating Formulation System
OLES
Office of Law Enforcement and Security (departmental office)
USPP
United States Park Police
VRAP
Visitor Management Resource Protection Assessment Program
IMPLEMENTATION OF
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACADEMY PANEL 2001
REPORT
ON THE U.S. PARK
POLICE
In the conference report on the Department of the Interior’s
Fiscal Year (FY) 2001 Appropriations Act, Congress directed the National Park
Service (NPS) to contract with the National Academy of Public Administration
(the Academy) to conduct an independent review of the United States Park
Police’s (USPP’s) structure and financial plan. NPS contracted with the
Academy in January 2001 to conduct this study, which addressed four principal
areas:
·
Whether USPP’s goals and missions are in accordance with statutory
and regulatory requirements
·
Current USPP functions or activities that may go beyond NPS’
mission or support the functions of other federal, state, or local law
enforcement agencies, including USPP costs associated with such activities
·
Current and projected USPP staffing needs, including the
methodology used to develop them
·
Actual USPP spending over the last three years relative to planned
spending, with a focus on specific items including overtime and special
deployments, new personnel activities, helicopter operating costs, and equipment
replacement
In August 2001, an Academy Panel issued its report, The U.S.
Park Police: Focusing Priorities, Capabilities, and Resources for the
Future, which contained 20
recommendations geared to clarifying the mission, developing and executing an
integrated and comprehensive USPP budget, and conducting a thorough assessment
of staffing needs as they relate to mission.
After the August 2001 report was issued, a number of major
changes occurred. First were the 9/11 terrorist attacks, which have led
NPS and USPP to place increased emphasis on the protection of park monuments in
the Washington, DC area and at the Statue of Liberty. NPS appointed a new
USPP Chief, Teresa C. Chambers, who took office in February 2002. The
establishment of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), increased
local, state, and federal counterterrorism activities, and improved law
enforcement cooperation and coordination may also be affecting USPP’s roles,
functions, and organizational structure. In addition to these
developments, there continue to be questions about the increasing USPP budget
and implementation of the Academy Panel’s 2001 recommendations. Congress, in the
conference report on the FY 2004 Interior Appropriation bill, directed NPS to
contract with the Academy to do a follow-up study on the recommendations made in
its 2001 report.
The Academy’s study is being conducted in two phases that
include the following areas:
- Phase I: Review the implementation status of the
recommendations made in the August 2001 report and examine the rationale for
non-concurrence, where applicable.
- Phase II: Evaluate the USPP mission, roles, and functions,
the resources allocated to them, and relative priority.
Ø
Examine whether roles and functions have changed since 9/11 in
terms of their relationship to mission, needs and priorities.
Ø
Identify budget resources used to fulfill specific functions, USPP
priorities assigned to each function, and assess the feasibility of adjusting
currently performed functions assuming constrained budgets in the next few
years.
There have also been a number of significant changes at the
Department of Interior (DOI), NPS, and USPP that affected the actions taken on
those 20 recommendations in the August 2001 report. DOI has undertaken a
number of law enforcement reforms in response to changing security needs in the
wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and recommendations from some internal DOI
reports. Newly appointed managers at DOI, NPS, and USPP have attempted to
define their roles in setting law enforcement policy and determining law
enforcement resource requirements. Recent trends in USPP budget and
personnel resources have also reinforced the importance of implementing many of
the August 2001 recommendations.
This report will summarize these major changes before
assessing the implementation status of the 20 recommendations.
LAW ENFORCEMENT REFORMS AT INTERIOR
Interior Secretary Gale Norton
requested that the Inspector General (IG) assess the actions needed for
effective departmental law enforcement, and the IG staff reviewed the seven
distinct organization units in five DOI bureaus, which contain nearly 4,400 law
enforcement officers. This IG study, published in January 2002, led the
Secretary to establish a special review panel to improve law enforcement
throughout the department. The Secretary approved more than 20 measures
this special review panel proposed, including the appointment of a Deputy
Assistant Secretary (DAS) for law enforcement and security. The measures,
which were largely consistent with the IG recommendations,
were designed to improve training, supervision, oversight and coordination among
the five Interior bureaus with law enforcement personnel: National Park Service,
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and Bureau of Reclamation.
Among the recommendations the
Secretary approved are:
- The five bureaus will establish a
senior-level Director of Law Enforcement and fill it with an experienced law
enforcement professional. This position will report directly to the Bureau
Director or Deputy Director. These directors will serve as members of the
Secretary's Law Enforcement and Security Board of Advisors.
- The bureaus will alter their chains
of commands to have law enforcement Special Agents in the field report
directly to the Bureau Directors of Law Enforcement rather than to non-law
enforcement management.
- A single departmental Internal
Affairs Unit will be established in the Office of Law Enforcement and Security
(OLES), to provide independent, objective oversight over all departmental law
enforcement officers and managers.
In August 2003, the IG issued a progress report on the
Secretary’s directives on law enforcement reform.
It found that OLES and the bureaus had made efforts to improve law enforcement,
but that the pace was initially slow moving because of early resistance.
One that was proceeding well was Directive 5, ordering the coordination and
review responsibility for law enforcement and security budgets be formally
shared between the DAS for OLES and the DAS for budget and finance. NPS
created the position of Associate Director for Resource and Visitor Protection
to respond to this reform effort.
OVERVIEW OF LEADERSHIP CHANGES
IN NPS AND USPP SINCE AUGUST 2001
In July 2001, as work on the first project was completed,
Fran P. Mainella became the NPS Director, having previously served as Director
of Florida’s Division of Recreation and Parks. She appointed Teresa C.
Chambers, then Chief of Police in Durham, NC and formerly with the Prince
George’s County Police Department in Maryland, to become USPP Chief; Chambers
was sworn in February 2002. She reports to Deputy NPS Director Donald W.
Murphy, who joined NPS in the fall of 2001 from the California Department of
Parks and Recreation.
The post-9/11 security environment supported DOI and NPS
efforts to improve the structure and operations of their law enforcement
organizations. For example, all NPS law enforcement activities, except for
USPP, were consolidated under one office and, along with USPP, report to Deputy
Director Donald Murphy. Karen Taylor-Goodrich, former Director of NPS Park
Operations, was appointed to the newly created position of Associate Director
for Resource and Visitor Protection. Taylor-Goodrich has line authority
over NPS’ 60 Special Agents, who primarily investigate crime in national parks,
and oversight of the 1,400 Law Enforcement Rangers (also called Protection
Rangers) who work in the 384 parks and report directly to park
Superintendents. Under Taylor-Goodrich is the Office of Law Enforcement
and Emergency Services, headed by Don Coehlo, former Chief Law Enforcement
Ranger at Yosemite. This office has coordinated preparation of the Law
Enforcement Needs Assessments (LENAs) that each park prepared according to a
template Taylor-Goodrich issued.
Taylor-Goodrich does not have authority over USPP. She
and the USPP Chief are organizational equals and both serve as members of the
NPS National Leadership Council (NLC).
DOI created the position of DAS for Law Enforcement and
Security, which oversees all DOI law enforcement activities and is headed by
Larry Parkinson, formerly a prosecutor with Washington, DC Superior Court, and
FBI General Counsel. Under him is the Director of Law Enforcement and
Security, Steve Calvery. When Secretary Norton established Parkinson’s
office (which reports to Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy,
Management and Budget) she described it as having “broad responsibilities, including developing law
enforcement staffing models, establishing consistent departmental training
requirements and monitoring their implementation, overseeing the hiring of key
law enforcement and security personnel, establishing updated emergency
procedures, and overseeing and reviewing bureau law enforcement and security
budgets.”
At the Secretary's discretion, the DAS can also be given direct authority in
times of emergency to oversee the deployment of all departmental law enforcement
officers.
Within USPP, Chief Chambers made a number of leadership
changes. She elevated former Deputy Chief Benjamin J. Holmes Jr. to
Assistant Chief and brought in several others for top positions. They are:
Dwight E. Pettiford, Deputy Chief for Operations and formerly with the Durham,
NC Police Department; Barry S. Beam, Deputy Chief for Field Offices and formerly
with the Prince George’s County Police; and Pamela L. Blyth, the Civilian
Manager for Organizational Development and Fiscal Management. The Deputy
Chief positions were announced competitively, and Academy staff have been told
that several USPP majors applied for the positions.
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF CHANGES IN CRIME OR INCIDENT DATA
Academy staff have compiled statistical data on crime
trends and enforcement patterns for 2001, 2002, and the first six months of 2003
to update the summary of incidents in the USPP jurisdictions shown in the August
2001 report. These data are presented to document overall trends and major
changes in crime trends.
In general, the data confirm that the nationwide downturn
in urban crime continued and applied to USPP venues. The incident closure
rates have generally improved, and the percentage of incidents outside of NPS
jurisdiction has declined marginally. For example, USPP incidents
involving violent crimes in the Washington, DC area decreased between 2000 and
2002 from 265 to 189, and property crimes decreased similarly from 409 to 275,
with the downtrends continuing into 2003. Traffic incidents, including
citations and warnings, increased marginally (from 4,813 to 4,919) between 2000
and 2002, but were off markedly in the first six months of 2003. Vehicle
accidents increased from 3,197 to 3,413 between 2000 and 2003, but decreased
sharply in the first half of 2003.
In New York, violent and property crimes, lesser crimes, and
traffic incidents and accidents are down markedly. In San Francisco,
violent crime increased, but there was reduced property crime. Traffic
incidents there rose sharply from 1,317 to 2,593 between 2000 and 2002, and
vehicle accidents also increased from 149 to 168.
BRIEF OVERVIEW OF USPP SINCE 2001
Staffing Levels
Looking at absolute staffing numbers between 2001 and 2003
would indicate a relatively stable state for sworn officers, but this belies a
great deal of fluctuation. Table 1 contains data on aggregate staffing
levels for officers, civilians, and civil-service guards.
Table 1
USPP Staffing
Levels
2001-03
|
Position |
12/31/01 |
12/31/02 |
1/21/04* |
|
Chief/Asst/Dep |
3 |
4 |
4 |
|
Major |
10 |
8 |
8 |
|
Captain |
25 |
19 |
17 |
|
Lieutenant |
39 |
43 |
40 |
|
Sergeant |
125 |
118 |
107 |
|
Detective |
16 |
15 |
16 |
|
Privates |
407 |
395 |
423 |
|
Total Sworn |
625 |
602 |
615 |
|
Civilian |
91 |
99 |
108 |
|
Guards (CS) |
25 |
27 |
25 |
|
All staff |
741 |
728 |
748 |
* 1/21/04 data are from a staffing
list and are not likely to be the
exact staffing numbers that will
be in the 2003 USPP Annual Report;
the 2001 and 2002 data are from
previous USPP Annual Reports.
These “end strength” data reflect
filled positions at a given date and are not FTEs.
Table 1 shows a net loss of ten officers between 2001 and
2003, with a gain of seventeen civilians. In calendar year 2002, USPP had
44 graduates in its recruit classes and in calendar year 2003 there were
70. However, there were substantial retirements during that time (26 in
2002 and 18 in 2003), and a larger number of resignations (52 and 28,
respectively). USPP staff indicated that many of the resignations
were officers who left to go to the Department of Homeland Security.
Spending Levels
USPP operational costs have increased substantially over the
last few years. From FY 2000 to FY 2003, the USPP appropriation for
operations – the major source of USPP operational funds – increased from $54.4
million to $77.9 million. This 43.2% increase substantially exceeded the
22% increase in the overall NPS operations appropriation.
In addition, the appropriation was augmented by funds from
the Emergency Supplemental for Terrorism ($1.4 million in FY 2001 and $25.3
million in FY 2002). These no-year funds helped sustain higher USPP spending
levels in FYs 2001, 2002, and 2003. However, once these supplemental funds
were exhausted, a significant “funding gap” emerged in FY 2004 between the
enacted appropriations and previous levels of USPP operation. This
situation resurrected many of the same concerns that led to the 2001 Academy
study.
IMPLEMENTATION OF AUGUST
2001 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Academy Panel’s August 2001 report was issued when USPP
still reported to NPS’ National Capital Region (NCR). Initially, the NCR
Regional Director established and led a study group of USPP and NCR staff to
develop steps for implementation. This group discussed the recommendations
and initially developed a strategy for when actions could be taken and who would
review proposals. When USPP began to report directly to the NPS Director,
it assumed direct responsibility for most of the recommendations.
The Conference Report (H.R. 107-234) accompanying the
Interior FY 2002 Interior Appropriations bill noted that the department, in
cooperation with NPS, should develop a detailed plan to implement Academy
Panel’s recommendations and forward that plan to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations. The Assistant Secretary of Interior for Policy,
Management, and Budget sent a letter (April 14, 2003) to the Chairman of the
House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies describing
progress achieved on the 20 Academy Panel recommendations. In a September
24, 2003 memorandum to NPS Deputy Director Murphy, Chief Chambers updated
progress.
To prepare this report, the Panel reviewed each of the 20
recommendations and the extent to which either DOI, NPS, or USPP had implemented
them. In some cases, more than one organization had a role. The
Panel divided implementation achievement into five categories:
·
Fully implemented
·
Moderate progress
·
Limited progress
·
No progress
·
Rejected
The following section of this report provides the Panel’s
views about the implementation status of each recommendation, a brief paragraph
providing an explanation or the rationale for that assessment, and a section
providing more complete details documenting specific actions taken. The
recommendations are organized in the three functional categories used in the
first report: roles and missions, budgeting, and staffing.
The Panel found substantial variation in the progress
made to implement the August 2001 recommendations. In sum, four were fully
implemented and two were rejected. For the others, there had been limited
progress made for the vast majority (ten), moderate progress for three, and no
progress for one.
I.
Roles and Missions
1. The Secretary of
the Interior, in conjunction with the Director of the National Park Service,
clarify the mission, responsibilities, and priorities of the U.S. Park
Police.
Status: Limited
Progress
Explanation or Rationale
for Current Status
A new mission statement,
revised responsibilities, and clear priorities for USPP have yet to be
developed. The department has made some priorities explicit, such as icon
security, but most other activities, such as parking enforcement, escort duties,
and drug enforcement, continue largely on the basis of historical precedent,
mutual accommodation, or other factors without explicit prioritization.
Since mid-summer 2003, a departmental level committee with NPS and USPP
participation has been intensively reviewing USPP activities and functions with
a view to clarify the mission and elaborate on priorities by the end of February
2004.
Discussion Documenting
Actions Taken
Existing, long-standing
statutory guidance and more recent internal statements on USPP mission,
responsibilities, and priorities have not changed. These include:
·
The NPS Organic Act, 16 U.S.C. 1, as amended, which directs the
protection of the park system’s natural and cultural resources and the safety
and security of visitors, employees, and concessionaires
·
A 1882 statute that extends the duties of the USPP, originally
park watchmen established by President Washington, to include the same powers
and duties as the Metropolitan [Washington, DC] Police
·
A variety of statutes between 1928 and 1948 expanding USPP’s
jurisdiction beyond Washington, DC to nearby roads, parkways, and Virginia and
Maryland counties
In the Spring 2002, NPS
formed a Law Enforcement Task Force (LETF) to address the findings and
recommendations of several studies
of law enforcement in DOI, including those of the Academy Panel. The LETF
adopted the following mission statement covering NPS rangers and USPP
officers:
“In support of the National Park Service mission,
law enforcement serves the public interest to protect resources and people,
prevent crime, conduct investigations, apprehend criminals, and serve the needs
of visitors.”
In March 2002, this LETF
also assigned actions to implement various recommendations in these reports to
working groups and individuals. These included tasking the new USPP Chief
to develop a new staffing needs analysis system similar to a revised visitor
management and resource protection assessment program (VRAP), which was to be
adopted service-wide. Both had a scheduled due date of June 1, 2002.
The Chief was also to provide a comprehensive staffing needs assessment using
either VRAP or a better methodology by that date. According to the Deputy
Director, this assessment was to include a review of USPP’s mission that took
account of the Academy Panel’s recommendations.
The revised VRAP analysis and associated LENA were delayed until June 2003, and
the new USPP staffing analysis system has yet to be defined.
In the interim, several
actions reflecting priority decisions, primarily associated with icon
protection, were reflected in funding for the USPP. Post-9/11 supplemental
funds of $25.3 million for the USPP were used in 2002 and 2003 to provide for
additional patrols and overtime in Washington, DC and New York, upgrades to
security equipment, and a third recruit class in 2002 to maintain adequate force
levels. The FY 2003 budget, largely prepared by USPP and reviewed by
regional and NPS headquarters in late 2001 after the Academy report, provided an
additional $12.6 million for USPP for contract guards, pay increases, and 48
additional personnel workyears.
In April 2003, OLES
provided guidance for a budget review by a high-level committee composed of
OLES, the department’s budget office, and the NPS Deputy Director. The
focus was on the FY 2005 budget, but the review included consideration of
mission, programs, and priorities for all DOI law enforcement activities.
Guidance for the review indicated that requests for increased resources should
emphasize:
·
Infrastructure protection, to include symbolically important
national monuments, key dams, and resources
·
Implementation of reforms approved by the Secretary that resulted
from the January 2002 IG study of departmental law enforcement
·
Border protection and control
·
Law enforcement officer safety
Just prior to this
committee’s July 16, 2003 meeting on the USPP budget, the USPP Chief submitted
electronically a draft staffing study, which stated that it did not address
priorities because USPP lacked the authority to judge priorities. The
report provided a listing of significant areas, organizational components,
patrol beats, and fixed posts, but did not articulate a force-sizing
rationale.
This draft staffing study,
which called for an increase of 900 to 1,075 sworn officers relative to the
current level of 620,
led NPS to conclude that it could not successfully delegate to USPP the task of
clarifying its mission and setting priorities within currently available
resources. After this mid-summer budget review was completed, the committee
decided to explore USPP’s mission, responsibilities, and priorities more
thoroughly through a series of weekly meetings with USPP components. This
process is ongoing, and expected to be completed by the end of February
2004.
2.
The U.S. Park Police mission increasingly focus on Washington, DC, as the
nation’s capital, and on its surrounding areas. Priority should be given
to the safety and assistance of park visitors, the protection of resources,
particularly monuments, memorials, and other national treasures from damage and
terrorism, and the management of special events and demonstrations.
Status: Limited Progress
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
NPS indicated support for better focusing USPP’s mission,
while recognizing that certain USPP activities extended beyond NPS’ mission.
NPS rejected, however, the recommendation to transfer USPP
responsibilities in the New York area and some in the San Francisco area to park
rangers (see # 3 below). NPS icons were afforded increased priority
after 9/11, but the priorities associated with core, specialized, and urban
policing functions discussed in the Academy report have not been addressed more
specifically or in terms that would better focus USPP activities.
Discussion Documenting Actions Taken
After 9/11, USPP identified security improvements, including
higher staffing levels based on the homeland security alert condition, for the
Washington, DC Mall icons, as well as the Statue of Liberty. These
were reviewed by the Secret Service and, after some modifications, accepted by
NPS, OLES, and the Secretary of Interior. Current priorities do not
specifically address the management of special events and demonstrations.
When NPS issues permits for Washington, DC Mall activities, USPP is heavily
engaged in these events, such as the 40th anniversary of Martin
Luther King’s speech and NFL kick-off week, and demonstrations, such as World
Bank/International Monetary Fund and anti-war protests.
The 2001 Academy report identified functions that the Panel
believed were not directly related to the USPP and/or the NPS mission.
Between 10% and 15% of the incidents USPP were involved in occurred outside NPS
jurisdiction.
Some specialized functions such as presidential and foreign dignitary escorts,
urban functions like drug enforcement, and even some core functions such as
parking and traffic control were not directly related to the NPS mission, and
the priority assigned to these activities needed to be reexamined. USPP
clearly believes these functions are part of its core mission and are related to
visitor safety. The Academy Panel had also suggested using reimbursements to
determine the value of continuing to assign ten high-ranking USPP officers as
law enforcement specialists to the NPS regions. NPS formed another
group to examine the regional law enforcement specialist, but reached no
resolution. NPS concluded that providing presidential and dignitary
escorts “on and through parklands” was “appropriate” and agreed to provide
similar vice-presidential escorts after 9/11. NPS also noted that
combating drugs in parks extended “of necessity” beyond parklands.
3.
The National Park Service work with its park superintendents in New York and San
Francisco to transfer the U.S. Park Police’s current responsibilities in these
locations to park rangers. These should include Park Police activities at
the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA),
and Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), except for the Presidio
Trust.
Status:
Rejected
Explanation or Rationale
for Current Status
As noted above, NPS did not
concur with this recommendation, concluding “it would be inappropriate,
especially at this time, to withdraw the Park Police from their mission to
provide visitor and resource protection to national Parks in New York and
California.” NPS recently said that it is readdressing USPP’s roles
in San Francisco and New York within the context of the on-going OLES/NPS review
of USPP activities.
Discussion Documenting
Actions Taken
There have been no specific
actions taken to transfer responsibilities for New York or San Francisco to park
rangers. Neither NPS nor USPP explored the pros and cons of this
recommendation, or explored more limited adjustments between USPP and park
rangers in the Presidio and at the Statue of Liberty, prior to rejecting the
recommendation. NPS cited the increased priority associated with urban
policing in the aftermath of 9/11, the increased security required at the Statue
of Liberty, as well as the increased need to protect the park-based approaches
to the Verrazano and Golden Gate bridges in New York and San Francisco.
USPP argues that urban coverage has become increasingly important and that
transition to rangers would disrupt coverage and promote undesirable retirements
within USPP. Park rangers maintain they don’t have the personnel to handle
these additional assignments, and NPS is concerned that numerous USPP officers
would leave rather than transfer to the park ranger force. Recently, NPS
indicated that the current OLES/NPS review was readdressing possible field
office adjustments, particularly in San Francisco.
4. The
U.S. Park Police and the National Park Service work toward joint operations and
involving state and local police forces in patrolling major commuter parkways,
investigating accidents, controlling traffic and parking enforcement, and
providing neighborhood policing services. The long-term goal should be to
transfer or contract out these activities, whenever possible, to state and local
jurisdictions.
Status: Limited
Progress
Explanation or Rationale
for Current Status
There were early
unsuccessful attempts by USPP to engage other jurisdictions in a transfer of
responsibilities, and USPP did not renew a Memorandum of Understanding to
provide services to the Washington, DC juvenile detention facility in
Maryland. The new USPP Chief seemed more willing than her predecessors to
explore using other law enforcement forces, including park rangers, to fulfill
the USPP mission. In addition, USPP no longer supports active-duty
participation in grade and high school anti-drug education programs.
Discussion Documenting
Actions Taken
In early 2002, the
then-acting Chief of USPP (sent letters to local Washington, DC area
jurisdictions (primarily counties) seeking their participation in discussing the
concept of transferring responsibilities, rather than working toward joint
operations. USPP staff said that only one jurisdiction (Montgomery County,
Maryland) replied, and it raised the question of reimbursement.
Separately, USPP terminated a police support agreement it had with a Washington,
DC government children’s correctional facility in Maryland. The District’s
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) picked up this responsibility. In
addition, USPP curtailed active-duty officer participation in community drug
education activities in local area grade and high schools.
Also, rangers took the lead
in establishing a Potomac River fisheries task force, in which both USPP and MPD
actively participated. The rangers and USPP are also in the process of
formally adopting a cooperative policing arrangement along the C&O Canal to
provide better coverage. USPP also increasingly relied on and reimbursed
police from local jurisdictions during special events and demonstrations on the
Washington, DC Mall.
5. The
U.S. Park Police Chief be subordinated to the Director of the National Park
Service, rather than the Director of the National Capital Region.
Status: Fully Implemented
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
By NPS memorandum of January 2002, the USPP Chief was
directed to report to the Director through the Deputy Director of NPS rather
than to the NCR Director under the previous arrangement. This change recognized
the multi-regional responsibilities of USPP and that some responsibilities, such
as personal protection, escorts and demonstrations, transcend park and regional
interests, and were national in scope. The USPP Chief was also added to
NPS’ National Leadership Council comprised of NPS regional directors and senior
NPS staff.
6.
Executive search firms, such as Police Executive Research Forum and the
International Association of Chiefs of Police, be used to identify
candidates for Park Police Chief who not only have law enforcement credentials
and experience, but also a strong managerial background and demonstrated
leadership capabilities.
Status: Fully
Implemented
Explanation or Rationale for
Current Status
Chief
Chambers’ selection and appointment resulted from a national search, and
wide-ranging solicitation produced 26 outside and six inside candidates. Though
executive search firms were not involved in the process, NPS used the bulletin
boards of national law enforcement organizations to solicit candidates.
The NPS Director believed the applicants were well-qualified and represented a
good cross section of candidates. Chambers rose through the ranks to major
and served as a District Commander in Prince Georges County and was serving as
the Chief of the Durham, N.C. police force immediately prior to her appointment
as USPP Chief.
II. Budgeting
7. The U.S.
Park Police, in conjunction with the National Park Service and within its
current appropriation account structure, develop a unified, integrated, and
comprehensive Park Police budget. It should include estimates for all
costs, both operating and construction or rehabilitation, and funding from all
sources, whether appropriations, user fees, other reimbursements, or emergency
law and order funds. This budget should be provided to and monitored by
the Park Police Chief, the Park Service, Interior, and Congress.
Status:
Limited Progress
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
The creation of a separate line item appropriation for USPP
operations in the FY 2001 Interior Appropriations bill has consolidated most
Washington, DC, New York and San Francisco operating costs into one aggregate
operating budget. But, the appropriation does not account for planned
reimbursable activity, some capital spending, or USPP’s total annual use
of emergency law and order (ELO) funds and other special event reimbursements
(e.g. from unplanned, special events such as the NFL’s kick-off week). A
comprehensive USPP budget reflecting total resources used annually would include
these additional funds in addition to the annual appropriation for
operations.
Discussion Documenting Actions Taken
The
creation of a separate line item appropriation for USPP operations in the FY
2001 Interior Appropriations bill was an important first step in developing a
comprehensive USPP budget. It consolidated most, but not all, USPP operating
costs for San Francisco, New York, and Washington, DC into a single, highly
visible, annual appropriation. But the appropriation does not account for
planned reimbursable activity funded by other governmental (e.g. Presidio Trust,
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC))
or private (e.g. Fort Wadsworth, scheduled event sponsors) entities. In
addition, the USPP appropriation also excludes contingency funds used by USPP
(ELO funds, special event reimbursements) and some USPP capital spending. For
example, funding for some USPP capital equipment and maintenance costs (e.g.
buildings or telecommunications, such as narrowband conversion) continues to
come from NPS appropriations for construction and major maintenance—the same as
it does for all other NPS parks.
In the
April 14, 2003 DOI letter to the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee (the
“April 2003 memorandum”), NPS concurred with the recommendation and noted that
“all funds being obligated by the Force, regardless of fund source, have been
included in the U.S. Park Police Financial Plan.” However, the FY 2003
USPP financial plan still contained only appropriated operating funds. The
FY 2004 financial plan is not yet completed. In addition, other published budget
documents, including the NPS “green book” and the President’s budget appendix,
do not add reimbursements, building repair and maintenance, and contingency
budget spending to the annual USPP operations appropriation to present a
comprehensive USPP budget. USPP staff note that, given the uncertainty
surrounding the timing and size of specific special events, the amount of
contingency funds USPP uses in any year varies significantly and is therefore
difficult to project and include in a proposed financial plan.
The
annual “financial advice” provided by the NPS Comptroller contains the USPP
enacted operations appropriation, with separate amounts established for
Washington, DC, San Francisco and New York. Previously, USPP had received
separate allotments from NCR, as well as the east and west regions for
Washington, DC, New York, and San Francisco, respectively. The Chief
did not necessarily receive the New York and San Francisco allotments. USPP
staff indicate that they are now starting to develop a comprehensive budget to
include major reimbursements (e.g. the Presidio Trust reimbursement for San
Francisco) and the FY 2004 financial plan should confirm this.
USPP
and NPS staff also acknowledge that the creation of a separate appropriation for
USPP operations – which enhances visibility of USPP operating costs and the
ability of the USPP Chief to present, justify and implement a unified USPP
budget – has produced some disadvantages. The principal one is the limited
ability of the much larger NPS budget to provide emergency relief to high
priority USPP law enforcement spending needs without additional appropriations
action. Current legislative language limits the transfer authority between the
NPS and USPP operations appropriation to $10,000 per transaction. While
NPS and USPP staff initially agreed to this limit, its size may be inhibiting
USPP’s ability to obtain reimbursement for some services provided to other NPS
parks. (See recommendation # 10 below.)
Both
USPP and NPS recognize the need for a comprehensive USPP budget and have taken
steps to develop one. However, current budget documents do not yet provide
a readily available summary of USPP’s total resource use annually.
8.
The U.S. Park Police components, in conjunction with the
superintendents of the parks they service, develop and submit their budgets to
the Park Police Chief. In turn, the Chief should submit a unified budget
proposal to the Director of the National Park Service.
Status: Limited
Progress
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
USPP uses NPS’s Operating Formulation System (OFS) to develop
and submit recommended budget initiatives to augment its currently enacted,
baseline, operating budget. The USPP Chief ranked each of the proposed
initiatives, but they do not appear to arise from the detailed, joint NPS/ USPP
review of park level law enforcement needs (at least in the Washington, DC area)
called for by the Academy’s recommendation. The process for developing budget
initiatives and the role of major commanders within USPP are also not clearly
established.
Discussion Documenting Actions Taken
NPS concurred with this recommendation and noted in the April
2003 memorandum that “procedures are currently being developed to facilitate
this recommendation and will be fully implemented with the formulation of the FY
2004 budget.” The development, review, and final formulation of the annual
USPP budget has evolved as newly appointed DOI, NPS and USPP managers became
more familiar with the DOI budget system and their roles in it.
To start its budget formulation process, DOI issues a budget
call to each of its bureaus (e.g., NPS) providing policy guidance and other
information to develop the department’s annual budget. Each bureau, in
turn, uses its own internal system to develop the bureau budget. The NPS
budget development process (the OFS system) now used by USPP does not require a
formal bottoms-up review of law enforcement services required from
USPP by individual parks. Instead, OFS seeks budget initiatives from the
regions and USPP to add to the baseline operating budgets currently in
effect. This system is similar to other incremental budget processes that
seek to determine the costs of maintaining current services and then identify
additional resources needed to meet new requirements.
Prior to the FY 2004 budget, the USPP budget had been
developed by the administrative staff of NCR. They helped USPP develop the
budget for the Washington, DC area, and received the USPP budget components from
San Francisco and New York that was developed by the parks served by the USPP in
those two regions. Because the new USPP leadership was not familiar with
the OFS system, much of the FY 2004 USPP budget development was done by the NPS
Comptroller’s office.
USPP staff supplied the data requested, but there did not appear to be any
formal meetings with the Chief to review that budget.
In contrast, the FY 2005 budget process involved a series of
meetings for all DOI law enforcement entities with DOI’s newly created OLES.
These meetings occurred during late Spring and Summer of 2003 and involved
a review of each law enforcement agency’s FY 2004 and FY 2005 budgets with the
agency head. This process was intended to implement the Secretary’s law
enforcement directives and ensure greater consistency among all DOI law
enforcement budgets. The review of the USPP budget for FY 2004 and FY 2005
during this process identified a significant shortfall if the USPP were to meet
icon protection requirements, maintain its existing park patrols, continue to
respond to other planned law enforcement needs (e.g. escort duties, medivac
operations, drug enforcement, etc.) and support sufficient new officer training
to meet overall USPP staffing targets.
Academy staff interviews revealed that there was little
formal interaction between park superintendents and USPP management in
developing USPP budget initiatives or reviewing ongoing USPP activities for
either the FY 2004 or FY 2005 budgets. While the OFS system may not
require the type of bottoms-up budget development contemplated in the Academy
Panel recommendation, it does not preclude USPP from pursuing such a
process. That has not yet been done, in part because communications
between the Chief and senior NPS management in NCR has deteriorated for a number
of reasons. However, day-to-day activities continue to be coordinated
effectively between the park superintendents and the USPP district commanders
servicing individual parks.
9.
The Park Police Chief, early in the fiscal year, provide separate
budget allotments to major commanders in its field offices and major components
that include appropriated funds allotted by the park service, as well as
anticipated reimbursements. Major Park Police commanders, like park
superintendents, should be expected to operate their commands during the year
within the budget allocations. The Chief should work with the commanders
and park service staff to develop appropriately detailed financial plans to
accompany these allocations, including restrictions on the use of selected
resources where appropriate and desired.
Status: Limited Progress
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
USPP budget staff did provide spending allotments for the
major Washington, DC commanders, through the Deputy Chief for Operations, for a
number of non-personnel expenditures in FY 2003. However, personnel
resources in Washington, DC were controlled centrally. Moreover,
commanders were not able to reallocate the allotments among spending categories
(e.g. shifting funds from supplies to travel) without headquarters approval. As
of February 2004, USPP budget problems precluded similar allotments for the FY
2004 budget.
Discussion Documenting Actions Taken
NPS concurred with this recommendation and USPP staff in
Washington, DC initiated a budget delegation process with the FY 2003
budget. Although the San Francisco and New York commanders had always
exercised control over their entire budget, including personnel, major
commanders in Washington, DC had not.
Personnel resources are managed centrally in Washington, DC
for a number of reasons. Individual commanders have less control over the
timing of promotions, reassignments, losses and new accessions than USPP
headquarters. Such personnel decisions affect personnel costs and the
resources needed to maintain staffing levels. Therefore, retaining central
control over these personnel resources provides a better alignment between cost
accountability and decision authority. In addition, USPP has continued to
maintain central control over recruit training and this is the principal source
of new accessions. Finally, the USPP budget office has traditionally used
the projected resource savings from the delay associated with replacing
personnel losses during the year to help fund other USPP spending needs.
Allocating personnel resources to individual commanders would jeopardize this
practice.
10. The U.S. Park Police,
the National Park Service, and Interior continue to use the current Emergency
Law and Order transfer process to help fund the special deployment and other
costs associated with major unplanned special events. For smaller,
unplanned, park-sponsored special events, the Park Police should seek
reimbursement from the sponsoring parks for the additional costs of special
deployments supporting the events.
Status: Moderate
Progress
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
The ELO transfer process remains an efficient means of
funding unexpected contingencies and the USPP continues to use it
effectively. For smaller events, there appears to be little use of
reimbursements from sponsoring parks to fund additional law enforcement costs
associated with these and other unplanned activities.
Discussion Documenting Actions Taken
NPS concurred with this recommendation in the April 2003
memorandum, noting that “the parks should be responsible for funding law
enforcement support for special events, which are not part of their routine
operation. Therefore, parks will be directed to provide funding for law
enforcement for new, planned events such as the park co-sponsored Washington
Area Bike Ride.” NPS and USPP made little use of this reimbursement policy
during FY 2002 and FY 2003. There appear to be several reasons for
this.
First, USPP was able to meet most of its unexpected or
increased operational funding requirements during these two years with the $25
million no-year supplemental for terrorism operations it received in FY
2002. Second, funding for NPS operations has increased modestly during FY
2002 and FY 2003; individual parks did not have substantially more resources to
help fund additional planned or unplanned activities. Finally, appropriations
language currently limits any park reimbursements for USPP law enforcement
services to $10,000 per event – and this may have reduced the use of
reimbursements between NPS and USPP. While that limit was initially agreed
to by both USPP and NPS, USPP staff now believe it is too low in a post-9/11
environment.
USPP has been using ELO funds to meet the additional
protection costs incurred when the terrorist threat level shifts from Code
Yellow (the USPP baseline funding level) to Code Orange. These funds,
however, can only be used for limited emergencies. When the heightened threat
level exceeds 28 days, the ELO mechanism can no longer be used.
11. The U.S. Park Police
budget for services that extend beyond the park service mission, such as
personnel protection, escort duties, and services provided to other federal,
state, and local agencies, based on prior experience. The Park Police
should provide additional services that go beyond budgeted levels on a
reimbursable basis. The law enforcement advisory services provided to the
park service regions by the Park Police, if continued, should be funded by
reimbursements.
Status: Rejected
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
The USPP has not sought additional reimbursements for
additional escort, medivac rescue, or other services that extend beyond the park
service mission. The regional law enforcement specialist positions are
still filled (about half are currently vacant) and funded by the USPP
budget.
Discussion Documenting Actions Taken
In the April 2003 memorandum, NPS acknowledged the
appropriateness of continuing some USPP activities such as presidential and
dignitary protection and anti-drug activities even when those activities extend
by necessity beyond parklands. However, NPS noted that “these activities
were addressed in the FY 03 appropriation for the USPP. Any activity not
funded by the FY 03 appropriation will be performed on a reimbursable
basis.” Since six of the regional law enforcement specialist positions
have been funded within the USPP baseline budget,
NPS believes that adopting a reimbursement policy for these positions is
redundant and would unnecessarily transfer NPS resources to USPP. Neither NPS
nor USPP has sought reimbursement from the U.S. Secret Service for the
additional escort duty now provided to the Vice President.
USPP disagrees with this general approach and continues to
believe that the value of services it receives from the U.S. Secret Service and
other state and local law enforcement entities (such as fire and ambulance
service) adequately compensates for the unreimbursed services USPP supplies to
them. The value of these “quid pro quo” transactions continues to be very
difficult to measure. But, since USPP has reimbursed local law enforcement
entities for their assistance in providing law enforcement services for special
events on the Washington, DC Mall, NPS management believes that the trade-offs
may not be as balanced as USPP believes.
12. The U.S. Park Police
develop a multi-year replacement plan for cruisers and other major equipment for
the Washington area. This plan should be the basis for developing annual
equipment funding requests and allocating approved budgetary resources
consistent with overall Park Police budget limits and spending
priorities.
Status: No Progress
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
USPP was able to use some of the funds from the FY 2002
terrorism supplemental and its FY 2003 appropriation to meet its immediate
equipment replacement needs. USPP indicates they are still developing a
vehicle and equipment replacement plan for the Washington, DC area, and the
Deputy Chief for Operations has moved responsibility for this activity to his
immediate office to stress its priority.
Discussion Documenting Actions Taken
NPS concurred with this recommendation indicating that USPP
had developed a multi-year, annual equipment replacement plan. USPP staff
noted that the FY 2002 supplemental and the FY 2003 appropriation provided
sufficient funds to complete the planned equipment replacement, but those funds
were placed in reserve to meet other higher priority spending needs in FY 2004.
Academy staff requested copies of the replacement plan, but
have been told that USPP is still developing that plan for the Washington, DC
area. In New York and San Francisco, USPP uses a lease agreement to
obtain vehicles and these lease costs are included in the annual operations
appropriation.
13. The U.S. Park Police
and National Park Service work with Congress to reform the funding by shifting
it to a permanent indefinite appropriation similar to the current Secret
Service’s and Treasury’s current annual payments.
Status: Fully
Implemented
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
Language in the FY 2002 appropriations bill created a
permanent and mandatory funding source for this retirement benefit.
14. Congress and the
legislatures of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia establish a
legal framework for police units in the Washington area that provides for mutual
aid in case of emergencies and alleviates the burden caused by
indemnification.
Status: Fully
Implemented
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
NPS concurred and indicated that the enactment of PL 106-437
addressed any outstanding indemnification issues that existed in some USPP
mutual aid agreements with local law enforcement entities within the Washington,
DC metropolitan area. USPP also noted that the departmental Solicitor’s
Office had also concurred with this view.
III. Staffing
15. A thorough staffing
needs assessment based on the U.S. Park Police mission, as clarified, be
performed. It should examine the balance among patrol activities,
specialized units, and administrative assignments. The assessment should
use primarily external expertise to ensure its objectivity and credibility, and
the results should be addressed through the budget process recommended in
Chapter 3.
Status: Limited Progress
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
The USPP did not hire external experts to conduct such a
staffing needs assessment. The Chief’s senior staff said this is mostly
because the mission had not been clarified beyond adding security to the icon
areas, and the Chief did not want to bring in outsiders until the work could be
defined. With input from staff in her immediate office, the Chief prepared
her own staffing needs analysis in July 2003 and submitted it to NPS and
DOI. This analysis, including its underlying assumptions, is not available
and is described as a set of notes and calculations. This needs analysis did
call for more than doubling the current USPP sworn officer force.
Discussion Documenting Actions Taken
NPS concurred with the need for such a study and said that a
staffing needs assessment “will be conducted based on the conclusions reached in
the review of USPP mission and priorities. USPP officials in concert with
park managers are conducting preliminary work on this analysis. Their
recommendations will be evaluated and validated by external law enforcement
professionals.” While there are more regular interactions with some
park managers and the lieutenants assigned to their parks, there has been no
coordinated effort with Washington, DC superintendents to assess USPP staffing
needs relative to park law enforcement needs; Academy staff have not spoken with
superintendents or USPP managers in New York or San Francisco.
The current USPP assumptions have them continuing to perform
all duties previously performed, and absorbing some new ones since 9/11, such as
escorting the Vice President and expanding icon security coverage. NPS and
DOI did not issue guidance on mission clarification because they believed that
such mission clarification should be part of a comprehensive internal review by
the USPP as they analyzed their staffing needs. USPP staff said they were waiting for mission
clarification from NPS and DOI before doing their staffing needs analysis.
Therefore, it appears that there were communication breakdowns on this
point. The Chief prepared an estimate of additional resources required to
better protect the icons at Code Yellow and submitted them to NPS; Academy staff
were told that she expected to receive some additional funds for this but was
told to absorb the costs.
At the request of the Interior Secretary, the Department of
Homeland Security reviewed Washington, DC Mall security (using the Secret
Service) and suggested specific staffing patterns for the major icons. DOI
(including NPS and the Chief) received these recommendations in March 2003.
Since the nation went to a Code Orange alert shortly after that, NPS and
USPP decided this was not the time to question the Secret Service
recommendations. Consequently, the DHS report was accepted as the standard for
Washington, DC Mall area staffing. But, as the IG’s Icon Security Report
indicated, it was not fully implemented until late 2003. While this
increased staffing requirements,
the specific information contained in the DHS report is classified.
In July 2003, the Chief transmitted to the NPS Director and
Deputy Director a “Draft Staffing Study” of sworn officers. This was a listing
by USPP districts of the significant areas within each district, beats that
cover them, and estimated staff per district. The timing of its
completion related to one of the meetings with DOI’s OLES staff, because the
transmittal refers to a staff member from the DOI Division of Budget
Administration expecting them. In the transmittal, the Chief says she
feels “awkward” presenting them to NPS senior staff via email, but “it’s clear
that [the DOI Budget] office wants some idea of how far off of our staffing
needs we are. [The DOI Budget office] would also like us to prioritize the
beats and areas we patrol, another area I would rather not tread. This is
a lose-lose conversation, especially when I don’t have the authority to say that
one patrol area is less significant than another.”
USPP staff indicated that the Chief’s file had handwritten
notes and figures, and that she had considered recommendations such as the
Academy Panel’s and Booz-Allen’s. The Chief’s email said she believes her
numbers are in line with Booz-Allen recommendations. The Chief estimated a
need for 921 USPP officer positions or assignments. At the end of the
Chief’s July 2003 estimate are sample “relief factors” that are to account for
scheduled days off, leave, illness, court time, military duty, etc. The
factors are 1.65 to 1.84, meaning the total number of officers needed to fill
921 assignments would be 1,520 to 1,695. USPP staff said that these relief
factors were those used by organizations such as IACP.
Because of on-going personnel matters, the Chief remains
unavailable at this time to clarify her methodology. Consequently, Academy
staff are unable to examine the assumptions behind the Chief’s estimates.
The USPP’s 1993 beat analysis indicated they needed 749.8 officers and had 632
on board (as of February 1, 1993), for a deficit of 128.2. This was a more
detailed presentation that included specific assumptions for each beat (hours
per day, days of the week covered, type of beat, priority). However, a
beat analysis starts with the assumption that an area needs to be patrolled, and
the written document does not reflect why a given staffing level is needed per
beat. In developing the 2001 report, Academy staff discussions with senior
staff in the Central District (which covers the monuments), revealed their
rationale for the current beat assignments (such as crime levels, importance of
the property). However, while unit commanders can articulate a rationale
for their officer deployment, there is no documentation of the rationale.
In part because of the need to better understand this, the DOI Deputy Assistant
Secretary for OLES has discussed the relation between work and staffing with
USPP senior staff at their now-regular meetings, which are often attended by
senior NPS staff.
There have been some efforts to relate staffing to duties and
staffing costs. USPP prepared an assessment of staffing levels at Code
Yellow and the additional staffing and associated costs needed for Code
Orange. It was presented at a meeting that the DAS for OLES called of all
DOI law enforcement units, and he found it so useful that he asked the other
units to use it as a model.
The NPS Deputy Director and the Chief have discussed staffing
issues, including deployment. The Chief has changed some shifts to reduce
overtime use, and these efforts have continued to help address the FY 2004
budget shortfalls.
16. The U.S. Park Police
administratively earmark and separately control an entry training budget.
To facilitate more frequent graduations, Park Police recruit training should be
accelerated to the first available FLETC class and/or trained in conjunction
with law enforcement rangers, when possible.
Status: Limited Progress
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
During fiscal years 2002 and 2003, when USPP had funds from
the terrorism supplemental, they earmarked funds for recruit classes.
There were three in FY 2002 and four in FY 2003. There were literally no
more FLETC slots available to USPP during FY 2003 because so many other
agencies’ programs were also adding classes. There have been no classes
yet in 2004, and although one is scheduled for April, some USPP interviewees
question whether there will be funds for this.
USPP staff believe that training with rangers would not be
appropriate. Ranger training is shorter and focuses relatively little on
urban crime. The April 2003 memorandum noted, “While it is difficult to
quantify its benefit, we believe that training our recruits as a U.S. Park
Police class establishes an esprit de corps that serves to inspire our officers
throughout their careers. Nevertheless, we will review other agency
programs to identify regimens that are similar to and meet the standards
established for our officers.” The Chief reported in September 2003 on the
results of this examination and said that if USPP recruits were to train with
rangers, USPP would have to extend its overall training time so that its
officers could be trained to handle situations in an urban environment.
Discussion Documenting Actions Taken
Classes held in FYs 2002 and 2003 were:
Class
Date
Number Entered
Number
Graduated
10/7/01
24
22
12/30/01
21
19
9/22/02
24
24
11/03/02
24
20
01/12/03
24
22
04/06/03
24
23
07/20/03
18
15
Totals
159
145
The September 2002 class was a “lateral” class comprised of
people with officer experience in other federal agencies. That class was
taught at USPP rather than FLETC. Because of their accelerated training, that
class became functioning officers faster than other recruit classes.
The size of the USPP officer force has not increased
commensurate with the number of new graduates over the past few years.
Although the graduates total 145 officers, USPP lost 121 officers during
this time, 81 in FY 2002 and 40 in FY 2003; resignations accounted for 75 of
these officer losses, with many going to other federal agencies, largely because
of hiring at DHS.
The costs of hiring new recruits are more than those
associated with FLETC training. The direct costs include salaries,
equipment, background checks, and medical and fitness physicals. The
average annual cost of a class ranges from $1.2 - 1.8 million, depending on the
time of year the class begins and how much of annual salaries need to be paid in
the fiscal year in which the class is hired. About $500,000 of the cost is
for the FLETC training. USPP loans staff to FLETC to serve as instructors
(currently seven, down from twelve in 2001), as do most other agencies that send
recruits to FLETC. Tuition is reduced for USPP classes based on the number
of loaned instructors.
17. The U.S. Park Police
reduce its ratio of supervisor to non-supervisory positions to a level
approximating that of other local area police entities.
Status: Limited
Progress
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
The overall ratio of the number of privates to higher-level
officers has remained essentially the same, going from 2.1 to 2.2 privates for
each officer above that level, with substantial variation by unit. USPP
has reduced its use of some higher-level positions. For example,
lieutenants instead of captains currently head districts in Washington,
DC. Also a captain, rather than a major, heads the New York field
office. Five of the ten captain positions in NPS regions are vacant,
though this is in large part because NPS and USPP are exploring issues related
to these positions. However, it is not clear how many of these reductions are
temporary rather than permanent.
Discussion Documenting Actions Taken
The April 2003 memorandum said that NPS concurred with the
need to reduce the ratio and this was “being addressed as part of the Force
staffing needs assessment.”
USPP took exception to the Academy’s use of the term
“supervisor” in the recommendation because not all people above the private
level have supervisor duties. For example, sergeants on the Secretary’s
Protection Detail and in the Internal Affairs unit do not serve as
supervisors. The language in the main body of the report uses the terms
“ratio of privates to higher-ranking officers,” which is more appropriate than
the language in the recommendation, and will be used in all future
discussions.
The USPP Chief noted in her September 2003 memorandum to NPS’
Deputy Director that the Academy Panel did not “consider the vacant officer
positions in determining this ratio, which drove up the ratio.” USPP noted
that, “short of firing supervisors and commanders, when officers [privates]
leave in great numbers, as they did for the previous two fiscal years, the ratio
of supervisors to officers is currently greater than it would normally be.
This situation will self-correct over the next several years as we continue to
work toward achieving previous and adequate officer staffing levels.” In
examining hiring and attrition data (which is not complete), it appears that, as
more privates were hired, there was not an increase in officers above private
level. Therefore, absent a substantial attrition of privates, the ratio of
privates to higher-ranking officers should increase.
This picture changes when the number of guards is
considered. There are currently 34 contract guards and 24 civilian guard
employees now on staff. These guards are supervised by two lieutenants (as
collateral duty assignments, not as separate positions) in the Operations
Division. If it were assumed that these 54 contract and civilian guards
conduct work that privates would otherwise do, the ratio in the Operations
Division changes from 1.5 privates to higher-level officers to 4.0, and the
overall ratio grows from 2.1 privates for each officer above that level to
2.4. Part of the work in Phase II of this study will be to examine the
attrition rates of privates hired since 2001, a number of whom have been hired
by other federal agencies.
Ratios vary among individual USPP offices and
districts. For example, in the Central District (where patrol areas
include the Washington, DC Mall, most monuments, and Rock Creek Parkway) there
are 4.5 privates for every officer above that rank, in the East District (which
includes Anacostia and the Suitland Parkway in Maryland) the ratio is 3.6 to 1,
in the West District (which includes the George Washington Parkway, Great Falls
and Wolf Trap) the ratio is 3.6 to 1, and at the Statue of Liberty it is 4.9 to
1. In specialized units, the ratios vary from 1.7 to 1 in Special Forces
(which includes aviation, motorcycle officers, and K-9) to .7 to 1 in the
Criminal Investigations Branch, where the work generally requires experience
above the level of a private.
18. The U.S. Park Police
civilianize positions currently occupied by officers when law enforcement
training and experience are not required. This should be done as the
positions turn over, and the staffing needs assessment can be a vehicle to
define specific civilianization goals.
Status: Moderate Progress
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
USPP has made the commitment to assess all positions, (a few
before they have become vacant) has civilianized a number of positions, and
continues to do so.
Eleven positions were converted as of January 9, 2004 and
decisions were pending on the two positions shown below:
Former
Position
Converted to civilian post as:
Captain
Human Resources Officer
Major
Civilian Financial Officer
Private
Applicant Background Investigator
Sergeant
Civilian Security Specialist
Sergeant
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officer
Sergeant
Police Planner
Private
(5)
Firearms or Physical Skills Instructors (5)
Pending
Sworn
dispatchers
Civilian dispatchers
Captain
Facility Management
USPP has yet to review all of their positions to identify
those positions that could potentially be civilianized and has not established a
long-term plan to accomplish those reviews.
19. The U.S. Park Police
change its law enforcement staffing mix to include an armed security patrols
with duties that are more limited than those of sworn officers to the current
mix. This professional security patrol force, composed of government employees,
possibly under contract with GSA (General Services Administration), should
provide full-time security services at critical park facilities, including
historic national memorials, monuments, and other treasures.
Status: Moderate
Progress
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
There are now 34 unarmed contract guards, primarily at the
Washington, DC Mall monuments, and 24 civilian guards (down one from 25 in 2001)
who have fixed posts, but are generally not at the Washington, DC Mall
monuments. USPP assessed the costs of recruiting and hiring employees
rather than contractors as guards and decided it was faster and less expensive
to hire guards under contract. Guard staff at the Washington, DC Mall
monuments perform traditional fixed-post duties, but are always assisted by at
least one USPP officer. If the guards were not in place, the positions
would have to be filled by the more highly paid (and trained) officers. In
addition to the reduced costs of using guards at these posts, a number of sworn
officers have told Academy staff that they became police officers to perform
more than guard duties. Therefore, it could be difficult to retain
officers for this duty
Discussion Documenting Actions Taken
Initially, DOI noted in the April 2003 memorandum that use of
unarmed guards had increased “at our monuments and memorials in response to
heightened security in the Nation’s Capital.” However, NPS does not concur
with the use of armed guards in any circumstance. Armed guards were
employed until the mid-1980s when the decline in the quality of candidates
reached the point where NPS management believed the public’s safety would be
compromised if use of armed guards was continued. It is the position of
NPS management that in situations where an armed employee is warranted, that the
employee should have the full knowledge, skills and abilities required of a
sworn police officer. The increased risk to public safety of appointing a
class of employees with lesser training far outweighs the minor immediate cost
savings.”
Since that time, NPS’ view on the use of armed guards appears
to have changed somewhat, since it issued a contract to Wackenhut Security to
provide armed guards at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. These armed
guards are now in place and NPS’ initial assessment is favorable. The OLES
staff also believe that armed guards are a less costly alternative to expanding
on-board officer staffing for meeting fixed post security requirements.
allH
20. The U.S. Park Police
establish a workforce planning and management system that addresses all aspects
of human resources management, including attrition, recruitment, and training of
officers and civilians.
Status: Limited Progress
Explanation or Rationale for Current Status
The Chief said, in September 2003, that the establishment of
a workforce planning and management system was a work-in-progress, and began
with the hiring of a Civilian Manager who oversees Organizational Development
and Fiscal Management, and the consolidation of all Human Resources and Employee
Development (HRED) needs under one command officer. The Chief instituted
bi-weekly reports on activities and accomplishments from command officers, and
the HRED report includes reporting on civilian and sworn officer training and
related issues. The report also contains lists of goals in HRED for 2004,
including engaging in DOI and NPS workforce planning strategies and aligning
USPP with the NPS goal of continuous learning for all employees. While
these types of activities are basic components of human resources management,
this broad perspective was not clearly in evidence in 2001.
Discussion Documenting Actions Taken
The USPP Command Officer who oversees HRED sits on the NPS
Administrative Advisory Council. This group helped develop the formal NPS
workforce plan, issued in October 2003. USPP will align its plan with the
NPS plan, and USPP staff have obtained information on how to develop a plan and
are accumulating some of the data on which a plan will be based. In
addition, a USPP staff member sits on an NPS committee that is developing
competencies for law enforcement staff, and this will be applied to development
of USPP competencies.
In conjunction with the NPS workforce plan, USPP prepared a
two-page statement of “Workforce Key Issues,” per an NPS request for input to
the overall plan.
USPP did not receive a request to do this until August, and the plan is dated
September 30, 2003. Thus, only top USPP management (Assistant and Deputy
Chiefs, Chief, and Civilian Manager of Organizational Development and Fiscal
Management) were involved in preparing the input.
One of the HRED goals is to, “Establish competencies for each
job title (career field) at USPP, in order to design training opportunities for
our employees that are essential for employees to perform effectively at
respective levels within the Force, as set for by the National Leadership
Council-approved NPS Employee Training and Development Strategy.” Another
goal is to “Revamp the Force’s Performance Management System, tailoring it to
the specific needs and central goals of the agency.” There were no such
clearly articulated goals in 2001.
