TABLE OF CONTENTS

FOREWORD........................................................................................................................... iii

ACRONYMS........................................................................................................................... ix

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................... xi

CHAPTER 1:1INTRODUCTION........................................................................................... 1

The U.S. Park Police: A Brief History.......................................................................................... 2

NPS and USPP Missions............................................................................................................ 3

Key Changes Since the August 2001 Academy Report................................................................ 4

Law Enforcement Reforms at the Department of the Interior................................................... 4

NPS and USPP Leadership Changes..................................................................................... 5

USPP Organizational, Spending, and Staffing Changes Since 2001............................................... 6

USPP Organizational and Structural Changes......................................................................... 6

Spending Trends.................................................................................................................... 9

Staffing Trends...................................................................................................................... 9

Crime or Incident Data Changes.......................................................................................... 10

Implementation of the 2001 Recommendations........................................................................... 10

Subsequent USPP Actions................................................................................................... 13

Study Methodology................................................................................................................... 14

Road Map to the Report............................................................................................................ 16

CHAPTER 2: LAW ENFORCEMENT IN URBAN PARKS

AND USPP MISSION..................................................................................................... 17

Differences Between the Work of Protection Rangers and USPP Officers................................... 17

USPP’S Evolution and Expanded Mission.................................................................................. 20

Previous Efforts to Narrow the USPP Mission..................................................................... 22

Increased Involvement in Fighting Crime in DC and Throughout the Country......................... 23

Conclusions and Recommendations: USPP’s Evolution and Expanded Mission.................... 24

Setting Priorities in the Post-9/11 World..................................................................................... 26

USPP Responses to Increased Counterterrorism Requirements............................................ 27

USPP Priority Setting Processes.......................................................................................... 28

NPS Law Enforcement Needs Assessments......................................................................... 29

Conclusions and Recommendations: Setting Priorities in the Post-9/11 World...................... 31

USPP Activities Beyond NPS Law Enforcement Needs............................................................. 32

Conclusions and Recommendations: USPP Activity Beyond NPS

Law Enforcement Needs..................................................................................................... 34

CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY FOR SETTING USPP PRIORITIES.......................... 35

USPP Functions and Activities................................................................................................... 35

Priority-Setting Criteria.............................................................................................................. 38

Ranking and Applying the Criteria........................................................................................ 41

The Ranking Matrix............................................................................................................. 41

Distinguishing Higher and Lower-Priority Functions.............................................................. 42

Potential High-Priority Functions.......................................................................................... 43

Potential Low Priority Functions........................................................................................... 44

Conclusions and Recommendations—Priority Setting Criteria............................................... 47

Alternatives for Lower Priority Functions: ~~................................................................................. 48~~

The Role of the Budget Process................................................................................................. 48

Conclusion and Recommendations—the Role of the Budget Process.................................... 48

CHAPTER 4: CREATING A CONSOLIDATED BUDGET AND FINANCIAL REPORTING SYSTEM 55

Expenditures From Appropriations for Operations...................................................................... 56

Expenditures From All Sources of Funds.................................................................................... 58

Spending Growth Over the Past Six Years................................................................................. 61

Overtime Spending.................................................................................................................... 62

Reimbursements and Transfers................................................................................................... 65

Conclusion and Recommendations............................................................................................. 66

CHAPTER 5: REFLECTING USPP’S MISSION IN ITS WORKFORCE...................... 69

Changes in Allocation of Officers............................................................................................... 69

Growth in Non-Patrol Forces.............................................................................................. 71

Recruiting Thwarted by Turnover............................................................................................... 73

Training in Other Organizations............................................................................................ 74

Turnover Results in No Growth Among Sworn Officer Force............................................... 74

Conclusions and Recommendations: Recruiting Thwarted by Turnover................................. 76

Changes in Staff Mix Since 2001............................................................................................... 77

Less Change in Ratio of Privates to Officers Above that Level.............................................. 77

Comparison of Privates to Sergeants.................................................................................... 78

Conclusions and Recommendations: Changes to Staff Mix Since 2001................................. 80

Adding Flexibility to Staffing Patterns......................................................................................... 81

Potential to Refocus Resources from Regional Captain Positions........................................... 82

Conclusions and Recommendations: Adding Flexibility to Staffing Patterns........................... 82

Developing Staff Throughout Their Careers................................................................................ 84

Conclusions and Recommendations: Developing Staff Throughout Their Careers.................. 84

Relationships With and Reliance on Other Law Enforcement Agencies........................................ 85

How Police Departments Estimate and Deploy Officers........................................................ 86

Estimating Staffing Needs........................................................................................................... 87

How NPS and USPP Estimate Staffing Needs..................................................................... 88

USPP Beat Analyses........................................................................................................... 88

Other Options to Estimate Required Officer Strength............................................................ 89

Conclusions and Recommendations: Estimating Staffing Needs............................................ 90

APPENDICES

Appendix A: Project Panel and Staff List................................................................................ 93

Appendix B: Individuals Interviewed or Contacted................................................................. 95

Appendix C: Selected Bibliography ~~(Not~~ ~~Included)~~................................................................. 99

Appendix D: Crime Trends Data.......................................................................................... 101

Appendix E: Evolution of USPP Responsibilities................................................................... 107

Appendix F: NPS Law Enforcement Needs Assessment Template....................................... 115

Appendix G: Park Protection and Response Plan for Gateway National

Recreation Area................................................................................................................ 121

Appendix H: Pairwise Comparison Methodology.................................................................. 137

Appendix I: USPP Appropriations Changes FY 1997-FY 2003......................................... 141

Appendix J: Detailed USPP Attrition Data........................................................................... 145

Appendix K: USPP Radios of Number of Privates for Each Sworn Officer

Above that Level......................................................................................................... 147

Appendix L: Summary of Changes in USPP Beat Analysis 1884-2004................................. 149

Appendix M How NPS Estimates Law Enforcement Staffing Needs..................................... 153

Appendix N: VRAP Factors as They Apply to the U.S. Park Police

with Additional Factors Suggested............................................................................... 157

TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1-1: 2001 United States Park Police Organizational Structure .......................................... 7

Figure 1-2: 2004 United States Park Police Organizational Structure .......................................... 7

Table 1-1: Park Police Sworn Officers: 1986-2004 .................................................................. 10

Table 1-2: Status of the Twenty 2001 Recommendations ........................................................... 11

Table 3-2: USPP Functions and Application of Priority Assessment .......................................... 50

Table 4-1: Relative Size of USPP’s Budget and Employment, FY 2005 .................................... 56

Table 4-2: USPP Appropriated Fund Spending by Organization, FY 2001-2003...................... 56

Table 4-3: Appropriated Funds Spending Change, FY 2001-2003 ........................................... 57

Table 4-4: Appropriated Funds Spending Change in the New York Field

Office, FY 2001 and 2003 ................................................................................................. 57

Table 4-5: Spending by all Funding Sources, FY 2001-2003 .................................................... 60

Table 4–6: Actual Spending from all Sources of Funding, by Fiscal Year ................................... 62

Table 4–7: Overtime Spending, FY 1998–2003 ....................................................................... 63

Figure 4-1 Concentration in Use of Overtime and Compensatory Time Payments........................ 64

Table 4-8: Appropriated and Non-Appropriated Spending, FY 2001–2003 ............................. 65

Table 5-1: Civilian and Officer Staff: March 2001 and March 2004 .......................................... 70

Table 5-2: Comparison of Specialized Units ............................................................................. 72

Table 5-3: Recruit Classes in FYs 2002-2003 .......................................................................... 73

Table 5-4: Calendar Year Attrition Data for Sworn and Civilian Positions: 1998-2004 .............. 75

Table 5-5: Separation Rates for 13 DC Area Uniformed Federal Police Departments ............... 76

Table 5-6: Comparison of Ranks: 2001 and 2004 ................................................................... 77

Table 5-7: Ratio of Privates to Sergeants: 2001 and 2004 ........................................................ 79

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Park Police (USPP), the nation’s oldest uniformed federal law enforcement agency, has a long and distinguished history of protecting federal parklands in the nation’s capital. It has been a separate entity within the National Park Service (NPS) since the 1930s. With about 615 sworn officers and an operating appropriation of $81 million for Fiscal Year (FY) 2004, USPP is relatively small, but has unusually high visibility.

As NPS’ law enforcement arm for urban parks in Washington, DC, New York and San Francisco, USPP officers protect such unique national treasures as the monuments on the National Mall and the Statue of Liberty, and ensure the safety of visitors and other park users. Because the Mall area frequently hosts major events, demonstrations, and marches, sometimes involving hundreds of thousands of individuals, USPP also must manage large crowds to ensure the safety of demonstrators and visitors alike. Consequently, USPP has acquired a well-earned reputation as an exemplary preserver and protector of First Amendment rights of peaceful assembly.

Given USPP’s high visibility and several budget and management issues, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies in 2000 asked the National Academy of Public Administration (the Academy) to review and evaluate USPP’s mission, its priority-setting process for law enforcement functions, and the adequacy of its systems for developing and controlling its budget and other resources. In its August 2001 report—The U.S. Park Police: Focusing Priorities, Capabilities, and Resources for the Future—an Academy Panel made 20 recommendations designed to clarify USPP’s mission, set priorities for its diverse law enforcement functions and work activities, strengthen leadership and accountability, and improve financial and workforce management.

In light of renewed USPP budget and financial problems in FY 2004 and other concerns, the subcommittee asked the Academy to follow up on the 2001 recommendations. This follow-up study was conducted in two phases:

— Phase I: Review the implementation status of each recommendation from the August 2001 report, assess the rationale for non-concurrence where applicable, and identify possible options to adjust the pace of implementation.

— Phase II: Evaluate USPP’s mission, roles, and functions, the resources allocated to them, and their relative priorities; identify major changes in them since the 9/11 terrorist attacks; and assess the feasibility of adjusting current functions, assuming constrained budgets for the next few years.

In a February 2004 Phase I report, this Panel found that four of the 20 recommendations had been fully implemented and two had been rejected. As for the others, limited progress had been made for ten of them, moderate progress for three, and no progress for one. Only limited progress was made in implementing the five recommendations considered most crucial to refocus USPP resources and their use on NPS’ most critical law enforcement needs.

This report completes Phase II of the follow-up study.

LEADERSHIP, DIRECTION, ACCOUNTABILITY, AND RESPONSIBILITY

Although the terrorist attacks have made protection of our national treasures a top law enforcement priority, neither the Department of the Interior (DOI) nor NPS has established explicit, clear priorities for the range of USPP’s other law enforcement functions and work activities. To address this fundamental problem now, the Panel reaffirms, with a modification (in italics) the central recommendation of its 2001 report that:

The Secretary of the Interior, in conjunction with the Director of the National Park Service and the Chief of the U.S. Park Police, should clarify the mission and responsibilities of the Park Police.

Although high-level meetings have taken place during the ensuing three years at both NPS and DOI, agreement has not been reached on a new mission statement for the USPP that distinguishes it from other federal and local law enforcement agencies. The current mission statement is very general and could apply equally to almost any police organization. Without clarity of mission and established priorities, issues of structure, function, and resource allocation cannot be effectively resolved, and managers cannot be held accountable for the proper discharge of their responsibilities.

The Panel found NPS and USPP have sharply divergent views regarding the latter’s role. USPP views itself as a full-service urban police force, principally focused on NPS parklands. NPS, on the other hand, views USPP as a more specialized police force principally focused on urban national parks. There also appears to have been disagreement about who had primary responsibility for mission definition.

9/11 Changes Reinforce Need to Clarify Mission and Set Priorities

The increased law enforcement and security requirements resulting from the 9/11 attacks reinforce the need to resolve these different views, clarify USPP’s mission, and set priorities among USPP’s diverse law enforcement functions. Enhanced requirements also emphasize that none of the three organizations–DOI, NPS, or USPP–can act alone.

Failure to implement this 2001 recommendation has strengthened the Panel’s conviction that specifically defining the mission of the Park Police remains a critical and urgent joint management issue for DOI, NPS, and USPP. In an era of heightened risk to the national treasures, visiting public, and First Amendment exercises that the Park Police secure, this task is too important to be assigned to USPP management without either the necessary guidance or authority to make many changes, or to be imposed from above. It is essential that the Chief and executive staff of USPP and the policy leadership of NPS and DOI be engaged together in defining the mission of the Force and establishing priorities.[1] Once the mission has been defined, DOI and NPS must provide strong leadership and active support to USPP in defending this redefined mission within the administration, before Congress, and among the agencies with which USPP traditionally works. NPS superintendents and USPP leadership and officers must fully understand and support the reasons for any change, which should be reinforced through training, budgeting, and day-to-day management.

EXPANSION OF USPP’S ROLE AND NPS LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS

USPP’s broad role and diverse law enforcement functions reflect its long, evolving statutory history, much of which took place apart from NPS. Since USPP’s creation, Congress has viewed it as an integral component of the overall law enforcement protection and security functions for the District of Columbia (DC). Even after USPP was placed within NPS, its role continued to expand as its assumed law enforcement responsibilities for new national park sites outside DC, specifically the Presidio and other parts of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA) in San Francisco and the Statue of Liberty and parts of Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA) in New York. Within DC, its responsibilities have recently expanded to protect new monuments and their visitors, including the Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Vietnam Veterans, Korean Veterans, and World War II Memorials. The USPP’s geographic focus on “the environs of the District of Columbia” has expanded as new parklands have been added within DC and the surrounding Maryland and Virginia suburbs.

NPS Urban Park Law Enforcement Needs

The nation’s 385 national park sites require some level of law enforcement services to protect visitors and natural, cultural, or historical assets, yet urban national park needs differ substantially from those of most large, isolated rural parks. Different uses of urban national parks pose different risks for visitors, such as fewer wildlife encounters and more person-on-person criminal activity. Natural resource and environmental preservation requirements are more prevalent at rural parks given their greater geographic size and diversity.

NPS relies on protection rangers and USPP to meet its law enforcement needs. The former focus primarily on law enforcement for the vast majority of non-urban parks, though they do serve several urban ones as well, Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia and the Boston National Historical Park being examples. However, protection rangers and USPP officers approach NPS’ urban park law enforcement needs quite differently. Some variations reflect different law enforcement requirements at specific parks, but most appear to reflect differences in leadership, perceptions of respective roles, training, performance, and career expectations.

In general, protection rangers want and expect to work primarily in a park setting, protect natural and physical park assets, and serve visitors. USPP officers view themselves as police officers focused on visitor safety and property protection by preventing criminal activities or investigating those that occur on or near NPS parklands. Separate organizational structures reinforce these perceptions, as rangers are accountable directly to park superintendents and USPP officers are accountable to their own district commanders.

All of USPP’s diverse law enforcement functions fit within its broad statutory assignments, yet some extend beyond explicit NPS law enforcement needs, specifically requests from the U.S. Secret Service to help with presidential, vice presidential and foreign dignitary escorts within DC and various NPS parklands in the DC metropolitan area. In addition, USPP continues to provide protection for the Secretary of the Department of the Interior.

Changes Since the 9/11 Terrorist Attacks

The 9/11 terrorist attacks brought substantial changes in NPS’ protection, security and law enforcement needs. Throughout NPS, the threat of a terrorist attack on a “national Icon” and the impact on visitors and the national heritage became a law enforcement priority. NPS identified critical national Icons within its park sites that could be targeted for attack, assessed vulnerabilities, and developed security plans for addressing them. This increased emphasis on security significantly affected USPP activities. Major changes included:

— Increased coverage at the Washington Monument and Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials in DC.

— Expanded coverage at the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island in New York and the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco.

— Cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on issues related to general and specific threats. For example, much of the land along the Ronald Reagan National Airport flight path is on USPP property, while many of the flight path approaches for JFK airport cross Jamaica Bay, part of GNRA in New York.

— Escort service, at U.S. Secret Service request, for the Vice President as he travels from his residence to work.

These changes not only required additional resources, but different approaches for using those resources. Prior to 9/11 for example, tourists were screened as they entered the Statue of Liberty. They now are screened twice: once in Battery Park prior to boarding the ferry to Liberty Island, and again on the island, outside the statue.[2]

USPP received a $25 million anti-terrorism supplemental appropriation in FY 2002. It tried to use the funds to bolster its officer strength to address additional law enforcement needs; yet substantial officer attrition in 2002 and 2003 offset hiring increases. Consequently, USPP met these increased counterterrorism requirements by increasing its use of overtime, reallocating officers through scheduling changes (including 12 hour shifts in several areas), reducing training and drug interdiction activities, and expanding the use of contract guards. These responses created major stresses and conflicts within USPP once the supplemental funds were expended, since subsequent resource limitations precluded continuing all of its previous functions while increasing anti-terrorism activities.

SETTING LAW ENFORCEMENT PRIORITIES

Most federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies use their annual budget process to align their needs with resources. The process can address trade-offs among law enforcement activities and available resources only if there is a clearly defined mission, explicit, agreed-upon needs, and a process to establish priorities for those needs.

Defining Law Enforcement Needs

In 2003, NPS required each park to define its own law enforcement and security requirements through an internal planning process that involved the park superintendent, chief ranger, and other appropriate staff. All parks developed Law Enforcement Needs Assessments (LENAs), except for most served by USPP. Those in the National Capital Region did not develop LENAs because they believed that the assessments were only for parks served by protection rangers. USPP did not develop park-oriented protection and law enforcement plans.

Better progress was made in New York. Gateway’s acting superintendent prepared, in conjunction with USPP’s New York Field Office (NYFO), a “Park Protection and Response Plan” that defined park management goals and established law enforcement needs, supported by data and other information describing the surrounding park environment. The acting superintendent noted that this joint process allowed NPS supervisors and USPP commanders to better understand each other’s needs and limitations. In San Francisco, rangers created a LENA for GGNRA. However, this plan was developed with no input from or consultation with USPP.

The lack of clear law enforcement needs assessments for most USPP-served parks is a critical problem. Priorities cannot be established for USPP law enforcement functions and associated work activities if NPS’ law enforcement, protection, and security needs are not clearly defined and understood. The New York process had two distinct advantages: It was undertaken outside the annual budget development process, and cognizant USPP commanders were directly involved in the plan’s development. This enhanced communication and understanding can only help both groups when making difficult trade-offs in setting priorities. Therefore, the Panel recommends that:

Park superintendents and the U.S. Park Police district commanders in the National Capital Region and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area should jointly develop law enforcement needs assessments for their parks that identify their law enforcement, protection, and security needs.

A formal joint planning process to identify and define law enforcement needs should take place outside the often contentious budget process to facilitate better communication and a more complete understanding of NPS and USPP needs, capabilities, and limitations. This is critical for resolving the fundamentally different views that now exist about USPP’s role.

The Panel’s most important message to all who make decisions about Park Police resource needs—including Congress—is that you can’t have it both ways.

USPP cannot be expected to function as a full-service urban police department and guardian of national parks at current resource levels. If it is to continue to fulfill its current broad roles, it needs additional resources. If resources are not available, its mission must be clarified and priorities established for its diverse law enforcement functions.

PRIORITY-SETTING CRITERIA

A priority-setting process for USPP law enforcement functions must have explicit criteria to assess the relative importance of each function and associated work activities. These criteria should be clearly defined and independent of each other, capable of being weighed or ranked relative to each other, and limited and manageable.

The priority-setting process should include a clearly defined set of law enforcement functions and the work activities that flow from them, as well as the resources currently used for each. Although USPP functions and work activities were identified during this study, it was not possible to develop complete resource costs or staffing data on a functional basis. Neither USPP nor NPS has this type of budget categorization or system. The NPS budget is organized around individual parks by type of appropriation—operations, capital construction, and the like. The USPP budget for operations is developed and presented organizationally for its major components in DC, New York, and San Francisco.

Given these limitations, this report identified criteria to be used and how to apply them to set priorities.

Therefore, the Panel recommends that:

The Department of the Interior and National Park Service should adopt the following six criteria for setting priorities for current Park Police law enforcement functions and activities:

— Benefits Expected. Includes the threats or risks being deterred, the significance or importance of the individuals, properties, or other assets being protected, and the frequency and magnitude of the need for the activity.

— Uniqueness of Function to NPS. Distinguishes functions unique to NPS (e.g. crowd control for National Mall activities, Icon protection, and visitor service in conjunction with visitor protection) from those more common to urban policing (e.g., traffic control, parking enforcement, drug enforcement).

— Principal Beneficiaries and Relationship to NPS Mission. Identifies whether the principal beneficiary is a key NPS stakeholder. (Such stakeholders are primarily current and future generations of visitors to national parks. The Icons and irreplaceable natural or physical NPS assets are themselves stakeholders, in a sense.)

— Cost Effectiveness. Determines the relative efficiency of current USPP work activities and service delivery techniques.

— Comparative Advantage of Alternative Providers. Determines whether alternatives exist for some USPP activities or services and, if so, the legal feasibility, costs, effectiveness, timeliness, reliability, or availability of those alternatives.

— Collateral Benefits. Determines how much providing a particular law enforcement work activity also meets law enforcement needs in other areas.

All six criteria are important, yet it still may be necessary to distinguish their relative importance. Not doing so can imply that each one is equally important, an improbability. Moreover, individual decision-makers are likely to value the criteria differently. Therefore, the Panel recommends that:

The Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and Park Police officials should rank the priority-setting criteria using a standard and transparent approach.

Assessing Higher and Lower-Priority Functions

Using the Panel’s criteria to assess current USPP law enforcement functions and activities should produce a consistent outcome. Higher-priority activities should generate substantial benefits that accrue primarily to key NPS stakeholders, provide collateral benefits for other NPS law enforcement needs, address needs that are unique to NPS and provided efficiently by USPP, and have few equally effective and efficient alternatives. On the other hand, low-priority functions may produce substantial benefits, but key NPS stakeholders are not the primary beneficiaries; they do not address unique NPS needs, there are few collateral benefits for other law enforcement needs, and alternative providers can efficiently provide the service.

Icon protection is one example of a potential high-priority function using the Panel’s criteria. The expected benefits are substantial and accrue to key NPS stakeholders; the assets being protected are unique to NPS and irreplaceable; significant collateral benefits include the safety of visitors and their protection from criminal activities; less expensive contract guards, rather than armed USPP officers, appears to be a cost effective approach to staff the fixed-guard stations at each Icon; and available alternatives do not appear to have any advantage relative to the current USPP guard and officer mix.

USPP’s patrol of the Baltimore Washington and Suitland Parkways is an example of a potential low-priority function. Both parkways provide limited, high-speed access to facilitate commuter traffic within the DC metropolitan area. The expected benefits from reduced traffic incidents are high, but the principal beneficiaries are local area commuters, not national park visitors. Indeed, the patrol function is not unique to NPS, since traffic control on major highways is common to state and local police departments. There also appear to be few collateral benefits for other NPS law enforcement needs since each parkway has few, if any, directly connected parks or bike trails, and neither is strategically located near a critical asset. The cost effectiveness of USPP traffic control activities is unclear; Maryland State Police or local county police departments could perform the same function provided they had the resources to do so and the authority to provide routine law enforcement functions on federal property.

These two examples demonstrate how the Panel’s six criteria can be used to help clarify the USPP mission and establish priorities among its law enforcement functions and activities. The Panel believes that a formal priority-setting process must be established that includes active DOI, NPS and USPP leadership and takes place outside the formal budget process. Therefore, the Panel recommends that:

The Secretary of the Interior and the National Park Service Director, in conjunction with the Park Police Chief, should develop a rank order of current Park Police functions using the Panel’s priority-setting criteria.

This process cannot be left to USPP alone. Setting priorities, given diverse functions and multiple recipients, requires actively engaging DOI, NPS and USPP leadership, as well as focusing on USPP’s unique role and capabilities in its three urban venues, their jointly established law enforcement needs, and foreseeable resources.

The Role of the Budget Process

Once priority ranking for USPP functions is accomplished, the disposition of lower-priority functions will depend upon the budget resources available. Three basic options are available for lower-priority functions:

— Eliminate or reduce the amount of the activity.

— Use non-USPP alternatives to carry out the function or provide the service.

— Reduce current USPP costs by securing reimbursement or developing more efficient and/or less costly approaches to provide the service.

These difficult decisions must be made in the budget process where the relative costs of alternatives and their estimated effects can be weighed against available budget resources and established priorities. Again, USPP should not make these decisions alone. Thus, the Panel reaffirms the recommendation from its August 2001 report that:

Park Police components, in conjunction with the superintendents of the parks served, should develop and submit their budgets to the Park Police Chief. In turn, the Chief should submit a unified budget proposal to the National Park Service Director.

The Panel believes that this joint budget development process would ensure that the service provider and recipient, both of whom would be involved in evaluating the alternatives, can better understand the disposition of lower-priority functions and accept the outcome.

BUDGET TRENDS AND ISSUES

For several years, Congress and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have criticized USPP for the erratic nature of its spending and its inability to identify and adjust to new priorities. Those concerns sparked the first Panel study in 2001 and played a major role in this follow-up study. During FYs 2002 and 2003, the $25 million supplemental funding allowed USPP to expand its anti-terrorism activities and pursue most of its previous law enforcement functions. Once those funds were expended, USPP indicated that it could not continue to operate at its FY 2003 level without substantial additional resources. The FY 2004 budget shortfall precipitated a number of issues discussed below.

USPP Spending Growth

USPP experienced a 36 percent increase in its spending with its annual operating appropriation growing from $57 million in FY 2001 to $77.5 million in FY 2003. At the same time, total full-time equivalent (FTE) employees declined from 746 to 717, almost 4 percent. Given that more than 80 percent of total USPP spending is personnel costs, this dichotomy was difficult to explain.

One potential explanation is that the spending growth focuses only on one USPP funding source: the annual operating appropriation. Budget numbers that only reflect operating appropriations can be confusing or misleading when there are other major financing sources, such as emergency supplemental appropriations, transfers from other appropriations, or changes in services provided. When USPP spending from all sources is considered, the growth trend is lower, with total spending increasing from $81 million in FY 2001 to $90.2 million in FY 2003, or 11.4 percent.[3]

Examining total spending over a longer time period also shows this lower growth trend. From FY 1998 to 2003, total USPP spending increased from $70.8 million to $90.2 million, an annual compound rate of 4.95 percent. This rate is consistent with annual law enforcement pay raises during this period, increased benefit costs when a larger proportion of the USPP workforce became part of the new federal retirement system, and inflation for non-pay items. This example again highlights the need for a unified budget that shows USPP spending from all sources.

The use of overtime is another important consideration. Although overtime spending usually accounts for approximately 8 percent of total USPP spending, it was well above these levels in recent years. Overtime spending accounted for 19.5 percent of total spending in FY 2000, for 17.3 percent in FY 2002, and for 13.4 percent in FY 2003. These high levels reflect emergency needs, funded by Emergency Law and Order (ELO) transfers or the anti-terrorism supplemental. To a large extent, the increase in FY 2002 overtime spending was due to the unexpected 5.2 percent decline in USPP FTEs. FY 2003 overtime spending has declined from its peak and USPP is aggressively managing FY 2004 overtime spending.

The USPP budget picture is further complicated by reimbursements received directly from permit activity sponsors, park transfers to cover unbudgeted overtime and travel to park-sponsored special events, and funds from NPS to cover ELO situations. NPS appropriations language limits transfers from the NPS Operations appropriation to $10,000 per special event, and ELO transfers are administratively capped at $250,000 per event. In FY 2003, USPP spending from these transfers and reimbursements amounted to approximately $7 million. USPP has indicated that the caps have impeded the deployment of its officers to meet NPS requests for special law enforcement services, even though NPS is willing to fund the service.

Other Issues

USPP is not well served by its current financial reporting systems. There is no readily available information on total spending funds. These data only can be pieced together with considerable special effort. The NPS financial and personnel databases are separate systems and do not link. Even when reports and data can be produced, they frequently are not in a standard electronic format, which limits their usefulness for further analysis.

USPP also is hampered by the lack of an experienced, career chief financial officer (CFO) who understands federal budgets and finance, the appropriations process, and how to translate concepts for senior managers. USPP attempted to hire a CFO, but there were unanticipated problems with the selection process. The position has been advertised again, and several applications had been received as of June 12, 2004.

The CFO must be able to communicate effectively with the NPS Comptroller’s office, regional directors and individual park superintendents, as well as with USPP commanders and other external stakeholders, such as DOI budget and policy officials and OMB budget examiners. Therefore, the Panel recommends that:

The Park Police expeditiously complete its search for and hire a career chief financial officer with the requisite background and skills in the federal budgetary process.

The Panel believes that no meaningful discussion of mission, law enforcement requirements, or priorities can take place without common understanding of the resource implications. As many USPP duties are concerned with special events and unplanned emergencies, many of which are funded or reimbursed through separate transfers, budget controls based solely on operating appropriations are inadequate. Because comprehensive budget information is essential to effective resource management, the Panel strongly reaffirms the recommendation in its 2001 report that:

The Park Police, in conjunction with the National Park Service and within its current appropriation account structure, should 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.

Finally, the Panel is concerned that the current cap on reimbursements may impede the implementation of its 2001 recommendation regarding the use of reimbursements for unplanned and unbudgeted events. To facilitate sound financial management and accountability, the Panel recommends that:

The Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Park Police, Office of Management and Budget, and appropriators should review the current ceilings or other restrictions on National Park Service transfers to U.S. Park Police for specific, unplanned security needs, and periodically revise them to reflect changing costs for personnel, overtime, and other special equipment.

STAFFING TRENDS AND ISSUES

Since the Academy’s 2001 report, USPP has recruited almost 170 sworn officers, but staffing levels have remained essentially the same because of turnover. USPP’s experience is similar to that of other federal law enforcement agencies, as many sworn staff went to DHS in 2002 and 2003. As a result, some of the same staffing issues addressed in 2001 are relevant today.

Changes in Distribution of Officers

From March 2001 to 2004, USPP staffing declined by nine; a loss of 15 officers was offset by a gain of six civilians. Within these totals, New York staffing increased by 21 officers, while DC staffing declined by 31 officers. DC patrol divisions lost 11 officers, while the Special Forces Branch grew by ten and the Criminal Investigations Branch by three. These distributional changes help to explain the relative stability in USPP’s ratio of privates to higher-ranked officers. The USPP’s private to higher ranked officer ratio was 2.1:1 in 2004, the same as 2001, though it is somewhat higher for patrol activities. Other local law enforcement agencies have higher ratios, at least for their patrol activities.[4]

Impediments to USPP Staff Growth

Although USPP invested substantial budgetary resources in FYs 2002 and 2003 to fund seven new recruit classes of 159 officers, training dropouts and overall attrition have thwarted efforts to increase total officer staffing. The unusually high staff turnover in FY 2002 (and to a lesser extent in FY 2003) was the major impediment. In addition, USPP continues to encounter periodic funding problems for its new recruit classes.

One reason for USPP’s limited ability to increase and maintain its officer corps is its practice of training new recruits in separate, self-contained Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) classes of 24 officers. There clearly are benefits in promoting esprit de corps among USPP recruits, but this costly; periodic accession training does little to ease continual shortages in USPP officers relative to approved staffing levels. Most other federal law enforcement agencies using the center provide basic training to their recruits in smaller groups mixed with other basic law enforcement trainees. The Panel understands the need to build camaraderie among officers, but USPP may not always have the funds for a full class. It would be better served by bringing on a few officers at a time to replace turnover losses more quickly. The Panel recommends that:

The Park Police send some recruits to the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center with other organizations’ recruit classes so that it can bring on smaller numbers of officers at one time rather than waiting for a full class.

The Panel remains troubled by the large number of higher-ranked officers relative to privates, notwithstanding the unusual attrition in 2002 and 2003 that may have contributed to this. The shift of officers in DC from patrol to other specialized units also may have been a factor, yet the overall ratio remains different from other metropolitan police departments and should be examined. The Panel recommends that:

The Park Police reevaluate the number of higher-ranked officers. In some cases, intensive sergeant-to-private supervision levels may be needed. In others, there can be a broader span of control.

More Flexible Staffing

USPP’s willingness and ability to use different types of staff to perform specific and often limited law enforcement activities has produced a mixed record. On the one hand, USPP has continued to civilianize certain positions as they become available, and has recently decided to use 34 contract guards to meet fixed post requirements for Icon protection in DC.

On the other hand, local law enforcement agencies make better use of non-sworn officers to perform specific duties, such as parking enforcement, parking control at special events, and volunteer services. NPS regulations prohibit the use of volunteers for paid duties otherwise performed by government employees. USPP staff indicated they lack the staff and funding to manage intern or some volunteer programs, which they once did.

In March 2004, the NPS Deputy Director announced a new policy for filling the Regional Law Enforcement Specialist (RLES) positions that USPP captains previously had occupied. A regional director can fill these positions competitively with either a USPP captain or an NPS protection ranger. The captains now in an RLES position can remain there until transfer or retirement.

To help USPP make the best use of its sworn officer staff and reduce its experienced officer losses, the Panel recommends that the Park Police:

— Use a mix of staff, rather than all sworn officers, for particular services, such as parking enforcement and other functions that do not require sworn officer expertise.

— Reinstate the use of auxiliary staff for non-law enforcement duties, such as parking direction at the Wolf Trap entertainment venue, and use volunteers as appropriate.

— Use guards whenever possible for fixed posts, especially for monuments other than Icons, freeing officers for more mobile patrols.

— Redeploy remaining Park Police captains in regional law enforcement specialist positions as soon as practical, and use them for the highest unmet priority needs.

The Panel has made other staffing recommendations that can be found in the body of the report.

CONCLUDING REMARKS

After taking a hard second look at the role, functions, organization, and resources of the USPP, the Panel's basic conclusion is: “You can't have it both ways.” Given its heightened responsibilities after 9/11 for protection of the nation's most important Icons and urban national parks, USPP cannot be an effective guardian of urban national parks and also attempt to be a full-service urban police force without a substantial increase in resources. It is even more urgent now than when first recommended in 2001 that the mission of the U.S. Park Police be clarified and priorities be set to meet needs established jointly by the DOI, NPS and USPP. Active and committed leadership at all three levels is essential for the Panel's recommendations to be effectively realized.

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

In August 2001, the National Academy of Public Administration (Academy) issued a report, The U.S. Park Police: Focusing Priorities, Capabilities, and Resources for the Future, which responded to congressional concerns about the need to improve accountability within and oversight of the U.S. Park Police (USPP) budget. The report contained 20 recommendations pertaining to USPP’s mission and structure, its roles and functions, and its budgeting and staffing.

In 2003, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies grew concerned about a range of issues, most of which related to USPP’s budget. It also recognized that a number of significant internal and external events had taken place since the Academy’s 2001 report was issued. A new USPP Chief was appointed and the National Park Service (NPS) and USPP placed renewed emphasis on the protection of park monuments in the Washington, DC area and at the Statue of Liberty, largely in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The establishment of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) increased local, state, and federal counterterrorism activities, while improved law enforcement cooperation and coordination also may have affected USPP’s roles, functions, and organizational structure. In light of these developments, Congress asked the Academy to follow up on the recommendations in its 2001 Panel report.

The subcommittee asked that the Academy’s study be conducted in two phases:

Phase I

— Review the implementation status of the Academy Panel recommendations made in its August 2001 report.

§ Assess the rationale for non-concurrence, where applicable.

§ Identify possible options to adjust the pace of implementation.

Phase II

— Evaluate USPP’s mission, roles, and functions, the resources allocated to them, and their relative priorities.

§ Identify major changes in the roles and functions since the 9/11 terrorist attacks in terms of their relationship to mission, needs and priorities.

§ Identify budget resources used to fulfill specific functions and USPP priorities assigned to each function. Assess the feasibility of adjusting currently performed functions assuming constrained budgets for the next few years.

This chapter reviews USPP’s history and its mission relative to the overall NPS mission, examines key changes at the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), NPS and USPP since the 2001 Academy report, and summarizes the implementation status of the key recommendations from that report, including additional progress since the February 2004 Phase I status report was issued.[5] This chapter also describes the methodology used to prepare this final report.

THE U.S. PARK POLICE: A BRIEF HISTORY

The USPP is the nation’s oldest uniformed law enforcement agency. Its lineage traces to the watchmen appointed in 1791 to care for the capital’s public buildings and grounds of the newly proposed District of Columbia (DC). Initially, there were two watchmen—for the Capitol and executive mansion. When responsibility for the park system in the nation’s capital transferred from DOI to the Chief Engineer of the Army in 1867, the number of park watchmen had increased to eight—two at the executive mansion (White House), five on the Smithsonian Grounds (around the “castle”) and one at Franklin Square.

In the 1880s, these watchmen began to be known as “park policemen” and given the same duties and powers as the Washington, DC Police. Congress officially renamed the watchmen as USPP in 1919. Beginning in 1925, the Office of Public Buildings and Grounds of the Nation’s Capital (still within the Corps of Engineers) had responsibility for USPP. When President Franklin D. Roosevelt abolished that office, he placed its functions under the control of the NPS, where USPP remains.

Soon after its shift to NPS, USPP and its policing authority expanded outside of DC to include the George Washington Memorial Parkway. A 1948 law directed that:

on and within the roads, parkways, and other Federal reservations in the environs of DC over which the United States has, or shall hereafter acquire, exclusive or concurrent criminal jurisdiction, the several members of the United States Park Police shall have the power and authority to make arrests for the violation of any law or regulations issued pursuant to law.[6]

In 1970, “the environs of the District of Columbia” were redefined and extended to include “Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, Prince William, and Stafford Counties, and the City of Alexandria in Virginia, and Prince George’s, Charles, Anne Arundel, and Montgomery Counties in Maryland.”[7] It was noted that without USPP, “it would be necessary to establish additional separate police forces in the metropolitan area of the District of Columbia to police each of the several Federal reservations where state and county officers of Virginia and Maryland have no jurisdiction.”[8]

As the national park system expanded into more urban areas, USPP acquired additional responsibilities outside the DC metropolitan area. In the early 1970s, New York and San Francisco became home to new national recreation areas and NPS was responsible for managing them. USPP had the largest concentration of skilled urban law enforcement professionals in NPS, which had it assume the law enforcement functions in these new, largely urban, locations.

NPS AND USPP MISSIONS

NPS, which operates 385 park sites within the national park system, is mandated by Congress to “promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations…and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” These national park sites and areas fit within one or more of three categories: historical areas, natural areas, and recreation areas. Each uses its own approach to manage and enhance the natural, historical or other distinguishing attributes for the enjoyment of the approximately 280 million individuals who visit the national park system annually. To accomplish its mission, NPS employs approximately 14,000 permanent employees and 4,000 seasonal workers.[9]

Many of the best known national parks are in remote locations, such as the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, or Death Valley. Although some parks such as Denali National Park in Alaska are less used in winter months, most serve tourists on a year-round basis. NPS thus requires a wide range of protection, security, and law enforcement services at each national park site.

NPS’ law enforcement needs are met primarily by commissioned rangers, referred to in this report as protection rangers to distinguish them from interpretive rangers. Notable exceptions include several national park sites in urban areas. USPP meets the law enforcement needs for the DC metropolitan area, New York’s Gateway National Recreation Area (GNRA), and San Francisco’s Golden Gate National Recreation Area (GGNRA), the latter two beginning in the mid-1970s. More recently, USPP began protecting the Statue of Liberty, the Presidio in San Francisco, and Fort Wadsworth in New York City.

USPP’s mission is to “serve and protect the public and to preserve the resources of the National Park Service,”[10] and its primary duty is to “protect lives.” It also is responsible for crowd control measures during official government ceremonies, special events, and public demonstrations in DC. Further, it provides dignitary and presidential protective services at the request of the United States Secret Service (USSS). To fulfill this broad mission, USPP employed 615 sworn officers and 126 civilian personnel and received a discretionary appropriation of $78.9 million for operations in Fiscal Year (FY) 2004.

KEY CHANGES SINCE THE AUGUST 2001 ACADEMY REPORT

The 9/11 terrorist attacks have had a significant impact on law enforcement activities within DOI, NPS and USPP. DOI has undertaken several law enforcement reforms in response to changing security needs and recommendations from internal reports. In addition, leadership changes in DOI, NPS and USPP have involved key managers responsible for setting law enforcement policy, determining resource requirements, and managing those resources to address critical needs. Finally, organizational, spending, and staffing changes within USPP have affected its ability to fulfill its mission.

Law Enforcement Reforms at the Department of the Interior

DOI Secretary Gale Norton requested that the department’s Inspector General assess the actions needed for effective departmental law enforcement. The resulting effort reviewed the seven distinct organization units in DOI’s five bureaus, which contain nearly 4,400 law enforcement officers. This study, published in January 2002, led to a special review panel designed to improve law enforcement throughout DOI. Secretary Norton approved more than 20 measures the panel proposed, including the appointment of a Deputy Assistant Secretary (DAS) for Law Enforcement and Security. The measures, which were largely consistent with the Inspector General’s recommendations,[11] were designed to improve training, supervision, oversight and coordination among the five DOI bureaus with law enforcement personnel: NPS, 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 would establish a senior-level Director of Law Enforcement and fill the position with an experienced law enforcement professional. Each one would report directly to the Bureau Director or Deputy Director, and serve on the Secretary’s Law Enforcement and Security Board of Advisors.

— The bureaus would alter their chains of command to have law enforcement special agents in the field report directly to their Directors of Law Enforcement rather than non-law enforcement management.

— A single departmental Internal Affairs Unit would 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 Office of Inspector General issued a progress report on the Secretary’s directives on law enforcement reform.[12] It found that OLES and the bureaus had made efforts to improve law enforcement, but that the pace was initially slow due to resistance. One directive that had proceeded well was ordering the formal sharing of coordination and review responsibility for law enforcement and security budgets 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.

NPS and USPP Leadership Changes

As work on the Academy’s first study was completed in July 2001, Fran P. Mainella became 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, North Carolina and formerly with the Prince George’s County Police Department in Maryland, to become USPP Chief. Chambers was sworn in as Chief in February 2002. The USPP Chief reports to NPS Deputy Director Donald W. Murphy, who joined NPS in fall 2001 from the California Department of Parks and Recreation.

The post-9/11 security environment encouraged 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 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, which has line authority over NPS’ 60 special agents, who primarily investigate crime in national parks, and oversight responsibilities for the 1,400 protection rangers who work in the 385 parks and report directly to park superintendents. Within the Associate Director’s office is the Office of Law Enforcement and Emergency Services, which has coordinated preparation of each park’s law enforcement needs assessment (LENA).

Ms. 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.

DOI created the DAS for Law Enforcement and Security, within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, to oversee all DOI law enforcement activities. When Secretary Norton established this office, 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.”[13] At the Secretary's discretion, the DAS also can be given direct authority to oversee the deployment of all departmental law enforcement officers in times of emergency. To head this office, the Secretary appointed an individual with substantial federal law enforcement experience—Larry Parkinson—formerly a prosecutor with the U.S. Attorney’s office in Washington, DC, and FBI General Counsel.

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 individuals 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, Civilian Manager for Organizational Development and Fiscal Management, and a former general management consultant in Durham City Council. The Deputy Chief positions were filled competitively.

In December 2003, NPS suspended Chief Chambers, with pay, and later notified her of its intention to fire her. She appealed that decision to DOI and also asked the Office of Special Counsel at the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to consider her case as that of a government whistle blower. Assistant Chief Holmes was made Acting Chief and, upon his retirement in March 2004, Deputy Chief Pettiford assumed the post. On July 9, DOI upheld NPS’ action, and the chief was fired as of that date. Chambers’ appeal with MSPB is pending.

USPP ORGANIZATIONAL, SPENDING, AND STAFFING CHANGES SINCE 2001

USPP Organizational and Structural Changes

The placement of the USPP Chief within NPS has been the most significant change since the 2001 Academy Report was released. Effective January 2002, the USPP Chief reported to the NPS Director through the NPS Deputy Director. Before then, the Chief reported to the National Capital Regional Director. This change, recommended in the 2001 report, recognized USPP’s multi-regional responsibilities and that some responsibilities, such as personal protection, escorts and demonstrations, were national in scope and transcended park and regional interests. The USPP Chief was also added to the National Leadership Council, which includes NPS regional directors and senior NPS staff.

According to its staff, USPP is more involved in broader NPS policies, such as workforce and strategic planning, under the new reporting structure. USPP staff participate directly on NPS committees and, as one senior staff member put it, “USPP is more in step with NPS and is no longer seen as ‘apart’ from it.” Although there have been changes in security emphasis, staff distribution, and work schedules, the USPP organizational structure has been relatively stable between 2001 and 2004. The 2001 structure is depicted in Figure 1-1 and the 2004 structure is shown in Figure 1-2.

The Chief, aided by an Assistant Chief, leads the force and is directly responsible for its operations, administration, and management. The organizational structure continues to have three principal divisions: Operations, Services, and Field Offices, all of which are based in DC. The Office of Inspectional Services was redesignated as the Office of Professional Responsibility in the 2004 structure, and the audits, evaluations, planning and development units were replaced with new offices focused on safety and employee discipline and review. A Deputy Chief heads the Operations and Field Office Divisions. Once headed by a Deputy Chief, the Services Division[14] now is led by a Major, as is the Office of Professional Responsibility.

Figure 1-1

2001 United States Park Police Organizational Structure

Figure 1-2

2004 United States Park Police Organizational Structure

— The Operations Division is responsible for operational activities in the Washington area. It consists of the Patrol Branch, the Criminal Investigations Branch (CIB), the Special Forces Branch (SFB), and the Support Services Group. A Major heads the first three and a Captain heads the fourth.

§ The Patrol Branch, the Operations Division’s largest element, is responsible for patrolling the Washington area and overseeing contract guards at the Icon monuments.

§ The CIB is a centralized branch that serves as the investigative arm for crimes in all three districts. It conducts plain clothes and undercover investigations and has a narcotics and vice unit.

§ The SFB is composed of one Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT) (there were 2.5 SWATs in 2001), and houses the canine, aviation, and motorcycle units. It is the principal liaison with USSS on presidential and foreign dignitary protection, performs escort duties, and serves as the focal point for special events, demonstrations, and potential terrorism threats in the Washington area. SFB now has an intelligence unit that provides the primary counterterrorism link with DHS.

§ The Support Services Group includes the horse-mounted patrol, watch commander, shift commanders, traffic safety unit, and civilian guards at such DC locations as Ford’s Theater and NPS offices.

— The Services Division provides administrative, communications, training, data analysis, information management, and other technical support services.

— The Field Offices Division includes a small DC-based headquarters that manages the New York and San Francisco field offices. The six captains assigned to NPS to serve as law enforcement specialists for NPS regions are organizationally within this division, as is a major who serves as liaison in NPS’ Washington Service Office.

§ The New York Field Office (NYFO) provides protection services for the Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, and the GNRA in the New York City area.

§ The San Francisco Field Office (SFFO) provides most, but not all, of the protection services for GGNRA and the Presidio Trust, a separate government corporation controlling large areas of the Presidio, which is within GGNRA.

The Chief’s office includes the Office of Professional Responsibility, which handles internal affairs, employee safety, and planning and development. In addition, the Secretary of the Interior’s five-person special protection detail is assigned to and managed within this office.

Spending Trends

USPP operational costs have increased substantially from 2001 to 2004. The annual appropriation for operations—the major source of USPP operational funding—increased from $62.3[15] million in FY 2001 to $78.9 million in FY 2004, or 26.6 percent. This overall growth exceeded the 17.3 percent growth in the NPS appropriation for operations for the same period.

In addition, USPP received anti-terrorism supplemental appropriations totaling $1.4 million in FY 2001 and $25.3 million in FY 2002. These emergency no-year funds helped sustain higher USPP spending levels in FY 2001, 2002, and 2003. Once these supplemental funds were exhausted, however, USPP found that its FY 2004 appropriation was not solely sufficient to maintain its previous level of operations. This “funding gap” resurrected many of the concerns that precipitated the 2001 Academy study. Chapter 4 provides more detailed analysis of these overall trends.

Staffing Trends

Table 1-1 shows the number of USPP sworn officers for selected years between 1986 and 2004.[16] In the aggregate, officer strength increased 9.4 percent between 1986 and 1995, another 4.1 percent from 1995 to 2001, and has declined 2.4 percent since 2001. Within this total, the most dramatic change has been the increase in positions in NYFO and SFFO and the respective decline in DC Operations staff. Some proportion of the field growth between 1986 and 2001 was for reimbursed positions,[17] but most of the expansion reflected an increase in law enforcement services provided to meet NPS needs. Increased field responsibilities included picking up the Presidio in San Francisco when it became a national park site in the mid-1990s, taking responsibility for the Statue of Liberty from NPS law enforcement rangers in 1994, and assuming the security role at Fort Wadsworth when it transferred from the U.S. Army to NPS in 1995.

The decline in sworn officer positions in DC did not reflect a commensurate decline in the demand for law enforcement services. Over this period, USPP acquired responsibilities for such new areas as the Roosevelt, Korean and Vietnam War Veterans Memorials, Pennsylvania Avenue from the Capitol to the White House, escort responsibilities for the vice president, and greater security protection for the three Icon monuments on the National Mall.

The decline of sworn officers in the Office of Professional Responsibility and Services Division between 2001 and 2004 reflects the civilianization of some positions and a shift of sworn positions to Operations, especially to SFB.

Table 1-1

Park Police Sworn Officers: 1986-2004

OFFICE	1986	1995	2001	2004
Chief, Assistant Chief	2	2	2	3
NPS Regions & Washington Office	10	11	11	7
Office of Prof Responsibility	18	22	19	15
Operations (DC Districts, Spec Forces, CIB, Recruits)	403	379	375	366
Services Div (Training, Admin, Communications, Dispatch	36	50	45	30
Field Office Division (NY and SF and 1 staff in DC)	84	141	178	194
Total Sworn Officers on Board	553	605	630	615

Sources: USPP Financial Plans for 1986 and 1995. In 2001, Presidio and Fort Wadsworth information was from payroll data, while all other data were from a March 2001 list of USPP personnel by organization. In 2004, all data are from USPP’s March list of positions.

Crime or Incident Data Changes

Appendix D contains detailed data on crime trends and enforcement patterns for 2001, 2002, and 2003. These update the summary of incidents in the USPP jurisdictions listed in the August 2001 report.

In general, the national decline in urban crime extended to USPP venues. The incident closure rates have generally improved, and the percentage of incidents outside NPS jurisdiction has declined significantly. For example, USPP incidents involving violent crimes in the DC area fell from 265 to 140 between 2000 and 2003, and property crimes decreased from 409 to 297. Traffic incidents, including citations and warnings, declined markedly between 2000 and 2003, although vehicle accidents increased slightly over this period.

In New York, violent and property crimes, lesser crimes, and vehicle accidents were down markedly since 2000, while traffic and other service incidents have increased. In San Francisco, violent crime increased sharply, while property and other crimes declined. Traffic incidents there increased slightly, but vehicle accidents and other service incidents declined.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 2001 RECOMMENDATIONS

In the Phase I report issued in February 2004, the Academy Panel reviewed its 2001 recommendations and the extent to which 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, as shown in Table 1-2.

Table 1-2: Status of the Twenty 2001 Recommendations

Fully Implemented	4
Moderate Progress	3
Limited Progress	10
No Progress	1
Rejected	2

For each recommendation reviewed in the report, a brief paragraph explained the extent of implementation achievement, and a section gave more details on specific actions. The recommendations were organized by the three functional categories addressed in the 2001 report: roles and missions, budgeting, and staffing. Overall, the Panel found substantial variation in the progress made to implement the recommendations.

Five of the 20 recommendations appeared to be key to refocus USPP resources and their use toward meeting NPS’ most critical law enforcement needs. These included two recommendations designed to clarify USPP’s overall mission, responsibilities and priorities and to focus its mission on the protection of park visitors and resources, especially the monuments, memorials and other national treasures in the National Capital Region (NCR). Two other recommendations addressed critical budget and finance issues, including the need to establish a comprehensive, unified USPP budget and to involve major commanders and park superintendents in the annual USPP budget development. The fifth key recommendation focused on the need to develop a thorough staffing needs assessment, based on a clarified USPP mission, including an examination of the balance among patrol activities, specialized units, and administrative assignments. The Panel determined that limited progress had been made in implementing these five key recommendations. They are listed below, with a brief description of the status.

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.

— Two separate task forces within DOI and NPS, created to address USPP priority issues, have not yet completed their work.

— DOI made securing national Icons from terrorist threats a top priority, but the USPP continues to try to perform all its other activities without any explicit guidance concerning priorities.

2. The USPP mission (should) 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 terrorisms, and the management of special events and demonstrations.

— USPP has increased its security activities for the three Icons on the National Mall, although initial efforts were severely criticized by DOI’s Inspector General.

— USPP has also increased its security response to special events on the Mall, and often relies on support from other law enforcement entities in the DC area.

— Priorities have not been set among core, specialized, and other urban policing functions described in the 2001 report.

— NPS and USPP initially rejected the implication that USPP activities in New York and some in San Francisco be transferred to park rangers in order to concentrate USPP resources primarily in DC.

3. The USPP, in conjunction with the National Park Service and within its current appropriation account structure, (should) 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.

— A separate line item USPP appropriation for FY 2001 provided the impetus for consolidating USPP funding for DC, New York and San Francisco, but it included only appropriated operating funds.

— USPP included the expected reimbursement from the Presidio Trust Corporation in its FY 2003 financial plan.

— Total USPP spending still is not readily observable because all reimbursement funds, emergency funds, and some capital spending have not been added to form a comprehensive USPP budget that can be monitored by the USPP Chief, NPS and Congress.

4. The USPP 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.

— The USPP Chief used the NPS budget system to develop and rank recommended budget initiatives for the FY 2004 budget.

— However, these initiatives and rankings do not appear to arise from the detailed, joint NPS-USPP review of park level law enforcement needs prescribed in the Panel recommendation.

5. 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 (by the Panel).

— Although NPS and USPP concurred with the recommendation, USPP did not undertake, or hire external experts to conduct, a staffing needs assessment.

— USPP indicated that it was waiting for mission clarification and priorities guidance from DOI and NPS.

— DOI and NPS did not issue this guidance because they believed they had delegated to USPP the responsibility to clarify its mission and conduct a comprehensive review of staffing needs.

Subsequent USPP Actions

Since the Panel’s Phase I report was issued in February 2004, USPP acting Chiefs and senior staff have undertaken additional actions to implement more of the 2001 recommendations.

— In spring 2004, USPP leadership initiated meetings with park superintendents in the Washington, DC area to discuss park needs and USPP capabilities to meet them, a necessary first step toward implementing the joint budget development recommendation.

— Another recommendation was to improve fiscal responsibility and accountability within USPP by having the Chief provide separate budget allotments to major commanders [early in the fiscal year], holding them, like park superintendents, accountable for managing their commands within those budget allotments. USPP tried this initially for a limited number of FY 2003 expenditure items, but the Chief’s office retained approval authority and this limited attempt was terminated for FY 2004. Recently, the acting USPP Chief delegated to branch and watch commanders in Washington, DC the authority to approve routine purchase requests up to $1,000 (for purchases not considered “sensitive,” such as weapons or technology that would be new to USPP) and the responsibility to operate within the NPS Advanced Procurement Plan for their areas. If this is successful, USPP leadership plans to increase the approval amounts and extend this authority to other expenditure areas.

— The Panel recommended that USPP develop a multi-year replacement plan for cruisers and other capital equipment in the DC area. Although USPP agreed with the recommendation, no plan had been developed as of February 2004. However, USPP staff have reinitiated work on a vehicle and equipment replacement plan, and have committed to have it in effect in October 2004.

— USPP recently completed an internal reassessment of its civilian guard positions by location. It identified additional guard hires needed to reduce overtime and enhance officer safety, and it established priorities for each post. The latter will serve as the basis for assigning civilian guards when there are not enough on duty to fill every post. This type of reassessment is but one component of a larger, overall staffing needs assessment that the Panel recommended.

Not all of these actions imply successful completion of a Panel recommendation. For example, the additional meetings with superintendents are geared toward improving communication of needs and establishing a process for joint budget development, a critical first step. However, continued leadership and follow-up must be undertaken to fulfill the joint budget development recommendation. Likewise, assessing civilian guard needs and assigning priorities to fixed posts are one part of an overall staffing needs assessment. At the same time, these efforts do demonstrate a renewed commitment to implement more of the Panel’s recommendations, particularly those that USPP agreed it could begin to implement internally.

STUDY METHODOLOGY

Academy Fellows and specialists knowledgeable in law enforcement activities comprised the Panel that directed this follow up project and guided staff that conducted the research. The Panel held four meetings to meet with DOI, NPS and USPP managers, including the Acting Chief, NPS Director and Deputy Director, and the DAS for Law Enforcement and Security. The Panel approved the project methodology and work plans; reviewed draft papers; developed recommendations; and reviewed and approved the draft report. The Panel and staff provided periodic status reports on the study’s progress to DOI, NPS, USPP, and congressional staff.

Project staff organized the analysis provided in this report, and the Panel used this information as it adopted findings, conclusions, and recommendations. DOI, NPS, and USPP were invited to review the draft and provide comments. Their comments have been incorporated into this final report.

The approach to this study entailed:

— Defining the major functions that USPP performed in fulfilling its mission, including:

§ Developing a set of major USPP functions for the DC area using information developed in the August 2001 report and the February 2004 Phase I report, interviews with DOI, NPS and USPP staff, reviews of NPS and USPP documents, and other source materials.

§ Comparing these functions with similar functions performed by other law enforcement entities (urban police departments, federal law enforcement agencies and NPS’ protective rangers).

§ Identifying any changes in USPP functions since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and any differences in major USPP functions performed in DC, compared to New York and San Francisco.

— Establishing USPP’s FY 2003 costs associated with each major USPP component, including:

§ Working with DOI, NPS and USPP budget staff to develop budget costs by organization from current USPP data arranged by organization and type of spending (budget object classes, such as overtime or supplies)

§ Working with NPS and USPP to determine the types and number of staffing hours allocated to each major organization, since staff costs are the predominant component of USPP spending.

§ Developing similar organizational budget costs for the previous 3-4 years (e.g., FY 2000 through 2002). USPP budget and staffing data do not exist on a functional level and the existing information and reporting system does not support an effort to develop data along functional lines.

— Examining models and methodologies used for estimating resources required for each major USPP function, including:

§ Reviewing current NPS, USPP, and other models for estimating law enforcement needs, such as the LENAs and Visitor Management and Resource Protection Assessment Program (VRAPs) park superintendents developed for protection rangers, and the USPP beat analysis.

§ Reviewing alternative staffing models developed by research organizations and others that have been successfully applied to federal or local law enforcement needs.

— Reviewing potential criteria for establishing priorities within law enforcement agencies and assessing their applicability to USPP, including:

§ Identifying criteria for establishing law enforcement priorities from interviews with DOI, NPS, USPP, and other federal and local law enforcement entities. Criteria comparison focused on those entities that have clearly defined priorities that are perceived to be successful.

— Establishing a set of criteria to refocus the current USPP mission and set priorities, given expected funding levels over the next few years, including:

§ Using the potential priority-setting criteria, developing a methodology to rank the criteria and presenting examples of the criteria applied to selected USPP functions and activities.

§ Identifying potential low-ranked functions relative to higher ranked functions and indicating the additional information that DOI, NPS, and USPP decision-makers would need to set USPP priorities.

ROAD MAP TO THE REPORT

Chapter 2 examines the mission differences between USPP and protection rangers and analyzes how the basic concept of mission differs from USPP to NPS. Although USPP compares its mission to that of a full-service urban police force, NPS views it as a police force for urban national parks. Finally, this chapter looks at the relationship and reliance USPP has with other local law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, and local levels.

Chapter 3 evaluates the current process used to set USPP priorities and compares it with methods used by other police organizations, including protection rangers. This chapter also identifies USPP’s current functions and identifies six criteria that could be used to clarify the mission and set priorities for current functions and activities. The Panel’s “ranking matrix” illustrates how priority-setting criteria can be applied for current USPP activities to develop a rank ordering. The chapter concludes with identifying potential high and low-priority functions and discusses alternative dispositions for low-priority functions that NPS and USPP can address in the budget development process.

Chapter 4 examines the growth in USPP spending and the principal sources for it, and compares the total growth rates with spending from operating appropriations alone. The chapter also includes specific recommendations designed to address the key spending issues.

Chapter 5 addresses staffing trends and relates them, where possible, to the numbers of staff who work in the respective areas. It also examines ways to add flexibility to staffing patterns and develop USPP staff throughout their careers. The chapter also discusses the work that USPP does with other law enforcement organizations and how they deploy their staffs. Finally, the chapter presents methods that NPS and USPP could use to estimate human resource needs, and recommends an approach to better match USPP resources with its mission.

CHAPTER 2

LAW ENFORCEMENT IN URBAN PARKS AND USPP MISSION

NPS manages and maintains 385 national parks, monuments, and other sites that host more than 280 million visitors annually. For the vast majority of national park sites, protection rangers provide law enforcement services. Most of these park sites are in remote rural areas. For those that are located in or adjacent to large urban areas, the most well known are: the National Mall area with its monuments and memorials; the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island in New York; Gateway and Golden Gate National Recreation Areas in and around New York City and San Francisco, respectively; and Independence National Historic Park with the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia.

USPP provides law enforcement services for these major urban national park sites, except for Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia, and parts of Gateway and GGNRA. The NPS protection rangers serve the other national urban park sites, such as the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis (which includes the Gateway Arch, the Museum of Western Expansion, and the Old Courthouse), and the Boston National Historical Park (which includes the Freedom Trail and the many landmarks along that route).

What makes NPS’ law enforcement, security and protection mission different from other federal law enforcement entities is its congressional mandate not only to provide protection for the people visiting parks but to protect the vast and diverse inventory of national park system resources. The NPS Organic Act directs that these nationally significant resources be protected to preserve them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.[18]

Chapter 2 reviews law enforcement in NPS’ urban parks throughout the nation and the kinds of work done by NPS protection rangers and USPP officers. It then discusses the evolution of the USPP mission to a full-service urban police force and the need for DOI, NPS, and USPP to reexamine that mission in the context of the NPS mission. Since some specific USPP work activities, while within its authority, are beyond NPS needs, the chapter also examines how to approach this issue. Finally, the chapter addresses priority setting in the post-9/11 world.

Throughout the chapter, the Panel emphasizes the need for DOI and NPS to engage USPP in carefully and jointly redefining—in the context of the NPS mission—the USPP mission, and in establishing priorities consistent with the mission to ensure that its functions can be effectively performed with available resources.

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE WORK OF PROTECTION RANGERS AND USPP OFFICERS

Every national park site requires some combination of law enforcement services to protect visitors and its natural, cultural, or historical assets. Although the mix of law enforcement services may vary with each park, the required services at urban ones differ substantially from those at most of the isolated, expansive parks in rural areas.

— Urban park visitors are less likely to encounter wildlife or become lost, but they are more likely to confront person-on-person criminal activity—assault, robbery, or auto theft.

— Natural resource preservation issues may be more prevalent in rural than in urban parks, though the Presidio has several endangered and one unique species.

— Protection rangers in urban areas cover a smaller geographic area than protection rangers in the larger rural parks, and they address law enforcement issues that are more common to those that USPP faces.

— Visitor protection requirements differ, since the local city populations also use at least some of the NPS grounds as community parks, and may represent a larger proportion of park visitors than at the larger rural parks.

A review of selected LENAs for urban national park sites demonstrated the urban/suburban nature of these parks and described specific law enforcement needs.

— In St. Louis, the park defines the threat of terrorism as one of four external factors that affect it. The 40 law enforcement staff monitor dozens of security cameras and oversee magnetometers and x-ray equipment for visitor screening.[19]

— GGNRA protection rangers noted that many of the city’s social problems have become law enforcement problems there, including drug use, public drunkenness, deviant sexual behaviors, vagrancy and disorderly conduct. These activities tend to migrate from areas of heavy police presence to areas where pressure is less intense. This often requires that NPS law enforcement efforts be directed at social problems in addition to park resource and visitor protection.

— At Independence Hall in Philadelphia, there are more bars and night clubs around the perimeter than in the past, and there are more crimes, such as drunkenness, assault, vandalism, and drugs, which spill into the park. In addition, to meet security requirements at Independence Hall, NPS now uses protection rangers and armed, contract guards. NPS staff believe that armed guards are feasible because Pennsylvania has strict statutes about guard training; guards are trained at the same level as local deputy sheriffs. However, guards do not enforce laws or make arrests; they are armed for their own protection and to be able to take action in a counterterrorism emergency.

As a general rule, protection rangers want to work first in a park setting protecting resources and serving visitors, while USPP officers concentrate on police work that prevents criminal activities or investigates those that occur. These cultural differences are illustrated well on the NPS recruitment web pages for rangers and USPP officers.

Park Rangers supervise, manage and perform work in the conservation and use of resources in national parks and other federally-managed areas. Park Rangers carry out various tasks associated with forest or structural fire control; protection of property; gathering and dissemination of natural, historical, or scientific information; development of interpretive material for the natural, historical, or cultural features of an era; demonstration of folk art and crafts; enforcement of laws and regulations; investigation of violations, complaints, trespass/encroachment, and accidents; search and rescue; [emphasis added] and management of historical, cultural, and natural resources, such as wildlife, forests, lakeshores, seashores, historic buildings, battlefields, archaeological properties, and recreation areas.[20]

The primary duty of the U.S. Park Police is to protect lives….[They] may be detailed to any park of the National Park System on a temporary basis, but men and women who are considering careers as Park Police should expect to work in a large urban area. Park Police Officers preserve the peace; prevent, detect, and investigate accidents and crimes; aid citizens in emergency situations; arrest violators; and often provide crowd control at large public gatherings.[21]

As these advertisements indicate, USPP officers and protection rangers have substantially different career expectations and role perceptions.

— Most protection rangers expect to spend much of their careers at a larger rural national park site, while USPP officers expect to spend much of theirs in an urban location. A major reason that NPS assigned its New York and San Francisco responsibilities to USPP was because its protection rangers did not want long-term, urban duty.[22] Independence National Historic Park in Philadelphia continues to face high turnover rates among its rangers and the park has required newly recruited rangers to sign an agreement to remain there or in the environs for at least two years.

— USPP officers and protection rangers handle traffic issues, but the former are more likely to patrol a major highway while the latter may ensure that back-country roads are not closed due to weather-related mishaps. Even in urban areas, the rangers will generally be on only those local roads that surround their parks, while USPP officers travel among park locations.

— Because rural parks often are some distance from a hospital or other medical facilities, protection rangers are expected to be first responders for medical emergencies and have enhanced training in this area. They are more likely to be involved with search and rescue operations that cover a broad expanse of unoccupied territory. When USPP officers are involved in a search and rescue operation, they are more likely to follow a speeder or carjacker or look for a robbery suspect.

— USPP handles all aspects of criminal investigation. Protection rangers investigate most crimes that occur within their prescribed jurisdiction, though generally not homicides or other major felonies.[23]

— Protection rangers focus more on protecting a park’s natural and cultural resources and are more likely to do regular perimeter checks or look for indications of poaching. USPP is more likely to learn about encroachment or damage to natural resources from an interpretive ranger or other park employee. In DC, these investigations would generally be handled by an environmental officer in CIB.

— Park superintendents expect protection rangers to be helpful to visitors and encourage them to provide information and talk to visitors. Because their uniforms are almost identical to those of interpretive rangers, visitors perceive little difference in roles—though they can of course see that protection rangers wear guns. USPP officers are police first, and their uniforms and cars are like those of a municipal police officer.

Even more significant than the visual differences and work variations between protection rangers and USPP officers is the official to whom they report—rangers report to their respective superintendents and USPP officers report to their district commanders through a separate reporting structure. Thus, superintendents in areas not covered by USPP have full control over the work of protection rangers and can reassign them as priorities shift. USPP officers work within their own separate chain of command and coordination between park superintendents and USPP area commanders can vary. Academy staff observed a positive correlation between the proximity of USPP offices to that of a superintendent and a superintendent’s satisfaction with USPP services. This is especially true for the George Washington Parkway and Statue of Liberty sites.

USPP’S EVOLUTION AND EXPANDED MISSION

The different law enforcement approaches that USPP officers and protection rangers take are grounded in USPP’s underlying statutory history, described in Appendix E. The original DC park watchmen had duties that included gardening as well as patrol. In appropriations language, Congress designated the city parks (which were federal land) they would patrol—in addition to areas around the Capitol and Ellipse—and specified the number of officers per park. These park watchmen were placed under DOI in 1849, and they transferred to the Army Corps of Engineers in 1867.

An attorney general’s ruling in 1886 determined that police who patrolled federal parks had the same powers and duties as the DC Police, which gave them enforcement powers outside the parks. By 1890 they covered even more city parks and had largely enforcement duties. In 1908, Congress discontinued the practice of specifying individual officer posts, and in 1919, Congress designated the officers as the U.S. Park Police.

USPP acquired law enforcement responsibility for Rock Creek Park (already federal land) from the DC Police in 1919, and in 1931, Congress added plain-clothes officers to help reduce thefts from parked autos and incidents of indecent exposure. The Capper-Crampton Act of 1930 gave to the federal government authority to make advance land purchases; this became the basis for greatly expanding national parkland, including within the DC environs. In 1932, USPP began its first operational role outside metropolitan DC—patrolling Mount Vernon Memorial Highway (now the much longer George Washington Memorial Parkway) along the Potomac River.

In 1916, Congress created NPS. By executive order, President Franklin D. Roosevelt transferred responsibility to NPS for the historic battlefields and fortifications that the War Department previously managed as national parks and monuments, the national monuments and national forests under the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and USPP. Within NPS, USPP was placed in the National Capital Parks unit, and it acquired responsibility for the battlefields and monuments throughout the city. Previously, they had concentrated primarily in Northwest DC, within a mile or two of major memorials.

USPP’s added responsibilities for park areas within DC reflect Congress’ intention for NPS, and thus USPP, to fully handle parks within DC. A History of National Capital Parks notes that the National Capital Parks serve the needs of the citizens of DC, Maryland, and Virginia, and millions of other annual visitors, and, “to insure (sic) the national character of the parks, they have remained under federal control for 160 years.”[24]

A 1948 law[25] gave USPP general police authority on all lands over which the United States has exclusive or concurrent criminal jurisdiction in Montgomery, Prince George’s and Anne Arundel Counties in Maryland and Arlington and Fairfax Counties and the city of Alexandria in Virginia. This authority included arresting civilians on military property, but not members of the military. In 1970, Congress extended USPP jurisdiction to federal lands in Loudon, Prince William, Stafford, and Charles Counties in Virginia.[26]

NPS assumed jurisdiction for the Baltimore Washington Parkway in 1953, which it had opposed, seeing it as a drain on resources. With this new role, USPP opened the Greenbelt substation and assigned to it 11 officers. In the early 1970s, with the expanding need to have officers close to broadly dispersed parks, USPP opened substations in Anacostia, Rock Creek Park, and on the George Washington Memorial Parkway.

Previous Efforts to Narrow the USPP Mission

Throughout early USPP history there are references to having the DC police assume USPP duties and doing away with a separate federal law enforcement entity. In response, the USPP looked for ways to solidify its federal duties. For example, there was a 1914 bill (favored by Army Chief of Engineer’s Public Buildings and Grounds) to have USPP take over the 28 DC police positions at the White House buildings and grounds. President Woodrow Wilson’s secretary, who did not want to train a new group of officers, opposed the bill and Congress did not pass it. In the mid-1930s, USPP began to better establish the difference between it and the DC police by having USPP officers become more knowledgeable about tourist sites on the National Mall and in other parts of DC so that they would be able to assist visitors as well as protect them.

Later legislation attempted to reduce USPP’s role in DC to that of guards, with responsibility for only minor traffic cases, the rest to be handled by DC police. The USPP would be funded entirely from federal appropriations, a change from having USPP staff in DC paid and equipped from District appropriations. President Harry Truman vetoed the bill because USPP would have to serve two masters (DC Commissioners, who oversaw local police, and the Secretary of the Interior), and because DOI’s appropriation was already established. That event appears to have been the last major skirmish in the effort to reduce USPP’s role in DC.

In a 1979 report, the General Accounting Office (GAO) recommended that the Secretary of the Interior transfer police control of small parcels of land, such as circles and triangles, to DC.[27] NPS would continue to administer and maintain the land. DOI strongly disagreed. First, it believed GAO had mischaracterized USPP as a DC entity, while DOI viewed it as, “The urban law enforcement arm for the National Park Service in the Washington metropolitan area, San Francisco, CA and New York, NY…The Park Police also provide law enforcement advisors to each regional office of NPS and respond, upon request, to law enforcement emergencies in any area of the system.” More specifically, DOI noted:

The national significance of these small parcels of National Park System land is periodically evaluated to determine if they should be transferred to the District for administration as a part of the city’s local park system. The proper administration and management of System areas require that police services be directed towards providing a safe park environment and ensuring the protection of the parks’ natural, cultural, and historic resources. This is the role of the Park Police. We disagree that it would be appropriate to transfer police control and retain all other administrative responsibility for the parcels of land in the district.[28]

GAO also recommended that the DC Mayor and Secretary of the Interior evaluate giving DC’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) the patrol responsibility for federal parks and monument grounds in DC. DOI cited the strong coordination between USPP and MPD, but noted that this recommendation did not correspond with congressional intent. When Congress provided for a permanent form of government for DC in 1878, the same Act[29] reaffirmed that the park areas within the city were to remain exclusively under the control of the United States. Further, in a 1976 “Report to Accompany H.R. 11877 (P.L. 95-458),” Congress noted that:

The authorities provided to the Secretary to enter into cooperative agreements as provided in this subsection are to be supplemental to the law enforcement responsibilities of the National Park Service, and are not intended to authorize the delegation of permanent enforcement responsibilities to any State or local agency.[30]

In 1979, senior MPD officials indicated that they would consider transfers of responsibility, but needed to evaluate whether there would be additional staff requirements.[31] In 2004, MPD officials stated more strongly that they could not absorb responsibilities in federal areas without sufficient resources to pay for these services.

Increased Involvement in Fighting Crime in DC and Throughout the Country

With the civil unrest of the late 1960s and the 1970s, NPS had USPP establish a “strike force” of 125 privates who would be able to reach NPS trouble spots within 12 hours. USPP officers went to Lake Mead, the Grand Canyon, Blue Ridge and other locations in the early 1970s. NPS deployed dozens of USPP officers to Yosemite to restore order after demonstrations in the 1970s. When NPS saw the need to combat more crime in the parks, it established a Law Enforcement Division in its Washington Service Office, and appointed a USPP inspector (now called a major), with captains assigned to each NPS region to coordinate park law enforcement.[32]

As drug crime and murder rates increased in DC, the U.S. Attorney’s office looked to federal agencies to assist the city. The U.S. Attorney for DC notified USPP to participate “at the operational level” in operating the DC “Weed and Seed” program, a drug program that targeted a particular area of DC. A formal memorandum of agreement, apparently prepared by the U.S. Bureau of Justice Assistance, covered more than law enforcement, including such areas as education and human services.

In 1993, the U.S. Senate was interested in having more USPP support for DC police, and then the DC mayor asked President Bill Clinton for federal assistance. USPP provided support to the DC Anti-Crime and Violence Task Force, as one of many federal law enforcement agencies. USPP also implemented a plan to provide (until 10/94) expanded beat coverage in some MPD areas, to free MPD officers for drug interdiction activities. In 1994, at the request of the President, USPP assigned a 50-person task force to patrol neighborhoods in DC’s 5^th District. The initial estimate for this work was $5 million, but USPP was able to do it for less than $3 million. There was a drastic reduction in crime, and USPP was honored by the Secretary of the Interior, the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and DC Government.

For a number of years, USPP handled the DARE anti-drug program in DC schools and provided officers to schools in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties in Maryland, New York City, and San Francisco. In 1998, a USPP officer was the nationwide DARE Officer of the Year, and the Secretary of the Interior presented a departmental award to a USPP officer for DARE work. USPP participation in the DARE program in all USPP cities has ended because of post 9/11 staffing shortages.

Conclusions and Recommendations: USPP’s Evolution and Expanded Mission

The Panel has noted the sharply different views that USPP and NPS have regarding the former’s role: a full service urban police force, with a principal focus on NPS park lands vs. a park police force for urban national parks. As the previous review indicated, both views have a long history and some statutory inconsistency. The Panel also has noted that USPP’s role as a full-service police force has evolved with the full support of Congress, DOI, and NPS.

Moreover, USPP’ role in protecting DC dates to before USPP received its formal name in 1919, which USPP’s appropriations history confirms. A major reason for Congress’ treatment of USPP as a supplement to the DC police force was that nearly all funds for law enforcement in DC’s early years came from Congress. It was not until 1971 that Congress placed all USPP appropriations under DOI; before then, a portion was still within the DC appropriation.

DOI and NPS have historically supported this broad USPP role. Since the early 1970s, NPS has used USPP’s highly trained officers as a resource to assist parks throughout the nation when demonstrations take place and tactical support is needed. In 1989, the Secretary of the Interior said that USPP was “on the front line in the Nation’s Capital battle to control drug activity.” In 1992, the U.S. Attorney for DC sent notice to USPP to participate “at the operational level” in operating a local drug interdiction program.

The conflicting views about the USPP role cannot be resolved by USPP alone. DOI and NPS may or may not want to change aspects of the USPP role, or simply clarify activities within it. Whatever the decision, the Academy Panel repeats, with a modification (in italics), the first recommendation of its 2001 report.

In its February 2004 Phase I Report,[33] the Panel noted that limited progress had been made to clarify the USPP mission and set priorities. There was apparent confusion among the key parties regarding who should have primary responsibility to clarify the USPP mission. The Panel does not believe USPP can do it alone. It remains convinced that this significant change can only succeed with committed and effective leadership from all three key agencies involved—DOI, NPS and USPP. DOI’s DAS for Law Enforcement and Security has begun to review and assess the mission in concert with NPS and USPP. The Panel believes this approach should continue so as to develop meaningful proposals to redefine and clarify the mission for secretarial decision. While the Panel understands that the DAS has the authority to review budgets and staffing and potentially set priorities for USPP unilaterally, it believes that leadership from all three agencies—DOI, NPS, and USPP—must be directly involved in the process and committed to clarifying the USPP mission and setting priorities. Effective leadership must ensure that all three agencies continue to be fully engaged in setting priorities.

Once USPP’s mission has been redefined, DOI and NPS must provide strong leadership and active support to defend the changes within the administration, Congress, and stakeholders. Further, the changes must be understood and ultimately supported by NPS superintendents and USPP leadership and officers, and be reinforced through training, budgeting, and day-to-day management.

The size and competence of DC’s MPD, which soon will have 3,800 officers, is one consideration in the discussion of USPP’s mission. This growth should alter the historical need for USPP to supplement DC law enforcement activities. This could facilitate any DOI and NPS decisions to increase USPP’s focus on the parks themselves.

In its 2001 report, the Panel had recommended that USPP seek reimbursements for additional activities undertaken that do not directly meet NPS law enforcement needs. However, even when non-park activities are reimbursed, they still take officers out of the parks and away from areas of NPS jurisdiction, which is where the Panel believes USPP’s focus should be. The national parks entrusted to USPP have significant law enforcement needs, even if they are not yet as clearly defined as they should be. This is not a view at odds with USPP senior staff, but perhaps is at variance with some officers, who did not join USPP to function as fixed-post guards or peruse woodland perimeters. The Panel understands that perspective. However, even if officers on non-NPS-related duty are on overtime[34], they are using their energy in work that does not enhance the parks.

Focusing USPP attention on national park needs does not imply that a USPP officer driving from Fort Totten (near North Capital Street, N.E.) to Meridian Hill (near 16^th Street, N.W.) would not respond if an impaired driver is weaving through traffic in front of the officer any more than it would mean MPD or the New York Police Department (NYPD) would not respond to an urgent 9-1-1 call in Dupont Circle or in Riis Park, respectively. What it means is that USPP may not conduct as many of its own warrant arrests in DC neighborhoods.[35]

To maintain a top-quality cadre of officers at all levels, the work must be viewed as meaningful and rewarding. If not, USPP could lose some of its most highly skilled officers. A key element in clarifying the USPP mission and reviewing priorities is making the best use of officer talents and training. As USPP recruits, it would also be appropriate to stress that USPP’s officers serve the parks as police, rather than serve as police who happen to work in parks.

NPS must decide the extent to which it wants USPP officers to maintain a physical presence in its DC parks, and the extent to which officers should address the source of crimes. For example, is it simply enough to watch for drug dealers or discourage them by periodic patrols (something rarely done now), or should officers identify and arrest the perpetrators in the community, as they have authority to do? [36] These types of issues must be directly addressed through the priority-setting process described in Chapter 3. If USPP does not sufficiently police the parks, NPS needs to consider who will fulfill that role.

SETTING PRIORITIES IN THE POST-9/11 WORLD

As with every aspect of security, 9/11 resulted in substantial changes in NPS’ need for protection, security and law enforcement services. Throughout NPS, the threat of a terrorist attack on a national Icon, and its impact on visitors and national heritage, became a priority law enforcement concern. NPS identified critical national Icons within its park sites that could be targets of a terrorist attack, assessed their vulnerabilities, and developed security plans for them.

NPS’ increased emphasis on security needs at the nation’s Icons has significantly affected USPP activities. Among the major changes after 9/11 are:

— Increased coverage of the Washington Monument and Lincoln and Jefferson Memorials.

— Expanded coverage at the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island.

— Support at the Golden Gate Bridge, with special concern for its abutments, which are on NPS property.

— Cooperation with DHS on issues related to general and specific threats. For example, much of the land along the Reagan National Airport flight path is USPP property.

— Additional SWAT and officer training for hazardous materials handling.[37]

— Escort service, at the USSS request, for the Vice President as he travels from his residence to work.

— Reduced number of motorcycle escorts, especially for foreign dignitaries.

— Evacuation plans for the National Mall and memorials, Statue of Liberty, Ellis Island, and urban parks in San Francisco.

— Security oversight (at the request of the superintendent) at Manhattan’s Federal Hall National Monument, which was damaged in the terrorist attacks.

In many instances, these changes required additional resources and different approaches for using those resources. Prior to 9/11, for example, tourists were screened as they entered the Statue of Liberty. They now are screened in Battery Park before they board the ferry to Liberty Island, and they are screened again on the island, outside the statue.[38] When the Statue opens in summer 2004, there will be more officers in its interior and more restrictions on areas for tourists’ access. In DC, DOI has specified fixed posts at the major Icon memorials, and NPS is revising visitor access to the Washington Monument.

The added counterterrorism efforts also are reflected in increased tactical support, such as more canine capabilities (especially for bomb-detection dogs) and additional boats in New York, where there are not only Liberty and Ellis Islands to protect but 20 also miles of shoreline and almost 6,100 acres of land (not counting marshes).

In San Francisco, the span of the Golden Gate Bridge is not federal property, but the bridge abutments are on NPS property near the Presidio and in the Marin Headlands. Increased span patrol was handled through the California Highway Patrol and National Guard, with substantial funding from DHS. Now that DHS funds are no longer provided, USPP is temporarily providing some additional support to Bridge Security. The two entities will determine whether USPP support should continue in the future on a reimbursable basis or if the Bridge Security should contract elsewhere for this assistance.

USPP Responses to Increased Counterterrorism Requirements

As will be discussed more in Chapter 4, USPP received an anti-terrorism supplemental appropriation to help it meet the added NPS protection and security requirements amid the heightened terrorism threat. Although USPP sought to use some of the appropriation to increase its officer strength, a substantial increase in USPP officer attrition thwarted those efforts.[39] Consequently, USPP responded to these increased counterterrorism requirements primarily by reallocating officers and increasing overtime use. In addition, USPP made a number of changes in other areas to accommodate these counterterrorism increases, including:

— Nearly all officers in the New York and San Francisco Field Offices work 12-hour shifts. This schedule permits more coverage with fewer staff, but does not allow any overlap

— staffing for peak crime periods in the parks.

— Staff at the DC monuments also work 12-hour shifts, often with only brief breaks.

— DC monuments are covered by a mix of officers and contract guards.

— Fewer officers are assigned to training at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) and in DC.

— Sworn officers in DC administrative positions cover beats on a rotating basis, approximately once or twice per month.

— Overtime is used in place of additional officers. As discussed in Chapter 4, this use has been substantial in some areas.

— One cruiser may cover two beats or a beat may be covered only in response to a call.

— There are reduced drug interdiction activities.

These responses created major stresses and conflicts within USPP as resource limitations precluded it from performing all of its previous activities and functions as counterterrorism activities increased. The major issue that USPP confronted in FY 2004 was the same one that the 2001 Academy Panel report had identified: the lack of a redefined mission with clearly established priorities and available resources to accomplish them. Staffing shortages forced USPP to reduce certain patrols below prior levels. As they try to cover all traditional responsibilities and added Icon security, some USPP officers are concerned that they sometimes expose NPS to unacceptable risks in those underserved areas.

USPP Priority Setting Processes

While the 9/11 terrorist attacks have made Icon protection a top law enforcement priority, neither DOI or NPS has established explicit, clear priorities for the range of other law enforcement, security, and protection functions and activities that USPP performs. This lack of priorities was not a problem during FYs 2002 and 2003, because USPP was able to use some of its $25 million supplemental appropriation to meet its additional security responsibilities and continue its existing activities. Once those funds were exhausted in FY 2004, the impact of the lack of clearly defined priorities for USPP activities became painfully obvious. USPP could not perform its new Icon security functions and meet past expectations given available resources.

In spring 2002, NPS formed a Law Enforcement Task Force (LETF) to address findings and recommendations from several studies[40] of DOI law enforcement, including those of the Academy Panel. The LETF adopted the following mission statement covering NPS protection 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, the LETF also assigned actions to working groups and individuals to implement various recommendations. For example, the USPP Chief was instructed to clarify the USPP mission and set priorities within it. However, this was not what the Panel intended. Rather, it explicitly emphasized the need for the direct involvement of the Secretary of the Interior and the NPS Director in decisions to redefine the USPP mission and set priorities among its diverse functions. The Panel was convinced then, and remains so now, that such fundamental change can only occur with the active engagement of DOI, NPS, and USPP leadership.

The Academy Panel’s Phase I report indicated, “a new mission statement, revised responsibilities, and clear priorities for USPP” had yet to be developed. The DOI 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.”[41] Active and committed leadership from DOI, NPS, and USPP is the key ingredient for implementing this change.

Many federal agencies use their annual budget development process to set priorities and allocate resources consistent with those priorities. For example, USSS, U.S Marshals’ Service, and Federal Protective Service link their planning processes to their budget development processes to define law enforcement needs, justify law enforcement funding requests, and establish priorities given actual funding levels. However, as discussed in Chapter 4, much of USPP’s budget development continues to be done through the NPS Budget Office. USPP has not yet been able to hire a Chief Financial Officer (CFO) who would handle more of these functions.

Within the NPS budget process, USPP and all parks and regional offices submit electronic funding requests through the Operations Formulation System. There are implied priorities in these requests; then-Chief Chambers ranked her 19 funding requests for FY 2005. At the top of the list are funds associated with hiring additional officers to increase operational readiness (for anti-terrorism activities, NPS special events, and demonstrations) and reduce overtime. Other items specify sites or functions that require additional support or have technology needs.

NPS Law Enforcement Needs Assessments

In 2003, the NPS Associate Director for Resource and Visitor Protection required each park to define its law enforcement and security requirements through the LENA planning process involving the park superintendent, the chief ranger, and other appropriate staff. (The LENA template is shown in Appendix F.) Prior to this, law enforcement needs were (and continue to be) presented through an NPS computer model, the Visitor Management Resource Protection Assessment Program (VRAP), which is discussed more in Chapter 5.

As a model, VRAP does not enable the parks to present their staffing needs in the context of activities, and is more suited to Western parks.[42] In addition, while the factors and agreed-upon FTE per factor were established in advance, it was not possible for NPS always to provide the law enforcement staffing levels that VRAP indicated a park needed. Thus, NPS believed that a LENA would add context to the data, as it would clearly define the law enforcement and protection mission with priorities assigned to the major activities required to accomplish that mission. The LENAs were designed to help NPS staff at the regions and headquarters understand the risks in reducing law enforcement resources below park-requested levels.

The USPP–served parks in NCR did not develop LENAs, believing that they were only required for parks that protection rangers served. USPP did not develop park-oriented protection and law enforcement plans independently. DOI devised the plan for monument and memorial protection and presented it to USPP. The USPP had a 1998-2002 strategic plan and a 2001-2005 draft plan. Staff who worked with Chief Chambers indicated that the effort to revise the plan was begun but then delayed, awaiting mission clarification from NPS. The process of revising the plan might have assisted in reassessing priorities. Former Chief Langston’s summary of the 1998-2002 strategic plan stated:

Our strategic plan focuses on reducing motor vehicle accidents and crimes against persons and property by 10% in the next 5 years. In addition, our plan calls for increased enforcement in the area of drugs, resource violations, and quality of life crimes.[43]

Each of these priorities is important, but in the post-9/11 environment, a revised plan would have had to address increased Icon security requirements and place a stronger focus on counterterrorism. In mid-May 2004, Acting Chief Pettiford directed USPP’s planning officer to begin to draft a revised strategic plan. When the Acting Chief was Deputy Chief for Operations for DC, he had begun reviewing all Memoranda of Understanding with other jurisdictions, to eliminate those that did not directly relate to the broader NPS mission. For example, USPP reviewed the memorandum of understanding for Oak Hill Children’s Center in Laurel, MD, which houses DC juveniles. USPP decided not to renew it, despite calls from MPD, Oak Hill Staff, and the U.S. Attorney for DC, all urging that USPP retain its role.

Priority-setting efforts have been more visible outside DC. In New York, the Gateway acting superintendent prepared, with USPP’s NYFO, a Park Protection and Response Plan (shown at Appendix G) that describes the parks in Gateway (Jamaica Bay and Staten Island Units) and gives the physical and social context in which they operate, as well as visitation/program statistics, park management goals, and law enforcement needs. The superintendent spearheaded the preparation, but he stressed that USPP staff reviewed segments and full drafts and contributed much of the law enforcement portions.

The acting Gateway superintendent also noted that the joint process allowed NPS supervisors and USPP commanders to better understand each others’ needs and limitations. For example, USPP considers some infractions to be lower-priority, such as broken glass or hot charcoal dumped on the beach. No one addressed these issues two years ago, but now NPS and USPP staff are talking about them. The Park Protection and Response Plan was a vehicle for these discussions, and continues to be so.

At the Statue of Liberty, NPS staff developed with USPP a new security plan. The statue park staff discussed USPP staffing levels with the USPP major, but left deployment details to USPP. The DOI Secretary and NPS Director approved the plan. It outlines specific staffing levels when the statue is open or closed, enhanced screening for visitors, and more rigorous patrol of the surrounding water.

In San Francisco, GGNRA law enforcement staff prepared the LENA for the parks in GGNRA. The assessment presents the history and growth of GGNRA, visitation patterns and trends in public use, community expectations, cooperation with other law enforcement entities, protection of and threats to people, resources, and endangered species, criminal activity, and special events. The plan also provides information on GGNRA areas USPP and protection rangers cover, including staffing and the need for additional resources in areas rangers cover. However, the plan was not developed with USPP, whose staff were unaware of it until the Academy project team asked what their role was in GGNRA’s LENA preparation.

Conclusions and Recommendations: Setting Priorities in the Post-9/11 World

The need for a formal process to set priorities has become even more important in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Every federal and local law enforcement agency must set priorities and most use their annual budget development process to relate needs to resources. USPP is no exception. Resource limitations force trade-offs among activities which, in turn, require a clearly defined mission with explicit priorities for the range of activities required to fulfill that mission.

Without mission clarity there is little basis to determine whether a traditional or newly proposed activity should be performed as a routine and budgeted function, on the basis of formal or informal reciprocity with another agency, with reimbursement from the requesting agency, or declined and left to another law enforcement agency more appropriately positioned to perform it. The Panel notes that the lack of mission clarity is less prominent in New York and San Francisco, where USPP’s presence is relatively recent and its role more clearly defined and circumscribed.

Even with a more clearly defined mission in DC, the lack of clear statements of law enforcement needs for most parks presents another critical challenge. Priorities cannot be established for USPP functions and associated work activities if NPS’ law enforcement, protection and security requirements have not been identified or defined. NPS and USPP have demonstrated they can work together effectively to define law enforcement needs for specific events. What is lacking is the extension of this joint tactical planning capability to strategic law enforcement planning on a park-wide level.

The Panel believes that the Park Protection and Response Plan developed for Gateway is a critical first step in developing a formal process for setting USP priorities. Indeed, this process had two distinct advantages—it was undertaken outside the annual budget development process, and cognizant USPP commanders were directly involved in the plan’s development. This improved communication and understanding only can help both groups make some difficult trade-offs.

The lack of mutually developed LENAs for the parks that USPP serves in NCR and GGNRA is a serious omission. Therefore, the Panel recommends that:

Although park superintendents may want to initiate LENAs, it is essential that the final assessment be a joint product with USPP and that both groups use this planning opportunity to develop a more complete understanding of their respective needs, capabilities, and limitations.

USPP ACTIVITIES BEYOND NPS LAW ENFORCEMENT NEEDS

All USPP activities fit within the organization’s broad mission. However, some fall outside NPS’ specific law enforcement needs. Most involve requests from USSS and provision of the Secretary of the Interior’s security detail. As DOI, NPS, and USPP clarify the USPP mission, the Panel believes they should examine the scope of these services.

USSS is known for its protection of the President, Vice President and their families, and former Presidents after they leave office. It protects the permanent and temporary residences of these individuals, the White House complex, the Main Treasury Building and Annex, and foreign diplomatic missions in the DC metropolitan area. Originally part of the U.S. Treasury Department, USSS also has primary jurisdiction to investigate counterfeiting, credit card fraud, computer fraud, and a range of other financial crimes.[44]

When USSS requests federal law enforcement support, it generally does not reimburse for such services.[45] In USPP’s case, reimbursement usually applies only for use of its helicopter and Camp David security sweeps. Services that USPP provides in support of the USSS mission are:

— motorcycle or cruiser escort (with MPD) as the president travels to Andrews Air Force Base in Prince George’s County when weather precludes transportation in the presidential helicopter

— vice-presidential escort to and from his residence (starting after 9/11, approximately 1.2 motorcycle officers per year)

— helicopter surveillance of roof tops and routes for presidential and dignitary travel

— diplomatic escort details in the DC area

— canine and helicopter support at Camp David when or just before the president is in residence, which began in 1972

Helicopter support events have decreased from 271 missions in 2001 to 170 in 2003. Total motorcycle escort support has declined from a high of 1,456 missions in 1999 to 990 in 2002 and 903 in 2003. Requests have increased since 9/11, but USPP does not have the resources to respond to them. In addition, USPP estimates it spends approximately .8 FTE on motor escorts for the president, but reports that only “a small portion of this time” is in the motorcade itself. A larger portion is spent on road and pedestrian closures along the NPS portion of the route (often on Suitland Parkway). USPP is required to perform these functions, regardless of whether it is in the motorcade.

This support is not unilateral. USSS recently purchased new flight helmets for USPP’s Aviation personnel and upgraded helicopter radio systems, which are routinely used in support of the President. USSS provides radio technicians to service this equipment. The USSS Uniformed Division also provides USPP with handheld magnetometers to use during large special events that require additional security checks, such as the July 4th celebrations, and it assists USPP around the White House Complex during large demonstrations.

USPP provides the Secretary of the Interior’s security detail, a full-time protective service that totals approximately five FTE and $80,000 in overtime as of May 2004. This service began in the 1970s, at DOI request, when USPP was the largest DOI law enforcement organization. The Office of Inspector General provides these services in some other agencies.

USPP issues citations for parking violations on DC streets adjacent to NPS land as well as on NPS streets. The USPP policy is to avoid issuing citations on city streets unless a vehicle is directly affecting a park (such as blocking part of an entrance). USPP issued 29,344 parking citations in DC in calendar year 2002 and 19,442 in 2003, many of them in the area of the National Mall. The citations have declined 20 percent as officers have had less time for routine work such as parking citations. The revenue (approximately $972,000 in 2003) goes to the DC government. MPD also could (and sometimes does) issue citations in these areas. DC, like many other local police departments, uses less costly staff than sworn officers for parking enforcement. Since DC receives parking citation revenue, it has a financial incentive to supply lower-cost specialists to increase parking enforcement in park areas adjacent to city streets.

USPP does not want to turn primary responsibility for citations to MPD because it believes it has a strong incentive to keep violators from parking longer than the specified time in areas adjacent to or on the National Mall; this keeps the parking available for more visitors. In the post 9/11 environment, USPP pays even more attention to the vehicles parked there. While DC gets the revenue from the citations, they do not charge USPP for use of their jail or courtrooms.

Conclusions and Recommendations: USPP Activity Beyond NPS Law Enforcement Needs

USPP officers have a strong “can-do” attitude and are proud to serve the President, the Vice President, and the Secretary of the Interior. This is admirable. However, it is also important that the costs for government services be assigned to organizations that receive or benefit from the services. The Panel is not suggesting that USPP never assist USSS. Rather, such service should be the exception, not than the rule. USSS staff levels should meet the responsibilities associated with its mission. The USSS should reimburse the USPP for some of these required services if USSS believes that USPP would be more efficient in providing them.

The Panel believes that the Secretary of the Interior warrants substantial protection in performance of official duties. Senior DOI law enforcement officials may want the Secretary’s protection to remain with USPP rather than another DOI organization or contract security services. That is their judgment to make.

The Panel recommends that the Interior budget should reimburse USPP for providing protection to the Secretary if USPP retains this responsibility.

This entails more than accurate accounting. DOI must fully consider the cost of secretarial protection, a very important function, and weigh this against resources needed in the parks. Doing so should induce a further review of alternatives for providing this function that may be more cost effective than using USPP officers.

USPP is at a crossroads. With added responsibilities arising in the post-9/11 environment, coupled with constrained resource levels throughout government, USPP cannot continue to play as active a role in DC crime-fighting or respond to as many requests for assistance from other federal or local law enforcement agencies. Nor should it be expected to do so. Eliminating some functions and responsibilities will be of greatest help in redeploying resources to the parks. For example, USPP must say no to occasionally escorting art work for the Smithsonian or providing security at a political convention. Attempting to retain the current myriad of functions and associated work activities, even at reduced levels, is not feasible. This would continue to strain resources since USPP would need staff familiar with and trained to respond to requests for non-NPS law enforcement services.

USPP leadership must be prepared to refocus its work activities on functions that are most critical for meeting park law enforcement needs. But, USPP requires strong leadership and support from DOI and NPS to clarify its mission and set priorities to meet jointly established needs.

The Panel’s most important message to all who make decisions about USPP resource needs—including Congress—is that you can’t have it both ways.

USPP cannot be expected to perform all its current functions—essentially a full-service urban police department and guardian of national parks—at current resource levels. If USPP is to do so, it needs additional resources to do so effectively. Alternatively, if USPP is to operate within current resource levels, that broad mission must be clarified, with priorities clearly established.

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY FOR SETTING USPP PRIORITIES

Resource limitations and USPP’ reluctance to increase law enforcement risks without NPS and DOI approval by reducing current activities reinforce the need to clarify USPP’ mission and establish explicit priorities for the wide range of functions and activities under taken to fulfill that mission.

In Chapter Two, the Panel stressed the critical need to clarify USPP’ mission and define specific NPS law enforcement needs for USPP-protected parks. This chapter describes a methodology to establish priorities for USPP functions and associated work activities. The Panel recommends that DOI and NPS, in conjunction with USPP, use this methodology to accomplish this.

USPP FUNCTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

Given the diversity and scope of its current mission, USPP has an equally diverse set of functions and work activities for each. Table 3-1 lists the major functions currently performed, which respond to law enforcement, protection, and security needs for NPS parks and others, such as presidential protection and escort. USPP’ direct program functions are distinguished from the support functions needed to sustain them.[46] Unlike the demand for program functions—which depends on NPS and others’ law enforcement, security, and protection needs—the demand for these support functions depends on USPP program requirements.

Table 3-1

USPP Functions

Program Functions

Physical Security

Icons/Monuments

Buildings

Public Infrastructure (e.g. bridges)

Other facilities

Resource Protection

Natural Resources

Wildlife

Water Resources

Visitor Protection

Crime Prevention

Safety

Emergency Search and Rescue

Traffic Control

Parking Enforcement/control

Special Events/Crowd Control

Drug Enforcement/Investigation

Criminal Investigations

Protection/Escorts

Presidential

Vice-Presidential

Foreign Dignitary

DOI Secretary

Other

Support Functions

Training

Intelligence

Court

Administration

Supervision

The project team developed this list of USPP program and support functions based on interviews, LENAs, and other sources. Written documents and materials do not contain this type of specific information. For example, the USPP budget is organizationally based, as are all NPS budgets, so, it identifies resource requirements for USPP units that perform activities to carry out those functions. Yet, the budget does not identify the major functions themselves or link resources to them. Likewise, the USPP Annual Reports present extensive crime statistics, staff allocations, and services, but do not provide a comprehensive review of functions and activities undertaken during a specific year.

USPP uses different resources to undertake activities. In the National Mall area, SFB motorcycle patrols normally provide traffic control and parking enforcement, while Patrol Branch patrols do the same along the George Washington, Baltimore Washington, and Suitland Parkways. Patrol Branch officers, with support from canine patrols, have been principally responsible for security at the Icons and other monuments on the National Mall, although USPP recently has employed contract guards to provide security for three Icons on the Mall. Horse mounted, cruiser, foot, plainclothes, and motorcycle patrols all provide visitor protection as part of their normal duties.

Local police departments perform many of these functions to protect citizens and property within their jurisdictions. However, they more frequently employ resources other than fully trained officers to provide some of the functions for which USPP uses officers. For example, DC and Fairfax and Arlington Counties use special staff to perform parking enforcement and maintain traffic control for special events.

Once USPP’s law enforcement functions are established, the next step is to identify the activities and resources needed to carry them out to satisfy the areas’ law enforcement requirements. Similar to identifying functions, many agencies use the annual budget development to accomplish this task. A functional budget can align funding and staffing on a program and activity basis, which helps to determine resource costs for functions. Here, too, neither NPS nor USPP has this type of budget. NPS’ budget is organized around individual parks by type of appropriation—operations, capital construction, etc. USPP’s budget for operations is presented organizationally for the three geographical areas: DC, New York and San Francisco.

Discussions with USPP and NPS staff indicated that existing data systems are not structured to provide budget cost or staffing data on a functional basis. The project team considered suggesting that USPP commanders use their informed judgment to develop some initial estimates of resource and staffing costs, but determined this would require a major effort and likely produce unverifiable information. One unit, the motorcycle group within SFB, provided such a breakdown, which was enlightening. However, the Patrol Branch was unable to do so as patrols typically involve a range of activities (five to ten per shift) depending on the location of the specific beat.

Since USPP budget and staffing data were not available on a functional basis, the Panel focused on the criteria that DOI and NPS should use when working with USPP to establish law enforcement priorities. It also provided examples of how those criteria could be applied to identify specific functions or activities that were lower priority, could be reduced or eliminated, or could be provided more efficiently by others or different USPP resources. These criteria also could help to identify high-priority activities and functions where available resources should be concentrated.

PRIORITY-SETTING CRITERIA

A priority-setting process for USPP law enforcement functions must have explicit criteria to assess the relative importance of each function and its associated work activities. When developing such criteria, several considerations are paramount.

— Each criterion should be clearly defined and independent of any other.

— Each criterion should be able to be weighed or ranked relative to all other criteria, since individual decision makers may value certain ranking criteria differently.

— The set of ranking criteria should be limited and manageable. An extensive list of detailed, relatively minor criteria can make the ranking process excessively complex and cumbersome.

Taking these elements into consideration, the Panel recommends that:

The Department of the Interior and the National Parks Service adopt the following six criteria for setting priorities for current the U.S. Park Police law enforcement functions and activities:

— benefits expected from the function

— uniqueness of function to NPS

— principal beneficiaries and relationship to NPS mission

— cost effectiveness of work activities

— comparative advantage of alternative providers

— collateral benefits

Each criterion is described below, with examples to support it.

1. Benefits Expected from the Function

This criterion requires assessing the benefits of providing a particular function, such as:

— the risks or threats being deterred

— the individuals, resources, assets being protected

— the frequency and magnitude of the demand for activities associated with the function

For example, NPS may have continuous or periodic demand for visitor protection services, or it may place a greater importance on protecting the assets on the National Mall than those in Glen Echo Park. When possible, benefit assessments should take protection statistics—such as numbers of visitors or acres of parkland—into account since size of demand is also a critical element.

2. Uniqueness of Function to NPS

This criterion distinguishes between law enforcement functions that are unique to NPS (e.g., National Mall crowd control, Icon protection, and visitor service) and functions that are common to urban policing (e.g., traffic control, parking enforcement, and drug enforcement). For example, cities commonly promote tourism and have some need to protect visitors. However, the high incidence of First Amendment demonstrations and the need for specialized crowd control capabilities are significant and unique to NPS in the nation’s capital.

3. Principal Beneficiaries and Relationship to NPS Mission

This criterion considers the distribution of benefits in the context of who actually receives them, and how those beneficiaries relate to NPS’ mission. The principal beneficiary most likely places a high value on that service. The key factor is whether that beneficiary is a major NPS stakeholder. For example, park visitors may be the principal beneficiaries of crowd control, Icon protection, and patrols on federal areas under NPS jurisdiction. Since the NPS’ mission is to preserve the parks for the enjoyment and benefit of current and future generations of park visitors, these beneficiaries are clearly key NPS stakeholders.

Meanwhile, traffic control and drunk driving interdictions on the parkways are important law enforcement activities that primarily benefit commuters or local area residents. Dignitary escort services primarily benefit protectees specifically and the federal government generally. Yet, these beneficiaries may not be key NPS stakeholders.

4. Cost Effectiveness of Work Activities for the Function

This criterion addresses the relative efficiency of current USPP work activities and service delivery techniques. It is related to two other criteria: the benefits expected and the efficiency of USPP relative to other providers. This criterion requires an assessment of current USPP work activities to determine whether services can be provided more efficiently. Initially focused on potential improvements to USPP practices, it can be extended to include services and their associated costs from other entities. Changes in the delivery of current services (i.e., using guards for static Icon security) can affect USPP efficiency or alter its comparative advantage relative to other potential service providers.

This criterion does not necessarily result in lower costs for a service, but it should help determine whether costly services can be obtained through lower cost approaches. High cost (or even low cost) will not, by itself, determine whether a service should be provided or the priority it should be assigned. However, it can affect how much of the service can be provided given an overall budget level.

5. Comparative Advantage of Alternative Service Providers

This criterion determines whether alternatives exist for some USPP activities, and if so, whether USPP has a comparative advantage over those alternatives in performing the activities. For example, many entities patrol major highways. The availability of alternative providers requires further assessments of legal feasibility, cost effectiveness, timeliness, reliability or availability of service from others.

Outsourcing activities has advantages and disadvantages that must be fully assessed. Attention should be paid to the extent to which NPS and USPP benefit by controlling the amount of law enforcement services they provide. Another entity or external contractor may not have as strong an incentive to ensure that park facilities are not damaged by graffiti or other vandalism if NPS must unfortunately repair the damage or bear the clean-up cost. Outsourcing also can limit USPP’s ability to rely on its own resources for emergencies in DC, New York, and San Francisco, or to meet demands for sizeable law enforcement officer emergency deployments in other NPS parks.

The assessment also should consider the specialized capabilities or expertise that non-USPP providers have developed through training or the frequency of the services provided. Infrequently requested services are candidates for outsourcing, especially when the demand calls for specialized skills. For example, USPP may only infrequently need a counter-sniper response team, while USSS may deploy its response team much more frequently. Likewise, USPP may only rarely need bomb removal services, while the DC MPD may need them more frequently.

6. Collateral Benefits

This criterion examines the extent to which an activity or service meets law enforcement needs in other areas. Such collateral benefits often are described in economic terms as externalities or joint product issues. A classic example is whether providing Icon security also positively affects visitor and other resource protection needs. This assessment entails identifying expected benefits from the additional services, judging their importance, and determining the extent to which they are an inherent part of the service, or can be limited or controlled by the provider or the recipient. For example, standard operating procedures may preclude USPP presidential escorts from directly responding to an incident observed en route. This would limit the collateral benefits expected from such activities. Alternatively, SWAT Trained USPP officers may rarely use those skills, but such training may reduce risks of violence at large demonstrations as a few heavily armed officers can present a visible, effective deterrent.

An additional concern is whether collateral benefits vary depending on the service provider. For example, offices who provide visitor protection services also may give better information and or services than contract guards or other local law enforcement. Alternatively, a USPP officer may provide a greater awareness of a potential terrorist threat than a guard or local officer who is less familiar with the territory or has less specific anti-terrorism training.

Fundamentally, this criterion examines whether specific USPP functions or activities are inherently inseparable (true joint products). Patrol activities may provide multiple services—visitor protection, traffic enforcement, crime prevention and the like—but they vary by type of patrol. However, the services may not be true joint products since other agencies use special staff to provide what are normally part of USPP’ patrol beat (e.g., meter readers and parking enforcement). True joint products cannot normally be separately produced.

Ranking and Applying the Criteria

Although these six criteria are manageable, it is desirable to rank their relative importance. Otherwise, there can be the assumption each one is equally important. Since individual decision makers are likely to value the criteria differently, the Panel believes a ranking process for these criteria would be appropriate. It also recognizes that DOI, NPS, and USPP officials may come to a different result using the process, which is outlined below.

Different approaches could be used to rank each criterion. The Panel used a common statistical technique—a pair wise comparison methodology, described in Appendix H. The principal advantages of this technique are its transparency, consistency, and inclusiveness; each decision maker ranks each criterion against every other one, one at a time. The number of times a criterion is considered more important than another determines its rank order.

The Panel ranked the criterion in the following order:

1. benefits expected from the function

2. uniqueness of function to NPS

3. cost effectiveness of work activities for the function

4. primary beneficiaries and relationship to NPS mission

5. comparative advantage of alternative providers

6. collateral benefits

This order reflects the judgment of the individual Panel members. Ultimately, any ranking must reflect the judgment of DOI, NPS, and USPP officials who are working to set priorities. Therefore, the Panel recommends that:

The Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and the Park Police officials should rank the priority-setting criteria using a standard and transparent approach.

The Ranking Matrix

Table 3-2 applies these priority-setting criteria to a subset of USPP functions and associated work activities. The criteria are arrayed horizontally along the top, and specific functions are arrayed vertically on the left side.

In the beneficiary column, the matrix distinguishes benefits that accrue to key NPS stakeholders and those that accrue to other primary beneficiaries. This distinction is important because the primary beneficiary may receive substantial benefits, but key stakeholders very little. A good example is dignitary protection, where the principal beneficiaries are the State Department and the U.S. Secret Service, which is responsible for the protection and the dignitary receiving the escort.[47] Neither beneficiary is a key NPS stakeholder: primarily current and future generations of visitors to national parks.

The work activities associated with each function may vary in their level of detail, which depends on whether a function has significantly different benefits or other attributes based on the location served. An example is the distinction in traffic patrols along the George Washington Parkway relative to those along the Baltimore Washington Parkway. DC commuters are major users of both and therefore primary beneficiaries of this function. The George Washington Parkway, however, also includes several other park facilities, including a heavily used bikeway from the Chain Bridge to Mount Vernon, several scenic overlooks, rest areas, and marinas. In addition, it is located close to the air approaches to Reagan National Airport and overlooks the three major Icons on the Mall, which raises terrorist threat issues. In contrast, the Baltimore Washington Parkway is strictly a limited access high-speed parkway[48].

In light of these differences, USPP’s traffic control function on the George Washington Parkway is likely to have a higher priority than on the Baltimore Washington Parkway. Both functions reduce traffic accidents, save lives and benefit the extensive commuter traffic, but the George Washington Parkway patrols produce additional benefits for key NPS stakeholders: bikers, joggers, hikers, and visitors to the scenic overlooks and other park facilities. They also can provide additional anti-terrorism protection for key NPS structures—the Icons and monuments—and other vulnerable assets. These patrol activities thus appear to be more unique to NPS than Baltimore Washington Parkway patrols, and can provide collateral benefits (externalities) to help address other NPS law enforcement needs.

In both cases, state and local alternatives could perform the traffic enforcement function for these parkways, with reimbursement and potential changes to state law. However, these state and local alternatives may be less able to provide the same collateral benefits to meet other NPS law enforcement needs.

Distinguishing Higher and Lower-Priority Functions

Using the Panel’s criteria to assess current USPP law enforcement functions and activities should produce a consistent outcome that reflects the judgment of those doing the assessment. Higher priority functions are likely to generate substantial benefits that accrue primarily to key NPS stakeholders, address needs that are unique to NPS and collateral benefits for other NPS law enforcement needs, and be provided efficiently by USPP, and have equally effective and efficient alternatives.

On the other hand, low-priority functions may produce substantial benefits, but key NPS stakeholders are not the primary beneficiary, they do not address unique NPS needs, there are few collateral benefits for other law enforcement needs, and alternative providers can efficiently provide the activity or service.

Potential High-Priority Functions

Although DOI, NPS, and USPP have not yet worked together to clarify USPP’ mission and establish explicit priorities for its functions, the Secretary of the Interior and NPS Director have clearly identified national Icon protection as a high law enforcement priority. The priority also would rank high using the Panel’s recommended criteria because:

— The expected benefits—preserving and protecting these national treasures—are substantial.

— These benefits accrue to key NPS stakeholders: national park visitors.

— These national park historical assets are unique to NPS.

— There are significant collateral benefits for other NPS law enforcement needs, principally the safety of visitors and their protection from criminal activities.

— The cost effectiveness of USPP’s approach has increased with the recent decision to use less expensive (and correspondingly less capable and flexible) contract guards, to staff fixed-guard stations at each Icon, while using fully trained and armed USPP officers for mobile patrols in the area.

— Other alternatives may be available to provide this function, but they do not appear to have any advantage compared to the current mix of guards and USPP officer patrols. Indeed, USPP officers are more likely to possess specialized knowledge about the Icons, making them more effective protectors of these assets.

Crowd control for special events is another function that would appear to be a high priority, for which the USPP has a well deserved, outstanding reputation. The National Mall attracts groups that want to exercise their First Amendment rights. These demonstrations are unique to NPS and the benefits from protecting demonstrators, NPS assets, and other visitors not only are exceptionally high, but also highly concentrated on these key stakeholders. USPP appears to use cost effective approaches for this function, including the effective use of horse-mounted officers to provide visible and imposing, but non-threatening deterrence and use of other local and federal law enforcement assets to supplement available USPP officers.

Canine patrol for bomb detection, especially for Icon protection, is a third function that appears to have a high priority and may need strengthening. USPP uses canine patrols at the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island to screen the ferry boats that deliver visitors and visitors as they are processed through the Battery Park and Jersey City access points. NPS and USPP plans include an additional canine patrol on Liberty Island to screen visitors at the entry point to the Statue itself.

For Icons on the National Mall, USPP deploys canine patrols to screen visitors and respond to emergencies, and it has at least one bomb dog available to respond as needed to requests. It also uses bomb dogs from other local law enforcement agencies (e.g., Metro Transit Police) to respond to emergency requests. On-site canine patrols appear to meet many of the Panel’s recommended criteria for a high priority function. The expected benefits are substantial and accrue to key NPS stakeholders or assets. Icon protection is unique to NPS. The on-site canine patrols provide some collateral benefits to other NPS law enforcement needs by enhancing visitor safety. Other alternatives are available and have been used to respond to emergency requests. While these are not regular patrols, they may provide a potential alternative for USPP canine units that are held to respond to emergencies rather than used on-site.

The Panel does not imply that these examples are the most important functions, nor that they are the only high priority functions. They are illustrative examples using the criteria recommended. Applying the criteria to all USPP functions would produce a more complete identification of high priority functions and the Panel fully expects that will materialize when a more comprehensive assessment occurs.

Potential Low Priority Functions

The following USPP law enforcement functions appear to be relatively lower priority functions using the Panel’s criteria. The section describes the basis for that assessment and examines alternative approaches that NPS and USPP might pursue.

— Patrol of “neighborhood parks” in DC

NPS national parklands account for more than 22 percent of DC’s land area, encompassing areas such as the National Mall, Rock Creek Park, and Anacostia Park, as well as smaller park areas, even grass triangles at the intersection of major DC avenues. These sites are a valued park resource for local residents, but few have distinguishing attributes that characterize national park sites. As noted in Chapter 2, the location of this parkland reflects legal history that entwines the federal and local government, NPS, and USPP. Since this territory is NPS land within the NCR, USPP is responsible for meeting law enforcement, protection and security needs.

The benefits expected from USPP patrol activities in and around these neighborhood parks are substantial, especially since several are located in high-crime neighborhoods. The principal beneficiaries are the parks’ immediate neighbors and local users. Although local users are NPS stakeholders, very few national tourists visit these parks compared to the larger, better known sites in the NCR. Indeed, most parks do not contain historical or natural resources that make them notable within the national park system, but are small and with few collateral benefits for other NPS law enforcement needs. This geographic dispersion reduces the cost effectiveness of USPP patrols since substantial time is lost driving along DC streets to reach many of these parks. MPD is a clear alternative to patrol these parks, and appears to have a comparative advantage given its policing responsibility for the neighborhoods surrounding them. The 1979 GAO report recommended that USPP cede law enforcement protection for these neighborhoods to MPD, yet DOI rejected this proposal. While MPD has indicated it could not assume such additional responsibilities without reimbursement, that could still be a cost effective alternative.

— Patrol of BWP and Suitland Parkway

USPP has provided traffic enforcement patrols for the Baltimore Washington Parkway and Suitland Parkways, since NPS acquired these lands in 1953 and 1949, respectively. Acquisition of the latter only involved land in the state of Maryland; MPD patrols the portion within DC. Both parkways provide limited access, high-speed roadways to facilitate commuter traffic within the DC metropolitan area. The expected benefits from reduced traffic incidents are high, but the principal beneficiaries are local area commuters, not national park visitors.

This function is not unique to NPS since traffic control on major highways is a common function for state and local police departments. Meanwhile, there appears to be few collateral benefits for other NPS law enforcement needs. The cost effectiveness of USPP traffic control activities is unclear, since data were not available to compare the costs of USPP activities on these parkways to state and local costs on similar highways. As for alternatives, the Maryland State Police or local county police departments could perform the same function, but most likely would require reimbursement to do so.

— Dignitary Protective Escorts

In addition to presidential and vice presidential escorts, USSS requests that USPP provide escort service, including blocking access roads on NPS park lands, for certain foreign dignitaries. Many of these escorts require travel through NPS area; yet USPP motorcycle or cruiser escort’ usually accompany them for the entire journey. Benefits accrue to the federal government (including reciprocal protection of U.S. diplomats in foreign nations) and the protected dignitary. However, the USPP activity usually is provided in conjunction with other escort support from MPD, USSS, the State Department, and even foreign government protective services. There appear to be few benefits for key NPS stakeholders. This function is not unique to NPS; indeed it meets law enforcement needs beyond NPS’. Few collateral benefits convey to other NPS areas or law enforcement needs, and there are existing alternatives for the function.

— Parking Enforcement

USPP has responsibility for enforcing parking regulations on NPS lands. Motorcycle officers provide enforcement at the National Mall as part of their regular patrol duties as do Patrol Branch officers during their normal beats. The expected benefits include removing potential traffic hazards on NPS roadways, ensuring equitable visitor access to parking at NPS sites, and generating revenues from citations. Since parking violations are less likely to impose life-threatening risks to park visitors or motorists, the expected benefits are likely to be less dramatic. Moreover, some of the benefits accrue to those who are not NPS key stakeholders, such as motorists who benefit from the lower incidence of traffic congestion and local governments which receive citation revenue. The cost effectiveness of the current approach appears low since sworn USPP officers perform the function, in contrast to many local police departments which use special staff[49]. However, there are collateral benefits as law enforcement is performed alongside visitor and resource protection during the course of a normal motorcycle patrol or cruiser beat. However, local alternatives are available. If DC were to deploy its lower cost, parking enforcement staff at the National Mall, this expanded activity would improve compliance with parking requirements, increasing DC revenues and turnover in available parking spaces, thereby benefiting park visitors.

— Secretary of the Interior Protection

The USPP provides 24-hour protective services for the Secretary of the Interior, having done so at the Secretary’s request since the 1970s. Currently, the detail totals almost five FTE USPP officers and approximately $160,000 per year in overtime. Protecting the Secretary from attack and other threats is high priority for DOI and the federal government, and the expected benefits are substantial. However, this function does not address a unique NPS law enforcement need, and key NPS stakeholders are not the primary beneficiaries.

USPP may have enjoyed a comparative advantage ever other DOI law enforcement officers when this activity first began, but increased training, experiences, and professionalism within the other six law enforcement bureaus appear to have reduced initial USPP dominance. Because this function is so specialized, there are few collateral benefits for other NPS law enforcement needs. Alternatives are available too, including other DOI officers, Office of the Inspector General’s staff[50], staff from other federal agencies, or private contractors, which raises the reimbursement issue. As this example demonstrates, high expected benefits alone are not sufficient to ensure that a particular USPP law enforcement function is a high priority relative to other functions.

— Patrol of NPS Park Areas Adjacent to White House Complex

USSS, USPP and MPD all currently perform law enforcement activities on White House grounds and adjacent areas. The jurisdictional boundaries for these areas around are exceptionally complex. As NPS and USPP have noted, the White House and its grounds constitute a national park site, notwithstanding USSS’ responsibility for virtually all law enforcement activities there, including the screening of White House visitors, to meet its presidential protection responsibilities. USPP has traditionally had responsibility for activities on the sidewalks beyond the White House fence and for the adjacent park land grounds (Lafayette Park across Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Ellipse area south of the White House). MPD has traditionally had jurisdiction and responsibilities for the streets surrounding the White House.

Under its preferred staffing plan, USPP would provide several patrols (beats) to cover these adjacent park areas. In addition, it provides crowd control and emergency responses for special events and demonstrations occurring in these areas. The benefits are substantial; key NPS stakeholders—visitors to the White House and surrounding national parks—are major beneficiaries. Given USSS’ extensive role in screening visitors however, this function does not appear to meet unique NPS law enforcement needs. Moreover, given the extensive and visible presence of USSS officers, the marginal contribution that an additional USPP officer can give may be relatively small. In this instance, USSS may convey some collateral benefits to meet NPS law enforcement needs as it meets its own presidential protection and White House and other executive office building security requirements. Since NPS would still issue permits for use of the park areas around the White House, relying on USSS for law enforcement services would require additional interdepartmental coordination.

Conclusions and Recommendations—Priority Setting Criteria

The previous discussion has demonstrated how the Panel’s six criteria can be used to help clarify USPP’s mission and establish priorities for its current law enforcement functions and activities. The Panel believes that a formal process must be established to accomplish this effort, which involves DOI, NPS, and USPP senior officials.

The current task force, chaired by the DAS for Law Enforcement and Security and joined by NPS, DOI’s Budget Office, and USPP, may provide an appropriate vehicle to undertake this process. The task force is reviewing USPP’s mission and specific law enforcement activities in conjunction with NPS and USPP’s budget development.

However, the Panel believes there are advantages to reviewing the mission and setting priorities outside the formal budget development process. Cost considerations will force difficult trade-off decisions among various activities, yet setting priorities beforehand would allow DOI, NPS, and USPP to concentrate first on using the recommended criteria to set priorities. Resource limits are critical in determining how many lower-priority functions USPP can continue to provide.

This process also should produce definitive decisions about priorities and the disposition of lower priority functions. These functions need to be explicitly removed, not simply ignored. These decisions also take time to implement. Transition issues will emerge, since decision makers cannot assume that removing or delegating a lower priority function will occur instantaneously.

The Panel also believes that it cannot substitute its judgment for DOI, NPS or USPP officials when setting USPP law enforcement priorities. Therefore, the Panel recommends that:

The Panel expects that some potential lower priority functions may emerge as low-priority functions through this process, but it is critically important for DOI, NPS and USPP to undertake this assessment and reach these decisions jointly. As the acting Gateway superintendent discovered during the process to establish Gateway law enforcement requirements, improved communication strengthens a common understanding of capabilities, requirements, and constraints, and increases the confidence among all participants when the results ultimately emerge.

ALTERNATIVES FOR LOWER PRIORITY FUNCTIONS:

THE ROLE OF THE BUDGET PROCESS

Once priority ranking for USPP functions is established, the disposition of lower priority functions will depend in large measure upon the budget resources available. Three basic options are available for lower-priority functions:

— Eliminate or reduce the amount of the activity.

— Use non-USPP alternatives to provide the activity.

— Reduce current USPP costs by securing reimbursement or developing more efficient and/or less costly approaches to provide the service.

The option used will depend on the reasons for assigning a low priority for the activity, the severity of budget limitations, and the relative costs of alternative providers or approaches. Among the six low-priority functions discussed above, several appear amenable to reimbursements to reduce costs. For example, USPP could seek reimbursement from the principal beneficiaries of dignitary and secretarial protection when providing these activities. To continue parking enforcement activities, it could examine lower-cost alternatives, such as specialized staff or contract staff, or explore devolving this activity to MPD and other local jurisdictions that currently receive financial benefit from it.

Patrolling functions for neighborhood parks in DC and the Baltimore Washington and Suitland Parkways appear appropriate for alternatively provided service. NPS and USPP should negotiate agreements with state and local agencies to determine the reimbursement costs required. As discovered during the study, state and local police departments face budget limitations as well, even though they may not be as severe as those that USPP faces. The potential gain to NPS and USPP depends upon the relative costs involved in providing parkway and neighborhood park patrols.

Conclusion and Recommendations—the Role of the Budget Process

These difficult decisions concerning the disposition of lower-priority USPP law enforcement functions must be made in the budget development process. Again, the Panel believes that these decisions should not be made by USPP alone. It reaffirms its previous recommendation from the August 2001 report that:

Park Police components, in conjunction with the superintendents of the parks served should develop and submit their budgets to the Park Police Chief. In turn, the Chief should submit a unified budget proposal to the National Park Service Director.

The Panel believes that this joint budget development process would ensure that both the service provider and recipient can better understand and accept the disposition of lower-priority functions, since they would be involved in evaluating alternatives and proposing the most effective one. The Panel recognizes that making choices among competing needs and functions will not be easy. Presenting them for stakeholder review will provide the opportunity to assess the benefits of providing a given level of service and the inherent risks of not doing so.

Table 3-2: USPP Functions and Application of Priority Assessment

High: The function assessed by a criterion has direct impact on NPS responsibilities or park users.

Medium: The function assessed by a criterion has some impact on NPS responsibilities or park users, but, it may have more value to others or could be performed by others (generally for reimbursement).

Low: The function assessed by a criterion has minimal or no impact on NPS responsibilities or park users.

Function	Expected Benefit	Uniqueness to NPS	Value to Primary Beneficiary	Cost Effectiveness	Impact on Other NPS Law Enforcement Needs	Unavailability of Other Providers
Potential High Priority Functions
Icon protection	High. Loss of these national treasures to e.g., terrorist activity would be a national tragedy. Icons are a focal point for national and international visitors.	High. Icons are unique to NPS, which has sole responsibility for these properties.	High. Mall visitors and citizens view the Icons as symbols of their free nation. Mall visitors and future visitors are key NPS stakeholders.	Medium. Recent use of unarmed contract guards is a less expensive resource, and meets the approved protection plan. Some USPP staff question the effectiveness of the current plan.	High. Enhanced Icon protection also increases Icon visitor protection.	Medium. While any law enforcement entity can assist USPP when requested, USPP has specialized knowledge and primary jurisdiction.
Patrol of NPS Mall and adjacent parks	High. Visitor security is key to enjoyment of the Mall and adjacent NPS areas	High. This area is key to NPS.	High to all Mall visitors, many of whom are tourists. National park visitors are a key NPS stakeholder,	Medium. Cost analysis is needed.	High. Visitor protection by trained USPP officers can provide information/other visitor services.	Low. Guards and other law enforcement officers can provide similar services.
Patrol of the George Washington Parkway	High. Motorist safety is enhanced, and the George Washington Parkway offers direct line-of-sight to Icons and is the entry point to several NPS parks.	High. Though used as a commuter route, the George Washington Parkway is directly connected to many NPS sites.	High to commuters and local traffic. High to CIA, whose main compound is located off the George Washington Parkway. High to key stakeholders -park visitors along the George Washington Parkway and to Mount Vernon, as well as Icon security.	Unknown. Another jurisdiction would not assume the function without reimbursement. It could use fewer FTE and cars or could insist on enforcing at a higher level.	High. USPP officers may be more trained to observe terrorist activity on or around the George Washington Parkway than others would be. However, officers may be pulled from the George Washington Parkway for higher-priority needs.	Low. Other jurisdictions could patrol with legislative or regulatory change to their authority, or a reimbursable MOU. USPP could maintain oversight and contract the patrol function.
Crowd control, major planned or special events	High. Visitor safety and preservation of demonstrator rights are major concerns.	First amendment demonstrations impose unique control requirements that USPP is essentially skilled at managing	High to those participating in events with NPS approved permits. Mall visitors and demonstrators are key stakeholders.	High. Use of horse mounted patrol and other law enforcement resources to supplement USPP are cost effective approaches.	High. Other NPS visitors, future visitors and NPS assets benefit from effective crowd control at large scale events.	Medium. USPP uses other local and federal officers to supplement USPP officers.
Canine bomb patrols	High. Detection of bombs at Icons (e.g. Statue of Liberty) protects Icons and visitors.	NPS Icons unique national treasures.	Protection of Icon physical assets and Icon visitors Both are key NPS stakeholders.	On-site availability of canine efficient protection against suspect screened materials	High Icon protection and visitor protection are joint products	Low. Other DC agencies and NYPD have bomb detect dogs that could provide reimbursable service.

Potential Low Priority Functions
Patrol of neighborhood parks in DC	Low. The number of users is small relative to the Mall.	High. DC parkland is NPS land.	High to local users and park neighbors. These groups are not key stakeholders.	Low. Non-contiguous areas means lost travel time.	Low. Neighborhood parks are isolated from other NPS parks.	Low. MPD patrols surrounding neighborhoods.
Patrol of Park areas adjacent to White House complex (includes Ellipse and Lafayette Park)	High. Security of White House tourists/ visitors is critical to enjoyment of their visit. Security of First Amendment demonstrators also important	Medium. Land is NPS but there is substantial jurisdiction overlap.	High to White House tourists/visitors White house visitors are key NPS stakeholders.	Medium. Cost analysis is needed to verify this.	Medium. USPP can provide additional information/other visitor services.	Low. USSS Uniform Division and MPD officers already patrol neighboring areas.
Presidential and vice-presidential escort to events, Camp David, Andrews AFB, and VP residence	High. President has additional motorcycles in motorcade. Security sweeps at Andrews and Camp David.	Low. This is not a traditional NPS function. Law Enforcement forces throughout the nation assist USSS; others less often than USPP.	High to Secret Service, which does not need to deploy as many of its own staff. Not a key NPS stakeholder	Low. Takes officers from the parks and icon protection, or requires use of overtime.	Low. Does not add value or additional protection to park users.	Low. Secret Service and DC MPD also provide escort services.
Dignitary protection	Medium. Vulnerable foreign dignitaries provide own security.	Low. Dignitary protection is not unique to NPS.	Medium. USPP at best supplements other protection resources. National park users receive little benefit.	Low. Diverts resources from activities that address needs of primary stakeholders.	Low. There is no obvious spillover benefit for other park law enforcement or protection needs.	Low. Secret Service, DC MPD, foreign nationals also available to provide escort protection
Secretary of the Interior protection	High. Secretary’s role is visible and she/he represents policies/programs that often are hotly debated.	Low.	High to DOI, which must ensure the safety of its Secretary. Low to park visitors, a key stakeholder.	Low. Secretary protection detail uses a large proportion of USPP over time and 5 FTE that could go to park protection.	Low. Relates to other USPP duties if the Secretary visits a park under USPP protection.	Low. There are law enforcement personnel in all DOI program bureaus.
Patrol of the Baltimore Washington Parkway	High. Motorist safety is enhanced.	Low. The Baltimore Washington Parkway is essentially a major north/south thoroughfare for the DC areas.	High to commuters and local traffic. Not key NPS stakeholders.	Unknown. Same as above.	Low. This is largely a traditional traffic enforcement role.	Low. Same as GWP.
Parking Enforcement	Medium/Low. Reduces traffic congestion, provides equitable access, and generates revenue (but not for USPP)	Low. Parking enforcement is a common activity for local governments.	Medium/Low. The is not a major crime Mixed for key stakeholders Park visitors may have more access to parking; may be considered “a hassle.”	Low. USPP uses sworn officers while locals often use specialized staffs.	High. Parking enforcement is a part of normal patrol duties for some cruiser beats and motorcycle patrols.	Low. Other local police departments perform the same function. Also, benefit from any revenues collected from parks in own jurisdiction.
SWAT deployment for emergency incident	Medium/Low. While benefit is high for any incident, there have been few incidents.	Medium/Low. Entry issues for monuments is the only element unique to NPS.	High Hostages place great value on successful intervention Park visitors likely to be involved in emergency incidents on park land	Unknown. USPP SWAT costs relative to alternatives are still unclear.	Medium. Successful SWAT intervention may discourage repetition on park land.	Low. Numerous other SWAT forces are available in DC area.
SWAT for High risk Warrants	Medium high benefit In reducing injury risk But limited high risk Warrants.	Low. These occur off park land.	High for USPP officers serving warrants.	Same as above.	Low. Little spillover effects.	Same as above.

BWP	Baltimore Washington Parkway
C&O	Chesapeake and Ohio
CFO	Chief Financial Officer
CY	Calendar Year
CIB	Criminal Investigations Branch
DARE	Drug Abuse Resistance Education
DAS	Deputy Assistant Secretary
DC	District of Columbia
DEA	Drug Enforcement Agency
DHS	U.S. Department of Homeland Security
DOI	United States Department of the Interior
ELO	Emergency Law and Order [funds]
FBI	Federal Bureau of Investigation
FFS	Federal Financial System
FLETC	Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
FOIA	Freedom of Information Act
FTE	Full time Equivalent
FY	Fiscal Year
GAO	General Accounting Office
GGNRA	Golden Gate National Recreation Area (in San Francisco)
GNRA	Gateway National Recreation Area (in New York)
GSA	General Services Administration
GWP	George Washington Memorial Parkway
HMP	Horse Mounted Patrol
HR	Human Resources
HRED	Human Resources and Employee Development
HUD	United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
IACP	International Association of Chiefs of Police
IG	Inspector General
IMF	International Monetary Fund
LE	Law Enforcement
LENA	Law Enforcement Needs Assessment
LETF	Law Enforcement Task Force
MNCPP	Maryland National Capital Park Police
MOA	Memorandum of Agreement
MOU	Memoranda of Understanding
MTP	Metropolitan Transit Police
MPD	[Washington, DC] Metropolitan Police Department
NCR	National Capital Region
NLC	National Leadership Council
NPS	National Park Service
NYPD	New York Police Department
NYFO	New York Field Office (USPP)
OFS	Operations Formulation System
OIG	Office of Inspector General
OJT	On-the-job Training
OLES	Office of Law Enforcement and Security (departmental office)
OPM	Office of Personnel Management
OMB	Office of Management and Budget
PD	Police Department
PG	Prince George’s
PSA	Police Service Area
READI	[The George Washington University’s] Response to Emergencies
	and Disasters Institute
RLES	Regional Law Enforcement Specialist
SFB	Special Forces Branch
SFFO	San Francisco Field Office
SP	Suitland Parkway
SWAT	Special Weapons and Tactics Teams
TSA	Transportation Security Administration
PMIS	Personnel Management Information System
USDA	United States Department of Agriculture
USPP	United States Park Police
USSS	United States Secret Service
VAPD	Virginia Police Department
VRAP	Visitor Management Resource Protection Assessment Program
WASO	Washington [DC] Service Office

Agency	FY 2005 Discretionary Budget Authority in $millions	Percent of Total	Civilian FTE	Percent of Total
U.S. Government	$818,000	100.00	1,874,540	100.00
Non Defense	416,000	50.86	1,223,900	65.29
DOI	10,850	1.33	71,900	3.83
NPS	2,361	0.28	20,637	1.1
USPP	$81	.01	753	.04
Source: Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2005.

	($ in Millions)			% Change	% of Year's Total
	2001	2002	2003	2001-2003	2001	2002	2003
Washington, DC	48.15	55.43	62.54	29.89	84.55	79.99	80.68
Supervision	9.14	7.78	8.54	-6.56	16.05	11.23	11.02
Special Forces	9.27	7.85	10.96	18.23	16.28	11.33	14.14
Investigations	3.2

A Report by a Panel of the

August 2004

9/11 Changes Reinforce Need to Clarify Mission and Set Priorities

THE U.S. PARK POLICE: A BRIEF HISTORY

USPP’S EVOLUTION AND EXPANDED MISSION

Previous Efforts to Narrow the USPP Mission

Conclusions and Recommendations: USPP’s Evolution and Expanded Mission