Discussion The first and most obvious alternative which the Corps can pursue is maintenance of the present state of affairs. Certainly this is the easiest course to follow as it does not require any direct action on an organizational or programmatic level. The concept of "change" has become a byword for "progress" in our society, if not a way of life. Yet, organizational and management literature is replete with case studies of "progress" which has had little or no impact or a regressive influence on the system or the products in question. A consideration of maintaining the status quo, therefore, should not be rejected out-of-hand, but given analysis as any other reasonable alternative. Accordingly, there are a number of advantages and disadvantages associated with the decision to pursue this course of action. Costs To continue the current course of action obviously will require no additional funds; however, it is possible to relate the costs of this alternative to the overall costs of crime and vandalism currently at the lakes, as detailed in Chapter 7. Advantages of Alternative I. The advantages of this alternative are primarily lodged in the lack of increased administrative and operational responsibilities which would otherwise have to be addressed in action-oriented decisions. Changes in conjunction with decisions to alter present approaches to law enforcement undoubtedly will require a series of definitive and planned steps on administrative and organizational levels. Regardless of the utility and prudence of these moves, they will undoubtedly cause some inconvenience and organizational disturbance during the transition. A decision to maintain the status quo will avoid these problems. Thus, vantages of this alternative include the following: ad Personnel will remain unaltered thus avoiding the degree of confusion associated with staff realignment, filling new positions, altering task assignments and responsibilities, adding to or subtracting from staff, and adjusting pay scales, fringe benefit packages and related benefits. Field operations will remain substantially the same avoiding Equipment, resource acquisitions and associated costs will remain at the same level such as those that otherwise would be expended on improved records maintenance systems and related law enforcement/visitor protection services and equipment. There will be less restrictions on the visitor to Corps lakes. While increased visitor protection and available law enforcement appears to be of benefit to most of the public, it also means increased enforcement of all regulations and greater restrictions on the use of Corps services and facilities as well as on personal property and conduct. To a percentage of the public, this restriction would not be welcome and would not be imposed under Alternative I. Related components of the criminal justice system will not be Disadvantages of Alternative I. The disadvantages associated with inaction are generally spelled out in the statement of the problem in Chapter 6 of this report. In essence, inaction will serve to maintain the problems as noted there and, in some cases, hasten their seriousness and complications. On the basis of that discussion, it should be reiterated that while the level and seriousness of the problem at Corps lakes has not been viewed as a "critical" one, the Corps inadequacy to cope with the situation as it exists is somewhat more serious. The following disadvantages associated with Alternative I should be considered from both of these perspectives. They include: as more and more individuals vie for scarce recreation facilities and as the Corps expands its array of services and opportunities at water development projects. The experience of the National Park Service has demonstrated that increasingly urbanized recreation areas can produce a corresponding increase in visitor protection and law enforcement problems. To this extent. failure, in any substantive manner, to respond to law enforcement needs will tend to magnify the volume and the effects of crime in the future. Workloads involving law enforcement will increase as a result of increased law enforcement problems. Probably more serious than actual workloads is the failure to resolve the problems associated with crime and the role of the ranger. Without a more articulate concept of the policy associated with Title 36 enforcement, it will continue to be sporadically and inconsistently applied to the public. Training and resources necessary for the enforcement of state laws and federal regulations and protection of the public will continue to be inadequate. The duties and responsibilities of the ranger regarding law enforcement are ambiguous, and as such, the skills necessary for job performance are not precisely known. Training will continue to be unresponsive to these needs and personnel recruitment and performance evaluation based upon indeterminant criteria. The Corps goal for recreation resource management will remain imprecise and subsequent developmental policy a product of inadequate planning. Concerns specific to law enforcement in environmental design will continue to be implemented on a sporadic and unplanned basis. Organization for the delivery of law enforcement services will remain more a product of convenience and availability than of planning and design. The availability of law enforcement agencies, their willingness to provide service, and their available resources will continue to determine the level of law enforcement at each Corps lake. This is in opposition to a system of service based on need and conformance with established law enforcement standards. Crime reporting and recording will remain a product of personal volition and uncontrolled discretion at the project level, and incident statistics will reflect this more than actual criminal acts or violations. For the Corps, this will continue to cause management and planning for law enforcement to be unresponsive to actual situations at each lake. For the visitor it will continue to result in the perpetration of crime, which is unrecorded at the national level and for which remedial action is not being taken. Vandalism and ecological damage as primary concerns of the Corps will continue to be committed without any significant response in either enforcement or countermeasures. The latent and unreported costs of these acts will continue to cost the Corps in excess of $12-17 million per year nationwide. Responsibilities of the Corps both to the community in which lakes are located and to the public will continue to be inadequately fulfilled in the areas of law enforcement and visitor protection. The result will be a failure to increase security and protection and a reduced total recreation experience for all users concerned. Summary For the Corps to follow this alternative would be most advantageous from a cost standpoint. However, the obvious social and environmental vitiation demands action. If the Corps does not plan and direct this action, it might be compelled to do so by other environmental or social agencies. In this case the Corps would have to expediently implement action not of their chosing or planning. ALTERNATIVE II: FOR THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS TO WITHDRAW FROM SUPPLYING Discussion Consideration of this alternative differs slightly from alternative I--To Maintain The Status Quo. By maintaining the status quo, the Corps rangers would continue to perform a quasi-law enforcement operation. That is, some rangers are aggressively providing visitor protection and enforcing Title 36, which indirectly serves as an order maintenance vehicle. More important, however, is the fact that by these actions the Corps is tacitly increasing its responsibilities to provide continued visitor protection. Alternative II would serve to clearly define the objectives of the Corps in providing recreation-resource management and leave the law enforcement and visitor protection responsibility to another agency. Precedent for this type of dual agency recreation management has been set by many city park and recreation agencies, such as the San Francisco Recreation and Parks Department, which leaves the law enforcement duties at Golden Gate Park to the San Francisco Police Department. Considering that the implementation of this alternative relies on the availability of law enforcement services, there are three sub-alternatives to be discussed as follows: II-A Allow local law enforcement to assume all law enforcement related responsibilities. II-B II-C Request other Federal agencies to provide law enforcement. Establish a Federal park police agency with jurisdiction over The primary attraction of this general alternative is the lack of cost for the Corps of Engineers to implement this alternative. However, because of this lack of cost, it may be extremely difficult to induce a law enforcement agency to supply a service which meets the standards for the lakes. Even though the local police have jurisdiction at the lakes, the level of service may be inadequate, as found in many of the field visits. |