Page images
PDF
EPUB

agency, including:

a.

b.

C.

Establishment of an inter-agency coordinating committee to advise on policy and practice of law enforcement at federal park and recreation areas.

Provision of a training program for law enforcement at
federal park and recreation areas.

Provision of park police officers at federal park and
recreation areas.

2.

Establish a new special park police organization within (1)
an appropriate resource management agency or (2) an inde-
pendent position at the subcabinet level, including:

a.

b.

C.

Establishment of an interagency coordinating committee
to advise on policy and practice of law enforcement at
federal park and recreation areas.

Provision of a training program for law enforcement at
federal park and recreation areas.

Provision of park police officers at federal park and
recreation areas.

3.

Establish a sub-cabinet level Council on Park Safety (COPS) with authority to:

a.

b.

C.

Establish uniform interpretation, policy, and practice of law enforcement services administered by the respective federal agencies managing park and recreation areas and facilities.

Train and certify agency personnel to serve as park
police at their respective agencies installations and
lands.

Establish a suitable badge and patch or other identification system to distinguish rangers having special law enforcement authority.

The following schematic explains the nuances of each organizational option:

[blocks in formation]

While the study team is obviously not in a position to recommend that the Corps of Engineers attempt to promote this alternative, the idea is that the feasibility of the alternative may be evaluated for serious consideration by the federal land managing agencies.

Cost

The cost of establishing a special Federal Park Police would be comparable to the salary and overhead figures for the U.S. Capital Park Police. Expansion of training, size of police force, and equipment requirements would likely expand proportionally to existing costs.

Advantages of Sub-Alternative II-C:

[ocr errors]

Standardized interpretation and enforcement of rules and regulations relating to visitor use of federal park and recreation

areas.

A better recording and accounting system would be provided
both with criminal offenses and administrative expenses.

ment would be provided where needed and in a manner compatible with park and recreation management operation.

Rangers would be relieved of law enforcement duties to concentrate on administering policies and regulations more closely aligned with visitor assistance activities and resource management duties.

Would eliminate confusion of interpretation and execution

authority between law enforcement and ranger personnel, includ-
ing establishing a better understanding by visitors, non- ederal
law enforcement authorities, and the criminal justice system
(courts).

Elimination of the problem of overlapping law enforcement jurisdictions (federal-federal and federal-non-federal).

Reduction in local court caseload.

A highly improved base for professionalism in park law enforcement would be established.

Disadvantages of Sub-Alternative II-C:

Implementation of this alternative would be a highly sensitive

issue.

Would require several years to implement.

May in some instances duplicate satisfactory services already provided by federal and non-federal law enforcement organizations.

Involves creation of another organization in the field of outdoor recreation which is already fragmented at the federal level.

Increase in caseload for the federal court system.

Summary

The obvious advantage of implementing this alternative would be the considerable relief for the Corps from both a cost standpoint and responsibility for law enforcement services. These are serious obligations to be sure and should only be pursued by those interested and dedicated to the profession.

The primary disadvantage, for purposes of this study, is the length of time and difficulty associated with implementation. Nonetheless, this alternative should be given future consideration.

There are other ramifications of this alternative to be considered, but these are some of the more significant ones that can influence Corps organizational objectives. These matters are important in comparing the

alternatives.

56-070 - 75-16

ALTERNATIVE III:

SUPPLEMENTATION OF CURRENT CORPS OF ENGINEERS VISITOR
PROTECTION PROGRAM WITH SUBSIDIZED ASSISTANCE FROM
OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES

Discussion

A third major alternative which is available to the Corps of Engineers involves supplementing current visitor protection services with subsidized assistance from other law enforcement agencies.

This approach is relatively common throughout the United States among agencies which maintain high levels or unusual forms of law enforcement problems but which cannot provide these services for themselves because of Federal manpower ceilings. The most frequent example of this practice involves the use of private security police by major corporate and retail enterprises, as well as by the smaller operations which frequently are the targets of crime.

For the Corps, there are several ways in which this practice can be approached from subsidy of local and/or state law enforcement, or retention of private police services, to subsidy of other Federal level agencies for use exclusively at Corps lakes. Each of these will be discussed in this section, and each can provide the additional level of personnel which has been called for in the manpower improvements discussion of this report.

While state and local law enforcement agencies and some Federal level agencies under law must provide assistance to Corps lakes as requested, this does not ensure their continuous presence at the lake or their ability to provide the level of law enforcement services that are often required. In the discussion of the problem, several matters were noted which bear review here. Although state and local law enforcement are providing services to the Corps, many are bound by limited budgets and personnel levels to provide only a minimal level of service to these areas. This is more often the case in rural areas where county sheriff's cannot afford to provide the level of services needed and are frequently

« PreviousContinue »