ExpectMore.gov


Detailed Information on the
National Park Service - Park Police Assessment

Program Code 10003727
Program Title National Park Service - Park Police
Department Name Department of the Interior
Agency/Bureau Name National Park Service
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2006
Assessment Rating Adequate
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 100%
Strategic Planning 88%
Program Management 57%
Program Results/Accountability 53%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $122
FY2008 $126
FY2009 $135

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2006

Strengthen human resource management by using performance targets in personnel evaluations to hold managers accountable for results.

Action taken, but not completed Added an element to 60% of the employee's Performance Appraisal for FY 2007. This element is tailored by supervisors and managers to evaluate tasks specific to the employee's duties. To date, in FY 08 completed training courses for managers and supervisors, instructing how to properly develop employee's specific element.
2006

Explicity link USPP budget requests to performance goals.

Action taken, but not completed USPP goals fall within the mission area of ??Serving Communities.?? USPP initiatives all tie to the performance goal: improve the protection of lives, resources and property. For FY 09 major initiatives include protection of the President and the public during inaugural activities and restoring Force strength to an agreed upon level that has previously been eroded by budget constraints and pay absorptions.
2006

Demonstrate improved efficiencies, such as controlling the cost per person for patrols.

Action taken, but not completed Continue the Evaluation of Special Events and the use of contract security guards during events. Use physical security upgrades to adjust patrol areas to decrease patrol costs. Review, research and integrate new technologies to increase the time officers spend in their patrol areas. Re-negotiated security guard contract, has shown increased financial benefit to the USPP.
2007

Evaluate and update performance measure targets as necessary to reflect our programs performance.

Action taken, but not completed The USPP annually reviews our Performance Measures and have made adjustments/changes to measures that have proven to be deficient or provided non-useable information. With the baseline output from these Performance Measures we will develop more meaningful targets.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2006

Track actual expenditures against a spending plan prepared early in the fiscal year.

Completed Completed a Financial Plan less than 45 days after enactment of the budget. The plan was then approved and implemented. The status of the spending plan is reconciled monthly against the finanacial plan and necessary adjustments are made as appropriate by using a Status of Funds reporting format that captures both actual and projected expenditures.
2006

Prepare a annual report on data for the USPP's performance measures.

Completed Completed the Annual Perfomance Measures Report and the data was used in PART Measures, the NPS Strategic Plan and reports compiled by NPS and Department of Interior.

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Long-term Output

Measure: Number of incidents that pose a serious potential threat to selected national monuments


Explanation:Tracks the number of incidents of potential threats against the following national icons: Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, Jefferson Memorial, and Statue of Liberty. Baseline average of 812 reported incidents for FY 2003-2005; slight reductions from this average is justified because the total number of incidents depends on many external variables. In fact, increases could be a good thing, if it reflects better reporting. The utility in this measure is not in tracking the total number, but in monitoring (and responding to) the types of incidents, when they occur, and possible trends. This output measure is used as a proxy outcome measure because measuring the desired outcome (i.e, undamaged national monuments) would be both self-evident and of little use to managers. If a national icon were attacked, a PART target would be the least of USPP concerns. More relevant for managers is tracking the number of incidents that pose potential threats and working to understand why those incidents occur.

Year Target Actual
2003 n/a 775
2004 n/a 837
2005 n/a 824
2006 812 772
2007 803 876
2008 794
2009 785
2010 775
2011 775
2012 775
Annual Output

Measure: Percent of patrols at selected national monuments that pass inspection.


Explanation:Percent of inspections where patrol coverage is achieved at selected national icons (e.g., officer/guard not at assigned location). Will include Statue of Liberty inspections starting in FY 2006. Targets are sufficiently ambitious, given the high level now and the growing reliance on contract guards. Targets may be reset once there is a longer track record against which to compare.

Year Target Actual
2003 99.0% n/a
2004 99.0% 99.2%
2005 99.0% 99.6%
2006 99.0% 99.6%
2007 99.0% 98.6%
2008 99.0%
2009 99.0%
2010 99.0%
2011 99.0%
2012 99.0%
Annual Output

Measure: Number of significant incidents per large-scale event.


Explanation:Significant incidents include visitor injuries, visitor complaints, and incidents of use of force at large scale events and demonstrations in the D.C. area. From FY01-2005, there was an average of 22.6 large scale events and 12.2 significant incidents annually.

Year Target Actual
2003 n/a 0.50
2004 n/a 0.57
2005 n/a 0.46
2006 0.50 0.19
2007 0.49 0.50
2008 0.48
2009 0.47
2010 0.46
2011 0.46
2012 0.46
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Reduce crime, as measured by the number of Part 1 criminal offenses reported on park lands patrolled by USPP


Explanation:Part 1 crimes is a standard law enforcement category that includes homicide, rape, robbery, aggravated assaults, stolen automobiles, burglary, and larceny. Part 1 crimes reported for NPS areas patrolled by USPP averaged 865 for FY 2003-05. Targets are ambitious, given the relatively low levels of crime in USPP-patrolled areas and the recent increase in crime in the DC area overall.

Year Target Actual
2003 922 837
2004 902 918
2005 882 841
2006 865 1010
2007 865 862
2008 865
2009 865
2010 865
2011 865
2012 865
Annual Output

Measure: Percent of serious (Part 1) offense cases closed by USPP Criminal Investigators.


Explanation:Law enforcement agencies use case closure rates to track the percent of investigations completed by arrest, exceptional means or determined to be unfounded. USPP average for FY 2003-2005 is a 41 percent. Maintaining that average is ambitous, given that it is well above the national average of 20 percent.

Year Target Actual
2003 20% 56%
2004 20% 35%
2005 20% 41%
2006 41% 54%
2007 41% 62%
2008 41%
2009 41%
2010 41%
2011 41%
2012 41%
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Reduce crime, as measured by the number of incidents that result in destruction, damage or theft of NPS natural and cultural resources on park lands patrolled by USPP.


Explanation:Incidents measured include resource violations (e.g., cutting trees), theft of NPS property, damage to NPS property, motor vehicle accidents with damage to NPS property, and vandalism on NPS land that was reported to the USPP. An average of 1,081 incidents were reported in FY 2003-2005. Targets are ambitious, given the relatively low levels of crime in USPP-patrolled areas and the recent increase in crime in the DC area overall.

Year Target Actual
2003 1918 1149
2004 1595 1078
2005 1527 1018
2006 1081 1070
2007 1081 925
2008 1081
2009 1081
2010 1081
2011 1081
2012 1081
Annual Efficiency

Measure: Annual cost per person for patrols at the national icons in Washington, D.C.


Explanation:Costs include USPP officers and contract guards performing 24/7 patrols at the Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, and Jefferson Memorial. Slower growth in cost increases achieved through the use of contract guards.

Year Target Actual
2003 n/a $84,489
2004 n/a $61,536
2005 n/a $65,790
2006 n/a $68,790
2007 $70,165 $69,976
2008 $71,541
2009 $72,917
2010 $74,293
2011 $76,150
2012 $78,053

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score
1.1

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program purpose of the United States Park Police (USPP) is to safeguard lives and protect the monuments and other icons in the urban national parks of New York, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. This purpose has evolved since the USPP was first established in 1791, but since it joined the National Park Service (NPS) in 1933, the USPP has been responsible for law enforcement in selected national parks that are in urban settings.

Evidence: USPP Mission Statement (2006). Report to the Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004). NPS Management Policies (2001). Director's Order #9: Law Enforcement Program (2006).

YES 20%
1.2

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: USPP provides law enforcement services on specified national park lands, including many national icons, such as the Statue of Liberty and the National Mall, which could be subject to attack. In addition to terrorist threats, the urban NPS properties face problems of violent crime, resource violations, drug and alcohol abuse, and other visitor safety issues.

Evidence: Title 16 USC 1a-6, Title 5 DC Code § 5-201, 5-206, 5-207, 5-208 and other laws pertaining to USPP. USPP Annual Report (2005). DOI - Annual Law Enforcement Report (2005). Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments "Report on crime and crime control" (2004).

YES 20%
1.3

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: USPP has sole responsibility for providing law enforcement services on specified park lands. Some state and local entities have similar missions, but not for Federal lands. Other Federal law enforcement agencies may have overlapping jurisdiction for certain offenses, but not for general law enforcement. Other NPS entities provide law enforcement in other parks, but not in the parks covered by USPP.

Evidence: Title 16 USC 1a-6, Title 5 DC Code, and other laws pertaining to USPP. USPP 2005 Annual Report. Directors Order #9: Law Enforcement Program (2006). 1976 Amendment to the General Authorities Act. 16 USC 1a-3. Title 36 Code of Federal Regulations

YES 20%
1.4

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: There are no major design flaws that limit the programs effectiveness or efficiency. USPP legislative and regulatory authority is sufficiently broad. The Department of the Interior (DOI) recently completed a Mission Review and has begun to redirect priorities and address the key recommendations in the 2001 National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report to clarify the missions and responsibilities of the USPP.

Evidence: Report to the Interior Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004). NAPA report on focusing USPP priorities (2001). NAPA follow-on reports on USPP implementation (2004). DOI Inspector General (IG) letter on NAPA report implementation (2006).

YES 20%
1.5

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The program design and mission priorities were updated in 2004 so that the USPP uses its funding more effectively to address top priorities. For example, USPP has used the NAPA rating criteria to ensure that high-value activities, such as icon protection, receive appropriate resources.

Evidence: USPP Strategic Plan FY 2006-2009. Report to the Interior Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004). NAPA follow-on reports (2004). DOI IG letter on NAPA report implementation (2006).

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 100%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score
2.1

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Existing long-term measures focus on three basic outcome goals for national park lands patrolled by USPP: (1) secure key monuments that are "national icons"; (2) enhance visitor safety; and (3) reduce incidents at large-scale special events.

Evidence: USPP Strategic Plan FY 2006-2009. USPP Measuring Performance by Function (2005). Report to the Interior Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004). GPRA update (2005).

YES 12%
2.2

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: USPP has targets for all three outcome measures. For icon security, the USPP focuses on serious incidents, which are quantifiable and correlate directly to enhanced security. For visitor safety, the USPP set performance targets and timeframes regarding Part 1 criminal offenses reported and closed that exceed the Uniformed Crime Report national averages. The target for special events and demonstrations is to measure and reduce the number of significant incidents at large-scale events protected by the USPP.

Evidence: USPP Strategic Plan FY 2006-2009. USPP Measuring Performance by Function (2005). Report to the Interior Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004). GPRA update (2005).

YES 12%
2.3

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: USPP has annual targets for the three outcome goals noted above, plus additional output measures that directly support the overall mission for USPP and NPS. Annual performance for icon protection is tracked by the percent of patrols that pass inspection. The percent of serious cases that are closed demonstrates progress in enforcing visitor safety. USPP also measures resource damage incidents, which contributes to broader measures for NPS and the Department of the Interior.

Evidence: USPP Strategic Plan FY 2006-2009. USPP Measuring Performance by Function (2005). Report to the Interior Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004). GPRA update (2005).

YES 12%
2.4

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Quantifiable targets for annual and long-term goals use benchmarks where available, such Uniform Crime Reports and the USPP's own 50-year history of tracking crime and service incidents. For other measures, the USPP is using fiscal year 2005 as the base reporting year and updating these data at least monthly. Annual targets are subject to fluctuation, due to many external variables and changes in the post-9/11 environment. Targets are ambitous, given the relatively low levels of crime in USPP-patrolled areas and the recent increase in crime in the DC area overall.

Evidence: USPP Strategic Plan FY 2006-2009. USPP Measuring Performance by Function (2005). GPRA update (2005). USPP Statistical Summary (2005). USPP Crime Statistics 1956-2005. Unified Crime Report (2004).

YES 12%
2.5

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: Other law enforcement entities are aware of and contribute to the USPP goals of reducing crime, as measured by Part 1 criminal offenses. They also can assist in responding to icon security or special event incidents. Contract security guards, which USPP hires to assist in visitor screening and other icon security activities, also support the annual and long-term performance goals. For example, the security guards are inspected by USPP on a random basis and their performance contributes to the USPP goal for the number of patrols that pass inspection.

Evidence: Contract for "Icon Guard Force" (2005). Multiple MOUs with local and Federal law enforcement entities. Washington Area Police Mutual Aid Operational Plan (2001 with updates pending).

YES 12%
2.6

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Several independent organizations and agencies have evaluated the USPP's law enforcement capabilities, strategies, organizational mission and structure. These evaluations are of sufficient scope and quality and have been conducted on a regular basis. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) and DOI's IG have each completed recent reviews of USPP. USPP has also contracted with independent reviewers, including NAPA, to evaluate the program. Finally, DOI's Office of Law Enforcement and Security (OLES) completed a thorough evaluation, building off of earlier reports. All of these recommended program improvements, and USPP reported to Congress in 2006 that has made progress in implementing most of these recommendations. DOI's IG subsequently confirmed that it is "reasonably convinced that USPP has accurately portrayed its status" in implementing these recommendations.

Evidence: NAPA report on focusing USPP priorities (2001). DOI IG assessment of DOI law enforcement (2002). GAO report on Closed-Circuit TV to monitor national icons (2003). DOI IG review of National Icon Park Security (2003). NAPA follow-on reports on USPP implementation (2004). Report to the Interior Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004). GAO report on National Icon protection (2005). USPP report to Congress on NAPA implementation (2006). IG progress report on DOI law enforcement reforms (2006). DOI IG letter on NAPA report implementation (2006).

YES 12%
2.7

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The USPP has not been able to explicitly tie its budget requests to performance goals in the NPS congressional budget justifications. In recent years, for example, funding increases were requested and enacted to support new recruits, only to see the funds subsequently used to pay for overtime and other costs. The FY07 funding request to OMB was the most complete in years, yet the justification still lacked a clear link between funding and marginal changes in performance. That link will be the next step for FY08.

Evidence: FY 2006 and FY 2007 NPS congressional justifications. NAPA report on focusing USPP priorities (2001). Report to the Interior Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004).

NO 0%
2.8

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: After initial resistance, the USPP has accepted most of the recommendations in recent reports from NAPA, GAO, DOI IG, and DOI OLES. Current USPP leadership recognizes that there is still work to be done, and has taken a number of steps to address deficiencies. In the area of strategic planning, the USPP Strategic Plan 2006-2009 was created to address the law enforcement challenges and complexities of the post 9/11 era. USPP conducted a strength, weakness, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) analysis of itself and hired an organizational consultant to develop the USPP Operational Improvement Plan. This plan outlined the process for implementing the goals and objectives of the strategic plan, with a matrix to identify the officials responsible for implementing strategic action steps.

Evidence: USPP command staff work sessions on strategic planning (2004). USPP Operational Improvement Plan (2006). USPP Performance Accountability Matrix (2006). NAPA follow-on reports on USPP implementation (2004). Report to the Interior Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004). USPP report to Congress on NAPA implementation (2006). DOI IG letter on NAPA report implementation (2006).

YES 12%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 88%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score
3.1

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: Performance reports are generated on a daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly and annual basis. These reports include incident reports, Shift Summary reports, the Chief's Weekly Report, Monthly Crime Analysis, Measuring Performance by Function, Accountability Standards, Uniform Crime Report, and 50 years of incident/crime report statistics. For example, the USPP in 2005 used crime analysis to deploy additional patrols along a Fort Totten bike path, resulting in an immediate end to the number of robberies.

Evidence: Criminal Incident Reports. Shift Summary Reports. Chief's Weekly Report. Monthly Crime Analysis. Uniform Crime Report. Council of Governments Police Committees. USPP Crime Statistics 1956-2005. Fort Totten Operational Plan. GPRA update (2005).

YES 14%
3.2

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: NPS overall, and USPP in particular, have not demonstrated that they hold managers responsible for achieving program results identified in performance goals. Personnel performance evaluations, for example, do not incorporate clearly defined and quantifiable performance targets for each manager. Although USPP has assigned responsibility for tasks at various levels, it has not shown how it uses performance targets to measure progress. USPP has an internal affairs process, and is starting to improve its capability to track cases and ensure investigation and discipline, if any, is completed in a timely manner. For NPS overall, the IG recently noted it was "gravely concerned about NPS' lack of oversight of the training programs for seasonal officers." In general, human capital and personnel issues remain an area of weakness for both NPS and USPP.

Evidence: USPP Accountability Standards (2006). USPP Strategic Plan FY 2006-2009. Employee Performance Appraisal Plan (2005). IG progress report on DOI law enforcement reforms (2006).

NO 0%
3.3

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: NPS does not have adequate procedures for tracking actual expenditures against a spending plan. USPP has one-year funds in a single account, so funds are obligated in a timely manner, but USPP has not consistently maintained procedures to monitor and report on how those funds are spent compared to the initial proposal. In part, discrepancies between planned and actual expenditures are due to outside variables; law enforcement emergencies are difficult to anticipate. Yet, NPS recognizes the need to increase the effectiveness of planning and oversight procedures for the USPP account.

Evidence: USPP Financial Review dated May 16, 2005. NPS congressional justifications.

NO 0%
3.4

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: USPP has taken a number of steps to improve cost effectiveness, ranging from the use of contract guards to the joint development of a radio network with other Federal agencies. For example, USPP intends to deploy more contract guards to help with law enforcement during the 4th of July celebrations in Washington, D.C. These guards have lower hourly costs than sworn officers from other agencies, but can still meet requirements for bag screening and similar tasks. Other examples include an automated fingerprinting system shared with other DC-area law enforcement agencies and a DOI-wide IT system for law enforcement (known as IMARS) to track incidents more efficiently. USPP still needs to improve how it implements and tracks efficiency gains.

Evidence: Icon Guard Force Security Contract. NAPA Report (2004). MOA on Metropolitan Police and the Northern Virginia Regional Identification System (2002). MOA on Wireless Communications Systems Resource Sharing (2006). Incident Management Analysis and Reporting System (IMARS) status update (2006).

YES 14%
3.5

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: USPP has meaningful collaboration with other Federal, State, D.C., and local law enforcement agencies. For example, during large-scale events, the USPP uses resources from other NPS parks and other local police agencies. Within the role of icon protection and security, the USPP is a participating member of the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force and the Golden Gate Bridge Security Coalition. USPP currently has 65 Memorandums of Understanding (15 are reimbursable). Other examples include a Police Mutual Aid Operations Plan, an MOU in the D.C. area to share data on suspects, a wireless radio network under development for USPP and Federal law enforcement agencies, and an MOU with the C & O Canal National Historical Park regarding law enforcement responsibilities.

Evidence: Washington Area Police Mutual Aid Operational Plan (2001). NPS memo on law enforcement responsibilities at the C & O Canal National Historic Park (2005). MOU with FBI on Joint Terrorism Task Force (2001). MOU on Metropolitan Police and the Northern Virginia Regional Identification System (2002). MOA on Wireless Communications Systems Resource Sharing (2006).

YES 14%
3.6

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: NPS has not demonstrated that it has strong financial management practices. Although NPS did receive an unqualified opinion in the 2005 audit, it has not shown that it uses integrated financial and performance systems to support day-to-day operations. The audit report also cited three reportable conditions, although none were considered material weaknesses.

Evidence: FY 2005 Independent Auditor's Report on NPS financial statements. NAPA reports on the US Park Police (2001, 2004). USPP Report on Implementation of NAPA Recommendations (2006).

NO 0%
3.7

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: After initial resistance, the USPP has accepted most of the recommendations in recent reports from NAPA, GAO, DOI IG, and DOI OLES. Current USPP leadership recognizes that there is still work to be done, and has taken a number of steps to address deficiencies. One significant improvement in training has been the use of interagency recruit classes, which has reduced the wait for getting new recruits on board. On its own initiative, the USPP also quickly took steps to meet deficiencies in National Incident Management System (NIMS) training. In the long run, budget and performance management improvements will depend on the successful implementation of FBMS and IMARS systems.

Evidence: NAPA follow-on reports on USPP implementation (2004). IG letter on NAPA report implementation (2006). Booz-Allen & Hamilton review of counter-terrorism plan (1999). USPP Internal Assessment on NIMS Training Plan (2005). Report to the Interior Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004). USPP report to Congress on NAPA implementation (2006). Incident Management Analysis and Reporting System (IMARS) status update (2006).

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 57%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score
4.1

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The USPP has demonstrated success in meeting their FY 2001-2005 Strategic Plan and GPRA long- term mission goals of reducing crimes against persons (e.g., reducing Part 1 crimes fom 980 incidents in FY 2000 to a recent average of 882 incidents). USPP also reduced the incidents of destruction, damage and theft of NPS from above 2,000 incidents in FY 2000 to just over 1,000 incidents in FY 2005. Progress in securing national icons has been difficult to measure, partly due to rapid changes in both actions and measures in response to the post-9/11 environment and multiple program reviews, but the lack of attacks against national icons suggests USPP efforts have been successful. The organizational culture at USPP was not used to reporting results, but the current leadership is instituting changes to facilitate better reporting in the future. For example, USPP collaborated on a mission review to develop both short-term and long-term goals, and has assigned responsibility for tasks to implement these goals to specific individuals.

Evidence: Report to the Interior Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004). USPP report to Congress on NAPA implementation (2006). USPP Operational Improvement Plan (2006). USPP Performance Accountability Matrix (2006), GPRA 2003-2005. USPP FY 2001-2005 Strategic Plan

LARGE EXTENT 13%
4.2

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The USPP report on annual GPRA goals for FY 2001-2005 showed success in reducing visitor safety incidents (meeting targets four out of five years) and reducing incidents of destruction, damage and theft of NPS property. This justifies a Small Extent rating. Yet, in other areas, USPP is only now starting to track progress against newer goals, such as for the protection on national icons. For example, annual performance for icon security fluctuated in prior years due to external variables, such as Code Orange designation, that affected the number of security incidents reported. If targets are not met due to these external variables, USPP must still be able to compare targets and results and then explain any major differences.

Evidence: Report to the Interior Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004). NAPA follow-on reports on USPP implementation (2004). USPP Strategic Plan FY 2006-2009. GPRA update (2005). USPP report to Congress on NAPA implementation (2006).

SMALL EXTENT 7%
4.3

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The USPP has taken several steps toward improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of its programs, but it has difficulty demonstrating these improvements using actual data on cost savings. For example, the use of contract guards to augment police patrols of national icons has clearly resulted in savings, but USPP can only estimate the actual amount. Investments in permanent vehicle barriers and closed circuit television monitors have also improved efficiency, although the savings are difficult to calculate. USPP needs to better track current costs of particular activities, so that it can better document the savings from future steps, such as the new IMARS system to track reported incidents.

Evidence: USPP Strategic Plan FY 2006-2009. GPRA update (2005). Icon Guard Force Security Contract. MOA on Metropolitan Police and the Northern Virginia Regional Identification System (2002). MOA on Wireless Communications Systems Resource Sharing (2006). Incident Management Analysis and Reporting System (IMARS) status update (2006).

SMALL EXTENT 7%
4.4

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: USPP has an unusual and very specialized role, making it difficult for statistical comparisons with other law enforcement entities at the Federal, state, or local level. Unlike most Federal land management agencies, USPP operates in an urban setting; yet, unlike most municipal police forces, USPP lands have few residents. In general, lands patrolled by USPP have fewer crimes than other urban areas. Since 1991, the rate of Part 1 crimes on USPP lands has declined faster than the national average. USPP investigations also have a much higher clearance rate than the national average. USPP also has had greater success in handling large-scale demonstrations and events than other police organizations.

Evidence: IG progress report on DOI law enforcement reforms (2006). Uniform Crime Report. Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's report on crime and control (2004). Annual Statistical Report, DOI??Annual Law Enforcement Report (2006).

LARGE EXTENT 13%
4.5

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Several independent studies by NAPA, GAO, DOI IG, and OLES have acknowledged USPP strengths, even while making recommendations for improvements. The most recent IG and OLES reports have noted progress in implementing prior recommendations. For example, the 2006 IG progress report showed USPP as the only DOI bureau making satisfactory progress on all of the Secretary's directives for law enforcement reform. These follow-up reports suggest that, while the program still has work to do, the USPP has become more effective and will soon be able to better demonstrate results.

Evidence: NAPA report on focusing USPP priorities (2001). DOI IG assessment of DOI law enforcement (2002). GAO report on Closed-Circuit TV to monitor national icons (2003). DOI IG review of National Icon Park Security (2003). NAPA follow-on reports on USPP implementation (2004). Report to the Interior Secretary on USPP Mission Review (2004). GAO report on National Icon protection (2005). USPP report to Congress on NAPA implementation (2006). IG progress report on DOI law enforcement reforms (2006). DOI IG letter on NAPA report implementation (2006).

LARGE EXTENT 13%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 53%


Last updated: 09062008.2006SPR