[Progress Report on the Secretary's Directives for Implementing Law  Enforcement Reform in the Department of the Interior]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Report No. 2003-I-0062

Title: Progress Report on the Secretary's Directives for Implementing
       Law  Enforcement Reform in the Department of the Interior



Date:  August 28, 2003

**********DISCLAIMER********** 
This file contains an ASCII representation of an OIG report. No attempt has been 
made to display graphic images or illustrations. Some tables may be included, 
but may not resemble those in the printed version. A printed copy of this report 
may be obtained by referring to the PDF file or by calling the Office of 
Inspector General, Division of Acquisition and Management Operations at (202) 
219-3841. 
******************************

Subject:  Progress Report on the Secretary's Directives for Implementing Law 
Enforcement Reform
          in the Department of the Interior (No. 2003-I-0062)

Table of Contents
		
Introduction	1
    Background	1
    Objective and Scope	2

Results of Review	3
    Overall	3

Directives and Findings	5   
    Directive 1	5
    Directive 2 	5
    Directive 3 	5
    Directive 4	6
    Directive 5	6
    Directive 6	7
    Directive 7	7 
    Directive 8	8 
    Directive 9	9 
    Directive 10	9 
    Directive 11	9 
    Directive 12	10 
    Directive 13	11 
    Directive 14	11 
    Directive 15	12 
    Directive 16	12 
    Directive 17	13 
    Directive 18	13 
    Directive 19	14 
    Directive 20	14 
    Directive 21	14 
    Directive 22	15 
    Directive 23	15 
    Directive 24	15 
    Directive 25	16 
    
Conclusion	17 

Appendix    
1          Status of the Secretary's Directives	19



Introduction


This report presents the results of our follow-up review of the Secretary's 
directives contained in the Law Enforcement at the Department of the Interior, 
Recommendations to the Secretary for Implementing Law Enforcement Reforms report 
issued in July 2002.   During our review, we concluded that the Bureaus and 
Office of Law Enforcement and Security (OLES) have made limited progress in the 
timely implementation of corrective actions and require serious efforts to fully 
implement all recommendations.

In March 2001, at the request of the Secretary, we conducted an assessment of 
the Department of the Interior's law enforcement activities.  The assessment, 
Disquieting State of Disorder: An Assessment of Department of the Interior Law 
Enforcement, completed in January 2002, recognized numerous law enforcement 
weaknesses that demanded attention.  The final report contained 25 
recommendations to improve the leadership, organization, control, and 
accountability of Departmental law enforcement.

To address these recommendations, the Secretary assembled and charged a Law 
Enforcement Review Panel (Review Panel) to evaluate our assessment and formulate 
directives in implementing recommendations.  In July 2002, the Panel presented 
the Secretary with its report, Law Enforcement at the Department of the 
Interior, Recommendations to the Secretary for Implementing Law Enforcement 
Reforms.  The Secretary approved the recommendations of the Review Panel and 
directed that the Panel and the Deputy Assistant Secretary - Law Enforcement and 
Security, along with the Bureaus, implement the Review Panel's recommendations.


The objective of the follow-up review was to provide the Secretary with a 
progress report regarding the status of the Review Panel's recommendations. 

Our follow-up review consisted of interviewing law enforcement officials, from 
both the Bureaus and OLES, as well as reviewing reports and documents we 
considered essential in determining whether actions implemented have 
sufficiently accomplished the Secretary's directives. 

We conducted our follow-up review in accordance with the President's Council on 
Integrity and Efficiency Quality Standards for Inspections.  Accordingly, we 
conducted tests or reviews of records that we considered necessary under the 
circumstances.

 



Results of Review

Overall

OLES and the Bureaus have made efforts in improving their law enforcement 
programs (figure 1).  However, the overall pace of reform has been slow-moving, 
primarily caused by early resistance to the Secretary's directives.  In the most 
recent months, significant movement and accomplishments have been realized, much 
of which can be attributed to OLES receiving additional staffing - both 
permanent and detailed - thus allowing OLES to begin to address the necessary 
policy revisions and implementations.  Bureau law enforcement offices have also 
begun to take shape and to make an impact by establishing Bureau policies and 
oversight.  

Of the 25 directives, our review found that eight have been fully implemented 
with the remaining 17 ranging from limited to reasonable progress toward 
implementation.  For example, the following directives have yet to be 
successfully addressed by the Bureaus: 

* Directive 12 - Bureau and OLES to address immediate shortages impacting 
officer safety. 
* Directive 8 - Bureau plans to enhance the accountability of field operations,
* Directive 11 - Bureau completion of staffing models and methodologies, (except 
USPP and FWSLE)
* Directive 16 - Developing senior level, full time security managers. (except 
BIA and BOR)


Level of progress toward implementing the Directives
Figure 1

The following are the paraphrased directives formulated by the Law Enforcement 
Review Panel and the progress demonstrated by the Office of Law Enforcement and 
Security and/or the Bureau law enforcement programs.



Directives and Findings

Directive 1 
The Department should create a new career level Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Law Enforcement and Security (DAS-LES), reporting directly to the Assistant 
Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget (PMB).

Secretarial Order No. 3224 established a new Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law 
Enforcement and Security position that reports to the Assistant Secretary for 
PMB.  The position was filled in July 2002 with the hiring of Mr. Larry 
Parkinson.  

Directive 2
DAS-LES, in consultation with the Board of Advisors, draft and codify the 
protocols and procedures for emergency deployment efforts. 

We determined that OLES improved emergency deployment efforts by establishing an 
agreement with the United States Marshals Service to provide deputization of 
certain Interior law enforcement personnel so that DOI may exercise authority 
and jurisdiction when necessary; by creating an Interagency Agreement enhancing 
coordination between Bureaus; by delegating the DAS-LES, with a Secretarial 
Order, authority to allocate resources; and by creating a Metropolitan Police 
Department MOU that provides authority for DOI law enforcement personnel within 
the District of Columbia.  OLES is in the process of revising 291 DM Chapter 1, 
Authority during Emergencies; 212 DM Chapter 13, General Authorities for DAS-
LES; 446 DM Chapter 4, Emergency Assistance; and 446 DM Chapter 5, Critical 
Incident Response.

Directive 3
OLES should be staffed with dedicated and experienced law enforcement personnel.  
The Review Panel recommends the DAS develop a staffing model that meets the 
needs of the office.  Detailed personnel from the Bureaus should play an 
integral element of the office's staffing model.

During our review, we found that OLES has made great strides in fulfilling this 
directive by developing and implementing a staffing plan that began in fiscal 
year (FY) 2003.  OLES has filled all primary positions and its organizational 
chart includes both permanent full-time Departmental employees and detailees 
from each Bureau.  However, staffing levels continue to be cause for concern 
within OLES due to the significant Homeland Security duties and responsibilities 
which detract from the law enforcement program needs and oversight.  New 
permanent positions are required in addition to the continuance of Bureau 
detailed positions. 

Directive 4
DAS-LES should review and revise the policies and procedures which guide the 
Bureau's interactions with OLES.  This should be done in consultation with the 
Board of Advisors.

We learned that the OLES has made adequate progress by revising the Departmental 
Manual 446 (Chapters 1-9).  These revisions have been reviewed by the Bureaus 
and the Solicitor's Office and will soon be implemented.  Also, additional 
chapters under development include: Conduct and Discipline; Pursuits and Use of 
Force; Undocumented Aliens; Canine; and Level of Clearances for non-law 
enforcement managers.  These chapters will be submitted to the Bureaus and the 
Solicitor's Office for review in August of 2003.

The coordination and review responsibility for law enforcement and security 
budgets should be formalized as a shared function between the DAS for OLES and 
the DAS for Budget and Finance.
Directive 5

OLES has developed budget guidance in conjunction with the Department's budget 
staff which has been completely integrated into the FY 2005 budget process.  
Additionally, OLES will continue to work with Bureaus to develop coordinated law 
enforcement and security budgets.

Directive 6
Each Bureau is to establish a Senior-level Director for Law Enforcement (and 
Security).  When appropriate, the term "security" should be added to the title.

During our review, we learned that six (BIA, BLM, BOR, FWSLE, USPP, and NPS) of 
the seven law enforcement programs had complied with this directive (figure 2).  
However, NWRS has been categorized as having made limited progress because the 
Chief, Office of Refuge Law Enforcement was filled at a GS-14 level rather than 
at a senior level.  NWRS stated to us that because the law enforcement component 
of Refuge is much more significant today than in prior years, and the fact that 
Refuge has historically maintained lower grade levels, it feels that a GS-14 
level position is sufficient to meet this directive.  We disagree.  As stated in 
our 2002 assessment, we believe that increasing the prominence of law 
enforcement directors to senior grade levels enhances the communication and 
coordination among the individual Bureau law enforcement programs and, 
therefore, equalizes the reporting level and access to senior decision makers.  
The reluctance to place, at minimum, a GS-15 level manager, in Refuge 
reintroduces the need to consider merging FWSLE and Refuge law enforcement 
programs under one SES position.


Figure 2

Directive 7
Restructure the reporting system for Special Agents to create line law 
enforcement authority.

All applicable law enforcement programs have restructured their reporting system 
to comply with Special Agent line law enforcement authority (figure 3).  BOR 
currently does not utilize Special Agents; however, in the future, each region 
will employ a full-time Special Agent that will report to BOR's Law Enforcement 
Administrator. 


Figure 3

Directive 8
For all remaining law enforcement officers and personnel, each Bureau should 
prepare a plan to enhance the accountability of field law enforcement 
operations.  All non-law enforcement managers of law enforcement personnel 
should successfully complete a background investigation to ensure management 
integrity.  All non-law enforcement managers of law enforcement personnel shall 
complete "Law Enforcement Training for Supervisors."

We categorized all of the four applicable law enforcement programs (BLM, BOR, 
NWRS and NPS) as only having made adequate progress regarding this directive 
(figure 4).

Most of the efforts of the Bureaus have been targeted at acquiring background 
investigations and management training for their non-law enforcement managers 
overseeing law enforcement programs.  Even still, a considerable percentage of 
managers still lack the backgrounds and training one year after the directive 
was issued.  In addition, little progress has been made in implementing 
accountability measures that will address the deficiencies noted in our 
assessment.


Figure 4

Directive 9
Develop line item budgeting for law enforcement activities.  The Department is 
currently implementing Activity Based Costing (ABC).

We determined that OLES has made reasonable progress in developing work 
activities with the Department's budget staff and in coordinating with the 
Bureaus on field level work activities.  OLES and Bureaus intend to implement 
ABC on October 1, 2003.

Directive 10
DAS should control designated ONDCP (Office of National Drug Control Policy) and 
other special law enforcement funds to exercise formal review and strong 
oversight over the expenditure of those funds.

OLES has required that all future funding requests for ONDCP initiatives be 
submitted to its office by Bureaus for concurrence.  OLES will ensure that 
expenditures are allocated consistent with ONDCP policy.


Directive 11
Bureaus should complete an analysis of staffing models and methodologies.

We learned that two of the seven law enforcement programs (FWSLE and USPP) have 
shown reasonable progress toward completing staffing models and methodologies 
(figure 5).  FWSLE expects its program assessment results on October 1, 2003 and 
the USPP staffing model is in its final stages with an estimated completion of 
August 2003.  The remaining five Bureaus (BIA, BLM, BOR, NPS, and NWRS) have 
demonstrated adequate progress with developing appropriate staffing and 
deployment models (figure 5).  We recognize the difficulty of developing 
appropriate and tested staffing models and methodologies for land-based law 
enforcement programs and are encouraged by the efforts of the Bureaus. 


Figure 5

Directive 12
Each Bureau will assess the extent to which correct staffing shortages impact 
officer safety.  The Bureaus and DAS-LES should coordinate efforts to address 
the identified shortages immediately.

In our 2002 assessment we noted that some staffing shortages are very 
recognizable and pose a clear safety risk to law enforcement officers.  We 
believe that the law enforcement programs have fallen short in immediately 
addressing the existing staffing shortages as recommended by our office and as 
directed by the Secretary.  As a result, the risk to law enforcement officers 
remains significant.  This is the one recommendation and directive where we used 
the term "immediately."   Obviously, that thought has been lost on the Bureaus. 



Figure 6

Directive 13
Bureaus will reduce dependence on part-time collateral duty and seasonal law 
enforcement officers. 

We determined that NWRS has demonstrated reasonable progress by reducing its 
dependence on collateral duty (dual function) officers and has increased its 
full-time officers by 40%.  NPS has been categorized as demonstrating inadequate 
progress because no formal plans have been submitted for review.  Additionally, 
both seasonal and permanent positions have declined since our 2002 assessment.
 
Figure 7

Directive 14
The Secretary has placed responsibility for security policy oversight and 
compliance with the OLES.

We found that OLES has made adequate progress by hiring an Assistant Director-
Nationwide Security Officer.  However, the Assistant Director has not yet had 
the opportunity to perform on-site surveys for each of the Bureaus.


Directive 15
The Review Panel recommends that the NBC (National Business Center) augment its 
security staff with the appointment of a professional Security Manager to 
oversee this effort.

NBC has yet to establish a full time, certified professional security manager.

Directive 16
Each Bureau will develop a senior-level, full-time security manager.

We found that two of the six Bureaus (BIA and BOR) have established and hired 
senior-level full-time security managers.  NPS is in the final stages of 
selecting a full-time security manager after benefiting from the services of an 
acting security manager for several months.   

FWSLE and NWRS state that they will share a security manager position within 
FWSLE if funding is provided in FY 2005.  We feel that FWS has failed to 
sufficiently address the need for security management and strongly suggest that 
NWRS immediately establish a security manager position to oversee the physical 
security of their refuges and other properties. Surely, the cost of one full-
time security manager can be recognized in the FWS 03/04 budget.  If not, FWS 
should, at the very least, use attrition to accomplish this directive.

The remaining law enforcement program (BLM) has demonstrated inadequate progress 
toward hiring a full-time security manager (figure 8).   BLM's current plan is 
to use the Deputy Director of Law Enforcement as a collateral security manager.  
We find their position to be in direct conflict with the directive.  BLM 
attempts to justify the use of a collateral security manager with the fact that 
BLM has custody of a very small amount of facilities and infrastructures.  We 
disagree. 


Figure 8

Directive 17
The responsibility for emergency preparedness should remain with the Office of 
MRPS for the interim.

Emergency management responsibilities were officially transferred to OLES on 
November 25, 2002.  Additionally, OLES has hired both an Assistant Director-
Emergency Management Coordinator and a Deputy Emergency Management Coordinator.


Directive 18
All Bureaus should act promptly to ensure Internal Affairs (IA) coverage.  The 
OLES should establish an IA Unit to perform an oversight role and to investigate 
Bureau cases if the Bureau's capacity is deemed inadequate.

We found that OLES has used detailed positions to formulate guidelines and 
policy for an Internal Affairs Unit pending approval of permanent positions.  In 
addition, they are currently creating guidelines to ensure that the Bureaus 
establish effective Internal Affairs programs.  

BLM and NPS have complied with this directive by establishing a position and 
hiring a Special Agent for Internal Affairs.  Both BIA and USPP had established 
Internal Affairs units prior to the assessment.  The remaining two law 
enforcement programs (FWSLE and NWRS) have demonstrated reasonable progress 
toward establishing Internal Affairs coverage (figure 9).  The FWSLE has 
established a position and have made a selection with a reporting date in 
September 2003.  NWRS will combine its Internal Affairs coverage with FWSLE.   
The OLES and Bureau Internal Affairs Units are planned to be operational on 
October 1, 2003.


Figure 9

Directive 19
OLES is to revise the Departmental Manual (DM) provisions addressing internal 
law enforcement incident reporting and resulting investigations.

During our review, we found that OLES has made reasonable progress toward 
revising the DM provisions.  DM 446, Chapter 9, has been reviewed by the Bureaus 
and the Solicitor's Office for comments, and editing changes are currently being 
implemented.

Directive 20
DAS-LES should work with the Office of Human Resources on the development of 
recruitment strategies to increase the diversity of the law enforcement 
workforce.

We learned that OLES has made reasonable progress toward developing recruitment 
strategies by working with the Department's Human Capital Management Team (HCMT) 
to ensure that law enforcement is an integral part of the Department's approach 
to managing human capital.  Also, DM 446, Chapter 2, includes direction 
regarding Bureau law enforcement recruitment responsibilities.

Directive 21
OLES should research the background investigation process.

We found that OLES has demonstrated reasonable progress toward researching the 
background process by collaborating with the Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM).  OPM is developing an expedited process which is currently being pilot 
tested.  Also, DM 446, Chapter 2, provides direction on background 
investigations and security clearance requirements for Bureaus.  

The progress is promising; however, the OIG continues to receive reports of 
delayed background investigations that have negatively impacted hiring 
practices.

Directive 22
DAS should develop specific training recommendations with reporting and 
evaluation mechanisms that focus on consistent training for full-time, 
collateral and seasonal officers.

Reasonable progress has been made by OLES toward reviewing and developing 
consistent training standards.  OLES has filled a Training Coordinator position, 
and this individual has been actively addressing Departmental training concerns.  
The Training Coordinator will evaluate all Bureau training requirements and 
explore more efficient use of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center 
(FLETC) for Departmental training.  We are encouraged by efforts of OLES and 
FLETC in considering consolidating training courses to reduce or eliminate 
stand-alone training.

Directive 23
OLES should develop a consistent Department-wide centralized records system.

We learned that the OLES has demonstrated reasonable progress toward a 
centralized records system by developing a business plan for a new incident-
based records management system.  OLES will initiate a pilot program in 
approximately six months.  Ultimately, it will take three to five years to fully 
implement the new system.

Directive 24
DAS-LES should work with the DAS for Performance Management to develop 
performance goals and outcome measures.

We found that the OLES has incorporated the Law Enforcement and Security program 
into the Department's Strategic Plan for FY 2003-2008.  Now performance measures 
will allow managers to identify effective areas of performance and areas in need 
of improvement.  
Directive 25

DAS should work with the Office of the Solicitor to coordinate the revision of 
the interagency cross designation agreements.

During our review, we determined that the OLES has revised and provided the 
Interagency Cross Designated Agreement to the Bureaus and Solicitor's Office for 
final review.




Conclusion



The status of DOI law enforcement reform is best characterized as a "work in 
progress."  One year after the Secretary's directives were issued and close to 
two years after 9-11, much remains to be accomplished.  This is not to say that 
significant progress has not been made; the establishment of the Deputy 
Secretary for Law Enforcement and Security and increased staffing within that 
office has served as a tremendous springboard for professionalizing the 
Department's law enforcement programs.  Equally as important has been the 
establishment of senior law enforcement managerial positions in all but one 
program.  This has led to an increased prominence of law enforcement within the 
Bureaus as well as serving as a foundation for greater accountability.

Accountability for law enforcement programs and personnel remains to be 
adequately addressed.  Preliminary efforts to require non-law enforcement 
managers background investigations and training is only a start and not the only 
effort needed.  In addition to the establishment of Internal Affairs offices, 
implementation of accountability procedures must be made to include both planned 
and random compliance inspections and reviews.  Management must be held strictly 
accountable for policies and procedures involving law enforcement programs.

Attention must also be directed toward officer safety issues.  Efforts to 
establish and implement staffing and deployment models must be hastened and, 
where necessary, redeployment of personnel must take place.  Technological 
advances, to include enhanced communications, for field officers must become a 
priority, along with the continued pursuit of a centralized records system. 

Standardization for basic training and minimum standards has begun and should 
continue Department-wide.   Department law enforcement programs should be 
trained alongside each other whenever practical, to include required in-service 
training. 

This review was conducted primarily to reflect the status of the law enforcement 
reform efforts to date.  We intend to select several specific directives and 
conduct a more thorough testing of the reform implementations and specific 
Bureau responses within the next year. 

Appendix 1 





i