Behind the badge.

Contrary to popular belief, the oldest profession is that of park ranger. At least this is what one Oklahoma judge claimed. He equated the job with thr cherubic guard placed at the Biblical Garden of Eden to protect it from the only two people in the world. The beginnings of the profession on this continent are less auspicious, although there is a handful of agencies whose law enforcement programs predate the present century. Most, however, are johnnies-come-lately in park administration and law enforcement, born of a need to address societal concerns related to park resources.

The nationwide growth of local and special district park systems after World War II gave communities park resources to manage and protect. Park law enforcement units of one sort or another often were part of the equation.

Then came the turbulent - and televised - '60s. Suddenly, law enforcement procedures that worked in the '50s no longer were effective. Preparing for civil disorder, park officials around the country initiated law enforcement programs or beefed up existing ones. By the early '70s, it was not unusual to find storage areas containing gas masks, tear gas canisters, and other largely unused riot gear that had been purchased with federal Law Enforcement Assiatant Program (LEAP) funds. In truth, most park law enforcement agencies were - and still are - too small to put down a genuine riot, so these purchases likely were meant to protect officers.

As the '70s closed, there were quite a few park law enforcement units scattere around the map with no set of professional standards to call their own, sav a hybrid variety created from whatever local law enforcement standard existed and the responsible park administrator's interpretation of how and to what extent such standards should apply in the parks.

Throughout the '60s and '70s, the criminal courts redefined many aspects of law enforcement. And in the '80s, civil litigation changed the way we do business in parks and other government service organizations. Most recently, high taxes and the sharp increase in violent crime have been primary concerns voiced by citizens in virtually every opinion poll. The cumulative effect on park law enforcement agencies has been manifold, from closing down longstanding programs to the creation of new park law enforcement agencies where none existed before. Fortunately, the latter appears to be the prevailing trend and true professionalism the common goal.

That Was Then, This Is Now

A few years ago the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (FBI) Law Enforcement Bulletin published an article by a college campus police officer bemoaning that the city police disrespect the campus police, even though "we do the same job [the city police] do." Most disturbing was that this campus police officer had written an article saying almost verbatim what too many park law enforcement people had voiced over the years. And all of them were wrong, because the jobs are not the same. They perform many of the same tasks as city police do, but the jobs are vastly different; and each is quite specialized. Perhaps the question for park law enforcement people, then is, "Who are you, and what do you want to be?"

Much of the identity problem stems from an under funded past. In the overall scheme of things, when legislatures and others start cutting taxes, parks and recreation programs usually are listed under 'nonessential services." It alwayus has been a case of having to do more with less, and this situation is not likely to change.

Years back, when many agencies were starting their enforcement programs, it was a common practice to hire retirees (especially retired police officers) and younger people who were just embarking on a law enforcement career. It also was common to pay them poorly in comparison with other law enforcements jobs and other technically skilled park and recreation professionals.

Along with the many fine people who wanted some retirement income or trily wanted to work in parks, many agencies also hired "wannabees" - people who wanted to be police officers but who (for whatever reason) were not acceptable for employment with city or county police agencies. Unfortunately, just one or two 'wannabes" can damage the credibility of an enforcement program in the eyes of the established police community and within the professional ranks of the park and recreation agency itself.

Molding Self-Image

Other major factors affecting the self-image of enforcement staff include the scope of enforcement authority in comparison with duties and responsibilities, written policies and procedures, training, equipment, and communication with other local enforcement entities.

Often, when governing bodies consider expanding law enforcement authority to include full arrest powers, the focus quickly turns to whether the enforcement staff should carry sidearms. But guns should not be the issue. The only issue should be whether full law enforcement authority is needed for the staff to safely meet the requirements of the job as set forth by the governing body. Once that decision is made, policies, selection and training criteria, and equipment needs must be addressed.

A gun is just another piece of equipment to manage properly. Unfortunately, it frequently becomes a political football. Primary opposition often comes from within the administrative and governing ranks of the park and recreation agency itself. And it is unusual for local police officials to objet, either because they are turf-conscious and don't want anyone else doing law enforcement in "their" jurisdiction or because they question the capability of the park law enforcement staff.

Given full law enforcement authority, it is imperative to develop policies, procedures, and selection and training criteria the meet the accepted standards for law enforcement agencies in the geopolitical area. While state laws mandate many such standards, it also is common for certain areas within a state to exceed minimum requirements, either by custom or by interlocal agreement. The best way to maintain such standards is through communication and cooperation with other local law enforcement agencies.

Building Relationships

Building such relatioships takes years, not months, and probably will be difficult to accomplish for anyone the law enforcement community does not come to see as "one of their own." It would be foolish to have someone in charge of a low enforcement unit who had a little or no education or experience in law enforcement, if only for liability reasons; but it is a disservice to the park and recreation profession to hire only experienced city police officers as chiefs of park law enforcement units. While such persons may do an admirable job, park law enforcement is a specialized field; and there are many highly qualified park law enforcement people around the country who already understand the peculiarities and disciplines of the recreation and park profession. These individuals should be considered when recruiting for such position openings.

The Missing Ingredient

Sadly, no comprehensive body of research exists specific to law enforcement in parks and recreation areas. However, the Park Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) is seeking to remedy this by obtaining funding for such research.

Parks and recreation law enforcement also lacks any st of professional standard for the application of accepted law enforcement disciplines in parks and recreation areas. This very article refers to "parks law enforcement people" throughout, reflecting the fact that no industry-wide agreement even exists for what to call these individuals.

California legislators took a step toward solving the problem by reserving the title "park ranger" for sworn peace officers, exempting non-sworn federal rangers and grandfathering preexisting programs. If the other states do likewise, there won't be any problem in about 50 years. But in the meantime, it is important to remember that title is not so important as the ultimate goal of these employees - taking care of people. Park visitors who need a police response don't care whether the responder is wearing green or blue or what that person's title is; they just want help - fast.

Where Do We Go Now?

The number one hot topic in law enforcement in thee last few years has been community policing, which constitutes a whole new way of doing business. Park administrators who study the concepts of law enforcement or witness community policing in their neighborhoods recognize much of what they see because park law enforcement police have been doing community policing for years. They just didn't know what to call it.

Wholesale change is on the horizon for law enforcement. Anyone who doesn't believe it needs only read a newspaper or watch television to see that it is true.

Law enforcement - including enforcement services in parks - should be well prepared to meet the challenges of change. The young park rangers and police officers of today are selected from the best society has to offer. On average, they complete with over 100 other applicants for every entry-level position. Before being appointed, thy undergo medical and psychological screening, and their backgrounds are examined minutely.

After attending a police academy, they are field-trained; and during both processes, their every move is evaluated and critiqued. And even after field training, they are kept under close supervision during their entire probationary period, usually the remainder of their first year. They come to us more highly educated than ever and more likely to question the reasoning behind things they do not fully understand. While this sometimes nay disturb administrators, such questioning can help strengthen good policies and eliminate unnecessary ones.

Whatever the differences in their jobs and responsibities, today's young police officers and park rangrs have many things in ccommon. They learn things about people