WWW.ABSTRACT.DISLIB.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Abstracts, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 2 | 3 ||

«Commanders Report: Pacific Southwest Research Station Nationwide Study General Technical Report PSW-RP-254 September 2007 Deborah J. Chavez and ...»

-- [ Page 4 ] --

Finally, there are several ways to use the results of this study of PCs in the USFS. The identification of issues, particularly issues that are consistent across regions, could be used to prioritize law enforcement efforts. The case studies of success indicated that focus on problem areas was important to overcoming the problems. In addition, some of the successes that have occurred, in combination with a focus on the characteristics identified as integral to a successful LEI program could be identified as a priority focus area for officers and leaders. This has some serious implications for budgeting and staffing. Some consideration might be made of the current allocation of resources and whether it is congruent with the issues identified by the PC respondents.

While it appears that a successful LEI program is all about the officers and their needs, further examination of the many comments indicates a great desire to work for the public good, keep visitors safe, and protect the land base.

Additional studies for LEI measure opinions of other employees in law enforcement. They will be asked similar questions to the ones asked of the PCs.

In addition, we will be surveying customers of LEI including district rangers and forest supervisors.

Acknowledgments Comments and assistance came from David Ferrell, Deputy Director of LEI; Jonathan Herrick, Region 1; and Richard Glodowski, Region 9. We appreciate the funding provided from the Washington office for our office support staff at the Pacific Southwest Research Station (PSW). This study would not be possible without the support of LEI in the Washington office, and officers and supervisors nationwide.

Thanks go to David Olson, Nancy Knap, and Gloria Sierra of PSW for data coding, entry, and analyses. The following reviewers provided invaluable comments—from LEI, Richard Glodowski and Jonathan Herrick, from PSW, Jose Sanchez, and from Oregon State University, Robyn Ceurvorst.

–  –  –

Appendix Patrol Captain and Patrol Commander Survey Questionnaire Dear Patrol Commanders and Patrol Captains, You recently received a letter from Deputy Director Ferrell about the survey being conducted by myself (Dr. Debbie Chavez, PSW) and Dr. Jo Tynon (Oregon State University). We thank you for taking time from your busy schedules to respond to this survey.

In the last few years, law enforcement in the USFS has faced some tough challenges. In order to understand and respond appropriately to current and future needs, it is important to hear from you. This study is part of a larger effort to capture law enforcement successes so that others can benefit from what already works.

We are also partnering with those who seek to develop meaningful performance measures for what you do. This study is one way for you to tell your story.

Completing the questionnaire will take about 40 minutes of your time. Your answers will be coded for computer analysis, combined with those from other Patrol Captains and Patrol Commanders, and used for statistical summaries only.

At no time will your name be released or associated with your responses. Your participation in this study is voluntary and you may refuse to answer any question.

Your participation is vital to the study, and to future planning for LE&I. Responses are due July 8.

The answers you provide will be kept confidential to the extent permitted by law. Special precautions have been established to protect the confidentiality of your responses. The identification number associated with your questionnaire will be removed once your questionnaire has been returned. We use the number to contact those who have not returned their questionnaire, so we do not burden those who have responded. Your completed questionnaire will be destroyed once your responses have been tallied. There are no foreseeable risks to you as a participant in this project, nor are there any direct benefits. However, your participation is extremely valued.

If you have any questions about the survey, please contact Debbie Chavez at (951) 680-1558 (e-mail dchavez@fs.fed.us) or Jo Tynon at (541) 737-1499 (e-mail Jo.Tynon@oregonstate.edu). If we are not available when you call, please leave a message and one of us will call you back. If you have questions about your rights as a participant in this research project, please contact the Oregon State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) Human Protections Administrator at (541) 737email IRB@oregonstate.edu).

–  –  –

Supervisory Law Enforcement Officer Survey Questionnaire Patrol Commanders and Patrol Captains

1. Approximately how many acres are you responsible for providing LE coverage in your area of responsibility?

____ acres ____ don’t know ■ 1a. Of that total, what is the approximate acres of that area that LEOs normally access for patrol purposes? ____ acres or ___ Don’t know ■ 1b. Today, how many GS-5 through GS-10 LEOs do you have employed?

____ Number of LEOs ____ Number of Reserve LEOs

2. Is your area of responsibility primarily on an urban or urban-interface, in a semi-rural setting, or in an extremely remote setting? Provide approximate percentages based upon acreage.

____ urban or urban-interface ____ semi-rural ____ rural ____ extremely remote

3. How many total incidents were reported in your area of responsibility in FY04?





____ number of incidents in FY04 reported to LEIMARS in your area of responsibility ____ number of all incidents in FY04 in your area of responsibility (perhaps not captured in LEIMARS, i.e. by cooperators) ____ don’t know Do you have a system in place to capture and report these other incidents not reported in LEIMARS?

If so, what is it?

4. Rate 1–5 your officers’ most common activity during public contacts (1 is most common):

____ violation notices/warnings/investigations ____ public relations/education/information ____ non-violator public assistance ____ search/rescue/medical response ____ other (please specify) ____________________________________________________________

5. On an average day, how many USFS people are responsible for law enforcement patrols or regulatory compliance in your area of responsibility (i.e., how many LEOS and FPOs are annually certified in your area of responsibility)?

____ LEOs ____ FPOs ____ others (please explain: ___________________________________________________________) ____ don’t know

–  –  –

Based on your organizational chart, approved by line officers in your area of responsibility, how many LEOs and FPOs do you need to add in your area of responsibility?

_____ LEOs to add ____ FPOs to add

7. Do you have cooperative law agreements with other law enforcement agencies?

____ no ____ yes ____ City/town/community law enforcement ____ County Sheriff’s office ____ State Police ____ other (please explain: __________________________________)

8. On an average day, how many sworn personnel from other law enforcement agencies provide FS reimbursed law enforcement services on or affecting the NFS in your area of responsibility?

____ # City/town/community law enforcement ____ # County Sheriff’s office ____ # State Police ____ # other (please explain: _____________________________________)

9. Do you think the reimbursed patrols/enforcement work by cooperating law enforcement officers in your patrol area offer adequate services or inadequate services in responding to or preventing crime?

City/town/community: County Sheriff’s: State Police:

____ adequate ____ adequate ____ adequate ____ inadequate ____ inadequate ____ inadequate ____ don’t know ____ don’t know ____ don’t know

10. On an average day, roughly how many sworn personnel from other law enforcement agencies provide law enforcement services on or affecting the NFS that are NOT reimbursed by the FS in your patrol area of responsibility?

____ # City/town/community law enforcement ____ # County Sheriff’s office ____ # State Police ____ # other (please explain: __________________________________________________________) ____ don’t know

–  –  –

12. When you think about recreation visitor safety in your area of responsibility, do you think it is very safe, mostly safe, not safe, very dangerous, or it varies in your area of responsibility? Please respond for personal safety from other visitors and for physical safety from site features (e.g., hazard trees, wild animals, road hazards, etc).

–  –  –

13. When you think about recreation visitor safety in your area of responsibility, do you think it is very safe, mostly safe, not safe, or very dangerous in your area of responsibility compared to places in the average recreation visitors’ neighborhood?

Personal safety from other visitors: Physical safety from site features:

____ recreation visitors are very safe here ____ recreation visitors are very safe here ____ recreation visitors are mostly safe here ____ recreation visitors are mostly safe here ____ recreation visitors are not safe here ____ recreation visitors are not safe here ____ it is very dangerous for visitors here ____ it is very dangerous for visitors here ____ don’t know ____ don’t know

14. What types of crimes or law enforcement violations most commonly affect recreation visitors in your area of responsibility?

–  –  –

16. What special problems do you have protecting forest users activities in your area of responsibility?

17. During the time you have worked activities in your area of responsibility have you seen the quality of the natural resources in your area of responsibility degrade, improve, or remain the same? How about the maintenance of FS facilities and developed areas?

Quality of the natural resources: Maintenance of FS facilities and developed areas:

____ degraded ____ degraded ____ improved ____ improved ____ remained the same ____ remained the same ____ don’t know ____ don’t know

18. Rank 1 to 4 your highest priority (1 is highest priority). Is it protecting forest users, protecting resources, protecting NFS employees, or protecting public property? Rank 1 to 4 what you believe the NFS line officer you most commonly interact with thinks is your highest priority: protecting forest users; protecting resources; protecting NFS employees; or protecting public property? (1 is NFS line officers’ view of your highest priority)

Your view: NFS line officers’ view:

____ protecting forest users ____ protecting forest users ____ protecting resources ____ protecting resources ____ protecting NFS employees ____ protecting NFS employees ____ protecting public property ____ protecting public property ____ don’t know ____ don’t know

19. Is FS LEI authority and jurisdiction adequate for what you feel is expected or demanded of you internally and externally?

____ yes ____ no If no, please explain: ____________________________________________________________

–  –  –

21. Do you have adequate resources to do your job?

____ no ____ yes If not, what additional resources do you need?

22. What do you believe LEI’s relationship with the rest of the FS should be?

23. Where does LEI fit within the FS organization and programs?

24. Do you have any special policing programs that have worked well?

____ no ____ yes. What are they?

25. How do you measure the success of your policing programs?

26. What policing programs have you tried (if any) that were not successful? Briefly explain why they were not successful.

27. What do you believe are the priority issues facing the law enforcement profession in the FS today?

28. How do the priorities of the NFS line officer you most commonly interact with activities in your area of responsibility compare with LEI priorities?

29. Does the NFS line officer you most commonly interact with in your area know what you do? Further, do they understand what you do?

30. Whom do you believe your customers are?

31. What do you believe your customers want from LEI on NFS lands?

–  –  –

33. How well do you communicate with others in the Forest Service activities in your area of responsibility Please explain and add how you go about communicating.

34. How would you describe a successful LEI program nationally, regionally, and locally?

Nationally:

Regionally:

Locally:

–  –  –

35. Do you have a LE success story you’d like to share?

____ no ____ yes, please describe:

36. Have you ever been threatened or attacked because of your job?

____ no ____ yes. Please briefly describe incidents in the past 3 years.

Please tell us about yourself.

37. What is the Region where you work? __________________

38. I am ____ male ____ female

39. I am ____ years old

40. I consider myself:

____ Black ____ White ____ Hispanic ____ Asian ____ Multiracial ____ Other: _______________________

41. I have been in law enforcement a total of ____ years.

42. I have been with the FS a total of ____ years

43. I have been an LEO for the FS a total of ____ years

45. I have been an Patrol Captain/Patrol Commander at this duty station ____ years.

–  –  –

47. The highest academic degree I hold is:

48. My academic degree is related to my work in law enforcement ____ yes ____ no Is there anything else you would like to tell us?

Thank you!

We do appreciate the time and effort it took to complete this questionnaire. The results will be summarized into a report for LE&I in the Washington Office and will later be included in published manuscripts. Your individual data will not be disclosed to anyone.

38 This publication is available online at www.fs.fed.us/psw/. You may also order additional copies of it by sending your mailing information in label form through one of the following means. Please specify the publication title and series number.

–  –  –

Pacific Southwest Research Station 800 Buchanan Street Albany, CA 94710 U.S. Department of Agriculture Pacific Southwest Research Station 800 Buchanan Street Albany, CA 94710 Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300

Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 2 | 3 ||


Similar works:

«The Geology and Tectonic Setting of the ShasheFoley-Tonota area (Central Motloutse Complex), NE Botswana By MOLATLHEGI LARTY LOSTMAN MOSEKI STUDENT NO. 208523856 Submitted in fulfillment of the academic requirements For the degree of Master of Science In the School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban December 2013 i PREFACE The research work described in this dissertation was carried out in the School of Agriculture, Earth and Environmental...»

«УДК 332.112 МЕТОДИКИ МЕЖБЮДЖЕТНОЙ ПОДДЕРЖКИ БЮДЖЕТОВ СЕЛЬСКИХ ПОСЕЛЕНИЙ В УСЛОВИЯХ РЕФОРМИРОВАНИЯ СИСТЕМЫ МЕСТНОГО САМОУПРАВЛЕНИЯ Домашенко А.А.Урюпинский филиал ФГАОУ ВПО «Волгоградский государственный университет», Урюпинск, Россия, e-mail: tolik170@mail.ru В статье рассмотрены...»

«Market Development Research in China September 02 – 12, 2007 In-market Research to Identify Prime Target for Future Market Development under the auspices of Australia – Pakistan Agriculture Sector Linkages Program (ASLP) Compiled By Muhammad Sohail Mazhar Reviewed By Dr. Aman Ullah Malik Dr. Timothy Sun Contributions Sosheel Solomon Godfrey Babar Ehsan Bajwa Muhammad Iqbal Waheed Ahmed Australian Center of International Agricultural Research (ACIAR) Table of Contents 1. Introduction 02 2....»

«Copyright © 2014 Scienceline Publication Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research Volume 4, Issue 4: 102-106 (2014) ISSN 2228-7701 REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE OF Camelus dromedarius IN THE EL-OUED REGION, ALGERIA R. MAYOUF1,2,*, M.H. BENAISSA1, Y. BENTRIA1, F.Z. AOUNE1, Y. HALIS1 1 Division of Bioresources, Scientific and Technical Research Centre for Arid Areas (CRSTRA), Biophysical Station, Nezla, 3240 Touggourt, Algeria 2 Department of agronomy, Hadj Lakhdar University, Batna 05000, Algeria...»

«Journal of Gender, Agriculture and Food Security Vol. 1, Issue 1, pp 54-76, 2015 The Role of Gender and Kinship Structure in Household Decision-Making for Agriculture and Tree Planting in Malawi Seline S. Meijera,c,*, Gudeta W. Sileshib, Godfrey Kundhlandec, Delia Catacutand, and Maarten Nieuwenhuisa a UCD Forestry, Agriculture and Food Science Centre, University College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland; b 5600 Lukanga Road, Lusaka, Zambia; c World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF) Eastern and...»

«Chapter 4. HORTICULTURAL SOCIETIES I. Introduction A. Basic Concepts Horticultural societies are differentiated from hunting and gathering societies by the use of domesticated plants as the major basis for subsistence. Horticultural societies are technically differentiated from agrarian societies by their lack of plows and animal traction, and from pastoral societies because they do not make domesticated herd animals the main basis of subsistence. Many more people can be supported per km2 by...»

«GEOGRAPHICAL INSTITUTE “JOVAN CVIJIC” SASA COLLECTION OF PAPERS N 56 YEAR 2007 O 911.2:631(497.11) ∗ Марина Тодоровић, Радмила Милетић КОРИШЋЕЊЕ ЗЕМЉИШТА У ВАЉЕВСКИМ СЕЛИМА БУЈАЧИЋ, КЛИНЦИ И ПЕТНИЦА Абстракт: У раду је презентовано коришћење земљишта као сегмент просторне организације сеоских насеља Бујачић,...»

«Proceedings, The Range Beef Cow Symposium XIX December 6, 7 and 8, 2005, Rapid City, South Dakota KEY INDICATORS OF SUCCESS IN RANCHING: A BALANCED APPROACH Barry H. Dunn and Matthew Etheredge King Ranch Institute for Ranch Management College of Agriculture and Human Sciences Texas A&M University-Kingsville Kingsville, TX INTRODUCTION “It is difficult to manage what is not measured.” Demming, 1994 While it has often been recognized that a ranch is greater than the sum of its parts,...»

«Pak. J. Bot., 38(3): 875-880, 2006.EFFICACY OF DIFFERENT FUNGICIDES AGAINST FUSARIUM WILT OF COTTON CAUSED BY FUSARIUM OXYSPORUM F. SP. VASINFECTUM ABDUL QAYOOM RAJPUT, M. H. ARAIN, *M. A. PATHAN, * M. M. JISKANI AND *A. M. LODHI Department of Plant Pathology, Faculty of Plant Protection (S.A.U. Tandojam)* Department of Agriculture, Pest and Disease Research Lab. (PDRL) University of Karachi, Karachi, Pakistan. Abstract Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum (Atk.) Snyd. & Hans was isolated from...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2017 www.abstract.dislib.info - Abstracts, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.