In this report, we assess GSA and FPS’s processes against GAO’s  collaboration key practices and internal control standards. These include the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Police,  National Park Service (NPS) law enforcement within the Department of  the Interior, and Smithsonian Institution (SI) Police. Protection and security  services at Smithsonian Institution facilities are provided by the  Smithsonian Police. FPS Uses Various Approaches to Collaborate with State and Local Law Enforcement, but Jurisdictional Data on Federal Facilities Are Incomplete

		FPS’s Approach Involves a Variety of MOUs, Reliance on Long-standing Relationships, Guidance, and Other Initiatives

FPS uses a variety of methods to collaborate with state and local law  enforcement, ranging from establishing MOUs to document agreement on  roles and responsibilities with some, to relying on long-standing working  relationships with others. More specifically, FPS reported that it had 21 signed MOUs with state  and local law enforcement agencies across the United States as of  September 2011.usage in Alabama; MOUs for arrest authority on properties adjacent to  federal property in California and Florida; and MOUs for mutual aid in the  District of Columbia and Georgia, such as FPS’s reciprocal support  agreement with Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority. For example, in some  jurisdictions such as the suburbs surrounding the District of Columbia,  FPS has no MOUs with state and local law enforcement agencies but has  regular contact and longstanding mutual aid relationships. Like FPS, Other Federal Agencies Use a Variety of Methods to Collaborate with State and Local Law Enforcement

Other federal organizations with law enforcement responsibilities similar  to FPS also used a variety of methods to collaborate with state and local  law enforcement. State and Local Law Enforcement Generally Willing to Assist with Protecting Federal Facilities

Our questionnaire of state and local law enforcement agencies and  follow-up discussions showed a general willingness of those that replied  to respond to incidents at federal facilities. Four state and local law enforcement  agencies stated that they would decline to respond to an incident at a  federal building in their jurisdiction. Overall, the variety of efforts FPS has under way reflects a reasonable  approach to collaboration, especially when combined with results we  found from our questionnaire of state and local law enforcement  agencies. At the end of our review,  GSA officials informed us that they had made significant progress  addressing this issue. Nonetheless, given that facilities of exclusive jurisdiction are unique  because state and local law enforcement agencies generally have no law  enforcement authority on these properties, incomplete data leaves FPS  less equipped to define and agree to respective roles and responsibilities  with regard to state and local law enforcement collaboration. An additional  effect of not having these data is that FPS lacks assurance that, in relying  on state and local law enforcement to respond to incidents at federal  facilities, it is not creating a situation where these entities may be  exercising police authority where they lack such authority as in the case  of exclusive jurisdiction properties. For example, in 2011, GSA and FPS held working groups to  begin to improve the building property list, and established a permanent  GSA liaison in FPS’s headquarters to improve data coordination. State and local law enforcement  agencies we contacted were generally willing to assist FPS with incidents  at federal facilities. Related to the quality of data exchanged between  FPS and GSA on buildings and their locations, FPS and GSA had taken  action to address data inconsistency issues. However, as of the end of  our review, FPS still lacked complete data from GSA on whether the  jurisdictions of about one-third of the buildings FPS protects are  exclusive, concurrent, or proprietary. Having these data is important  because state and local law enforcement generally have no authority to  enforce state and local law on properties of exclusive jurisdiction. Recommendations for Executive Action

In conjunction with the revised MOU that is being developed between  GSA and FPS, we recommend the Administrator of GSA ensure that  efforts to identify the jurisdictions of all GSA buildings are completed and  that these data are provided to FPS so that FPS is better equipped to  manage jurisdictional roles and responsibilities at GSA buildings. Appendix I: Objective, Scope and Methodology

To assess the Federal Protective Service’s (FPS) efforts to collaborate  with state and local law enforcement for assistance in responding to  incidents at federal facilities, we reviewed FPS data on buildings  protected, staffing, procedures, and memorandums of understanding  (MOUs).
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Protective Service (FPS) protects over 9,000 federal facilities under the custody and control of the General Services Administration (GSA). In 2007, FPS adopted an inspector-based workforce approach and indicated it would increase its reliance on state and local law enforcement agencies to respond to incidents at these facilities. These facilities range from facilities of proprietary or concurrent jurisdictionwhere authority is shared by federal and state and local policeto facilities of exclusive jurisdiction, where only federal law enforcement has authority. As requested, this report assesses FPSs efforts to collaborate with state and local law enforcement for assistance in responding to incidents at these federal facilities. GAO reviewed documents on collaboration, GSA and FPS facility data, and GAOs work on key collaboration practices and internal control standards. GAO also contacted 73 selected state and local law enforcement agencies from geographic jurisdictions of varying population sizes and FPS buildings throughout the United States and interviewed FPS and GSA officials.

What GAO Found

To collaborate with state and local law enforcement, the Federal Protective Service (FPS) uses memorandums of understanding (MOU), long-standing working relationships, written guidance to FPS staff, joint operations, and other initiatives. For example, FPS has MOUs ranging from sharing radio frequency usage in Alabama, to a mutual aid agreement with the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority in Georgia. In some jurisdictions, such as the suburbs of the District of Columbia, FPS has no MOUs but has regular contact and long-standing mutual aid relationships with state and local law enforcement. To collaborate with state and local law enforcement, FPS has guidance that addresses issues such as the scope of law enforcement authorities on federal property and information sharing among jurisdictions. FPS established regional staff positions intended to improve collaboration with other organizations and has engaged in joint operations with state and local law enforcement. By comparison, other federal organizations with law enforcement responsibilities similar to FPS also use a variety of methods, ranging from the Department of Veterans Affairs policy to seek MOUs with state and local law enforcement to the Smithsonian Institutions established relationships with the Metropolitan D.C. Police and others.
GAO found that state and local law enforcement organizations it contacted are generally willing to assist with incidents at federal facilities. For example, 48 of 52 respondents from state and local law enforcement agencies GAO contacted about this issue said that they would respond to a call at a federally owned facility; 27 said they had done so since 2007. Overall, the variety of efforts FPS has under way is consistent with the key collaboration practices GAO has previously identified and reflects a reasonable approach to collaboration, especially when combined with the willingness of state and local law enforcement to assist.
Although FPS has a reasonable approach to state and local collaboration, GAO found issues related to the quality of data exchanged between GSA and FPS on buildings and their locations. Through working groups, GSA is working with FPS to address these data inconsistency issues and is establishing a permanent GSA liaison at FPSs headquarters to improve data coordination. But as of the end of GAOs review, FPS still lacked complete data from GSA on the jurisdiction of about one third of the buildings it protects. GSA officials informed GAO that they are making progress with identifying building jurisdictions but were not yet in a position to provide complete information to FPS. These data are important because state and local law enforcement generally has no authority to enforce state and local law on properties of exclusive federal jurisdiction. An additional effect of not having these data is that FPS lacks assurance that in relying on state and local law enforcement to respond to incidents at federal facilities, it is not creating a situation where these entities may be exercising police authority where they lack such authority. As a result, incomplete jurisdictional data leaves FPS and state and local law enforcement less equipped to define and agree to respective roles and responsibilities when there are incidents at federal facilities.

What GAO Recommends

In conjunction with the revised MOU that is being developed between GSA and FPS, GAO recommends the administrator of GSA ensure that efforts to identify the jurisdictions of all GSA buildings are completed and that these data are provided to FPS. GSA concurred with the recommendation.