HomeMy WebLinkAboutAudit Reports - Public - Park Ranger Program Audit - 3/5/2025 1
March 05, 2025
City of Glendale
Internal Audit Report on
Park Ranger Program Audit
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and Baker Tilly US, LLP, trading as Baker Tilly, operate under an alternative practice structure and are members of the global
network of Baker Tilly International Ltd., the members of which are separate and independent legal entities. Baker Tilly US, LLP is a licensed CPA firm that
provides assurance services to its clients. Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP and its subsidiary entities provide tax and consulting services to their clients and are
not licensed CPA firms.
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 1
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 2
DETAILED ANALYSIS ................................................................................................... 4
AUDIT RESULTS ............................................................................................................ 7
APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 12
1
Executive Summary
Purpose of the Audit
In accordance with the Professional Services Agreement (C24-1163) with City of Glendale (the City),
Baker Tilly Advisory Group, LP (Baker Tilly) conducted a Park Ranger Program (PRP) Audit. The
objective of this audit was to provide recommendations for enhancing the coverage and processes of
the PRP to deliver best-in-class service to park visitors by:
1) Evaluating the adequacy of staffing levels, roles and responsibilities, and the effectiveness of
training programs for staff.
2) Assessing the measures in place to ensure the safety of both staff and patrons, including
adherence to relevant safety standards.
Report Highlights
Finding 1: Safety training and equipment
(Page 7) The City’s PRP requires basic life support (CPR) and first aid certification while some
other cities in Arizona require additional safety training or certifications. There has
been a consistent and significant presence of transient individuals, and open container
consumption and drug use in the parks have been noted. This raises safety concerns
for the Park Rangers, especially given their limited safety training and lack of
protective gear.
Key Recommendations
The City should take appropriate actions such as enhancing safety training and safety
protocols, equipping Park Rangers with personal protective equipment, increasing
patrols and support, and implementing community outreach programs.
Finding 2: Work schedule and workload
(Page 8) Park Rangers are responsible for locking 115 gates and restrooms, which takes a
significant amount of time, especially when there are still visitors in the park. Without
increasing manpower and efficiency, Park Rangers may struggle to effectively
manage and protect park resources, address visitor concerns, and maintain safety
standards.
Key Recommendations
The City should take appropriate actions such as assessing workload, introducing
support staff or volunteers, utilizing automated solutions, evaluating a 4/10 schedule,
aligning schedules with visitor patterns, filling temporary positions, enhancing
efficiency and coverage, and monitoring and adjusting based on relevant data.
Finding 3: Performance monitoring
(Page 10) The City's PRP has a less hierarchical structure compared to three out of four other
selected cities in Arizona, resulting in no clear path for career advancement.
Additionally, no key performance indicators (KPIs) are monitored using the reports
generated from the data collected by the Park Ranger Activity Tracker.
Key Recommendations
The City should take appropriate actions such as implementing career development
plans, establishing KPIs, and regularly analyzing Activity Tracker data.
2
Introduction
1 https://www.glendaleaz.com/live/amenities/parks_facilities_trails
Objective The objective of this audit was to provide recommendations for enhancing the
coverage and processes of the PRP to deliver best-in-class service to park
visitors by:
1) Evaluating the adequacy of staffing levels, roles and responsibilities, and the
effectiveness of training programs for staff.
2) Assessing the measures in place to ensure the safety of both staff and
patrons, including adherence to relevant safety standards.
Background The City offers 2,188 acres of parks and open space, which include 73 parks, 25
sports fields, and 46 miles of trails1. The City’s PRP, operating under the Parks
Division of the Parks and Recreation Department, provides assistance to park
visitors and supports park safety. According to the City’s webpage, the mission
of the PRP is to protect and preserve park resources, recreation opportunities
and facilities that enhance the quality of life for city residents and visitors through
public education and enforcement of park rules.
The 2024 Park Ranger Training Manual lists the following goals for the PRP:
Promote voluntary compliance by educating the public of the rules and
regulations.
Deter criminal and disruptive behavior through education, patrol, and
enforcement.
Serve as ambassadors who build relationships, solve problems, and
show compassion.
The FY2025 budget for the PRP, as stated in the FY2024-2025 Annual Budget
Book, is $868,628, which represents 4.6% of the total Parks and Recreation
Department budget. The PRP is authorized for one Park Ranger Supervisor and
four full-time Park Ranger positions, with an additional FY2025 budget of
$183,659 allocated for temporary Park Rangers.
Scope The audit scope included the Park Ranger activities from December 1, 2023,
through December 2, 2024.
Methodology To achieve our audit objectives, we performed the following procedures:
Interviewed relevant Parks and Recreation Department management and
Park Rangers regarding the PRP, including aspects of staffing, equipment,
training, and safety.
Inspected pertinent documents such as job descriptions, Park Ranger
schedules, training manual, monthly Park Ranger Activities reports, and
incident reports.
3
INTRODUCTION
Analyzed the Park Ranger daily activity data, gate closure lists, and incident
reporting data.
Compared the City’s information against best practices and benchmarking
information.
Organizational
Strengths
During this audit activity, we observed the use of the technology that records
Park Rangers’ activities and allows management to analyze the data for effective
allocation of resources and improvement of operational efficiency. Both
management and the team are dedicated professionals who continuously strive
to enhance the City's PRP.
The Baker Tilly team greatly appreciates the support of the Park Rangers and Parks
Division management in conducting this audit activity.
Thank you!
4
Detailed Analysis
Transient-Related Activities
A monthly Park Ranger Activities report provides the total number of transient-related activities for the month and brief descriptions of activities at
parks where Park Rangers encountered the most activities. These activities include the removal of numerous transients during gate closures, misuse
of ramadas and other facilities, drug use, and open container consumption. The following table summarizes the numbers reported from January
2024 through September 2024.
Gate Closure
Park Rangers are responsible for closing certain park gates within their assigned patrol zones: North, Central, or South, as detailed in the following
tables. According to the Park Ranger schedule effective November 30, 2024, there were two Park Rangers on duty from Friday through Monday and
four Park Rangers on duty from Tuesday through Thursday. Effective February 15, 2025, the schedule was updated to have three Park Rangers on
duty from Friday through Monday and six Park Rangers on duty from Tuesday through Thursday.
5
Benchmarking
Baker Tilly gathered the information on the Park Ranger programs of four neighboring cities (Appendix A) for comparison. The data indicates that the
number of Park Rangers and their shift hours vary among these cities. Safety training (Finding 1) and organizational hierarchy (Finding 3) appear to
be potential areas for improvement for the City.
Best Practices
The following best practices should be considered by the City when making decisions on balancing outreach and enforcement, adding more Park
Rangers, adjusting work schedules, and addressing the increase in transient populations.
Park Ranger Duties
6
The work of Park Rangers varies from park to park, depending on the agency, the location and other factors such as the nature of park or resources
involved. According to the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the work of Park Rangers falls into three broad functional areas:
Interpretation – Enrich the visitors’ experience through activities
Visitor Protection and Services – Enforce laws and rules
Resource Management – Protect, manage, and conserve natural, historical, and other characteristics of the area
Park Rangers may perform one or a combination of the three. Determining the balance between outreach and enforcement in a park ranger program
involves several best practices. Some key approaches include:
Community Engagement – Encourage community participation in park activities and decision-making processes. This can include volunteer
programs, public meetings, and feedback surveys.
Training and Development – Ensure ongoing professional development opportunities for park rangers to stay updated on best practices and
new strategies.
Data-Driven Decision Making – Maintain detailed records of enforcement actions and outreach activities. Analyze this data to identify trends
and areas for improvement. Develop metrics to evaluate the effectiveness of both enforcement and outreach efforts. This can help in
adjusting strategies to achieve a balanced approach.
Policies and Procedure Development – Establish clear policies and procedures that outline the roles and responsibilities of park rangers in
both enforcement and outreach.
Collaboration and Partnerships – Work with other law enforcement agencies, community organizations, and stakeholders to enhance the
effectiveness of both outreach and enforcement efforts. Share resources and information with partner organizations to improve overall park
management and community relations.
Overnight Patrols in City Parks
The City of Phoenix launched a 6-month pilot program in which a private security company conducted patrols from 8 PM to 10 AM, seven days a
week. The assessment of this program revealed its effectiveness, as crime and misconduct decreased2. Consequently, the City Council approved
the hiring of 14 new Park Rangers for overnight patrols3.
Community Court and Off the Streets Program4
The City of Mesa’s Community Court and Off the Street program aims to address homelessness and related issues. The Community Court provides
an alternative to traditional court proceedings, focusing on rehabilitation and support services for individuals experiencing homelessness. The Off the
Street program works in conjunction with Park Rangers and other city services to offer resources and assistance to transients, helping them
transition off the streets and into more stable living situations5
2 https://www.kjzz.org/2023-05-10/content-1846490-phoenix-park-security-patrols-find-drug-use-fires-vandalism
3 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTmXFnApcys
4 https://www.mesaaz.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/residentresources/housing/homelessness/offthestreets-brochure.pdf
5 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lu5D_0Qtvx8
7
Audit Results
Finding 1: Safety
training and
equipment
As shown in Table 3 in the Detailed Analysis section of this report, the City’s
PRP requires basic life support (CPR) and first aid certification. In contrast,
some other cities in Arizona require additional safety training or
certifications, such as baton, taser device, pepper spray, and CPR/AED.
The Park Ranger Training Manual which is used as the PRP’s Standard
Operating Procedures (SOPs) states that the procedure for the appropriate
and authorized use of Oleoresin Capsicum (OC Spray) by Park Rangers in
their official capacity is further defined in the Park Ranger Use of Oleoresin
Capsicum Policy. However, according to Park Rangers, they do not have
access to OC spray in practice.
Our summary of the Park Ranger activity monthly reports (Table 1) shows
that in Bonsall Park, there has been a consistent and significant presence of
transient individuals. Approximately 20 to 60 transients were removed daily
at 6 PM. Many of these reports also note open container consumption and
evidence of drug use. This raises safety concerns for the Park Rangers,
especially given their limited safety training and lack of protective gear.
Without sufficient training and protective gear, Park Rangers may feel
unprepared and vulnerable, leading to decreased efficiency in performing
their duties. This can result in an increased risk of injuries, a reduced ability
to respond quickly to emergencies, and higher turnover rates among Park
Rangers.
Recommendation To enhance the safety and preparedness of Park Rangers, we recommend
that the City take appropriate actions such as the following:
Enhance Safety Training and Safety Protocols: Develop comprehensive
SOPs for handling encounters with transient individuals, emphasizing de-
escalation techniques, situational awareness, and emergency response
coordination. SOPs provide clear, step-by-step instructions, which can
ensure that all Park Rangers are equipped with the necessary knowledge
to perform their duties effectively and consistently.
Equip with Personal Protective Equipment (PPE): Equip Park Rangers
with appropriate PPE such as baton, ballistic vests, and OC spray to
improve their ability to manage confrontational situations while supporting
compliance with public safety standards. Implement regular training on
the proper use of these tools to align with the leading practices in law
enforcement and park safety.
Increase Patrols and Support: Increase the frequency of patrols in
Bonsall Park, especially during peak times. Seek grant funding,
sponsorships, or interagency collaborations to acquire necessary
equipment. Consider partnerships with local law enforcement agencies
for surplus gear and training opportunities.
8
AUDIT RESULTS
Implement Community Outreach Programs: Implement community
outreach programs to connect transient individuals with local social
services, shelters, and substance abuse programs, aiming to reduce the
number of transients in the park.
Management
Response
Responsible Department(s): Park Superintendent, Park Manager, Park
Ranger Supervisor
Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: June 2026
Action Plan:
The Department will utilize the Park Ranger Training Manual to create SOPs
for the Park Ranger Division including an enhanced safety plan. Staff will
identify appropriate PPE and request purchase of same through the budget
process. The Department will continue to work with the Police Department,
the Community Services Department, and community partners regarding
transient population and community outreach programs.
Finding 2: Work
schedule and
workload
The Park Ranger schedule consists of 8-hour shifts (4pm to 12am), 5 days a
week, with at least two Park Rangers on duty (increasing to three as of
February 15, 2025), although Park Rangers prefer 10-hour shifts, 4 days a
week. During each shift, Park Rangers are responsible for locking 115 gates
and restrooms, as shown in Table 2, which takes a significant amount of
time, especially when there are still visitors in the park.
The 2024 Park Ranger Training Manual states, “Park Rangers are required
to open and close appropriate park gates that are associated with his/her
assigned patrol zone. Park Rangers will make every effort to advise patrons
that the park is closed. Park Rangers will not lock gates if there are vehicles
left in the parking lots. Appropriate citations will be issued and the gate left
unlocked.”
Without increasing manpower and efficiency, Park Rangers may struggle to
effectively manage and protect park resources, address visitor concerns,
and maintain safety standards. This could lead to overworked staff,
decreased visitor satisfaction, and potentially unsafe conditions within the
park.
Recommendation To address scheduling and workload challenges, we recommend that the
City take appropriate actions such as the following:
Assess Workload: Utilize the Activity Tracker and conduct a thorough
assessment of the current workload and identify any inefficiencies in the
gate and restroom locking process.
Introduce Support Staff or Volunteers: Utilize seasonal employees, part-
time staff, or volunteer programs to assist with non-critical tasks, allowing
rangers to focus on core responsibilities.
9
AUDIT RESULTS
Utilize Automated Solutions: Explore the feasibility of installing automated
locking systems for gates and restrooms, which could significantly reduce
the manual workload and improve efficiency.
Evaluate and Consider a 4/10 Schedule: Conduct a trial period to assess
the effectiveness of a four-day, ten-hour schedule, ensuring coverage
aligns with peak visitation times and operational needs. This schedule
could enhance job satisfaction, reduce burnout, and potentially improve
coverage during peak times.
Fill Temporary Positions: Ensure efficient use of the budget allocated for
temporary positions. Having a full team will ensure adequate coverage
and reduce the strain on current staff.
Enhance Efficiency and Coverage: Invest in bicycles, e-bikes, ATVs, or
other lightweight transport options to improve patrol efficiency and reduce
response times, particularly in large or difficult-to-navigate park areas.
Monitor and Adjust Based on Data: Regularly evaluate the impact of the
new schedule on visitor engagement, Park Ranger satisfaction, and
efficiency. Adjustments should be made based on the Activity Tracker key
performance indicators such as response times, public interaction levels,
and employee retention.
Management
Response
Responsible Department(s): Parks Manager, Park Ranger Supervisor
Concurrence: Partially Agree
Target Date: June 2026
Action Plan:
The Department will use data from the Activity Tracker and other resources
to regularly assess workloads and address inefficiencies. To support
Rangers, staff will leverage available resources such as other temporary
staff to handle non-critical tasks, allowing Rangers to prioritize core
responsibilities. The Department will also explore solutions, such as
automated gates and restroom locks, to reduce these non-critical duties.
Additionally, staff will focus on filling all open positions to expand coverage
areas and extend operational hours. The Department will continually
evaluate the equipment and vehicles used by ranger staff to ensure they
have the right tools for the job.
A Department-wide analysis of work schedules has been performed to
determine the viability of alternative work schedules, including the possibility
of 4/10 schedules. At this time, the current work schedules have been
identified as the preferred schedules. As staff levels change, another
analysis will be performed to ensure the most effective and efficient
schedules.
10
AUDIT RESULTS
6 https://www.gfoa.org/materials/performance-measures
7 Society for Human Resource Management, https://www.shrm.org/about
8 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/training-and-development/career-
development/#url=Career-Paths
Finding 3:
Performance
monitoring
The City's PRP has a less hierarchical structure compared to three out of
four other selected cities in Arizona (Table 3), resulting in no clear path
for career advancement. The absence of promotions or advancements
can lead to decreased morale and job satisfaction, job retention issues,
and challenges to attract high-quality candidates.
Additionally, no key performance indicators (KPIs) are monitored using
the reports generated from the data collected by the Park Ranger Activity
Tracker, a tool designed to help Park Rangers systematically record and
manage their daily activities and observations. According to the Park
Manager, these is no formal process to analyze the reports regularly to
identify opportunities for improvement. While there are ad hoc data
requests from other departments, there is no established list of data
points or formal metrics being monitored.
GFOA recommends all organizations identify, track, and communicate
performance measures to monitor financial and budgetary status, service
delivery, program outcomes, and community conditions and states that
the use of performance data should be integral to an organization’s
decision-making processes6.
By not monitoring KPIs, park management loses valuable insights that
could drive improvements, optimize resource use, and enhance both
Park Ranger performance and visitor satisfaction.
Recommendation To address the disadvantages of the existing hierarchy within the PRP, we
recommend that the City take appropriate actions such as the following:
Conduct a Comparative Analysis: Perform a detailed analysis of the
hierarchical structures of Park Ranger programs in other cities in Arizona.
Identify leading practices and organizational models that could be
beneficial for the City’s PRP. Utilize the best practice information from
organizations such as SHRM7 and OPM8 to ensure the hierarchy
supports operational efficiency, accountability, and employee
engagement.
Implement Career Development Plans: Develop clear career
development plans and pathways for Park Rangers to advance within the
organization. This can improve job satisfaction and retention.
Enhance Compensation and Recognition: Advocate for budget allocation
to support pay differentials, stipends, or merit-based promotions to retain
skilled Park Rangers and improve job satisfaction. For example,
designate experienced Park Rangers as trainers for new recruits and
provide them with additional compensation, recognition, or incentives
(such as bonuses or step increases) for mentoring responsibilities.
Develop Leadership and Training Opportunities: Offer professional
development programs, leadership training, and certifications to prepare
Park Rangers for higher-level roles and enhance retention.
11
AUDIT RESULTS
To effectively utilize Activity Tracker data for performance monitoring and
continuous improvement, we recommend that the City take the following
actions:
Establish KPIs: Identify and define a set list of data points that are critical
for evaluating the performance and effectiveness of the PRP. These KPIs
could include response times, incident reports, patrol coverage, and
visitor interactions.
Formalize Regular Data Analysis of Activity Tracker: Formalize regular
data analysis sessions to review the collected data, identify trends, and
pinpoint areas for improvement. Ensure that data, such as park names, is
properly set up for effective data collection and analysis. This practice
can help in making informed decisions and optimizing Park Ranger
operations.
Training and Capacity Building: Provide training for Park Rangers and
management staff on data analysis techniques and the use of data
management tools. This will demonstrate that the team can effectively
interpret and utilize the data.
Feedback Loop: Establish a feedback loop where insights gained from
data analysis are communicated back to the Park Rangers and
management. This will help in implementing changes and monitoring their
impact over time.
Engage Stakeholders: Involve other relevant departments in the data
analysis process to indicate that their information needs are met and to
foster a collaborative approach to continuous improvement.
Management
Response
Responsible Department(s): Parks Superintendent, Park Manager, Park
Ranger Supervisor, Park Rangers
Concurrence: Agree
Target Date: June 2026
Action Plan:
The Department will conduct a comparative analysis of Park Ranger
Programs across Arizona to identify practices that could enhance our own
program. In collaboration with the Human Resources Department, staff will
review wages, stipends, and benefits to boost job satisfaction and retention
among Park Rangers. Staff will also work with the statewide Arizona Park
Ranger Coalition and our HR Department to pinpoint training opportunities
and potential career advancement pathways. To measure performance, staff
will establish Key Performance Indicators and determine key data points to
track; highlighting strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities within the
Ranger division. Additionally, the Department will provide training on
collecting, analyzing, and interpreting this data to improve ranger
performance.
12
Appendix A: Resumes
Appendices
13
Appendix A: City of Glendale Parks
Park Finder in the City’s webpage9 showing the locations of the City’s 73 parks and neighboring cities (Peoria,
Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa)
9 https://www.glendaleaz.com/live/amenities/parks_facilities_trails/park_finder