Unhappiness with senior leadership, teamwork, and concerns about a lack of support for diversity continue to plague the National Park Service as an agency to work for, according to the latest Best Places to Work in the Federal Government Survey.
While most federal agencies saw increasing job satisfaction and commitment, the Park Service slipped again in the rankings, which are based on more than 430,000 employee surveys conducted during the first half of 2015 and analyzed by the Partnership for Public Service—a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization committed to improving the effectiveness of government.
While public interest in the national parks is building ahead of next year's centennial of the Park Service, that anniversary hasn't overcome troubling employee morale, the survey indicates. Category scores for Effective Leadership, Strategic Management, Teamwork, Work-Life Balance, and Support for Diversity all reflected slight declines from 2014's rankings. At the same time, there was modest improvement in the scoring for Performance-Based Rewards and Advancement, Training and Development, and Innovation.
The survey also noted above-average employee departures in 2014, and below-average new hires. While the average number of employees leaving the Park Service stood at 978 from 2009-2014, the actual numbers of employees who quit last year reached 1,095. At the same time, just 267 workers joined the Park Service in 2014, down from the 2009-2014 average of 501.
A request Thursday to discuss the latest survey with officials at the agency's Washington, D.C., headquarters, did not draw a response.
The Park Service's overall index score in the 2015 survey, 53.1, was the lowest since the survey was first taken in 2003, and ranked the agency 259 out of 320 agencies. Of the Interior Department's 12 sub-agencies, only the Office of Surface Mining had a lower composite score (50.9), than the Park Service, and only those two agencies within Interior saw overall declines in their rankings.
To put more context into the rankings, the Partnership for Public Service compared the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, two agencies with relatively similar missions but significantly differing levels of employee satisfaction.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has a 2015 Best Places to Work employee satisfaction and commitment score of 65.4 out of 100, a 2.4 increase from 2014. It ranks 93rd out of 320 agency subcomponents government-wide.
In contrast, the National Park Service employee satisfaction and commitment score is just 53.1, a 0.6-point dip from 2014 and 12.3 points lower than the Fish and Wildlife Service. The National Park Service ranks 259 among all agency subcomponents.
Both agencies did well when it comes to the match between employee skills and the mission, with the Fish and Wildlife Service registering a 76.5 score compared to 74.4 for the National Park Service. But in nine other categories measured in the Best Places to Work rankings, the Park Service is way behind its sister agency on employee satisfaction and commitment.
This includes differences of 15 points between the two agencies on training and development opportunities, 10.2 points on satisfaction with pay, 9.5 points on support for diversity, 8.9 points on opportunities for rewards and advancement, 8.3 points on work-life balance and 7.7 points on teamwork.
Denise Sheehan, assistant director for budget, planning and human capital at the Fish and Wildlife Service, said that Daniel Ashe, the agency’s director, came up through the ranks as a career employee and has placed great emphasis on creating a culture that “values employees.” She said there has been a strong emphasis on ensuring employees understand their role in the larger mission of the agency and feel “relevant.” By and large, she said, “employees also have a very strong emotional attachment to their work.”
...
Deborah Douglas, an organizational development specialist at the National Park Service, said the leadership takes the issue of employee satisfaction and commitment seriously, is aware of the agency’s shortcomings and has been working to assess the survey data, take the pulse of the workforce and make changes.
Douglas said employee survey data is now shared with more than 400 parks and offices across the country so they can assess their own individual strengths and weaknesses. She said focus groups have been held at 20 parks and offices throughout the nation to identify issues of concern to employees, to pinpoint initiatives that are working and come up with plans to address problems.
As a result of these efforts, Douglas said the park service has initiated additional training programs for senior and mid-level leaders, will soon start a development program for emerging leaders and has created a leadership development advisory group of senior park service leaders. She also said a new office has been created to increase diversity at the National Park Service, and to attract the younger generation to the organization.
In addition, Douglas said a number of organizational goals have been articulated across the agency, ranging from increasing communication with and respect for employees, creating greater accountability so employees know what is expected of them and increasing employee empowerment. She said efforts will be undertaken to put many of these concepts into action.
Comments
Ray Bane -- I am not sure you are answering the questions or points made by Birch or by Lee Dalton or the meaning of the survey by quoting the text of the Vail Agenda.
Could you go further?
First, why do you think your concern about courageous stand on park protection by NPS employees, or the lack of it, is the reason in the report for the low satisfaction? (I am not saying it is, i just do not see any correlation in your assertion)
Second, on your sense that the problems are within the Service, not pressure or problems coming from outside, maybe some more explanation on that one would help. Are you aware that the Chair of the House of Representatives Resource Committee, with jurisdiction over parks, is inserting a clause in every single park bill that goes through his committee that the NPS can do nothing about any impacts to parks of things happening outside parks? So that, if there is an open fire burning adjacent to a park, blowing into the park and on to park visitors and resources, nothing in park law can be cited as a basis for objecting? This is like saying that parks now have less protection from adjacent hazzards than any other property in the United States, not the least.
And this one example is just one of many of the things that are being hurled at park managers and leaders from this Congress every day.
Although you say you support seasonals, with the staff cutbacks in the Service, combined with the need to diversify the workforce as the Survey also highlights, it is almost impossible for any of those seasonals or terms to ever be considered for a permanent job. There just are not any to speak of. Therefore developing a workforce of trained and seasoned professionals is impossible when depending on Terms who you must get rid of NLT 4 years, or on contractors. How to you develop the courage and resolve you are speaking of when you cannot even field a team?
And Ray Bane, have you considered, in this comparison of FWS to NPS, that the FWS just simply does not have in its mandate the commercial interests that so concern you? You must be aware that commercial interests were inserted from the very get-go right into the Act of 1916, what some people call the NPS Organic Act. This pressure is not some other-worldly force that people of character such as yourself have the ability to stand up to. Commercial interests have standing. They have contractural and legal advantages. Have you ever tried to simply stand up to commercial forces? How did it turn out? Do you think if you were better prepared and trained you may have done better? Or do you just think the only issues is, as it appears to seem in what you say, individual courage? Have you ever had the Solicitor's say your interpretation of the law is wrong -- those Solicitors do not work for you, but for the Secretary of the Interior? Or the Office of Legal Counsel in the Dept of Justice? And you think these "external" forces can simply be ignored? Do you have a sense of how many years it takes to develop an intepretation of law contrary to the opinion of OLC and SOL and what it takes to develop the agency-wide agreement that a strategy exists to take it on and win? And do you think the typical Superintendent or Regional Director is in place long enough to take something like that on? Take the Subsistence provision in Alaska for example?
And you seem to dismiss money completely. The reason we have the squeeze in hiring and developing employees is because -- with no immediate proof that anything is going to get better with money for staff -- the Comptroller in washington requires all parks who ask for any park improvements to show in advance that they will have the staff down the road to manage the work. Which, can almost never be demonstrated. Are you aware that now more than HALF of all park projects are co-funded by partners? You seem to think all commercial issues can be ignored, don't you? If half the projects are partner-supported, that means that when you start adding up all the sewer projects or leaking roof type issues no partner would pay for, that for all practical purposes these days, all new initiatives require a partner. And you think managing all this is just a matter of reading the Vail Agenda and standing tall?
I was at Vail, and thought it was great; still do. And, i was at the sequel in St. Louis. Both seem to have some idea of what the future would bring, but neither understood the scale, which really makes it something entirely Other. Its like thinking the Catechism or the Koran, presto-chango, already have the answer of today if you just read it, take two aspirin and add water. Neither of these conferences envisioned the sort of attacks we see today on things like the Land and Water Fund or the Antiquities Act or a host of other authorities assumed to have been permanent. All these things are coming from Outside, and just keeping up with it is a challenge you do not acknowledge.
Finally, although you want to use Vail as the Catechism to pluck out the winning strategy for today, you should pay some attention to the list of the items in the Director's "Call To Action." Have you really been through those to see what fits into your ideals and what do not? Although criticised as all new NPS initiatives have always been (even Vail), they were developed with a lot of employee imput, and do form the basis of the way forward. How do they actually differ from the work you propose to do? Would you be recreating the wheel?
I think it is time to stop blaming the National Park Service for the problems of the National Park Service. Yes of course i have seen some problems and some problem people. But for the most part, park people are dedicated, and dedicated to the same things. They want to succeed, they want the parks and the programs to succeed. But the growing gap between their ideals and what has happened were not caused by them. They need all the encouragement, not disparagement, they can get. And they need a massive amount of support from the outside because that is where the problems are coming from. And there is no doubt that as the forces in Congress that make it harder and harder for environmental agencies to perform, they then blame the agency, like the NPS, for not doing a stand up job! Look what happened during the Government Shut Down, on the Washington Mall, just as one of many examples.
Thank God for National Parks Traveler, NPCA and a few others.
Ray Bane, i think you need to refocus your aim. The NPS people are down because they cannot achieve their ideals. They cannot achieve their ideals because of external pressures those employees often do not understand. They of course blame their leaders for not saving them, and for not giving them the chance to achieve what they feel they have been put on earth to do. Strangely, the leaders feel exactly the same way. All of them need all the help they can get, rather than blaming them for lack of courage and focus.
Birch, I believe it is absolutely reasonable to expect SES executives to take responsibilities for issues within the NPS. GS-1, 5, 6, 9, 12 level employees aren't afforded the same level of authority or power inherent in their positions. It isn't possible to create a culture of accountability from the ground up. In some cases, they may be the lowest level of management who can be a deciding official for a superintendent when it comes to addressing misconduct or performance issues.
As far as I know, only permanent employees were included in the survey. Their pay is set consistently with the other competive service agencies like NASA and FWS using standard pay tables and paysetting methods. The other competitive service agencies also use the same set of hiring regulations. The normed index score cannot be explained away by frustrated seasonals, a burdensome merit-based competitive hiring system, or a lack of pay raises.
I consider human capital to be as much of a resource as any other biologically based resource under NPS stewardship. EVS matters because employee engagement and commitment correlate positively with performance and sustainability. Mission can only take us so far. There are many employees who perform vital work to keep things running, but who can only indirectly, peripherally connect their work with the identifed mission. Accountability, fairness, adherance to merit system principles, and sharing of information across grade levels are all ways improving engagement, and they apply to every grade and occupational series.
Please forgive my ignorance, but a whole passel of things have changed since I left the Service. What do SES and EVS and some other abbreviations mean? How about a quick explanation when things like that are first introduced?
Although Ray Bane, Green Thumb and D-2 all have some different perspectives here, they seem to be confirming a lot of what has been bothering me for a long time --- namely that many of the problems besetting our parks and those who manage them come from outside and higher in the food chain than anyone in the NPS including the director.
Ideal: The Organic Act Reality: Commercial interests/Congress/DOI
Examples: Susquehanna-Roseland 500kV transmission "upgrade", winner PPL/PSEG; Peninsula Power upgrade, probable winner Dominion Power.
Lesson: NPS will be led by the nose by commercial interests that have power in Congress and Department.
d-2, thank you for the response to my earlier posts. You obviously have intense feelings about these issues plus personal experience in caring for the parks, and I respect your point of view. Some of what you write I agree with. I had the pleasure and privilege of working with NPS personnel who personified the highest ideals of the Service. John Kauffmann, Stell Newman, Bill Brown, John Cook, Bob Bellous and many others were dedicated and inspiring - because they put the parks first and were willing to face and resist political and bureaucratic pressures "to go along to get along". I also was greatly impressed by seasonals who were never paid enough for their skills, courage and hard work in the service of the resources and the visitors.
But I also disagree with some of what you write. First, the NPS is not alone in its ties to commercial operations. Other land and resource managing agencies (USFS, USF&WS, BLM, BOR, etc.) have their own ties to commercialization, including extractive resource developments. The NPS also has laws and official policies that provide the basic tools to manage these operations so that they provide quality visitor services and do (should) not result in compromising the resources, character and values of the park in question. I am somewhat familiar with subsistence related issues and understand some of the complexities they present park management. That does not mean they cannot be managed within the basic guidelines of park protection. I believe that all-too-often some senior and mid-level managers are defeated even before the battles begin.
Whatever goes wrong in a park is ultimately the responsibility of the park manager. There is no excuse for ignoring serious threats or actual resource damage to the parks. Even if you do not have the funding to thoroughly patrol a park there are always avenues for confronting and mitigating impacts - even though it may attract negative reactions. You seem to question if I have ever had my butt kicked while working for the NPS. FWIW, I have a vibrum sole imprint that was tatooed to my posterior - the hard way. No regrets.
Please forgive me for the "anonymous" tag on the response to d-2. I inadvertantly sent the message before typing in my name. Again, I appreciate the feedback from d-2. These issues need and deserve the thoughts and opinions of concerned supporters of the parks. I believe we all want what is best for the parks and the National Park Service, although we may differ in how to accomplish it. Ray
As an NPS scientist, I find Green Thumb's comments at the top surprising and depressing.
I know why science folks are more satisfied in FWS than NPS: FWS has research grade positions and career paths for scientists, and access to electronic science journals and other tools needed to do their jobs. NPS never got RG back from NPS -> Biological Survey -> USGS, and top leadership isn't interested in RG or even career paths for scientists above GS-12 (GS-13 if supervisory). In science above the bio-tech level there's a full 1 grade penalty for being in NPS relative to FWS or USGS. Fine, we get paid in sunsets and the satisfaction of working for the parks.
But, top NPS leadership appear to be afraid of their own shadows: a couple of years ago they wouldn't even _ask_ (let alone fight) for back country travel within parks, and programs that substitute circuit-riding among parks instead of more personnel, to be exempted from the travel cuts & freezes. Those are simple operational travel, not meetings or training (which are important, but can be put on hold for short periods with only minor loss of capabilities). Some tasks were contracted out at higher total cost because contractor's travel costs to work in parks don't count against travel budgets. I hope that Lee's interpretation of strong outside pressure is correct, and that top leadership cannot even informally communicate the reasoning behind their decisions to staff lest they get hammered for political statements.
Back to Green Thumb. If the differences in morale extend to HR and other support functions I see as equivalent between FWS & NPS, we have a much bigger problem than I realized. NPS has Mike Soukop's "Mission statement to die for, and a budget that's killing us". FWS has refuges, but also T&E species, wetlands, and other responsibilities that are routinely targetting by politicians and segments of the public. They aren't as demonized as EPA, but lots of folks are against major components of the FWS mission. Therefore, I think that NPS _should_, on average, have better employee morale across the board. If even HR and contracting folks, isolated from those mission differences, have much lower morale in NPS, we have something specific to our management that's a problem.
I agree with Birch about wanting the survey to ask different questions. I wonder if we agree on what different emphasis we want? I'd want questions where answers might identify (substantial) ways to improve morale, not just tiny tactical things like monthly/quarterly/annual "listening sessions" and "town halls" to make us feel leadership cares.
Lee--
SES is "Senior Executive Service"; the top level of positions below presidential appointees, and above the top of the GS scale (GS-15). They're across the executive branch, not limited to NPS or DOI.
Jarvis as director is an appointed EX or executive series. The 24 SES folks are flagship park superintendents (e.g., Wenk @ YELL, Neubacher @ YOSE) and at least some regional directors (Lehnertz, Frost). You can look at 2014 positions at http://www.fedsdatacenter.com/federal-pay-rates/index.php?n=&l=&a=NATION... then clicking on the column heading for Pay Plan or Salary (click again to reverse order, there's a tiny "Next" for next page toward the lower right). Lots of superintendents have "Park Ranger" as their occupation, the best way to identify park folks from WASO & region folks is the location. If you want to look at the GS-15s (mostly deputy associate directors, division chiefs, and big park superintendents) you can click on the Grade column heading. LE (law enforcement) have a separate scale SP, and WS is "blue collar" facilities & maintenence.
Dept of Commerce NOAA Fisheries service is under a completely different scale: ZP. ZP allows you to advance along a career path based on performance and increased responsibility without having to change jobs to get a grade increase, as is necessary in DOI and most GS agencies.
I apologize that my preceeding post was written befor anonymous of Dec 15, so didn't credit anonymous for noting that FWS has pressure from commercial operations.