You are here

Human Resource Problems Straining Workforce In Some National Parks

Share
A February snowstorm exposed weaknesses in staffing at Yosemite National Park/NPS

A February snowstorm exposed weaknesses in staffing at Yosemite National Park/NPS

Editor’s note: The health of the National Park System and the public’s enjoyment of that system depends on a strong and vibrant National Park Service workforce. Currently, though, the strains on the system seem to be reaching a breaking point, and action needs to be taken to reverse the downward slide.

When a particularly heavy snowstorm battered Yosemite National Park back in February, toppling countless trees, destroying guest cabins, and even leading to a fire in employee housing, the park’s response was crippled by a lack of staff.

“The Pacific West Region is a team, and as such, we need to help each other whenever and wherever we are able. Let's pull together to help one of our fellow parks,” read an email plea sent from the regional office to superintendents across the region. “Due to recent weather events at Yosemite National Park and a 40 percent vacancy rate of the Facility Management Division, we are seeking help with our spring opening activities.”

The help arrived, the park’s infrastructure was cleaned up and repaired, and the Facility Management Division is reported to be back to normal staffing.

But the weakness within National Park Service staffing exposed by that snowstorm was not an isolated situation. Across the Park Service there are numerous vacancies, safety issues created by a lack of staffing when there's not enough law enforcement staff, and overworked personnel, according to park staff that discussed the issue with the Traveler.

“I’m a division chief at a large park with over 12 years with the NPS, and this is by far the worst (Human Resources) crisis in my experience,” one Park Service employee said. “Parks like mine have 40 percent of our positions vacant, and it is only getting worse as hiring delays are now taking over a year.”

Even now, with summer roughly half over, some park system units still haven’t filled all their seasonal positions for the peak vacation season, according to Phil Francis of the Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks. That said, the human resources problem is not new to the Park Service, he noted.

“I know on the Blue Ridge Parkway, when I left (as superintendent) in 2013, that we had a total of 80 permanent maintenance positions on our books, and only 40 were filled. Those were the positions that were in the field, not the ones at headquarters,” he said.

Could any major corporation run efficiently and successfully if it relied on hundreds of thousands of volunteers to function, if some units of its operations had 40 percent of its jobs vacant, and if it was hamstrung by insufficient funding that not only prevented hiring but also failed to keep up with inflation?

With an annual workforce of nearly 20,000 “full-time equivalents” and a physical presence that ranges from the western Pacific to the Virgin Islands, the National Park Service equates with being a major corporation. But it struggles with a concerning number of vacant positions in some parks, the absence of a full-time, Senate-confirmed director, missing permanent directors in three of its seven regions, numerous “acting” positions scattered across the system, and the reliance on more than 300,000 volunteers. Regarding vacancies of full-time appointments, here's a glance at some of them:

  • Grand Canyon National Park has been a revolving door for acting superintendents since Superintendent Christine Lehnertz resigned earlier this year after a demoralizing investigation spurred by a subbordinate's fabricated allegations. An investigation exonerated Lehnertz, and top NPS officials welcomed her back, but she said she could have a greater impact on peoples’ lives elsewhere.
  • Just this week the Park Service announced a yearlong acting superintendent for Women’s Rights National Historical Park in New York state. 
  • There’s an acting superintendent at Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park, acting public information staff at Park Service headquarters, an acting superintendent at Mount Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota, an acting superintendent at Gettysburg National Military Park in Pennsylvania, an acting superintendent at Virgin Islands National Park, and the list goes on.

At the same time, while visitation and the number of units in the park system continue to grow, staff is shrinking.

“The Park Service has lost 14 percent of their staff since 2011. Meanwhile, visitation went up 14 percent," said John Garder, senior director of budget and appropriations for the National Parks Conservation Association. "The Park Service has lost a lot of staff, and it’s important for the public and Congress to know what those missing positions are.” 

The great number of “acting” roles “has to do with budget, and I think it has to do with the length of time it now takes to fill vacant positions,” said Francis.

Driving the hiring problem, Park Service staff told Traveler, is an overworked and understaffed human resources contingent. But there’s also a lack of funding to hire positions, and a 2016 review of Park Service HR practices by the Office of Personal Management led to recommended changes in practices that indicated the OPM didn’t fully understand the seasonal needs and practices of the agency, those interviewed said.

"The process is inefficient and many of the things HR requires hiring officials to do add little to no value but suck huge amounts of our time," said a superintendent.

A requirement that HR review “benchmark position descriptions,” which exist for the purpose of being available for managers to use without needing to be reclassified, annually slows down the hiring process, as the review can be lengthy due to limited HR staff. The job posting process and applicant review process can drag on, too, adding to lagging vacancies.

“Think of the HR crisis in another way - the time needed to do the work vs. the capacity,” a division chief said. “My guess is that it takes an HR specialist 8-12 hours to do the work to announce a position on usajobs.gov, and another 16-24 hours to review, rank, score, and vet the list of names for the hiring official to select. Some announcements with only a half-dozen applicants would take much less time yet others with hundreds of applicants would take longer.

“So if my HR person has 300 vacancies to fill by herself times 24 hours average time per announcement, that perhaps equals 7,200 hours of work which would take her 3.4 years to accomplish working 40 hours per week without taking time off. Consider that 450 parks, regions, and program offices need to hire thousands of people each year but only perhaps 75-100 hiring specialists are available. You get one hell of a backlog.”

A park superintendent acknowledged the problems those delays can create.

“It’s fair to say, if it’s taking a year to fill a job, when that happens, things are less effective,” the superintendent said. “Programs aren’t as productive, work might be missed, and opportunities are lost.”

How widespread the hiring problems are is impossible to say without calling each and every one of the 419 units in the park system. At the Park Service’s Washington, D.C., headquarters, chief spokesperson Jeremy Barnum wouldn’t say how many vacancies exist throughout the Service.

“Simply providing the number of all vacancies does not indicate that a staffing problem exists,” Barnum said. “Vacancies take place for multiple reasons such as human need/action (employee gets a promotion to another location), location of the park unit including remote areas, cost of living, distance to nearest community, etc.

“Therefore, we are unable to provide a list of vacancies with a realistic, non-generalized characterization of why they exist as the conditions impacting each one of them may be varied and unique to each park, and not necessarily the result of a systemic challenge.”

Filling positions across the National Park System can be a challenging task for a variety of reasons. Most positions during the busy summer months (or winter months in places such as Everglades National Park, Padre Island National Seashore, Joshua Tree National Park) are seasonal, and have to be filled every year. Then, too, there can be issues related to housing and cost-of-living that make some jobs particularly hard to fill, said Barnum.

“An urban park may have difficulty attracting applicants due to a high cost of living, while others may face different challenges in recruitment due to the remoteness of their location,” he said. “The NPS works hard to attract highly qualified applicants to all parks by making employment opportunities attractive through the use of multiple hiring mechanisms and the utilization of hiring incentives. “

At Yosemite, spokesman Scott Gediman said the issue earlier this year in his park was tied to low pay.

"Finding housing for lower level employees is becoming more of a challenge. A lot of those jobs were on the entry level end of things and the salaries that go with these jobs are not conducive to the rents charged," said Gediman. "As you know, this is a nationwide problem."

The division chief who brought the HR matter to the attention of the Traveler, and who asked not to be identified for raising their concerns about it, said a key to the hiring problem is a lack of HR staff. Their park shares one HR employee with more than two dozen other parks. And that HR employee isn’t even located in the park.

Barnum disputed a shortage of HR personnel was problematic.

“The NPS has a dedicated team of HR specialists within the Classification Division of the Workforce and Inclusion Directorate and has recently successfully recruited a number of highly qualified, highly competent new classifiers who have made tremendous progress in classifying position descriptions and other key metrics that expedite the hiring process,” he said. “Turnover is almost non-existent with only one former classifier having left the division within the current fiscal year after that employee obtained a promotion at another federal bureau.”

Still, OPM's HR recommendations add layers of bureaucracy.

“There have been a whole bunch of rule changes or interpretations of rule changes, some which have been forced on us by OPM because of audits they’ve done where they’ve claimed we were misusing seasonal hires,” Big Bend National Park Superintendent Bob Krumenaker said. “An example of that is people can now no longer do two seasons in a year. The jobs are limited to six months. That’s not really that new, but it used to be different. And the latest thing is they’re saying all seasonals in a park must have the same six-month season. That simply doesn't match reality in the field.

“As this park gets popular, the shoulder seasons are growing,” Krumenaker added. “We can’t have seasonals staggered. I get it that they can only work six months, but if we had the flexibility we would have people overlap in the middle of the season and there would be fewer seasonals at the beginning and fewer seasonals at the end. But the total length of time that we have seasonals here might be eight months.”

One park where the HR system seems to be running smoothly is Yellowstone. Superintendent Cam Sholly said his department heads reported no problems filling positions this year.

“Overall, the HR team has done a terrific job supporting Yellowstone. The majority of the issues I've heard about have stemmed from delays with background investigations, something that has challenged us in the agency over past year,” Sholly.  “We have more seasonals on board now than we did last year at this time.  We have some gaps still that need to be filled, especially with visitor use assistants and laborers - those numbers are not substantial and we are working through them currently and have more seasonals being brought on nearly daily. “

At the same time, the Park Service realizes it has a problem with HR. A webinar for all superintendents is scheduled for August 12 to share information on actions and progress to improve and strengthen HR functions. A similar call was held in June, “and they were pretty candid with their problems, and they’re pretty candid about trying to fix it,” a superintendent told the Traveler.

 The webinars are expected to be an ongoing affair.

National Parks Traveler is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit media organization. Your contribution goes directly to our editorial efforts.

A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.

Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:

  • Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
  • Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
  • Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
  • North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
  • Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
  • Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
  • Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
Featured Article

Comments

Well I will just have to chalk this up to the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

Funds allocated for land acqusition, historical preservation or construction have almost nothing to do with the operation of the parks. Yes they are important but not to day-to-day operations. In fact the historic preservation funds are for external programs that are administered by the NPS.

And your guess that entrance fees probably offset the difference in ONPS is absolutely wrong - until just a couple of months ago parks were strictly prohibited from using rec fees to fund normal park operations.

But I know that to imply that anything under the current administration is anything less than perfect - the bigliest and the bestest - will result in pushback from you. The fact that we still don't have a Director of the NPS gives one an idea of how important the parks are - ya can't golf in them so what good are they?


Rump and Glad, that was some convoluted logic and is disputed by the facts.  Spending on park operations went down prior to the current administration and have gone up since.  The underfunding of the parks has nothing to do  with political affiliation.

 

 


Bucky, I think you're tangling the threads here, perhaps deliberately.  I believe the last comments by "glad to be retired" were in response to what you posted at 12:08pm today, as indicated by his comment that "your guess that entrance fees probably offset the difference in ONPS is absolutely wrong."  You, yourself, blustered, in that same posting of posting at 12:08pm today, that park ops funding was down a little less than 5% and that land acquisition, historical preservation, and construction brought overall spending up 10%.  I'm trying to explain broad concepts, using your own "facts" simply because I don't want to wrestle with you over them, and here you are trying to rewrite your own emphatic assertions in real time.  Yes, federal spending did waver during the years in which the country was trying to recover from the great George W. Bush economic miracle of 07-08; but, you can't actually be trying to say, at least not with a straight face, that the current administration and the party that backs it are somehow the greater champions of our national parks.   We're talking about the party of Ryan Zinke, now David Bernhardt and William Perry Pendley.  I must be misunderstanding you; are you serious?


"Entrance fees collected at Great Sand Dunes support infrastructure projects that enhance the visitor's experience," stated Acting Superintendent Tucker Blythe. "In recent years, the park has been able to use fee revenue to maintain, repair and improve our facilities, enhance essential visitor services such as events and programs, restore critical habitat for the wildlife that visitors come to see and enjoy, and to support our law enforcement rangers in their public safety duties."

From the GSD website.  Sure sounds like operations to me.

 


And this seems to include alot of operations as well.

https://www.nps.gov/yell/planyourvisit/fee-dollars-at-work.htm

"Out of the 418 units in the National Park Service (NPS), 115 parks charge an entrance fee. The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) requires the NPS to collect and retain revenue and requires that fee revenue be used to enhance the visitor experience. Eighty percent of the money stays in the park where it is collected, and the other 20 percent is used to support parks that do not collect recreation fees."

FLREA - In place since 2005:

(a) Use of Fees at Specific Site or Area.--Amounts available for expenditure at a specific site or area--

    (1) shall be accounted for separately from the amounts collected;

    (2) may be distributed agency-wide; and

    (3) shall be used only for--

    (A) repair, maintenance, and facility enhancement related directly to visitor enjoyment, visitor access, and health and safety;

    (B) interpretation, visitor information, visitor service, visitor needs assessments, and signs;

    (C) habitat restoration directly related to wildlife-dependent recreation that is limited to hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, or photography;

    (D) law enforcement related to public use and recreation;

    (E) direct operating or capital costs associated with the recreation fee program; and

    (F) a fee management agreement established under section 6(a) or a visitor reservation service.

 

 

 


you can't actually be trying to say, at least not with a straight face, that the current administration and the party that backs it are somehow the greater champions of our national parks.

I can's say that and I haven't said that. What I have said from the early entrys of this thread is that the parks have been "under funded" under many administrations and that scenerio is not likely to change with the next change in administrations.  Our parks are under funded not for proactive political reasons.   They are underfunded because they are not a priority for the vast majority of voters or politicians.  Pointing out the fact that funding has risen recently isn't to tout any NP accomplishments by Trump but rather to show that, as is typically the case, the negative accusations are just baseless. Unfortunately, in your hate, you are willing to overlook the facts.

BTW - I suggest you do some research into the CRA and Janet Reno.  In that case political aspertions are more than appropriate.  Also, federal spending did not waiver.  Since 2010 it has never fallen below the 2010 level.

 

 


No, Bucky, I admit you seem to be trying; but, you're still not getting it.  I've been involved in the management of a major dederal site and I sense that "glad to be retired" has as well.  It's about the way in which what are called different "colors of money" have to be managed.  Yes, a fraction of the money collected through the recreation fee program does end up covering some operating expenses; however, that fraction is restricted to include very, very, little of the core staffing costs involved in running a park.  It is nothing compared to the loss of what you call the "little less than 5%" decrement in the ONPS accounts, especially when you consider that visitor numbers and interaction costs have been steadily increasing while that "little less than 5%" decrement in the ONPS accounts has been taking place.  And, the corrupt diddling with the work authorization process that this administration has engaged in is a whole other issue.  Yes, it's easy to find quotes where park superintendents gushed about the value of entrance fees.  Those superintendents need every penny they can find and they know the public wants to get in for free.  So, of course, they are going to sing the praises of the recreation fee program; however, that doesn't mean that "glad to be retired" was wrong when he pointed out that "your guess that entrance fees probably offset the difference in ONPS is absolutely wrong" or when he laments that those of us who have been there "will just have to chalk this up to the fact that you don't know what you're talking about."  But, dig yourself deeper if you must.


Rump - dig myself  deeper?  Even ignoring entrance fees the ONPS is UP since the Trump administration.  And Glad did not prove me "wrong" re fees - infact he made a statement that I demonstrated was absolutely wrong and included the language of FLREA to show his statement was wrong.  I have tried to keep this non-political because it is non-politcal.  The parks are under funded.  Agreed.  The parks have been under funded.  The parks will continue to be under funded in your and my view.  They will continue to  be under funded because they are not a priority of the voters or politicians.  It has nothing to do with Trump, Obama, Bush or any other President unless perhaps you go  back 100+ years.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

INN Member

The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.

Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.

You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

FREE for iPhones and Android phones.