National Park Service employees are not happy with their jobs, according to a survey/NPS file
While the National Park Service stands atop all federal agencies in terms of favorability rankings, the agency's employees rank it as one of the worst places to work in the federal government.
When the Pew Research Center in 2023 surveyed Americans on agencies they viewed favorably or unfavorably, the Park Service was viewed favorably by 81 percent, with the U.S. Postal Service ranking second with a favorability score of 77 percent. In the Best Places To Work In the Federal Government rankings released Monday, the Park Service's employees ranked it in the bottom 25 percent of 459 agencies, while its parent, the Interior Department, ranked above average.
Overall, the Park Service ranked 385th out of the 459 agencies scored. Among the agency's weak spots were effective leadership (392 out of 458 scored), effective leadership by senior leaders (402 out of 458), and effective leadership by supervisors (367 out of 458). The Park Service also scored poorly in diversity, equity, and inclusion (375 out of 449 agencies scored), employee input (330 out of 428), pay (435 out of 450), work-life balance (385 out of 428), recognition (397 out of 449), and professional development (323 out of 429).
The Park Service's best ranking came in the mission match category, where it ranked 226 out of 428 agencies.
National Park Service officials in Washington did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment on the results.
The latest rankings continued a years-long downward slide for the agency. It's best ranking came in the survey's first year, 2003, when the Park Service finished 45 out of the 189 agencies surveyed. From 2005 through 2014 the agency finished in the middle of the pack, but since then it has languished in the bottom 25 percent of government employers.
Data collected during the survey show the Park Service to be an overwhelmingly white (75 pecent), male (61 pecent) agency, one that regularly trails its peer agencies in the annual survey. The best agency within the Interior Department to work, according to the Best Places survey, was the Inspector General's Office, followed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, and Bureau of Trust Funds Management.
The Best Places survey is not an outlier in its poor portrayal of the Park Service as a place to work. Last fall Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, citing internal Park Service documents and federal surveys, noted that workforce morale continues to fall, employee flight from the agency is growing, and the agency's directorate has been failing to reverse those trends. Employee attrition has risen, reaching 28 percent in 2022, up from 17 percent in 2018, said PEER, and Park Service pay levels and housing conditions — a key factor in employee satisfaction levels — depend on congressional appropriations, something out of Park Service Director Chuck Sams' control.
The latest Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey pointed to concerns with leadership as well as unsustainable workloads.
"We know we still have room for improvement," Sams wrote in an email to the field in December. "Some of our greatest areas for improvement are in addressing our workload, meaningful recognition, and pay. With just 47.2 percent of employees providing a positive response to 'my workload is reasonable,' we know that change is needed."
In response to the survey, PEER Executive Director Tim Whitehouse said that "these latest survey results are far from a vote of confidence in Park Service leadership." Pointing to instances when senior managers were judged guilty of serious misconduct by the Interior Department's Office of Inspector General yet were promoted, Whitehouse added that, “[I]t is no wonder that most employees answering one survey question perceive their agency as a place where ‘favoritism’ is tolerated.'”
Also a concern, though hard to quantify, are instances of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation that generate employee complaints.
Why morale in the Park Service is so low was explored through a 2017 project, the NPS Voices Tour, which was designed to give NPS leadership a better understanding of employee concerns. The "Tour" evolved from face-to-face and web sessions, along with more than 200 anonymous submissions. Overall, the authors of the report met with or had correspondence from 1,249 Park Service employees.
A key point made in the report was that "[P]erhaps the strongest message that emerged from the Voices Tour was that participants need to see a response to what they have shared. We heard voices from people wearing thin from being asked to perform at a high level in the face of inadequate resources, competing demands, and in some cases, work environments rendered extremely stressful due to interperson behavior."
Authors of the report also stated that "[E]ven those who found the experience valuable expressed concern about whether any real action would come out of all the effort. Many expressed a sense of futility in participating as 'NPS keeps bringing people down here to get our opinion and nothing happens.' They say they have 'been through enough surveys and trainings' and now want to see tangible actions."
Comments
This comment is nonsense. John Jarvis was the consummate NPS insider and was Director for 8 of the last 20 years.
Is it accurate that the Fish n Wildlfe Service took on the challenge of employee satisfaction and saw great improvement?
Your comments about Deb Haaland is way off base. She is doing great things. Please go educate yourself.
Name one non partisan good thing Deb haaland has done for the nps.
I don't feel she is better or worse than previous doi heads- but honestly what can be said?
I do feel she should recuse herself from native affairs though as she and sams have obvious conflicts of interest
I am a typical ranger who came up through the ranks ( mixed race though people assume I just a white guy. )As I worked my way up, I realized many of the expectations I had about the NPS were unrealistic. Media and stories romanticize the work in general with insufficient reality. For example, one expects housing to come with the job in a park. Most parks do not have housing because they are in urban or rural communities where housing is as avlaible as it is to the general public. No need for public housing. The difference is that GS pay scale does not apply for housing in expensive popular tourist areas. The NPS has little power over the ability to provide housing. areas. Golden NRA. For example, has tons of historic buildings they are required to offer for non-NPS use. Meantime, a GS5-GS7 employee has to find a place to live in the SF Bay Area.
Training, especially onboarding for new employees is, I believe, the number one reason employees feel unheard and left out. The NPS has repeatedly documented the real need for training, but Congress response is nothing. Basic orientation and employee enrichment training is almost non-existent Training academies teach very basic required training for the most part. outsider required by law or resulting from lawsuits (Law Enforcement commission and updates. Horrible supervisory training and health and safety training.) As a new employee entering a new work culture, any other company would invest in this basic employee community building work. There is no "Park Service" degree available in colleges. Related, yes, it is the responsibility of the NPS to thoroughly train its employees. Once an NPS employee, what specific environmental laws are employees charged with assisting in monitoring and enforcing like clean air / clean water/ NEPA / cultural resource protection.
One other thought. As an upper-management employee by the time of my retirement, I attended a superintendent's conference where Margaret Wheatley, a highly respected American writer, teacher, speaker, and management consultant (Wikipedia) and member of the NPS Advisory Board spoke with us a little about the employee survey and the surprisingly low ranking of the NPS had. She questioned how seriously to take the survey. Surveys are historically easily swayed by unmeasurable factors- human moods, recent legislation, wording of the survey questions. She pointed out, for example, how odd it was that NPS employees were less satisfied than employees of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. She encouraged us to disregard the results but to use critical thinking to parse out the real reasons vs perceived reasons for employee dissatisfaction. Dr. Wheatley was one of the12 members of the advisory committee who resigned en masse under the Trump administration.
I think a lack of training and resulting disappointment with reality vs ideal world is one of the causes of dissatisfaction. That void gives the employee a sense they are not valued, and they go to other sources for training that may or may not be related to the NPS mission. Dr. Wheatley highly discouraged tracking the lack of improvement in employee survey results to supervisor and management on. An exercise that was mostly out of their control and vague perception criteria used in social surveys.
I am still dedicated to the people and resources of the NPS but also see outside hires trying to use corporate company business practices to an agency that cannot and should not be monetized. We know as a fact, managing more parks and significantly larger numbers of visitors does not translate to more funds to provide those services and protect those resources.
In 1988 I left the National Park Service, and never regretted that decision. The last park I worked for seemed more like a criminal enterprise than a land management unit, and the Asst. Supt's nickname was that of a criminal. the "Buddy System" was fully in force. One of the NPS's worst attributes is the prevailing lack of consequences to Superintendents and other high management officials for misconduct which sometimes crosses the line into criminal offenses. In the majority of cases, even upon referrals from the Inspector General, those officials are allowed to skate. Low level employees are frequently held to a higher standard, something that is not lost among NPS employees. Anyody who has any doubts needs only to read "The Yosemite Mafia" and other books written about the NPS by retired Senior Special Agent Paul Berkowitz. The first priority for the NPS should be an overhaul of its organizational policies, including reducing the power of individual Park Superintendents.
Mr. Jarvis allowed several Park Superintendents (Including Mt. Rainier and Lassen) to escape responsibility for allegations of serious misconduct.
I thought perhaps folks might find this old story amusing -
The Old Park Service and the Modern Park Service decided to have a canoe race on the Missouri River. Both teams practiced long and hard to reach their peak performance before the race. On the big day, the Old Park Service won by a mile. The Modern Park Service, very discouraged and depressed, decided to investigate the reason for the crushing defeat. A team made up of senior management was formed to investigate and recommend appropriate action.
Their conclusion was the Old Park Service had 8 people rowing and 1 person steering, while the Modern Park Service team had 8 people steering and 1 person rowing. Feeling a deeper study was in order, Modern Park Service management hired a consulting company and paid them a large amount of money for a second opinion. They advised, in the National Rowing Plan, that too many people were steering the boat, while not enough people were rowing.
Not sure how to utilize this information, but wanting to prevent another loss to the Old Park Service, the rowing team's management structure was totally reorganized to 4 steering supervisors, 3 area steering superintendants and 1 assistant superintendent steering manager, with none of them having any rowing experience.
They also implemented a new performance system that would make the 1 person rowing the boat more professional and accountable. It was called the "IFPM Rowing Team Program", with meetings, classes and deadlines for the rower and a requirement to take 15 more courses online training). There was discussion of getting new paddles, canoes and other equipment, extra vacation days for practices and bonuses, but it never occured to anyone to add additional rowers.
The next year the Old Park Service won by two miles. Humiliated, the Modern Park Service management abandoned the National Rowing Plan, laid off the rower for not meeting the deadline, halted development of a new canoe, sold the paddles, and canceled all capital investments for new equipment. The money saved was distributed to the Denver Service Center as bonuses and the next year's racing team was outsourced to private contractors.