National Park Service employees are not convinced the agency is succeeding with its mission, according to the latest Best Places To Work In The Federal Government rankings.
The Park Service stood 406th out of 427 federal agencies when employees were asked if their agency was accomplishing its mission, a question new to the annual survey. Within the Interior Department, only the Bureau of Indian Education and the Bureau of Indian Affairs ranked lower than the Park Service in this category of the survey that has been gauging the sentiments of federal workers since 2003. The Interior Department overall ranked 14th out of 16 agencies when that same question was asked.
National Park Service staff in Washington, D.C., did not respond Thursday when asked for comment on the survey's results.
Overall, Park Service employees' responses to the 2021 survey placed the agency 370th out of 432 agencies in terms of "engagement and satisfaction." That ranking was derived from employee responses to three questions:
- I recommend my organization as a good place to work.
- Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your job?
- Considering everything, how satisfied are you with your organization?
The Park Service's score for its workforce's "engagement and satisfaction" showed a slight drop from 2020, though it was an improvement from the 2013-2019 surveys. Still, there were other troubling scores compiled from questions Park Service employees answered for the survey. Overall, the agency ranked:
- 390th out of 431 agencies on the question of whether "leadership at all levels of the organization generates motivation and commitment, encourages integrity and manages people fairly, while also promoting the professional development, creativity and empowerment of employees;"
- 404th out of 432 agencies on the "level of respect employees have for senior leaders, satisfaction with the amount of information provided by management and perceptions about senior leaders’ honesty, integrity and ability to motivate employees;"
- 408th out of 432 agencies on whether "employees consider their workloads reasonable and feasible, and managers support a balance between work and life;"
- 386th out of 428 agencies on whether employees "believe they communicate effectively both inside and outside their team organizations, creating a friendly work atmosphere and producing high-quality work products;"
- 384th out of 428 agencies on whether employees thought they were adequately compensated for their work.
Park Service Director Chuck Sams, during his confirmation hearing last October, acknowledged morale of the agency's employees was low and that improving it would be his top priority.
At the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, Chair Mike Murray was not surprised by the survey's findings.
"It is disappointing but not surprising that the National Park Service continues to rate low in employee satisfaction," he said in an email Thursday. "The agency has been mired in the bottom 10-20% of the rankings for the past 20 years."
Why morale 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."
Sams was alerted to the contents of the report. Tim Whitehouse, executive director for Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, wrote Sams last November after he was concerned to say "the challenge of raising those dashed hopes will fall to you. It is not to late to answer the alarm sounded in the NPS Voices 2018 report."
"There is definitely an element in recent years of employees feeling overworked and undervalued as many parks have become busier than ever while budgets and staffing have not grown to meet the needs of serving visitors, maintaining facilities, and protecting park resources," Murray wrote in his email. "My observation has been that the vast majority of NPS employees are incredibly dedicated to the NPS mission of protecting park resources and serving visitors. However, these chronically low rankings sound the alarm that many in the workforce doubt that 'conserving the well being and satisfaction of its human resources' is much of a priority for the agency.
"The problem is bigger than any one leader and it will take multiple actions over a sustained period of time for the workforce to gain confidence that the agency is serious about addressing their concerns," he added.
Phil Francis, the past chair of the Coalition, agreed with Murray's points.
"I think the people who are there are working hard to achieve our mission," Francis said during a phone call. "I think people who work for the National Park Service remain dedicated public servants who love the national parks, love serving people, and are really wed to the mission of the service. The problem is we've lost over 3,000 jobs. With hundreds of millions of visitors, small staffs, budgets that are not adequate for day-to-day operations, it's hard to have good morale."
While the report said the Park Service's workforce jumped to more than 21,000 employees in 2021 from 12,556 the year before, Francis said the addition of park units in recent years necessitated even more employees.
"It's still short of the 23- or 24,000 people that once were there, even before the extra parks were added to the system," he said. "And so, you're still asking people to do more with less, and then throw in Covid, throw in inadequate housing levels. It's pretty hard to have good morale."
Comments
An indictment of agency leadership if there ever was one. Year after year; nay, decade after decade, NPS leadership demonstrates either an inability to manage a workforce, a lack of interest in doing so, or both. This is an internal, self-critique.
Is this because of or in spite of a workforce that is passionately dedicated to their careers? A survey cannot answer that.
What do yoy think friends this portends for agency leadership's management of our national parks?
A large part of this is that the seasonal work is underpaid and you are lucky to get a job in the off season as few are willing to hire a worker who they full well know is temporary. Also it takes the better part of a decade to get into a permanant job and even then its probaly about five percent of the seasonal workers who go on to full time. "legacy" hires are also a huge problem- there are so many in the NPS who are not qualified for their job but they are their because of connections. I could go on and on about the NPS and its workforce issues. And thats not even touching its sexual assault problems...
There is not one NPS..there are 400 olus or whatever the number is today. The miserable in one park can out vote the extremely happy and engaged in another park or office. It isn't an excuse but it is a reality. Culture is everyting but it can't only be created by the Director or even the entire SES leadership corps, etc.
Don't paint the entire agency with a broad brush like it is a terrible place to work everywhere. There are outstanding examples of great work cultures in in the National Park Service and many of them are focused on doing the right thing - not just getting a high score.
There is always room for improvement but this shouldn't be a damnation on the entire agency nor its leadership.
You sure? The low approval rate is not just pulled from a hat. In my experience both parks I worked for were corrupt. In fact I was in the "good" district during my time in one park and yes the work culture was pretty good. Problem was there was three husband and wife co workers in this small district..
And I have yet to experience any park official looking to do the right thing.. Whatever that is
Given the beauty and rich history of the Park units, its hard to fathom how these people could feel unhappy with their jobs. Someone is screwing up royally. And it is not the pay, many volunteers work happily for just a Park pass.
Try working ten hour days for well under the pay you would get in the private world busting your A** doing work the average public could never imagine... Then get back to me about how anyone could be unhappy in the NPS..
I also hate to tell you but even Eden becomes just another place after you have lived in the parks for years..
I spent years in Yosemite. It seems insane to me know- but it just became another place.
And yes- volunteers do work in the parks. I had to babysit them many times as they did pointless meaningless work earning money for company's like REI...
Do you think a volunteer who evidently has the money to afford to work for free is the same thing as an employee who has to put food on her table and gas in her car? Do you think that excellent scenery is fair compensation for making less than people in other agencies with similar skill sets and backgrounds?
If it is "hard to fathom" maybe you need to listen to those of us in the agency who knows we deserve better?
Except there are systemic problems like understaffing, undergrading, exploitation, and little to no career path for employees. The way workers are exploited in the agency is reflected in these rankings. Maybe if leaders asked: "is it fair or legitimate to cap field staff at gs-09 no matter how high quality their work is?" Or ",why do workers in expensive resort communities often not get locality pay?" Or "why do we not equitably offer meaningful training?" we could change our problem. It isn't a matter of "room for improvement," it's a systemic failure to reward performance and pay workers fairly.