Sunsets Aren’t Enough

Sunsets Aren't Enough

Low Pay, Poor Housing, And Confounding Leadership Behind Poor Morale At National Park Service

By Kurt Repanshek

Upon taking the helm of the National Park Service, Chuck Sams vowed that his top priority would be to improve the agency's dismal morale, which ranks among the lowest of all federal government agencies. But, two years later there's little evidence that Sams, finding the same morass that thwarted earlier would-be reformers, has made a significant difference or has any initiatives that will.

Years in the making and boxed in by federal regulations and bureaucracy, the obstacles are rooted in a grab bag of problems centered around inadequate and rundown employee housing, worker complaints of too little pay for their heavy workload, insufficient staff numbers, and leadership concerns.

But pay raises and improved living conditions are largely beyond Sams’ abilities to spur expedient improvements. Challenging political interference can be perilous, and he’s been unable to solve a lack of staff or prevent the impacts from government shutdowns or budget cuts.

Comments the National Parks Traveler solicited from Park Service employees, from the front lines to the superintendent level across the country, underscore their frustration with leadership that seemingly doesn’t fully understand or fully appreciate their working conditions, burnout, or leadership concerns.

In the most recent employee rankings — compiled by the Partnership for Public Service — the Best Places to Work in Federal Government ranked the National Park Service 371 out of 432 U.S. government subcomponent agencies in employee satisfaction with their jobs and agencies. (This survey targets 17 large, 27 midsize, and 30 small agencies as well as 432 subcomponents. Employees are asked their views on a range of questions, including whether they would recommend their agency as a place to work, how satisfied they are with their agency, and how effective their leadership is. Earlier rankings often included fewer agencies and so total agency numbers might differ from year to year.)

The ranking, dramatically consistent across key specific categories in the survey, is surprisingly low for an agency that is wildly popular with the public, who have no idea that the people who host 300+ million visitors a year are not happy at work. People tend to think based on encounters with front-line park staff, and the wondrous natural environmental around them, that the National Park System must be a wonderfully happy place to work.

The National Parks Traveler's requests to interview Sams about how he’s been working to improve morale for the agency’s more than 20,000 full-time and seasonal employees have been rejected.

“I don’t think anyone sees him as solving these problems,” a Park Service veteran, who during more than 30 years with the agency worked as superintendent at several parks, told the Traveler, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

“The real story is more about how disconnected this administration is from reality,” said another longtime superintendent, now retired. “Unfortunately, it seems to get worse each administration, regardless of party. But I’ll give Sams this — he may not be effective, but he’s not a force for evil. We’re better off than we were in the previous administration, small consolation that may be.”

Not A New Problem

Sams is not the first director who pledged to improve morale. When Jon Jarvis was appointed director in 2009 he also told employees he would improve their lives by providing “the funding, training, succession planning, recognition, facilities, and policies you need to get your work done."

Still, the Park Service continued its downward fall in the Best Places To Work in Federal Government survey. In 2010 the agency ranked 139th only to fall to 163rd out of 240 agencies in 2011. Last year the agency’s spot was 353 out of 411. Employee comments in the most recent survey centered on pay levels, work-life balance, and whether the agency is holding firm to its mission. They also reflected employees' dissatisfaction with the agency's leaders, both at the top rung and further down the ladder.

The Park Service in the latest survey ranked 396th out of 432 agencies in the specific category that asked survey respondents about "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."

Other areas of concern cited in 2022 included these rankings for the Park Service:

• 400 on the question of whether they're satisfied with their salary.
• 406 on work-life balance.
• 400 regarding "the commitment of an agency and its supervisors to create a workplace that promotes diversity through recruitment, promotion and development opportunities."
• 388 on the question of "how informed employees feel about the expectations and goals their leadership sets for them, their teams and their agencies.

Mixed Messages

Recent decisions from the top of the agency could further weigh on morale: the Park Service recently appointed a superintendent who had in an earlier role as superintendent at another park "committed criminal violations by submitting false travel vouchers and by accepting more than $23,000 in meals, lodging, and other in-kind gifts from non-Government organizations," and Sams personally signed off on a request to allow the Jemez Pueblo in New Mexico to kill either a bald or golden eagle in Valles Caldera National Preserve for cultural purposes.

The Valles Caldera decision was viewed as both unprecedented and against Park Service regulations that prohibit anyone, including Native American tribes, from taking wildlife in parks. Some years ago the Park Service did promulgate a regulation allowing a limited amount of Native American taking of plants, but wildlife taking was not authorized. Officials in the agency headquarters have yet to explain by what legal authority Sams made his decision.

Park Service employees who emailed the Traveler in response to a soliticitation — on a private Facebook page open to agency employees for their thoughts about morale at the field level — were almost unanimous that things were bad and that they didn’t see any help coming from headquarters. They were granted anonymity in return for their frank opinions.

“I worked in HR at both the Washington and Pacific West Region. The morale is poor in both. Staff are leaving due to the huge workload, lack of training and lack of support from leadership,” said one. “There needs to be more staff, better pay, and leadership needs to actually do something tangible instead of talking at staff.”

Another employee said the morale at their park was "worse than miserable." Part of the problem was mixed messages from leadership and an overextended staff. Too many positions remain without permanent leaders, and a lack of consistency “is exhausting” for staff trying to keep up with management's changing priorities, they said.

“Almost every position of leadership in my park is currently being filled in an acting or detail capacity. Our superintendent, deputy superintendent, admin officer, budget officer, and program managers for permits, interpretation and maintenance are all acting,” the employee said. “We have no cultural resource specialist, landscape planner, or fleet manager. Some of the positions have been vacant for more than two years."

Concern also was voiced that staff in small parks in the system had fewer opportunities for advancement than staff in bigger parks.

“Proper staffing was always a huge issue and a major reason I decided to leave," a former Park Service employee said. "Over six years we'd lose people to other agencies or the private sector and the remaining staff would pick up their duties. However, after a while the budget for that person's position seemed to dissipate and everyone would just be stuck with those duties permanently.

“My morale really started to slip when I saw friends and peers at other parks getting to go on training trips, advancing in their careers, and getting real guidance from their supervisors. Meanwhile, since I was at a small park with a very small staff, I was perpetually stuck at the visitor center and unable to attend training, go on detail assignments, or interact with peers outside of my park," they added. "I'd suggest to Chuck Sams that the NPS really needs to focus on providing opportunities for growth and better work/life balance. These opportunities need to be available to everyone, not just large parks with adequate staff. This might mean less services at parks but the agency needs to invest in its staff if it expects to retain talent.” 

Housing Crisis

Adequate and affordable employee housing remains a Park Service challenge, although living conditions have improved in a few parks. At Yellowstone National Park tens of millions of dollars have been spent on new employee housing, at Acadia National Park a 4-acre parcel was purchased by Friends of Acadia for future housing for seasonal park employees, and Friends of Arches and Canyonlands National Parks raised more than $1 million to buy a nine-bedroom, eight-bathroom house for seasonal park workers.

The high cost of housing around some of the most popular parks ranks among employees' top concerns.

One employee told the Traveler that they dig deep into their wages "to live in housing that should be condemned. That’s not an understatement or hyperbole. In some parks seasonal rangers live out of their cars on nearby USFS or BLM land, couch surf, or commute from communities’ hours away. Parks have historically used temporary buildings and trailers to house staff and these areas slowly evolve into dumps that are too crumbling and rodent-infested to be livable.” 

Most superintendents are well-aware of the rent vs. salary issue but that the Park Service has no control over the rents, which are set by the General Services Administration based on housing costs in communities outside the parks," said one retired superintendent noted. “That’s insane — and here’s where the national office could be helpful, pushing back against those other agency 'one-size-fits-all' rules that are not designed for remote park housing near tourist communities where the rents are absurdly high."

Pay should be tied more closely to an individual’s skills and certifications, another employee said. 

“A [law enforcement ranger] … that has to maintain certification as a firefighter should be paid more than a LE that does not have to maintain that certification,” the ranger wrote. “The same should apply for maintenance staff that are expected to be heavy equipment operators on top of their regular jobs or interpretive staff who have additional teaching and education certifications on top of their duties. Interpreters who have to be EMTs for their job should be paid more than interpreters who do not have to be EMTs. Staff should be paid more when they take on additional responsibilities, the BLM does this, the military does this, the NPS could do this.”

Added another employee, “If there were resolutions [in morale issues] our leadership positions would be filled faster, and we'd have more stability. Many of us are tired of doing tasks outside our position descriptions and above our pay grades with little or no recognition. Instead, we're lied to by leadership that the positions are being posted or even filled. We're lied to by people saying we'll be recognized for working at higher pay grades, but central HR denies us the Time in Grade or the pay raises associated with the work.”

However, job classifications, and pay, are also set by another agency, the Office of Personnel Management, not the Park Service.

Finally, an employee said, Park Service leadership needs to better understand conditions in the field.

“The folks at the top seem to focus on things like diversity and inclusion (which are great), which are easy to take photo ops and grandstand for, but then they don’t realize that their staff are living in tent cabins and having to use the bathroom outside,” that individual said.

Leadership Issues

Leadership issues can be complicated, although one agency veteran told the Traveler that, “The cronyism in the Park Service is absolutely horrible.”

Observers point to a number of examples of the wink-nod lenience often bestowed on agency officials who have behaved questionably.

Mike Caldwell, a former Northeast regional director for the Park Service, admitted to submitting fraudulent travel vouchers totaling nearly $18,000, yet was able to work out a confidential agreement that allowed him to stay with the Park Service, albeit in a different role at a lower grade. He’s since been promoted back into the Senior Executive Service, which is the highest pay level in the agency.

Ed Clark recently was appointed superintendent of Appalachian National Scenic Trail despite an Interior Department inspector general's finding that in his earlier role as superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park, in 2018, Clark "committed criminal violations by submitting false travel vouchers and by accepting more than $23,000 in meals, lodging, and other in-kind gifts from non-Government organizations.” The Park Service has not responded to questions concerning that appointment and whether Sams approved it.

The Justice Department declined to prosecute Clark and punishment was left to the NPS. Like Caldwell, he was sidelined for a few years at a lower grade, but his recent appointment came at the same grade he was removed from at Gettysburg.

A former chief ranger at Yellowstone National Park was named superintendent at Devils Tower National Monument despite having earlier operated Park Service housing at Mammoth Hot Springs akin to a commercial AirBnB.