NAFSR Workforce Study II. Interviews With the Field- Have Things Changed?

Here’s the link to the 2019 NAFSR study.  I wonder what is still true today? Given our previous discussion of shared services,  I note the description “zoned to the point of failure.” Looking over these frustrations as of 2019, it seems like the Keystone Agreements were a natural co-evolution .. frustrated FS folks couldn’t get through the hiring process or administrative burdens, and were not empowered to fix things determined at the FARs or OPM level..so farm the work out to organizations that are more flexible and can get the work done.

********************

In the responses, there was one over-riding theme: Important management priorities in most of the resource areas will not be accomplished with the current mix and level of skills in today’s Forest Service.

Leadership, Culture and Direction
Working Well
 Morale is fairly good
 People like their jobs
 Local support is mixed across the country
 Quality of new personnel is good if adequate leadership is provided
 Processes are improving and becoming more efficient
Concerns
 Units are below critical mass in terms of people and skills and cannot meet expectations
 Administrative requirements are deeply affecting the productivity of all field personnel
 New personnel are inexperienced, affecting decisions and results
 Districts are responsible for results, but lack the authority necessary to achieve them
 Priorities are clear but units are not confident they can be achieved
 Technical training is lacking in timber, engineering, wildlife and fisheries
 Many zoned personnel are spread so thin they can’t successfully complete priority work

Workforce Capacity
Working Well
 Fire organization
Concerns
 Administrative processes and centralized services are not user friendly
 The most “broken” administrative practice is the hiring process, which takes too long to complete and removes many approvals and decisions from the affected field units. This applies to both seasonal and permanent hiring procedures.
 Following the “process” often appears to be more important than achieving desired results
 With the exception of fire, all programs are suffering due to a lack of skills, personnel and funding
 Those providing centralized services do not seem to understand or care about customers in the field
 The perceived focus appears to be national data needs, not achieving work on the ground

Consolidation and Zoning
Working Well:
 It is estimated that 15-50% of the work is performed by partners, volunteers and community groups
Concerns:
 Some units believe they are zoned to the point of failure
 Large land bases, increased travel times, and lack of connection with communities is rendering many zoned units ineffective as they are not able to complete critical work and maintain essential relationships
 To increase the pace and scale of work, units will require a commensurate increase in critical skills including heritage, timber, engineering, soils, NEPA leadership, non-fire forestry technicians, contracting officer representatives, wildlife biologists and local partnership coordinators
 There is broad agreement that the Forest Service is abdicating its land stewardship responsibilities in the program areas of recreation, trails and special use program management2
 Forest supervisors and district rangers are very concerned about the continued erosion of funding and skills in the above-listed programs

On the Ground Management
Working Well
 The Environmental Analysis and Decision Making (EADM) initiative is positive, and units have high expectations it will bring about needed change
o The level of understanding about and status of the current effort varies widely
o It would be a monumental disaster to morale if this effort failed
Concerns
 The necessary skill sets and funding are simply not available to get the work done
 The recreation program funding has dropped extensively for a very long time and the Forest Service
cannot provide for the needs and expectations of the booming tourism market
 Process and administrative burdens exist in hiring, contracting, procurement and grants and agreements
 There is a strong disconnect between those leaders who want to get work done and those leaders who are responsible for the administrative functions necessary to get that work done. This is a universal frustration in the field.

Partnerships
Working Well
 Good Neighbor Authority (GNA) is a valuable asset and helpful tool in some locations. Its use depends on the individual state’s interest, capacity and funding.
Concerns
 Overall, the GNA program is limited by funding and certain authorities not being granted to the states
 The limiting factor to expansion of GNA, or shared stewardship, is people, skills and funding to do the job
 Field units do not have a clear understanding of what approach is planned without additional funding for the counties or states to fully participate