Survey: Park Service employees fear outsourcing

Most National Park Service employees are afraid of losing their jobs to private companies, and morale within the agency is declining, according to a recent survey by a conservation group.

Roughly two-thirds, or 66 percent, of 1,361 Park Service employees who responded to the survey designed by the Campaign to Protect America's Lands, a nonprofit group based in Washington, indicated that agency competitive sourcing efforts concerned them a "great deal." Nearly a quarter said they were somewhat worried by such efforts, and only 3 percent said they were not at all bothered.

Eighty percent of respondents said they were greatly concerned about the possibility of agency officials awarding "important" work to contractors. Slightly more than half of respondents feared losing their jobs, and two-thirds were afraid the agency would experience a talent drain.

A majority of respondents said they were less satisfied with their jobs this year than they were two years ago.

The survey, distributed via e-mail in mid-October, represents the opinions of roughly 8 percent of the Park Service's total full-time workforce, according to the Campaign to Protect America's Lands.

"I can see it now: 'Welcome to Yellowstone, a subsidiary of the Disney Company'," one survey respondent wrote in an open-ended comment section.

"Whether it's privatization, weakening environmental protection regulations or reversing previously approved measures, I feel my institution and my values are under attack," another respondent wrote.

While Park Service employees are naturally upset by talk of competing for their jobs, they have nothing to fear, said Park Service spokesman David Barna. "No one has lost a job over competitive sourcing, and at this point, we don't expect that anyone will," he said.

In fiscal 2003, the Park Service initiated A-76 studies on roughly 270 positions. A team of 45 archeologists at the Park Service's Southeastern Archeological Center in Tallahassee, Fla., won a public-private competition in August.

Employees should feel especially confident because Park Service Director Fran Mainella recently protected park rangers, guides and fee collectors from job competitions by classifying them as "inherently governmental," Barna said. The agency will also look for alternative ways of saving money before placing any jobs up for competition with the private sector, he said.

Under a new policy, the Park Service will only conduct formal A-76 studies after completing "preliminary planning reviews" in search of ways to cut expenses, Mainella wrote in a Nov. 12 memorandum to all agency employees. The policy would still require employees to organize into "most efficient organizations" during the preliminary review period, the director said. But if in-house workers demonstrated efficiency, the agency would not follow up with a "fully advertised" A-76 study.

"We're putting in place a system where we wouldn't [simply] go into a park and contract out," Barna said. "We want to do a management review and see if we can't save money [other ways]."

The Park Service will review work performed by the equivalent of 600 employees using the new approach, Mainella said in her message. This will satisfy the agency's "commitment to the president's management agenda," she added.

"We believe the competitive sourcing issue is going away," Barna said. "[Mainella] is not under pressure to produce certain numbers any more."

In July, the Office of Management and Budget abandoned governmentwide competitive sourcing targets and instead allowed agencies to set individual goals. The Park Service is part of the Interior Department, which established a goal of competing roughly 3,000 jobs, according to an October listing from OMB. This represents less than 10 percent of the jobs the department has designated as commercial.

Provisions in the fiscal 2004 Interior Department budget bill, signed into law on Nov. 10, grant in-house teams a cost advantage in competitions. The law also caps Interior's A-76 spending at $2.5 million for fiscal 2004. The limit would apply to spending on new studies planned for 2004 and ongoing job competitions.