Field Office of the Future

[Mike Brown]

Have any programmatic changes in conservation delivery occurred in your state as a result of the Field Office of the Future exercise? If so, what are they?

[Ray Beck]

We have not had any changes that we can say are from the Field Office of the Future effort. Some offices are getting wireless, that could be assumed it’s in preparation of being able to work from the field more.

[Marc Cribb]

None that I am aware.

[Brad Spicer]

We have hired 3 Program Liaisons to relieve the area technical specialists of program administrative duties. Part of this plan also was to re-position the technical specialists out in the field offices and reduce the administrative offices in the areas. We have submitted our reorganization package and Civil Rights Impact analysis to complete this closure of the Area Offices in Monroe and Lafayette. This process has also begun to happen and our technical specialists are being moved out into the field offices now. Not all have been moved at this time or have requested to be moved but we will have much of that done by the end of the calendar year (my projection). The Field Offices and SWCDs should expect to receive better and more timely technical services as a result of this change. We also expect better in the field training for NRCS and Partner employees because of this effort.

We have completed all the position classifications and moved out on the engineering services plan. We have not been able to complete this phase because of reorganization approvals needed. We do plan to move forward on the engineering services realignment when possible.

We moved out on the first deployment of the conservation planning strike teams in August of 2012. The strike teams have now provided services in three Soil and Water Conservation Districts, with more planned for the second and third quarter of FY13. We are currently looking at new watershed selections by the SWCDs, DEQ, and EPA and prioritizing where the teams will be needed.

The Customer Service & Field Office Management Team work is ongoing. We have provided various management tips and tricks and issued a standard statewide staff conference agenda and minutes template to ensure minimum levels of management at each office. The next item will be the scheduling and customer request protocol that we are implementing. We have a couple training videos for that that still require the narration and editing, but things are coming along.

[Teri Murrison]

None yet. We’ve been told the NRCS in Idaho will switch to tablets and do more work from their trucks. Also, there will be several offices consolidated.

[Pat Harris]

No program changes in NC at this time.

[Mike Latham]

In NY we are seeing a second consolidation or restructuring plan in less than five years. The major adjustments are 4 to 3 administrative regions, movement of some key state staff in to these administrative regions, grouping of2 to 3 field offices together into management units. The management unit compression is targeted staffing plan to utilize senior staff to for management of the unit and eventually replace retiring staff with lower soil conservationist. This is all designed to keep technical staff on the ground and prevent overall reductions in the workforce. Due to USDA Federal Department regulation 1010 DC needs to approve this plan. The Conservation partnership in NY is supportive of the change, but the ensuing realty is that these changes are necessary just to keep things stable relative to the receding budgets. The process has started and is expected to be implemented over the next two Federal Fiscal Years.

[Lisa Knauf Owen]

No programatic changes in Oklahoma Ethat we can contribute to the Field Office of the Future as of yet.

[Ray Ledgerwood]

Offering the following from Washington State (adopted from paper written by David Vogel)

Problem Statement
Despite this demonstrated success in Washington State, we are seeing a trend toward a more centralized decision-making and priority-setting process by our federal partner, USDA/NRCS. In response to efficiency-related evaluations of the agency, NRCS (or USDA) is undertaking significant steps toward centralization or regionalization that we believe seriously jeopardize the locally-led principle and our proven local-state-federal partnership. Examples of recent actions include:

1. NRCS Headquarters Special Initiatives – These initiatives include special projects aimed at some priority set at the headquarters level in response to agency agreements, outside complaints or special interests, and they often suffer from a lack of planning and local participation, poor communication, limited or no outreach, and frustratingly short timeframes for state or local implementation.

2. Reduction in state-level NRCS staff decision-making and flexibility – With many decisions now being made at the headquarters or regional level, NRCS state-level personnel are in jeopardy of losing the program decision-making authority and flexibility now delegated to them.

3. Regionalization of staff management, personnel, budget development, technical criteria and administration – National headquarters agency managers making changes under the mantle of “efficiency” do not understand or appreciate the critical importance of the practice of locally-led to the agency’s success.

4. USDA field office closings, partner security issues, office rent charges – There are a number of field office operational issues that, together, place a severe strain on the working partnership among federal, state and local personnel and leadership. Top agency managers seem to fail to appreciate that this partnership is indeed a special one, and critical to the success of the agency.

Conclusion
The locally-led principle is the foundation for success of natural resource conservation programs and services under the Farm Bill. Conservation agencies may want to warn our national decision-makers about a trend by our federal partners at the national headquarters or department level away from practice of that locally-led principle.

[Author]

Posts