SURVEY OF MANAGEMENT AND SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF:
METHODOLOGY, DATA, AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
Scientific/Technical Quality Action Team
"Process and Product" Work Group
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle, Washington
June 6, 1991
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction Page 1
II. Background Information and Methodology Page 1
III. Analyses of Numerical Data Page 3
A. Central Tendencies Analysis Page 3
1. Gross Response Patterns Page 3
2. Motivation and* Morale Page 4
3. Personnel Management Policies Page 5
4. Role of Science in EPA Page 6
5. Regional Office Utilization of Scientists...Page 8
B. Analysis of Response Patterns by Group Page 12
C. Most Positive and! Negative Response Analysis...Page 16
IV. Summary of Comments.. Page 18
V. Conclusions Page 20
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Number Information
I Survey Form and Cover Memorandum
II EPA Workforce Statistics Summary
III Recent Regional Office Separations
IV Survey Response Tabulation
V Survey Responses Sorted by Group
VI Management Comments
VII Scientific/Technical Staff Comments
VIII Categorized Management Comments
IX Categorized Staff Comments
X Comment Category Correlation
-------
SURVEY OF MANAGEMENT AND SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFFi
METHODOLOGY, DATA, AND PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS
Scientific/Technical Quality Action Team
"Process and Product" Work Group
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle, Washington
June_6, 1991
I. INTRODUCTION
A survey of management and the scientific/technical staff of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 office was conducted by the "Product and Process"
Work Group of the EPA Region 10 Scientific/Technical Quality Action Team. The
quality action team was initiated by the EPA Region 10 Policy Review Group, at the
request of Deputy Regional Administrator Gerald Emison. TTie work group which
conducted the survey was self-selected from the quality action team. Distribution of the
survey forms began on February 20, 1991, and most responses were received by March
6, 1991.
This report describes the methods employed, presents the data obtained, and
explains analyses performed to date. As such, the report does not contain a wealth of
interpretive information nor any recommended actions. However, the report may serve
as a basis for the development of recommended solutions to problems identified by this
and any subsequent analyses.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND METHODOLOGY
The work group hypothesized that "product and process" problems are serious
and widespread within EPA, including Region 10. Since documentation about the
nature, seriousness, and extent of these problems within Region 10 was considered
inadequate, the work group decided to survey current scientific/technical staff and
management. A survey of scientific/technical staff and managers who have quit EPA
Region 10 was contemplated but considered too time-consuming to perform.
Survey forms and a cover memorandum (both contained in Appendix I) were
distributed personally to managers and scientific/technical staff by the work group
members. White forms were distributed to staff and yellow forms to managers. For the
purposes of the survey, managers were considered to be section heads, branch chiefs,
and division directors. Scientific/technical staff were identified as those with technical
job classifications, such as biologist, chemist, engineer, environmental scientist, etc. or
those classified as environmental protection specialists whose job responsibilities and
educational background are scientific/technical. Each copy of the survey form was
numbered to prevent the return of more than one form per person. Survey forms were
selected by the recipients from a stack of randomly numbered forms in order to assure
respondent anonymity.
-------
2
Only a minimal amount of personnel information was requested: job
classification, division, and predominant academic background (physical science,
biological science, engineering, or other). Useful information such as grade level,
highest college degree obtained, and years of experience with the Agency were not
requested in an effort to ensure the anonymity of survey respondents. Some
respondents contributed more specific personnel information than the survey form
requested whereas others chose to not fill out the personnel information part of the
form.
Respondents were not instructed to consider a particular period of time upon
which to base their responses. It is assumed that most respondents were thinking most
strongly about the present. However, those who have past experiences upon which to
form an opinion, and no recent experience to change that opinion, may have based their
responses largely upon events which occurred some time in the past.
Many questions do not specify a group (section, branch, division, region, entire
agency) upon which to base a response. Instead, it is assumed that people answered as
generally as they were able to based upon the breadth of their knowledge and
experience. For example, respondents with limited EPA work experience and little prior
knowledge about the Agency probably answered questions in a manner which reflected
their personal work experience over & short period of time. In contrast, employees with
a greater breadth of knowledge and experience likely responded in a mannerwhich-took
more factors into account.
Distribution of the survey forms revealed that many staff scientists are classified
as Environmental Protection Specialists. The Environmental Protection Specialist (EPS)
classification does not require the educational background and skill level of job
classifications such as chemist, health physicist, oceanographer, etc. Consequently, some
Region 10 employees with an EPS classification cannot be considered scientific
professionals whereas many with the same classification have the credentials and
perform the work expected of professional scientists. The confusion generated by the
EPS job classification kept a few survey candidates from receiving forms.
The survey return rate was high, and most forms were returned in time to be
tabulated. (A few survey forms, received after tabulation was complete and analysis had
begun, were disregarded). The tabulation rate is as follows:
118/160 staff surveys = 74%
38/50 management surveys = 76%
Most survey forms included suggestions for improvements EPA Region 10 might make
to better secure and retain scientific/technical expertise. Over 70% of both staff and
management respondents submitted comments. The data obtained thus includes
numerical responses to questions from about three-quarters of those surveyed, and
comments from about half of those surveyed.
-------
3
III. ANALYSIS OF NUMERICAL DATA
The survey responses were analyzed using three different methods: a central
tendencies analysis (Section A, below), a comparison of different populations (Section
6), and an examination of those questions that elicited the most negative or the most
positive responses (Section C). Some differences in these approaches should be noted.
In the central tendencies method, if the respondent did not answer the survey question,
a neutral answer (i.e., 3) was assumed. In method B, the comparison of different
populations, if the respondent did not answer a survey question, it was ignored. Also,
the central tendencies analysis was conducted using a slightly smaller total population
than the other two methods of analysis. The analysis of Section A considers those
survey forms returned by the due date: 108 from the scientific/technical staff and 34
from managers. The analyses of Sections B and C include responses from
questionnaires (4 from managers and 10 from staff) returned shortly after the due date.
A. Central Tendencies Analysis
1. Gross Response Patterns
The survey responses suggest that the EPA Region 10 scientific/technical staff is
highly motivated, mildly negative about both Agency science policy and Region 10
utilization of scientific/technical staff, and extremely negative about federal and Agency
personnel management policies affecting scientists and engineers.
That mix of attitudes contrasts sharply with those of managers (the majority of
them trained as engineers or natural scientists) who responded to the same
questionnaire. As a group, managers display a positive attitude toward all four aspects
of their work. Rank of satisfactions for the management group matches that of the
scientific/technical staff almost precisely, but the degree of its relative satisfaction varies
from staff by .33 to .65 points in mean score on a five point scale. Given the narrow
range of possible responses and two orders of aggregation, this represents a large
difference in outlook between managers and the scientific/technical staff.
Table 1 - RESPONSE PROFILE, BY GENERALIZED TOPIC AND RESPONDENT SPECIALTY
Mean Scores (1=Verv Positive. 3=Neutral. 5=Very Negative)
Personnel
Respondent Cateaorv
Motivation
Region Science
EPA Science
Practices
Managers
2.06
2.69
2.75
2.90
Technical Staff
2.46
3.06
3.10
3.50
Engineers
2.35
2.88
2.95
3.35
Scientists
2.50
3.12
3.15
3.55
Bio Science
2.31
3.07
3.0
3.46
Physical Science
2.62
3.22
3.35
3.76
Other
2.66
3.08
3.13
3.42
There are also significant differences within the scientific/technical staff.
Surprisingly, variation between aggregates is slight in terms of comparative values for
divisions but significant when arrayed by predominant academic background. The
-------
4
responses of engineers were predominantly positive with the exception of questions
related to personnel management policies. Responses of physical scientists, on the other
hand, are predominantly negative; their mean scores are greater than 20% more
negative than managers in every category, and consistently less positive than other
technical groups. Biological scientists comprise a divided group. Though their response
patterns vary according to question, biologists appear to separate near equally between a
set whose attitudes are similar to those of engineers and another whose attitudes
resemble those of physical scientists: thus the essentially neutral mean scores of the
group on matters of EPA science policy is a mathematical artifact that converts opposing
perceptions to an appearance of disinterest. Others (social scientists, persons with
multiple degrees, persons not identifying their backgrounds) are more negative than
managers and engineers, more positive than the physical science group.
2. Motivation and Morale
It may be misleading to attribute particular significance to variations in responses
that relate to a broad topic, such as "the role of science in EPA". Respondents reacted
to specific statements, so that a predominantly positive response to one aspect of a topic
might offset a predominantly negative one to an entirely separate statement about the
topic. This form of respondent reaction creates a pattern of apparently neutral
uniformity where in fact, there is wide diversity. Nowhere is the need to examine the
responses to each question more obvious than in the five-statement set related to
motivation and morale. In this set, the response to a single statement illuminates a
significant gap between managers and the scientific/technical staff. Distribution of staff
responses to statements related to motivation and morale is presented in Table 2.
(Note: In the discussion that follows, attention is directed exclusively to staff
responses. Manager responses are not included in tabulation of positive and negative
responses, nor in determination of median and modal values. Mean value of manager
response to each question is provided as a standard of comparison.)
TABLE 2 - MOTIVATION AND MORALE
No,
Res Dorises
Score
Mean
Score
Q
Subiect
P03.
Neg.
Median
Mode
Mgrs
Eng
Bio
Phv
Other
1
Environmental Orientation
97
6
1
1
1.45
1.73
1.51
1.30
1.75
3
Seattle as a Work Place
69
19
2
2
2.13
2.55
2.26
2.48
2.40
4
Job Satisfaction
61
21
2
2
2.18
2.39
2.23
2.82
2.85
2
Regional Office Effectiveness
55
22
2
2
2.03
2.54
2.51
3.15
2.60
5
Management Responsiveness
22
46
3
3
2.58
3.15
2.77
3.41
3.80
The table shows clearly that the most powerful motivators of the
scientific/technical staff are personal. With few exceptions, they consider themselves to
be environmentally conscientious people who prefer to live in Seattle. But
organizational motivation is also high. As a group, they derive satisfaction from their
work and have a positive appraisal of the effectiveness of regional actions.
-------
5
With respect to perceived motivators, collective staff attitudes closely parallel
those of managers. Attitudes diverge sharply however, in reaction to statement 5, "The
results of this questionnaire will receive serious management consideration." Where
manager respondents provided a collectively positive answer, the scientific/technical staff
was distinctly negative. Nearly half of the Region's scientists and engineers appear to
hold the opinion that Regional management lacks the ability or inclination to react to
staff concerns; of those who remain, almost two-thirds feel they have no basis for a
judgement on the matter.
3. Personnel Management Policies
No matter what their motivation or opinion of EPA science, Region 10 scientists
and engineers have low regard for some basic agency and regional personnel
management practices. Many of these practices are rooted in federal civil service
"reforms" of the past decade whereas others originate within the regional office.
The most negative value commanded by any statement was the 4.13 mean score
achieved by question 3 of the personnel management set: "Scientists and engineers can
reach their professional potential without leaving EPA or becoming a manager." An
almost equally negative reaction (mean score = 4.04) was elicited by the statement on
competitive compensation. (Manager respondents concurred with the negative response
in both instances, though less emphatically.)
Communication offered a secondary focus of discontent. Staff agrees (mean
score = 3.49) that internal systems offer inadequate access to management, a situation
made worse by apparent management resistance to staff concerns (mean
score = 3.51). (Managers corroborated the first negative assessment by a narrow
margin, but give themselves a positive score on reacting to staff concerns.)
i
There is a negative appraisal, too, of the agency's efforts to maintain its technical
standards. Both recruitment (mean score = 3.18) and support for employee skill
maintenance and augmentation (mean score = 3.38) were judged to be deficient,
suggesting that progressive dilution of EPA's science capacity is a concern.
Job classifications and position descriptions, which would seem to be purely
administrative matters that would not create strong opinions, elicited a negative response
from one third of the staff. There was sufficiently strong disagreement to provide
negative mean scores - 3.06 in the case of job classification, and 3.12 regarding position
descriptions. Based upon this information, a significant portion of the
scientific/technical staff feels that job classifications and position descriptions are being
administered in a manner that is adverse to their interests or to the scientific integrity of
the Agency.
-------
6
Table 3
EPA PERSONNEL POLICIES
No.
ResDonses
Score
Mean Score
Q
Subject
Pos
Meg
Median
Mode
Mars
Ena
Bio
Phv
Other
1
Accurate Job classifications
38
34
3
3
2.42
2.65
3.06
3.44
3.10
4
Accurate Job Descriptions
35
41
3
2
2.84
3.12
3.03
3.44
2.86
2
Adequate Technical Recruitment
27
43
3
3
2.5
3.04
3.09
3.52
3.05
8
Support for Skill Maintenance
28
56
3
4
2.82
3.5
3.37
3.41
3.19
6
Communication Access to Managers
15
56
4
4
3.08
3.27
3.6
3.59
3.62
7
Management Response to Staff
13
57
4
4
2.84
3.5
3.37
3.67
3.57
5
Competitive Compensation
7
81
4
4
3.32
3.96
3.97
4.3
3.91
3
Technical Opportunity
9
89
4
5
3.37
3.77
4.11
4.67
4.1
4. Role of Science in EPA
In the last five or six years, there has been increasing criticism of EPA from
elements of the scientific community. Originating in epidemiological and actuarial
circles concerned with risk assessment, that criticism has extended to include such
diverse matters as controlled destruction of PCB, dioxin toxicity, pesticide health effects
on agricultural workers, Superfund site selection criteria, and the "no threshold
dose/cumulative effect" assumptions that provide the foundation for many of the
agency's regulations. Most Region 1Q scientists appear to be aware of the issues, debate
them, and relate them to their daily work.
Responses to the questionnaire suggest that technical staff is, to a degree, capable
of resolving the contradictions posted by scientific uncertainty, a sometimes rigid legal
framework, and questionable federal policies. By a wide margin (mean score = 2.71),
they are confident that EPA's programs are scientifically sound, that scientists and
engineers play an important role in program formulation (mean score = 2.74), and that
there is adequate opportunity to present technical judgements to decision makers (mean
score = 2.81). Those responses suggest a consensus judgement that EPA programs and
policies have an appropriate scientific content. In addition, there is clear support for the
statement that there is slight or no pressure to compromise technical judgement in order
to conform to policy (mean score = 2.83).
There is, however, a large degree of internal inconsistency in those positive
judgements. While staff agrees that program actions are scientifically sound and that
programs are developed in cooperation with Agency scientists and engineers, they have a
negative appraisal of the impact of technical considerations on policy (mean score =
3.22). They do not believe that adverse scientific judgements are recognized (mean
score = 3.52), and they are convinced that legal and administrative considerations
outweigh environmental conditions in the conduct of EPA programs (mean score =
3.77). The two sets of responses appear at odds with one another. Programs have an
adequate scientific content, but address procedural rather than environmental matters.
Scientists play a role in policy and program development, but technical considerations
have little impact on policy. Scientists have access to decision makers, but dissenting
technical judgements are suppressed.
-------
7
One possible explanation for the apparent ambivalence is that scientists are
frustrated by a management system which gives them a hearing, selects from the
information that they deliver those elements which support a course of action chosen for
sometimes non-scientific and non-environmental reasons, and ignores the burden of
scientific opinion in implementing that course. (Such a management system would be
consistent with the legal brief-building process but entirely at odds with the standards of
scientific inquiry. Of course, as a regulatory agency, EPA is dominated by legal concepts
and methods.) Support for this interpretation is found in the staff comments
(Appendices VII and IX). Some of these comments suggest that policy decisions are
made without regard to scientific judgment and, further, that such decisions are
sometimes publicized as though they were based largely upon scientific reasoning.
A related explanation can be obtained by interpreting the data in terms of
employee experience. This explanation holds that just as adverse experience has made a
portion of the scientific/technical staff react negatively to such matters as job
classification and position description, so have some of the region's scientists and
engineers been alienated by participation in projects where policy considerations have
over-ridden technical judgements. Statistical support for the idea that individual
experience is crucial can be found in responses to statement 1-4: "There is slight or no
Agency pressure to produce materials that compromise one's technical judgement."
A near majority of staff responded positively to the statement, and those without
an opinion outnumbered those responding negatively by one. But four biologists and
three physical scientists gave the statement a value of 5, and another twenty-two
employees - including at least five engineers ~ gave it a 4. Those twenty-nine persons
were consistently more negative than other scientific/technical staff in their appraisal of
EPA science and Agency effectiveness, and these respondents tipped the balance to
negative determinations in all areas other than personnel management policy (see Table
4).
Table 4 COMPARATIVE SCORING
Mean Score
ResDondent Seament
N
EPA Science
Regional Science
Statement 4-2
5 Response to Statement 1-4
7
3.76
3.57
3.0
4 Response to Statement 1-4
22
3.59
3.35
3.23
All Staff Respondents
108
3.10
3.06
2.69
< 3 Response to Statement 1-4
79
2.91
2.93
2.51
Manager Respondents
38
2.75
2.69
2.03
Two other aspects of EPA science policy received negative appraisals.
Respondents agreed that agency data systems are not congruent with technical
requirements by a small but definite margin (mean score = 3.12). And by a somewhat
more distinct margin (mean score = 3.19) their collective judgement is that technical
participation in the contract process is not sufficient to produce confidence in contract
products - a serious matter since the bulk of EPA's research, laboratory determinations,
and site clean ups are performed under contract.
-------
8
Table 5 ROLE OF SCIENCE IN EPA
Q
Subiect
Resoonses Score
Mean Score
Pos
Nea Median
Mode
Hgrs
Eng
Bio
Phv
Other
1
Scientifically Sound Programs
54
22 2.5
2
2.26
2.42
2.54
3.26
2.65
2
Participation in Program Formulation
52
32 3
2
2.24
2.46
2.69
3.11
2.95
3
Access to Decision Makers
52
30 3
2
2.53
2.69
2.71
3.19
2.85
4
Freedom From Policy Pressure
49
29 3
2
2.42
2.69
2.77
3.78
2.75
5
Adequacy of Data Systems
36
42 3
2-4
2.95
2.92
3.06
3.74
3.40
8
Participation in Contract Process
27
41 3
4
2.92
3.04
3.09
3.52
3.10
7
Technical Influence on Decision
35
50 3
4
2.37
3.27
2.97
4.37
3.05
6
Adverse Views Aired
13
59 4
4
3.53
3.27
3.49
4.59
3.45
9
Environmental Focus of Programs
9
70 4
4
3.66
3.77
3.69
3.70
4.00
5. Regional Office Utilization of Scientific/Technical Staff
Given the scientific/technical staff's apparent antipathy to fundamental personnel
management policies, their negative over all appraisal of EPA science policy, and their
strong environmental conscience, one might anticipate that regional work experience
would evoke some negative reactions. This expectation is reinforced by the inclusion in
that section of the questionnaire of statements that relate to the sort of every day
administrative annoyances (Questions: 3-1 and 3-17) that usually elicit a negative
response.
The aggregate score for the segment of the questionnaire that deals with regional
office utilization of scientific/technical staff is only slightly less negative than for EPA
science policy. The negative response to regional office utilization of scientific/technical
staff may be a local manifestation of national policy — eight of eleven statements that
elicited negative mean scores also received negative evaluations when another aspect of
the situation was presented with respect to personnel management and EPA science
policy. When confined to specifically regional experience, the perception of EPA
scientists and engineers is predominantly positive, as indicated in part by Table 6.
Table 6 REGIONAL UTILIZATION OF TECHNICAL STAFF: POSITIVE ASPECTS
No.
Resttonses Score
Mean Score
Q
Subiect
Pos
Nea Median
Mode
Mars
Eng
Bio
Phv
Other
4
Appropriate Work Assignments
69
18 2
2
2.40
2.58
2.54
2.44
2.25
7
Quality of Technical Product
55
10 2
2
2.18
2.23
2.69
2.59
2.40
13
Access to Complementary Skills
59
26 2
2
2.47
2.50
2.71
2.70
2.75
3
Technical Quality of Supervisors
55
23 2
2
2.26
2.39
2.77
2.74
2.85
2
Quality of Coworkers
49
29 3
2
2.42
2.46
2.86
2.96
2.90
16
Adequacy of Informational Product
40
20 3
3
2.42
2.65
2.80
2.96
2.80
18
Attention to Technical Review
33
28 3
3
2.74
2.69
3.03
3.22
2.95
The scientific/technical staff collectively approves of their members' work
assignments (2.47), the quality of their product (2.5), their opportunities to collaborate
with other technical specialists (2.67), the technical skills of their supervisors (2.69), the
competence of their organizational units (2.8), and their capacity to support programs
(2.81). They are less than enthusiastic about others' reactions to technical review, but
-------
9
still satisfied on balance (2.98). Managers are also positive about these items (Table 6).
These perceptions of what is positive about the region might be viewed as self
serving; for in general what that staff approves is itself, and managers approve of the
professionals they have hired and developed. The self-serving aspects of the assessment
might be seen as both a liability and an asset. From a negative standpoint, both staff
and management might be viewed as too self-satisfied in these areas to diligently seek
improvement. However, the numerous critical comments about professional training and
growth (Appendices IX and X) suggest otherwise. From a positive standpoint, the
responses suggest that a sense of professionalism prevails at EPA Region 10. This
professionalism or sense of craftsmanship can act as a powerful motivational force. In
any event, the collective staff survey responses do indicate that most EPA Region 10
scientists and engineers are positive about the actual technical work that they perform.
It follows, then, that the somewhat longer list of negative judgements on regional
utilization of technical staff concerns not the work itself but conditions governing its
production, the manner in which it is used, and potential barriers to sustaining its
quality. That list is presented as Table 7.
Table
7 REGIONAL UTILIZATION OF TECHNICAL
STAFF:
NEGATIVE ASPECTS
No. ResDonses
Score
Mean Score
Q
Subject
Pos
N£9
Median
Mode
Hqrs
Erw
Bio
Phv
Other
14
Proper Skill Mixture
32
32
3
3
2.42
2.73
3.09
3.44
2.90
12
Procedural vs. Environmental Work
36
43
3
2
2.79
3.12
3.06
3.11
3.40
15
Adequate Peer Review
29
42
3
3
2.84
2.69
3.46
3.33
3.10
11
Influence of Technical Recommendations
18
37
3
2.84
3.23
2.91
3.52
3.30
5
Staff Balance
19
40
3
2.53
3.23
3.26
3.33
3.05
17
Time, Data Availability
26
47
3
2.71
3.27
3.17
3.33
3.15
8
Unqualified Technical Staff
26
44
3
2.58
3.08
3.20
3.33
3.55
1
Adninistrative Support
34
54
3.5
2.87
3.31
3.29
3.44
3.30
10
Technically Based Decisions
22
50
4
2.71
2.85
3.43
3.74
3.30
6
Procedural Preemption of Output
29
58
4
3.47
3.54
3.20
3.41
3.60
9
Excessive Reliance on Contractors
17
63
4
3.32
3.27
3.77
3.82
3.90
The tabulation falls almost automatically into clusters of complaint, negative
reactions to four kinds of related influences on the regional work place. Three of four
categories have a definite link to national policy. In almost every instance, managers, as
an aggregate, display a positive reaction to statements that the collective
scientific/technical staff perceives in a negative sense. That attitudinal gap, despite the
staffs overall regard for the technical competence of managers (vide Q 3-3), may well
expose a fifth general area of concern about regional utilization of scientific/technical
staff, even though no specific statement about the congruity of staff and management
outlook was included in the survey.
Administrative direction and support of technical work is provided by the
Regional Office with funds distributed by EPA Headquarters. Staff perception is that
administrative direction and support is deficient in each of three areas covered by the
questionnaire.
-------
10
Mean Score
Q Subject Staff Managers
3-1 Adequate Clerical, Drafting, Library Other Support 3.33 2.87
3-17 Adequate Time and Information for Work 3.23 - 2.71
3-15 Peer Review of Work Product 3.18 2.84
Mean Score 3.25 2.81
(It should be noted that peer review possibility was rated positively by engineers,
substantially improving its mean score. Whether the difference in professional viewpoint
traces to different experiences or a different outlook about peer review is unknown, but
the results indicate that a substantial portion of the scientific/technical staff feels
isolated by limited access to peer review.
Limited opportunity is address environmental conditions in day to day work is
considered to be a negative aspect of the Regional experience, a perception that
probably traces to national direction and priorities, which managers share with their
staff.
Mean Score
Q Subject Staff Managers
1-9 Environmental Focus of Programs 3.77 3.66
3-6 Procedural Requirements Limit Output 3.41 3.47
3-12 Regulatory Support Limits Environmental Work 3.15 2.79
Mean Score 3.44 3.31
The set of responses under this subject heading may provide some of the most
significant findings of the questionnaire because they are strengthened by
uncharacteristic agreement of managers and staff. The general perceptions that EPA
programs do not have an environmental focus and that excessive procedural details
inhibit output suggest a desire for policy adjustments that go beyond the limits of
regional discretion. Also, the collectively negative response to Q 3-12, dealing with
"opportunities to do work relating to actual pollution abatement or prevention as well
as...implementation of current regulations" requires the assumption that many current
regulations do not effectively prescribe pollution abatement or prevention. This point of
view suggests that motivation based upon professionalism and a desire to protect the
environment may not securely bind the scientist or engineer to the Agency.
Disjunction gf technical judgement from Ihfi decision process, a matter also
evaluated as an aspect of EPA science policy, is viewed more harshly by the
scientific/technical staff in connection with regional decisions.
Mean Score
Q Subject Staff Managers
3-10 Technical Input to Decision 3.34 2.71
1-7 Technical Influence on Policy -3.22 2.37
3-11 Decisions Contradict Technical Recommendations 3.21 2.84
1-2 Technical Participation in Policy Formulation 2.74 2.24
Mean Score 3.13 2.54
The perception that regional decisions frequently lack or contradict technical
advice match the judgement that technical considerations do not play a major part in
agency policy decisions, but is sharply at variance with respondents' aggregate feeling
-------
11
that science plays an important role in policy formulation. Without an explanation from
each respondent; it is not possible to reconcile the apparent contradiction. However,
three possible explanations are: 1) many respondents interpreted question 1-2 as a
normative statement -- the way things should be rather than how they are - 2) a
substantial component of the scientific/technical staff believes that science is a weightier
decision element at headquarters than it is in Region 10, or 3) many respondents believe
that science plays a major role in policy formation but a minor role in policy
implementation.
Deterioration of regional scientific and engineering capacity is. in the opinion of a
majority of the scientific/technical staff, a negative effect of the manner in which that
staff is being utilized. Such deterioration - probably related to national recruitment and
training policies ~ is seen in a variety of symptoms: excessive reliance on contractors,
delegation of technical responsibilities to unqualified employees, reduction of the
proportion of scientists and engineers in the regional workforce, and ascendancy of
administrative talent over technical capability in positions that demand both types of
skills.
Q
Subiect
Mean Score
Staff Managers
3-9
Excessive Use of Contractors
3.69
3.32
2-8
Continuing Technical Training1
3.38
2.82
3-8
Under Qualified Staff
3.27
2.58
3-5
Staff Balance
3.23
2.53
1-8
Participation in Contract Process
3.19
2.92
2*2
Technical Recruitment
3.18
2.50
3-14
Supervisory Balance
3.06
2.42
Mean Score
3.29
2.73
Management respondents are less critical about the deterioration of EPA Region
10's scientific and engineering capacity which the staff perceives. This less critical
perception is surprising, perhaps, since the recruitment and development of professional
talent is a primary management function. Yet, unlike most categories of staff opinion,
relative erosion of technical capacity is, to a degree, verifiable by empirical observation.
Rene Fuentes ("EPA Workforce Statistics Summary," working paper, 2-21-91, see
Appendix II) has documented that, 1) the absolute number (not the rate) of separations
of scientists and engineers exceeds that of other Agency employment categories; 2)
science and engineering positions Agency-wide remain at the 1980 level even though
EPA employment is now a seventh greater; 3) the principal reason the Agency loses
scientists and engineers is resignation, as opposed to death, retirement, removal or
transfer to other federal employment.
Region 10's employee separation rate appears to be below the Agency rate and
below the median for all regions, but its resignation rate is significantly higher. Also,
losses of scientifically trained workers over the last four and a half years have been
rising and, in four of the past five years, occurring above the 6.2% EPA-wide rate of
1989.
-------
12
EPA Region 10 Loss Rate, Technical Employee Resignation & Retirement
FY 1987
FY 1988
FY 1989
FY 1990
FY 1991
4.5%
6.5%
8.5%
9.5%
7.0% (six months)
(The rate is based on the assumption that a 200 person technically trained employment
component, including technically trained managers, is maintained. The rate does not
include deaths or termination of temporary appointments. See Appendix in for details.)
A high rate of scientist and engineer attrition is not in itself sufficient evidence of
loss of scientific capacity. But when that attrition is associated with employee perception
of deterioration, siphoning of technical talent to managerial functions, higher
compensation rates in the private sector, demand generated by toxic waste laws and the
recent amendments to the Clean Air Act, conviction of regional scientists and engineers
that avenues to technical advancement are blocked, and the elimination of the powerful
incentive to staff stability previously afforded by the federal pension system, then there
would appear to be sufficient cause for more concern about the matter than manager
respondents demonstrate.
Attrition of scientific/technical staff and deterioration of technical capacity are
Agency-wide - if not government-wide - problems that the Regional administration
cannot solve alone. But recognition of the situation, even on a Regional level, would
seem the necessary first step toward its resolution.
B. Analysis of Response Patterns by Group
Survey results were tabulated in a Lotus worksheet (see Appendix IV). The data
was preliminarily analyzed by repeated visual scanning of both the data table and graphs
of the tabulated data in an attempt to identify response patterns to particular questions.
This scanning lead to sorting the data by staff, managers, divisions, educational
background, job classification series, and question group from the survey form. Other
data sortings were also performed but did not reveal any observable patterns.
Further analysis of the groups selected by the sorting described above provided
some clearly observable patterns. The main groups selected for further analysis were
Division. Educational Background, and Personnel Classification Series. The groupings
were further refined to include only those with enough people in the group to allow
comparison with other groups. The groups finally selected for use in a table of sorted
data are listed below.
Managers
-All Staff
-------
13
-Staff by Division (ATD, ESD, HWD, WD)
-Staff by Predominant Educational Background (Biological Science, Engineering,
Physical Science)
-Staff by Major Job Classification Series (Environmental Scientist-1301,
Environmental Engineer~819, Environmental Protection Specialist-028,
Other-those identified as "other" in the survey and those who did not list their
job classification series or title)
The data groupings were then imported into software capable of simple statistical
calculations, where the column statistics option was used to determine the mean,
standard deviation, and size of the population of each group (Appendix V). It should be
noted that the size of the group could vary slightly depending on which question is
selected, since any unanswered questions would decrease the size of the population for
that question. Another key item to note is that the different populations compared are
not identical in size, but range between 15 and 38 respondents for any one group, and
include a total of 118 staff and 38 managers.
The mean response from one or more staff population groups was quite negative
(3.5 or greater) on sixteen questions. These questions address the following topics: data
collection systems, presentation of adverse or dissenting technical views, focus of EPA
programs, technical recruitment (2 questions), professional growth, financial
compensation, internal communication, management responsiveness (2 questions)
administrative support, bureaucratic procedures, professional standards, use of
contractors, technical input and decision making, and peer review. Many of these topics
are also the focus of written comments, as described later in this report.
Some of the extreme mean values (within the range of 1 = strongly agree to 5 =
strongly disagree), for any of the groups listed above, include:
3.91 on "EPA programs and policies focus upon environmental conditions more
than upon regulatory processes."
4.61 on "Scientists and engineers can reach their professional potential without
leaving EPA or becoming a manager."
4.37 on "EPA scientists and engineers receive competitive compensation."
3.96 on "Region 10 does not make excessive use of contractors to perform its
scientific/technical work."
1.26 on "EPA's stated mission to protect the. environment is a major reason why I
work here."
-------
14
Another noteworthy comparison of mean values is the wide variation in response
to any one question between any two of the groups. This may indicate different types of
work experience or differing perceptions of similar experiences. In either case, further
analysis may help to clarify problem areas and identify possible solutions.
Within the previously defined groups, significant difference was arbitrarily defined
as a value approximating one (1) between the highest group and the lowest group. The
following questions received responses which exhibit this degree of difference between
groups.
Science at EPA
1. Most program actions are scientifically sound.
Managers 2.26 Physical Scientists 3.29
7. Technical considerations have a major influence on policy/program decisions.
Managers 237 Physical Scientists 3.45
Personnel Policies
1. Job classifications are generally descriptive and appropriate for technical
positions.
Managers 2.42 Physical Scientists 3.42
2. Recruitment efforts attract persons with necessary technical skills.
Managers 2.50 Physical Scientists 3.60
3. Scientists and engineers can reach their professional potential without leaving
EPA or becoming a manager.
Managers 2.50 Physical Scientists 4.61
5. EPA scientists and engineers receive competitive compensation.
Managers 332 Series 1301 4.37
Scientific/Technical Staff Utilization
8. Use of technically under-qualified persons in areas requiring technical
competence is not a problem in Region 10.
Managers 2.58 Series 1301 3.57
-------
15
9. Region 10 does not make excessive use of contractors to perform its
scientific/technical work.
ATD 2.93 Series 1301 3.96
10. Program and policy decisions usually include sufficient input from technical
staff.
Managers 2.70 Physical Scientists 3.76
14. Jobs requiring both technical and administrative abilities are predominantly
filled by persons who possess the necessary technical ability.
Managers 2.43 Series 1301 3.57
Motivation and Morale
2. Overall, I think Region 10 EPA is doing a good job to protect the
environment.
Managers 2.00 Series 1301 3.17
5. The results of this questionnaire will receive serious management
consideration.
Managers 2.53 Series 1301 3.65
An additional contrast is the extreme response range between Divisions or Series
on some questions. The two most pronounced examples are listed below.
Science at EPA
4. There is slight or no Agency pressure to produce materials that compromise
one's technical judgment.
ATD 2.36 WD 3.17
Scientific/Technical Staff Utilization
1. There is adequate clerical, drafting, library, and other administrative support
for technical work.
ATD 2.93 HWD 3.73
-------
17
variance in staff attitude, but both occupy a place in the ten most positive and ten least
negative response sets.
Table 9 gives the results when ranking the statements in terms of the percentage
of survey respondents staff who either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the
statement The number in parentheses following the percentage is the inverse ranking
of the statement when viewed in terms of the level of agreement The statement in
Table 9 with the highest level of disagreement (84%) had an inverse ranking of 3. That
is, it was third from the bottom in terms of the percentage of those who agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement. In the case of Table 9, three of the statements have
inverse rankings which are significantly different from their regular ranking. These are
the statements ranked #6, #9 and #10.
Table 9. Statements in the survey for which approximately 50% or more of the respondents either disagreed
or strongly disagreed. Percentages are given in parentheses following the statement. The nunber following
the percentage is the inverse ranking of those who agreed or strongly agreed with the statement.
1 Scientists and engineers can reach their professional potential without leaving EPA or becoming a
manager. (84%) (3)
2 EPA scientists and engineers receive competitive compensation (76%). (1)
3 EPA programs and policies focus upon environmental conditions more than upon regulatory processes
(67%) (2)
4 Region 10 does not make excessive use of contractors to perform its scientific/technical work (59%)
(8)
5 Adverse or dissenting technical viewpoints are presented in decision docunents (56%) (4)
6 Administrative requirements and procedures are not so burdensome as to significantly interfere with
technical work (55%) (17).
7 Internal coamunication systems inform management of staff concerns. (54%) (6).
8 Management makes needed changes in response to concerns raised by their staff (53%) (5).
9 There is adequate clerical, drafting, library, and other acftninistrative support for technical work
(52%) (20).
10 There is support for attendance at professional meetings, membership in professional associations,
and advanced training in technical matters (50%) (18).
A significant minority of respondents did not concur in predominately negative
judgments about procedural burdens, administrative support, and continuing training. A
portion of the scientific/technical staff appears to be sufficiently satisfied about such
matters to shift them out of the ten least positive ranking. An uneven distribution of
resources best explains the minority response if one assumes a fairly standard set of
expectations about these matters among the scientific/technical staff. With regard to
procedural burdens, many of the satisfied minority work in the Environmental Services
Division judging from the ESD mean response of 2.96 to Statement 3-6 as compared to
other divisional mean responses of 3.41, 3.60, and 3.64 (see Appendix VI). Likewise,
reference to Appendix VI shows that responses to Statement 3-1, which concerns the
adequacy of administrative support, vary considerably by division (ATD = 2.93, ESD =
-------
19
2)" Financial compensation/dual career tracks is the biggest issue
commented upon.
3) Largely non-financial issues cumulatively outnumber the financial.
compensation/dual career tracks issue by about three to one.
4) Most comments focus upon topics addressed in one or more of the
survey questions.
5) Some comments focus upon topics not addressed by any of the survey
questions.
Both management and the scientific/technical staff commented extensively about
the following issues: salary and advancement, training and professional growth, technical
aspects of decision making, professional recruitment, and Agency priorities. No staff
comments and only four management comments are of the "what's the problem?"
variety. Clearly, most managers and scientific/technical staff within EPA Region 10 see
considerable room for improvement on some of the same issues, and have offered
suggestions for improvement.
Most comments from both staff and management deal with predominantly non-
financial issues by a margin of about three to one.
Staff comments about financial compensation/dual career tracks: About
100. Other issues: About 300.
Management comments about financial compensation/dual career tracks:
About 20. Other issues: About 70.
i
The financial compensation/dual career track issue did, however, receive more
comments than any other issue from both management and the scientific/technical staff.
The volume of comments received about financial compensation/dual career tracks is
consistent with the highly negative responses to survey statements 2-3 and 2-5.
After categorizing the comments, each of the survey statements were then placed
under a particular comment category in order to facilitate comparison between the
tabulated and sorted numerical responses (Appendix V) and the categorized staff
comments (Appendix IX). The results of this comparison are found in Appendix X.
Some comment categories encompass a number of survey questions. The most
critical group response may be similar or vary considerably between survey questions
identified within the same comment category. The range in response within comment
categories which include two or more survey statements are summarized below.
-------
20
Salary/Advancement:
-Two (2) statements
-Range of most critical group response: 437 to 4.61
Training/Professional Growth:
-Six (6) statements
-Range of most critical group response: 2.78 to 3.52
Technical Aspects of Decision-Making:
-Ten (10) statements
-Range of most critical group response: 2.87 to 3.89
Professional Recruitment:
-Six (6) statements (excluding salary and advancement potential
even though these are significant recruitment factors)
-Range or most critical group response: 3.39 to 3.57
Use of Contractors:
-Three (3) statements
-Range of most critical group response: 3.32 to 3.96
Agency Mission/Focus:
-Three (3) statements
-Range of most critical group response: 3.29 to 3.91
Administrative Support:
-Two (2) statements
-Range of most critical group response: 3.73 to 3.77
V. CONCLUSIONS
The return rate of about 75% indicates that the survey reflects the opinions of most
managers, scientists, and engineers within EPA Region 10. Further, the response rate
suggests that the issues addressed by the survey are important to most managers and the
scientific/technical staff. (See pages 1-2.)
-------
21
Overall, the scientific/technical staff is highly motivated, mildly negative about EPA
science policy and Regional utilization of scientists and engineers, and extremely
negative about Agency personnel practices which affect scientists and engineers. (See
pages 3-4.)
Managers as a group are highly motivated, positive about EPA science policy and
Regional utilization of scientists and engineers, but negative about Agency personnel
practices which affect scientists and engineers. (See pages 3-4.)
Protecting the environment and living in Seattle are two major motivators of both
management and the scientific staff. Therefore, personal and professional satisfaction
are closely related to the livability of the Seattle area and the effectiveness of EPA
Region 10. (See page 4.)
Managers and surveyed staff agree that internal systems for communicating staff
concerns to management are inadequate. (See page 5).
Managers and surveyed staff disagree sharply with regard to the responsiveness of
management to staff concerns. Managers consider themselves to be highly responsive
whereas most of the scientific/technical staff thinks that management lacks the ability or
inclination to respond to their concerns. (See page 5.)
A high percentage of the scientific/technical staff are classified as Environmental
Protection Specialists. Responses to the survey statement about job classification
indicate that some of the scientific/technical staff are dissatisfied with the EPS
classification. (See pages 2 and 5.)
Staff responses on the role of science at EPA appear contradictory. A majority believe
that regulations have adequate scientific content, that associates and supervisors are
technically qualified, and that Regional performance is effective. Yet a majority also
feels that science is inadequately represented in conducting programs, that existing
procedural emphasis is detrimental to problem solving, and that scientific expression is
suppressed. (See pages 6-8.)
Responses to the statement "There is slight or no Agency pressure to produce materials
that compromise one's technical judgment." identified a pivotal issue. Those who
disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement (about 30% of the staff respondents)
were considerably more negative on other non-financial issues than the staff members
who responded positively to the statement. (See page 7.)
Managers and staff agree that EPA programs focus more upon regulatory processes than
upon environmental conditions. This could undermine loyalty to the Agency since a
desire to protect the environment is a key motivator for both managers and the
scientific/technical staff at EPA Region 10. (See pages 8 and 10).
Staff responses were predominately negative to the statement "Agency scientists
participate sufficiently in the contracting process to have confidence in contract studies."
-------
22
This is a serious matter given the amount of work performed by EPA contractors. (See
page 7.)
Collective responses indicate that EPA Region 10 scientists and engineers are positive
about the actual technical work that they perform. Negative judgements about regional
utilization of technical staff concern not the work itself but rather the conditions
governing its production, the manner in which it is used, and potential barriers to
sustaining its quality. (See pages 8-12.)
The scientific/technical staff as a whole believes that the scientific and engineering
capacity of EPA Region 10 is deteriorating, and that technical responsibilities are
increasingly assigned to unqualified people. This assessment correlates with Agency
information about the employment levels and resignation rates of scientists and
engineers. (See pages 5, 11-12, and Appendix II.)
Managers do not share the same level of concern about scientific/technical staff
deterioration. Since the recruitment and development of professionals is primarily a
management responsibility, scientific/technical staff deterioration may not receive the
attention that the staff desires. (See pages 11-12.)
Groups of staff from different academic backgrounds or divisions responded quite
differently tasome statements—Gonsequentlyrsome issues are viewed much more
critically by groups of the scientific/technical staff than by the staff as a whole. (See
pages 12-16, and Appendix V.)
The scientific/technical staff as a whole considers administrative support and
professional training to be inadequate although a significant minority appears satisfied in
these areas. An uneven distribution of resources may best explain the response of the
divergent minority. (See pages 17-18.)
About 70 percent of the survey respondents included comments about how EPA Region
10 might better secure and retain scientific/technical expertise. The high degree of
correlation between comment topics and survey statement topics suggests that the survey
statements addressed most issues of concern. (See pages 2, 18-20, and Appendices VI
through X.)
A number of the staff suggested increased interaction with the public in order to
improve the Agency's effectiveness even though no survey comments addressed this
topic. (See Appendix IX-page 16 and Appendix X.)
The interwoven issues of financial compensation and career tracks are highest on the list
of comments received from both staff and management. Likewise, staff responses to
statements about financial compensation/career tracks were extremely negative.
Therefore, reforms which would allow scientists and engineers to receive more pay for
technical work would alleviate a significant staff concern. (See pages 5, 17, 19-20,
Appendix II, Appendix VIH-page 1, and Appendix IX-pages 1-4.)
-------
23
Both manager and staff comments about other issues cumulatively outnumber financial
compensation/career track concerns by about three to one. Accordingly, reforms which
focus only upon financial compensation/career track concerns would likely be viewed as
inadequate. (See page 19 and Apppendices Vm-X.)
To a large degree, scientific/technical staff attitudes about Agency and Regional Office
policies and practices appear to have formed by the separate experiences of individuals.
As a consequence, there are opposing perceptions about many issues, a large area of
unformed opinion, and an apparent tendency to attribute responsibility for both positive
and negative aspects of work experience to regional management, and not to national
policy. (See pages 3-20, Appendix V, and Appendix IX).
-------
Appendix I
SURVEY OF-SCIENTIFIC/TBeranCMr STAFF
Please fill out the attached survey. It is designed to
detect problems that might contribute to dissatisfaction among
EPA Region 10'scientific and technical staff. The survey was
produced by members of a "Quality Action Team", which was
initiated at the request of Gerald Emison. The results of the
survey will be used to substantiate or refute concerns that have
risen in the Quality Action Team meetings about professional
satisfaction among scientists and engineers at EPA Region 10.
The survey is being distributed to all Regional Office
employees who are classified in a scientific/technical category.
Also, we have given the survey forms to those classified as
Environmental Protection Specialists if their educational
background and job responsibilities suggest that classification
as a scientist or engineer might be appropriate. We may not have
identified all of these people, but we have tried hard to do so.
The survey is also being distributed to Regional Office managers.
Please respond to each of the statements by marking one of
the following numbers next to the statement number:
1 = Strongly agree!
2 = Agree
3 = Neutral
4 = Disagree
5 = Strongly disagree
Our ability to make informed and convincing arguments for
improving scientific excellence at EPA Region 10 depends partly
on a widespread response to this survey. Please feel free to
contact any member of the Quality Action Team (listed below) if
you have questions about this survey or any of our other efforts.
The survey forms are numbered only to prevent multiple
responses. Your response will be anonymous since we do not know
the number of your form. Please return your form to Karl Arne,
Bob Coughlin, Rene Fuentes, Don Matheny, Jonathan Williams, or
John Yearsley by March 6, 1991. The results will be presented to
the Policy Review Group (PRG) during April, and will also be made
available to you at that time.
Karl Arne, ATD Gary O'Neal, PRG Rep.
Steve Bubnick, WD Steve Pope, Laboratory
Pat Cirone, ESD Kerrie Schurr, WD
Bob Coughlin, MD Micheline Ward, Facilitator
Rene Fuentes, ESD Jonathan Williams, WD
Monica Kirk, ORC Ann Williamson, HWD
Don Matheny, ESD Sharon Wilson, ATD
Pam Mihalevic, MD John Yearsley, ESD
Kevin Oates, HWD
-------
EPA REGION*10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF SURVEY
Official Job Classification (circle one): 1301 0819 0401 1320
0028 Other
Division (circle one): ATD ESD HWD MD WD
Predominant Academic Background (circle one): Physical Science
Biological Science
Engineering
Other
The Role of Science at EPA
1) Most program actions are scientifically sound.
2) Scientific/technical staff play an important role in
developing goals and strategies to achieve those goals.
3) There is adequate opportunity to present technical
judgments directly to decision makers.
4) There is slight or no Agency pressure to produce
materials that compromise one's technical judgment.
5) Data collection and availability systems are configured
to meet technical needs.
6) Adverse or dissenting technical viewpoints are presented
in decision documents.
7) Technical considerations have a major influence on
policy/program decisions.
8) Agency scientists'participate sufficiently in the
contracting process to have confidence in contract studiesk
9) EPA programs and policies focus upon environmental
conditions more than upon regulatory processes.
Personnel Management Policies Affecting Scientists and Engineers
1) Job classifications are generally descriptive and
appropriate for technical positions.
2) Recruitment efforts attract persons with necessary
technical skills.
3) Scientists and engineers can reach their professional
potential without leaving EPA or becoming a manager.
-------
4) Position descriptions are generally complete and
accurate.
5) EPA scientists and engineers receive competitive
compensation.
6) Internal communication systems inform management of
staff concerns.
7) Management makes needed changes in response to concerns
raised by their staff.
8) There is support for attendance at professional
meetings, membership in professional associations, and
advanced training in technical matters.
Regional Office Utilization of Scientific/Technical Staff
1) There is adeguate clerical, drafting, library, and other
administrative support for technical work.
2) Technical work supplied by, or reguired of, my
organizational unit is adeguate to support program actions.
3) Supervisors have sufficient understanding of
scientific/technical phenomena to make appropriate
assignments and to interpret technical work products.
4) Projects assigned to me generally make good use of my
background and training.
5) Recruiting policies and procedures supply a sufficient
balance between- scieirtrfic- staffy non^scientific staff , and
supervisors.
6) Administrative i reguirements and procedures are not so
burdensome as to significantly interfere with technical
work.
7) Technical documents produced in Region 10 are of high
guality.
S) Use of technically under-gualified persons in areas
reguiring technical competence is not a problem in Region
10.
9) Region 10 does not make excessive use of contractors'~to
perform its scientific/technical work.
10) Program and policy decisions usually include sufficient
input from technical staff.
-------
11) When scientific staff are consulted-/ decisions-seldom
contradict their recommendations.
12) Technical work assignments include opportunities to do
work relating to actual pollution abatement or prevention as
well as the support and implementation of current
regulations.
13) There is adequate opportunity to confer and/or
collaborate with specialists in other technical disciplines
as necessary for one's work.
14) Jobs requiring both technical and administrative
abilities are predominantly filled by persons who possess
the necessary technical skills.
15) There is ample peer review of technical work products.
16) Sufficient information is developed to provide reasoned
technical judgments on program issues.
17) Technical assignments include sufficient time and
access to information to produce confidence in the work
product.
18) Technical review of draft reports and other work
products receives appropriate consideration from internal
clients, contractors, and supervisors.
Motivation and Morale
1) EPA's stated mission to protect the environment is a
major reason why I work here.
2) Overall, I think Region 10 EPA is doing a good job to
protect the environment.
3) The opportunity to live .in Seattle is a major reason why
I work at EPA Region 10.
4) Overall, my job satisfaction is quite high.
5) The results of this questionnaire will receive serious
management consideration.
********
Survey continues on the other side of this page.
-------
Please list short-term-improvements -EPA Region 10 might make to
secure and retain scientific/technical expertise.
Please list long-term improvements EPA Region 10 might make to
secure and retain scientific/technical expertise.
-------
APPENDIX II
EPA WORKFORCE STATISTICS SUMMARY
Scientific & Technical Categories Analysis
Summary Prepared by Rene Fuentes and Bob Coughlin
EPA Region 10
February ..21, 1991
Background: The question of whether the EPA workforce is having
a significant turn-over within the Scientific and Technical
occupational groups has been a key issue of discussion and an
item of disagreement at recent TQM meetings. The purpose of
obtaining some workforce statistics, and of compiling them, from
the point of view of scientist and technical employee groups, is
to document what appears to be a serious problem with turn-over
in. the EPA. This paper was developed using EPA published data,
and its purpose it to provide a summary of the recent trends in a
graphical format to allow future discussion to focus on ways to
resolve this perceived problem.
Reference Material: The statistics used were obtained from the
publication titled EPA Workforce Snapshots. Office of Human
Resources. December 1.
Discussion about the available Statistics* The main problems
encountered in using the referenced statistics were that: 1) many
of the graphs were in percent of the total number of that
occupational group and these numbers could not be used directly
to" reach"~the~ conclusionsHpfresented-here; ~2)- the~EPS occupational—
group appears to have both scientist/technical and non-scientist
background personnel combined and had to be ignored when
tabulating total scientific/technical employee losses, thereby
probably underestimating some of the following conclusions
(Note: a recent review of the EPA Region 10 personnel EPS series
listing indicates that about 50 out of 177 employees in that
series have a technical background), and 3) the scientific and
technical group had been split into engineers, physical
scientists, and biological scientists, which had to be regrouped
to make the argument clearer. This paper attempts to summarize
the statistics by regrouping the categories and highlighting the
issues that appear to be key problems.
Summary of statistics: The figure titled "FY 1989 Losses from
Major Occupational Groups" shows that almost 500 scientists*.and
engineers left their jobs at EPA in 1989. That number, about 10%
of the scientists and engineers working at the EPA that year,
represents a significant loss to the Agency. The figure titled
"Personal Income vs. Regional Loss" indicates that there is a
1
-------
high correlation between the per capita income for each Regional
Office city and the percent separation rate.
Description of the logic used: The figures are referred to by
their page number in the original report since they have not been
given a figure number.
1. Figure in page 2. Gives the historical pattern of total
employment and, most importantly, the total number of workers in
the EPA workforce.
2. Figure in page 41. This figure was used to estimate the
total number of employees per occupational group, and compared
with item 1 above to confirm that the totals checked out within
the accuracy of the figures used.
3. Figure in page 6. Documents that the total number of
employees has not fluctuated greatly from 1986 to 1989.
Comparison of the "scientific/engineer" group with "all the
others" category indicates that the scientist/engineer group has
remained at about the same number despite Agency growth. There
has been a disproportionate increase in the non-scientific job
categories during the last several years.
4. Figure in page 50. The figure shows that of the numbers in
the previous graph, over one third have been hired in the last
three years. This indicates a major turn-over since the previous
figure shows a significantly less than one third increase in the
workforce. This major loss of trained and experienced personnel
within the EPA constitutes 1) a major loss about the history of
projects, and 2) a break in continuity and established lines of
communication- with the -public-and reguirate#* industry-* --Both of
these factors hurt Agency efforts to protect the environment even
if professionals of comparable skill are hired to replace those
who depart.
5. Figure in page 59. This figure was used to compare losses
between occupational groups, btft did not seem very useful since
it was a percent of the loss within an occupational workgroup.
We have taken the information in item 2 and multiplied it by this
figure's percentages to obtain total numbers for each
occupational group.
6. Those totals obtained have been used to create a similar
graph but with the total of each group and with the total of all
the scientists and engineers combined, rather than with percent
within each occupational category. The results indicate tl^t,
while the percent loss of the clerical occupation group is very
high, the total loss of scientists and technical personnel is
much higher than that of other groups. This is a very disturbing
finding since 1) the scientific and technical body of the EPA is
2
-------
where the history of the projects resides, and 2) the group does
the technical review and analyses which provide EPA management
with the scientifically supportable basis for decisions.
7. Figure in page 58. This graph indicates that losses vary
considerably from region to region, but does not correlate it
with any other parameters. That data has been combined with the
Personal Income Per Capita of the SMSA (Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area) in which each Regional Office is located, and
plotted against the discretionary separation rates (ie. excluding
death, disability, forced separation and retirement). The
results are shown in the figure titled "Personal Income vs.
Regional Loss" and it shows a highly positive (r=0.81)
correlation between per capita income and discretionary
separation. The results indicate that the separation rate
increases 1.26% for each $1000 increase in per capita income.
Given that employment opportunity is the principal source of
income variation, the strongly positive correlation between
metropolitan area mean income and regional office discretionary
separation rate suggests that either, or both, of two conditions
adversely affects EPA's ability to recruit and hold qualified
technical specialists: 1) the Agency's salary/promotion policies
are less attractive than those of competing employers, or 2) at
an equal salary a significant share of EPA's employees would
prefer to work elsewhere. The propensity for workers to leave
the EPA as their employment options expand is particularly
critical in the situation of scientific/technical workers, since
the only occupational groups whose real wage income increased
during the 1980's were corporate officers, legal secretaries,
securities and real estate brokers, and professionals—
physicians, lawyers, scientists, and engineers.
Conclusions: 1) There is a significant rate of personnel loss
within the EPA.
2) The loss of scientific and technical personnel is probably
the worst drain to the EPA, since these categories require
personnel with a high degree of training and experience, and the
loss of these employees greatly-affects the continuity and
historical perspective of the work done by the EPA.
3) The loss of clerical personnel remains a significant
problem for the EPA, but the hidden costs and loss to the EPA
programs, rather than just the group.percentage loss, appear to
be greatest for the scientific and technical occupation groups.
4) The institutional damage from past losses of
scientific/technical professionals can be repaired, in time, if
continuing losses are stemmed, and if new hiring compensates for
past proportional losses.
5) Failure to correct the past and continuing drain of
technical talent will further erode public credibility as the
incidense of unscientific decision-making remains high or
increases.
3
-------
FY 1989 LOSSES FROM MAJOR OCCUP. GROUPS
500
CALCULATED USING 15,600 EMPLOYEES
400
300
200
100
BIO SCIENCE EPS
E22 QUITS
ADMIN PHYS SCI ENGINEER
OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY
EQ3 TRANSFERS
i r
LAW CLERICAL ALL SCIENT
OTHER
PREPARED BY RENE FUENTES. ENV. SEHV.DIV.
-------
15%
14%
13%
12%
11%
10%
9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%.
PERSONAL INCOME VS. REGIONAL LOSS
DISCRETIONARY SEPARATION RATE
Region 5.
SLOPE = 1.26
Region 2
Region 1
Region 3
r =0.81
Region 9
Region 6
¦ Region 4-
¦ Region 10
Region 7
Region 8
17
I I I
19 21
(Thousands)
PERSONAL INCOME IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
23
PREPARED BY BOB COUGHLIN, MANAGEMENT DIVISION
-------
EPA POPULATION - FY'70-89
SHOWING ENACTMENT OF SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATION
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
\(
<6
~i r—i 1 1 r
70 V1 72 73 74 75 76
(ft) ¦ amendment to orighal letfslation
\
T
T
81
- r r
~A— A''
—
77 78 *79 80
END OF FISCAL YEAR
i i
82 83
n
A
/
Most ol
in ompkr
past 6 y
been In II
tbo
y»!
(or
It- o F
I I
84 85
0-
„-T!
percase
ov ir the
ha i
cgxns
¦A
1
86
i
87
88 89
~
EPA-WIDE
A
ALL AA'S *
X
ALL REGIONS *
* Applicable breakout of AA's and Regions not available prior to FY79
&6e 2
-------
EPA POPULATION - FY'70-89
SHOWING ENACTMENT OF SIGNIFICANT LEGISLATION
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
—r—i r
70 n\ 72 73 74
(a) - amendment to original legislation
3
\
A-.
I i I I I
77 78 *79 80 81
END OF FISCAL YEAR
"IB-
¦IT
-£t A"
n
- ¦ a
Most ol
In emplo;
past 6 yi
boon m it
110
lypoi
or
1o F|
Si'
ipcroase
ov if the
ha i
ogkns
82 83 84 85
86
B-
¦A
I
87
88 89
~
EPA-WIDE
A
ALL AA'S *
X
ALL REGIONS *
* Applicable breakout of AA'a and Regions not available prior to FY79
&6*2 V
-------
15%
14%
13%
12%
11%
z
10%
o
1
9%
0.
8%
Ui
CO
Jz
7%
o
DC
6%
8
5%
4%
3%
2%
1%
0%
PERSONAL INCOME VS. REGIONAL LOSS
DISCRETIONARY SEPARATION RATE
Region 6
17
Region 5.
Region 3
¦ Region 4
¦ Region 10
Region 7
Region 8
SLOPE = 1.26
r =0.81
¦ Region 2
Region 1
Region 9
i r 1
19 21
(Thousands)
PERSONAL INCOME IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
23
PREPARED BY BOB COUQHLIN, MANAGEMENT DIVISION
-------
Pa
o
i—)
(X
s
w
Cs
O
«
w
03
S
D
£
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
111
ijiiii:
ill I
mm
iiiiiiii
!•!:
iiijii
iHSIiHCipSii
iiiiilpjjiijii!
•! iil'i iji hiiil
lllllll
lijijiiij!;:!:;:!:!:
iPljl j jpl
Hiiil
iiiiiiii;!!
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii
liiiiiliiiiji!
iiiiiiiiiiiijjiiiii!
X OA,
i;i!i!Hi i!;
i ::: 5 i ii
! !
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
!;•:! : i ij
:: | 11
H i!
i
lil'l'l'lll'l
¦
II
II!
III!
iijiililjlii
' ifj i j
I fl:
ADMIN CLERICAL ENGINEER PHYS SCI ALL OTHER EPS BIO/HLTH
Major Occupations
LAW
-------
U1
w
w
!>•<
o
J
n.
s
w
tin
o
Qh
w
m
S
£
£
HISTORICAL TREND FOR SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS
Relatively Stable Compared to Overall EPA Fluctuations
¦ SCI/ENGR 111111 ALL OTHERS
16000
14 000
J 2000
10000
I j! ii
Hi il:»?:
lllliilllliill!
8000
!!i!i|!!!i!!i|l
ii!i i:i!iii
6000
¦
4000
2000
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
END OF FISCAL YEAR
Pa 6
-------
MORE THAN ONE-THIRD OF THE AGENCY HAS BEEN HIRED
IN THE LAST THREE YEARS
FYB9 HIRES
v 13%
PRE-FY87
HIRES
66% /
FY08 HIRES
10%
FY87 HIRES
11%
PA6& 50
-------
Pa Gs*z 59
FY 1989 Losses From Major Occupation Groups
As a Percent of Average FY'89 Employment
Clerical
Bio/Hlth Sci
Admin
mz mmm
\ ft #J§
fcMzmmte
Phys Sci
Engineer
0 4%
Loss Percentage
20%
Legend
Quits (Move to Private Sector)
Transfers (Move to Other Govcrnment/Milil.nry Job)
Other (Includes Retirement, Death, Removal, etc.)
-------
Regional Loss Percent for FY'89
Including Internal Movement Between Major Organizations
Region 1
: ft
pi |
;
WWW: ™ - wa
Regions
Legend
0 4%
Loss Percentage
20%
Quits (Move to Private Sector)
Transfers (Move to Other Government/Military Job)
tilli Other (Includes Retirement, Death, Removal, etc.)
V A Internal Move (Move to Other AAshlp or Region)
m
58
-------
APPENDIX III
PAGE 1
EMPLOYEES IN PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SERIES
WHO LEFT EPA IN THE YEARS 1987 THROUGH 1991
REPORT IO:OATA2(LEFTEPA)
YEARS WITH YEARS WITH REASON FOR REASON FOR
NAME SERIES EPA GOVERNMENT QUITTING LEAVING YEAR LEFT
FISCAL YEAR: 07
CQON, MAGGIE B.
RHEWt RONALD
ESTESt MELISSA
KADLEC, KENNETH D.
KELLY, CHRISTINE M.
WOOOWORTH, SARA J.
REYNOLDS, LYDIA K.
WILLMANN, JAMES C.
CASH ION, LYNN E.
UNDERWOOD, JOHN L.
KASSEBAUM, CARL R.
SHAFER, JOAN L.
FUENTES, ROGELIO C.
0028
0028
0028
0028
0028
002 8
0819
0819
0819
0819
0819
0893
0893
1
7
21
20
13
7
9
.1
EXPIRATION OF APPOINTMENT
87
.0
EXPIRATION OF APPOINTMENT
87
.1
EXPIRATION OF APPOINTMENT
87
3.8
19
RESIGNATION
87
.2
EXPIRATION OF APPOINTMENT
87
7.*
60
RESIGNATION
87
.3
19
RESIGNATION
87
21.0
RESIGNATION OR LIA
87
.0
19
RESIGNATION
87
32.2
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
87
13.4
19
RESIGNATION
87
7.3
*9
RESIGNATION
87
12.6
19
RESIGNATION
87
TOTAL FOR FY 87 :
13
FISCAL YEAR: 88
FILIP, STAN
0028
8.6
10.4
19
RESIGNATION
88
GUSMANO, JACQUES L.
0028
3.1
10.7
19
RESIGNATION
88
CHAPMAN, FRANCES L.
0028
*.2
9.9
60
RESIGNATION
88
KLEEBERG, CHAKLES F•
0028
13.7
16.0
19
RESIGNATION
88
FARLOW, RALEIGH C.
002 8
1.0
1.0
19
RESIGNATION
88
BELL, CATHERINE M.
0028
4.4
5.1
60
RESIGNATION
8*
HAMMER, PEGGY S.
0028
2.5
3.7
17
RESIGNATION
87
MONTGOMERY, WARREN J.
0819
15.7
19.3
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
88
WHITE, RICHARD F.
0819
21.2
21.3
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
87
MATTA, MICHAEL F.
1301
5.5
14.5
TERMINATION - APPT. ENDEO
88
ZELLER, NANCY K.
1301
3.1
3.1
60
RESIGNATION
88
COWAN, J. EDWARD
1306
30.6
34.0,
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
87
MALUEG, NICK J
1320
26.8
29.3
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
88
MCINTOSH, MYRNA
1320
1.9
4.7
19
RESIGNATION
88
TOTAL FOR FY 88 : U
-------
PAGE Z
EMPLOYEES IN PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SERIES
HMD LEFT CPA IN THE YEARS 1987 THROUGH 19(1
REPORT 1D10ATA2(LEFTEPA)
YEARS WITH TEARS WITH REASON FOR REASON FOR
NAML SERIES EPA GOVERNMENT QUITTING LEAVING YEAR LEFT
FISCAL YEAR: 89
ROSENBERG, MARTHA
0028
7.9
12.7
19
RESIGNATION
88
LIPKIH, ROBERT
0028
2*0
5.3
19
RESIGNATION
89
TURVEY, JONATHAN U.
0028
3. 9
6.0
19
RESIGNATION
89
LAf.EKLOEFt MARCIA C.
0028
d»z
13.0
TERMINATION - APPT. ENDED
88
MEAD, STEPHANIE B.
0028
2.7
2.7
19
RESIGNATION
88
KEELER. KEVIN R.
0028
1*9
.0
19
RESIGNATION
89
MCDONOUGH. UAN R.
0028
14.8
18.1
19
RESIGNATION
89
TOMICH-KENTt LYNN J.
002 8
4*8
4.8
19
RESIGNATION
88
PROVANT t STEPHEN &
0028
23.2
27.3
29
RESIGNATION OR L1A
89
HOLMES • EOWARl) L.
0028
.4
.4
19
RESIGNATION
89
CHKONISTERt GAY E.
0028
• 3
.3
16
RESIGNATION
89
WOHLERSt CHRISTOPHER. C.
0028
4.6
4*6
19
RESIGNATION
89
HORNIG, C. EVAN
0028
4.9
10*6
19
RESIGNATION
89
BELLATTY, JAMES M.
0401
• 4
4*4
EXPIRATION OF APPOINTMENT
88
SULLIVANt MICHAEL Ci
0403
1.5
6.3
19
RESIGNATION
89
VERNESONIt RONALD J.
0019
3.0
3.0
19
RESIGNATION
89
HANLINEi OAVlD A.
0819
13.1
IS.4
19
RESIGNATION
88
PANKANINf JAMFS F.
0819
11.6
11.6
19
RESIGNATION
89
HERLIHY, JAMES
0019
18.4
18.4
DEATH
89
WALL t THEODORE J.
0819
4.8
4.8
19
RESIGNATION
89
CUULE, KIMbERLY L.
1301
.9
.9
EXPIRATION OF APPOINTMENT
88
TOTAL FOR FY 89 : Z1
-------
PAGE 3
EMPLOYEES IN PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SERIES
WHO LEFT EPA IN THE YEARS 1987 THROUGH 1991
REPORT ID:OATA2(LEFTEPA>
YEARS WITH YEARS WITH REASON FOR REASON FOR
NAME SERIES EPA GOVERNMENT QUITTING LEAVING YEAR LEFT
FISCAL YEAR: 90
THOMPSON. PATRICIA E.
0026
3.8
3.8
18
RESIGNATION
90
GROTHEER. WAYNE E.
0020
10.2
10.7
19
RESIGNATION
90
SHE NK. CLAIR A.
0026
9.8
10.2
19
RESIGNATION
89
BURKE, MARTHA L.
0028
14.6
16.7
19
RESIGNATION
90
MELVIN. MARCIA J.
0028
5.5
5.5
19
RESIGNATION
90
STEYER. WILLIAM
0028
4.6
6. 8
19
RESIGNATION
90
ALEXAKOS. IRENE P.
0028
5.6
7.6
70
RESIGNATION
90
OHARA. JANET B.
0028
6.6
7.2
40
RESIGNATION
90
POSS. ROBERT A.
002 8
19.1
31.2
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
89
ORECHSLER JR.. JO SEAMA
0028
3.0
3.0
19
RESIGNATION
90
HOPSON. GORDON J.
0028
-.2
.1
EXPIRATION OF APPOINTMENT
89
HAROESTY, TONYA I.
0028
1.9
2.1
19
RESIGNATION
90
WREGGELSWORTH. R HI) NO A K
0028
2.5
2.5
60
RESIGNATION
90
OAWN. JULIA
0020
.4
.4
EXPIRATION OF .APPOINTMENT
90
LANE. RUBY L.
0028
19.3
23.8
RESIGNATION OR LI A
90
KUNZ. KATHLEEN S.
0028
S. 3
5.4
70
RESIGNATION
90
RE 10. WALLACE A.
0028
6.1
8.3
19
RESIGNATION
90
UHRICH. ANN R.
0020
3.4
6.0
TERMINATION - APPT. ENOED
90
GUFF. GORDON D.
0403
13.5
13.5
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
90
THIEL. RICHARD K.
0819
19.3
25.3
RESIGNATION OR LIA
89
LEFEVRF, RUBERT C.
0819
2.6
5.0
DEATH
90
HOOPER. MARK H.
0893
19.8
25.3
VOLUNTARY RETIREMENT
90
SCARBURGH. LINDSAY
1301
18.2
19.0
DEATH
90
SCHLENOER, MICHAEL H.
1320
.9
.9
29
RESIGNATION
90
TOTAL FOR FY 90 : £4
-------
PAGE
EMPLOYEES IN PROFESSIONAL/TECHNICAL SERIES
WHO LEFT EPA IN THE YEARS .1987 THROUGH 1991
REPORT ID:0ATA2(LEFTEPA)
YEARS WITH YEARS WITH REASON FOR REASON FOR
NAME SERIES EPA GOVERNMENT QUITTING LEAVING YEAR LEFT
FISCAL YEAR: 91
HANSON, JEANNE L.
BALLARU, KIRSTEN K,
bARRICK, ELAINE E.
WEBO, JEFFREY A.
GAYLURO, KENNETH J.
ANDERSONf JUHN E.
PALMA, BARBARA K.
NOAH-NICHOLS, CHRISTINE
FARREL « PKISCILL A S.
HARRIS* STEPHANIE I.
ROCKWELL , CHRISTOPHER H
JOHNSON. DOUGLAS W.
ROBINSON, DENNIS K.
0028
0028
0028
0028
0028
002 8
0028
0028
0028
0403
0415
1301
1320
1.0
.8
6.6
5.9
1.1
3.9
11.6
14.8
1.5
1.2
1.3
6.2
1.7
8.6
.8
10.4
5.9
4.9
7.5
11.6
14.8
6.1
1.2
1.3
6.2
6. 6
19
60
19
19
60
50
19
TERMINATION - APPT.
RESIGNATION
RESIGNATION
RESIGNATION
RESIGNATION
TERMINATION - APPT.
RESIGNATION
DEATH
TERMINATION - APPT.
TERMINATION - APPT.
RESIGNATION
TERMINATION - APPT.
RESIGNATION
ENDED 91
91
90
90
91
ENDED 91
91
90
ENDEO 90
ENDEO 91
91
90
91
ENDEO
TOTAL FOR FY 91
13
TOTAL FOR ALL YEARS :
Ur>
-------
APPENDIX IV. TABULATED DATA
EPA REGION 10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF SURVEY
MARCH 1991
SURVEY EDUCATION *1 SCIENCE AT EPA POLICIES SCI/TECH UTILIZATION MOTIVATION
NUMBER SERIES DIVISIONBACKGROUND 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 2 3 4 5
NUMBER SERIES D1VISI0NBACKGR0UND 123456789 12345678 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12345
STAFF SURVEY RESULTS
1 28HWD BIO SCI Y 432545435 33535432 533443345535555333 14131
2
3
4
5 OTHER ESD BIO SCI Y 243232224 22523245 223222224422223223 22333
6
7
8 1301 HWD PHY SCI Y 432224453 42544432 533524342334342323 12223
9 OTHER MD BIO SCI N 3 3 X X X X 22X 4 X X 4X 22X 5X 2 2 X X X X 3 X 4X 22XX 4X 22X 22
10 1301 WD PHY SCI Y 344443555 55524255 5X 4254255442254455 15234
11
12 XX HWD BIO SCIE N 221524434 43544542 443232324433124332 22214
13 819 HWD ENG Y2. 222222. 34 22235334 423332334324224322 12322
14
222 432214223222121222 21322
434 42 2 232234242222222 12222
3. 3. 4 54 3. 344345 3. 33 3. 34 3. 4 3. 23234
18
19 28 ATD PHY SCI Y 234244444 34533544 432334233334234333 13123
20
21 819 ATD ENG
22 28 ATD BIO SCI
23 1301 HWD ' PHY SCI
24
25
26 28 ATD BIO SCI
27 OTHER ATD BIO SCI
28 28 ATD BIO SCI
29
30 819 HWD ENG
31
32
15
28
HWD
BIO
SCI
N
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
3
3
4 2
2
4
16
819
ESD
ENG
N
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
2
3
2 3
5
3
17
28
WD
PHY
SCI
Y
3
3
3
3
3
4
2
4
4
3 3.
5
4
Y
3
3
2
2
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
4
3
4
3
3
2
2
4
4
2
4
3
3
3
3
1
3
3
4 3
Y
3
4
4
4
3
2.
4
3
2
3
3
1.
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
4
4
3
4
3
3
3
4
3
2
4
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
2
5 X
Y
2
1
1
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
3
4
2
4
2
2
2
4
4
2
2
2
4
2
3
4
2
3
2
2
4
1
2
2
2
1
2
2
2 3
Y
N
2
2
3
X
3
2
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
X
4
3
3
2
X
X
X
X
3
3
X
X
2
3
3
3
X
X
1
2
3
2 2
Y
1
1
2
2
2
3
2
4
3
4
5
4
3
4
3
3
3
2
2
3
3
4
3
4
2
2
3
3
2
1
2
3
2
2
3
1
2
1
2 1
Y
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
X
4
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
3
4
X
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
2
3 2
Y
2
2
2
3
5
3
4
2
4
2
5
4
2
3
2
2
5
4
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
3 5
-------
SURVEY EDUCATION *1
NUMBER SERIES DIVISIONBACKGROUND
33
1301
ESD
ENV SCI
Y
34
35
1320
ESD
PHY SCI
Y
36
819
ESD
PHY SCI
Y
37
XX
ESD
BIO SCI
Y
38
XX
ESD
PHY SCI
39
OTHER
ESD
BIO SCI
Y
40
XX
XX
XX
Y
41
42
28
HWD
OTHER
Y
43
819
HWD
ENG
Y
44
28
HWD
PHY SCI
Y
45
XX
XX
XX
Y
46
47
XX
XX
XX
N
48
49
50
819
ATD
ENG
Y
51
819
ATD
ENG
Y
52
819
ATD
ENG
53
54
28
ATO
BIO SCI
Y
55
1301
ATD
PHY SCI
Y
56
57
58
59"
28
HWD
ENV. STUD
Y
60
61
1320
ESD
PHY SCI
Y
62
XX
MD
BIO SCI
Y
63
28
HWD
PHYS SCI
Y
64
819
HWD
ENG
Y
65
1301
HWD
BIO SCI
N
66
1301
HWD
ENV SCI
Y
APPENDIX IV. TABULATED DATA
EPA REGION 10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF
MARCH 1991
SCIENCE
: AT EPA
POLICIES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3
3
4
4
5
3
4
2
5
3
1
5
3
5
3
4
3
3
2
3
1
3
2
2
2
4
3
3
4
4
3.
3
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
4
5
5
5
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
3
4
2
4
4
2
5
3
2
4
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
4
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
3
4
5
3
3
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
2.
2
3.
2
3
3
X
4
3
3
3.
2
3.
2
2.
2.
4
2
4
2
2
4
5
3
4
5
3
5
4
4
4
4
4
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
4
5
3
4
4
4
4
2
3
4
2
3
4
5
4
5
3
3
4
4
3
5
5
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
4
2
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
3
4
2
2
4
2
5
4
4
4
2
3
2
4
2
3
5
4
4
. 3
4
3
4
5
3
3
2
1
1
3
1
4
3
2
3
2
1
2
4
1
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
4
5
4
3
3
4
2
3
4
2
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
4
3
5
4
5
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
4
5
4
3
4
4
5
3
5
5
5
5
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
4
5
4
5
4
5
5
3
3
5
5
2
5
5
4
4
4
3
5
3
5
5
5
5
3
5
2
2
4
2
4
3
4
2
4
2
3
4
2
4
4
4
4
2
4
2
1
3
4
2
1
5
2
4
5
3
5
3
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
2
2
4
4
5
4
2
4
SURVEY
SCI/TECH UTILIZATION
MOTIVATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
¦ 7
8
9
10 11 12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4 5
5
1
4
3.
4
4
2.
5
5
3 4 3
2.
4
3.
3
3.
2.
1
3
2
-4 4
4
1
3
1
2
3
1
3
4
3 2 2
1
3
1
3
2
2
1
1
2
1 3
4
4
4
2
3
5
3
4
3
3 5 3
2
4
4
2
3
3
1
2
2
2 4
2
2
1
2
4
4
2
3
4
3 X 4
2
2
X
2
2
2
2
2
3.
1 1
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3 3 3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2 3
4
4
3
2
3
2
3
4
5
3 2 3
2
4
4
X
2
4
4
2
3
2 3
5
4
2
2
2
3
2
5
4
2 X 2
4
2
4
4
4
4
1
2
1
2 5
4
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
4
3 3 2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
2
4
2 X
2
2
3
2
3
3.
2.
3.
2
3. 3 X
3
2.
3
2
3
2.
1
2
4
2 3
3
2
3
2
3
5
2
2
4
4 4 4
2
3
4
3
4
4
1
3
1
3 3
4
4
2
2
4
4
2
4
3
2 2 4
4
2
3
3
4
3
1
2
2
3 4
2
4
2
3
4
5
2
2
3
4 4 4
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
5
3
3 5
222223322322323343 23122
22 1. 1. 34 1. 22334322232 14123
433444242242344242 43223
121234233414433533 22342
343235334454433443 14233
434135235444233344 12335
4
4
4
3
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
3
4
4
5
3
4
3
1
4
1
4
5
4
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
5
3
3
5
4
3
3
2
3
2
1
3
1
1
2
3
3
3
5
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
1
2
5
3
3
4
2
3
4
3
4
2
4
4
4
3
2
4
4
4
4
4
3
1
2
2
2
3
5
2
2
2
4
5
3
2
1
3
2
4
4
2
4
3
4
2
1
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
4
2
4
4
2
4
3
2
2
2
2
3
1
4
2
-------
SURVEY
EDUCATION *1
SCIENCE AT EPA
APPENDIX IV. TABULATED DATA
EPA REGION 10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF SURVEY
MARCH 1991
POLICIES
SCI/TECH UTILIZATION
71
72
73
79
80
94
95
96 OTHER ATD
97
BIO SCI N 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
34434334
432233444232243343
MOTIVATION
NUMBER
SERIES
DIVISIONBACKGROUND
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
67
XX
HWD
BIO SCI Y
2
2
2
2
4
4
2
4
4
2
4
4
2
5
4
4
4
5
4
2
1
2
4
2
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
1
2
3
2
4
68
fiQ
XX
HWD
ENG; PHY SY
4
3
3
3
2
5
4
3
5
5
5
4
5
5
4
4
2
5
5
4
4
3
4
3
3
5
4
4
5
3
3
4
4
5
4
2
3
1
4
4
oy
70
1301
WD
PHY SCI Y
4
2
4
2
4
2
1
4
5
3
5
5
3
5
5
1
5
5
5
5
2
3
5
4
5
1
5
1
3
5
3
3
3
4
1
1
1
1
4
5
74
1301
WO
X
N
3
2
2
4
4
3
4
3
4
2
2
2
4
3
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
3
2
2
2
4
3
4
3
1 2
2
2
4
75
1320
ESD
PHY SCIE
N
4
4
4
3
4
3
4
3
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
5
3
2
2
4
4
4
4
5
5
4
5
2
5
3
3
4
4
1 4
5
4
3
76
OTHER
ESD
OTHER
Y
2
4
3
2
4
2
3
4
4
2
4
4
2
4
5
4
2
2
2
4
3
3
5
2
2
5
4
2
3
4
2
2
3
4
4
1 3
4
4
4
77
XX
ESD
BIO SCI
Y
3
2
2
2
2
4
4
5
3
4
3
5
2
4
3
5
5
2
2
4
2
3
2
2
3
5
4
4
3
1
4
5
3
2
2
1 3
4
2
4
78
1320
ESD
PHY SCI
N
2
2
2
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
3
4
3
3
1
1
3
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
1 2
1
2
1
81
1320 ESD
PHY SCI
Y
3
4
5
3
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
5
5
5
5
2
2
2
3
3
1
X
2
3
4
4
3
3
2
2
3
4
4
3
3
1
2
4
2
3
82
819 ESD
XX
N
2
2
4
2
4
4
2
2
3
4
3
5
4
5
3
3
2
4
2
2
1
3
2
3
3
5
2
3
4
4
3
4
2
3
3
1
3
1
1
3
83
401 ESD
BIO SCI
Y
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
5
5
2
4
5
2
5
4
3
2
2
2
4
2
4
3
1
5
5
4
4
3
2
4
3
4
3
4
2
4
1
2
5
84
1301 ESD
PHY SCI
Y
2
2
3
3
4
3
2
4
2
3
3
4
3
5
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
2
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
1
3
1
2
4
85
28 WD
BIO SCI
Y
2
2
4
3
3
4
2
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
2
4
4
2
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
4
2
3
4
1
2
2
2
3
86
1320 ESD
PHY SCI
Y
4
4
2
4
2
4
4
4
5
4
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
4
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
5
3
2
4
2
4
2
4
4
1
3
2
3
5
87
1301 ESD
PHY SCI
N
4
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
5
4
3
5
4
4
5
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
5
4
3
4
3
4
3
3
3
3
1
4
3
3
4
88
1301 ESD
PHY SCI
N
3
2
3
3
3
4
(2
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
2.
3
89
401 ESD
BIO SCI
N
2
3
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
4
5
4
5
4
4
3
4
4
3
2
4
2
3
4
2
2
3
3
2
4
4
3
4
2
1
2
1
1
3
90 XX MD
OTHER
N
4
4
5
3
5
4
5
3
5
3
4
5
2
2
3
3
4
2
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
5
4
3
3
4
4
2
4
4
91
OTHER HWD
ENG
N
X
2
X
X
X
X
2
2.
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
3
2
4
3
4
3
X
4
3
3
4
4
3
X
X
X
X
3
4
X
1
2
2
2
3
92
819 HWD
ENG
Y
3
2
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
3
2
3
4
2
4
4
3
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
1
2
2
2
2
93 XX XX
XX
N
2
3
2
4
3
4
3
4
4
3
3
4
2
4
4
3
3
4
4
3
2
3
4
4
5
5
3
4
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
4 2 4 2 4
98
XX
WD
BIO
SCI
Y
2
2
3
3
2
4
2
2
4
3
2
5
3
4
3
2
4
4
2
2
1
3
2
2
3
5
4
4
4
2
3
4
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
3
99
OTHER
ESO
ENG
Y
3
2
2
3
2
3
4
2
4
2
2
4
2
4
4
4
3
4
2
2
3
4
2
2
3
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
1
2
4
100
XX
WD
BIO
SCI
Y
2
2
2
3
2
4
4
2
4
2
2
4
4
4
4
3
2
3
3
4
4
3
2
2
2
5
4
3
3
5
3
3
2
4
2
1
2
2
2
2
-------
SURVEY EDUCATION *1
NUMBER SERIES DIVISIONBACKGROUND
101
28 WD
BIO
SCI
Y
102
103
XX
HWD
ENG/OTHER
Y
104
105
106
107
108
819
HWD
ENG
Y
109
819
HWD
ENG
Y
110
OTHER
HWD
BIO
SCI
Y
111
819 WD
ENG
Y
112
28
WD
PHY
SCI
Y
113
114
115
1301
HWD
BIO
SCI
Y
116
OTHER
MD
BIO
SCI
Y
117
1301
WD
PHY
SCI
Y
118
28
WD
XX
Y
119
120
819
WD
ENG/BIO
N
121
XX
ATD
OTHER
N
122
819
ATD
ENG
Y
123
28 WD
ENG
N
124
125
126
127
1301
ESD
PHY
SCI
Y
128
415
XX
BIO
SCI
N
129
1301
ESD
BIO
SCI
Y
130
408
WD
BIO
SCI
Y
131
1301
ESD
PHY
SCI
N
132
133
1301
ESD
ENG/OTHER Y
134
819
WO
ENG
Y
APPENDIX IV. TABULATED DATA
EPA REGION 10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF
MARCH
1991
SCIENCE
! AT EPA
POLICIES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
3
4
4
5
2
4
4
5
3
2
2
5
2
5
4
3
3
2
3
4
2
2
3
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
X
3
3
4
4
4
2
3
3!
5
2
3
4
2
2
4
4
4
5
3
2
4
3
5
3
4;
4
3
1
3
1
3
4
¦3
3
4
1
3
1
2
2
4
3
3
2
4
2
2
4
2
4
4
4
4
3
2
4
4
2
2
2
3
2
4
4
2
5
4
2
3
1
2
5
2
5
3
4!
4
3
3
2
3
4
2
2
4
5
3
3
3
3
2
4
2
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
4
3
5
5
4
5
4
4
5
4,
4
4
4
2
5
5
5
4
2
5
5
4
5
4
4
2
3
1
5
3
2
4
4
3
4
4
5
4
5
5
3
5
3
4
3
2
4
2
4
4
5
2
4
5
5
2
4
2
5
4
4
3
2
3
2
1
4
3
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
3
4
3
4
2
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
5
4
4
3
5
5
3
3
3
2
4
3
5
5
5
4
3
1
3
2
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
5
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
3
5
3
4
3
5
3
4
5
4
3
3
3,
4
3
4
3
2
4
5
3
4
2
3
3
5
3
5
3
3
|
1
2
2
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
2
4
3
4
3
3,
4
4
4
2
3
3
4
4
4
5
3
4
5
4
5
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
4
5
5
3.
5
3
5
4
4
3
3
1
2
3
4
X
2
3
3
X
3
4
3
4
3
3'
4
SCI/TECH UTILIZATION
1 2 3 4 5 6 ' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
2 2 5 4 4 5 X 25442142344
MOTIVATION
1 2 3 4 5
12. 13 3
222113322234222232
4 13 14
5
2
3
2
3
4
4
4
2
2
2
4
3
3
3
3
5
4
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
4
4
2
4
5
3
3
3
2
2
4
3
4
4
2
4
3
2
4
5
4
4
1
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
2
5
4
3
5
3
2
1
1
3
2
4
2
2
4
4
2
2
4
2
3
4
2
2
4
2
4
2
1
2
1
1
2
2
4
2
2
1
5
1
2
2
4
5
3
3
3
2
1
2
3
1
3
4
3
4
2
X
2
3
3
2
2
3
5
4
2
2
2
3
4
4
4
X
2
3
2
3
3
4
3
5
5
5
3
5
5
4
4
5
4
2
3
1
2
4
1
3
4
4
4
4
3
2
5
4
2
4
5
4
4
4
4
4
5
2
4
4
1
4
2
3
5
4
5
5
2
4
3
5
5
5
5
4
2
5
3
3
3
3
2
4
1
4
2
4
4
1
3
5
2
4
5
4
4
4
3
3
4
4
5
2
1
3
2
2
4
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
3
4
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
3
3
2
2
4
4
4
4
1
2
1
2
5
2
2
4
3
3
3
2
2
4
5
5
3
3
3
2
2
4
1
3
1
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
3
4
4
2
2
4
2
4
4
3
2
3
1
2
3
4
3
2
2
4
3
3
4
5
4
3
4
2
4
3
2
4
4
1
3
1
3
3
1
2
2
2
3
4
1
2
4
5
2
2
3
3
5
3
4
1
1
2
1
2
4
4
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
2
2
3
4
2
3
3
1
3
1
2
3
2
1
2
2
4
2
1
3
4
3
4
5
1
3
4
3
2
2
1
2
1
4
4
3. 4 3. 2. 5434543534433 4.
3 X 4234353232223332
1 3 3 4 4
1 2 2 2 3
-------
APPENDIX IV. TABULATED DATA
EPA REGION 10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF SURVEY
MARCH 1991
SURVEY
NUMBER
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
EDUCATION *1
SERIES D1VISIONBACK6ROUND
819 HWO
XX WD
XX HUD
819 XX
XX HWD
28 XX
28 WD
1301 WD
819 HWD
28 WD
819 WD
819 WD
1320 ESD
891 WD
28 ATD
1301 WD
OTHER ESD
28 WD
1301 XX
ENG
BIO SCI
PHY SCI
ENG
BIO SCI
PHY SCI
ENG
ENG
ENG
SCIENCE AT
EPA
POLICIES
SCI/TECH UTILIZATION
MOTIVATION
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3 4 5
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
4
2
5
3
1
4
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3 3
5
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
4
4 4 2
3
1
3
4
5
4
4
3
5
3
4
5
3
4
4
4
3
5
4
2
4
3
2
3
4
3
4 3
3
3
3
X
X
2
3
1
4
4 2 3
2
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
4
3
5
4
.4
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
4
X
3
2
3 3.
3
2
3
3
4
4
3
1
2
2 1 2.
2
2
3
2
2
4
3
3
3
2
2
4
2
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
2
4
3
2
3
4
3 4
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
4 3 3
ENG N X
BIO SCI N 3
4 2 3 X 5444
33333333
2 3 3 4 4 3 2 3
2 2 2 3 4 2 2 2
2 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 4
4 X 545445
43344443
54544334
4344 4. 445
33434444
5 4 2 4 X 513443443234X
333234333 33 34343343
323344334422424224
343222244322234232
322335225333332222
BIO SCI Y 222334233 324344 3. 2 22224223222222224 3.
22324334 23423243 222234233243232233
Y 2
Y X
2 X 3 X X X 44 3 4 X 53XX 2 3X 2 2 3 3 1 X 2 X X X 2 X X X 3 X
PHY SCI Y 4
ENG Y 2
OTHER
BIO SCI
PHY SCI
BIO SCIE
3 2 2 2 3 4 3 5
2 2 2 2 3 2 3 4
22343232
44234444
44444444
44244444
55555455
2 2 5 3 4 3 3 2
PHY SCI N 3 4 4 2 4 3 4 5 4
3 4 5 3 4 5 4 1
332253535434223332
222344223333222322
442245244433443344
544445455 4 25544444
443344444444344444
543344344434345445
434242325442434423
2 2 13 5
1 2 2 2 4
2 2 2 2 3
2 3 4 3 3
2 2 2 3 3
1 2 2 2 4
112 13
2 3 113
1 4 5 4 1
2 3 2 3 3
2 2 4 3 5
1 4 2 4 5
2 4 3 3 4
1 3 4 2 5
14 14 4
-------
SURVEY
EDUCATION *1
APPENDIX IV. TABULATED DATA
EPA REGION 10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF SURVEY
MARCH 1991
SCIENCE AT EPA POLICIES
SCI/TECH UTILIZATION
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184 XX
185
185
401 WD
XX
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
BIO SCI
2 2 2 2 3 4 2 2 3
2 3 4 2 4 5 5 4
223232343232244234
XX
2 2 4 4 3 3 2 3 4
44234443
532244244331
4 3 2 4 2
MOTIVATION
NUMBER
SERIES
DIVISIONBACKGROUND
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
?
8
1
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
169
819
ESD
ENG Y
2
1
2
4
2
4
3
4
5
2
4
4
3
5
4
5
3
3
2
1
1
4
4
2
4
3
3
4
2
.2
4
2
3
4
3
4
4
2
3
4
170
819
WD
ENG/BIO SCY
3
2
3
2
4
4
2
2
4
3
4
3
2
4
3
3
5
2
2
4
2
4
4
3
4
2
3
2
2
1
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
4
171
1301
ESD
PHY SCI Y
4
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
2
2
5
2
5
5
5
2
2
2
2
5
5
2
1
5
5
5
4
5
5
5
5
2
5
5
1
5
3
5
5
172
1301
WD
PHY SCI Y
3
1
3
5
2
5
4
4
4
3
4
5
4
5
3
4
3
5
4
5
1
5
2
3
5
5
5
5
1
3
5
5
4
5
4
2
4
4
1
4
173
401
WD
BIO SCI Y
2
2
2
2
3
4
2
2
3
2
3
4
2
4
5
5
4
2
2
3
2
3
2
3
4
3
2
3
2
2
4
4
2
3
4
1
2
3
1
4
12 3 14
2 3 3 2 3
187
819
HWD
ENG Y
2
2
4
4
2
1
5
2
4
2
5
5
5
5
2
4 5
2
4
4
3
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
4
3
4
3
2
3
3
2
2
1
5
4
188
819
ESD
ENG Y
3
4
5
3
4
4
4
2
4
3
3
4
2
5
3
4; 4
4
2
2
2
3
5
2
4
3
4
4
4
2
3
2
3
4
3
2
3
4
2
3
189
28
ESD
BIO SCI/OTY
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
4
2
2 4
4
2
2
3
3
2
1
4
2
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
1
2
1
2
3
3
3
***************************
************************
******************************************************
-------
APPENDIX IV. TABULATED DATA
EPA REGION 10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF SURVEY
MARCH 1991
SURVEY EDUCATION *1 SCIENCE AT EPA POLICIES SCI/TECH UTILIZATION MOTIVATION
NUMBER SERIES DIVISIONBACKGROUNO 123456789 12345678 123456 789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12345
MANAGERS SURVEY RESULTS
1
2
3
A
OTHER
ATD
ENG
Y
3
3
2
4
2
2
3
2
4
2
2
4
3
4
3 4 4
3
3
3
3
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
3
3 2 3
3 3
1
3
2
2
4
5
28
WD
BIO
SCI
Y
2
2
1
2
2
5
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2 2. 4.
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
4
1
2
2 3 3
2 2
1
2
2
2
3
6
XX
ATD
PHY
SCI
N
2
2
4
2
3.
4
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
4
2 3 4
4
4
3
2
3
4
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
3 X X
4 X
2
2
3
4
3
7
28
ATD
BIO
SCI
Y
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
4
4
2
2
4
2
4 3 4
2
2
2
3
2
4
2
4
2
2
3
2
2
2 4 2
2 2
1
2
1
2
2
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15 28 HWD PHYS/BIO SN 221234133 22333323 441. 2232252234332. 22 12322
16
17 1301 ESD BIO SCI N 444444454 42444442 333244245444433444 2343X
18
19 1301 HWD ENG N 221344244 23434323 4323343 2. 4233223222 22133
20
21
22
23 XX HWD BIO SCI Y 2 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 2 2 2 1 1 3 1 1
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 XX XX XX Y 133122333 11243421 123445524522222113 34344
32
33
-------
SURVEY
NUMBER
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
53
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
EDUCATION *1
SERIES D1V1S1ONBACKGROUND 1
28 WO OTHER N 2
401 WO
28
28
28
OTHER
OTHER
WO
ATO
ATD
MO
MO
28 ESD
819
28
28
WD
WD
WD
28 ESD
1301
OTHER
ESD
MD
819 WD
SCIENCE AT EPA
23456789
23344234
APPENDIX IV. TABULATED DATA
EPA REGION 10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF SURVEY
MARCH 1991
POLICIES
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2
34434433 31
SCI/TECH UTILIZATION MOTIVATION
3 4 5 6' 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 3 4 5
122 2 223233322232 13134
BIO SCI
Y
1
2
2
1
3
4
2
3
3
2
2
4
3
3
2
2
4
2
2
2
3
3
3
1
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
2
4
1
1
1
1
1
OTHER
N
2
1
4
2
3
4
3
4
5
2
3
4
2
2
3
3
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
4
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
BIO SCI
Y
2
3
2
2
2
4
3
3
4
2
2
4
2
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
ENG
Y
2
2
2
3
4
2
1
2
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
2
1
1
4
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
3
3
3
OTHER
Y
2
2
2
2
3
4
2
3
3
2
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
ENG
Y
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
3
4
2
2
4
3
3
4
4
4
5
2
3
4
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
1
2
4
ENG
Y
2
3
2
1
2
X
2
4
4
2
3
3
3
4
4
4
2
3
2
4
2
4
5
2
2
5
4
X
4
1
3
2
X
3
3
1
2
2
2
X
ENG
N
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
3
4
2
2
3
3
4
2
3
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
BIO SCI
Y
2
2
1
4
3
4
2
2
4
2
3
4
4
4
3
3
4
3
2
2
3
2
5
3
3
2
2
2
4
2
2.
4
3
4
4
1
2
1
3
3
PHYS SCI
Y
1
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
4
3
2
4
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
5
1
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
ENG
Y
3
3
4
3
2
3
2
4
4
3
4
5
3
5
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
5
5
4
3
2
2
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
2
3
PHY SCI N
PHY/BIO SCY
344124453
333233434
2 1 3 3 4 4 3 2
32444444
323244335433234332
322244334434424343
ENG
2 3 4 4 4 3 3 4 4
2 3 4 3 4 4 3 1
432143234332334444
2 2 12 3
2 2 2 4 3
1 2 2 2 2
-------
SURVEY
EDUCATION *1
SCIENCE AT EPA
APPENDIX IV. TABULATED DATA
EPA REGION 10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF SURVEY
MARCH 1991
POLICIES
SCI/TECH UTILIZATION
ENG
BIO SCI
OTHER
XX
ENG/SCI
73
74 28 WD
75 28 WD
76 1320 ESD
77
78 XX XX
79
80
81 28 HWD
82
83
84
85 1301 XX ENG Y
86
87
83
89
90
91 1301 WD ENG Y
92 XX ATD ENG N
93
94
95
96
97
98
99 OTHER HWD XX N
100 1301 ESD BIO SCI
101
2 1 1 1 3 4 2 3 4
2 1 1 2 3 4 1 2 4
24242224
2 3 3 2 2 3 3 2
311324225125222122
222322223224323223
2 1 2 2 3 4 1 2 3
2 2 2 3 3 4 2 3 4
2 2 3 2 2 2 2 4
22432323
222123121222112222
4 2 2 X 2 3 2 3 3 X 32324X 32
1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3
333435324
24323332
23424332
322224234231433233
323233224432222333
MOTIVATION
NUMBER
SERIES DIVISIONBACKGROUND
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1
2
3
4
5
6'
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
2
3
4
5
68
28 ATD
OTHER Y
2
1
3
1
3
2
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
5
2
1
2
3
3
1
3
3
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
2
1
4
1
1
69
7n
401 WD
XX Y
2
1
1
1
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
2
2
2
3 '
4
Z
2
3
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
3
1
2
/ U
71
28 WD
ENG/ENV SCI
2
3
2
4
3
4
3
2
3
4
1
2
2
2
2
3
3
4
2
2
1
1
2
2
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
3
2
3
2
1
2
1
2
2
72
345 MD
OTHER Y
3
1
4
3
3
4
2
3
3
4
4
5
3
4 ¦
. 4
3
3
4
4
4
3
4
4
2
4
5
4
3
3
4
5
4
3
3
4
1
2
2
1
2
Y
2
3
4
2
4
4
2
3
5
2
2
4
2
5
4 4
5
2
3
3
2
3
4
3
3
2
3
3
4
4
2
3
3
4
4
1
3
2
3
4
N
3
3
4
5
5
5
3
2
3
3
3
4
3
5
3* 3
4
2
3
3
4
3
5
2
3
5
3
4
4
3
2
2
2
4
4
1
2
3
4
5
Y
2
3
3
2
2
3
2
3
4
2
4
2
1
2
3* 2
1
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
4.
2
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
Y
4
2
5
2
4
4
4
4
5
4
2
5
5
4
4 4
2
2
4
2
2
4
4
2
4
4
4
4
2
4
4
4
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
1 2 2 2 3
12 2 13
112 2 2
1 2 2 2 1
112 2 2
2 3 3 2 3
-------
APPENDIX IV. TABULATED DATA
EPA REGION 10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF SURVEY.
MARCH 1991
SURVEY EDUCATION *1 SCIENCE AT EPA POLICIES SCI/TECH UTILIZATION MOTIVATION
NUMBER SERIES DIVISIONBACKGROUND 123456789 12345678 123456789 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12345
****************************** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
*1 WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED Y-YES, N-NO
2. RESPONSE GIVEN AS A RANGE OF 2 - 3 AND WAS TABULATED AS 2.5 BUT FIELD
IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO SHOW IT
-------
APPENDIX V
SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL SURVEY RESULTS ANALYSIS
SORTED BY
DIVISION
SORTED BY
EDUCATION
SORTED BY
SERIES
SURVEY MNGRS ESD WD BIO PHYS
ITEM STAFF ATD HUD SCI EN6 SCI
819 OTHER
1301 028
TOTAL 118 38 15 26 26 29 38 33 31 23 28 23 31
1-SCIENCE AT EPA
1 MEAN 2.73 2.26 2.27 2.85 2.74 2.71 2.50 2.52 3.29 3.17 2.39 2.83 2.45
ST.DEV 0.88 0.76 0.80 0.88 0.97 0.81 0.80 0.68 0.90 0.78 0.56 1.03 0.78
2 MEAN 2.72 2.24 2.60 2.62 2.63 2.55 2.63 2.59 2.87 2.78 2.41 2.83 2.71
ST.DEV 0.99 0.85 0.91 1.02 0.98 1.09 1.00 0.96 1.12 1.17 0.83 1.07 0.94
3 MEAN 2.83 2.53 2.47 2.92 2.62 2.82 2.73 2.71 3.06 2.87 2.70 3.00 2.72
ST.DEV 0.94 1.16 0.74 1.02 0.98 0.86 0.84 0.94 1.14 0.92 0.95 0.90 0.92
4 MEAN 2.82 2.42 2.36 2.69 2.79 3.17 2.72 2.73 3.03 3.00 2.63 3.14 2.69
ST.DEV 1.02 1.06 1.01 0,93 1.15 1.00 1.11 0.78 1.14 1.13 0.75 1.13 1.07
5 MEAN 3.11 2.95 3.00 2.96 2.92 3.29 3.00 2.93 3.23 3.57 3.04 3.00 2.86
ST.DEV 0.98 0.80 1.00 0.93 1.04 0.94 0.94 0.98 0.99 0.95 0.98 1.00 0.97
6 MEAN 3.52 3.54 3.03 3.50 3.54 3.89 3.47 3.50 3.71 3.78 3.35 3.67 3.38
ST.DEV 0.87 0.87 0.61 0.76 1.03 0.80 0.85 1.01 9.78 0.90 0.89 0.90 0.86
7 MEAN 3.17 2.37 3.00 3.19 3.25 3.07 2.89 3.20 3.45 3.22 3.06 3.22 3.10
ST.DEV 1.00 0.85 0.93 1.02 1.01 1.12 0.89 0.98 1.06 1.13 0.92 1.04 1.01
8 MEAN 3.20 2.92 3.21 3.23 3.13 3.14 3.11 3.08 3.48 3.43 3.04 3.23 3.11
ST.DEV 0.89 0.88 0.58 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.80 0.93 1.16 0.82 0.75 0.81
9 MEAN 3.80 3.66 3.20 3.77 3.88 3.86 3.70 3.91 3.77 3.91 3.82 3.43 3.90
ST.DEV 0.86 0.71 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.79 0.88 0.68 0.96 1.12 0.67 0.90 0.71
2-PERSONNEL POLICIES
1 MEAN 3.08 2.42
ST.DEV 1.04 0.76
2 MEAN 3.27 2.50
ST.DEV 0.95 0.76
3 MEAN 4.15 2.50
ST.DEV 0.99 0.97
4 MEAN 3.13 2.82
ST.DEV 0.97 0.82
5 MEAN 4.06 3.32
ST.DEV 0.90 0.96
2.53 3.04 3.12 3.18
0.74 0.92 1.18 1.09
3.27 3.23 3.12 3.16
0.88 0.99 0.93 1.03
3.70 4.38 3.87 4.25
0.80 0.80 1.28 0.97
2.67 3.08 3.31 3.17
0:90 1.06 1.01 0.93
3.60 4.33 3.90 4.22
0.83 0.86 1.13 0.68
3.03 2.87 3.42
1.10 1.02 1.06
3.16 3.11 3.60
0.83 0.98 0.95
4.04 3.79 4.61
1.16 0.95 0.62
2.97 3.06 3.45
0.91 1.01 1.03
3.92 4.02 4.35
0.95 0.97 0.67
3.17 2.78 3.09 3.10
0.98 0.89 1.16 1.06
3.28 3.14 2.93 3.39
1.10 0.89 0.86 0.88
4.43 3.80 3.98 4.14
0.84 0.92 1.21 1.03
3.17 3.11 3.09 2.93
0.83 0.99 0.95 0.94
4.37 4.02 4.04 3.72
0.83 0.93 0.93 0.92
6 MEAN 3.55 3.08
ST.DEV 0.91 0.85
7 MEAN 3.49 2.86
ST.DEV 0.88 0.74
8 MEAN 3.35 2.83
ST.DEV 1.12 1.10
3.53 3.46 3.38 3.55
0.74 0.95 0.90 0.96
3.40 3.65 3.29 3.57
0.63 1.09 0.75 0.99
3.50 3.46 3.37 3.38
0.76 1.21 1.18 1.15
3.55 3.55 3.69
0.92 0.79 1.04
3.30 3.55 3.60
.0.90 0.73 1.05
3.33 3.38 3.48
0.99 1.07 1.41
3.61 3.22 3.59 3.63
0.99 0.80 0.89 0.89
3.48 3.46 3.39 3.48
1.08 0.77 0.77 0.77
3.30 3.45 3.36 3.27
1.43 1.05 0.90 1.01
-------
APPENDIX V
SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL SURVEY RESULTS ANALYSIS
SORTED BY
DIVISION
SORTED BY
EDUCATION
SORTED BY
SERIES
SURVEY MNGRS ESD WD BIO PHYS
ITEM STAFF ATD HWD SCI ENG SCI
819 OTHER
1301 028
3-SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF UTILIZATION
1 MEAN 3.39 2.87
ST.DEV 1.15 0.99
2 MEAN 2.86 2.42
ST.DEV 0.96 0.79
3 MEAN 2.74 2.28
ST.DEV 0.93 0.70
4 MEAN 2.49 2.38
ST.DEV 0.98 0.76
5 MEAN 3.25 2.76
ST.DEV 0.87 0.85
2.93 3.27 3.73 3.38
1.02 1.00 1.12 1.29
2.73 2.46 2.84 3.08
0.70 0.95 0.99 1.06
2.30 2.54 2.73 3.09
0.75 0.90 0.78 1.10
2.63 2.26 2.62 2.52
0.85 0.93 1.20 1.02
3.07 3.36 2.84 3.34
0.62 0.86 0.85 0.94
3.34 3.20 3.52
1.26 1.07 1.06
2.89 2.58 3.07
0.92 0.92 0.98
2.74 2.58 2.92
0.92 0.89 0.91
2.53 2.55 2.42
0.98 0.95 1.06
3.25 3.23 3.37
0.77 0.76 1.10
3.50 3.04 3.52 3.61
1.27 0.96 1.16 1.15
2.95 2.46 2.91 3.20
1.12 0.81 0.79 1.03
2.89 2.55 2.76 2.74
1.02 0.90 1.02 0.89
2.48 2.34 2.78 2.55
1.01 0.88 1.09 1.03
3.39 3.21 3.05 3.18
1.16 0.57 0.95 0.82
6 MEAN 3.43 3.47
ST.DEV 1.04 0.95
7 MEAN 2.52 2.18
ST.DEV 0.82 0.77
8 MEAN 3.33.2,58
ST.OEV 0.96 0.76
9 MEAN 3.68 3.33
ST.DEV 1.11 1.24
10 MEAN 3.35 2.70
ST.DEV 0.89 1.05
3.64 2.96 3.60 3.41
0.93 1.04 1.02 1.15
2.68 2.44 2.54 2.50
0.77 0.98 0.82 0.75
3.07 3.46 2.90 3.50
0.73 0.81 0.87 1.11
2.93 3.77 3.54 3.62
0.83 0.91 1.30 1.24
3.07 3.35 3.21 3.48
0.80 0.89 0.85 0.96
3.11 3.62 3.48
1.09 0.89 >.03
2.60 2.36 2.67
0.77 0.75 1.03
3..25 3.14 3.48
0.94 0.91 0.93
3.76 3.27 3.77
1.14 1.15 1.09
3.38 2.92 3.76
0.86 0.78 0.80
3.35 3.63 3.77 3.27
1.15 0.95 0.97 1.08
2.46 2.36 2.43 2.62
0.84 0.74 0.75 0.78
3.57 3..24 3.09 3.20
1.12 0.93 0.87 0.96
3.96 3.21 3.55 3.90
1.26 1.13 1.06 0.98
3.74 2.72 3.54 3.43
0.86 0.68 0.84 0.77
11 MEAN 3.21 2.84
ST.DEV 0.85 0.69
12 MEAN 3.16 2.79
ST.DEV 1.04 0.99
13 MEAN 2.68 2.47
ST.DEV 1.01 0.92
14 MEAN 3.09 2.43
ST.DEV 0.87 0.72
15 MEAN 3.21 2.84
ST.DEV 1.02 0.80
3.00 3.36 3.02 3.29
0.96 0.81 0.64 1.05
3.00 3.04 3.40 2.86
0.96 0.96 1.00 1.04
2.80 2.33 2.73 2.64
1.01 0.97 1.00 1.09
2.93 3.19 2.90 3.21
0.80 0.85 0.85 0.92
3.00 3.18 3.00 3.52
0.65 1.14 1.23 0.94
2.94 3.25 3.44
0.79 0.72 0.96
3.00 3.30 3.16
1.07 1.06 1.04
2.66 2.47 2.76
1.19 0.67 1.07
3.11 2.79 3.45
0.86 0.75 0.81
3.49 2.81 3.32
0.98 0.95 1.11
3.17 3.26 3.27 3.19
1.07 0.76 1.03 0.71
3.22 3.12 3.09 3.34
1.24 0.91 1.06 1.01
2.98 2.43 2.80 2.80
1.13 0.69 1.09 1.10
3.57 2.83 3.17 2.73
0.84 0.77 0.83 0.78
3.59 2.89 3.04 3.26
1.03 0.97 1.02 0.98
16
MEAN
2.79
2.39
3.00
2.72
2.88
2.65
2.74
2.72
2.95
3.04
2.67
2.72
2.79
ST.DEV
0.78
0.69
0.85
0.68
0.77
0.85
0.89
0.68
0.82
0.77
0.68
0.84
0.88
17
MEAN
3.24
2.71
3.00
2.98
3.23
3.34
3.08
3.33
3.29
3.46
3.25
3.09
3.16
ST.DEV
0.89
0.80
0.74
1.00
0.95
0.94
0.89
0.89
0.97
0.99
0.84
0.92
0.93
18
MEAN
2.99
2.73
2.93
2.83
2.98
3.14
3.07
2.70
3.11
2.95
2.61
3.32
3.00
ST.DEV
0.88
0.87
0.62
0.79
0.89
1.04
1.00
0.83
0.87
1.12
0.68
0.76
0.86
-------
APPENDIX V
SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL SURVEY RESULTS ANALYSIS
SORTED BY
DIVISION
SORTED BY
EDUCATION
SORTED BY
SERIES
SURVEY MNGRS ESD WD BIO PHYS
ITEM STAFF ATD HWD SCI ENG SCI
819 OTHER
1301 028
4-MOTIVATION AND MORALE
1 MEAN 1.55 1.45 2.00 1.58 1.62 1.28 1.55 1.73 1.26 1.26 1.64 1.43 1.97
ST.DEV 0.83 0.60 1.20 0.90 0.80 0.45 0.89 0.91 0.51 0.45 0.87 0.73 1.05
2 MEAN 2.67 2.00 2.67 2.69 2.38 2.71 2.49 2.52 3.00 3.17 2.57 2.50 2.45
ST.DEV 0.90 0.66 0.72 0.93 0.85 0.96 0.76 0.80 1.06 1.03 0.79 0.72 0.85
3 MEAN 2.27 2.13 2.13 2.37 2.35 2.17 2.28 2.09 2.42 2.04 2.14 2.43 2.42
ST.DEV 1.11 0.81 1.06 1.18 1.13 1.00 1.03 1.01 1.31 0.93 1.01 1.20 1.05
4 MEAN 2.52 2.18 2.73 2.48 2.42 2.31 2.24 2.45 2.76 2.98 2.29 2.83 2.26
ST.DEV 0.99 0.87 0.96 1.18 0.99 0.97 0.94 1.00 0.99 1.01 0.94 0.83 0.93
5 MEAN 3.31 2.53 2.86 3.27 3.22 3.55 3.03 3.21 3.47 3.65 3.00 3.33 3.34
ST.DEV 1.00 1.00 1.03 1.12 1.02 0.87 1.07 0.89 0.97 0.83 0.77 1.15 1.03
********** ******************** *************** ********************
-------
Appendix VI. Management Comments
1
REGION 10 SURVEY: MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
Yellow Form #3
Short-term: -Resisting the "theme of the month" initiatives and concentrating on continued improvement in our technical
analyses necessary to achieve our basic environmental responsibilities.
-Eliminating as many of the bureaucratic fire drills as we can to allow technical staff time to do quality
technical work. Unnecessary meetings, training, and "junk mail" need to be kept in check by managers.
Long-term: -A change in attitude from trying to look good" to achieving real environmental objectives.
-Resist operations office attempts to unduly influence technical issues.
-Eliminate man of the institutional barriers that prevent us from really implementing TQM concepts. TQM
is not a concept foreign to scientists and engineers, let's use it!
-Establish ourselves as powerful partners of our states. Earn the respect of our states by showing them we
are serious about protecting Region 10's environment.
Yellow form # 5
Short-term: -Provide clear feedback and written documentation on rationale for decisions that do not support
scientific/technical expertise recommendations.
Long-term: -Dual career paths. Ability to get 13s and some (few) 14s without going into management or supervision.
Yellow form # 6—no comments
Yellow form # 7
Short-term: -Enhance budget for continuing education.
-Temporary assignments (sabbaticals) to allow them to engage in research, etc.
Yellow form # 15-no comments
Yellow form # 17-no comments
Yellow form # 19-no comments
Yellow form # 23
I don't have specific recommendations because I believe that RIO is doing a good job of recruiting and retaining high
quality, skilled professionals. I would really like to see the "facts" presented concerning attritions. Are people really
leaving? Is the turnover higher than would be expected in other regions, other Fed. agencies, private sector? Where
are people going-to another job here in region 10 or to private industry? I think that if we really looked at the hard
facts we'd find that our turnover is lower than the norm. While we may be able to make more money outside, we'd
also have to be willing to make a greater personal sacrifice in terms of hours worked per week (60-70 hours is not
unusual in consulting). We'd also have less control over our work products. While some folks may complain that
staff at EPA don't have enough say in mgmt decisions, I think they'd find out how lucky they are here if they'd just
spend a short time in the consulting world.
I strongly feel that it is the exception, not the rule, that technical information is given a back seat in the decision
process. My experience, both as a staff person and as a supervisor, has been that staff opinions are highly valued and
that science plays a very strong role in forming agency positions, (signed)
Yellow form # 31
Short-term: -Current system is adequate.
Long-term: -More pay. Less responsibility
Yellow form # 34--No comments
Yellow form # 38
Short-term: -Move from a passive acceptance policy in terms of attendance and membership in professional organizations
to one of endorsement and encouragement.
Long-term: -Career ladders for technical staff
-Sabbaticals or IPAs to universities
-Concerted effort to involve technical personnel in decision-making process.
Yellow form # 40—No comments
-------
Appendix VI. Management Comments
2
Yellow form # 41
Short-term: -availability of GS-13 technical staff promotion opportunities.
Long-term: -GS-13/14 technical positions
Yellow form # 42
Short-term: -Have not noticed a problem in my area
Long-term: -Same as above
Yellow form # 43
Short-term: -Pay reform should provide opportunities to increase pay.
-Career tracks in Region 10 order may increase grade opportunities.
-Recruitment plan for technical positions.
Long-term: -Change mission to a greater emphasis on research and analysis and away from permit writing.
-More independence to develop objectives for technical staff.
Yellow form # 44
-Reduce the number of managers/supervisors in favor of support staff.
-Increase considerably the number of entry level support to get routine work done
-Reduce outrageous administrative workload on Mgrs/supervisors to allow suggestion 1 above. (For example,
go to "pass/fail" performance appraisals.)
-Increase support for professional organizations.
-Reduce the "status-seeking" initiative mindset in favor of getting existing jobs done.
-Give more credit to staff for consistent, reliable technical work.
-Provide opportunity for private industry type "perks" like computers at home, company cars for inspectors or
others who travel a lot, more flexibility in travel regulations, etc.
-An EPS "trainee" program where selected new hires would rotate through various sections and divisions
(including at least 1 ops office) for the first IS months of employment.
Yellow form # 46
Short-term: -Revise performance appraisal process
-simplify administrative processes
Yellow form # 48--no comments
Yellow form # 49
Short-term: -Do not overload technical staff so heavily.
-Greater support for involvement in professional associations,
Long-term: -Water Division must get away from programmatic emphasis,
priority environmental problems.
Yellow form # 50
Long-term: -Provide enhanced career paths for technical staff—beyond the so-called "technical expert" classification. The
"program expert" concept better recognizes the marriage of technical and programmatic skills that our most
valuable technical staff must possess.
Yellow form # 53
Short-term: -Offer recruitment and relocation bonuses
-Promote use of advance in-hire process (hire above step one)
-offer cost of living adjustment
Long-term: -increase entry level to GS-11
-Offer equivalent pay-pay banding
-Advance pay for new employees
-Same as above
Yellow form # 57~no comments
Yellow form # 58
Short term: -Make it-possible to advance professionally without having to choose between technical and management
paths.
Long-term: -Recruit in universities. Utilize co-op program in a manner that only HIGHLY MOTIVATED and THE
CREAM of the crop are selected. My impression is that if you perform satisfactorily there will be a position
with EPA at the end of the line.
conferences.
and focus more on approaches which address
-------
Appendix VI. Management Comments
3
Yellow form # 65
Short-term: -Increase technical expert participation in decision making
-Encourage full range of view points to be expressed
-Adopt an amnesty policy on presentation of differing problem solution
-Provide scientist/technical experts with orientation/background to assure complete understanding of "all
factors", including scientific input, which are considered in policy decision making.
-Encourage cross-program workgroup participation
Long-term: -Increase compensation
-Institutionalize dual career paths
-Expand mini long term training opportunities
Yellow form # 68
Short-term: -Reduce clerical tasks to allow more productive work by technical people
Yellow form # 69
Short-term: -larger office spaces
-Lower work load to allow more depth and participation in technical aspects
-Additional clerical support to relieve professionals of non-productive work.
-Higher salaries (grades)
-Encourage participation of professionals in field and lab work occasionally.
Long-term: -Start a fellowship program to fund (lull or partially) educational costs of high quality graduate students in
needed disciplines with required periods of employment with EPA following graduation (similar to ROTC
approach).
-Implement short-term changes (above)
Yellow form # 72
Short-term: -Give scientists/technical specialists promotion potential ("dual career track" notion).
Yellow form # 74
Short-term: -less emphasis on mangt activities (e.g., TQM, space wars, moving, and performance agreements)
-get back to basic work
Long-term: -more travel money for staff to get to national meetings/conferences.
-ops office needs to do program work-the real hard stuff too- or eliminate office and give the regional offices
the resources (lots of overhead assoc. with ops offices). I comparison to other regions with no ops office,
their staff get to do more things—more and continually field work and exposure to others from different parts
of the country-increases staff perspective on what works, what EPA's clienteles (e.g., cities) are
thinking/need.
-don't see cost savings in moving RA and MD to 14th floor. Nor reasons either-seem cheaper and less
disruptive to move conference room. Such decisions should be explained in more detail.
Yellow form # 75-no comments
Yellow form # 76
Short-term: -More permanent staff is need in the regional laboratory to provide depth in integral positions esp. where we
are one deep. When and if one of these people leave for one reason or another, that particular function is
dead. This is especially true when it comes to oversight functions such as ESAT and FASP.
Long-term:-see above
Yellow form # 78
Short-term: -Develop better descriptions of technical abilities needed and how they will be used to do specific jobs.
-Develop intentional plans to use more in-house technical experts to do "technical work" rather than
reviewing work of others.
-Establish RIO technical excellence award with a significant ($2-5000) cash amount attached. It should only
be awarded every 3 to 5 years to make it a prestigious honor.
Long-term: -Improve career advancement opportunities (it's still just a concept not a reality) for scientific/technical
experts.
-Encourage technical staff to accept intensive focused long term technical projects or assignment that will
advance the science of pollution control.
Yellow form # 81
Short-term: -Do serious recruiting.
-------
Appendix VI. Management Comments 4
Yellow form # 85
Short-term: -More proactive recruitment in scientific/technical/engineering universities.
-Influence undergraduates in those schools through co-ops, interns, SIS, and other student employment
programs.
Long-term: -General upgrade of the salary structure with the ability to promote beyond normal journeyman levels.
Yellow from # 91
Short-term: -Adopt dual career track policy
-encourage technical association membership and activities
Long-term: -In recruiting, better explain mission and nature of work at EPA. Encourage developmental assignments
with industry, universities, etc.
-support completion of advanced degrees.
Yellow form # 100
Short-term: -Senior managers actively solicit opinions from scientists for decision-making-eliminate filtering
-demonstrate commitment to good science goals-make a couple of decisions primarily on scientific not
political merit.
-expedite career ladder/pay reform
-eliminate nav preference for p.npine.p.rs
Long-term: -Sharp reduction in reliance on contractors for technical work, boost EPA staff
-Regional ESDs get own workload model
-Let/encourage scientists to get physical with work- doing vs. reviewing.
-De-emphasize engineering (not eliminate) emphasize integration of various disciplines
-Work on stuff that makes sense (e.g., bring SF work into proportion with environmental significance of other
programs.
-Demonstrate consistency in making and sustaining science-based decisions.
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
1
REGION 10 SURVEY: STAFF COMMENTS
White Form #1
Short-term: -Career ladder to a grade providing compensation similar to that available from industry and consulting
firms.
-Offer technical people membership in professional societies.
-Have technical people put on seminars, using current EPA projects as examples.
-Make program people more aware of the services technical people have to offer, and make it easy to obtain
those services.
-Get ESD on the LAN so we can use WPO mail to communicate. (ORC too.)
-Get states, Operation Offices, and Region 10 on ONE electronic communication system.
Long-term: -Find funding sources for technical work that is outside the scope of currently funded programs.
-Hire more technical support people in ESD so they are under less pressure.
White Form #5
Short-term: 1. Encourage participation in professional organizations; make travel funds available on a limited
(rotational?) basis so individuals can attend meetings.
2. Improve the communication network from top to bottom. For example, I have never heard the new RA.
speak and I've only seen her once.
Long-term: 1. Improve the compensation; government should take a serious look at what the private sector is paying for
the types of technical positions in Region 10.
2. Use caution in promoting technical people into management positions when they have questionable
management skills.
White Form #8
Short-term: TQM" of decision making process.
Long-term: Establishment of technical GS-13 and GS-14 level positions.
More emphasis on sound technical decision-making instead of relying on decisions made due to scheduling or
"bean counting" pressures.
White Form #9~NO COMMENTS
White Form #10
Short-term: -Increase starting grade levels and promotion potentials for scientific staff.
-Institutionalize peer review input for hiring and promotion decisions.
-Recognize that most EPA jobs require both good scientific and communication skills, and only hire or
promote those who meet high standards in both realms.
-Reward managers who take risks to confront bureaucratic and political obstacles to environmental
protection. Punish managers who sacrifice the environment to avoid controversy.
-Enlist public support by publicizing the obstacles, both people and systems, which EPA faces.
(A firm insistence upon hiring and retaining a strong scientific staff will be more expensive than the status
quo. In-house savings may be generated by reducing the ratio of chiefs to indians, reclassifying operation
office director jobs to GS-14, and severely cutting operation office staffing levels.)
Long-term: Same as above plus...
-Direct people at the Regional Office to identify a wide range of solutions to pressing or potentially pressing
environmental threats which EPA currently has no explicit legislative mandate to solve.
-Creatively use existing legislation, and enlist the public support needed to solve these problems at the local
or state level (or to bring pressure upon the U.S. Congress).
-Regularly give advice to and receive advice from our counterparts in other nations. (Currently, this occurs
almost entirely at the HQ level).
White Form #12~NO COMMENTS
White Form #13
Short-term: No Comments
Long-term: -Provide well defined career path for advancement in technical positions without becoming manager.
-Make salaries more competitive with those of private sector. (Example—My salary dropped 40% when I
joined EPA and is still not as high as it was before.)
-Improve access to high quality technical training with Agency support.
White Form #15-NO COMMENTS
White Form #16-NO COMMENTS
-------
Appendix VII. StafT Comments
2
White Form #17
Short-term: Opportunities for advancement within the G§ series. Technical experts need recognition and pay which
reflect their responsibilities.
Long-term: No Comments
White Form #19
Short-term: No Comments
Long-term: 1. Dual career tracks.
2. Reduce hierarchy by:
-delegation of decisions to technical staff
-formal assignment of accountability to staff (rather than RA, DRA, Div. Director, etc.)
3. Increase pay. "
4. Increase the status of government scientist by getting rid of dead wood. Attempt to raise employment
standards.
White Form #21
Short-term: 1) Provide for technical non-supervisory advancement to GS-13 & 14.
2) Assign technical people to more technical work. Don't just plug them into program jobs.
3) Encourage keeping current by supporting attendance at technical meetings, short courses, advanced
degrees, etc.
4) Implement interdisciplinary task forces where appropriate.
White Form #22
Short-term: -Advertise the successful integration of scientific judgment into policy, but don't fudge.
-Be up front when policy ignores scientific judgments. Say "We didn't do it this time", and say why not, or
don't, in any case, fib.
Long-term: -Produce good, peer-reviewed research. Give Agency scientists leave, like sabbaticals with job security.
Financially support attendance at meetings that relate to individual's professional training even if they don't
relate directly to his current job at EPA.
White Form #23
Short-term: Pay for scientific and technical staff must be competitive with what they could receive working in industry.
Long-term: Build a-larger staff of-technical experts in all areas so that less work will have to be let out to contractors.
White Form #25
Short-term: I would like to see more part-time (3 day/week) positions open for engineers and scientists. Possibly, job
sharing technical positions could be expanded.
Long-term: No Comments
White Form #2fi~NO COMMENTS
White Form #27
Short-term: Retention...
-salary
-management support devoid of politics
Long-term: -Stronger Cooperative program with graduate students.
-Better recruitment of talented engineers.
-4 year scholarship program for talented minority college student
White Form #28
Short-term: Provide more opportunity for training and incorporate specific training into performance agreement.
Long-term: No Comments
White Form #30
Comments after specific questions as follows:
-"Recruitment efforts attract persons with necessary technical skills" -WHAT RECRUITMENT?
-EPA scientists and engineers receive competitive compensation."—NOT AT THE 7-9 LEVEL
-There is support for attendance at professional meetings, membership in professional associations, and
advanced training in technical matters."—THIS IS NEEDED
-"The results of this questionnaire will receive serious management consideration."-CONSIDERATION-
MAYBE..ACTION-NOPE
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
3
White Form #33
Short-term: No Comments
Long-term: Establish an applied technology group in ESD to work with Project Officers, OSCs, etc. to relate real site
problems to state of the art techniques and methodologies. Group shall maintain both liaison with ORD
Tech Support in EPA and with similar groups in DOE, DOD, NASA, etc.; even the private sector.
White Form #35
Short-term: Allow time for innovative effort as it directly applies to perceived future EPA needs.
Long-term: Long term: Develop long-term separate career path for scientists, engineers based on level and value of
expertise rendered to EPA.
White Form #36
Short Term: 1 Have management provide staff with their views on the goals of the Agency at the Regional and Divisional
levels.
2 Provide competitive salary scales with private sector. As an example, there is currently a high demand for
experienced air quality professionals. As a result, private sector employers are offering salaries which are
significantly higher than what are available on the GS pay scales.
3 Lately, there appear to be various program concerns about having dissenting technical (or other)
information contained in project files/dockets. These attempts to squelch information pertinent to the
decision making process indicates that the programs are not walling to stand behind their decisions. If the
programs believe they are making the appropriate decisions, they should not be concerned with having
documented internal dissenting views as part of the public record.
Long term: 1 Provide competitive salary scales with private sector. This should include differentials to account for living
high-cost urban areas.
2 Develop a mechanism whereby management would provide staff with useful information pertaining to goals
and objectives of EPA at the Agency, Regional, and Divisional levels. Oft-times it appears that
management's objectives/motives are not necessarily the same as that of the staff.
3 Ensure that appropriately trained people*are utilized by Human Resources for reviewing position
application materials. This will ensure that applicants with proper educational and training backgrounds can
be considered by those who are filling the position (the SF 171 gets beyond Human Resources to those doing
the hiring!)
White Form #37
Short-term: Financial support for attendance at professional meetings, professional license and society memberships.
Long-term: Phase in pay comparability to match technical pay in private sector.
White Form #38-NO COMMENTS
White Form #39
Short term: 1. Continue to encourage technical staff (as well as others) to attend and participate in professional
meetings.
2. When possible, have technical support take the form of "applied research" projects that will have a chance
of being published in peer reviewed journals. In addition to providing the needed support, such projects
would result in improved technical communication skills as well as putting the "researchers" at the leading
edge of their respective fields. This approach would be bound to give people a good feeling about
themselves.
Long term: As a means of helping to replenish the "mind and the spirit" of those employees EPA would like to have
around for a while, I would suggest the following—
1. Encourage technical staff to engage in graduate training ON THE JOB-not necessarily as part of the
"mini or maxi" long-term training programs, and
2. Establish a policy of changing jobs or taking sabbatical leave periodically.
White Form #40 -SEE ADDITIONAL TYPED COMMENTS ATTACHED OUT OF SEQUENCE
Short-term: Managers need to set realistic goals and stick to them—don't be distracted by HQ bean-counting, special
initiatives, manager's pet projects, or TQM.
Set up mentoring opportunities for new staff—provide adequate time for mentoring and other training needs.
Reward good mentors.
Long-term: Improve pay/grade structure. Create an atmosphere of respect.
Provide management training to non-managers:
-We jU manage to a certain extent
-We need to understand managers' problems/issues
Improve support service?.
Reward risk taking at all levels-even when the risk results in a negative outcome.
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
4
White Form #42
Shorl-term: -Ensure compensation is competitive
-Provide legal indemnification for technical decision makers such as that provided for contractors.
Long-term: -Ensure compensation is competitive.
White Form #43
Long term: Provide opportunity, incentive and funding to take university courses in work-related fields.
Provide more communication between EPA lab researchers.
Increase awareness and opportunity to be involved in research and to use innovative technologies in the field.
Offer encouragement, support for technical employees to obtain professional licenses.
Give technical staff more opportunity to offer input on policy development.
Put more emphasis on cleaning-up the environment as opposed to administrative process.
White Form #44
Short-term: Get rid of EPS title for technical staff, and convert to Environmental Scientist.
Long-term: -More promotion potential for technical staff without entering management.
-If TQM = More technical staff and less middle management then it might work.
-Staff involvement in research projects and pollution abatement.
White Form #45
Short-term: -Cost of living allowance for high rate areas
-Active recruiting in professional journals, papers, etc. to solicit the best people for each position
-Provide support for involvement in professional organizations:
-Professional Dues
-Conference attendance on official time/travel
Long-term: -More rotational assignments
-More pollution prevention efforts
-Re-distribution of workload and funding to reflect real, not perceived, demands on Agency resources that
reflect a response to real environmental problems.
White Form #47~NO COMMENTS
White Form #50
Short-term: Continue to offer training opportunities such as mini-long term training. Streamline the mini-long term
training process-that is, open up the application process 2-4 times a year instead of a 2-we.ek period in
December. Make that type of training more available.
Long-term: -Developing the "non-managerial" side of the career ladder is the best way to retain technical experts who
wish to make $ but not manage people.
-Availability of training opportunities is important to me. An organization that lets its staff pursue training
and encourages staff to do so is desirable and offsets negatives such as lower pay to some extent.
White Form #51
Short-term: 1. Remove Operations Offices from "the loop". They began as field offices and should remain as such. Ops
office attempts to include political considerations into technical decisions are often listened to, and these
decisions then are less credible than they would have been.
2. Establish a "dual career track" for technical employees of the Region, such that professional advancement
can be achieved internally, without having to go into consulting or pursue a management career ladder.
3. Continue and consider expansion of the "long-term mini-training" awards. These offer excellent
opportunities for technical staff to advance their knowledge.
4. Expand training budgets. Certain media (air for instance) is limited to $175 per person per year, an
amount that does not cover even the cost of attending an annual meeting of a professional society. EPA
employees often "sleaze" into such meetings for free, an effort that does not enhance our "professional"
image.
Long-term: 1. Consider offering rotations to industrial sites, say for 2-3 months. An "IPA" to industry. Obtaining the
perspective of those we regulate could be illuminating, even if we disagree.
2. Offer cross-media training opportunities so that we can learn how our decisions may impact another
media. For example, air people could use water and solid waste "courses".
3. "Reach out" to undeveloped countries to assist them develop in environmentally sound ways. Coordinate
activities with organizations such as PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology) which are active in these
countries.
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
5
White Form #52
Short-term: Develop a campaign to combat the public perception that government employees are overpaid, lazy, and the
"enemy\
The "mini-long term" training program should be expanded to allow for an increase in the number of
participants. This program should be emphasized more. Employees should be recognized for completing
further academic achievement (PE, MBA, PHD, etc.) Some type of peer or monetary recognition might be
used.
Long-term: No Comments
White Form #54
Short-term: -Region 10 needs to promote experienced scientific/technical staff on a faster track to reach journeyman
levels. This is especially true for individuals that enter the Agency with extensive work experience.
-I strongly believe that a GS-11 grade is low for hiring experienced scientific/technical staff.
-Involve scientific/technical staff in briefing and decision making sessions that involve their projects.
Long-term: -Shorten chain of command—present system makes it difficult to communicate reasons for decisions from
senior management to staff.
-Pursue more high-risk projects to motivate staff, be more on the cutting edge.
White Form #55
Short-term: Consolidate technical and programmatic staff into one organization. For example, the air monitoring
inspectors, modelling, and technical staff in the ESD should be relocated to the Air Programs. Having the
air technical and air program staff in two completely independent organizations results in scientific studies
which are unrelated to program goals, and program decisions which are not based on sound science.
Long-term: Become pro-active with regard to sound science. Too often scientific studies are done only when required to
meet mandated deadlines. In these situations, too little time is available to allow for data collection and
analysis. As a result, Agency scientists are pressured to draw conclusions from flawed or inadequate studies
to support Agency actions (especially the "politically correct" action). Getting out front on data collection
and studies which relate to both short-term and long-term program goals will result in job satisfaction for
most scientists.
White Form #59
Short-term: -Better pay
-More recognition
-More input into actual decisions
Long-term: -Fewer managers
-Same as above
White Form #61
Short-term: Before we prematurely die at our Region 10 desks, Region 10 must provide each employee with 20 cubic feet
per minute of clean, filtered, outside air. Region 10 and Region 10 management do not care about the
health of the scientific/technical staff because they will not correct this basis indoor air pollution problem.
Whey should EPA employees remain with Region 10 if Region 10 is going to shorten the life7expectancy of
the staff?
Long-term: 1. Ditto the short-term comments.
2. There is a lack of "caring" on the part of Region 10 senior management about EPA staff.
3. Politics are the only important objective of Region 10 senior management. For example, why is the
Region 10 laboratory allowed to operate without any oversight?
White Form #62
Short-term: Recognize (even if only symbolically) technical achievements and Regional Scientists for their contributions.
Recognize and market our technical staff as a resource. Often there is the assumption that technical people
are not capable of leadership. Region 10's technical experts are, in my opinion, terribly underutilized. We
must be minded that we are in a very technical business. Politics should to a greater extent be left to
politicians.
Long-term: There should be a parallel track for technical advancement along side the traditional management track.
White Form #63
Short-term: 1. Show flexibility in job classification. Allow re-classification from 0028 to professional/scientist
classification.
2. Advance scientists with technical backgrounds. EPA is far too engineer top heavy.
3. Ask advice from scientists on your staff. As management, manage by inclusive Theory Z style.
Long-term: 1. Maximize grade levels and promotion potentials for scientists (engineers already are compensated).
2. Become a leader, not the laggard, in grade levels for jobs in the Agency.
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
6
(National meetings blatantly demonstrate local management has taken advantage. We are 2 and 3 grade
levels below our counterparts in all other regions, let alone DOE and DOD.)
White Form #64
Short-term: Technical staff should be involved in all aspects of decision making. This includes travel, training, and other
resource issues.
Improvement should not only be to retain employees, but needs to be "fair". This means an employee should
be rewarded for doing a good job, not to prevent their leaving.
Long-term: Dual career ladders-technical and management. Allow for GS-13 and 14 for regional experts.
White Form #65~NO COMMENTS
White Form #66
Short-term: Provide promotions as soon as individuals are eligible. Promotions should not be tied to the type of site or
project an individual is working on. Small sites may require just as much work and technical expertise as
large "visible" sites or projects.
Provide sufficient training opportunities so technical expertise can be maintained. Encourage involvement in
professional organizations.
Long-term: Develop career paths for technical staff that provide for higher grades, long term training opportunities,
rotational assignments, etc.
White Form #67
Short-term: -Do a better job of setting priorities so-technical staff is not stretched so thin.
-Improve documentation for decision making; better records should be kept of options considered and why a
particular option was chosen. Encourage the development of innovative solutions.
-Improve enforcement programs to ensure technical requirements are carried out in all programs.
-Involve technical staff in senior level decision meetings.
Long-term: -Actively recruit technical personnel through trade associations, etc. and offer senior level positions to
qualified persons.
-Improve administrative support services, especially clerical.
-Reduce reliance on contractors.
White Form #68
Short-term: -Get the word out that GS-13's are no longer sacred cows—staff is unaware of the flexibility management can
exercise.
-Recognize the use and encourage others to form interdisciplinary teams.
-ALL STAFF meeting soon that Highlights the QAT activities and involvement by PRG. Gerry might want
to give a pep talk.
Long-term: -Implement dual career track region wide.
-Flatten the hierarchy-reduce the managerial layers; empower technical experts with decision-making
authority or influence in the decision-making process.
-Move expeditiously towards comparable pay.
-Actively use creative work approach-Le. interdisciplinary teams, etc.
White Form #70
Short term: The technical support to the RFM is more burdensome to the RPM in comparison to a contractor. The
technical support is not as responsive, or timely, and often create more work for the RPM. It is very difficult
to streamline remediations with this type of support.
The administrative support is weak. Some sections do not have the staff who are motivated to provide
support and to do it the right way.
Long term: Increase salary!
Hire experienced staff!
Distribute work load evenly within the branches! Evaluate current workloads.
Provide resources where needed, and when requested by the RPM.
White Form #74--NO COMMENTS
White Form #75-NO COMMENTS
White Form #76
Short-term: Implement TQM fully so that decision-making is performed by teams that include scientific/technical
expertise. We still have most of the structured human resource issues being made by division directors and
RA/DRA. For example, the QA/QC Office has built a bureaucratic empire that is hampering the mission
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
7
of the Region/Agency in the name of science. I'm beginning to think that some of our managers equate
scientific credibility to QA/QC which is dead wrong under TQM.
Long-term: -Fully implement TQM at all levels. So far it seems to be only "lip service", especially at the branch/division
level. Let the scientific/technical experts participate in all phases of our operation including organizational
structure and staffing.
White Form #77
Short-term: -Allow and pay for short-term sabbaticals.
-Allow and pay for attendance to professional meetings, even if not giving a paper (ever 2-3 years).
Long-term: -Higher compensation
-Establish a dual career ladder, not just give it lip sendee.
White Form #78~NO COMMENTS
White Form #81
Short-term: —NO COMMENTS
Long-term: -Dual career ladder
White Form #82~NO COMMENTS
White Form #83
Short-term: -Pay scientists what the private sector pays them
-Recognize us as being some of the best in our respective professions.
-Reward scholarly pursuits by staff here.
-Encourage participation in scientific meetings.
-Encourage and support publishing in scholarly journals, and serving as peer review outside experts for
scholarly journals.
-Support and encourage rotations and international exchanges.
-Get more student interns in here. Lots of good PR and vibes*here, waiting for a chance.
Long-term: -Pay for our talents and effort.
-Recognition of our talents and effort.
-Develop and support a Regional Scientific and Technical "SWAT TEAM."
White Form #84
Short-term: -Implement technical GS-13s. I think it's ridiculous to consistently make less that the site taanagers with less
experience/tenure that I work with. Frankly, when they find out, they tend to be quite shocked.
-Implement other improvements in workplace conditions - improve indoor air now (how long has this been
an issue? Over 4 years?)
-Implement flexiplace.
Long-term: -Better balance between contractors and in-house technical oversight.
White Form #85
Short term: -Fully implement dual career path concept
-Insure technical expert participation in briefings of senior managers
Long term: -Fully implement dual career path concept
White Form #86
Before addressing improvements, the question is why would Region 10 want to secure and retain scientific/technical
expertise? After all, isn't Region 10's fundamental hiring policy based on that people want to live in Seattle and given
the basic supply and demand curves, Region 10 can afford to be highly selective in its hiring practices as well as offer
lower grade positions to qualified applicants? Perhaps when Seattle loses its most liveable status, Region 10 will have
to be more competitive and become more equitable as in other regions. As an aside, are people like payroll and
finance officers grouped in the same scientific/technical category as engineers? If so, isn't a more suitable category
name, the non-management category? Before taking action to secure and retain scientific/technical expertise, the
Region should examine its priorities and determine if it should be making such a commitment. From my jaded point
of view, management is only providing lip service to the scientific/technical staff-it is only an appearance of
management taking action using its newly-found TQM religion, and nothing of substance will result.
Short-term: -Establish' a scientific/technical, non-TQM based committee. To a large part, the scientific methodology
involves the distribution of up-to-date information. Most companies and universities have periodic meetings
where a featured guest (one with expertise and understanding, and the ability to speak coherently) will
discuss new developments. I'd like the scientific/technical staff within the Agency identified for possible
consultations, etc. Also, I see myself pigeon-holed with my day-to-day job that I often feel that I lose sight of
the overall picture.
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
8
-Set up a separate budget to allow for travel/attendance at professional meetings for your scientific staff.
Why is it that EPA can send employees to headquarters to accept awards but not to professional meetings?
Some of these national meetings are held in March and August but because we run out of allotted travel
money before then (for various reasons), such meetings are given low priorities and are denied. Perhaps
make such attendance, on an annual basis, mandatory so that travel cannot be cancelled at a later date by
management. Make a commitment to science!
Long-term: -Engineers are on a higher salary pay scale than other scientific/technical staff. The reason that I was given
for the monetary discrepancy was that engineers are harder to come by because private companies can offer
so much more money to them. It is that their college courses were more difficult than for others? I don't
believe this. But equitable pay is a consideration for ALL scientific/technical staff. Region 10 is not unique
in its specially low wages for scientific/technical staff-it is a national problem. As a result, fewer people will
be pursuing a scientific/technical background. With a smaller selection pool, the repercussions of this will be
mediocrity in the available applicants. The other problem with the agency is that people don't have a very
high regard for science and technical points. Rather than make technically-based decisions, they are making
politically-based ones;plea bargaining in the realm of science.
-Another contributor to this is that way too often, on-the-job training is viewed as much more important than
educational background so that policy-based (i.e., screwed-up) decisions are more apt to be made. So what
you never had a science course in school, Region 10's policy is that you can learn what you missed during
your four rears in college by taking a 32-hour course offered as in-house training. Even though certain
background requirements are listed for a position description, they are not enforced. The scientific resources
are being diluted out. I think that the Agency has a lot of these misnomers so that it hurts those with actual
scientific/technical background and experience.)
-PRGs are more concerned about political backlash than in technically sound decisions. (Example: reign of
Robie Russell; his minions had to follow his lead.) RA's should not be done via political appointments.
Despite the Agency's apparent interest in dual career track, the PRGs want everything status quo. Ironically,
they are the problem and they don't want the problem solved. To vent my spleen, perhaps the Agency
should hire a Hollywood celebrity to bring the attention of environmental protection to Joe Public. Senate
hearings feature the Glasers to talk on AIDs, Marilyn Quayle to talk on breast cancer, etc. Who cares that
these people are not the scientific experts, the public will listento them intently and believe in them. I've
found that if you want to advance your career in the Agency, you must go into management. Far too often, a
management position is viewed as the reward for a good scientific/technical career. Unfortunately, some
people cannot make this leap and I see that the Agency has lost out twice—losing a good scientific/technician
and gaining a-poor manager (one who is only fit to lead a dog).
White Form #87~NO COMMENT
White Form #88-NO COMMENT
White Form #89~NO COMMENT
White Form #90~NQ COMMENT
White Form #91~NO COMMENT
White Form #92
Short-term: -NO COMMENT
Long-term: -Staff 14 levels for senior scientists/engineers,
-Better work spaces.
-More appreciation of technical work from management.
White Form #93~NO COMMENT
White Form #96~NO COMMENT
White Form #98
Short-term: -Reduce clerical staff turnover (current clerical staff is thin. VERY THIN. This directly affects Quality and
Quantity of my work)
-Encourage/support continued technical and educational training to maintain and increase technical
competence of staff.
Long-term: -Provide professional growth alternatives for technical staff other than advancing into supervisory
management positions.
-Support development of in-house expertise and de-emphasize some of the heavy, heavy reliance on
contractors.
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
9
White Form #99
Short-term: -Pay competitive wages.
-Listen to technical advice and if can't follow them, explain why.
Long-term: —NO COMMENT
White Form #100
Short-term: -SECURE:
-Provide the incentives to keep your on-board technical staff happy...their satisfaction and enthusiasm will
catch fire for candidates and professional associates.
-Provide and identified/defined technical career path.
-RETAIN:
-Provide opportunity for technical specialization within each staffs array of responsibilities...call it the
personal career corner
-Develop team-approach to appropriate projects so as to tie the above strengths into a team effort and a
proud production.
Long-term: -Keep wages competitive with a defined career path that offers promotion potential to GS-13.
-Recognition of key technical, staff and utilization in long-term program planning at the section and branch
level.
-Better personnel management of task assignments would produce a more satisfied staff; if staff were
allowed to "choose" areas of work rather that be assigned them, the work would get done by those who'd
enjoy it more.
White Form #101
Short-term: -Dual Career paths - advancement potential
-Raise the ceiling on starting salaries - start scientists, where appropriate, at GS-13
-Provide vehicles whereby scientists can advance their expertise - mini long-term is a smaller vehicle.' Larger
incentives are needed to allow the scientist to perceive EPA as an employer who is concerned about allowing
employees to achieve their potentials.
Long-term: -A management staff composed of "political" decision-makers, as is perceived to be the case now, integrated
with high level scientific staff representation in decision-making meetings. Any political rationale for not
following through with technical recommendation should be made clear to scientific/technical staff.
-There must be trust developed between "political-types" and "scientific-types" in Region 10. Obviously, since
EPA is a government agency, political considerations play an important role in decision-making. Scientists
need to be accepting of the limitations to the extent that is necessary for the Agency to function effectively.
Management "political-types" need to be willing to take unpopular stances grounded in scidntific fact to the
extent possible in order to ensure environmental protection. Openness in decision-making is essential to
foster good working relationships between the two "type." there will always be disagreements, however,
avoiding disagreements by utilizing selective information dissemination is unacceptable. Disagreements, on
the hand, are acceptable.
-Move away from contracting so much scientific work, hire employees m EPA to conduct this work. This
really is financially feasible when contractor abuse of EPA dollars is considered. Work products would be
higher quality, scientists could be more confident that finding represent agency views, and EPA could be
perceived as an employer actively seeking scientific employees for strictly scientific work.
White Form #103
Short term: I don't believe that the interests of EPA are served best by keeping same technical/scientific people for their
entire career. I also believe that if people can find better places to work they should move. Jobs are better
filled by good people moving through jobs than by people staying in the same job forever.
White Form #108
Short term: 1) Increase availability of information resources. 2) Decrease time spent/required for performing
secretarial duties (eg. faxing, copying) 3) Encourage advanced degrees/continuing education through active
support/funding.
Long term: Same as above.
White Form #109
Short-term: Provide support for EPA staff to prepare technical papers for presentation to peers at meetings. Currently
the consultants that work for EPA get the spot light for presenting work paid for by EPA.
Long term: Get some the our experts into non government peer review positions.
White Form #110
Short Term: Train one person in Washington MTCA—these will be ARARS and we don't know full implications of Reg
Long term: Ensure more risk assessment folks to support technical Superfund staff.
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
10
White Form #111
Short term: Make sure that when technical people are hired they understand that the bulk of their work may be
administrative-staff is frequently overqualified.
More technical 13's will help.
More emphasis on pollution prevention
Long term: Lobby for benefits that are comparable to the private sector (eg health insurance, bereavement leave, etc)
Get more $ for data collection so we could have greater confidence in our technical decisions.
Lobby for more FTE's, less contract $--let us do the technical work.
White Form #112
Short term: Depoliticize decisions
Appoint/hire RA from within or at least from scientific background.
Provide promotion opportunities to 13, 14 level for non supervisory positions.
Long term: Move out of Seattle
White Form #115
Short-term: Less reliance on contractors;
more FTE's in ESD for program support
White Form #116
Short-term: -Advertise positions at academic institutions- not just the student trainee positions, but responsible
professional positions.
-Inventory scientific expertise existing within current ranks- find out what we've already got and make better
use of it. Job match program—which died- was an effort to do this. It apparently was never taken seriously
by senior managers.
Examine the recommendations of the SAB report and match expertise to these tasks. Ecological risks are
de-emphasized currently-this needs to change.
Long-term: -Provide meaningful jobs that give people the opportunity to tangibly "make a difference." We are too far
from "the action" and too inundated with bureaucratic process.
-Address the real risks (eg. ecological-degradation to natural ecosystems terrestrial and aquatic), tap energies
and expertise to the limit to solve these tough problems and people mil flock to the EPA. The challenge will
retain them. It is failure to tap expertise and provide the above opportunities that drives people away.
White Form #117
Short-term: 1. Better and more widespread use of interdisciplinary teams to work on specific projects/,problems.
2. Truly show technical staff that their recommendations are heavily considered during the decision-making
process. LIP SERVICE DOESNT CUT IT !
3. Greater recognition and awards for doing the job.
4. Show the staff that environmental protection is also a management goal. One way to do this is to enact
the above.
Long term: There is too much hiring/promoting "the buddy" going on around here. It's no secret! When it occurs,
everybody knows it. Often this results in the most competent person NOT receiving the job. Management
must show that they are concerned with improving morale, and stop this unfair hiring practice:
True dual career paths should be available to the staff. Replace front-line supervisors with people having
strong technical backgrounds. Require these "technical" supervisors to work in their Geld of expertise, and to
stay current within it Relieve these technical supervisors of the time-consuming administrative duties that
currently burden Section Chiefs.
The Region must work as a team unit, rather than working in the isolated program worlds of the present.
White Form #118
Long-term: -Dual career track
-De-emphasize bean counts as a measure of environmental protection
-De-emphasize enforcement as a principal bean count
-De-emphasize the knee-jerk response to industry/private sector activities. This antagonism is getting in the
way of realistic and practical resolution of very real environmental problems.
White Form #120~NQ COMMENTS
White Form #12l-NO COMMENTS
White Form #122
Long-term: Much of the technical staff also does administrative; programmatic work. It has been a long time since I
have done real engineering. We should not force technical staff into administrative/management unless that
is appropriate. Many technical people have no concept of management, despite the fact they are managers.
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
11
White Form #123 No comments.
White Form #127
Short term: Raise grade structure for journeymen scientists/engineers to GS-13 with possibilities to GS-14 for Regional
Experts. Shorten up procurement processes for purchase of equipment and data which are necessary to
prepare technically sound scientific analyses. (Example: It talces 10 months to obtain add equipment or
software)
Long term: Same as above
White Form #l28~NO COMMENTS
White Form #129
Short term: - Find out what expertise "we" have right now in educational background; theses and dissertations work,
training; etc. so a TQM Task Force could readily be assembled.
-Better profiling and acknowledgement of sci/techs (recognition)
-Convincing demonstration by management that sd/tech decisions will be backed up
Long term: - Explicit track and training for a sci/tech career.
- Rotation/mini sabbaticals with ORD
- Staff Assistance (eg GS 7,9) for senior sci/techs.
White Form #130
Short term: 1 Hire at higher GS levels
2 Have more non-supervisory GS13-14 slots
3 Place more emphasis (money for travel and time available away form other duties) on professional
activities including advance/refresher classes, conferences, publications in peer reviewed journals, relevant
field trips,...
4 Include representative scientists in Regional Planning and policy decision making activities
Long term: 1 Change legislation to give EPA greater flexibility in setting priorities and seeking innovative solutions.
2 Improve funding at applied science research and monitoring*
White Form #131-NO COMMENTS
White Form #133
Short term: -Managers must make decisions—timely decisions, hard and controversial decisions, intelligent decisions-
based on real time needs and without fool-proof data sets. Any decision should be able to stand a reality
check with environmental ethics.
-Management is noj a "place to retire to after having paid dues sa staff
-Managers just manage as environmental leaders-every person in the Region should be able to explain their
connection to environmental protection needs of region—not only as turf battle leaders.
Dual career paths for "scientific" and "management" groups need to be created to use each person's talents
most efficiently
Avoid letting TQM and the results of this survey become just the latest fad of management to "train
personnel" but to avoid dealing with necessary change
-Face the fact that improvements require change, and that requires taking chances and having disagreements
openly
•View our (good) employees as a garden—something that needs love and cultivation, feeding , and weeding to
obtain the vest results.
Encourage registration of professionals in professional societies and state certification programs—it provides
an outside peer review system to the competence of our employees
Long term: -Encourage Agency to support foreign environmental protection programs and to support program with
personnel and funds.
EPA work should be viewed as a complete system—not as isolated and disjointed program desires based on
today's weak regulations. Work problems as interdisciplinary projects, making the best use of the present set
of regulations; but always working for optimum environmental gains and not just meeting the letter of the
law.
-We need to face what the purpose of Operation Offices is— we do not need additional levels of editing of
our needs to state agencies. They could do much more as field offices for actual field projects and obtaining
real data."
-Region should document and lobby for real needs to Headquarters (and others). If we cannot meet
deadlines due to lack of personnel, then that should be documented, not just counted as a "missed bean."
-If the Agency is to be a scientific and technical agency, then our leaders must have at least a reasonable
background in science/engineering, rather than just political friends. Long term improvement will need to
come from using the best political choices within the legal constraints and scientific realities of environmental
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
12
science.
- Scientific and technical personnel must continue to keep up with the latest developments. Whoever selects
the limits of training budget should "contact" HQ and inform them that $175 per year is simply not keeping
up with the cost of doing business in our society today
-Separation of technical, staff, management, etc "needs" is not realistic. We all need cars, meeting rooms,
computers, etc. We should attempt to understand how weak support systems damage the efficiency of the
Agency.
-I would suggest that senior management must keep up with our work by having some real projects, similar
to those that their staff have, and thereby be forced to deal with staff day-to-day needs and problems.
(Example: The RA would learn a lot about car availability and reservations, or conference Toom availability
and needs, or XXX, by having to make such reservations themselves, and not using their position as a way to
by-pass the bottlenecks). It is much more interesting to call a Branch and to deal with the local secretary's
"talents" than to have a study and to read edited statistics of clerical needs.
-Technical employees should have titles which reflect their specialty, not EPS. Maybe environmental scientist
is better, but ideally it should be oceanographer, biologist, hydrogeologist, etc. Maybe if personnel must be
hired under a general category, there should be an effort to reclassify after we have tested the employee out.
-Require continued upgrading of technical competence through programs involving personnel outside of the
Regional Office. People need new ideas.
-How about peer groups to do some reality checks on awards, promotions, etc ?
-Decrease the lip service, public relations, etc. and begin to concentrate on accomplishments. (Examples
such as the health problems related to the contaminated indoor air and many meetings and excuses since
1986. Also how about the drinking water fountain contamination since early 1980? Way too much noise
about action, but way too little as far as results. It would help to increase trust between staff and
management
-Decrease the administrative burden of section chiefs to allow for more actual technical work. Section chiefs
should have some actual projects to maintain their technical skills sharp.
-Agency has limited resources and time and money. Even if these levels cannot be increased, viewing
projects form a systems analysis perspective could indicate where waste and repetition resides, and where
major gains could be made bv improving the efficiency, not only the budget. This of course is related to
making hard management decisions and informing HQ and the public about our real needs and limitations.
-A CODE OF ETHICS, based on real environmental needs, should be developed to provide that general
framework needed for hard decisions where laws and regulations do not provide an answer and political
pressures alone seem to guide the Agency.
-Recently acquired computers and software have been a great step in the right direction. It allows much
more time to be spent on analysis and development rather than on begging to get someon? else to draft a
memo or do a drawing or a plot.
NOTE-This lengthy set of comments were prepared at home, not on government's time.
White Form #134
Short-term: -Create technical career track in the programs (Currently, it's either private industry or management if you
want to move past the GS-12 level)
-Reward people who do solid technical work day-in and day-out, not just high profile efforts that catch the
eye at a given time (Example: Exxon Valdez)
-Expand mini-long term training budget and emphasis so that technical employees can reasonably expect to
improve their skills with a quarter or two of graduate courses. Non-technical people are currently benefiting
the most from this program.
Long term: -Divorce human resources duties from program management duties at the Section Chief level, to the extent
practicable. Good technical section chiefs don't want to spend lots of time on personnel paperwork.
White Form #135
Short term: 1 Develop non-supervisory career track which extend beyond the current GS-13 limit
2 Hire additional technical staff. Currently, the workload greatly exceeds the amount which can be
adequately dealt with by the current number of staff
Long term: Same as above
White Form #137
Short Term: -Pay them better
-Provide more training courses
-Provide in house training on new methods: ideas
-Perhaps have lunch or afternoon seminars, in house speakers, on current issues, what EPA is doing
Long term: -There needs to be more ways of sharing information within EPA. Different programs are not informed of
each others activities.
-Improve the newsletter to include what's happening in the Region
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
13
-More public outreach!
White Form #138
Long term: Easier hiring in specific job classifications like chemist, toxicologist, environmental scientist, etc., rather than
falling back on the EPS category.
White Form #139
Short term: Assure that scientific/technical employees are involved in the decision making process
Acknowledge scientific/technical staff contributions with informal activities
Long Term: Provide scientific/technical staff acknowledgement for work well done
White Form #141~NO COMMENTS
White Form #142~NO COMMENTS
White Form #145~SEE TYPED COMMENTS ATTACHED OUT OF SEQUENCE
White Form #146
Short Term: -Provide more opportunities for GS-13 non-managerial positions so that people don't dead end at GS-12.
-Equate the scientific and engr. pay scales—no reason for engrs to be on higher scale simply because of their
title.
-Secure additional funds to pay for more staff-workload increases but staffing doesn't which forces existing
staff to should an excessive workload which creates a stressed staff and can impact performance, and work
products.
White Form #14S~NO COMMENTS
White Form #153
Short Term: Raise GS levels for scientific /tech people to pay scale more closely resembles private sector
Long Term: Hire managers/supervisors who have displayed aptitude or ability to manage/supervise rather than
overwhelming technical attributes so that tech people can get support they need
White Form #155
Long Term: Comparable compensation to private employers
Advancement opportunity as a technical staff person
White Form #157
Short term: Note: I haven't been here long enough to answer all these questions based on knowledge rather than
guesses....
Although HR is better here than many Federal offices, there is a lot of room for improvement in the public
relations area. I applied for about 10 positions and only received communication back from HR on 2. This
problem of sending an application then never hearing another work is very unprofessional and doesn't
encourage qualified people to continue to apply.
Long term: If inadequate compensation is a major reason for losing staff Hawaii and Southern California have been able
to receive special high-cost living allowances. This may be possible in the Seattle area.
White Form #160
Short Term: Do away with GS ranking system
Go to pay banding (ie replace GS-9-13 series with 24-45000 /yr salaries)
Remove one year requirement (waiting) for supervisors to promote staff.
Place tech/sci staff in more of a "scoping" role as opposed to a "review" role.
Long term: Decentralize the main office into several satellite offices within the greater Puget Sound Area. This would
-cut down on commuting time
-cut down on air pollution/fuel consumption
create more community exposure for EPA (get us out of this ivory tower)
White Form #161
Short Term: Promote job match to expand technical expertise and to develop a better understanding of other
environmental issues. Job match could be with private enterprise too.
Support in-house training/time for P.E. exam.
Increase multi-media inspections. Institute multi-media teams.
Long Term: Job promotions should not be based on favoritism, otherwise morale will continue to sag.
Too many supervisors. Supervisors need better TQM training to develop effective teams in lieu of one or
two performance appraisals each year.
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
14
Develop training modules about each program or media and allow time for employees to become familiar
with the material
Allow a few hours each week to use the exercise room. In the past, people were allowed to take smoke
breaks and people still do; how about a health break.
Reduce paperwork and support more hands-on field work.
White Form #163
Short term: -More participation in "job fairs" by technical people capable of communicating with potential employees in
describing job opportunities. Perhaps outreach to college freshmen and sophomores (plant a seed!)
-Recruit good liberal arts graduates with basic core technical training (elementary courses in chemistry,
geology, hydrogeology, environmental engineering). Many of the "technical" jobs at EPA don't require full-
blown "technical" degrees but only good understanding of basics, but most "technical" jobs do require ability
to think and to analyze ~ skills more realistically obtained form strong Liberal Arts backgrounds.
Long term: -Fund educational opportunities for current employees lacking in expertise but who show willingness to learn
and an aptitude for such work.
-Less contract work and more in-house technical work. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by creating the
environment where private consultants/contractors steal our workers. Obviously, better pay wouldn't hurt.
White Form #164
Short Term: -Acquire, retain, and sufficiently compensate technical types. Engineers have historically been better
compensated than scientists. I believe that is discriminatory to Agency scientists.
-Require all technical people, staff, and managers to be fully updated on appropriate technical issues.
-Reward competence~not "likeable" behavior~as arbitrarily chosen by EPA Region 10 management!!
(Hidden Agenda is real!)
-Develop GS-13 Technical positions routinely (non-supervisory)
-Develop decisions based on science, not politics!
Long term: -Develop long-term training program!
-Develop long-term scientific promotion/advancement program
-Develop "leadership" position in scientific/regulatory community!
-Protect EPA's investment-it's technical staff!
-Maintain TQM mentality—implement to lowest levels-'amnesty" to technical staff is critical—management
needs to support /not criticize staff.
-Develop decision making-process—"more free" from politics/administrative "hoops."
-Develop an Agency rim by scientists/engineers--not politicians!!
White Form #165
Short term: Increase compensation
Long term: Correct problems as indicated by survey thru policy changes
White Form #166
Short term: -Dual Career Paths. Up to at least GS-15
-Increase career Development Opportunities
-Sabbaticals and long-term training opportunities
-Increase technical decision documents on all major EPA decisions and have management note whether they
agree, and if not why not
-Provide easier access for technical staff to upper management—give staff a chance to be heard
-Provide time for professional growth (????) attending seminars and workshops
-Encourage participation in professional societies and encourage to publish articles
Long term: -All of the above plus:
-Open up communications with the academic and industrial/private sector for people and technical transfer.
Provide IPA opportunities.
-Recruit from Universities and private sector by offering comparable salaries!!
-Provide awards for managers who are most highly rated by their technical/scientific staffs
-Give scientists a chance to interact with international scientific community-share people and info
-Reward scientists for technically sound work—even when answers are not liked, (ie more John Yearsley
awards)
White Form #168~NO COMMENTS
White Form #169
Short term: -Better pay
-Less bureaucratic paper work
-Show action (not lip service) on office health issues like air
-Less bureaucracy-faster products
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
15
Long term: -Betier pay
-Encourage involvement in prof, associations
-Encourage PE's
-Allow time for personal development
-Positive attitude toward government staff by elected officials
White Form #170
Short term: -"Delegated Authority" positions/openings that, generally, are not advertised by personnel should be made
known to folks applying at EPA
Short term training (few days to week long) Training opportunities must be supported (vs no support. And
I'm talking about things like "time management, "how to communicate," etc.!
Long term: -When supervisors make work assignments based on having a "specialist" in their group, then First and second
tier supervisors need to be objective in their expectations. Evaluating output based on "bean counting"
instead of based on assigned tasks is a kind of catch 22
White Form #171
Short term: 1 Raise salaries to competitive levels.
2 Establish Regional scientific career track to GS-15 level without necessity for national expert classification
3 Foster use of scientific team approach for complex problems that require interdisciplinary expertise
4 Establish separate budget for ESD that is not dependent on Programs. ESD resources are currently
prioritized by the amount that Programs contribute to the ESD budget, yet the Program that contributes the
most money (Hazardous Waste) is not necessarily the most in need as far as environmental and health risks.
In-house technical resources should be directed to high-risk environmental problems in all programs.
Program managers have not had a very good track record for attending to high-risk environmental problems.
Long term: 1 Raise salaries to competitive levels
2 Establish Regional scientific career track to GS-15 level without necessity for national expert classification
3 Increase technical staff and reduce reliance on contractors
4 In-house technical staff are highly trained, highly motivated, and poorly supported. Change Regional
approach so that the technical staff is encouraged to stay rathe{ than to leave.
White Form #172
Short Term: -Need to stop promoting secretaries and other non-scientifically educated personnel to jobs that require
technical expertise. This activity is extremely demoralizing to higher qualified individuals
-Fill behind scientist positions with scientists, don't re-classify to EPS
-Ask scientists what additional equipment (office) would aid them in their duties
-A letter from the RA urging managers and supervisors to give a high weight to scientific accuracy when
making program and policy decisions. This philosophy should be passed down, by them, to the state and
local contacts when appropriate
Long term: -Hire at higher grade levels
-Promote scientists faster
-Provide technical training to supervisors (training could even come from employees)
White Form #173
Short term: -Hire people with a background appropriate for the job.
-Don't promote generalist into technical jobs and allow them to gain "some" technical expertise thru OJT and
a couple of college courses. This weakens our agency-both its ability to "protect the environment" as well as
its image.
-Recognize technical excellence and innovation, as well as excellent management of contractors. Recognize
by awards, promotions as well as "pats in the back."
-Encourage staff to write more technical papers by making some time available for this. Recognize the effort
and good EPA PR which results from published papers.
-Make sure technical staff feel part of the decision process and understand why certain technical
recommendations may be over-ruled. Give these staff a chance to make their case a second time if they feel
very strongly about an issue.
Long term: -Same as above plus:
-Work to improve pay levels for outstanding technical staff, but not jill technical staff since some whose
performance is marginal should be encouraged to look elsewhere for advancement.
-Work to "increase travel budgets sos trips to scientific or technical meetings are not so infrequent
White Form #184~NO COMMENTS
White Form #187-SEE TYPED COMMENTS ATTACHED OUT OF SEQUENCE
-------
Appendix VII. Staff Comments
16
White Form #188
Short term: 1 Bonuses
2 Opportunities for mini research projects in areas of interest.
3 Educational support for higher degrees
4 When available, expert consideration/grade
5 Advance training opportunities/support
6 Consult with technical staff when making program/policy decisions
7 "Man/Woman" phones with clerical staff for all working hours (7:30 to 5 pm) to reduce distractions
8 Streamline routine reporting to programs to reduce paperwork time, allowing mote time for technical
work.
9 Support for professional/licensing (eg P.E., ClW.etc.) in the form of fees paid and time to study allowed
10 Short-term assignments to other program (cross training, etc) and to Universities/companies to broaden
horizon and teach EPA philosophy
Long term: -Dual career ladders/pay
-More support for higher degrees-continuing education
-More opportunities to get involved in research projects.
-Short-term national/international assignments to allow "expert" opportunities/recognition/exposure
-Pay for professional organization memberships/licenses
-Increase size of bonuses to be more substantial and only those earning them get them (not just another way
of rewarding all employees)
-Eliminate "bean-counting" or de-value it so technical and environmental work is higher priority
-Use technical experts to help.educate public/schools about EPA work/philosophy
White Form #189
Short term: -Make sure EPA Region 10 stays or gets more competitive with industry to retain desirable employees
•Maintain opportunities for advancement for all employees
Long term: -Treat them "right" at all times!
-Increase interest in job assignments
-Increase benefits, when applicable/or appropriate
-------
l^rrvuy.
EPA REGION 10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF SURVEY
Additional Comments
¦ Regional Office Utilization of Scientific/Technical Staff
11) When scientific staff are consulted, decisions seldom
• contradict their recommendations.
My experience in this area has been positive. Contradictions
arise over management options rather than the interpretation of
scientific data. This is a management perogative and I have no
difficulty with this.
A much greater issue for me has been the unwillingness of
management to make a decision without absolute scientific
certainty (an oxymoron?). Although we never have all the data
that we would like or perhaps even that we need, often it is
imperative that a decision be made. Even the wrong decision may
be better than no decision at all. Yet, despite TQM and its
promise of support for risk taking, managers at EPA usually avoid
any decision that requires risk taking and the use of judgement.
They are uncomfortable with situations that would require them to
accept responsibility for a decision rather than being able to
point to a pile of data or a technical person as the rationale
for the decision.
Motivation and Morale
There are other motivations that are important. I consciously
chose to work for government for a variety of reasons including
(in no particular order):
job security good retirement benefits
we're the good guys moderate travel requirements
good leave benefits little overtime required
Some issues that make working for government frustrating are:
- poor working conditions (true, they're better than most
government employees have but they're still pretty tacky)
- terrible support services (including clerical, graphics, no
cars, no conference rooms, no fund to buy coffee and donuts
for conferences and/or visitors, no supplies, inadequate
copy machines, inadequate phone lines, working months
without partitions, and on and on)
- poor public image
- political nature of decision-making
- relatively low pay
- awards are of such small monetary value that they are a joke
or an insult
-------
Ho
Some things that make-EPA a good place to work are:
I have my own computerI
there's a high percentage of women in technical positions
there are some exceptional managers (not many but some—)
the fitness center
our downtown location
flex time, compressed work week, potential for
telecommuting, liberal policies for LWOP and "maternity
leave"
mini long term training opportunities
Some things that make EPA a frustrating place to work:
endless special initiatives that are unfocused and never go
anywhere but consume inordinate resources - e.g. comparative
risk, pollution prevention, TQM, etc. - these axe often
great ideas but we don't have the authority, the vision, or
the guts to carry through on them so they are largely wasted
efforts
Robie Russel, John Spencer, Ann Gorsuch, etc.
trying to accomplish environmental goals with poorly
conceived mono-media'legislation and without real leadership
will break your heart
no one, neither staff nor managers, has enough time to do a
good job
environmental goals: take second (or third) place to
personalities, posturing, "empire building", turf battles,
bean counting
managers without vision or leadership
-------
Survey No.: .145
Location: Water Division
Attachment to Scientific/Technical Staff Survey
175 pages plus appendices are received by Ocean Programs
Section (Water Permits and Compliance Branch) for review and comment ~ HQ allowed four days for review.
Per HQ, the reason for short turn around time was because the Agency had to publish its reproposal in
November to comply with the court's decreed schedule. This was the first complete copy of proposed
guidelines seen by the Region since 1985 (though we requested a copy in the summer of *90). The document
was deficient at several levels - it contained incorrect FR citations, incomplete sentences and paragraphs;
previous notices (1985 & 1988) were grossly misquoted; bases for regulatory statements were ill-supported and
badly written. Reviewers agrekl that, if the Agency were sued on this notice (not unlikely based on past
history), the Agency would loose much of the ground that the offshore Regions had gained with permits based
upon the 1988 and 1985 proposals. Region 10 deals with these regulations daily in writing and administering
NPDES permits for these discharges; therefore, it is extremely important to the Region that the Agency publish
final guidelines that are at least as defensible and clear as previous proposals. Final promulgation of regs and
guidelines that are unclear, indefensible on their record, and largely inoperative for Alaska. They will cost the
Region resources to write new permits and defend them in federal court (essentially without help from the
guidelines themselves).
Region 10 contacted HQ to let them know we could not meet the deadline and to correct FR citations
(discussed above). HQ published a summary notice of reproposal in the FR (sans Region 10's comments)
stating that full reproposal would be published. (This brief notice incorrectly cited general permits and still
referred to a notice published by the Forest Service!) Region 10 submitted substantive comments in December
with a cover memo to HQ that merely said the Region would've appreciated more time to review the
reproposal. Subsequent red-border review (begun mid-January, received by Ocean Programs 1/28/91, closed
2/13/91) was not long enough because red-border review presumes that Regions have had adequate time to
review documents before red-border begins. The red-border package contained some corrections and
editions submitted by the Region; however, it was still not sound and required substantive revision. The Region
submitted its comments/editions/revisions on time, even though review was complete. The notice of re-
proposal will appear on February 28th and HQ has informed Region 10 that its comments were not taken into
consideration.
-------
My point & Questions for Region 10 Managers: What was HQ doing between the time EPA got sued by Sierra
Ciub about 1989 and November 1990 when Region 10 got four days to review more than 200 pages of
technology based guidelines? If the Region's technical review is worth soliciting - why is it not adequately
provided for and why is it not heeded? How will HQ know that it needs to better organize such important
reviews if the Region does not cadi them to task when ludicrous deadlines are established? (We continue to be
doormats for HQ's poor planning based on their blindness to the real world where permits are issued and
discharges/emissions are controlled!) 1 honestly feel used - at the staff technical level, I am not the only
Individual who gets excited about such Issues. With each situation that happens like this, I feel used and a
worth a little less because Region 10 managers seem content to let HQ abuse my concern for minimal quality
in regulatory documents arid my technical expertise. Is it wrong to care about what we do, is it worth the effort
to do so?
2. Technical Writing: I review documents from other offices in the Region as well as from HQ. A lot of my time
is wasted because poor technical writing is hard to read and understand. Realizing that (1) we can do little
about HQ's work, (2) we can return poor contract efforts for correction, and (3) much of in-house work is done
by committee, I would suggest that the Region work on some sort of worksheet for staff involved with technical
writing and communication. A simple, one-page outline of questions or things to remember when writing might
go a very long way toward raising the general quality of the Region's written products. WISE offered an
excellent technical writing course two years ago but it was attended mainly by folks who were concerned about
writing in the first place. My observation is that folks who are told to take technical writing courses
(presumably because they need to work on writing skills) attend a class (usually not longer than a day if they
can find one) and apply the principles for awhile (not longer than a week). Subsequently, no net change in
quality is observed. Every technical writing instructor I've had has said that technical writing skills must be
practiced all the time. Maybe we aren't conscientious because we're overloaded, but it seems overload is no
better as an excuse for poor writing than "it Isn't clear because it has to be defensible" or "I'm an engineer, not
an author."
3. Files & Information Sharing: We are based on technical information and we must share that information with
eachother (between programs & offices to answer "what ifs" in order to make sound decisions) as well as the
public at large (FOIAs, presentations, etc). However, it is increasingly difficult to access information without
knowing the people to talk to for "background." I don't mind talking to people, but often I need information
quickly and don't want to take up other people's time to get it. My observation is that file systems are
traditionally set up by secretaries and clerks who are not technical people. Secretaries and clerks have no
tools for deciding the needs of technical types the who will eventually need to access the documents and
technical information that we generate and must share. I suggest the Region consider the following-
- admit that access to and transfer of technical information/documents is important (however mundane it
may seem)
- contract with library consultants to analyze
various programs
the documents/information they generate
the reasons that documents/information are requested and how they are requested
- establish specific rules (not guidelines, not another Regional policy) based on consultant
recommendations and make clear that everyone will follow the rules.
Most difficulties I encounter seem to be based on employees who, for whatever reason, don't or didn't trust the
constancy of the program/branch/section filing system - so, they filed it themselves according to their
individual needs. Since people move and files generally stay put, it is really tough to intuitively find
documents/Information after the fillee has moved on. Individualism is great and original thought ought to be
encouraged, only I can't afford the time and hassle to find information lost to the "filing systems" of individuals.
4. Technical Training: The Region needs more basic (i.e., not program-related) technical training. WISE
recently did a survey and technical training outranked every other aspect of personal/professional
development WISE met with Mike Ward, Diane Ruthruff, and Pam Wright to find out how to go about getting
some training into the Region. Whoever wants the training must provide the following before arrangements for
training can be made -
- a topic with some details about students needs/expectations (so its worth the effort)
- an idea of whether people will really attend
- recommendations for instructors
- course format (e.g., offer for one day or for 1-2 hours over some weeks)
- what institution the Region will be working with (i.e., are the Instructors from UW of SU)
- how much the course will cost
-------
Right now a course in aquatic chemistry is nearly developed - dates/times/etc. to be announced. A course in
statistics is being developed as well. The Region should make it known staff should take responsibility for its
own basic technical training - technical training won't happen without effort on their part. Furthermore, WISE
will gladly help staff develop training or even take the lead on development (such as they've done for the
aquatic chemistry and statistics courses).
5. Travel: With respect to conferences, seminars, site visits, and training outside of the Region, staff support Is
virtually non-existent. When travel happens, dollars are apportioned according to some pecking order that is
not clear to (most) staffers. After six years, I don't even put in for travel anymore - even during 1st fiscal
quarter, there's no money. Yet, upper & mid-level managers go to regular meetings (i.e., 2-4/year) where the
status quo is the only apparent benefactor. I listen to complaints about wasted time and better things to do.
This is starting to rankle! I have travelled on three occasions. In 1986 I paid my own way to a conference
(when the next conference came up I was asked if I would be willing to pay my own way again), in 1987 the
Region sent me on a whirlwind site visit (Sept 30 -31) to a Cook Inlet oil rig with end-of-year funds (the only site
visit I've made though I have written and administered offshore oil & gas permits since 1984), and in 1990 HQ
funded my trip to the National 403(c)/301(h) Program Coordinators' Meeting.
The overall message I get is that permit development, professional development, and keeping the Region
marginally abreast of developments in technologies and science is lower priority than whatever does or doesn't
get done at the Agency's mandatory meetings for managers. I recommend the Region re-evaluate its priorities
or explain why it doesn't seem important to Regional management that sci/tech staff working on specific
projects or permits get working knowledge of the involved sites (and citizens).
6. Scientists & Technologists As Managers: Region 10 tends to stick sci/tech staffers into management
positions and then not give them support/guidance to develop skills that make good managers. I have had
some wonderful supervisors, but they were flukes who set high standards for themselves and the group and
who were people-oriented in the first place. The good managers were good in spite of the management
system we have here. Most people do not instinctively know how Jo give direction or say "No" constructively
(e.g., "let's rethink it or re-do it") - scientific/technical training or employment does not prepare anyone for
having to do this. Sci/tech managers, even the good ones, also don't get much help in letting go of their
sci/tech staff level roles - that's why we see so much micro-management, decisions don't get made, or
decisions that are made aren't explained.
This is a really long-term project for the Region and I'm sorry to say I have no idea about how to solve it.
Throwing more resources (bodies or monies) at it probably won't help. Massive reorganization might help to
some extent - after all, the world will continue rotating if a manager takes over a program without coming
through the ranks.
-------
EPA REGION 10 SCIENTIFIC/TECHNICAL STAFF SURVEY
Short-term improvements in Region 10 to secure and retain
scientific/technical expertise:
o Increase the number of G-13 positions within Region 10 for
scientific/technical staff.
o Provide for the increased progression for scientific/technical
staff to higher GS-14, 15, 16, and 17 ratings.
o Provide paid business cards for scientific/technical personnel.
o Provide scientific/technical personnel with an annual paid
membership in one professional association.
o Encourage the participation of scientific/technical personnel
at professional conferences.
o Allow senior staff to attend courses to enhance expertise
without constraining attendance to only one or two courses a
year.
o Provide additional incentives and awards for
scientific/technical personnel within Regioh 10.
o Provide additional compensation of 10% to 20% for
scientific/technical personnel.
o Provide the opportunity for scientific/technical staff to >
attend graduate/post-graduate study on a part-time basis.
Long-term improvements in Region 10 to secure and retain
scientific/technical expertise:
o Remove the "glass-ceiling" which severely constrains and
restricts the advancement of scientific/technical personnel.
o Develop a technical/scientific track which parallels the
management/administrative track.
o Establish additional scientific/technical positions at each
Section/Branch/Division/ARA/RA level within Region 10.
o Establish a Scientific/Technical Council within Region 10.
o Provide the opportunity for scientific/technical personnel, to
study at universities/laboratories to conduct and complete
research.
o Assist scientific/technical personnel to publish research in
scientific/professional journals.
-------
Appendix VIII. Management Comments, Categorized 1
REGION 10 SURVEY: CATEGORIZATION OF MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
I. COMMENTS ON SALARY, DUAL CAREER TRACKS (22)
-Career ladders for technical staff
-Dual career paths. Ability to get 13s and some (few) 14s without going into management or supervision.
-More pay. Less responsibility
-availability of GS-13 technical staff promotion opportunities.
-GS-13/14 technical positions
-Career tracks in Region 10 order may increase
grade opportunities.
-eliminate pav preference for engineers
-Pay reform should provide opportunities to increase pay.
-Provide enhanced career paths for technical staff-beyond the so-called "technical expert" classification. The "program expert"
concept better recognizes the marriage of technical and programmatic skills that our most valuable technical staff must
possess.
-Offer equivalent pay-pay banding
-increase entry level to GS-11
-offer cost of living adjustment
-Make it possible to advance professionally without having to choose between technical and management paths.
-Increase compensation
-Higher salaries (grades)
-Give scientists/technical specialists promotion potential ("dual career track" notion).
-Institutionalize dual career paths
-Improve career advancement opportunities (it's still just a concept not a reality) for scientific/technical experts.
-Adopt dual career track policy
-General upgrade of the salary structure with the ability to promote beyond normal journeyman levels.
-Establish RIO technical excellence award with a significant ($2-5000) cash amount attached. It should only be awarded every
3 to 5 years to make it a prestigious honor.
-expedite career ladder/pay reform
II. COMMENTS ON TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES, PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS (13)
-Move from a passive acceptance policy in terms of attendance and membership in professional organizations to more of
endorsement and encouragement.
-Sabbaticals or IPAs to universities
-Enhance budget for continuing education..
-An EPS "trainee" program where selected new hires would rotate through various sections and divisions (including at least 1
ops office) for the first 18 months of employment.
-------
Appendix VIII. Management Comments, Categorized 2
-Increase support for professional organizations.
-Greater support for involvement in professional associations, conferences.
-Expand mini-long-term training opportunities
-Encourage participation of professionals in field and lab work occasionally.
-Temporary assignments (sabbaticals) to allow them to engage in research, etc.
-more travel money for staff to get to national meetings/conferences.
-Encourage technical staff to accept intensive focused long term technical projects or assignment that will advance the science
of pollution control.
-encourage technical association membership and activities
-support completion of advanced degrees.
III. COMMENTS ON RECRUITING (10)
-Recruitment plan for technical positions.
-Offer recruitment and relocation bonuses
-Promote use of advance in-hire process (hire above step one)
-Advance pay for new employees
-Recruit in universities. Utilize co-op program in a manner that only HIGHLY*MOTIVATED and THE CREAM of the
crop are selected. My impression is that if you perform satisfactorily there will be a position with EPA at the end of the line.
-Do serious recruiting.
-More proactive recruitment in scientific/technical/engineering universities.
-Influence undergraduates in those schools through co-ops, interns, SIS, and other student employment programs.
-Start a fellowship program to fund (full or partially) educational costs of high quality graduate students in needed disciplines
with required periods of employment with EPA following graduation (similar to ROTC approach).
-In recruiting, better explain mission and nature of work at EPA. Encourage developmental assignments with industry,
universities, etc.
IV. COMMENTS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF DECISION-MAKING (9)
-Demonstrate consistency in making and sustaining science-based decisions.
-Provide clear feedback and written documentation on rationale for decisions that do not support scientific/technical expertise
recommendations.
-Concerted effort to involve technical personnel in decision-making process.
-Senior managers actively solicit opinions from scientists for decision-making; eliminate filtering
-demonstrate commitment to good science goals-make a couple of decisions primarily on scientific not political merit.
-Increase technical expert participation in decision making
-Encourage full range of view points to be expressed
-Adopt an amnesty policy on presentation of differing problem solution
-------
Appendix VIII. Management Comments, Categorized 3
-Provide scientist/technical experts with oreintation and background to assure complete understanding of "all factors",
including scientific input, which are considered in policy decision making.
V. COMMENTS ON TECHNICAL WORK (8)
-Let/encourage scientists to get physical with work- doing vs. reviewing.
-De-emphasize engineering (not eliminate); emphasize integration of various disciplines
-Sharp reduction in reliance on contractors for technical work, boost EPA staff
-More independence to develop objectives for technical staff.
-Give more credit to staff for consistent, reliable technical work.
-Develop better descriptions of technical abilities needed and how they will be used to do specific jobs.
-Develop intentional plans to use more in-house technical experts to do "technical work" rather than reviewing work of others.
-Encourage cross-program workgroup participation
VL PHILOSOPHICAL COMMENTS (7)
-Work on stuff that makes sense (e.g., bring SF work into proportion with environmental significance of other programs.)
-Resisting the "theme of the month" initiatives and concentrating on continued improvement in our technical analyses
necessary to achieve our basic environmental responsibilities.
-A change in attitude from trying to "look good" to achieving real environmental objectives.
-Establish ourselves as powerful partners of our states. Earn the respect of our states by showing them we are serious about
protecting Region 10's environment.
-Reduce the "status-seeking" initiative mindset in favor of getting existing jobs done.
-Change mission to a greater emphasis on research and analysis and away from permit writing.
-get back to basic work
VII. COMMENTS ON WORKLOAD (6)
-Additional clerical support to relieve professionals of non-productive work.
-Reduce outrageous administrative workload on Mgrs/supervisors to allow suggestion 1 above. (For example, go to "pass/fail"
performance appraisals.)
-Do not overload technical staff so heavily.
-Lower work load to allow more depth and participation in technical aspects
-Increase considerably the number of entry level support to get routine work done
-Reduce clerical tasks to allow more productive work by technical people
VIII. "DAMN THE BUREAUCRACY" COMMENTS (4)
-Eliminating as many of the bureaucratic fire drills as we can to allow technical staff time to do quality technical work.
Unnecessary meetings, training, and "junk mail" need to be kept in check by managers.
-Eliminate man of the institutional barriers that prevent us from really implementing TQM concepts. TQM is not a concept
foreign to scientists and engineers, let's use it!
-simplify administrative processes
-------
Appendix VIII. Management Comments, Categorized
4
-less emphasis on mangt activities (e.g., TQM, space wars, moving, and performance agreements)
IX. PROGRAM SPECIFIC COMMENTS (3)
-Regional ESDs get own workload model
-Water Division must get away from programmatic emphasis, and focus more on approaches which address priority
environmental problems.
-More permanent staff is need in the regional laboratory to provide depth in integral positions esp. where we are one deep.
When and if one of these people leave for one reason or another, that particular function is dead. This is especially true
when it comes to oversight functions such as ESAT and FASP.
X. "WHATS THE PROBLEM" COMMENTS (3)
-I don't have specific recommendations because I believe that RIO is doing a good job of recruiting and retaining high quality,
skilled professionals. I would really like to see the "facts" presented concerning attrition. Are people really leaving? Is the
turnover higher than would be expected in other regions, other Fed. agencies, private sector? Where are people going-to
another job here in region 10 or to private industry? I think that if we really looked at the hard facts we'd find that our
turnover is lower than the norm. While we may be able to make more money outside, we'd also have to be willing to make a
greater personal sacrifice in terms of hours worked per week (60-70 hours is not unusual in consulting). We'd also have less
control over our work products. While some folks may complain that staff at EPA don't have enough say in mgmt decisions,
I think they'd find out how lucky they are here if they'd just spend a short time in the consulting world.
I strongly feel that it is the exception, not the rule, that technical information is given a back seat in the decision
process. My experience, both as a staff person and as a supervisor, has been that staff opinions are highly valued and that
science plays a very strong role in forming agency positions, (signed)
-Current system is adequate.
-Have not noticed a problem in my area
XI. COMMENTS ON OPERATIONS OFFICES (2)
-ops office needs to do program work-the real hard stuff too- or eliminate office and give the regional offices the resources
(lots of overhead assoc. with ops offices). I comparison to other regions with no ops office, their staff get to do more things-
more and continually field work and exposure to others from different parts of the country—increases staff perspective on what
works, what EPA's clienteles (e.g., cities) are thinking/need.
-Resist operations office attempts to unduly influence technical issues.
XII. COMMENTS ON "PERKS" (2)
-Provide opportunity for private industry type "perks" like computers at home, company cars for inspectors or others who
travel a lot, more flexibility in travel regulations, etc.
-larger office spaces
XIII. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS
-Reduce the number of managers/supervisors in favor of support staff.
-Revise performance appraisal process
-don't see cost savings in moving RA and MD to 14th floor. Nor reasons cither—seem cheaper and less disruptive to move
conference room. Such decisions should be explained in more detail
-------
APPENDIX IX
Categorization of Staff Comments
Page
I. Comments on Pay, Dual Career Track, Perquisites 1
II. Comments on Training and Professional Growth 4
III. Comments on Technical Aspects of Decision Making 7
IV. Comments on Office Environment 10
V. Comments on EPA's Mission 11
VI. Comments on Recruiting 13
VII. Comments on Administrative Support 14
VIII. Comments on Internal Communication 15
IX. Comments on EPA's Interaction with the Public 15
X. Comments on Interdisciplinary Teams 16
XI. Comments on the Use of Contractors 16
XII. Other Comments 17
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 1
REGION 10 SURVEY: STAFF COMMENTS
I. COMMENTS ON PAY, DUAL CAREER TRACK, AND PERQUISITES (100)
-Career ladder to a grade providing compensation similar to that available from industry and consulting firms.
-Recognize technical excellence and innovation, as well as excellent management of contractors. Recognize by awards,
promotions as well as "pats in the back."
-Improve the compensation; government should take a serious look at what the private sector is paying for the types of
technical positions in Region 10.
-Establishment of technical GS-13 and GS-14 level positions..
-Increase starting grade levels and promotion potentials for scientific staff.
-Provide well defined career path for advancement in technical positions without becoming manager.
-Make salaries more competitive with those of private sector. (Example—My salary dropped 40% when I joined EPA and is
still not as high as it was before.)
-Opportunities for advancement within the XzS series. Technical experts need recognition and pay which reflect their
responsibilities.
-Dual career tracks.
-Increase pay.
-Provide for technical non-supervisory advancement to GS-13 & 14.
-Use caution in promoting technical people into management positions when they have questionable management skills.
-Pay for scientific and technical staff must be competitive with what they could receive working in industry.
-salary
-Comments after specific questions as follows:
"EPA scientists and engineers receive competitive compensation."—NOT AT THE 7-9 LEVEL
-Develop long-term separate career path for scientists, engineers based on level and value of expertise rendered to EPA.
-Provide competitive salary scales with private sector. As an example, there is currently a high demand for experienced air
quality professionals. As a result, private sector employers are offering salaries which are significantly higher than what are
available on the GS pay scales.
-Provide competitive salary scales with private sector. This should include differentials to account for living in high-cost urban
areas.
-Phase in pay comparability to match technical pay in private sector.
-Improve pay/grade structure.
-Ensure compensation is competitive.
-More promotion potential for technical staff without entering management.
-Establish a "dual career track" for technical employees of the Region, such that professional advancement can be achieved
internally, without having to go into consulting or pursue a management career ladder.
-Developing the "non-managerial" side of the career ladder is the best way to retain technical experts who wish to make $ but
not manage people.
-Cost of living allowance for high rate areas
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 2
-Greater recognition and awards for doing the job.
-Region 10 needs to promote experienced scientific/technical staff on a faster track to reach journeyman levels. This is
especially true for individuals that enter the Agency with extensive work experience.
-I strongly believe that a GS-11 grade is low for hiring experienced scientific/technical staff.
-Better pay
-There should be a parallel track for technical advancement along side the traditional management track.
-Maximize grade levels and promotion potentials for scientists (engineers are already compensated)
-Become a leader, not a laggard, in grade levels for jobs in the Agency. (National meetings blatantly demonstrate local
management has taken advantage. We are 2 and 3 grades below our counterparts in all other regions, let alone DOE and
DOD.)
-Dual career ladders-technical and management. Allow for GS-13 and 14 for regional experts.
-Provide promotions as soon as individuals are eligible. Promotions should not be tied to the type of site or project an
individual is working on. Small sites may require just as much work and technical expertise as large "visible" sites or projects.
-Develop career paths for technical staff that provide for higher grades, long training opportunities, rotational assignments,
etc.
-Get the word out that GS-13's are no longer sacred cows-staff is unaware of the flexibility management can exercise.
-Implement dual career track region wide.
-Move expeditiously towards comparable pay.
-Increase salary!
-Higher compensation
-Establish a dual career ladder, not just give it lip service.
-Dual career ladder
-Pay scientists what the private sector pays them
-Pav for our talents and effort.
-Implement technical GS-13s. I think it's ridiculous to consistently make less that the site managers with less
experience/tenure that I work with. Frankly, when they find out, they tend to be quite shocked.
-Fully implement dual career path concept
-provide awards for managers who are most highly rated by their technical/scientific staff.
-When available, expert consideration/grade
-Reward people who do solid technical work day-in and day-out, not just high profile efforts that catch the eye at a given time
(Example: Exxon Valdez)
-Fully implement dual career path concept
-Engineers are on a higher salary pay scale than other scientific/technical staff. The reason that I was given for the monetary
discrepancy was that engineers are harder to come by because private companies can offer so much more money to them. It
is that their college courses were more difficult than for others? I don't believe this. But equitable pay is a consideration for
ALL scientific/technical staff. Region 10 is not unique in its specially low wages for scientific/technical staff—it is a national
problem. As a result, fewer people will be pursuing a scientific/technical background. With a smaller selection pool, the
repercussions of this will be mediocrity in the available applicants.
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 3
•Staff 14 levels for senior scientists/engineers.
-Provide professional growth alternatives for technical staff other than advancing into supervisory management positions.
-Pay competitive wages.
-Provide an identified/defined technical career path.
-Keep wages competitive with a defined career path that offers promotion potential to GS-13.
-Dual Career paths - advancement potential
•Raise the ceiling on starting salaries - start scientists, where appropriate, at GS-
-More technical 13's will help.
-Lobby for benefits that are comparable to the private sector (eg health insurance, bereavement leave, etc)
-Provide promotion opportunities to 13, 14 level for non supervisory positions.
-True dual career paths should be available to the staff.
-Dual career track
-Raise grade structure for journeymen scientists/engineers to GS-13 with possibilities to GS-14 for Regional Experts.
-Explicit track and training for a sci/tech career.
-Hire at higher GS levels
-Have more non-supervisorv GS13-14 slots
-Dual career paths for "scientific" and "management" groups need to be created to use each person's talents most efficiently
-Create technical career track in the programs (Currently, it's either private industry or management if you want to move past
the GS-12 level)
-Develop non-supervisory career track which extend beyond the current GS-13 limit.
-Pay them better
-Provide more opportunities for GS-13 non-managerial positions so that people don't dead end at GS-12.
-Equate the scientific and engr. pay scales-no reason for engrs to be on higher scale simply because of their title.
-Raise GS levels for scientific/tech people to pay scale more closely resembles private sector
-Comparable compensation to private employers
-Advancement opportunity as a technical staff person
-If inadequate compensation is a major reason for losing staff, Hawaii and Southern California have been able to receive
special high-cost living allowances. This may be possible in the Seattle area.
•Do away with GS ranking system
-Go to pay banding (ie replace GS-9-13 series with 24-45000/yr salaries)
•Promote Job-match to expand technical expertise and to develop a better understanding of other environmental issues. Job
match could be with private enterprise too.
-Acquire, retain, and sufficiently compensate technical types. Engineers have historically been better compensated than
scientists. I believe that is discriminatory to Agency scientists.
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 4
•Remove one year requirement (waiting) for supervisors to promote staff.
-Obviously, better pay wouldn't hurt.
-Develop GS-13 Technical positions routinely (non-supervisory)
-Develop long-term scientific promotion/advancement program
-Increase compensation
-Dual Career Paths. Up to at least GS-15
-Recruit from universities and private sector by offering comparable pay!!
-Better pay
-Raise salaries to competitive levels.
-Establish Regional scientific career track to GS-15 level without necessity for national expert classification
-Hire at higher grade levels
-Promote scientists faster
-Work to improve pay levels for outstanding technical staff, but not aU technical staff since some whose performance is
marginal should be encouraged to look elsewhere for advancement.
-Bonuses
-Dual career ladders/pay
-Increase size of bonuses to be more substantial and only those earning them get them (not just another way of rewarding all
employees)-
-Make sure EPA Region 10 stays or gets more .competitive with industry to retain desirable employees
-Maintain opportunities for advancement for all employees
-Increase benefits, when applicable/or appropriate
II. COMMENTS ON TRAINING AND PROFESSIONAL GROWTH (81)
-Offer technical people membership in professional societies.
-Have technical people put on seminars, using current EPA projects as examples.
-Encourage participation in professional organizations; make travel funds available on a limited (rotational?) basis so
individuals can attend meetings.
-Encourage staff to write more technical papers by making some time available for this. Recognize the effort and good EPA
PR which results from published papers.
-Produce good, peer-reviewed research. Give Agency scientists leave, like sabbaticals with job security.
-Improve access to high quality technical training with Agency support.
-Provide more opportunity for training and incorporate specific training into performance agreement.
-Comments after specific questions as follows:
"There is support for attendance at professional meetings, membership in professional associations, and advanced training in
technical matters."—THIS IS NEEDED
•Show flexibility in job classification. Allow re-classification from 0028 to professional/scientist classification
-------
Appendix DC. Categorization of Staff Comments 5
i *
-Financially support attendance at meetings that relate to individual's professional training even if they don't relate directly to
his current job at EPA.
-Encourage keeping current by supporting attendance at technical meetings, short courses, advanced degrees, etc.
-Assign technical people to more technical work. Don't just plug them into program jobs.
-Financial support for attendance at professional meetings, professional license and society memberships.
-Continue to encourage technical staff (as well as others) to attend and participate in professional meetings.
-When possible, have technical support take the form of "applied research" projects that will have a chance of being published
in peer reviewed journals. In addition to providing the needed support, such projects would result in improved technical
communication skills as well as putting the "researchers" at the leading edge of their respective fields. This approach would
be bound to give people a good feeling about themselves.
•As a means of helping to replenish the "mind and the spirit" of those employees EPA would like to have around for a while, I
would suggest the following--
-Encourage technical staff to engage in graduate training ON THE JOB—not necessarily as part of the "mini or
maxi" long training programs, and
-Establish a policy of changing jobs or taking sabbatical leave periodically.
-Set up mentoring opportunities for new staff-provide adequate time for mentoring and other training needs. Reward good
mentors.
-Provide opportunity, incentive and funding to take university courses in work-related fields.
-Provide management training to non-managers:
-We Jill manage to a certain extent
-We need to understand managers' problems/issues
-Offer encouragement, support for technical employees to obtain professional licenses.
-Increase awareness and opportunity to be involved in research and to use innovative technologies in the field.
-Provide support for involvement in professional organizations:
-Professional Dues
-Conference attendance on official time/travel
-Continue to offer training opportunities such as mini-long-term training. Streamline the mini-long-term training process-
that is, open up the application process 2-4 times a year instead of a 2-week period in December. Make that type of training
more available.
-Availability of training opportunities is important to me. An organization that lets its staff pursue training and encourages
staff to do so is desirable and offsets negatives such as lower pay to some extent.
t
-Continue and consider expansion of the "long mini long-term-training" awards. These offer excellent opportunities for
technical staff to advance their knowledge.
-Expand training budgets. Certain media (air for instance) is limited to $175 per person per year, an amount that does not
cover even the cost of attending an annual meeting of a professional society. EPA employees often "sleaze" into such
meetings for free, an effort that does not enhance our "professional" image.
-Consider offering rotations to industrial sites, say for 2-3 months. An "IPA" to industry. Obtaining the perspective of those
we regulate could be illuminating, even if we disagree.
-Offer cross-media training opportunities so that we can learn how our decisions may impact another media. For example, air
people could use water and solid waste "courses".
-Provide sufficient training opportunities so technical expertise can be maintained. Encourage involvement in professional
organizations.
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 6
-The "mini-long-term" training program, should be expanded to allow for an increase in. the number of participants: This
program should be emphasized more. Employees should be recognized for completing further academic achievement (PE,.
MBA, PHD, etc) Some type of peer or monetary recognition might be used.
-Allow and pay for short-term sabbaticals.
-Allow and pay for attendance to professional meetings, even if not giving a paper (ever 2-3 years).
-Encourage participation in scientific meetings.
-Encourage and support publishing in scholarly journals, and serving as peer review outside experts for scholarly journals.¦
-Support and encourage rotations and international exchanges.
-Encourage/support continued technical and educational training to maintain and increase technical competence of staff.
-Reward scholarly pursuits by staff here.
-Increase availability of information resources.
-Set up a separate budget to allow for travel/attendance at professional meetings for your scientific staff. Why is it that EPA
can send employees to headquarters to accept awards but not to professional meetings? Some of these national meetings are
held in March and August but because we run out of allotted travel money before then (for various reasons), such meetings
are given low priorities and are denied. Perhaps make such attendance, on an annual basis, mandatory so that travel cannot
be cancelled at a later date by management. Make a commitment to science!
-Provide opportunity for technical specialization within each staff's array of responsibilities..call it the personal career corner.
-Provide vehicles whereby scientists can advance their expertise - mini long-term is a smaller vehicle. Larger incentives are
needed to allow the sdentist to perceive EPA as an employer who is concerned about allowing employees to achieve their
potentials.
-Encourage~advanced"degrees/continuing education through active support/funding.
-Provide support for EPA staff to prepare technical papers for presentation to peers at meetings. Currently the consultants
that work for EPA get the spot light for presenting work paid for by EPA.
-Get some the our experts into non government peer review positions.
-Rotation/mini sabbaticals with ORD
-Place more emphasis (money for travel and time available away form other duties) on professional activities including
advance/refresher classes, conferences, publications in peer reviewed journals, relevant field trips,...
-Encourage registration of professionals in professional societies and state certification programs—it provides an outside peer
review system to the competence of our employees
-Scientific and technical personnel must continue to keep up with the latest developments. Whoever selects the limits of
training budget should "contact" HQ and inform them that $175 per year is simply not keeping up with the cost of doing
business in our society today
-Require continued upgrading of technical competence through programs involving personnel outside of the Regional Office.
People need new ideas.
-Expand mini-long-term training budget and emphasis so that technical employees can reasonably expect to improve their
skills with a quarter or two of graduate courses. Non-technical people are currently benefiting the most from this program.
-Provide more training courses
-Provide in-house training on new methods and ideas
-Fund educational opportunities for current employees lacking in expertise but who show willingness to learn and an aptitude
for such work. ¦
-------
Appendix DL Categorization of Staff Comments 7
-Perhaps have lunch or afternoon seminars, in-house speakers, on current issues, what EPA is doing
-Support in-house training/time for P.E. exam.
-Increase multi-media inspections. Institute multi-media teams.
-Develop training modules about each program or media and allow time for employees to become familiar with the material
-Require all technical people, staff, and managers to be fully updated on appropriate technical issues.
-Develop long-term training program!
-Increase career Development Opportunities
-Sabbaticals and long-term training opportunities
-Provide time for professional growth (????) attending seminars and workshops
-Encourage participation in professional societies and encourage to publish articles
-Open up communications with the academic and industrial/private sector for people and technical transfer. Provide IPA
opportunities.
-Give scientists a chance to interact with international scientific community—share people and info
-Encourage involvement in prof, associations
-Encourage PE's
-allow time for personal development
-Work to increase travel budgets so trips to scientific or technical meetings are not so infrequent
-Opportunities for mini-research projects in areas of interest.
-Educational support for higher degrees
-Advance training opportunities/support
-Support for professional/licensing (eg P.E., CIW,etc.) in the form of fees paid and time to study allowed
-Short-term assignments to other program (cross training, etc) and to Universities/companies to broaden horizon and teach
EPA philosophy
-More support for higher degrees-continuing education
-Pay for professional organization memberships/licenses
-More opportunities to get involved in research projects.
-Short-term national/international assignments to allow "expert" opportunities/recognition/exposure
-Another contributor to this [management providing only lip service to technical staff] is that way too often, on-the-job
training is viewed as much more important than educational background so that policy-based (i.e., screwed-up) decisions are
more apt to be made. So what you never had a science course in school, Region 10's policy is that you can learn,what you
missed during your four rears in college by taking a 32-hour course offered as in-house training. Even though certain
background requirements are listed for a position description, they are not enforced. The scientific resources are being
diluted out.
III. COMMENTS ON TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF DECISION-MAKING (45)
-Make sure technical staff feel part of the decision process and understand why certain technical recommendations may be
over-ruled. Give these staff a chance to make their case a second time if they feel very strongly about an issue.
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments- 8
•Remove Operations Offices from "the loop". They began as field offices and should remain as such. Ops office attempts to
include political considerations into technical decisions are often listened to, and these decisions then are less credible than
they would have been.
-Recognition of key technical.staff and utilization in long program planning at the section and branch level.,
-More emphasis on sound technical decision-making instead of relying on decisions made due to scheduling or "bean counting"
pressures.
-Get more $ for data collection so we could have greater confidence in our technical decisions.
-TQM" of decision making-process.
-Lately, there appear to be various program concerns about having dissenting technical (or other) information contained in
project files/dockets. These attempts to squelch information pertinent to the decision making process indicates that the
programs are not willing to stand behind their decisions. If the programs believe they are making the appropriate decisions,
they should not be concerned with having documented internal dissenting views as part of the public record.
-Recognize (even if only symbolically) technical achievements and Regional Scientists for their contributions. Recognize and
market our technical staff as a resource. Often there is the assumption that technical people are not capable of leadership.
Region 10"s technical experts are, in my opinion, terribly underutilized. We must be minded that we are in a very technical
business. Politics should to a greater extent be left to politicians.
-Improve enforcement programs to ensure technical requirements are carried out in all programs.
-More emphasis on sound technical decision-making instead of relying on decisions made due to scheduling or "bean counting"
pressures.
-Advertise the successful integration of scientific judgment into policy, but don't fudge.
-Be up front when policy ignores scientific judgments. Say "We didn't do it this time", and say why not, or don't, in any case,
fib.
-Reduce hierarchy by:
-delegation of decisions to technical staff
-formal assignment of accountability to staff (rather than RA, DRA, Div. Director, etc.)
-management support devoid of politics
-Give technical staff more opportunity to offer input on policy development
-Involve technical/scientific staff in briefing and decision making sessions that involve their projects.
-Become pro-active with regard to sound science. Too often scientific studies are done only when required to meet mandated
deadlines. In these situations, too little time is available to allow for data collection and analysis. As a result, Agency
scientists are pressured to draw conclusions from flawed or inadequate studies to support Agency actions (especially the
"politically correct" action). Getting out front on data collection and studies which relate to both short-term and long program
goals will result in job satisfaction for most scientists.
-Flatten the hierarchy-reduce the managerial layers; empower technical experts with decision-making authority or influence in
the decision-making process.
-Fully implement TQM at all levels. So far it seems to be only "lip service", especially at the branch/division level. Let the
scientific/technical experts participate in all phases of our operation including organizational structure and staffing
-Technical staff should be involved in all aspects of decision making. This includes travel, training, an other resource issues.
-Improve documentation for decision making; better records should be kept of options considered and why a particular option
was chosen. Encourage the development of innovative solutions.
-Eliminate "bean-counting" or de-value it so technical and environmental work is higher priority
-Involve technical staff in senior level decision meetings.
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments
9
-Implement TQM fully so that decision-making is performed by teams that include scientific/technical expertise. .We still have
most of the structured human resource issues being made by division directors and RA/DRA. For example; the QA/QC
Office has built a bureaucratic empire that is hampering the mission of the Region/Agency in the name of science. I'm
beginning to think that some of our managers equate scientific credibility to QA/QC which is dead wrong under TQM.
-Insure technical expert participation in briefings of senior managers
-PRGs are more concerned about political backlash than in technically sound decisions. (Example: reign of Robie Russell; his
minions had to follow his lead.) RA's should not be done via political appointments. Despite the Agency's apparent interest
in dual career track, the PRGs want everything status quo. Ironically, they are the problem and they don't want the problem
solved. To vent my spleen, perhaps the Agency should hire a Hollywood celebrity to bring the attention of environmental
protection to Joe Public. Senate hearings feature the Glasers to talk on AIDs, Marilyn Quayle to talk on breast cancer, etc..
Who cares that these people are not the scientific experts, the public will listen to them intently and believe in them. I've
found that if you want to advance your career in the Agency, you must go into management. Far too often, a management
position is viewed as the reward for a good scientific/technical career. Unfortunately, some people cannot make this leap and
I see that the Agency has lost out twice-losing a good scientific/technician and gaining a poor manager (one who is only fit to
lead a dog).
-The other problem with the agency is that people don't have a very high regard for science and technical points. Rather than
make technically-based decisions, they are making politically-based ones; plea bargaining in the realm of science.
-More appreciation of technical work from management.
-Listen to advice and if can't follow it, explain why.
-A management staff composed of "political" decision-makers, as is perceived to be the case now, integrated with high level
scientific staff representation in decision-making meetings. Any political rationale for not following through with technical
recommendation should be made clear to scientific/technical staff.
-There must be trust developed between "political-types" and "scientific-types" in Region 10. Obviously, since EPA is a
government agency, political considerations play an important role in decision-making. Scientists need to be accepting of the
limitations to the extent that is necessary for the Agency to function effectively. Management "political-types" need to be
willing to take unpopular stances grounded in scientific fact to the extent possible in order to ensure environmental protection.
Openness in decision-making is essential to foster good working relationships between the two "type." there will always be
disagreements, however, avoiding disagreements by utilizing selective information dissemination is unacceptable.
Disagreements, on the other hand, are acceptable.
-Depoliticize decisions
-Truly show technical staff that their recommendations are heavily considered during the decision-making process. LIP
SERVICE DOESN'T CUT IT !
-Convincing demonstration by management that sci/tech decisions will be backed up
-Include representative scientists in Regional Planning and policy decision making activities
-Managers must make decisions—timely decisions, hard and controversial decisions, intelligent decisions-based on real time
needs and without fool-proof data sets. Any decision should be able to stand a reality check with environmental ethics.
-If the Agency is to be a scientific and technical agency, then our leaders must have at least a reasonable background in
science/engineering, rather than just political friends. Long improvement will need to come from using the best political
choices within the legal constraints and scientific realities of environmental science.
-Assure that scientific/technical employees are involved in the decision making process
-Acknowledge scientific/technical staff contributions with informal activities
-Provide scientific/technical staff acknowledgement for work well done
-Increase technical decision documents on all major EPA decisions and have management note whether they agree, and if not,
why not.
-Provide easier access for technical staff to upper management-give staff a chance to be heard
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 10
-A letter from the RA urging managers and supervisors to give a high weight to scientific accuracy when making program and
policy-decisions. This philosophy should be passed down, by them, to the state and local contacts when appropriate.
-Provide technical training to supervisors (training could even come from employees)
-Reward scientists for technically sound work-even when answers are not liked, (ie more John Yearsley awards)
-Consult with technical staff when making program/policy decisions
IV. COMMENTS ON OFFICE ENVIRONMENT
-Recently acquired computers and software have been a great step in the right direction. It allows much more time to be
spent on analysis and development rather than on hogging to get someone else to draft a memo or do a drawing or a plot.
-In-house technical staff are highly trained, highly motivated, and poorly supported. Change Regional approach so that the
technical staff is encouraged to stay rather than to leave.
-I would suggest that senior management must keep up with our work by having some real projects, similar to those that their
staff have, and thereby be forced to deal with staff day-to-day needs and problems. (Example: The RA would learn a lot
about car availability and reservations, or conference room availability and needs, or XXX, by having to make such
reservations themselves, and not using their position as a way to by-pass the bottlenecks). It is much more interesting to call
a Branch and to deal with the local secretary's "talents" than to have a study and'to read edited statistics of clerical needs.
•Comments after specific questions as follows:
-"The results of this questionnaire will receive serious management consideration."—CONSIDERATION-
MA YBE..ACTION-NOPE
-There is a lack of "caring" on the part of Region 10 senior management about EPA staff.
-Distribute work load evenly within the branches! Evaluate current workloads.
-Streamline routine reporting to programs to reduce paperwork time, allowing mote time for technical work.
-Greater recognition and awards for doing the job.
-Better work spaces
-View our (good) employees as a garden-something that needs love and cultivation, feeding , and weeding to obtain the best
results.
-Politics are the only important objective of Region 10 senior management. For example, why is the Region 10 laboratory
allowed to operate without any oversight?
-More rotational assignments
-I would like to see more part-time (3 day/week) positions open for engineers and scientists. Possibly, job sharing technical
positions could be expanded.
-Do a better job of setting priorities so technical staff is not stretched so thin.
-Better profiling and acknowledgement of sci/techs (recognition)
-Recognize us as being some of the best in our respective professions.
-Recognition of our talents and effort.
-Improvement should not only be to retain employees, but needs to be "fair" This means an employee should be rewarded for
doing a good job, not to prevent their leaving.
-Ask advice from scientists on your staff. As management, manage by inclusive Theory Z style.
-Fully implement TQM at all levels. So far it seems to be only "lip service", especially at the branch/division leveL Let the
scientific/technical experts participate in all phases of our operation including organizational structure and staffing
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 11
-Job promotions should not be based on favoritism, otherwise morale will continue to sag.
-Before we prematurely die at our Region 10 desks, Region 10 must provide each employee with 20 cubic feet per minute of
clean, filtered, outside air. Region 10 and Region 10 management do not care about the health of the scientific/technical staff
because they will not correct this basis indoor air pollution problem. Whey should EPA employees remain with Region 10 if
Region 10 is going to shorten the life-expectancy of the staff?
-implement other improvements in work-place conditions - improve indoor air now (how long has this been an issue? four
years?)
•Create an atmosphere of respect
-more recognition
-The region must work as a team unit, rather than working in the isolated program worlds of the present.
-implement flexiplace
•Better personnel management of task assignments would produce a more satisfied staff; if staff were allowed to "choose"
areas of work rather that be assigned them, the work would get done by those who'd enjoy it more.
-Move out of Seattle
-Avoid letting TQM and the results of this survey become just the latest fad of management to "train personnel" but to avoid
dealing with necessary change
-Too many supervisors. Supervisors need better TQM training to develop effective teams in lieu of one or two performance
appraisals each year.
-Maintain TQM mentality-implement to lowest levels-"amnesty" to technical staff is critical-management needs to support
/not criticize staff.
-Correct problems as indicated by survey thru policy changes
-When supervisors make work assignments based on having a "specialist" in their group, the first and second tier supervisors
need to be objective in their expectations. Evaluating output based on "bean counting" instead of based on assigned tasks is
kind of a catch 22.
-Treat them "right" at all times!
-Decrease the lip service, public relations, etc. and begin to concentrate on accomplishments. (Examples such as the health
problems related to the contaminated indoor air and many meetings and excuses since 1986. Also how about the drinking
water fountain contamination since early 1980? Way too much noise about action, but way too little as far as results. It
would help to increase trust between staff and management
V. COMMENTS ON EPA's MISSION
-Improve funding of applied science research and monitoring.
-Develop "leadership" position in scientific/regulatory community!
-Eliminate "bean-counting" or de-value it so technical and environmental work is higher priority
-Place tech/sci staff in more of a "scoping" role as opposed to a "review" role.
-Allow time for innovative effort as it directly applies to perceived future EPA needs.
-Staff involvement in research projects and pollution abatement.
-More emphasis on pollution prevention
-Re-distribution of workload and funding to reflect real, not perceived, demands on Agency resources that reflect a response
to real environmental problems.
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 12
-Address the real risks (eg. ecological-degradation to natural ecosystems terrestrial and aquatic), tap energies and expertise to
the limit to solve these tough problems and people will flock to the EPA. The challenge will retain them. It is failure to tap
expertise and provide the above opportunities that drives people away.
-Pursue more high-risk projects to motivate staff; be more on the cutting edge.
-Agency has limited resources and time and money. Even if these levels cannot be increased, viewing projects form a systems
analysis perspective could indicate where waste and repetition resides, and where major gains could be made bv improving the
efficiency, not only the budget. This of course is related to making hard management decisions and informing HQ and the
public about our real needs and limitations.
-Reward risk taking at all levels-even when the risk results in a negative outcome.
-more FTE's in ESD for program support
-Regularly give advice to and receive advice from our counterparts in other nations. (Currently, this occurs almost entirely at
the HQ level).
-Put more emphasis on cleaning up the environment as opposed to administrative processes.
-Find funding sources for technical work that is outside the scope of currently funded programs.
-Establish an applied technology group in ESD to work with Project Officers, OSCs, etc. to relate real site problems to state
of the art techniques and methodologies. Group shall maintain both liaison with ORD Tech Support in EPA and with similar
groups in DOE, DOD, NASA, etc; even the private sector.
-Examine the recommendations of the SAB report and match expertise to these tasks. Ecological risks are de-emphasized
currently-this needs to change.
-Establish separate budget for ESD that is not dependent on Programs. ESD resources are currently prioritized by the
amount that Programs contribute to the ESD budget, yet the Program that contributes the most money (Hazardous Waste) is
not necessarily the most in need as far as environmental and health risks. In-housg technical resources should be directed_to
high-risk environmental problems in aU programs. Program managers have not had a very good track record for attending to
high-risk environmental problems.
-Encourage Agency to support foreign environmental protection programs and to support program with personnel and funds.
-Direct people at the Regional Office to identify a wide range of solutions to pressing or potentially pressing environmental
threats which EPA currently has no explicit legislative mandate to solve.
-Managers need to set realistic goals and stick to them-don't be distracted by HQ bean-counting, special initiatives, manager's
pet projects, or TQM.
•Reward competence~not "likeable" behavior-as arbitrarily chosen by EPA Region 10 management!! (Hidden Agenda is
real!)
-More pollution prevention efforts
-Reward managers who take risks to confront bureaucratic and political obstacles to environmental protection. Punish
managers who sacrifice the environment to avoid controversy.
-Show the staff that environmental protection is also a management goal. One way to do this is to enact the above.
-Region should document and lobby for real needs to Headquarters (and others). If we cannot meet deadlines due to lack of
personnel, then that should be documented, not just counted as a "missed bean."
-De-emphasize the knee-jerk response to industry/private sector activities. This antagonism is getting in the way of realistic
and practical resolution of very real environmental problems.
-A CODE OF ETHICS, based on real environmental needs, should be developed to provide that general framework needed
for hard decisions where laws and regulations do not provide an answer and political pressures alone seem to guide the
Agency.
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 13
-Protect EPA's investment-it's technical staff!
-Reach out to undeveloped countries to assist them develop in environmentally sound ways. Coordinate activities with
organizations such as PATH (Program for Appropriate Technology) which are active in these countries.
-De-emphasize bean counts as a measure of environmental protection
-De-emphasize enforcement as a principal bean count
-(A firm insistence upon hiring and retaining a strong scientific staff will be more expensive than the status quo. In-house
savings may be generated by reducing the ratio of chiefs to indians, reclassifying operation office director jobs to GS-14, and
severely cutting operation office staffing levels.)
-Advance scientists with technical backgrounds. EPA is far too engineer top heavy.
VI. COMMENTS ON RECRUITING
-Institutionalize peer review input for hiring and promotion decisions.
-Recognize that most EPA jobs require both good scientific and communication skills, and only hire or promote those who
meet high standards in both realms.
-Stronger Cooperative program with graduate students.
-Better recruitment of talented engineers.
-four year scholarship program for talented minority college student
-Comments after specific questions as follows:
"Recruitment efforts attract persons with necessary technical skills" -WHAT RECRUITMENT?
-Ensure that appropriately trained people are utilized by Human Resources for reviewing position application materials. This
will ensure that applicants with proper educational and training backgrounds can be considered by those who are filling the
position (the SF 171 gets beyond Human Resources to those doing the hiring!)
-Active recruiting in professional journals, papers, etc. to solicit the best people for each position
-Actively recruit technical personnel through trade associations, etc. and offer senior level positions to qualified persons.
-Hire experienced staff!
-Hire additional technical staff. Currently, the workload greatly exceeds the amount which can be adequately dealt with by
the current number of staff
-Secure additional funds to pay for more staff-workload increases but staffing doesn't which forces existing staff to should an
excessive workload which creates a stressed staff and can impact performance, and work products.
-Get more student interns in here. Lots of good PR and vibes here, waiting for a chance.
-Hire managers/supervisors who have displayed aptitude or ability to manage/supervise rather than overwhelming technical
attributes so that tech people can get support they need
-Advertise positions at academic institutions-not just the student trainee positions, but responsible professional positions.
-Job promotions should not be based on favoritism, otherwise morale will continue to sag.
-I don't believe that the interests of EPA are served best by keeping same technical/scientific people for their entire career. I
also believe that if people can find better places to work they should move. Jobs are better filled by good people moving
through jobs than by people staying in the same job forever.
•Recruit from Universities and private sector bv offering comparable salaries!!
-Hire people with a background appropriate for the job
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 14
-Before addressing improvements, the question is why would Region 10 want to secure and retain scientific/technical
expertise? After all, isn't Region IPs fundamental hiring policy based on that people want to live in Seattle and given the
basic supply and demand curves, Region 10 can afford to be highly selective in its hiring practices as well as offer lower grade
positions to qualified applicants? Perhaps when Seattle loses its most liveable status, Region 10 will have to be more
competitive and become more equitable as in other regions. As an aside, are people like payroll and finance officers grouped
in the same scientific/technical category as engineers? If so, isn't a more suitable category name, the non-management
category? Before taking action to secure and retain scientific/technical expertise, the Region should examine its priorities and
determine if it should be making such a commitment From my jaded point of view, management is only providing lip service
to the scientific/technical staff-it is only an appearance of management taking action using its newly-found TQM religion, and
nothing of substance will result.
-There is too much hiring/promoting "the buddy" going on around here. It's no secret! When it occurs, everybody knows it.
Often this results in the most competent person NOT receiving the job. Management must show that they are concerned with
improving morale, and stop this unfair hiring practice.
-More participation in "job fairs" by technical people capable of communicating with potential employees in describing job
opportunities. Perhaps outreach to college freshmen and sophomores (plant a seed!)
-Recruit good liberal arts graduates with basic core technical training (elementary courses in chemistry, geology, hydrogeology,
environmental engineering). Many of the "technical" jobs at EPA don't require hill-blown "technical" degrees but only good
understanding of basics, but most "technical" jobs do require ability to think and to analyze ~ skills more realistically obtained
form strong Liberal Arts backgrounds.
-Need to stop promoting secretaries and other non-scientifically educated personnel to jobs that require technical expertise.
This activity is extremely demoralizing to higher qualified individuals
-Fill behind scientist positions with scientists, don't re-classify to EPS
-Don't promote generalists into technical jobs and allow them to gain "some" technical expertise thru OJT and a couple of
college courses. This weakens our agency—both its ability to "protect the environment" as well as its image.
-Technical employees should have titles which reflect their specialty, jaot EPS. Maybe environmental .scientist is_bettert_but
ideally ifshould be oceanographer, biologist, hydrogeoiogist, etc. Maybe if personnel must be hired under a general category,
there should be an effort to reclassify after we have tested the employee out
-Fill in behind scientist positions with scientists,,, don't reclassify to EPS.
-Easier hiring in specific job classifications like chemist, toxicologist, environmental scientist, etc., rather than falling back on
the EPS category.
VII. ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT
-"Man/Woman" phones with clerical staff for all working hours (7:30 to 5 pm) to reduce distractions
-Ask scientists what additional equipment (office) would aid them in their duties
-Separation of technical, staff, management, etc. "needs" is not realistic. We all need cars, meeting rooms, computers, etc.
We should attempt to understand how weak support systems damage the efficiency of the Agency.
-Improve support services.
-Make sure that when technical people are hired they understand that the bulk of their work may be administrative-staff is
frequently overqualified.
-Improve administrative support services, especially clerical
-The administrative support is weak. Some sections do not have the staff who are motivated to provide support and to do it
the right way.
-Provide resources where needed, and when requested by the RPM.
-Decrease time spent/required for performing secretarial duties (eg. faxing, copying)
-Staff Assistance (eg GS 7,9) for senior sci/techs.
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 15
-Reduce clerical staff turnover (current clerical staff is thin. VERY THIN. This directly affects Quality and Quantity of my
work)
-Decrease the administrative burden of section chiefs to allow for more actual technical work. Section chiefs should have
some actual projects to maintain their technical skills sharp.
-Divorce human resources duties from program management duties at the Section Chief level, to the extent practicable.
Good technical section chiefs don't want to spend lots of time on personnel paperwork.
-Hire more technical support people in ESD so they are under less pressure.
-I would suggest that senior management must keep up with our work by having some real projects, similar to those that their
staff have, and thereby be forced to deal with staff day-to-day.needs and problems. (Example: The RA would learn a lot
about car availability and reservations, or conference room availability and needs, or XXX, by having to make such
reservations themselves, and not using their position as a way to by-pass the bottlenecks). It is much more interesting to call
a Branch and to deal with the local secretary's "talents" than to have a study and to read edited statistics of clerical neeids.
•Divorce human resources duties from program management duties at the Section Chief level, to the extent practicable.
Good technical section chiefs don't want to spend lots of time on personnel paperwork.
-Much of the technical staff also does administrative, programmatic work. It has been a long time since I have done real
engineering. We should not force technical staff into administrative/management unless that is appropriate. Many technical
people have no concept of management, despite the fact they are managers.
VIII. COMMENTS ON INTERNAL COMMUNICATION
-Improve the communication system network from top to bottom.
-Have management provide staff with their views on the goals of the Agency at the Regional and Divisional levels.
-There needs to be more ways of sharing information within EPA. Different programs are not informed of each others
activities.
-Improve the communication network from top to bottom. For example, I have never heard the new RA. speak and I've only
seen her once.
-Develop a mechanism whereby management would provide staff with useful information pertaining to goals and objectives of
EPA at the Agency, Regional, and Divisional levels. Oft-times it appears that management's objectives/motives are not
necessarily the same as that of the staff.
-Consolidate technical and programmatic staff into one organization. For example, the air monitoring inspectors, modelling,
and technical staff in the ESD should be relocated to the Air Programs. Having the air technical and air program staff in two
completely independent organizations results in scientific studies which are utkrelated to program goals, and program decisions
which are not based on sound science.
-Shorten chain of command—present system makes it difficult to communicate reasons for decisions from senior management
to staff.
-ALL STAFF meeting soon that highlights the QAT activities and involvement by PRG. Gerry might want to give a pep talk.
-Improve the newsletter to include what's happening in the region.
-Provide more communication between EPA lab researchers. Increase awareness and opportunity to be involved in research
and to use innovative technologies in the field.
-Make program people more aware of the services technical people have to offer, and make it easy to obtain those services.
"Delegated Authority" positions/openings that, generally, are not advertised by personnel should be made known to folds
applying at EPA.
IX. COMMENTS ON EPA's INTERACTION WITH PUBLIC
-Use technical experts to help educate public/schools about EPA work/philosophy
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 16
-More public outreach!
-Use technical experts to help educate public/schools about EPA work/philosophy
-Increase the status of government scientist by getting rid of deadwood. Attempt to raise employment standards.
-Develop a campaign to combat the public perception that government employees are overpaid, lazy, and the "enemy".
-Agency has limited resources and time and money. Even if these levels cannot be increased, viewing projects form a systems
analysis perspective could indicate where waste and repetition resides, and where major gains could be made bv improving the
efficiency, not only the budget. This of course is related to making hard management decisions and informing HQ and the
public about our real needs and limitations.
-Enlist public support by publicizing the obstacles, both people and systems, which EPA faces.
-Provide meaningful jobs that give people the opportunity to tangibly "make a difference." We are too far from "the action"
and too inundated with bureaucratic process.
-Positive attitude toward government staff by elected officials
-Change legislation to give EPA greater flexibility in setting priorities and seeking innovative solutions.
-Creatively use existing legislation, and enlist the public support needed to solve these problems at the local or state level (or
to bring pressure upon the U.S. Congress).
X. INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAMS
-Develop and support a Regional Scientific and Technical "SWAT TEAM."
-Inventory scientific expertise existing within current ranks-find out what we've already got and make better use of it. Job
match program—which died" was an effort to do this. It apparently was never taken seriously by senior managers.
-Better and more widespread use of interdisciplinary teams to work on specific projects/problems.
-Ensure more risk assessment folks to support technical Superfund staff.
-Foster use of scientific team approach for complex problems that require interdisciplinary expertise
-Implement interdisciplinary task forces where appropriate.
-Develop team-approach to appropriate projects so as to tie the above strengths into a team effort and a proud production.
-Recognize the use and encourage others to form interdisciplinary teams.
-Actively use creative work approach-i.e. interdisciplinary teams, etc.
-Find out what expertise "we" have right now in educational background; theses and dissertations work, training, etc. so a
TQM Task Force could be readily assembled.
XL COMMENTS ON THE USE OF CONTRACTORS
-The technical support to the RPM is more burdensome to the RPM in comparison to a contractor. The technical support is
not as responsive, or timely, and often creates more work for the RPM. It is very difficult to streamline remediations with
this type of support.
-Better balance between contractors and in-house technical oversight.
-Less contract work and more in-house technical work. We are shooting ourselves in the foot-by creating the environment
where private consultants/contractors steal our workers.
-Lobby for more FTE's, less contract $~let us do the technical work.
-Build a larger staff of technical experts in all areas so that less work will have to be let out to contractors.
-------
Appendix IX. Categorization of Staff Comments 17
-Move away from contracting so much scientific work, hire employees in EPA to conduct this work. This really.is financially
feasible when contractor abuse of EPA dollars is considered. Work products would be higher quality, scientists could be
more confident that finding represent agency views, and EPA could be perceived as an employer actively seeking scientific
employees for strictly scientific work.
-Support development of in-house expertise and de-emphasize some of the heavy, heavy reliance on contractors.
-Less reliance on contractors
-Increase technical staff and reduce reliance on contractors
-Reduce reliance on contractors.
XII. OTHER COMMENTS
A. REDUCING HIERARCHY
-If TQM = More technical staff and less middle management then it might work.
-Flatten the hierarchy—reduce the managerial layers; empower technical experts with decision-making authority or influence in
the decision-making process.
-Too many supervisors. Supervisors need better TQM training to develop effective teams in lieu of one or two performance
appraisals each year.
-Fewer managers
-(A firm insistence upon hiring and retaining a strong scientific staff will be more expensive than the status quo. In-house
savings may be generated by reducing the ratio of chiefs to indians, reclassifying operation office director jobs to GS-14, and
severely cutting operation office staffing levels.)
B. OPERATIONS OFFICES
-We need to face what the purpose of Operation Offices is— we do not need additional levels of editing of our needs to state
agencies. They could do much more as field offices for actual field projects and obtaining real data.
-Remove Operations Offices from "the loop". They began as field offices and should remain as such. Ops office attempts to
include political considerations into technical decisions are often listened to, and these decisions then are less credible than
they would have been.
F. MISCELLANEOUS
-How about peer groups to do some reality checks on awards, promotions, etc ?
-Increase the status of government scientist by getting rid of deadwood. Attempt to raise employment standards.
-Provide legal indemnification for technical decision makers such as that provided for contractors
-Train one person in Washington MTCA-these will be ARARS and we don't know full implications of Regs-
-Establish a scientific/technical, non-TQM based committee. To a large part, the scientific methodology involves the
distribution of up-to-date information. Most companies and universities have periodic meetings where a featured guest (one
with expertise and understanding, and the ability to speak coherently) will discuss new developments. I'd like the
scientific/technical staff within the Agency identified for possible consultations, etc. Also, I see myself pigeon-holed with my
day-to-day job that I often feel that I lose sight of the overall picture.
-Provide meaningful jobs that give people the opportunity to tangibly "make a difference." We are too far from "the action"
and too inundated with bureaucratic process.
-Face the fact that improvements require change, and that requires taking chances and having disagreements openly
-Increase interest in job assignments
-------
APPENDIX X
Comment Category
Corresponding Survey Statement(s)
Salary/Advancement
2-3 and 2-5
Training/Professional Growth
2-8, 3-4, 3-12, 3-13, 3-15,
and 3-17
Technical Input on Decisions
1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-6, 1-7, 3-2,
3-10, 3-11, and 3-16
Professional Recruitment
2-1, 2-2, 2-4, 3-5, 3-8, and
3-14
Use of Contractors
1-8, 3-9, and 3-18
Internal Communication
2-6 and, 2-7
Agency Mission/Focus
1-1, 1-5, and 1-9
Administrative Support
3-1 and 3-6
Interdisciplinary Teams
3-13
Office Environment
4-5
Interaction with Public
None
Operations Offices
None
------- |