ANALYSIS OF RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION PROCEDURES

FOR U.S. FISHERIES OBSERVERS

Final

Prepared by Tracey Mayhew and Kimberly S. Dietrich

Contract NFFKS100-2-00023 to the Association for Professional Observers

July 13, 2005

Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………...... / 3
Acknowledgements……………………………………………………...... / 12
List of Figures………………………………………………………………………. / 13
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….. / 14
Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………… / 16
1.0 Background...... / 17
2.0 Objectives...... / 18
3.0 Scope, Limitations and Assumptions…………………………………………... / 19
4.0 Tasks...... / 19
4.1 Observer recruitment……………………………………………...... / 22
4.1A Recruitment practices……………………...... / 22
4.1B Recruitment strengths and weaknesses…………………...... / 39
4.1C Methods identified to improve recruitment……………………………… / 46
4.2 Observer retention…………………………………………………………. / 49
4.2A Retention requirements...... / 53
4.2B Retention performance measures……………………………………….. / 54
4.2C Retention methods...... / 55
4.2D Defining retention metrics...... / 69
4.2E Comparison of retention rates...... / 76
4.2F Adequacy of retention methods...... / 76
4.2G Motivational factors...... / 76
4.2H Observer Bill of Rights…………………………………………………. / 78
4.2I Methods identified to increase retention………………………………… / 81
5.0Summary and Discussion…………………………………………………….. / 87
6.0 References…………………………………………………………………….. / 91
Appendices
IProgram goals and objectives
IIProvider websites
III Professional organizations and other employment websites
IVSample recruitment questionnaire
VUniversity employment and career centers
VIUniversities granting degrees in fisheries
VIIOutline for longitudinal study on observer retention
VIIIADF&G observer retention
IXSummary of APO’s survey on retention
XObserver Bill of Rights
XINCES draft language
XIIDraft National observer award / 94
99
100
101
102
104
106
108
110
114
116
118

Executive Summary

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is tasked with protecting fishery resources for the benefit of the Nation. To accomplish the goals within the NMFS Strategic Plan, the agency utilizes a variety of data collection methods ranging from fishery-independent stock assessment surveys to the use of fishery-dependent data. A large proportion of the fishery-dependent data is collected by fisheries observers on board commercial fishing vessels.

Observers are increasingly relied upon to collect information both on catch and bycatch of marine species and to monitor compliance with fishery regulations administered under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFCA), the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). NMFS’ ability to successfully manage the nation’s fisheries is predicated on the collection of the highest quality scientific data. NMFS perceives a need to improve the methods currently used to recruit and retain observers if NMFS is to be able to respond to an increasing demand for reliable data on the impacts of fishing operations on living marine resources. This is especially critical as NMFS and the Regional Councils move toward developing standardized bycatch reporting methodologies for all fishery management plans, with an increased reliance on observer programs to provide more complete information on both catch and bycatch.

The objectives of this review are to:

  • Assess current hiring practices and identify methods to improve recruitment of qualified observers.
  • Identify methods to ensure and increase retention of experienced observers.

There are two primary assumptions underlying the content contained in this report:

  • Requirements and specifications in existing SOWs are being performed; and
  • In general, more observer experience and higher retention will result in higher quality data.

It is unclear whether there is a strong correlation between observer retention and quality of data.NMFS has not analyzed its own data to address this assumption; however, other studies comparing data quality and the amount of experience may be relevant.

Recruitment Overview

Each federal observer program and their respective provider(s) vary in their minimum eligibility requirements and preferences for candidacy into observer training. These may include education, experience and skills, physical fitness and medical condition, other requirements, and preferred personality characteristics. In general, a bachelors degree is required and previous observer or seafaring experience are preferred. All candidates must be in good physical condition or data quality may suffer.

The observer providers are solely responsible for attracting qualified applicants (new hires as well as prior observers) for work in all observer programs. Observer providers employ various combinations of recruitment techniques but the internet appears to be the most efficient and effective tool. In addition to the direct methods employed by the observer providers, NMFS plays an indirect role in recruitment through outreach activities. Each program, including the NOP, has developed materials describing observer positions and program goals that they post on their websites. NMFS relies exclusively on the observer providers to ensure that program-specified minimum eligibility requirements are met before applicants are forwarded to the programs for input or final approval for acceptance into training.

Training is the final step in the recruitment process. Initial training duration varies from 5 to 15 days. Training is performed by NMFS staff or NMFS-approved trainers. All of the programs have a recency requirement (i.e., refresher briefing or complete retraining after a period of inactivity).

Potential strengths and weaknesses of each category of observer recruitment are addressed; however, we note that there is little to no data to substantiate these strengths and weaknesses and each program may have unique differences of which we may be unaware.

Retention Overview

Retention can be defined as the state of keeping one’s employees in a given position or more broadly within the company or a profession. Retention tracks an individual or cohort through time.

Retention is sometimes confused with turnover. Turnover is defined as the voluntary cessation of membership of an organization by an employee of that organization. Turnover is a much easier metric to track but can be a deceiving metric in that it does not necessarily relate to maintaining a baseline level of experience within a given workforce.

Retention and turnover can be influenced by both uncontrollable and controllable factors. Uncontrollable factors may include cases where people leave their jobs to care for another family member in poor health, they retire or their own health deteriorates to the point where they cannot work. Controllable factors may include management attitudes, rate of pay, employee benefits, job satisfaction, job challenge, and camaraderie in the workplace. Each of these interacts and has multiple subfactors. In addition, the reasons for retention may vary over time within a given position.

A high retention rate is not always a good indicator of high engagement or productivity. Engagement can be defined as “bringing discretionary effort to work, in the form of extra time, brain power or energy”. Responses of a survey of 240 companies from a broad range of industries regarding the organizational factors most impacted by turnover included: loss of organizational knowledge (78%); employee morale (78%); additional training costs (70%); added recruiting costs (69%); poor service (67%); more stress (64%); lost productivity (62%); and profitability (54%). Direct costs of high turnover include expenses for: exit interviews; employment advertising, recruitment and screening, background checks, interviews, orientation and training. Indirect costs of high turnover are more difficult to quantify but include lost productivity and lower employee morale.

In 2004, the Department of Commerce Office of the Inspector General’s (OIG) Office of Inspections and Program Evaluations reviewed seven regional NMFS observer programs to determine whether they are meeting data collection needs, how NMFS ensures that observer data is of high quality, and how well the program’s missions and objectives are communicated (U.S. Dept. of Commerce 2004). The OIG concluded that observer turnover impacts program costs, reliability of fisheries management and data quality. While the last two items were not discussed in great detail, the OIG estimated at current turnover rates that a single observer cost the government $2,000 per year including training, background checks, increased support and debriefing. High turnover is high risk business behavior requiring a higher investment in recruitment cost and has the potential to decrease deployment flexibility. The retention of previous observers allows for greater flexibility because providers are working with a known entity and this also allows for long-term planning.

The need for retention of fisheries observers deployed by NMFS who collect high quality data is important. This is visibly reflected in request for proposal (RFP) and Statement of Work (SOW) language for several programs; however, nowhere in the RFPs or SOWs are terms such as “low turnover”, “retention”, “experienced observer staff” and “highest quality data”, explicitly defined. Currently, none of the Federal programs require their providers to meet any specific retention requirement or goal. Retention requirements are intentionally not specified by regulation or in requests for proposals. The intent of the latter is to allow providers the flexibility to discuss retention in their proposals. There are no retention requirements or penalties; therefore, there are no performance measures.

Methods currently utilized by observer providers to retain observers include professional wages, non-salary benefits, support services, and other miscellaneous incentives. All providers working under a direct contract with NMFS must comply with McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract Act (SCA) regulations regarding wages and benefits provided for fisheries observers; however, there is wide interpretation regarding how these wages and benefits are dispersed. Professional wages include pay for time spent in training, briefing and debriefing, traveling, waiting or on-call, and time at-sea. Paid holiday, vacation and sick leave are also included as wages. Daily payment for training, briefing and debriefing is generally constant within programs but varies from $60 to $115 among programs. Pay for travel and being on-call ranges from no wages to at-sea rates depending on the location or circumstances. Starting wages for time spent at sea ranges from $96/day to $182/day and maximum pay rages from $145 to $229/day. Daily wages are calculated using slightly different assumptions regarding the hours an observer may work at sea for each program.

Health insurance benefits are provided in some form, albeit through diverse methods and with varying caveats, by all providers two. Major medical health plans are either provided entirely by providers, subsidized by providers or money is provided as taxable income in lieu of these benefits. Only one provider supplies life insurance and two supply some sort of retirement benefit. Three programs have educational benefits that the observers must pay for in order to participate. Essential gear is provided by all programs or providers except NPGOP and A-SHOP.

Non-salary benefits provided during training, briefing, debriefing, travel and while waiting or on-call primarily include lodging, food per diem and mileage reimbursement when personal vehicles are used for travel. All providers except for the SWRFOP supply lodging and a food per diem during training. Lodging and a food per diem is provided during briefing and debriefing for all programs except SWRFOP and PIRO.

Support services include all non-financial factors that may affect an individual’s decision to continue employment in a given position. Support services influence job satisfaction and morale. The following factors may impact the shipboard life and land-based lifestyle of fisheries observers:

  1. Program and provider management
  2. Work factors
  3. Physical and health factors
  4. Mental/emotional factors
  5. Morale factors
  6. Work/Life Balance
  7. Onboard social factors
  8. Entertainment factors
  9. Training adequacy and enrichment opportunity
  10. Advancement opportunities.

In order to recommend a metric for monitoring fisheries observer retention within individual programs and nationwide, several metrics with standard definitions must be created and compared. We present a broader view of retention by attempting to incorporate engagement (as reflected in data quality) into a few of the metric options. Four generalized metrics are described in order of increasing complexity: turnover rate, retention rate, an Experience Index and an Experience and Data Quality Index. The Experience Index does not explicitly account for data quality at the level of a day or trip; rather the Experience Index relies on the premise that observers who have worked longer collect higher quality data. The Experience and Data Quality Index is similar to the Experience Index but a third dimension, data quality at the level of fishing day, is incorporated.

Each of the four metrics has strengths and weaknesses. Turnover rate tracks how well a program retains observers in a given year. The retention rate metric tracks how well observers (cohorts) are retained long-term. Both turnover and retention are easy to calculate. The weaknesses of the turnover and retention metrics are that turnover does not track the amount of baseline experience within the observer corps and neither metric makes a link to data quality.

The Experience Index makes a stronger link to the amount of data collected in a given program by observers with more experience but still assumes more experience leads to better data quality. The ability to incorporate gear type is a strength. This metric does not incorporate data quality on a day-to-day basis. The Experience and Data Quality Index incorporates both observer experience and a data quality rating at the level of day. The primary weakness of the latter two metrics is their calculation will require a lot of coordination among programs to be applied consistently.

Without the data required to calculate or compare any of the proposed metrics and our inability to survey observers directly, we were unable to determine whether the retention mechanisms currently in place are adequate.

None of the programs systematically or consistently track the reasons why individuals decide to stop working as fisheries observers. A small amount of data was available to determine the motivational factors that influence a person’s decision to become an observer and continue to be an observer. These are: a desire to pursue other employment, seasickness, missed land life, vessel conditions, employment conditions, and the demands of the job.

In 2000, an Observer Bill of Rights was drafted by over 40 observers attending the Second Biennial Canada-United States Fisheries Observer Program Workshop in St. John’s, Newfoundland Canada as a means of promoting long-term retention of observers in all observer programs. The Observer Bill of Rights is analogous to Labor Best Practices. A short discussion of each program’s status in relation to the items contained in the Bill of Rights is provided.

Methods Identified for Improving Observer Recruitment

Current recruitment techniques are generating an adequate number of applicants for today’s observer needs; however, this could change in the future. The following methods for programs and providers are identified as options to enhance and increase observer recruitment in the future:

Eligibility requirements

  1. NMFS should quantitatively evaluate data quality differences between observers who meet all of the degree and coursework requirements and those who have been hired under various exceptions.
  2. NMFS should assess physical exam evaluation criteria to verify if exams are assessing physical and psychological fitness requirements.
  3. Although standard first aid/CPR are requirements for some programs, observers would be better prepared if this certification were more specific to remote areas.

Attracting qualified applicants

  1. NMFS should collect or request that observer providers collect statistics on how new observer hires are recruited.
  2. Providers and programs should modify key words on websites and their internet posted job announcements, so that information and positions can be found by common search engines more easily.
  3. Providers should partner with NMFS to provide job announcements on national and regional program websites. At a minimum, regional program sites should link to the current observer provider for their respective region.
  4. Providers could more consistently utilize online job posting services maintained by professional organizations and universities.
  5. Providers could more actively participate in job fairs at universities that grant degrees in fisheries.
  6. Providers could more actively recruit returning Peace Corps volunteers who meet eligibility requirements.
  7. The NMFS NOP could also utilize the Peace Corps’ Returned Volunteer Services in two ways:

Develop a Fisheries Observer field or position in the Career Manual.

Participate in events at Peace Corps headquarters in Washington D.C.

  1. Program names and goals and objectives on NMFS websites should be consistent to eliminate confusion among the applicant pool.

Screening applicants prior to training

  1. NOP could develop a checklist of baseline questions to ask all candidates interviewed as part of the application process.
  2. When possible, the provider should conduct more than one interview and different staff should perform these.

Satisfactory training of candidates

  1. Survey candidates after training and after first cruise in a given program to answer question of training adequacy.
  2. If retention becomes a problem, consider alternatives to recency requirements (specifically retraining).

Methods Identified for Increased Observer Retention

Retention methods are grouped by the entity responsible for the action (i.e., programs, providers, or both).

Programs

General – National

  1. Analyze existing observer data to assess assumption that data quality increases with more experience as a fisheries observer. If this assumption is not true, increasing retention may not be the answer to collecting high quality data and many of the following recommendations may become irrelevant.
  2. Perform a longitudinal study designed to determine the motivation of actual observers who choose to continue or discontinue their employment as observers. Without this information, a comprehensive plan to increase retention is impossible.
  3. Assess level of burnout and reasons contributing to burnout. Use results to modify future retention practices.
  4. Determine reasonable metric for measuring retention.
  5. Support the creation of consistent wage and benefit packages among programs.
  6. Extend Non-Competitive Eligibility Status (NCES) to fisheries observers who have provided extended service for the benefit of our nations fisheries.
  7. Create a nationally accredited observer basic training program that is recognized by all federal, and potentially, state observer programs. Benefits include consistency of observer training across all observer programs and reduced training costs.
  8. NMFS could establish a mentoring program between scientists and observers which would allow the observer to perform collaborative research which would ultimately be published.
  9. Professional recognition in publications is among the highest forms of recognition, respect and professional growth. Observers who have contributed scientific effort towards any study that is subsequently published should be recognized for that effort.

Solicitation Process