ANALYSIS OF RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION PROCEDURESFOR U.S. FISHERIES OBSERVERS

Final

Prepared by Tracey Mayhew and Kimberly S. Dietrich Contract NFFKS100-2-00023 to the Association for Professional Observers

June 10, 2005

Contents

Executive Summary…………………………………………………………............ 2Acknowledgements……………………………………………………..................... 13List of Figures………………………………………………………………………. 14List of Tables……………………………………………………………………….. 15Acronyms…………………………………………………………………………… 16

1.0 Background........................................................................................................... 182.0 Objectives............................................................................................................. 183.0 Scope, Limitations and Assumptions…………………………………………... 19

4.0 Tasks.................................................................................................................... 214.1 Observer recruitment……………………………………………................. 234.1A Recruitment practices……………………................................................. 234.1B Recruitment strengths and weaknesses………………….......................... 404.1C Recommendations to improve recruitment……………………………… 52

4.2 Observer retention…………………………………………………………. 554.2A Retention requirements............................................................................. 594.2B Retention performance measures……………………………………….. 604.2C Retention methods..................................................................................... 614.2D Defining retention metrics......................................................................... 734.2E Comparison of retention rates.................................................................... 794.2F Adequacy of retention methods................................................................. 804.2G Motivational factors.................................................................................. 804.2H Observer Bill of Rights…………………………………………………. 824.2I Recommendations to improve retention………………………………… 85

5.0 Summary and Discussion…………………………………………………….. 916.0 References…………………………………………………………………….. 96

AppendicesI Program goals and objectivesII Provider websitesIII Professional organizations and other employment websitesIV Sample recruitment questionnaireV University employment and career centersVI Universities granting degrees in fisheriesVII Outline for longitudinal study on observer retentionVIII ADF&G observer retentionIX Summary of APO’s survey on retentionX Observer Bill of RightsXI NCES draft languageXII Draft National observer award

98103104105106108110112114119121123

2

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.

NMFS currently deploys approximately 600 observers annually to collect scientific data in more than 40 fisheries nationwide. Although observers are mandated by NMFS for certain fisheries, observers are hired directly by private observer providers.

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 perceives a need to improve the methods currently used by private observer providers 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.

NMFS’ ability to successfully manage the nation’s fisheries is predicated on the collection of the highest quality scientific data. To ensure that the most qualified and experienced personnel are recruited and retained to work as observers, NMFS contracted a review of observer recruitment and retention practices.

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. 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 OverviewEach 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

3

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 felt that the internet was the most efficient and effective tool by far. 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, NMFS-approved trainers employed by the OTC or UFL staff (SESFOP). 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 OverviewTraditional definition of retention 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 versus turnoverRetention 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.

What factors influence retention and turnover?Retention 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.

4

Why are turnover and retention important? 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”. TalentKeepers (2004) performed a survey of 240 companies from a broad range of industries regarding the organizational factors most impacted by turnover. Responses 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%). There are both direct and indirect costs of high turnover (Frank et al. 2004). Direct costs include expenses for: exit interviews; employment advertising, recruitment and screening, background checks, interviews, orientation and training. Indirect costs are more difficult to quantify but include lost productivity and lower employee morale.

Turnover, retention and engagement – the fisheries observer contextRetention of staff that performs well is important to NMFS. The need for retention of fisheries observers deployed by NMFS who collect high quality data is also important and this is visibly reflected in RFP and 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.

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 (advertising, staff time spent on interviewing and training pay) 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.

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 (NPGOP and A-SHOP) or in requests for proposals (RFPs; all other programs). 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

5

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 nothing to at-sea wages depending on the location (NPGOP and A-SHOP) or circumstances. Wages for time spent at sea ranges from $96/day to $182/day and maximum pay rages from $139 to $229/day. Rates are calculated using slightly different assumptions regarding the hours an observer may work at sea.

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 retirement benefits. Two programs have educational benefits that the observers must pay for in order to participate. Uniforms (essential gear such as a rain slicker, pants, boots, and gloves) are 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. For instance, the following factors may impact the shipboard life and land-based lifestyle of fisheries observers:

1. Program and provider management 2. Work factors3. Physical and health factors4. Mental/emotional factors5. Morale factors6. Work/Life Balance7. Onboard social factors8. Entertainment factors9. Training adequacy and enrichment opportunity10. 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 into some of the metric options. Four generalized metrics are described in order of increasing complexity: turnover rate, retention rate, an Experience

6

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 and is easy to calculate. The weaknesses of using only the turnover metric are that turnover rate does not track the amount of baseline experience within the observer corps and there is no link to data quality.

The retention rate metric tracks how well observers (cohorts) are retained long-term and is also fairly easy to calculate. The lack of a link to data quality is also a weakness of retention rate.

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.

A comparison of metric options proposed was not performed due to the lack of access to the data required to calculate these metrics.

Without the data required to calculate proposed metrics and our inability to survey observers directly, we were unable to determine whether the retention mechanisms currently in place are adequate; however, we have two comments regarding retention mechanism responsibility and wage structure. All stakeholders have a role to play in increasing observer retention regardless of whether this role is officially acknowledged. Stake holders include individual provider staff, individual agency staff (program and data clients), other data clients, observers and fishers. Regarding wage structure, pay is not currently based on merit. A restructuring to reward those who collect higher quality data has the potential to increase retention.

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 can be thought of as Labor Best

7

Practices. A short discussion of where programs are in relation to the items contained in the Bill of Rights is provided.

Recommendations 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 recommended as options to enhance and increase observer recruitment in the future:

Eligibility requirements1. 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 applicants4. NMFS should collect or request that observer providers collect statistics on how new

observer hires are recruited. 5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Providers could more consistently utilize online job posting services maintained by professional organizations and universities.

8. Providers could more actively participate in job fairs at universities that grant degrees in fisheries.

9. Providers could more actively recruit returning Peace Corps volunteers who meet eligibility requirements.

10. 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.

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

Screening applicants prior to training12. NOP could develop a checklist of baseline questions to ask all candidates interviewed

as part of the application process. 13. When possible, the provider should conduct more than one interview and different

staff should perform these.

8

Satisfactory training of candidates14. Survey candidates after training and after first cruise in a given program to answer

question of training adequacy. 15. If retention becomes a problem, consider alternatives to recency requirements

(specifically retraining).

Recommendations for Improved Observer Retention

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

ProgramsGeneral – National1. 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 Process10. Include consistent and well-defined language regarding retention across all RFPs for

observer services.11. In lieu of specifying turnover and retention rates or establishing a retention goal in

RFPs, consider asking bidders to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their proposed retention plan.

12. In programs that are contracted directly with NMFS, SOWs should include retention metric tracking using a standard definition supplied by NMFS. This should be the provider’s responsibility. This ensures that information is available in a consistent format to the agency for future solicitations and for evaluating past performance.

9

13. Retention of observers who collect high quality data should be included as an evaluation criterion in the contract review and award process.

14. Include observer evaluations of providers in the RFP past performance evaluation process.

Providers15. Recognize observer experience in all programs for purpose of payment regardless of

previous employer. 16. Provide occasional informal gifts for praising a job well done. Base these on

performance rather than time.17. Recognize that not all solutions are appropriate for all individuals. Individuals stay at

a job for different reasons. Utilize knowledge of workforce wants and needs to implement a suite of personalized retention techniques.

18. Establish clear criteria for fishery or vessel assignment requests. 19. Provide written family emergency leave and other general policies

Programs and ProvidersManagement 20. Ensure all programs have program or provider staff available for immediate response

around the clock. 21. Implement vessel placement meetings to be conducted by provider or program

personnel in all programs.22. Ensure all programs have documented an explicit process for the fair evaluation of

data quality and provide a written process to the observers for voicing disagreement with the assessment.

23. Develop a voluntary mentoring program for new observers (assign to prior observer). 24. Survey all actively working observers regularly to assess provider and program

satisfaction.

Work factors Work factors may include the physical and mental demands of the position, job security, and workload (too much or too little work available).

25. Devise a promotion system based on measurable objectives.

For programs where deployments require extended travel away from home, we recommend: 26. Shorter trips (preferably no longer than four months).27. Paid leave of a comparable length to sea time. 28. Continuous employment, rather than employment by voyage. 29. Training time to be added to leave period

Physical and health factorsPhysical and health factors may include noise, vibration, light, habitability, safety, food (well balanced and available around the clock), regular exercise, sleep deprivation, and smoke.

10

30. Support further development of health and safety regulations on commercial fishing vessels.

31. Increase consistency of training for observers regarding physical and health factors while at sea.

Mental/emotional factorsMental and emotional factors may include stress, feeling needed, and feeling badgered or harassed.

32. Ensure professional counseling is available after traumatic events. 33. Ensure support services are available for alcohol and substance abuse.

Morale factorsMorale factors may include respect, recognition, comparable worth and the ability to communicate with family and friends.

34. Create opportunities for partners (and children where possible) to sail or meet observer in port.

35. Improve access to cheaper communication mediums. 36. Provide opportunities for observers’ families to make contact with each other while

observers are at sea. 37. Provide a salary and benefit package of comparable worth to similar types of work

(e.g., federal employees as a standard). 38. Provide adequate rest period and vacation time

Work/Life balanceWork/life balance issues may include burn-out, rotation/schedule, missed family opportunities, separation, e-mail access to families, and social network.

39. Supply free e-mail service or at a minimum service for a reduced fee.

Social factors (on and off the vessel)Social factors may include crew size, camaraderie among peers, language and cultural differences.

40. Support activities that foster a sense of community.

Training adequacy and enrichment opportunityTraining adequacy may impact an observer’s decision to remain an observer for more than one trip or cruise. 41. Support continuing education and training programs. Enrichment opportunities such

as being trained for more than one program, specialized identification training, deployment on research vessels, continuing education opportunity, and attendance at professional conferences may also increase long-term retention.

11

42. Continue to support observer attendance at the International Fisheries Observer Conference.

43. Incorporate standard first aid and CPR into all training or into an accredited basic training course so that it becomes a part of training for which observers are compensated.

44. Support professional growth.

Advancement opportunities45. Provide opportunities for advancement.

12

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Gillian Stoker, Suzanne Romain, Liz Mitchell and two anonymous reviewers for their input and reviews of this document. This project would not have been possible without the vast dedication and efforts of National Observer Program staff, Dennis Hansford, Vicki Cornish, Margaret Toner and Teresa Turk. We gratefully acknowledge all of the observer program and provider staff who provided initial information as well as comments on an earlier draft. We are especially thankful for the consistent support and detailed responses received from Jennifer Ferdinand, Alexia Morgan, Don Petersen, Mike Tork, Chad Lefferson and Dave Edick.

Authors

Tracey Mayhew is a former fisheries observer who worked in the North Pacific Groundfish, Alaska Marine Mammal, Southwest Region Fisheries Observer Program, and the Alaska Department of Fish and Game Shellfish Observer Programs. She served as the observer representative on the North Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (NPFMC) Advisory Panel from 2001 to 2003 and on the NPFMC’s Observer Advisory Committee from 2002 to the present.

Kim Dietrich is a former fisheries observer who worked in the North Pacific Groundfish and Alaska Marine Mammal Observer Programs. She served on the NPFMC’s Observer Advisory Committee from 1997 to the present. She has been a volunteer for the Association for Professional Observers since 1996.

Disclaimer

Opinions expressed within this report are exclusively those of the authors. The agency is not condoning nor advocating the recommendations herein.

13

List of Figures

Figure Page

1 Summary of methods by which NPGOP observers became aware of observer position

35

2 Hypothetical scenarios illustrating how duration of fisheries observer employment may influence data quality.

58

14

List of Tables

Table Page

1 Summary of NMFS Observer Program affiliation, location and estimated number of unique individuals deployed per year in each program

19

2 Summary of observer providers and years of service to each program 20

3 Summary of program and provider education, experience and skill requirements and preferences

25

4 Summary of program and provider physical and medical condition requirements and preferences

28

5 Summary of other program and provider requirements and preferences 30

6 Summary of preferred characteristics listed in RFP/SOWs 31

7 Recruitment techniques employed by observer providers 33

8 Summary of applicant approval process for candidacy in each observer program’s training session

36

9 Summary of training requirements for each observer program 38

10 Summary of safety training requirements 39

11 Summary of strengths and weaknesses of eligibility requirements 44

12 Summary of strengths and weaknesses for attracting qualified applicants 49

13 Summary of internet keyword search that could lead prospective applicants to observer positions

50

14 Summary of strengths and weaknesses for screening applicants 51

15 Retention language found in RFP and SOW for federal observer program contacts

58

16 Summary of daily wages paid to fisheries observers for training, briefing, debriefing, travel and waiting or on-call but not assigned to a vessel

63

17 Summary of daily observer at-sea wages 64

18 Summary of non-wage benefits offered by observer providers for normal employment conditions

66

20 Calculation of Experience Index using number of fishing days in a year collected by various experience types. Experience type defined by number of

75

15

Table Page

fishing days an observer has collected data in Program (Y).

21 Calculation of Experience Index using number of fishing days in a year collected by various experience types. Experience type is hypothetical and more fully defined in Table 22.

75

22 Definitions for hypothetical experience types in Table 21 76

23 Calculation of Experience and Data Quality Index using number of fishing days in a year collected by various experience types and whether data collected on those fishing days was rated as acceptable or not acceptable.

77

24 Calculation of Experience and Data Quality Index using number of fishing days in a year collected by various experience types and data quality weighted at four levels. This example assumes an experience type has no impact on data quality (i.e., each experience type collects data of equal quality).

77

25 Calculation of Experience and Data Quality Index using number of fishing days in a year collected by various experience types and data quality weighted at four levels. This example assumes an experience type has no impact on data quality (i.e., each experience type collects data of equal quality) but number of fishing days allocated to lower experience levels increased.

78

26 Calculation of Experience and Data Quality Index using number of fishing days in a year collected by various experience types and data quality weighted at four levels. This example assumes the amount of high quality data increases with more experience.

78

27 Summary of issues included in observer Bill of Rights currently being addressed by U.S. Observer Programs

83

16

Acronyms

AIS Atlantic Inspection Services, Inc.AMMOP Alaska Marine Mammal Observer ProgramAOI Alaska Observers, Inc.A-SHOP At-Sea Hake Observer ProgramCFR Code of Federal RegulationsCOTR Contracting Officer’s Technical RepresentativeCPR Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationESA Endangered Species ActFBI Federal Bureau of InvestigationFOA Frank Orth and AssociatesFR Federal RegisterIAP IAP World ServicesMMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MRAG MRAG Americas, Inc.MSFCA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management ActNAFTA North American Free Trade AgreementNEFOP Northeast Fisheries Observer ProgramNMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (also NOAA Fisheries Service)NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationNOP National Observer ProgramNPGOP North Pacific Groundfish Observer ProgramNWO NWO, Inc.OIG Office of the Inspector GeneralOPM Office of Personnel ManagementOTC University of Alaska Anchorage, Observer Training CenterPIRO Pacific Islands Regional Office Observer Program (oversight of Hawaii pelagic

longline, Hawaii groundfish and American Samoa fisheries)PRA Paperwork Reduction ActPSMFC Pacific States Marine Fisheries CommissionRFP Request for ProposalRVS Returned Volunteer ServicesSAC Special Agreement CheckSCA McNamara-O’Hara Service Contract ActSE Shrimp Southeastern Shrimp Otter Trawl Fishery Observer ProgramSEFSC POP Southeast Fisheries Science Center Pelagic Observer Program SESFOP Southeast Shark Fishery Observer Program (has also been referred to as

Southeast Region Shark Bottom Longline Observer Program (Directed Large Coastal Shark Fishery), Atlantic Shark Bottom Longline Observer Program and Commercial Shark Fishery Observer Program)

SF Standard FormSOW Statement of WorkSWI Saltwater, Inc.SWRFOP Southwest Region Fisheries Observer Program (within region referred to as

Highly Migratory Species and California Coastal Species Observer Program)TSI TechSea InternationalUFL University of Florida Museum of Natural HistoryURL Uniform Resource Locator (i.e., Internet address)WCGOP West Coast Groundfish Observer Program

17

1.0 BACKGROUND

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is tasked with protecting fishery resources for the benefit of the Nation. The NMFS Strategic Plan contains three goals: (1) rebuild and maintain sustainable fisheries; (2) promote the recovery of protected species; and (3) protect and maintain the health of coastal marine habitats. To accomplish these goals, 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, biologists specially trained to collect data on board commercial fishing vessels.

NMFS currently deploys approximately 600 observers annually to collect scientific data in more than 40 fisheries nationwide (Table 1). In the past observers have been hired by three methods: employment by the Federal government, employment by observer service providers, and employment as individual contractors. Currently, all new hires are made by private observer providers.

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). As fisheries management requirements expand, the number of qualified observers needed to collect high quality and critical information will also increase. One method to meet this need for an increased workforce is to retain highly motivated, long-term observers. In addition, the steep learning curve of collecting data on board fishing vessels suggests that long-term observers may provide higher quality data although no quantitative evaluations of observer performance comparing novice versus experienced observers are available.

NMFS perceives a need to improve the methods currently used by private observer providers 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 (NMFS 2003).

2.0 OBJECTIVES

NMFS’ ability to successfully manage the nation’s fisheries is predicated on the collection of the highest quality scientific data. To ensure that the most qualified and experienced personnel are recruited and retained to work as observers, NMFS contracted with the Association for Professional Observers to review observer recruitment and retention practices.

The objectives of this review are to:

18

Assess current hiring practices and identify methods to improve recruitment of qualified observers.

Identify methods to ensure and increase retention of experienced observers.

3.0 SCOPE, LIMITATIONS, AND ASSUMPTIONS

ScopeThis report focuses on the recruitment and retention of fisheries observers in the eleven federal observer programs (hereafter, referred to as programs) operating out of a regional management office or fisheries science center within the six NMFS regions (Table 1). As of April, 2005, fisheries observers are recruited and hired by the nine observer service providers listed in Table 2 (hereafter referred to as providers). In general, information gathered for this report occurred in 2002-2003 unless stated otherwise.

Table 1 Summary of NMFS Observer Program affiliation, location and estimated number of unique individuals deployed per year in each program.

Observer Program(Acronym) NMFS Affiliation Location

Estimated No. individuals

deployed/year

Source years

Alaska Marine Mammal(AMMOP) Alaska Region Juneau, AK 30 99-00

North Pacific Groundfish(NPGOP)

Alaska Fisheries Science Center Seattle, WA 335 01-04

At-Sea Hake(A-SHOP)

Northwest Fisheries Science Center Seattle, WA 27* 01-04

West Coast Groundfish(WCGOP)

Northwest Fisheries Science Center Seattle, WA 39 02-04

Pacific Islands Region(PIRO) Pacific Islands Region Honolulu, HI 35 **

Southwest Region Fisheries Observer Program (SWRFOP) Southwest Region Long Beach,

CA14 01-04

Southeast Shrimp Fishery (SE Shrimp)

Southeast Fisheries Science Center Galveston, TX 7 01-04

Shark Drift Gillnet Southeast Fisheries Science Center

Panama City, FL

6 01-04

Southeast Fisheries Science Center Pelagic (SEFSC POP)

Southeast Fisheries Science Center Miami, FL 13 01-04

Southeast Shark Fishery(SESFOP)

Southeast Fisheries Science Center

Panama City, FL

3+ 01-04

Northeast Fisheries(NEFOP)

Northeast Fisheries Science Center

Woods Hole, MA

110 01-04

*Number of deployments may include the same individual observer. **PIRO – 2002 Observer Conference Program Overviews.

19

Table 2 Summary of observer providers and years of service to each program. Blank cells indicate provider does not provide services to a given program. IAP World Services was formerly known as Johnson Controls, Inc.

Observer Provider(Acronym)

AM

MO

P

NPG

OP

A-S

HO

P

WC

GO

P

PIR

O

SWR

FOP

SE S

hrim

p

Shar

k D

rift

G

illne

t

SEFS

C

POP

SESF

OP

NE

FOP

Atlantic Inspection Services, Inc. (AIS) 00- 05Alaskan Observers Inc. (AOI) 89-05 94-05 01-05Data Contractors, Inc.* 99-00;

02 90-02 Unk

Frank Orth & Associates (FOA) 89-01 87-92 96-05IAP World Services (IAP) 00-01 98-05 98-05MRAG Americas (MRAG) 05NWO, Inc. (NWO) 91-05 Unk 04-05Saltwater, Inc. (SWI) 90-91 90-05 97-05 01-04TechSea International (TSI) 01-05 05University of Florida, Museum of Natural History (UFL) 94-05

Unk = unknown dates but observers were supplied.*No longer providing observer services

Limitations Information regarding recruitment and retention of marine fisheries observers was obtained through in-person and telephone interviews as well as email correspondence with dozens of program and provider staff. We have attempted to provide the facts to the best of our ability and note where opinions or practices diverged among or within programs. Information was also garnered from publicly available documentation such as Statements of Work (SOW), Requests for Proposals (RFP), and observer training manuals, and observer program and provider websites (Appendices I and II, respectively).

Due to the lengthy application requirements and approval timeline for the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) compliance, the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative (COTR) and this contractor reached a mutual decision to not pursue PRA approval to perform interviews or surveys of observers (the personnel focused on in this report). In retrospect, this was a detrimental mistake and the magnitude of this omission on the quality of this report cannot be overstressed. Without direct input from the individuals affected, it is difficult to ascertain from the minimal quantity of secondary data the actual reasons an individual would elect to pursue observing as a long-term career; therefore, many recommendations are based on human resources literature rather than an assessment of needs expressed by observers.

AssumptionsThere are two primary assumptions underlying the content contained in this report. First, we assume that the requirements and specifications in existing SOWs are being performed. Second, and more importantly, we assume that in general, more observer experience and higher retention will result in higher quality 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. For instance, Williams (2004) found a significant effect on the total number of fish sighted and species identified when comparing the effects of experience (number of dive transects completed) on species richness of fish counted per underwater transect.

4.0 TASKS

The specific tasks undertaken to complete this review are as follows:

4.1 Assess current recruitment practices and identify methods to improve recruitment of qualified observers.

(A)Summarize observer qualifications, requirements and recruitment techniques currently employed by the NMFS and its contracted and permitted observer providers.

(B) Identify the strengths and weaknesses of various practices currently being used to recruit observers.

(C) Investigate whether current recruitment practices coincide with the goals and objectives of each observer program. Determine whether the most

appropriate/qualified people are being hired to work as observers given a program’s goals and objectives.

(D)Develop recommendations to improve recruitment of qualified observers.

4.2 Identify methods to ensure and increase retention of experienced observers.

(A)Summarize retention requirements, if any, for each Observer Program.(B) Summarize performance measures used to ensure that observer providers meet

retention requirements, and penalties assessed (or other actions taken) if these requirements are not met.

(C) Detail methods currently utilized by observer providers to retain observers, and whether these methods are meeting retention requirements (if applicable). These may include, but are not limited to:

Professional wages Non-salary benefits Support services

(D)Determine a standard definition of retention that can be used to apply to all programs, and a reasonable metric for determining whether retention rates are adequate.

(E) Compare retention rates between the various programs using the standard definition of retention.

(F) Determine whether the retention mechanisms currently in place are adequate (according to the metric deemed reasonable).

(G)Determine what motivational factors influence a person’s decision to become an observer and continue to be an observer, and determine what factors are demotivators or cause ‘burnout’.

(H)Outline the steps necessary to ensure that the Observer Bill of Rights, drafted at the Second Biennial Canada-United States Fisheries Observer Program Workshop, is recognized by all U.S. observer programs.

22

4.1 Observer Recruitment

Task 4.1ASummarize observer qualifications, requirements and recruitment techniques currently employed by the NMFS and its contracted and permitted observer providers.

Recruitment of fisheries observers is a four-step process that involves defining who is eligible to apply, attracting qualified applicants, screening applicants prior to hiring and satisfactory training of candidates before they are fully recruited to be deployed at-sea as fisheries observers. Each step will be discussed individually.

4.1A.i Defining Observer Eligibility RequirementsEach 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 (Tables 3-6).

EducationMinimum education requirements are established by NMFS through regulation or contractual arrangements with the observer providers. The providers do not have any education requirements that exceed the minimums established by the programs. Educational requirements and preferences can be grouped into three categories: degree requirements, coursework or certification requirements, and exceptions.

Eight of eleven programs as well as the Draft National Minimum Eligibility Standard for Marine Fisheries Observers (Draft National Standard) require a bachelor’s degree in a natural science (Table 3). Although the Southeastern Shrimp Otter Trawl Fishery (SE Shrimp), Shark Drift Gillnet, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center Pelagic (SEFSC POP) Observer Programs currently require only three years of study toward a degree in a biological science, the bachelor’s degree is preferred by the SE Shrimp program manager and by the provider for all three of these programs.

Two programs, the Alaska Marine Mammal (AMMOP) and Pacific Islands Region Observer Programs (PIRO), have allowed for increased hiring flexibility by permitting certain experiences or alternative training programs to replace the bachelor’s degree requirement. For instance, AMMOP allows six years localized fishing experience as a skipper or first mate to replace the degree requirement as long as at least 75% of the observers hired in the program meet the education requirements (SOW #52ABNF200024). To date, the experience exception has not been exercised; however, the additional requirement of prior observer experience may exclude most fishers. In the case of AMMOP, hiring someone who has first hand knowledge of past fishing locations and harvest trends of Alaska State and federal management districts could benefit the program by assisting in more efficient observer deployment and by allowing for the ability to predict how fishers may behave in these highly dynamic fisheries.

23

PIRO as well as the Draft National Standards allow for the completion of an authorized training program to replace the degree requirement. Applicants who have successfully completed a ten-day Observer Preparatory Training offered through the University of Hawaii Marine Options Program may be eligible for PIRO training. Establishing this exemption has been a cooperative effort between NMFS, the University of Hawaii, and Alulike, a non-profit organization tasked with the mission of assisting native Hawaiians to achieve social and economic self-sufficiency. In addition, in 2003 the provider for the PIRO implemented a cooperative agreement with the University of Hawaii and Hawaii Pacific University where junior and senior level students could be hired as observers and receive educational credit for their work time. It was thought this would recruit and retain a local workforce. Only three students from one University have participated. The provider noted the difficulties with this agreement were an overly burdensome bureaucracy, restricted availability for work during the summer months, and problems with understanding basic biological concepts.

Seven programs require candidates to have a minimum of 30 semester hours in biological science (AMMOP, NPGOP, A-SHOP, SESFOP) or any combination of scientific or technical coursework (PIRO, SWRFOP, NEFOP; Table 3). In addition, PIRO, the Southwest Region (SWRFOP) and the Northeast Fisheries (NEFOP) Observer Programs require six of these hours to be in marine science or fisheries (SOW October 2002, RFP #52ABNF000029, and SOW 2002/03, respectively). The North Pacific Groundfish (NPGOP) and At-Sea Hake (A-SHOP) Observer Programs require one college-level math and one statistics course whereas AMMOP and Southeast Shark Fishery Observer Program (SESFOP) require one math, statistics or computer science course. The Draft National Standard includes a requirement for either one math or statistics course.

PIRO, SWRFOP, and NEFOP allow the 6 semester hours of coursework in marine science or fisheries to be replaced by prior at-sea observer experience, previous ocean experience aboard small vessels or experience collecting biological specimen from postmortem animals.

Four programs (AMMOP, PIRO, SESFOP, and NEFOP) require candidates to have a current certification in standard first aid or cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) techniques.

24

Table 3 Summary of program and provider education, experience and skill requirements and preferences. R – Program requirement as part of SOW or permit; P – Program preference; p – Provider preference. *May substitute for similarly marked requirement (e.g., R*); R1 – One of two or three courses is required.

AM

MO

P

NPG

OP

A-S

HO

P

WC

GO

P

PIR

O

SWR

FOP

SE S

hrim

p

Shar

k D

rift G

illne

t

SEFS

C P

OP

SESF

OP

NEF

OP

Dra

ft N

atio

nal

Stan

dard

EducationBachelor’s degree in natural science R* R R R R* R Pp p p R R R*

3 years of study toward degree in biological science

R R R

30 semester hours in biological sciences R R R R

30 semester hours in any combination of scientific or technical course

R R R

6 hours must be marine science or fisheries R** R** R**

Post-secondary math course R1 R R R1 R1Post-secondary statistics course R1 R R R1 R1Post-secondary computer science R1 R1Completion of authorized alternative training program

* *

Standard First Aid certification R RCPR certification R R R RExperience and SkillsPrior at-sea observer experience R p R P P** P** P Pp R p**Previous ocean experience aboard small vessels p p P P** P** P Pp p p**

Six years localized fishing experience as skipper/mate *

Collection of biological specimen from postmortem animals ** ** **

Use of dichotomous keys in at least one course R R

Experience with data entry on computers R R R

Wilderness survival experience RConflict resolution skills PScientific data collection beyond college P

Ability to speak foreign language P PMust be able to clearly and concisely communicate verbally and in writing in English

R

25

Experience and SkillsRequirementsPrograms and providers specify few experience and skill requirements but many more are listed as preferred (Table 3). The AMMOP, A-SHOP, and SESFOP require new hires to have previous at-sea observer experience. The AMMOP SOW requires that all hires have a minimum of 30 days prior observer experience from any program. The SESFOP SOW is not specific regarding where observer experience is obtained either, but also states a preference for at least 30 days. The A-SHOP specifically requires prior successful NPGOP observer experience although neither gear type nor lengths of time are specified. During the start-up year (2001) of the West Coast Groundfish Observer Program (WCGOP), there was a 30-day observer experience requirement, but this has subsequently been relaxed. The NPGOP and A-SHOP require applicants to have experience with the use of dichotomous keys and competent computer skills. The AMMOP requires wilderness survival experience due to the remote nature of the observation sites and outdoor living conditions sometimes required.

PreferencesThe WCGOP, PIRO, SWRFOP, SE Shrimp, and Shark Drift Gillnet programs prefer at-sea observer experience and/or previous ocean experience on board small vessels. Some of the NPGOP providers and the NEFOP provider also prefer new hires that have prior at-sea observer experience. People with prior seafaring experience are preferred because of their proven abilities at sea. They pose a smaller risk than new hires that do not really know if they will become chronically seasick or be able to tolerate the confined and harsh conditions at sea. The WCGOP prefers observers who have good conflict resolution skills. PIRO prefers hires that have scientific data collection experience beyond college. In addition, PIRO prefers observers who have the ability to speak Vietnamese or Korean and a familiarity with Asian cultures whereas the SWRFOP prefers observers who speak Spanish.

The Draft National Standard would require experience with data entry on computers (amount not specified) and must be able to clearly and concisely communicate verbally and in writing in English.

Physical Fitness and Medical ConditionAll of the programs except SE Shrimp, Shark Drift Gillnet and SEFSC POP require that observers pass an annual physical exam either in the SOW or through regulation. The physical exam requires the physician to certify that the candidate is physically capable of performing the duties of an observer (Table 4). In the WCGOP, proof of the physical exam is supplied to the program for all new hires, but proof of annual exam is not requested thereafter. The provider noted that because all of these observers have a comprehensive major medical plan that covers preventive care, most observers were obtaining these physicals on their own, regardless of the requirement. The NPGOP requires the distribution of a pamphlet produced by the program describing observer duties and working conditions to all physicians performing exams on observer candidates.

26

Some of the RFP/SOWs require physical abilities beyond simply passing a physical exam. For instance, PIRO requires a tetanus immunization within the last 5 years. Five programs (AMMOP, PIRO, SWRFOP, SESFOP, and NEFOP) and one provider (WCGOP) require candidates not have chronic or debilitating motion sickness. NPGOP and A-SHOP providers prefer the candidates not have chronic motion sickness, although there are a limited number of land-based assignments to accommodate these people if motion sickness becomes a problem (i.e., impacts data quality). There are no explicit requirements regarding motion sickness in the SOWs for SE Shrimp, Shark Drift Gillnet or SEFSC POP, which is likely due to the fact that the SOW calls for providing land-based services as well. If a new observer becomes chronically seasick, there are alternate opportunities for employment within the company. The SEFSC POP program manager noted that screening for chronic seasickness is expected to be preferred by the provider.

The AMMOP and SESFOP require vision correctable to 20/20 whereas the PIRO and SWRFOP SOW require clear distant vision explicitly defined as correctible to 20/20 in one eye and 20/40 in other. PIRO and SWRFOP also require the ability to swim and AMMOP and SESFOP SOWs further require candidates be able to swim 50 meters without flotation and tread water for 15 minutes. The AMMOP, PIRO, SWRFOP, SESFOP, and NEFOP require the ability to lift and carry heavy objects up to 50 pounds and the last three also require the ability to move carcasses averaging 200 pounds. AMMOP and SESFOP require the ability to climb ladders and AMMOP requires candidates be capable of hiking several miles. Only a few programs (AMMOP, PIRO, and SEFSC POP) explicitly require in RFP or SOW the ability to pass drug test, if requested, although technically all candidates must comply to act in accordance with U.S. Coast Guard regulations. Five of the providers require drug testing as a component of their contracts; it is typical to have an initial drug test upon getting hired and random testing thereafter.

The AMMOP, PIRO, SWRFOP, SESFOP, and NEFOP also require that observers must tolerate physical and mental stress and be able to work and live in confined quarters with others.

The SWRFOP requires provider employees, upon being hired, to disclose any history of treatment for alcohol, drugs or mental illness (part of Security Worksheet for Non-Employees), although this worksheet may be replaced in the near future. Observer candidates for the NEFOP must complete a similar form, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Standard Form 85 (SF85), which authorizes the investigator conducting the background investigation, to obtain the following information relating to the person’s mental health consultations: Does the person under investigation have a condition or treatment that could impair

his/her judgment or reliability? If so, please describe the nature of the condition and the extent and duration of the

impairment or treatment. What is the prognosis?

27

The Draft National Standard would require that a physician must certify not more than 12 months prior to training that a candidate is physically and psychologically capable of serving as an observer. Specific guidelines regarding either the physical or psychological assessments are not included in the Draft National Standard.

Table 4 Summary of program and provider physical and medical condition requirements and preferences. R – Program requirement; r – Provider requirement; P – Program preference; p – Provider preference; E – Program expectation, not contractual agreement. †SOW requires annual physical; however, proof of physical exam is required upon initial hire but not thereafter.

AM

MO

P

NPG

OP

A-S

HO

P

WC

GO

P

PIR

O

SWR

FOP

SE S

hrim

p

Shar

k D

rift G

illne

t

SEFS

C P

OP

SESF

OP

NEF

OP

Dra

ft N

atio

nal

Stan

dard

Must pass annual physical exam R R R R † R R R R RObtained tetanus immunization within last 5 years R

No chronic or debilitating motion sickness R p p Pr R R E R R

Clear distant vision R R R RAble to swim R RAble to swim 50m without flotation and tread water for 15 minutes

R R

Ability to lift and carry heavy items R R R R R

Capable of moving carcasses averaging 200 pounds R R R

Ability to climb ladders R RAbility to hike several miles RMust pass drug test, if requested R r r r R r r r RTolerate physical and mental stress R R R R R

Ability to work and live in confined quarters with others R R R R R

Must disclose history of treatment for alcohol, drugs or mental illness

R R

Physician must annually certify candidate is physically and psychologically capable of serving as an observer

R

28

Other Requirements

CitizenshipPIRO, SWRFOP, SESFOP and NEFOP require U.S. citizenship. The citizenship requirement may be exempted if candidate is a non-citizen who has legally resided in the U.S. continuously for at least 2 years (PIRO, SESFOP, and NEFOP) or 5 years (SWRFOP; Table 5). The Draft National Standard for hiring eligibility would require either U.S. citizenship or allow anyone who is legally authorized to work in the U.S. to be hired.

Conflict of Interest and Standards of BehaviorIndividual programs may implement conflict of interest standards or language pertaining to observer conduct and behavior. All federal contracts specifically outline the conflict of interest and standards of conduct or behavior requirements in their respective RFP or SOW whereas NPGOP and A-SHOP have specified these in regulation. The Draft National Standard also includes baseline conflict of interest language as follows:

(A) An observer:

1) May not have a direct financial interest, other than the provision of observer services, in the fishery, including, but not limited to,

(i) Any ownership, mortgage holder, or other secured interest in a vessel or processor involved in the catching, taking, harvesting or processing of fish;(ii) Any business involved with selling supplies or services to any vessel or processor in the fishery;(iii) Any business involved with purchasing raw or processed products from any vessel or processor in the fishery.

2) May not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gratuity, gift, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from anyone who either conducts activities that are regulated by NMFS or has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the observer’s official duties.

3) May not serve as observers on any vessels or at any processors owned or operated by a person who previously employed the observers in another capacity (e.g., as a crewmember).

4) May not solicit or accept employment as a crewmember or an employee of a vessel or processor while employed by an observer provider.

(B) Provisions for remuneration of observers do not constitute a conflict of interest. MiscellaneousProviders for the WCGOP and SESFOP require observers have access to a vehicle. IAP recommends that for some assignments observers may want to use a personally owned vehicle. Alaskan Observers, Inc. (AOI) also requires WCGOP observers to maintain a residence in or near their assigned port and the program requires a cellular phone so that

29

observers can be reached around the clock regardless of location. The NEFOP provider, AIS, also requires that the observers maintain a residence in their fishing port.

Table 5 Summary of other program and provider requirements and preferences. R – Program requirement within SOW or permit; r – Provider requirement; *May substitute for similarly marked requirement (e.g., R*).

AM

MO

P

NPG

OP

A-S

HO

P

WC

GO

P

PIR

O

SWR

FOP

SE S

hrim

p

Shar

k D

rift G

illne

t

SEFS

C P

OP

SESF

OP

NEF

OP

Dra

ft N

atio

nal

Stan

dard

U.S. citizenship R* R* R* R* R*

Non-citizen who has legally resided in the U.S. continuously for at least 2 years

* * *

Non-citizen who has legally resided in the U.S. continuously for at least 5 years

*

Legally authorized to work in the U.S. *

Conflict of interest, conduct or behavior standards R R R R R R r r r R R R

Vehicle required r r rMaintain a residence in or near assigned port r r

Cell phone required R

Preferred CharacteristicsIn addition to the NMFS-specified requirements, most of the RFP/SOWs include a list of desired personality characteristics (Table 6). AMMOP and SESFOP prefer candidates with a high level of maturity and those who possess good judgment. Six programs prefer candidates who are capable of working independently without direct supervision and can follow technical instructions. AMMOP, WCGOP, and SESFOP favor observers who are self-motivated. AMMOP, PIRO, SWRFOP, SESFOP, and NEFOP specify a desire for candidates who is capable of working under stressful conditions and who can get along well with others or live and work in a professional and respectful manner. PIRO, SWRFOP, and NEFOP also prefer candidates who can maintain objectivity and the appearance of objectivity.

30

Table 6 Summary of preferred characteristics listed in RFP/SOWs. P – Program preference.

AM

MO

P

NPG

OP

A-S

HO

P

WC

GO

P

PIR

O

SWR

FOP

SE S

hrim

p

Shar

k D

rift G

illne

t

SEFS

C P

OP

SESF

OP

NEF

OP

Mature P P

Possess good judgment P

Capable of working independently without direct supervision and follow technical instructions

P P P P P P

Self motivated / good work ethic P P PCapable of working under stressful conditions P P P P P

Get along well with others OR live and work in a professional and respectful manner

P P P P P

Maintain objectivity and appearance of objectivity P P P

Time CommitmentTime commitments requested vary widely and are at the full discretion of the providers. Because NMFS-training occurs only once or twice per year in many programs, the providers must ensure they have sufficient staff to meet their contractual obligations to NMFS or to the fishing industry (NPGOP and A-SHOP providers only). Some providers give preference to applicants who are willing to offer a longer time commitment. An applicant who will commit to an 8-month contract may be considered more valuable than one who can only work for two months.

Providers for AMMOP, SWFOP, and Shark Drift Gillnet typically ask observers to commit to work for the length of the fishing season, which may also vary from year to year. The providers for NEFOP, PIRO, WCGOP, and SESFOP ask for a 1-year commitment from most of their employees although a few shorter contracts are available to supply adequate coverage to NMFS during peak fishing seasons (e.g., 8-month contracts in WCGOP). The SE Shrimp and SEFSC POP provider is extremely flexible with work schedules (e.g., observers do not sign a contract containing a specific time commitment) although the Shark Drift Gillnet task leader does request the provider supply his observers for discrete time blocks. In the past, the union-negotiated contracts with three NPGOP providers required observers to make time commitments ranging from 90 to 150 days; however, the NPGOP requires a debriefing every 90 days to ensure data quality. If an observer feels like s/he cannot go out and collect high quality data after 90 days, many of the providers will not require them to return to the field.

31

4.1A.ii Attracting Qualified Applicants

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 such as: Internet employment announcements on professional organizations and other commercial job-listing websites, college/university recruiting and outreach through career offices, and job announcement posting at biology or fisheries departments. In addition, providers may utilize NMFS facilities, state employment offices, newspapers and other print formats and Returning Peace Corps Volunteer Services to post job announcements (Table 7). Some categories are excluded from Table 7 due to their proprietary nature.

Seven of nine active observer providers have websites specific to observer services they provide in the U.S., even though not all websites are easy to locate. All seven of the providers post job descriptions on their websites. AOI, NWO, Inc. (NWO), and Saltwater, Inc. (SWI) make separate application materials available electronically in PDF format or by directly entering information into an online form whereas Atlantic Inspection Services, Inc.(AIS) and Frank Orth and Associates (FOA) request a resume, transcripts, references, and a cover letter as their application. A few providers have incorporated additional information describing the observer position. For instance, SWI has developed an outreach video, which may provide prospective applicants with examples and insight regarding the work and living conditions of observing. FOA and the University of Florida (UFL) provide a similar job preview on their websites in the form of testimonials from prior observers regarding their experiences as a observers.

Programs do not advertise positions on their websites; however, NEFOP and NPGOP provide a links to their current contracted or permitted provider(s), respectively. NPGOP providers post announcements at the program offices and at the University of Alaska Anchorage, Observer Training Center (OTC). The National Observer Program’s (NOP) website includes links to all of the programs as well as to the providers who currently service those programs.

AIS, IAP World Services (IAP), AOI, and FOA consistently post announcements on job boards of professional organizations and other commercially available sites (Appendix III). In addition, there is an observer-specific online job forum (www.ObserverNet.org) which is utilized by many providers (and programs) to recruit applicants who already have observer experience.

Some providers, AOI and SWI, regularly send notices to college and university recruitment offices and to biology and fisheries departments via regular mail. University recruitment also occurs in the SESFOP program through the UFL.

Other providers such as AOI, FOA, and IAP are required to advertise with state employment offices under their respective SOWs or RFPs. During discussions with the program and provider for SWRFOP, it was noted that this requirement in the RFP was

32

carried over from years ago and this method has not been utilized by mutual agreement since approximately 1996 (Don Petersen, pers. com., April 15, 2005). At least one provider (other than AOI) for the NPGOP uses state employment offices to recruit candidates as this method is reported to the NPGOP by observers (Figure 1).

Some providers actively recruit returning Peace Corps volunteers who meet eligibility requirements using existing Returned Volunteer Services (RVS). RVS publishes a bimonthly publication available online1 and in print. The latter is distributed to all returned volunteers residing in the U.S. for a period of two years after they have completed their service. In addition, career centers are located around the country. Position announcements can be forwarded to: RVSinfo@peacecorps.gov for posting.

One provider offers a $50 referral bonus if an employee refers someone who is qualified to apply and gets hired.

Table 7 Recruitment techniques employed by observer providers (X). Provider websites are listed in Appendix II. *Search in April 2005 revealed advertisements on seven different job boards. R – Program requires in RFP or SOW; †Job descriptions of observer services for non-U.S. programs only.

   Provider website

Stat

e em

ploy

men

t off

ice

Post

ing

to p

rofe

ssio

nal

asso

ciat

ion

& o

ther

w

ebsi

tes

Em

ail/M

ail/

fax

Posi

tion

desc

ript

ions

to u

nive

rsity

ca

reer

off

ices

Prin

t for

mat

(n

ewsp

aper

s, ne

wsl

ette

rs,

etc.

)

Job

Des

crip

tion

App

licat

ion

Mat

eria

l &

Proc

edur

e

Obs

erve

r T

estim

onia

l

Vid

eo

A.I.S., Inc. X X X*Alaskan Observers, Inc. X X R X XFrank Orth & Associates X X X R XIAP World Services R X XMRAG Americas †NWO, Inc. X X RSaltwater, Inc. X X X X XTechSea International XUniversity of Florida, Museum of Natural History X X X

Recruitment material development and distribution is the responsibility of the observer provider, although a few programs supply supplementary material. For instance, the NPGOP has developed an informational pamphlet that they require the observer provider(s) to distribute to potential observer candidates (50 CFR 679.5 Subpart E (i)(2)

1Hotline : http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=resources.former.hotline. Submission guidelines can be viewed at: http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=resources.former.hotline.postjob.

33

(B)(1)). This pamphlet was developed to ensure that potential observer candidates receive specific baseline information about the challenges and expectations of observing. The NPGOP does no direct recruiting of observers.

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. The NEFOP has also developed a video about observing which is available from their website. NMFS personnel around the country perform broad outreach activities promoting the agency and its activities to the general public and to specific target audiences such as fishermen (Fish Expo, ComFish), small children who may have an interest in science (Fishermen’s Fall Festival), and college students (job fairs at universities). NMFS scientists and academic researchers also play a role by presenting analyses utilizing observer-collected data at scientific conferences and other academic events which may expose undergraduates and other biologists to the position’s existence for the first time.

Another entity that indirectly promotes observing as a career through its website is the OTC at: http://www.uaf.edu/otc/. The OTC arranged for NPGOP observers to obtain course credit from the University of Alaska Fairbanks, for work performed as an observer.

Only one of the programs and none of the providers collect specific statistics on how observers learned about the position. In 2002-2004, nearly 50% of NPGOP observers reported they had learned about observing from a prior observer, a university bulletin board or a fisheries or biological newsletter with job listings (Figure 1). The highest response was for methods other than the choices provided (38%) and the majority of these further commented that they found the position on the internet.

4.1A.iii Screening Applicants

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. Approval for candidacy in the SESFOP and A-SHOP lies solely with the observer provider (i.e., NMSF does not provide any input; Table 8). However, the A-SHOP requires that all observers have both previous successful experience and are currently certified in the NPGOP.

Providers were reluctant to provide specific details regarding their interviewing process and requested that information be summarized so that proprietary information was not divulged. All of the providers perform at least one interview with observer candidates. In general, they all attempt to describe the job as candidly as possible (i.e., fishing vessels are extremely dangerous, working conditions can be horrible, work environment is occasionally contentious and uncomfortable, etc).

34

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Other

Fisheries/biology joblisting newsletter

Newspaper

College professor

Univeristy bulletinboard

College counselor

Prior observer

2004

2003

2002

Figure 1 Summary of how NPGOP observers first learned about the observer position. Responses include both new hires and prior observers. There were 260 respondents in 2002, 263 in 2003 and 295 in 2004.

The SWRFOP required a security and background check as part of the 2000 RFP although no accepted applicants have been denied entrance into training based upon the results from a background check. New requirements for 2005 will require a Special Agreement Check (SAC) which consists of a modified National Agency Check and includes Office of Personnel Management, Department of Defense, and Federal Bureau of Investigation checks. OPM conducts Special Agreement Checks for the Department of Commerce. SACs are used to obtain background information on non-employees such as short-term trainees, students, or other individuals requiring temporary access to government facilities.2 The PIRO and NEFOP also require hired candidates to complete a form granting NMFS clearance to perform a background check (NEFOP uses OPM SF85) although no accepted applicants and less than 1% of submissions have been denied access to training in these programs based upon the results of background checks, respectively.

2 More information regarding background investigation, including forms, can be found at: http://www.easc.noaa.gov/Security/webfile/erso.doc.gov/index.html

35

Table 8 Summary of applicant approval process for candidacy in each observer program’s training session. PSMFC is the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission.

  Approval for CandidacyPrograms Provider NMFS Notes/Additional RequirementsAMMOP Initial review Final approvalNPGOP Initial review Final approval

A-SHOP Initial review and final approval No input or approval

WCGOP Initial review and final approval Provides input Program operates under a cooperative agreement between

NMFS and PSMFC; both provide input

PIRO Initial review and final approval Provides input

Must complete “Authorization for release of information” form authorizing NMFS to conduct background investigation and a “Security worksheet for non-

employees”.

SWRFOP Initial review Final approval

Must complete “Authorization for release of information” form authorizing NMFS to conduct background investigation and a “Security worksheet for non-

employees”.

SE Shrimp Initial review and final approval Provides input

Shark Drift Gillnet Initial review Final approval

SEFSC POP Initial review and final approval Provides input

SESFOP Initial review and final approval No input or approval Provider acts on behalf of NMFS.

NEFOP Initial review Final approval Security checks performed by NMFS using OPM SF85

36

4.1A.iv Satisfactory Training Requirements

Training is the final step in the recruitment process. Initial training duration varies from 5 to 15 days (Table 9). Training is performed by NMFS staff, NMFS-approved trainers employed by the OTC or UFL staff (SESFOP). The SESFOP, PIRO, SWRFOP, and NEFOP have the highest minimum score requirement in order for the observer to pass training; average scores for quizzes, homework and exams must be above 90% in the SESFOP and 85% in the other three programs. In the middle of the score range are A-SHOP, WCGOP, and the SEFSC POP who require an overall average of 80% and AMMOP and NPGOP who require 75%. Shark Drift Gillnet and SE Shrimp require a score of 70% on safety portion only and 60%, respectively, although no observer has ever received less than 80% in the SE Shrimp training. Shark Drift Gillnet does not implement an overall score requirement; rather trainees pass or fail based on individual review by the trainer (which has been the same individual for a number of years).

Safety is an important component of training for all programs and is conducted for two to four days depending on the program (Table 10). Safety training may be the first time applicants are confronted with the risks of performing this job. No observers in any program have been denied work due to failing the safety portion of observer training.

All of the programs have a recency requirement (i.e., refresher briefing or complete retraining after a period of inactivity; Table 9).

Six programs issue an official certification or recognition to observers who successfully complete training (Table 9); however, these terms are not defined consistently. For instance, NPGOP grants observer certification to candidates who successfully complete training and meet other requirements established by NPGOP staff (67 FR 72617 December 6, 2002). The NPGOP and A-SHOP by design because A-SHOP requires NPGOP certification, are the only programs to implement management controls over the observers and observer providers through federal regulation. These were issued under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (50 CFR §679.50 Subpart E). After successfully completing the NPGOP observer training course, candidates receive a certification training endorsement, which is valid until the program expires December 31, 2007. To ensure that observers are properly prepared for future assignments, additional endorsements are issued prior to each future deployment during the required pre-deployment briefing (one 4-day briefing prior to the first deployment in a calendar year and 1-day briefings prior to each subsequent deployment in that year). The use of endorsements provides the NPGOP a control point in the deployment of observers. Candidates who are denied certification due to their failure of training may appeal pursuant to 50 CFR §679.43. A-SHOP has the same requirements as NPGOP by default; a decertified NPGOP or un-endorsed NPGOP observer would not be allowed into a NPGOP briefing, which is a prerequisite of A-SHOP briefing.

37

Table 9 Summary of training requirements for each observer program. * Draft National Standard would standardize the minimum requirement to pass training at a level of 80% (average scores from quizzes, homework and exams). Programs could require a more stringent level. **SOW 8/2004. †Before receiving a certification the trainee must complete a 3 trip provisional period, and pass program requirements for collection of high quality data. N/A – not applicable.

Training Recency Requirement

ProgramsLength of training (days)

Average score required to pass

*

Training conducted by Certification Given Briefing Retraining

AMMOP 14 75% COTR, OTC & Provider No N/A Annual training required

NPGOP 15 75% NMFS/OTC NMFS Certified Minimum annually (4-day + 1-day thereafter) As needed or if inactive for >18 months

A-SHOP3 (in addition to NPGOP training

prerequisite)80% NMFS NMFS Certified Annual briefing in addition to

NPGOP requirement As needed or if inactive for >18 months

WCGOP 10 80% NMFS / PSMFC NMFS Approved Annual refresher required Case by case

PIRO 15 85% NMFS Under discussionIf inactive for 6 months, 2-day

required; if inactive for more than 1 year, 5-day required

If inactive for more than 2 years, must complete full training class.

SWRFOP 14 85% NMFS No; 3 trip probationary status 1 week per year If return to program with <3trip experience

SE Shrimp 6-7 60% NMFS / Provider NMFS Certified As needed, no defined timeframe As needed, no defined timeframe

Shark Drift Gillnet 5

70%(safety portion) individual review for

all elseNMFS NMFS Certified Annually 1 year

SEFSC POP 9.5 80% on 4 exams NMFS NMFS Certified Periodic Refresher No (written notification of protocol changes)

SESFOP 7.5 90%** Provider No; 3 trip probationary status** Safety only (annual) If one season missed

NEFOP 15 85% NMFS NMFS Certified, after 3 trip provisional period† When data logs or protocols change 6 mo. or when fallen back to provisional status

38

Candidates for the SE Shrimp, Shark Drift Gillnet, and SEFSC POP are considered NMFS certified if they successfully complete training. The WCGOP uses NMFS “approved” with the same definition. The NEFOP also utilizes the terminology “NMFS certified” but this is not granted until after a three vessel probationary period and data quality is evaluated. These certifications and approvals differ from certification in NPGOP and A-SHOP because there is no additional administrative process such as the Administrative Procedures Act protecting the employee from arbitrary administrative actions .

The SWRFOP and SESFOP do not issue certifications; rather, they have implemented a 3-trip probationary period when an individual first begins in the program. This probation period in the SWRFOP is not specific to gear type; trips can range from 5 to 30 days on a variety of different gear types. The result is an observer may not have full observer status for up to 90 days.

The AMMOP also does not issue a certification. The program manager felt that the training and other requirements are adequate methods to assess that a candidate can handle the job duties and does not foresee official certification becoming policy in the future. The provider is required to produce a data quality control plan, which must include measures of how they will resolve a situation with an observer who is not performing adequately (poor data quality, conduct, etc.). The AMMOP depends solely on the provider for data quality, performance, and management of the observers. However, this does not necessarily infer the same “hands off” attitude that it might in larger programs. Given the size and nature of this program (cross between a field research program and observer program in character, scope, and duration), the interaction between program and provider staff is at a very detailed level.

Table 10 Summary of safety training requirements (table provided by Alaska Marine Safety Education Association).

Programs Length of initial safety training Safety refresher training

AMMOP 2 days 2 days per yearNPGOP 4 days 2 hours per year

A-SHOP 2 hours (in addition to NPGOP training)

2 hours (in addition to NPGOP training)

WCGOP 2 days 1 day per yearPIRO 3 days 1 day during briefing

SWRFOP 2.5 days 2.5 days per yearSE Shrimp 2 days 1 day every 2 years

Shark Drift Gillnet 2.5 days 1 day every 2 yearsSEFSC POP 2.5 days 1 day every 2 years

SESFOP 2.5 days 1 day per yearNEFOP 2 days 1 day every 2 years

39

Task 4.1BIdentify the strengths and weaknesses of various practices currently being used to recruit observers.

Potential strengths and weaknesses of each category of observer recruitment will be addressed separately. We intentionally included the word “potential” as 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.

4.1B.i Observer Eligibility Requirements

General The inconsistent requirements across programs reduce the ability to cross-train observers, which may decrease hiring flexibility at a national level.

Degree requirement The strengths of requiring a bachelor’s degree could indicate that candidates are self-motivated and can complete tasks unsupervised (e.g., earning the degree). Candidates with a degree may be considered more credible if asked to document violations and be a witness for NMFS Enforcement. Due to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) legislation, a degree requirement makes it easier for Canadian and Mexican citizens to obtain the appropriate visa for employment in the U.S. (Table 11).

The weaknesses of requiring a bachelor’s degree could result in: minimizing hiring flexibility in years when the job market is good for job seekers; excluding applicants who may be fully capable of performing these job duties and who may be more satisfied with the tasks’ associated remuneration; and may limit those who have attended community colleges or technical schools and successfully completed only an associate’s degree. In addition, a candidate may not view the position as a long-term option because they have ambitions to attend graduate school.

Biological/natural science or scientific/technical coursework requirementThe strength of requiring a biological/natural science coursework requirement is that candidates are likely to have had exposure to and use of dichotomous keys, although the mechanics of how to use the keys can be taught and learned in less than an hour. There are no apparent weaknesses to this requirement.

Marine science or fisheries coursework requirement The strengths of requiring marine science or fisheries coursework include: candidates are likely to have exposure to fisheries sampling techniques; higher likelihood of understanding how various types of data collected are used; higher likelihood of being familiar with fish, marine mammal, seabird, and sea turtle anatomy. There are no apparent weaknesses to this requirement.

Math, statistics or computer science coursework requirement

40

The strengths of requiring math, statistics or computer science coursework are that the candidates are likely to be more prepared for the required calculations and paperwork and familiar with concepts such as random sampling theory. The weakness of this requirement is that not all programs have mathematical, statistical or computer science duties (e.g., PIRO, SEFSC POP).

Completion of authorized alternative training programThe strengths of allowing for alternative training programs are an increase in hiring flexibility as in the case of PIRO. After completing the alternative training coordinated by Alulike and the University of Hawaii, this program provides employment to Native Hawaiians which may be underrepresented in typical degree programs. Local people may bring local knowledge of conditions, fish species and fishing activity as well as the benefit of keeping money in the local economy. A weakness is its potential negative effect on morale; there may be resentment among observers who spent the time to earn the 4-year college degree.

First aid/CPR requirementThe strength of requiring candidates to obtain a standard first aid/CPR certificate is that the candidate will more likely be prepared in case of a medical emergency. Potential weaknesses include added liability (for candidate and provider) if wrong treatment is performed; risk of exposure to highly transmittable or blood-borne diseases; standard first aid/CPR courses are not designed specifically for remote situations and may not be the appropriate certificate given the observer work environment.

Prior observer requirement The strengths of recruiting prior observers are the applicant knows what to expect of working and living conditions and has proven knowledge of whether or not they will suffer from debilitating motion sickness. The possible weakness for this requirement may be that through past knowledge, fraudulent data could easily be produced.

At-sea experience requirementThe strength of hiring candidates with at-sea experience (e.g., local fishers) may be a better understanding of fisher behavior and local knowledge of a fishing area; however, the weakness in this scenario may be a perceived conflict of interest, especially in the scientific community.

Wildlife survival experienceThe strength of requiring wildlife survival experience is that the candidate will more likely be prepared in case of a medical emergency. A potential weakness is there may be differences to wilderness survival training designed for marine and terrestrial environments.

Experience with the collection of biological specimens from post-mortem animalsThe strengths of experience with the collection of biological specimens from post-mortem animals are less training time may be necessary; greater assurance that samples will be collected properly; and the candidate has already experienced the more unpleasant

41

aspects of specimen collection such as smell. The weakness is that different techniques may have been taught and may not meet program expectations.

Experience with data entry on computersThe strengths of requiring computer data entry experience are that candidates will not need to be taught the basics of how to use a computer for programs that require observers to input their own data. In addition, candidates would be more sensitive of the need to collect and record data that conforms with data constraints as most data entry applications enforce data input rules (e.g., requiring non-negative numbers in a weight field). Data entry time may also be minimized thereby allowing the observer to have time to collect additional data while at sea. A potential weakness of this requirement is that some candidates may find the data entry programs frustrating because it is unfamiliar.

Conflict resolution skillsObservers frequently work in a remote, harsh environment, in tight living conditions, with a diverse group people. In order to perform their job, observers must communicate effectively with the captain and crew on a daily basis. Conflict resolution skills are strength because these skills provide methods for facilitating direct communication, negotiation, and de-escalation of hostile situations. There are no apparent weaknesses to this requirement.

Scientific data collection beyond collegeThe strengths of requiring experience in data collection are less time in training to teach this skill and greater assurance that data will be collected properly. The weakness is that different techniques may have been taught and may not meet program expectations.

Ability to clearly and concisely communicate verbally and in writing in EnglishThe strength of this requirement is that candidates can communicate effectively with program staff and the majority of fishers encountered. Candidates will understand English-based training manuals and other written instructions, and clearly document their work. The weakness of this requirement is that, as written, it is subjective as no objective criteria (or tests) have been established to screen for this ability.

Physical fitness/medical condition requirementsThe strength of physical fitness/medical condition requirements is that if a thorough exam is performed that tests the more specific requirements, applicants pose a lower risk for injury which can save costs for the provider and industry. The weakness of the physical fitness and medical condition requirements, as currently written, is that the majority of physical exams performed do not actually assess most of the specific requirements in the SOWs (e.g., testing the ability to repetitively lift heavy objects or move 200lbs or ability to handle stress, etc.).

Ability to speak a foreign languageThe strength of requiring a foreign language skill is for ease of communication with crew who are not native English speakers. There are no apparent weaknesses.

42

U.S. citizenship The strengths of having a U.S. citizenship requirement include: a high likelihood of the candidates’ ability to communicate in English; less paperwork for providers; and support of jobs for Americans. The weakness is that precluding qualified applicants from foreign countries decreases hiring flexibility.

Legal alien resident for 2 or 5 yearsThe strengths of requiring legal aliens to reside in the U.S. for 2 or 5 years are that candidates would be more likely to be able to communicate in English and it is easier to perform background checks if the person has legally resided in the U.S. The weaknesses may include a substantial cost to the provider for visa sponsorship (up to $1600).

Conflict of interest, behavior and conductThe strengths of conflict of interest standards are that greater assurances that the data collected is unbiased and that in cases of enforcement, there is less cause for suspicions that may negate the validity of the data collected. A possible weakness is that a perceived conflict of interest or breach in behavior and conduct may eliminate good candidates. It can also be viewed as obtrusive and potentially infringing upon one’s rights.

Vehicle requirementThe strength of the vehicle requirement is the assurance of transportation and potential savings in transportation costs. The weakness is in the assumption that the transportation is reliable; the requirement of insurance costs and reimbursements for insurance and mileage can be costly to the observer or the NMFS.

Residence requirementThe strength of a residence requirement is that the provider and indirectly the program will not have to bear the cost of housing and transportation. If residing in community where they work, then the local knowledge may increase cooperation from the community; as well as contributing to the local economy. The weakness is that the observer may have to bear the cost of housing.

Cellular phone requirementThe strength of this requirement is the ability to contact the observer at any time. The weakness is the increased cost of cell phones to the program, the provider or the observer depending on who pays for the services.

Time commitmentA longer time commitment may increase data quality and continuity whereas shorter commitments may decrease data quality and continuity. Depending on the individual’s personal life needs, longer or shorter commitments may discourage some applicants.

43

Table 11 Summary of strengths and weaknesses of eligibility requirements.Strengths Weaknesses

General: Consistent requirements (i.e., creating

national standards) would lead to higher quality data and increase the effectiveness of all observer programs

General: Inconsistent requirements across programs

reduces ability to cross-train which may decrease hiring flexibility at a national level

Bachelor’s degree requirement: Demonstration of self-motivation ability to

work unsupervised Witness with higher credibility

(compliance) Easier for Canadian and Mexican citizens

to acquire visa to work in the U.S. via NAFTA

Bachelor’s degree requirement: Lack of hiring flexibility in job market is

good for job seekers Precludes applicants who have attended

community colleges or technical schools and successfully completed associates degrees and whom may be capable of performing the duties

Candidate may not view position as a long-term option because they have ambitions to attend graduate school, etc.

Biological/natural science coursework requirement: Likely exposure and use of dichotomous

keys

Biological/natural science coursework requirement: None

Marine science or fisheries coursework requirement: Likely of exposure to fisheries sampling

techniques Higher likelihood of understanding how

various types of data collected are used Higher likelihood of being familiar with

fish, marine mammal, seabird, and sea turtle anatomy

Familiarity with terminology

Marine science or fisheries coursework requirement:

None

Math, statistics or computer science coursework: Candidate is likely to be more prepared for

required paperwork and familiar with concepts such as random sampling theory

Math, statistics or computer science coursework: Not all programs have mathematical,

statistical or computer science duties.

Completion of authorized alternative training program: Increased hiring flexibility Employment to Native Hawaiians

Completion of authorized alternative training program: Potential negative effect on morale (e.g.,

resentment among observers who spent the time to earn the 4-year degree)

First aid/CPR requirement: Prepared in case of a medical emergency

First aid/CPR requirement: Potential liability if wrong treatment

performed Risk for candidate if exposed to highly

transmittable or blood-borne disease Standard first aid/CPR are not designed

specifically for remote situations

44

Strengths WeaknessesPrior observer experience requirement: Applicant knows what to expect of

working and living conditions Proven knowledge of whether or not

candidate suffers from debilitating motion sickness

Prior observer experience requirement: For prior observer, ability to easily falsify

data

At-sea experience requirement: Applicant knows what to expect of

working and living conditions Proven knowledge of whether or not

candidate suffers from debilitating motion sickness

For fishers, better understanding of fisher behavior and knowledge of fishing areas

At-sea experience requirement: For fishers, perceived conflict of interest

Wildlife survival experience: Prepared in case of an emergency

Wildlife survival experience: Marine vs. terrestrial environment

suitability concernsExperience with the collection of biological specimen from post-mortem animals: Less training Demonstrated ability for dissection Familiarity with unpleasant aspects of

specimen collection

Experience with the collection of biological specimen from post-mortem animals: Techniques previously taught may be

different than observer program expectations

Experience with data entry on computers: Knowledge of the basics, therefore less

training required; Awareness of the need to collect and record

data that conforms with data constraints; Time savings can be used to collect

additional data

Experience with data entry on computers:

Frustration due to lack of familiarity with data entry program

Conflict resolution skills: Ability to facilitate direct communication,

negotiate and de-escalate hostile situations

Conflict resolution skills:

NoneScientific data collection beyond college: Potential for less training time

Scientific data collection beyond college: Techniques previously taught may be

different than observer program expectations

Ability to speak a foreign language: Ease of communication with crew who are

not native English speakers.

Ability to speak a foreign language:

NoneAbility to clearly and concisely communicate in English: Candidates can communicate effectively

with program staff and the majority of fishers encountered

Understand training manuals and other written instructions

Ability to clearly document their work

Ability to clearly and concisely communicate in English: Subjective criteria (as written) and may be

interpreted as discriminatory

Physical fitness/medical condition Physical fitness/medical condition

45

Strengths Weaknessesrequirements: If thorough exam is performed, applicant

poses a lower risk for injury which can save costs for provider and industry

requirements: Physical exams performed do not actually

assess most of the “requirements” in the SOWs (e.g., testing the ability to lift heavy objects or move 200lbs or ability to handle stress, etc.)

U.S. citizenship: High likelihood of ability to communicate

in English Less paperwork for providers

U.S. citizenship: Preclude qualified applicants from foreign

countries

Legal alien resident for 2 or 5 years: Higher likelihood of ability to

communicate in English Ease of performing background check

Legal alien resident for 2 or 5 years: May cost provider up to $1600 for visa

sponsorship

Conflict of interest, behavior and conduct: Greater assurance that the data collected is

unbiased; In cases of enforcement, there is less cause

for character attacks that may negate the validity of the data collected.

Conflict of interest, behavior and conduct: Perceived conflict of interest or breach in

behavior and conduct may eliminate good candidates;

May be viewed as obtrusive and potentially infringing upon one’s rights.

Vehicle requirement: Assurance of transportation; Potential savings in transportation costs to

company.

Vehicle requirement: Assumption that the transportation is

reliable; Insurance costs and reimbursements for

insurance and mileage can be costly.Residence requirement: Cost savings to provider and indirectly the

program; Increased local knowledge; Contributing to the local economy.

Residence requirement: Observer bears the cost of housing.

Cellular phone requirement: Ability to contact the observer at any time.

Cellular phone requirement: Cost the program, the provider or the

observerTime commitment: Longer commitment may increase data

quality and continuity

Time commitment: Shorter commitments may decrease

overall data quality and continuity Longer or shorter commitment may

discourage some applicants depending on their personal life needs

46

4.1B.ii Attracting Applicants

GeneralA wide variety of recruitment approaches increases the probability of attracting quality candidates. With the exception of NPGOP (Section 4.1A.ii), none of the programs or providers are collecting adequate data to analyze methods used to attract qualified applicants. This in and of itself is a weakness (Table 12). The general consensus of the providers was that the use of the internet for purposes of recruiting is the single most effective tool available allowing for the maximum number of potential candidates to be reached with the smallest amount of cost and effort.

One weakness in this method of recruitment actually lies in the job title of “observer” as seen in Table 13. It stands to reason that a recent graduate with the training, experience and qualities of preferred target candidates would be more likely to search for a job using terms like fisheries technician, biological technician or fisheries biologist. Yet a search for these terms yields no direct links to any observer program or provider within the first 50 search returns. The job descriptions and required skills associated with advertised fisheries technician and biological technician correlate strongly with the job description of an observer. The term observer does not reflect the actual job advertised in terms of the hands on biological duties including and not limited to: species composition, environmental, and specimen data collection, use of specialized software, conflict resolution, time and data management skills, and a self supervised, independent working environment.

Provider and program websitesAll of the observer providers, except two, have websites specific to observer services provided in the U.S., which include job descriptions and application procedures. However, many of the provider, as well as program, websites are difficult to locate through internet search engines. For instance, 5 search engines were populated with keywords that may lead prospective, qualified applicants to observer job postings program websites describing the position. Keywords included fish* technician, fish* biologist, fish* observer and “fisheries observer” or “fishery observer”. Results indicate that the first two are “hit” most often and could be utilized by providers and programs alike to draw qualified biologists to their websites for further information (Table 13). A strength of some provider websites and a weakness of others are the availability (or lack thereof) of application materials and explicit application procedures.

Three of the nine providers include either current observer testimonials or videos that provide job previews, which is a strength. Another strength is NOP’s website which provides information on all programs and providers. Potential weaknesses of the websites include two providers which do not use their websites to advertise U.S. observer positions and nine program websites which do not provide a link to their current provider.

Professional organizationsThe strengths of advertising on the job boards of professional organizations are no cost and a higher potential for connecting with the appropriate target audience. A weakness

47

may be that depending on the organization, the observer position may be outside membership scope (e.g., if members are all PhD’s).

Commercial job sitesThe strength of using a commercial job/resume posting service is the ability to reach a large and diverse audience and general categories which could help make clear the job title of “observer” for applicants unfamiliar with the fishing industry. The weaknesses may include: the provider having to pay a posting fee and time spent searching for applicants using posted resumes.

University/college/department recruiting officesThe strengths of using universities and biology/fisheries departments to advertise for observer positions are that the target audience can be focused and there are no costs.

Employment offices, newspapers and other print formatsThe strength of using this recruiting method is similar to using commercial job sites, in that a wide and diverse audience can be reached. However, a possible weakness of using this method to post positions may be only a low percentage of the people who view the advertisements are qualified for the position.

Returning Peace Corps volunteer recruitingVolunteers in the Peace Corps possess many of the qualities sought in observer candidates (e.g., a four-year college degree, strong communication and leadership skills, cross-cultural understanding, and foreign language skills). Returning volunteers have already proven dedication and good work ethics in the field, as well as demonstrated ability to work under adverse conditions.

4.1B.iii Screening Applicants

GeneralSome providers supply a separate application so that applicants can address program specific requirements that may have been overlooked on a standard resume (e.g., experience using dichotomous keys). This practice streamlines the screening process (Table 14). Most providers perform one interview; however, human resource experts recommend multiple interviews with multiple staff (Kaye and Jordan-Evans 2002).

Background checkAmong the strengths of requiring a background check on candidates may be that it provides reassurance of a credible witness if compliance violations are documented and pursued. It may also reassure stake holders that observers are law abiding; and meets Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12; issued on August 27, 2004) requirement for clearance to access government facility and computers. The weaknesses of performing background checks may be high costs, given the lack of screening effectiveness to date; invasion of privacy; and lengthy turn around time for results. In addition, some components of the OPM SF85 seem to conflict with labor law (e.g.,

48

Table 12 Summary of strengths and weaknesses for attracting qualified applicantsStrengths Weaknesses

General: Wide variety of recruitment approaches

increases the probability of attracting quality candidates

General: Lack of information regarding how

applicants learn about the job – if more were known, could recommend more focused advertising approach

Lack of national standards for recruiting quality candidates

Provider websites: Job descriptions and application procedure

readily available online (5 of 9 providers) Observer testimonial and video provide job

preview (3 of 9 providers)

Provider websites: Difficult to find unless job seeker already

knows about the position’s unique title Two providers do not use their websites to

advertise U.S. observer positions

Program websites: NOP serves as clearing house Information on all observer programs

Program websites: Difficult to find unless job seeker already

knows about the position Most do not provide a link to their current

provider

Professional organizations: No cost Potential for more appropriate target

audience

Professional organizations: Job may be outside membership scope

(e.g., if members are all PhD’s).

Commercial job sites: Large and diverse audience More generalized categories

Commercial job sites: Provider may have to pay a posting fee Provider may need to take time to search

for applicants using posted resumes

Universities: Audience is focused No cost

Universities:

None

Employment offices: Large and diverse audience

Employment offices: Low percent of qualified applicants

Newspapers: Large and diverse audience

Newspapers: Low readership

Returning Peace Corps volunteers: Meet degree requirement Exhibit strong communication and

leadership skills Cross-cultural understanding Foreign language skills Demonstrated ability to work under

adverse conditions

Returning Peace Corps volunteers:

None

49

Table 13 Summary of internet keyword search that could lead prospective applicants to observer positions. Direct and indirect links found within the first 50 hits are indicated separately (D and I, respectively). Search engine key: 1-Google, 2-Dogpile, 3-Yahoo, 4-Alltheweb, 5-Altavista.

Search Engine 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

Search term fish* technician fish* biologist fish* observer"fisheries observer" or

"fishery observer"Number of hits (1000s) 787 0.08 598 500 606 810 0.08 807 744 807 1310 0.08 1100 0.05 1100 0.26 0.04 0.08 0.08 0.08

Program/provider                                        NOP                                 D   I IAMMOP                               D D D D  NPGOP                     D/I I D I D I/D I I I DA-SHOP                       D                WCGOP                       D   I   I I I I IPIRO                               I I I I ISWROP                               I I I I ISE Shrimp                                        SEFSC POP                               I I I I ISE Shark Drift Gillnet                       I       I I I I  NEFOP                     I D D   D D D D D DSESFOP - UFL             I   I             I I D I I                                         AIS                     D   D   D D D D D DAOI                                        DCI                                        FOA                                        MRAG                               D I   I  NWO                                        SWI                       D       I I      TechSea                                        

50

financial history, marital status, and mental health questions) if these are used in any way to prevent employment.

Table 14 Summary of strengths and weaknesses for screening applicants.Strengths Weaknesses

General: Application specifically requests

information addressing program-specific requirements to streamline screening process

General: Most providers only perform one interview

and if perform 2, frequently use the same staff member

Background check: More credible witness if compliance

violations documented and pursued Reassures stake holders that observers are

law abiding Meets HSPD-12 requirement for clearance

to access government facility and computers

Background check: Cost - difficult to justify expense given

lack of screening effectiveness to date Invasion of privacy Some components of the OPM SF85 seem

to conflict with labor law

4.1B.iv Satisfactory Training

Strengths and weaknesses of the fourth component of recruitment, satisfactory training of observers, were not analyzed as this was beyond the scope of this contract. However, recency requirements may benefit programs by providing a consistent forum to update observers on changes to duties and may increase morale by providing observers with a place to share experiences and bond with their peers. A potential weakness of the recency requirement (especially retraining) is a reduction in hiring flexibility during periods of a good job market.

4.1CDevelop recommendations to improve recruitment of qualified observers.

Recommendations for Observer Recruiting

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 recommended 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. Two populations of observers are currently available for case studies: the observers hired under the PIRO/University of Hawaii Marine Options Program and IAP observers hired in the three Southeast programs.

2. NMFS should assess physical exam evaluation criteria to verify if exams are assessing both physical and psychological fitness.

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 (e.g., WA Sea Grant offers a U.S. Coast Guard-approved First Aid at sea course specific to fishermen and those who work on fishing vessels). For more information: www.wsg.washington.edu, Sarah Fisken, 206-543-1225, sfisken@u.washington.edu.

Attracting qualified applicants

4. NMFS should collect or request that observer providers collect statistics on how new observer hires are recruited. These questions should be consistent across all programs and depending on who is responsible for its collection, should be explicit on the application, as part of the interview or as part of the training process. Appendix IV lists questions that may be used to gather this information. Once data is available, then it should be supplied to providers so they can adjust advertising practices as appropriate.

5. 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. Additions include fisheries technician or biologist. Programs may consider analysis of observer job duties and correlate to comparable federal positions to assess a more appropriate job title.

6. 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.

52

7. Providers could more consistently utilize online job posting services maintained by professional organizations (Appendix III) and universities (Appendix V).

8. Providers could more actively participate in job fairs at universities that grant degrees in fisheries (Appendix VI).

9. Providers could more actively recruit returning Peace Corps volunteers who meet eligibility requirements.

10. The NMFS NOP could also utilize the Peace Corps’ Returned Volunteer Services (RVS) in two ways:

The Fisheries Observer field or position is not listed in the Career Manual. Upon request the Manager of Returned Volunteer Services3 will help to develop the appropriate wording and update the manual with an appropriate fisheries observer description. The posting can reference interested individuals to the NOP website where program specific information can be obtained. By utilizing this resource a one time investment of effort will have long term benefits.

RVS sponsors career events including brown bag events and career fairs at Peace Corps headquarters in Washington D.C. Their focus is to discuss the specific career topics. By presenting at these career events, fairs and brown bag lunches the NOP can conduct outreach to promote the fisheries observer positions.

11. Program names and goals and objectives on NMFS websites should be consistent to eliminate confusion among the applicant pool. For instance, the NOP website describes the “Southeast Region Shark Bottom Longline Observer Program (Directed Large Coastal Shark Fishery)” whereas the SOW refers to this program as “Atlantic Shark Bottom Longline Observer Program” and the current provider uses “Commercial Shark Fishery Observer Program”. This is potentially confusing to new applicants. Also, web links on all NMFS observer program sites should be updated monthly to ensure they link to the most current Uniform Resource Locator (URL).

Screening applicants prior to training

12. NOP could develop a checklist of baseline questions to ask all candidates interviewed as part of the application process.

13. When possible, the provider should conduct more than one interview and different staff should perform these.

3 Patricia Licata PLicata@peacecorps.gov (202) 692-1443

53

Satisfactory training of candidates

14. Survey candidates after training and after first cruise or relevant time period in a given program to answer question of training adequacy. Sample questions are included in Appendix VII.

15. If retention becomes a problem, consider alternatives or further exceptions to recency requirements (specifically retraining). For example, observer A has not been deployed in Program(Y) for 2 years. If observer A can pass all of the quizzes, homework, and exams required of a new trainee, then observer A could be granted an exemption from the full re-training.

54

4.2 Observer Retention

Traditional definition of retention 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 is also the effort by an employer to keep desirable workers in their company’s workforce in order to meet their business objectives (Frank et al. 2004). Retention tracks an individual or cohort through time. Retention rate over a period of time (X) can be calculated by dividing the number of employees hired in time (X) who are still working in time (X+1) by the number of employees hired in time (X) multiplied by 100 (Waldman and Arora 2004). Retention rates are unaffected by the number of new hires.

Retention versus turnoverRetention 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. Turnover rate can be calculated by dividing the number of employees who leave during time (X) by the number of positions in time (X) multiplied by 100 (Morrell et al. 2001). Using data collected from August 2002 to 2003, the U.S. Department of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (2005) estimates annual turnover for the U.S. (as a whole across all jobs) was 19.2%. In general, new hires have higher turnover rates (Waldman and Arora 2004); therefore, it is beneficial to track turnover of new hires separate from those who have been with a given company or program for a longer period of time.

What factors influence retention and turnover?Retention 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. Kay and Jordan-Evans (2002) surveyed over 12,000 people in a wide range of professions about why they stayed with a given job or organization. The top 10 responses included: exciting work and challenge; career growth, learning and development; working with great people; fair pay (4); supportive management or good boss; being recognized, valued and respected; benefits (7); meaningful work and making a difference; pride in the organization, its mission and its product; and great work environment and culture. Several other studies corroborate these results for health care workers (Boothby and Clements 2002, Campbell et al. 2004, Khowaja et al. 2005), teachers (Henke and Zahn 2001), and information technology specialists (Lee 2000). In addition, the reasons for retention may vary over time within a given position. In a study of seasonal ski resort workers, Ismert and Petrick (2004), found reasons for returning to this seasonal job changed over time. The primary reason first-season employees provided for returning the next year was satisfaction and camaraderie with coworkers. Returning resort workers were influenced by wages,

55

satisfaction with management attitude, and benefits in that order (based on percent variance explained).

The average employment duration in positions that provide health insurance is five times greater than for jobs that do not provide this benefit (Dey and Flinn 2000). A later draft of the same report states that employers who offer health insurance tend to pay a higher wage (on the order of $5/day) thereby increasing the probability that the employee will remain in that job (Dey 2000). Those jobs that had low wages and offered health benefits did not see the same increased retention rates as those that offered both. One other important phenomenon revealed in the report is that “the termination rate at insured jobs is about two and a half times less than the rate at uninsured jobs.” Another benefit to offering health insurance is to ensure the health of the workforce and reduce the number of illnesses and injuries that render employees incapable of completing their duties.

Why are turnover and retention important? 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” (Towers Perrin 2003). Bates (2004) estimates that the U.S. economy is working at only 30% efficiency due to lack of employee engagement and in 2003, the Gallup Organization’s Engaged Workers Index indicated that 29% of workers surveyed felt they were engaged in their current position, 54% were not engaged and 17% were actively disengaged (Jamrog 2004).

TalentKeepers (2004) performed a survey of 240 companies from a broad range of industries regarding the organizational factors most impacted by turnover. Responses 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%). There are both direct and indirect costs of high turnover (Frank et al. 2004). Direct costs include expenses for: exit interviews; employment advertising, recruitment and screening, background checks, interviews, orientation and training. Indirect costs are more difficult to quantify but include lost productivity and lower employee morale.

Turnover, retention and engagement – the fisheries observer context

“It is important to retain good observers. Seasoned and well-trained observers can make a programme, and even a fishery, a success. They are a programme’s main asset and they need appropriate motivation through a programme structure that rewards responsibility and quality performance.” (Davies and Reynolds 2002)

“It is often said that NOAA’s greatest asset is its employees, and no place is that more true than in NOAA Fisheries. I am convinced that throughout NOAA Fisheries, we have employees whose knowledge, experience, energy and dedication are unequaled anywhere. For many years, it has been my pleasure and privilege to be associated with many outstanding individuals and I am always looking for ways to ensure that all of you realize your full potential within a safe and appreciative

56

work place. Rewarding employees for their contributions is one of the best ways I know to ensure that we attract and retain the best workers.” William T. Hogarth, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, June 18, 2003, Ceremony for 2002 Employees of the Year

Retention of staff who perform well is clearly important to NMFS as is demonstrated by Dr.William Hogarth’s statement above. By extension, the need for retention of fisheries observers deployed by NMFS who collect high quality data is also important and this is visibly reflected in RFP and SOW language for several programs (Table 15). However, nowhere in the RFPs or SOWs are terms such as “low turnover”, “retention”, “experienced observer staff” and “highest quality data”, explicitly defined. Furthermore, when asked about how bidders are evaluated on their retention plan, program managers provided only qualitative evaluation criteria.

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 (advertising, staff time spent on interviewing and training pay) 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.

Some program and provider staff expressed concern regarding the assumption that observers with more experience collect higher quality data. For instance, observers could reach an asymptote over time (Scenario 1 in Figure 2) or a few even voiced the opinion that data quality decreased for some observers over time (e.g., Scenario 2 in Figure 2). Nonetheless, we are unaware of any analyses of NMFS observer data that would address this question quantitatively.

Sections 4.2A-C describe current retention requirements, performance measures, and methods employed. A broader definition of retention and possible metrics for measuring retention are also provided (4.2D). Sections 4.2E-F discussing the adequacy of these metrics are brief due to data access constraints. The explanation of motivational factors influencing a person’s decision to become and continue to be an observer is primarily extracted from human resources literature and other sources specifically related to observers (4.2G). Finally, we provide a suite of recommendations for increasing observer retention (4.2H).

57

Table 15 Retention language found in RFP and SOW for federal observer program contacts. Subjective, undefined terms appear in italics.AMMOP 2000 SOW

“Maintaining a stable pool of observers with a minimum turnover”

PSFMC RFP for WCGOP (May 2001)

“Programs designed to promote good quality performance and a stable (low turnover) workforce using observer incentives, rewards, or other means, will be given preference”

SWRFOP RFP/SOW 1999

SOW“Section K. Trained observer status – the contractor shall notify the COTR when an observer chooses to leave the program or is terminated for cause. General reasons for the resignation/termination should be maintained in order to determine trends and help solve retention problems should they arise. ” (bold emphasis added)

RFP Section M.2 Evaluation of technical proposalA.3 – Methods to be used to maintain a corps of experienced, professional observers. This includes evaluation of the offeror’s compensation package and other inducements and organizational policies which lead to job satisfaction and workforce stability.

A.5 Approach to quality assurance cost control which ensures that the Government will receive the highest quality data at the best possible cost.

SESFOP SOW August 2004

The Contractor will provide incentives to retain high quality observers who perform their duties consistently well. NMFS encourages Contractors to retain good observers to reduce training costs, minimize safety problems, and increase data quality.

NEFOP SOW 2002-2003

Section C.3.1 Program monetarily rewards provider for data of acceptable quality.

Section L, Subpart B – Maintenance of an observer corps. “Explain how you plan to maintain an experienced observer staff certified by the Government. Specific methods must be provided to maintain observer retention. Maintaining an experienced observer staff has been a critical issue in the past.”

Time

Data

Qua

lity Scenario 1

Scenario 2

Figure 2 Hypothetical scenarios illustrating how duration of fisheries observer employment may influence data quality.

58

Task 4.2A Summarize retention requirements, if any, for each Observer Program.

Retention RequirementsCurrently, none of the Federal programs require their providers to meet any specific retention requirement or goal. Retention requirements are intentionally not specified by regulation (NPGOP and A-SHOP) or in requests for proposals (RFPs; all other programs). The intent of the latter is to allow providers the flexibility to discuss retention in their proposals. RFP’s do contain language that indicates the agency’s desire for a stable workforce and high retention; however, these subjective terms are rarely defined (Table 15). Bidder-proposed retention rates are used for evaluating proposals and are loosely monitored for potential use in future proposal evaluations. Program staff voiced additional trepidation regarding the difficulty in holding the observer provider accountable for something that they potentially have no control over and how retention rates would be monitored and enforced.

While these are all valid reasons for not specifying a retention requirement, the practice of requiring the deployment of observers with prior experience is not unprecedented. For instance, in the 1999 AMMOP SOW, there was language encouraging the observer provider to uphold an 80% retention rate of observers and the current SOW implies a mandatory 100% retention rate (if national view is taken) by requiring all hires have previous observer experience. The 80% retention rate language has been removed in the most recent SOW although reasons for removal were unknown by program managers.

In addition, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) regulations (5 AAC 39.645 (j)) state, “an independent contracting agent that provides onboard observers under this section shall…(13) ensure that no less than 65 percent of observer deployment days per year per contractor (observer provider) are performed by certified observers.” Becoming a certified observer in this program is loosely based on the amount of sampling performed, but typically one can become certified after collecting data for approximately 30 days. This goal was implemented for two reasons: to reduce training costs and to provide an incentive to observer providers to retain observers. The turnover rate, as defined by ADF&G, ranged from 0% to 87% in this program but high retention has been successfully achieved in most years (Appendix VIII).

In the NPGOP, which does not operate under a federal procurement process, union-negotiated contracts with three of the providers have a clause stating:

The Company is committed to hiring its prior Observers and shall make its best effort to hire seventy percent (70%) prior Observers on an annual basis for both the groundfish and shellfish programs if qualified priors are available.

The Company shall hire:First: All prior Company observers in good standingSecond: All prior observers in good standingThird: Any new hires

The intent and purpose of this article is to provide continuity of employment and retain experienced observers.

59

Observance of this clause is voluntary and has not been monitored by the union to date. In addition, the definition of “prior” is too broad in our opinion as it treats observers who have worked 30 days and 500 days equally.

Task 4.2BSummarize performance measures used to ensure that observer providers meet retention requirements, and penalties assessed (or other action taken) if these requirements are not met.

There are no retention requirements or penalties; therefore, there are no performance measures.

However, several of the RFPs/SOWs ask bidders to explain how they will maintain an experienced or stable observer workforce certified by the government (Table 15). Neither experienced nor stable are defined in any of the RFP/SOWs. As we were not provided access to this proprietary information, we cannot summarize performance measures proposed by current providers to maintain a stable workforce at this time. In addition, as far as we were able to determine, the provider-proposed measures are not monitored.

The NEFOP is the only program to link data quality with contract performance. Acceptable data quality is rewarded through a bonus system described as follows:

For each 3-month review period, a bonus plan will be provided by NMFS. For each sea day on the schedule, $100 will be placed into the plan. At the end of the review period, one percentage point will be deducted for each unaccomplished sea day on the schedule. One percentage point will be deducted for each day’s data which are not given an initial acceptable rating by the data editor, (i.e., if a 10 day scallop trip is rated unacceptable, 10 percentage points will be deducted from the total in the account. The remaining amount in the account will be given to the Contractor after the end of each quarter.

In order for the data to be rated acceptable, the following criteria must be met: All data logs and dry samples for the trip must be received by NMFS within

10 days of completion of the trip. All sampling protocols must have been followed for the fishery/location.

Photographs of all incidental takes were taken. All appropriate logs for the trip must have been used, with all fields

completed accurately.

A potential drawback of this system is that a good business person is going to increase the bid to accommodate their estimated loss due to unacceptable data quality. The end result is not necessarily the outcome NMFS anticipated in that NMFS still is not getting the highest quality data for the lowest price.

60

Task 4.2CDetail methods currently utilized by observer providers to retain observers, and whether these methods are meeting retention requirements (if applicable). These may include, but are not limited to: professional wages, non-salary benefits, support services.

Methods Currently Utilized to Retain Observers

Methods currently utilized by observer providers to retain observers include professional wages, non-salary benefits, support services, and other miscellaneous incentives. Each of these will be discussed individually. 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.

Although slightly outside of the scope of this task as drafted, we recognize that the programs also play a role in the retention of observers who collect high quality data. Therefore, we have included certain program activities that may positively or negatively influence observer retention within the relevant subsection (i.e., primarily support services).

Professional wagesProfessional 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 (Table 16). Pay for travel and being on-call ranges from nothing to at-sea wages depending on the location (NPGOP and A-SHOP) or circumstances. For providers with direct contracts, travel and waiting time is generally paid at an hourly rate for an 8-hour day. In the NPGOP and S-SHOP the number of paid debriefing days may have a limit depending on the provider.

Wages for time spent at sea ranges from $96/day to $182/day and maximum pay rages from $139 to $229/day (Table 17). Rates are calculated using slightly different assumptions regarding the hours an observer may work at sea. For instance, the WCGOP observer provider pays a base monthly pay rate with additional pay for sea time. Base pay varies by port assignment. Sea time averages 12-20 days per month; however, the observers are guaranteed pay for 12 sea days per month, regardless of whether these days are available. For the SE Shrimp, Shark Drift Gillnet and SEFSC POP, the starting or minimum pay is calculated using the hourly rate of the position the SOW calls General Biologist I ($12.03) applied to an 8-hour day. Maximum pay in these programs was calculated using the hourly rate of a General Biologist II ($13.47) to a 14-hour work day (i.e., 8 hours at base pay rate plus 6 hours of overtime). In 2004, General biologist I and II pay grades were roughly equivalent to a GS 5, Step 2-3 and GS 6, Step 2-3. Wages in the NPGOP and A-SHOP programs are determined by union-negotiated contracts for the majority of deployed sea days.

61

None of the wage structures allow for wage increases based on merit or performance; wages increase by time employed alone. IAP wages for observers increase each year at the same rate as federal wages. AOI WCGOP observers will receive a 6% wage increase every four or five months in 2005.

The NEFOP provider compensates observers for two weeks of vacation, four sick days and ten federal holidays. The WCGOP provider pays for two weeks vacation time after the first year of service and this is provided to lead and 12-month contract observers only. The current provider to the PIRO program compensates observers for two weeks of vacation after 265 sea days. The remaining providers do not compensate observers for vacation.

The manner in which the daily pay rates are applied to employment may also play a role in the decision to remain. For instance, the WCGOP may appear to have a lower daily rate; however, these observers are guaranteed a livable base pay (regardless of how many days they actually spend at sea) that no other program offers. The NEFOP offers year-round contracts but pay is based on deployment days which can be impacted by weather and vessel decisions beyond the observers’ direct control.

Non-salary benefits The non-salary benefits are summarized in Tables 18 and 19. The federal standard is included because these were the benefits offered to observers that were hired as Federal employees in the past.

Health insurance benefits (beyond worker’s compensation) are provided in some form, albeit through diverse methods and with varying caveats, by all providers except DCI (AMMOP) and UFL (SESFOP). Major medical health plans are either provided entirely by providers (WCGOP, SWRFOP, and PIRO), subsidized by providers (NEFOP, NPGOP, and A-SHOP) or money is provided n lieu of these benefits (SE Shrimp, Shark Drift Gillnet, an SEFSC POP). AOI, FOA and NWO (PIRO) provide a comprehensive major medical plan to fisheries observers during their employment. The AOI plan has a $200 deductible and does not include dental or vision. FOA’s plan has a $250 deductible and includes medical, vision and dental. FOA observers can opt out of the full plan and be provided with a taxable payment of $350.12 or opt out of the dental portion only. PIRO’s previous provider, SWI, provided health insurance although the details were not available. The current provider, NWO, provides health insurance after an observer completes 28 sea days. NPGOP and A-SHOP providers that operate under a union contract reimburse $85 per month as taxable income with proof of personal health insurance; otherwise, no health insurance is provided. IAP provides money in lieu of health and life insurance benefits. The amount is based on hours worked and is paid as taxable income on a quarterly basis. AIS (NEFOP) subsidizes 50% of a medical and dental plan for their observers.

62

Table 16 Summary of daily wages paid to fisheries observers for training, briefing, debriefing, travel and waiting or on-call but not assigned to a vessel.

Program Training Briefing Debriefing Travel Waiting / On-call

Source year

AMMOP 60 N/A ? N/A ? 2001

NPGOP $80 (if pass) $80 (if pass) $80*

Zero or At-sea pay

depending on location

Zero or At-sea pay depending

on location2005

A-SHOP N/A $80 $80*

Zero or At-sea pay

depending on location

Zero 2005

WCGOP $105 $108† $108† $108† $108† 2005

PIRO (NWO) $107†† $107 $107 N/A Zero or $40 2005

SWRFOP $115** $115** $115** $115** $115** 2005SE Shrimp,Shark Drift

Gillnet,SEFSC

POP

$96 $96 $96 $96 Zero or $96 (if on standby) 2004

SESFOP $114 N/A $114 $114 $114 2004

NEFOP $96 $96 $96 ? ? 2004

Federal‡ $106 $106 $106 $106 $106 2004*Limit on number of days may apply depending on employer. †Briefing, debriefing, waiting and travel are built into the overall salary structure which has a monthly

basis; minimum daily salary is listed and was calculated using the minimum monthly divided by 30 days.

**Calculated using 2005 GS-5, Step 1 hourly rate for Los Angeles ($14.38) for an 8-hour day; Department of Labor wage determination for this position was unavailable.

††Information from provider website.‡Federal wages calculated using 2004 GS-5, step 1 hourly rate for an 8-hour day.

63

Table 17 Summary of daily observer at-sea wages. Daily rate calculated as monthly rate divided by 30 days.

Program

Starting Pay

(daily at-sea rate)

Maximum Pay (daily

at-sea rate)

Paid Vacation Other

Source years

AMMOP (DCI) $125 $145 No 2002

NPGOP $130 $195 No 2005A-SHOP $130 $195 No 2005

WCGOP* $108 $176

2 weeks in 2nd year of service

Vacation applies to lead and 12-month contract observers only. 2005

PIRO (SWI) $156 $218 No Profit sharing program 2003

PIRO (NWO) $150 $2172 weeks after 365 sea days

2005††

SWRFOP† $130/$150 $165/$185 No 2004SE Shrimp,Shark Drift

Gillnet,SEFSC POP

$96** $229 No Holiday pay 2004

SESFOP $182 $182 No 2004

NEFOP $165 $225 2 weeks 4 sick days; 10 federal holidays 2004

Federal ‡ $194 $240 2 weeks 4 sick days; 10 federal holidays 2004

*Minimum calculated using lowest port base pay rate and 12-sea day guarantee amortized over 30 days. Maximum calculated using the highest port base pay rate and 20 sea days amortized over 30 days. Because observers are on salary, daily maximum/minimum change based on assumptions; to put this in perspective, annual base salaries vary from $38,950 to $52,925 depending on port.

†Differential due to different gear types; lower for drift gillnet and higher for pelagic longline; however, after 25 drift gillnet sea days, daily rate increases $5/day.

**The SE Shrimp/Shark Drift Gillnet/SEFSC POP observer provider uses hourly rates for pay. Starting pay is calculated using an 8 hour day, top pay uses a 14 hour day (8 hours at hourly rate + 6 hours at time and a half).

‡Wage determination on 8/31/04 for observers operating from the Gulf of Mexico to Maine - Fisheries Observer I ($12.79) and Fisheries Observer III ($15.85). Hourly rates applied to a 12-hour day, 7-day per week work schedule (i.e., 40 hours of regular time and 44 hours of overtime divided by 7 days). Pay rate is identical to base pay plus locality pay for the rest of the U.S.

64

Only the IAP provides life insurance and retirement benefits. Life insurance is provided to the observers in the same form as health insurance. Observers can participate in the company’s 401(k) retirement plan although there is no employer matching. SWI observers employed in the PIRO program could participate in a profit sharing program which could be considered a form of retirement plan.

PIRO and NPGOP have a history of providing access to an educational benefit option. In 2003 University of Hawaii Junior- and Senior-level students could work and receive credit towards a bachelor’s degree for work performed as PIRO observers. Three 400-level credits are offered from University of Alaska School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences for work performed in the NPGOP.

Uniforms (essential gear such as a rain slicker, pants, boots, and gloves) are provided by all programs or providers except NPGOP and A-SHOP. Observers in the NPGOP and A-SHOP are reimbursed $35 per month (taxable income) as a gear allowance.

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 (Table 19). All providers except for the SWRFOP supply lodging and a food per diem during training. Training time is not applicable to the A-SHOP. Lodging and a food per diem is provided during briefing and debriefing for all programs except SWRFOP and PIRO. Briefing and debriefing times are not applicable to the WCGOP unless on travel status. Lodging and a food per diem are provided or reimbursed when observers are on travel status in all programs. If a personal vehicle is used for travel outside of port assignment, mileage is also reimbursed at the federal rate in all programs where this is a possibility. While waiting for a vessel, the NPGOP and A-SHOP providers provide lodging. If on standby status, observers in the SE Shrimp, Shark Drift Gillnet and SEFSC POP are provided with lodging and a food per diem. Standby is defined as the observer is waiting and ready to go at any time.

One provider also noted that the point-of-hire may also be considered a benefit. For instance, if a candidate is responsible for travel to the job site or point-of-hire and has a choice between Seattle, WA and Anchorage, AK, Seattle will most likely be the more economical choice.

65

Table 18 Summary of non-wage benefits offered by observer providers for normal employment conditions. Educational benefit indicates academic credit offered for work experience.

Program

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e

Life

Insu

ranc

e

Ret

irem

ent

Ben

efit

Edu

catio

n B

enef

it

Uni

form

al

low

ance

(rai

n sl

icke

r, p

ants

, bo

ots,

glov

es)

Hou

sing

al

low

ance

Cel

l pho

ne

allo

wan

ce

Sate

llite

pho

ne

allo

wan

ce

Inte

rnet

serv

ice

allo

wan

ce

Sour

ce y

ear

AMMOP(DCI) No No No No Program

providesLodging provided No No No 2002

NPGOPNo; providers with Union

contracts reimburse $85/month with proof of

health insurance*

No No Yes† $35/month *

Lodging provided No No No 2005

A-SHOP

No; providers with Union contracts reimburse

$85/month with proof of health insurance*

No No No $35/month *

Lodging provided No No No 2005

WCGOP Yes No No No PSMFC provides No Yes No Yes 2005

PIRO (SWI) Yes No No†† Yes** Program provides

Lodging provided No No No 2004

PIRO (NWO)

Yes, State mandated, observer eligible after 4 weeks of employment

No No No Program provides

Lodging provided

for 1st

contract only

Yes No No 2004

SWRFOPYes; or option for

$350.12/month in lieu of plan enrollment*

No No No Provider provides No No No

Provider provides access

2004

SE Shrimp,Shark Drift

Money earned in lieu of benefits ($2.56/hour) with quarterly payout*

401K option, no

No Program provides

No Yes Yes No 2004

66

Program

Hea

lth

Insu

ranc

e

Life

Insu

ranc

e

Ret

irem

ent

Ben

efit

Edu

catio

n B

enef

it

Uni

form

al

low

ance

(rai

n sl

icke

r, p

ants

, bo

ots,

glov

es)

Hou

sing

al

low

ance

Cel

l pho

ne

allo

wan

ce

Sate

llite

pho

ne

allo

wan

ce

Inte

rnet

serv

ice

allo

wan

ce

Sour

ce y

ear

Gillnet,SEFSC POP

employer matching

SESFOP No No No No Provider provides No No No No 2004

NEFOPYes –50% medical and

dental paid for by provider

No No No Provider provides No

Cell phone; calling card

No No 2005

Federal Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No 2005

*Taxable income. **2003 program for Univ. of Hawaii Junior and Senior level students could work and receive credit towards bachelor’s degree. †Three 400-level credits offered from University of Alaska School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences; tuition not included or reimbursed. ††Profit sharing program.

67

Table 19 Non-salary benefits provided during training, briefing/debriefing, travel and while waiting/on-call.

Program Training Briefing Debriefing Travel Waiting / On-call

Source year

AMMOPLodging and food per

diem of $45/day including weekends

N/A ? ? ? 2002

NPGOPLodging and food per diem of $20-25/day including weekends

Lodging provided; food per diem of

$20-25/day including weekends

Lodging provided; food per diem of

$20-25/day including weekends

Lodging provided; food per diem of $20-25/day including weekends

Lodging provided 2005

A-SHOP N/A

Lodging provided; food per diem of

$20-25/day including weekends

Lodging provided; food per diem of

$20-25/day including weekends

Lodging provided; food per diem of $20-25/day including weekends

Lodging provided

WCGOPLodging and food per

diem of $20/day including weekends

N/A N/A

Lodging provided; food per diem at federal per diem rate for location; Mileage reimbursed when working outside home port; Up to

$350 for relocation expenses

N/A 2005

PIRO ? ? ? ? ?

SWRFOPLodging provided; food per

diem at federal per diem rate for location

SE Shrimp,Shark Drift

Lodging and food per diem at federal per

diem rate for location

Lodging and food per diem at federal per diem rate for

location

Lodging and food per diem at federal per diem rate for

location

Lodging and food per diem at federal per diem rate for location; Reimbursed for travel expense to/from

If on standby* status, lodging &

food per diem provided for

68

Program Training Briefing Debriefing Travel Waiting / On-call

Source year

Gillnet,SEFSC

POP

home; Mileage reimbursed if personal vehicle used.

location, otherwise no.

SESFOP†Lodging reimbursed at $60/night and food at $21/day (if pass)

Mileage reimbursed? 2003

NEFOPLodging and food per

diem of $XX/day including weekends

Lodging and food per diem of

$XX/day including weekends

? ? ? 2004

FederalLodging and food per diem at federal rate including weekends

Lodging and food per diem at federal

rate including weekends

Lodging and food per diem at federal

rate including weekends

Lodging and food per diem at federal rate including

weekends

Lodging and food per diem at federal rate including weekends

2004

*Standby is defined as the observer is waiting and ready to go at any time.

69

Support ServiceSupport 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. For instance, the following factors may impact the shipboard life and land-based lifestyle of fisheries observers (adapted from (Paine and North 2001)):

11. Program and provider management 12. Work factors13. Physical and health factors14. Mental/emotional factors15. Morale factors16. Work/Life Balance17. Onboard social factors18. Entertainment factors19. Training adequacy and enrichment opportunity20. Advancement opportunities.

Each of these factors will be discussed individually.

Program and provider management Program and provider management may include the ability to communicate via phone or email with shore-based staff, an emphasis on positive employee relations, office support for travel logistics, mentoring, scheduling input, location, management strategy (top-down only), emphasis on teamwork, professionalism, and down time in port. For each region, either program or provider staff are accessible outside of normal office hours when observers have concerns about a vessel’s crew or safety. The NPGOP also has staff located in Alaska’s two largest ports, Dutch Harbor and Kodiak. Program staff are typically responsible for prompt replies to questions on sampling and data collection protocols. Depending on the program, either the provider or program staff are responsible for dealing with difficult situations when in the field. A few of the providers employ staff to interact directly with the fishers on their behalf. For instance, PIROs provider must perform placement inspections with the vessel captain and observer present. The SESFOP also requires the provider to conduct and document the placement meeting prior to the vessels departure. At the placement meeting, the Contractor must discuss with the permit holder or vessel operator, in the presence of the observer, the terms, conditions, and expectations when carrying an observer. This shall include, but is not limited to, the role of the observer, the role of the captain, inspection of required safety gear and equipment, and inspection of accommodations. Two observer providers operating in the NPGOP employ field supervisors (prior observers) who are in direct contact with the vessel’s management in port to troubleshoot problems quickly. NPGOP staff also perform annual inspections in vessels operating in certain restricted access fisheries to ensure regulatory requirements pertaining to observer sample stations.

Only the NPGOP and NEFOP have documented an explicit process for the fair evaluation of data quality and provide a process to the observers for voicing disagreement with the assessment. The NPGOPs process is documented in regulation whereas NEFOPs process is less formal. NEFOP also uses input from vessel personnel.

70

In the WCGOP, all observers may request leave without pay which is granted on a case by case basis. The program provides instantaneous information on vessels through the same web-based database that the observers access to enter their data. Finally, the WCGOP supported the observers when they requested the program declare a vessel unsafe if the crew refused to maintain a wheel watch at night.

Some providers are more flexible than others in granting requests for vessel assignments or fishery and contract lengths.

Work factors Work factors may include the physical and mental demands of the position, job security, and workload (too much or too little work available). The physical and mental demands are difficult to address; however, two observers are deployed on a few NPGOP and all A-SHOP assignments. These vessels are occasionally used as a reward after an exceptionally difficult assignment.

Physical and health factorsPhysical and health factors may include noise, vibration, light, habitability, safety, food (well balanced and available around the clock), regular exercise, sleep deprivation, and smoke. There are basic safety regulations that apply to all U.S. fisheries with observer requirements. Programs and providers have very little influence on the remaining factors. However, the NPGOP has implemented a random break table to be used by observers on vessels fishing around the clock and in a manner that makes it difficult for an observer to obtain adequate rest.

Mental/emotional factorsMental and emotional factors may include stress, feeling needed, and feeling badgered or harassed. None of the programs require any sort of pre-service evaluation. At least one observer provider asks observers to voluntarily come forward with substance abuse/addiction issues and will assist observers in getting treatment. The legal aspects of harassment are supported by the programs but very little support in terms of counseling after an event is supplied.

Morale factorsMorale factors may include respect, recognition, comparable worth and the ability to communicate with family and friends. The NEFOP recognizes one observer each month for his or her outstanding service and performance. This person also receives a salary bonus. IAP provides a certain amount of satellite phone service to observers weekly so that they can keep in touch with their employer but these minutes can also be used to contact family and friends. At least two providers for the NPGOP provide mail services in the field (i.e., a regularly checked post office box so mail can be collected by observers after hours and is not constrained by general delivery rules).

Work/Life balanceWork/life balance issues may include burn-out, rotation/schedule, missed family opportunities, separation, e-mail access to families, and social network.

71

Social factors (on and off the vessel)Social factors may include crew size, camaraderie among peers, language and cultural differences. One provider sponsors group meals when in port and in their land-based lodging which allows an opportunity for their observers to interact in a family-style atmosphere.

Entertainment factors Entertainment factors may include access to television, movies, music, books, video games, and newspapers. Observers are responsible for bringing their own entertainment to the workplace. Some vessels subscribe to a daily news service which has nothing to do with the program or provider but s a nice perk nonetheless..

Training adequacy and enrichment opportunityTraining adequacy may impact an observer’s decision to remain an observer for more than one trip or cruise. If s/he feels unprepared by the training provided, there is little incentive to remain and data quality may suffer.

Enrichment opportunities such as being trained for more than one program, specialized identification training, deployment on research vessels, continuing education opportunity, and attendance at professional conferences may also increase long-term retention. The NEFOP deploys 12 to 14 observers per year on NOAA survey cruises, cooperative research cruises or field work with Northeast Fisheries Science Center staff which NEFOP staff feels has been a benefit. In the past, the NOP and a few of the individual programs have provided funding to observers to attend the International Fisheries Observer Conference.

Advancement opportunitiesOnly the providers in the Southeast (IAP) and SWRFOP (FOA) can provide advancement opportunities outside of observing due to the scope of their contracts with NMFS.

OtherIn addition to wages, benefits and program and provider support services, some observers would be more inclined to remain an observer longer if time spent as an observer counted toward government competitive status. This concept is not unprecedented (e.g., Peace Corp volunteers).

Other programs (WCGOP, SWRFOP) promote retention by offering one training session per year which forces providers to either offer adequate incentives to their employees to stick around at least for the contract time period or to train a sufficient number of observers so that if one or more leave, there are back-up observers available for quick deployment.

72

The NPGOP policy that limits employment opportunity of observers who work as provider staff may prohibit retention of some individuals within this program.

Task 4.2D Determine a standard definition of retention that can be used to apply to all programs, and a reasonable metric for determining whether retention rates are adequate.

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 into some 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. Turnover and retention rates are defined as in Section 4.2. 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. Several options are provided for calculating the last two indices.

We also provide an incomplete case study using data from the NPGOP to illustrate the utility of the turnover and retention rate metrics. The adequacy of metric options described is not assessed due to lack of access to the data required to calculate these metrics. However, strengths and weaknesses of each are briefly discussed.

Metrics

Turnover RateTurnover rates (defined in Section 4.2) can be calculated for new hires and prior observers within each individual program and nationally. It may be beneficial to track voluntary and involuntary (e.g., termination or decertification) turnover separately.

Turnover rate for new hires in each Program (Y) can be calculated as follows:

Turnover rate for priors in each Program (Y) can be calculated as follows:

73

National turnover rate can be similarly calculated:

Formula terms are defined as follows: New hire – Observer newly hired to work in Program(Y). Each program retains it’s

current definition of new hire, provisional, first cruise, etc.; Prior – Observer with prior experience (minimum of 10 fishing days) in Program(Y); Year(X) – Calendar year or modified definition for specific programs to meet their

unique needs; Deployed – Observer assigned to vessel(s) or plant and was present for a minimum of

10 fishing days; Fishing day – any day a vessel retrieved gear or a plant received a delivery that the

observer was responsible for monitoring.

The selection of 10 fishing days in the definitions of prior and deployed was arbitrary and could be modified to meet individual program needs.

Retention RateRetention rate (defined in Section 4.2) for observers hired in Program(Y) during Year(X=0) can be calculated by

Formula terms are defined in the turnover subsection above. Retention tracks a cohort through time for X=0 to the year when no individuals from a cohort were employed as observers in Program(Y). Retention rate could also be monitored nationally as individuals are frequently deployed by more than one program each year.

Experience IndexThe 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 Index is calculated as the summation of the percentage of fishing days (defined in turnover subsection above) collected by observers of each experience type multiplied by the weight of the experience type. Tables 20-21 illustrate the calculation using the following formula:

.

The maximum index in each example differs, (Table 20 maximum equals 6 whereas Table 21 equals 3) but otherwise, these indices are identical in function. Experience type in Table 20 is simply defined as the number of fishing days an individual has collected data in a given program. There is potential to incorporate broad data quality characteristics into a hypothetical experience type listed in Table 21. For instance, if the

74

experience types were defined as in Table 22, individual’s can be given credit for their abilities. The drawback of incorporating data quality in this fashion is that it does not account for a highly experienced observer collecting data of a quality below their ability due to some life distraction (e.g., divorce, family illness, etc.).

Table 20 Calculation of Experience Index using number of fishing days in a year collected by various experience types. Experience type defined by number of fishing days an observer has collected data in Program (Y).

Table 21 Calculation of Experience Index using number of fishing days in a year collected by various experience types. Experience type is hypothetical and more fully defined in Table 22.

Defining high quality or acceptable data remains program-specific although some minimal standardization of evaluation factors to make this determination would be ideal.

To account for varying difficulty with the collection of high quality data among gear types, gear type could be another level incorporated into the Experience Index. Generic gear type categories may include:

Longline – pelagic Longline – demersal Pots/traps Other fixed gear – jig, vertical hook & line, pole & line, recreational, etc. Gillnet – set and drift – small mesh (e.g., herring, salmon) Gillnet – set and drift – large mesh (e.g., sharks, swordfish) Purse seine – large pelagics (tunas)

75

Purse seine – small pelagics (herring, salmon) Trawl – finfish pelagic Trawl – other pelagic (e.g., shrimp) Trawl – finfish demersal Trawl – other demersal (e.g., shrimp) Dredge

Each program may have more specific gear types but these can easily be grouped into the 13 categories above. Furthermore, the hypothetical experience types may be defined slightly differently for each gear type. In general, program staff felt that one could become proficient at collecting high quality data fairly quickly in gillnet fisheries (e.g., ~30 days), but proficiency took much longer in trawl fisheries (e.g., ~90 days). These factors may be incorporated into determining when an individual is moved from provisional to various levels of certified.

Table 22 Definitions for hypothetical experience types in Table 21. Hypothetical experience type DefinitionProvisional One who is in the process of gaining proficiency at

collecting high quality data (defined by each program)

Certified – Level 1 One who consistently demonstrates the ability to collect high quality data

Certified – Level 2 As Level 1 plus consistently makes few errors in calculations, transferring to paper forms or data entry, etc.

Certified – Level 3 As Level 2 plus consistently performs above average (in relation to peers). Above average should be defined by individual programs and may include the following: Consistently identifies fish and invertebrates to lower

taxonomic levels than others Consistently collects higher sample sizes than peers.

Level 3 could also incorporate experiences such as: Deployment with NMFS scientists on research cruises Work in other observer programs.

Experience and Data Quality Index

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. Table 23 illustrates a simple version of incorporating data quality where data quality is assessed as a logical factor (acceptable or not acceptable). The formula used in Table 23 is:

76

. The index in Table 23 is reduced by 0.03 when

compared to Table 21 when data quality is taken into account.

Table 23 Calculation of Experience and Data Quality Index using number of fishing days in a year collected by various experience types and whether data collected on those fishing days was rated as acceptable or not acceptable.

Tables 24-26 build on the data quality aspect by incorporating a more complex data quality ranking (4-levels). The weighting factor applied to each experience type increases by one for each increase in data quality. For instance,

The maximum index for Tables 24-26 equals 12.0. Table 24 assumes an experience type has no impact on data quality (i.e., each experience type collects data of equal quality). Table 25 assumes an experience type has no impact on data quality (i.e., each experience type collects data of equal quality) but number of fishing days allocated to lower experience levels is increased. If the number of fishing days collected by observers with less experience increases, there is a subsequent decrease in the Experience and Data Quality Index (by 2.0 in Table 25). For comparison purposes, Table 26 illustrates the same distribution of fishing days among experience types as in Table 24 but assumes the amount of high quality data increases with more experience for an increase in the index of 2.49.

Table 24 Calculation of Experience and Data Quality Index using number of fishing days in a year collected by various experience types and data quality weighted at four levels. This example assumes an experience type has no impact on data quality (i.e., each experience type collects data of equal quality).

77

Table 25 Calculation of Experience and Data Quality Index using number of fishing days in a year collected by various experience types and data quality weighted at four levels. This example assumes an experience type has no impact on data quality (i.e., each experience type collects data of equal quality) but number of fishing days allocated to lower experience levels increased.

Table 26 Calculation of Experience and Data Quality Index using number of fishing days in a year collected by various experience types and data quality weighted at four levels. This example assumes the amount of high quality data increases with more experience.

Issues of data qualityEach program currently has a unique set of criteria for evaluating data and we believe this autonomy should remain with the programs. However, there may be a need in the future to establish a national metric for “high quality observer data”. One option, given agreement among the programs, is a scale that rates data (not the observer) on the program’s or data client’s ability to use the data in certain ways. For example,

0. Inadequate data – data not usable for any purpose and may not be entered into a database or data users are not allowed access;

1. Data useable for determining fishing effort only (e.g., time fished, soak duration, number of hooks deployed/retrieved, length of gear, fishing position, etc.);

2. Data useable for above plus total catch estimation (number or weight as appropriate by program);

3. Data useable for all of the above plus target and bycatch (including protected species) composition (number or weight as appropriate by program);

4. Data useable for all of the above plus stock assessment data (e.g., lengths, age structure, maturity).

This scale of data quality allows for the programs to maintain more specific data quality checks and standards given differing goals and objectives yet allows there to be some sort of comparison across programs. This scale does not include other types of data collection such as compliance, gear characteristics, interactions/sightings, or pollution observations.

Metric Case Study

78

NPGOP observer deployment dates and training or briefing type for each deployment were requested through a Freedom of Information Act request. NPGOP provided this information for January 1, 2001 to July 31, 2003. A unique observer identifier was associated with each deployment so that unique individuals could be tracked through time. No information regarding experience or data quality was provided; therefore, only turnover and retention rate metrics could be calculated. Turnover rates using formulas described earlier were 44% and 47% for observers who trained in 2001 and 2002, respectively. Prior observer turnover rates were similar in 2001 (46%) and less in 2002 (32%). The 2002 prior turnover rate is likely an overestimate because there were still 5-months left in 2003 for the observers deployed in 2002 to return.

Given the short time span of the data, the retention rate of only the 2001 cohort was calculated. Fifty-six percent of the new observers hired in 2001 continued to work in 2002 and 36% were still working in 2003.

PIRO voluntarily provided similar data; however, turnover and retention rate calculations were not performed as data was supplied in print format only.

Metric MeritsEach of the four metrics has strengths and weaknesses. Turnover rate tracks how well a program retains observers in a given year and is easy to calculate. The weaknesses of using only the turnover metric are that turnover rate does not track the amount of baseline experience within the observer corps and there is no link to data quality.

The retention rate metric tracks how well observers (cohorts) are retained long-term and is also fairly easy to calculate. The lack of a link to data quality is also a weakness of retention rate.

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.

Task 4.2E Compare retention rates between the various programs using the standard definition of retention

A comparison of metric options discussed in Section 4.2D was not performed due to the lack of access to the data required to calculate these metrics.

79

Task 4.2FDetermine whether the retention mechanisms currently in place are adequate (according to the metric deemed reasonable)

Without the data required to calculate metrics discussed in Section 4.2D and our inability to survey observers directly, we were unable to determine whether the retention mechanisms currently in place are adequate; however, we have two comments regarding retention mechanism responsibility and wage structure. All stakeholders have a role to play in increasing observer retention regardless of whether this role is officially acknowledged. Stake holders include individual provider staff, individual agency staff (program and data clients), other data clients, observers and fishers. Regarding wage structure, pay is not currently based on merit. A restructuring to reward those who collect higher quality data has the potential to increase retention.

Task 4.2GDetermine what motivational factors influence a person’s decision to become an observer and continue to be an observer, and determine what factors are demotivators or cause ‘burnout’.

Due to PRA limitations noted in Section 3.0, we were unable to survey current observers regarding their motivation for becoming or remaining an observer; however, some information exists for a few programs.

In 2000-2005, observers in the NPGOP were asked at the end of each contract if they would go out as an observer again (n=1,342 although individuals may have completed the survey multiple times). Most observers responded that they would return to work as an observer (89%). Another 10% responded maybe and the remaining 1% said they would not return to work as an observer. Comments of respondents who answered maybe and no were tallied for primary reason for their response: 17% said they want to explore other job options; 16% didn’t provide any detailed comments; 10% seasick; 10% missed land life, 6% vessel conditions and four categories were tied at 5% (graduate school, injury, job is difficult and too monotonous/not really doing biology).

In a survey conducted in 2002 by the Association for Professional Observers, 60% of the observers’ surveyed indicated that changes to their conditions of employment could convince them to consider observing a attractive career path. See Appendix X for more information.

In the past year NEFOP and AIS have conducted exit interviews and have asked observers why they leave the program. This is a relatively new procedure but responses were extracted and summarized as follows (number of responses in parentheses):

1. Seasickness (7)2. Setting up trips (6)3. Took a job with more biology/science (3)

80

4. Bad weather (3)5. Job was too demanding - no time at home (2)6. Safety (2)7. Took a more stable job (1)8. Smoking on boats (1)9. Didn't like the invasive nature of the job (1)

The SWRFOP SOW also includes a requirement to perform exit interview but responses are not formally tracked. However, the program manager commented that he thought observers leave due to lack or work, injury, find new job or were starting graduate school. He also noted that when observers were direct federal hires (1990-95), retention seemed like it was on a 3-year cycle and his intuitive retention rate was approximately 50% to the second year and 20% to third year.

Burnout is not explicitly addressed in any of the exit surveys or interviews. “Burnout is a prolonged response to chronic emotional and interpersonal stressors on the job, and is defined by the three dimensions of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy” (Maslach et al. 2001). These three dimensions have a negative impact on employee productivity (e.g., the quality of data the observer is collecting). As data quality is reduced so may the observers sense of personal accomplishment building up the feelings of exhaustion and cynicism. If these feelings continue, they are more likely to seek work elsewhere.

In order to prevent or minimize burnout, we must have knowledge regarding what causes the stressors. Each observer will have different stressors so an individualized approach must be taken. Given that observers in all programs go through a debriefing this would be the most appropriate time to identify the stressors unique to the individual. Once the stressors are identified, then increased training or support can be given to the observer to learn to handle the stressor. Another benefit of this individualized approach is the demonstration, to the individual, that they are valued and worth the investment. A sense of worth is paramount to job satisfaction and retention.

Furthermore, Nowack (1986) claims a positive connection between overall health and burnout. Although not a scientifically based article, intuitively it makes sense that healthier individuals are less likely to succumb to burnout. Providing health promotion training and materials for observers that are unique to the work environment, including overall health maintenance onboard vessels and ways of coping with stress. Another important aspect of health management is ensuring proper and adequate health care including preventive care.

The authors are not aware of any focused study on burnout in the fishery observer profession.

81

4.2H Outline the necessary steps involved to ensure that the Observer Bill of Rights, drafted at the Second Biennial Canada-United States Fisheries Observer Program Workshop, is recognized by all U.S. observer programs.

In 2000, an Observer Bill of Rights (Appendix X) 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 (Anon. 2000). The Observer Bill of Rights can be thought of as Labor Best Practices.

A few of the items in the Bill of Rights have been addressed or are being addressed (Table 27). Observer providers should be expected to address these rights, in as much as they can have control over them, as part of the contractual agreement with NMFS. For those items that the observer provider can not control, the program or other responsible entity must be held accountable.

There are many individuals who may not be aware that this document exists. The Observer Bill of Rights should be handed out to all observers, programs and observer providers and supported by the National Observer Program with the expectation that it will be formally recognized.

82

Table 27 Summary of issues included in observer Bill of Rights currently being addressed by U.S. Observer Programs. X –Issue being addressed by program through SOW process or by provider; †Full major medical plan in place; ‡No major medical plan but some form or reimbursement which may or may not cover actual cost of medical insurance; +Some, but not all, providers are supplying this service; *Offered by provider; ?= uncertain status; ^=not applicable; Blank cells indicate this proposed right is not provided in any form.

AM

MO

P

NPG

OP

A-S

HO

P

WC

GO

P

PIR

O

SWR

FOP

SE S

hrim

p

Shar

k D

rift

Gill

net

SEFS

C P

OP

SESF

OP

NEF

OP

1. Observers have a right to a living wage, including but not limited to: Health Insurance X ‡ ‡ X† ? ‡ ‡ ‡ Disability insurance Life Insurance X X X 401-K or comparable retirement

plan option * * * Paid vacations and holidays X X X Counseling (peer as well as

professional) Personal and professional insurance Transferability of observer credit

for purposes of financial compensation from one program to another.

2. Definition of “Observer work” for the purpose of compensation should include the following for each program: Training X + + X X X X X X X X Debriefing X + + X X X X X X X X Deployment X X X X X X X X X X X Stand-by time (including time

between deployments and briefing/debriefing)

+ + ? ? ?

Step-based pay system that encourages experience and exceptional work

Travel ^? X X X X X X X X X X

Searching for vessel ^? ^ ^ X ? ? ? X X X X

3. Observers have the right to a safe working environment: Right of refusal to any vessel

without repercussions X X X No observer to be placed on a

vessel that is considered unsafe Define the procedure for what to do

if a vessel is considered unsafe (A national protocol should be developed; information of the vessel’s safety should be provided to observers)

? X X X ? X ? ? ? ? ?

83

AM

MO

P

NPG

OP

A-S

HO

P

WC

GO

P

PIR

O

SWR

FOP

SE S

hrim

p

Shar

k D

rift

Gill

net

SEFS

C P

OP

SESF

OP

NEF

OP

Increase minimum safety training standards for all programs and design training to be observer program-specific

? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Establish better communications between Coast Guard and fisheries agencies

? X ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Ensure reasonable accommodations and food ? X X ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Provide observers with vessel’s past safety records via web access

4. Observers have the right to be acknowledged for their contribution to science and resource management, encompassing the following: Attendance at workshops (00, 02 or

04) X X X X X X X X X Credit in publications and other

literature ? X ? ? ? ? ? ? X ? ?5. Observers have the right to support from their program/agency: The program should develop support mechanisms for observers which cultivate a sense of belonging

Each program needs to develop protocols to improve communication, understanding, and support for observers

A grievance procedure should be established that encompasses the work performed by the observer provider or government agency

X X

6. Additional goals suggested for observer programs:Standardize data forms and species/ gear codes nationally or internat’l (e.g. electronic logbook program)

Creation of a clearinghouse on national/international level for certified observers who span various programs

Establishment of an electronic mailing list or forum devoted to observer issues

Direct management staff should be required annually to serve at sea as observers, but not as a displacement for regular observers

84

4.2I Retention recommendations

Recommendations to improve retention

Similar to the recruitment recommendations, the following recommendations should be thought of as a list of options. Retention recommendations are grouped by who should be responsible for the action, programs, providers, or both.

Programs

General – National1. 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. Supplemental information for this study is included as Appendix VII.

3. Assess level of burnout and reasons contributing to burnout. Several models exist to measure burnout: the Job Demands-Resource Model (Demerouti et al. 2001) and Maslach’s Burnout Inventory (Maslach et al. 2001) among others. Use results to modify future retention practices.

4. Determine reasonable metric for measuring retention. Steps may include:o Calculate turnover and retention rates for each program for the past 5 years. o Compare turnover and retention metrics with federal employees in similar

positions such as Fisheries Biologists or Biological/Fisheries Technicians who perform extensive field work (e.g., 3-6 months /year). Are the metrics similar or different?

o Determine an acceptable level of turnover and retention for the Fisheries Observer position.

o Determine data needs for calculating Experience Index or Experience and Data Quality Index.

o Assess feasibility of calculating Experience Index or Experience and Data Quality Index.

o If feasible, calculate for a minimum of 3 years and then, reassess their utility and if they are meeting program needs.

5. Support the creation of consistent wage and benefit packages among programs. This consistency may provide incentives for more observers to continue working as observers, to be more willing to work across programs and to add flexibility to programs because the workforce is from a larger, experienced national observer pool.

85

6. Extend Non-Competitive Eligibility Status (NCES) to fisheries observers who have provided extended service for the benefit of our nations fisheries. Further information for implementation is provided in Appendix XI.

7. Currently, the training received to be a NMFS-certified or –approved observer is only recognized by the program within which the approval was received. We recommend 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.

An Introduction to Fisheries Observing course could teach all of the common elements among observer programs. Safety, conflict resolution and other human relation skills, history and development of observer programs, vessel familiarity and basic fish, invertebrate marine mammal, seabird, and sea turtle identification are a few curricula topics that are common among programs. Accreditation could occur through the American Council on Education4 or Illinois Association for Career and Technical Education5.

Supplemental accredited courses could also be offered such as a United States Coast Guard accredited training certification, similar to the Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping (STCW)6 requirements of merchant mariners. This type of course may change the view of industry of observers from one of liability to potential asset. Upgrade courses can be developed as additional necessary skills are identified. This type of course may also fall under a later recommendation for fostering professional development.

8. NMFS could establish a mentoring program between scientists and observers which would allow the observer to perform collaborative research which could 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 Process10. Include consistent and well-defined language regarding retention across all RFPs for

observer services.

11. In lieu of specifying turnover and retention rates or establishing a retention goal in RFPs, consider asking bidders to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of their proposed retention plan.

4http://www.acenet.edu/clll/corporate/index.cfm5 http://www.iacte.org/6 http://www.uscg.mil/STCW/

86

12. In programs that are contracted directly with NMFS, SOWs should include retention metric tracking using a standard definition supplied by NMFS. This should be the provider’s responsibility. This ensures that information is available in a consistent format to the agency for future solicitations and for evaluating past performance.

13. Retention of observers who collect high quality data should be included as an evaluation criterion in the contract review and award process. For instance, the NEFOP Solicitation includes a “Past Performance Survey” to be completed by past clients. In this survey, observers should be added to #I.1b (Effectiveness and reliability of contractors Key Personnel). This survey should also include data quality factors within the customer satisfaction section (V).

14. Include observer evaluations of providers in the RFP past performance evaluation process.

Providers

15. Recognize observer experience in all programs for purpose of payment regardless of previous employer.

16. Provide occasional informal gifts for praising a job well done. Base these on performance rather than time.

17. Recognize that not all solutions are appropriate for all individuals. Individuals stay at a job for different reasons. Utilize knowledge of workforce wants and needs to implement a suite of personalized retention techniques.

18. Establish clear criteria for fishery or vessel assignment requests. Some observers working for some providers feel there is occasional bias in these decisions.

19. Provide written family emergency leave and other general policies

Programs and Providers

Management 20. Ensure all programs have program or provider staff available for immediate response

24/7.

21. Implement vessel placement meetings to be conducted by provider or program personnel in all programs.

22. Ensure all programs have documented an explicit process for the fair evaluation of data quality and provide a written process to the observers for voicing disagreement with the assessment.

23. Develop a voluntary mentoring program for new observers (assign to prior observer).

87

24. Survey all actively working observers regularly to assess provider and program satisfaction

Work factors Work factors may include the physical and mental demands of the position, job security, and workload (too much or too little work available). The physical and mental demands are difficult to address; however, two observers are deployed on a few NPGOP and all A-SHOP assignments. These vessels are occasionally used as a reward after an exceptionally difficult assignment.

25. Promotion system based on measurable objectives.

For programs where deployments require extended travel away from home, we recommend (adapted from (Paine and North 2001)):

26. Shorter trips (preferably no longer than four months).

27. Paid leave of a comparable length to sea time.

28. Continuous employment, rather than employment by voyage.

29. Training time to be added to leave period

Physical and health factorsPhysical and health factors may include noise, vibration, light, habitability, safety, food (well balanced and available around the clock), regular exercise, sleep deprivation, and smoke. There are basic safety regulations that apply to all U.S. fisheries with observer requirements. Programs and providers have very little influence on the remaining factors. However, the NPGOP has implemented a random break table to be used by vessels fishing around the clock and in a manner that makes it difficult for an observer to get adequate rest.

30. Support further development of health and safety regulations on commercial fishing vessels.

31. Increase consistency of training for observers regarding physical and health factors while at sea.

Mental/emotional factorsMental and emotional factors may include stress, feeling needed, and feeling badgered or harassed. None of the programs require any sort of pre-service evaluation. At least one observer provider asks observers to voluntarily come forward with substance abuse/addiction issues and will assist observers in getting treatment. The legal aspects of harassment are supported by the programs but very little support is supplied in terms of counseling after an event.

88

32. Ensure professional counseling is available after traumatic events.

33. Ensure support services are available for alcohol and substance abuse.

Morale factorsMorale factors may include respect, recognition, comparable worth and the ability to communicate with family and friends. The NEFOP recognizes one observer each month for his or her outstanding service and performance. This person also receives a salary bonus. IAP provides satellite phone service to observers so that they can keep in touch with family and friends. We recommend (adapted from (Paine and North 2001)):

34. Provide opportunities for partners (and children where possible) to sail or meet observer in port.

35. Improve access to cheaper communication mediums.

36. Provide opportunities for observers’ families to make contact with each other while observers are at sea.

37. Provide a salary and benefit package of comparable worth to similar types of work (e.g., federal employees as a standard).

38. Provide adequate rest period and vacation time

Work/Life balanceWork/life balance issues may include burn-out, rotation/schedule, missed family opportunities, separation, e-mail access to families, and social network.

39. Supply free e-mail service or at a minimum service for a reduced fee.

Social factors (on and off the vessel)Social factors may include crew size, camaraderie among peers, language and cultural differences. One provider sponsors group meals when in port and in their land-based lodging which allows an opportunity for their observers to interact in a family-style atmosphere.

40. Support activities that foster a sense of community. One observer provider noted that when a training class clicks, the observers seem

to come back for multiple contracts supporting the idea that a sense of community among a cohort increases retention. The WCGOP holds mandatory annual meetings. In these meeting, new updates are provided, observers are given the opportunity to share ideas and stories with and learn from one another.

Funding observers to attend the International Fisheries Observer Conference and encouraging them to make presentations also becomes a recognition and reward program. The North Pacific Groundfish Observer Program hosts Brown Bag

89

Seminars with presentations that focus on how observer data is utilized which further supports the idea that they are port of an even larger scientific community.

The Association for Professional Observers and Observernet.org, an on-line community of observers, are two additional community building resources that already exist. These groups can be tapped to increase recruitment and provide informal mentoring and support services. These two resources are strongest in the North Pacific as that is where they were initiated; however, both groups are striving to reach out to observers in other programs. Programs and observer providers should promote and encourage participation by staff in these resources for the purpose of building community.

Entertainment factors Entertainment factors may include access to television, movies, music, books, video games, and newspapers. Observers are responsible for bringing their own entertainment to the workplace; however, some vessels do subscribe to a daily news service.

Training adequacy and enrichment opportunityTraining adequacy may impact an observer’s decision to remain an observer for more than one trip or cruise. If s/he feels unprepared by the training provided, there is little incentive to remain and data quality may suffer.

41. Support continuing education and training programs. Enrichment opportunities such as being trained for more than one program, specialized identification training, deployment on research vessels, continuing education opportunity, and attendance at professional conferences may also increase long-term retention. The NEFOP deploys 12 to 14 observers per year on NOAA survey cruises, cooperative research cruises or field work with NEFOP staff.

42. Continue to support observer attendance at the International Fisheries Observer

Conference.

43. Incorporate standard first aid and CPR into all training or into an accredited basic training course so that it becomes a part of training for which observers are compensated.

44. Support professional growth. An MRAG Americas (MRAG) study of NPGOP observers suggested that retaining observers for a period of two or more years is a feasible goal that will be of benefit to the Observer Program. To achieve this goal there must be a change in the perception that observing is a short term transient job to one of observing as a means to further ones career over time by offering opportunities for professional growth such as working with researchers and fisheries scientists on fishery-independent research cruises (MRAG Americas 2000). AIS, IAP and NWO have extended opportunities for observers to work on research cruises.

90

Advancement opportunitiesOnly the providers in the Southeast (IAP) and SWRFOP (FOA) can provide advancement opportunities outside of observing due to the scope of their contracts with NMFS.

45. Provide opportunities for advancement.

5.0 SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is tasked with protecting fishery resources for the benefit of the Nation. A large proportion of the fishery-dependent data is collected by fisheries observers on board commercial fishing vessels. NMFS currently deploys approximately 600 observers annually to collect scientific data in more than 40 fisheries nationwide. Although observers are mandated by NMFS for certain fisheries, observers are hired directly by private observer providers. Due to increasing demands for fisheries management data, NMFS perceives a need to improve the methods currently used by private observer providers to recruit and retain observers.

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 felt that the internet was the most efficient and effective tool by far. 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, NMFS-approved trainers employed by the OTC or UFL staff (SESFOP). 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.

91

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.

What factors influence retention and turnover?Retention 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.

Why are turnover and retention important? 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”. TalentKeepers (2004) performed a survey of 240 companies from a broad range of industries regarding the organizational factors most impacted by turnover. Responses 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%). There are both direct and indirect costs of high turnover (Frank et al. 2004). Direct costs include expenses for: exit interviews; employment advertising, recruitment and screening, background checks, interviews, orientation and training. Indirect costs are more difficult to quantify but include lost productivity and lower employee morale.

Turnover, retention and engagement – the fisheries observer contextRetention of staff that performs well is important to NMFS. The need for retention of fisheries observers deployed by NMFS who collect high quality data is also important and this is visibly reflected in RFP and 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.

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

92

training, background checks, increased support and debriefing. High turnover is high risk business behavior requiring a higher investment in recruitment cost (advertising, staff time spent on interviewing and training pay) 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.

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 (NPGOP and A-SHOP) or in requests for proposals (RFPs; all other programs). 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 nothing to at-sea wages depending on the location (NPGOP and A-SHOP) or circumstances. Wages for time spent at sea ranges from $96/day to $182/day and maximum pay rages from $139 to $229/day. Rates are calculated using slightly different assumptions regarding the hours an observer may work at sea.

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 retirement benefits. Two programs have educational benefits that the observers must pay for in order to participate. Uniforms (essential gear such as a rain slicker, pants, boots, and gloves) are 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

93

and morale. For instance, the following factors may impact the shipboard life and land-based lifestyle of fisheries observers:

21. Program and provider management 22. Work factors23. Physical and health factors24. Mental/emotional factors25. Morale factors26. Work/Life Balance27. Onboard social factors28. Entertainment factors29. Training adequacy and enrichment opportunity30. 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 into some 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 and is easy to calculate. The weaknesses of using only the turnover metric are that turnover rate does not track the amount of baseline experience within the observer corps and there is no link to data quality.

The retention rate metric tracks how well observers (cohorts) are retained long-term and is also fairly easy to calculate. The lack of a link to data quality is also a weakness of retention rate.

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.

A comparison of metric options proposed was not performed due to the lack of access to the data required to calculate these metrics.

Without the data required to calculate proposed metrics and our inability to survey observers directly, we were unable to determine whether the retention mechanisms

94

currently in place are adequate; however, we have two comments regarding retention mechanism responsibility and wage structure. All stakeholders have a role to play in increasing observer retention regardless of whether this role is officially acknowledged. Stake holders include individual provider staff, individual agency staff (program and data clients), other data clients, observers and fishers. Regarding wage structure, pay is not currently based on merit. A restructuring to reward those who collect higher quality data has the potential to increase retention.

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 can be thought of as Labor Best Practices. A short discussion of where programs are in relation to the items contained in the Bill of Rights is provided.

Current recruitment and retention techniques are generating an adequate number of applicants for today’s observer needs; however, there is no link to data quality and the demand for qualified observers could change in the future. Many recommendations were made; however, these should be utilized as a toolkit. Not all tools will work on all individuals and both recruitment and retention techniques should adapt to situations or individual needs as they arise. Finally, Davies and Reynolds (2002) noted that agencies need to be realistic about who is available to do the job. In the end, “the minimum requirements for observers are to be healthy, have a basic level of education, have some initiative and above all be keen to do the job”; the rest can be taught and fostered in an adequate training course.

95

6.0 REFERENCES

96

Appendix I

Summary of legislation authorizing U.S. observer programs, missions, goals and objectives, gear types, and species impacted by the fisheries. MSFCA – Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; MMPA – Marine Mammal Protection Act; ESA – Endangered Species Act; IFOC – International Fisheries Observer Conference.

Program / Authorizing Legislation / Voluntary

or Mandatory

Mission, Goals & Objectives Gear Types Species Sources

AMMOP / MMPA /

Mandatory

• Obtain reliable estimates of incidental serious injury and mortality of seabirds and marine mammals in Category II fisheries;

• Determine the reliability of reports submitted by vessel owners and operators;

• Identify changes in fishing methods or technology that may increase or decrease incidental serious injury or mortality;

• Collect biological samples to support and promote scientific studies, record data on by-catch and discard levels of all species.

Gillnet, set net, purse seine

Target: Salmon

Bycatch: Marine mammals, seabirds

http://www.fakr.noaa.gov/protectedresources/observers/mmop.htm

A-SHOP / MSFCA / Voluntary

None available Trawl

Target: Pacific whiting

Other retained species: Yellowtail and widowrockfish

Bycatch: Pacific ocean perch, salmon, marine mammals

http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observer/atseahake.cfm

NPGOP / Collect data on catch and bycatch quantity, composition, and Trawl, Target: Mixed groundfish http://

97

Program / Authorizing Legislation / Voluntary

or Mandatory

Mission, Goals & Objectives Gear Types Species Sources

MSFCA, MMPA /

Mandatory

biological characteristics, document fishery interactions with marine mammals and birds, monitor compliance with federal fisheries regulations.

demersal longline, trap, jig Bycatch:

www.afsc.noaa.gov/refm/observers/default.htm; http://www.st.NOAA Fisheries.gov/st1/nop/regions/AKR_grndfsh.html

WCGOP / MSFCA, MMPA /

Mandatory

The goal of the WCGOP is to gather the data needed to better manage the groundfish fishery off the coast of Washington, Oregon and California. The WCGOP is responsible for collecting data to calculate discard rates for West Coast groundfish species.

Trawl, demersal longline, trap, other fixed gear.

Target: Mixed rockfish, flatfish and other groundfish

Bycatch: Finfish, marine mammals, seabirds

(NWFSC 2004); http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/fram/observer/index.cfm

PIRO /

MSFCA, ESA /

Mandatory

Obtain reliable information about the incidental interaction of sea turtles;

Record fishing effort; Document interactions of other protected species (marine

mammals & seabirds); Record the number of fishes kept and discarded; Process selected species for biological & life history

information

Pelagic longline

Target: Bigeye, yellowfin, and albacore tuna

Other retained species:Marlin, shortfin andlongfin mako, dolphinfish, wahoo, opah, barracuda, pomfrets, thresher shark, skipjacktuna, and swordfish

Bycatch: Sharks, salmon, pelagic stingray,

(PIRO 2005); http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/pir/index.htm

98

Program / Authorizing Legislation / Voluntary

or Mandatory

Mission, Goals & Objectives Gear Types Species Sources

lancetfish, snakemackerel, escolar, oilfish,Cubiceps spp., common mola, manta ray, remoras, sea turtles, seabirds, marine mammals

SWRFOP /

MSFCA, MMPA /

Mandatory

Document the incidental take of marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, and target and non-target fish species and collect selected biological specimens.

Monitor use of bycatch reduction devices (e.g., pingers).

Drift & set gillnet, pelagic longline, purse seine, troll, recreational hook and line

Target: swordfish, sharks, tuna, pelagic forage fish

Bycatch: marine mammals, sea turtles, finfish

http://swr.ucsd.edu/fmd/observer/dnprog02.htm; http://swr.ucsd.edu/fmd/observer/wcllprog02.htm

SE Shrimp /

MSFCA, ESA /

Voluntary

Provide onboard monitoring of selected fisheries and to directly observe impacts of one fishery on other fisheries and protected species which may include:

• Refinement of catch rate estimates of finfish and shrimp by area and season for use in stock assessments;

• Evaluation of Bycatch Reduction and Turtle Excluder Devices (BRD/TED)

Trawl

Target: Penaeid shrimp

Bycatch: sea turtles, marine mammals, red snapper, Atlantic croaker, longspine porgy, and other groundfish

(Parkes and Kaiser 2004); http://galveston.ssp.nmfs.gov/research/fisherymanagement/index.html - observer_program

Shark Drift Gillnet / MMPA, MSFCA,

ESA /

Collect data on effort, directed catch and bycatch quantity, morphometrics, biological characteristics, and interaction with marine mammals and turtles as they relate to federal fisheries regulations.

Drift gillnet Target: Small and large coastal sharks

Bycatch: Sharks, finfish, marine mammals, sea

(Carlson and Baremore 2004, Carlson et al. 2005); http://www.sefscpan

99

Program / Authorizing Legislation / Voluntary

or Mandatory

Mission, Goals & Objectives Gear Types Species Sources

Mandatory turtles amalab.noaa.gov/shark/observers.htm

SEFSC POP /

MSFCA, ESA /

Mandatory

Collect data on effort, directed catch and bycatch quantity, morphometrics, biological characteristics, and interaction with marine mammals, turtles, and birds as they relate to federal fisheries regulations.

Pelagic longline

Target: Swordfish

Other retained species: yellowfin, bigeye, andalbacore tuna; dolphinfish; shortfin mako, porbeagle, andother sharks

Bycatch: billfish,sharks, bluefin tuna, escolar, marine mammals, sea turtles,seabirds, oilfish, lancetfish, occasional rare rays and finfish

(Parkes and Kaiser 2004); http://www.sefsc.noaa.gov/pop.jsp

SESFOP /

MSFCA, ESA /

Mandatory

To collect fishery dependent data with the intention of determining catch, catch rates, and biological data on target and non-target species (including marine mammals and sea turtles) and enhancing the reliability of management strategies. These data, which cannot be obtained dockside or while aboard government research vessels, are necessary to meet legal mandates for collection of scientific, management, compliance and economic data about fisheries in the U.S. Exclusive

Demersal longline

Target: Large coastal sharks (sandbar, blacktip, silky, spinner, tiger, bull, lemon, nurse, scalloped, great, and smooth hammerhead), smallcoastal sharks (Atlanticsharpnose, blacknose,

SOW, 2004; http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/csop/csop2.htm

100

Program / Authorizing Legislation / Voluntary

or Mandatory

Mission, Goals & Objectives Gear Types Species Sources

Economic Zone.

bonnethead, finetooth)

Other retained species: Pelagic sharks (shortfin mako, common thresher), dolphinfish, barracuda, snappers/groupers,tunas/swordfish

Bycatch: Sea turtles, marine mammals, misc. finfish and invertebrates

NEFOP /

MSFCA, MMPA, ESA /

Both

The goal of the NEFOP is to provide fisheries managers with the data needed to ensure sustainable fisheries and healthy marine populations for generations to come. This is done by collecting unbiased fishery-dependent data related to:

• Fisheries economics;• Biological parameters of retained and discarded catch;• Gear characteristics and fishing performance; • Takes of protected species;• Monitoring of catch in special access areas; and• Evaluating experiments and experimental fisheries.

Trawl, dredge, demersal longline, trap, gillnet, purse seine, pound net

Target: Multi-speciesgroundfish (incl. various flatfish and gadids), monkfish, squid, mackerel, scup,spiny dogfish, weakfish, bluefish Atlantic croaker, black sea bass, swordfish, tunas, sea scallop, American lobster

Bycatch: marine mammals, sea turtles, seabirds, finfish, and invertebrates

NEFOP Program Overview (IFOC 2004); (Parkes and Kaiser 2004); http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/femad/fsb/

101

Program / Authorizing Legislation / Voluntary

or Mandatory

Mission, Goals & Objectives Gear Types Species Sources

102

Appendix II

Observer Provider URL

A.I.S., Inc. http://www.aisobservers.com/Alaskan Observers Inc. http://www.alaskanobservers.com/Frank Orth & Associates http://www.frank-orth.com/IAP World Services http://www.johnsoncontrols.comMRAG Americas http://p15166578.pureserver.info/MRAG/

Observer_Programmes.htmNWO, Inc. http://www.nwoinc.comSaltwater, Inc. http://www.saltwaterinc.com/index.htmTechSea http://www.techsea.com/University of Florida, Museum of Natural History http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Sharks/csop/csop2.htm

103

Appendix III

Professional Organizations and Other Online Employment Job Boards

Professional Organizations:

American Fisheries Society - http://www.fisheries.org/html/jobs.shtml American Society of Limnology and Oceanography - wwwaslo.org Ecological Society of America - http://www.esa.org/opportunities/ Estuarine Research Federation - http://erf.org/ Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology – http://www.sicb.org/jobs.php3

Source: http://www.fisheries.org/html/links/proflink.shtml

Online Employment Sites

Aquaculture Network Information Center – http://aquanic.org/Text/job_serv.htm Aquanet http://www.aquanet.com/ - Click on Opportunites CareerBuilders.com - http://www.careerbuilder.com/ Coolworks - http://www.coolworks.com/ Earthworks - www.earthworks-jobs.com Ecoemploy - http://www.ecoemploy.com/ HotJobs - http://hotjobs.com Jobmonkey.com - http://jobmonkey.com/main/index.html Monster/U.S.A - http://www.monster.com/ Monster/Canada - www.monster.ca Naturejobs - http://www.nature.com/naturejobs/index.html ObserverNet.org - http://www.observernet.org/obsforum/ Science Careers – http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org ScienceJobs.com – http://www.sciencejobs.com

Employment Sites Targeting Recent Graduates:

CollegeGrad - www.collegegrad.com - Targets entry level opportunities and recent grads exclusively, and provides more entry level job search content to job seekers than any other site.

AfterCollege™ http://www.aftercollege.com/ www.jobpostings.ca - Ranked one of the top 30 student job sites on the Internet. The site is

also hot linked with career centers and student societies across North America

104

Appendix IV

Sample questions for new hires to learn about observer recruitment and why candidates decided to accept the observer position.

• How did you first learn about the observer position? • Internet – job posting on electronic bulletin board or website of…

o Observer Programo Observer providero College/university/departmento Professional association – please list:________o Commercial job listing site – please list:_________

• Prior observer• College career counselor• College bulletin board (paper advertisement)• College professor/staff• Newspaper ad• State employment office• Fisheries/biological science job listing newsletter (paper format);

• How much time lapsed between the date you applied and when you received a response from the provider? Options: Did not hear back, 1 week, 1-4 weeks, >4 weeks;

• How much time lapsed between the date you applied and when you were offered a position? Options: 1 week, 1-4 weeks, 4-8 weeks, >8 weeks;

• How much time lapsed between the date you applied and when you began training? Options: 1 week, 1-4 weeks, 4-8 weeks, >8 weeks;

• How long would you normally wait for a job offer after initial contact? Options: Up to 2 weeks, 2-4 weeks, 4-8 weeks, >8 weeks.

• Did you pass up other job offers to take this position? Yes or no. If yes, why did you make this decision?

In addition, questions can be asked regarding the candidate’s general knowledge of observing and what to expect throughout training and a complete deployment to assess the accuracy of information provided prior to training.

105

Appendix V

Online University Employment Bulletin Boards and Career Centers

*crossover with fisheries departments listed in Appendix V.

ALASKA University of Alaska: http://www.uaf.edu/career/Events/FCIF/

CALIFORNIA California Poly State University:

http://www.careerservices.calpoly.edu/Employers/Empindex.htm University of California, Davis: http://icc.ucdavis.edu/iccdocs/cadvise.htm

FLORIDA University of Florida: http://www.crc.ufl.edu/Employer/index.php University of Miami: http://www.miami.edu/UMH/CDA/UMH_Main/1,1770,31647-1;31693-

2;31690-2;19224-2,00.html

GEORGIA University of Georgia: http://career.cpp.uga.edu/

HAWAII University of Hawaii: http://sece.its.hawaii.edu:9442/login.do

LOUISIANA Louisiana State University:

http://appl003.lsu.edu/slas/career.nsf/$CollectionMenu/Employers?OpenDocument

MAINE University of Maine: http://www.umaine.edu/career/

MASSACHU.S.ETTS Northeastern University: http://www.careerservices.neu.edu/employers.html University of Massachusetts: http://www.umass.edu/careers/employer.html

MISSOURI University of Missouri: http://career.missouri.edu/index.php

NEW YORK Cornell University: http://www.career.cornell.edu/employers/default.html

NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina State University: http://www.ncsu.edu/career/employers/index.htm

PENNSYLVANIA Mansfield University: http://web.mansfield.edu/career/employer.htm

RHODE ISLAND University of Rhode Island: http://career.uri.edu/employers.shtml

106

SOUTH CAROLINA Clemson University: http://career.clemson.edu/ University of South Carolina: http://www.usca.edu/careers/Employers/empydex.htm

TEXAS Texas A&M University: http://www.wfsc.tamu.edu/jobs/job_view

VIRGINIA Virginia Polytechnical Institute & State University:

http://www.career.vt.edu/EMPLOYER/employer1.htm

WASHINGTON University of Washington: http://depts.washington.edu/careers/employers/jlposting.php

CANADA Dalhousie University: http://as01.ucis.dal.ca/ses/employers.cfm Simon Fraser University: http://www.sfu.ca/hccc/pages/links-career.html University of British Columbia: http://www.careers.ubc.ca/ University of New Brunswick: http://www.unb.ca/employment/student.html

107

Appendix VI

Universities Granting Degrees in Fisheries or Fisheries Science

ALASKA Sheldon Jackson College: http://www.sheldonjackson.edu/ University of Alaska, School of Fisheries & Ocean Sciences, Fairbanks:

http://www.sfos.uaf.edu/fishdiv/

ARKANSAS University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff:

http://www.uapb.edu/academics/graduate_studies/school_agri_fisheries_human_sci.html

CALIFORNIA California Poly State University: http://urbanfor.cagr.calpoly.edu/nrm/ Humboldt State University: www.humboldt.edu/~fish University of California, Davis: http://wfcb.ucdavis.edu/

FLORIDA University of Florida: http://www.sfrc.ufl.edu/ University of Miami: http://www.rsmas.miami.edu

GEORGIA University of Georgia: http://www.uga.edu/wsfr/

HAWAII University of Hawaii: http://www2.hawaii.edu/natsci/#Departments

LOUISIANA Louisiana State University: http://www.biology.lsu.edu/

MAINE University of Maine: http://biology.umaine.edu/

MARYLAND Frostburg State University: http://www.frostburg.edu/ University of Maryland: http://www.umces.edu

MASSACHU.S.ETTS Northeastern University: http://www.atsweb.neu.edu/msc/mschomepage.html University of Massachusetts: http://www.umass.edu/nrc/index.html

MISSISSIPPI Mississippi State University: http://www.msstate.edu/

MISSOURI University of Missouri: http://www.missouri.edu/

NEW YORK Cornell University: http://www.cornell.edu/

108

NORTH CAROLINA North Carolina State University: http://www.ncsu.edu/ncsu/cals/ University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill: http://www.unc.edu/

PENNSYLVANIA Mansfield University: http://www.mnsfld.edu

RHODE ISLAND University of Rhode Island: http://www.uri.edu/

SOUTH CAROLINA Clemson University: http://www.clemson.edu/ University of South Carolina: http://marine-science.sc.edu/

TEXAS Texas A&M University: http://www.tamu.edu/ Texas Tech University: http://www.rw.ttu.edu/dept/default.htm

VIRGINIA Virginia Polytechnical Institute & State University: http://www.fw.vt.edu/fisheries/

WASHINGTON University of Washington: http://www.fish.washington.edu/

CANADA Dalhousie University: http://www.dal.ca/~biology2/index.html Simon Fraser University: http://www.sfu.ca/ University of British Columbia: http://www.ubc.ca/ University of New Brunswick: http://www.unb.ca/

Source: American Fisheries Society (www.fisheries.org)

109

Appendix VII

Preliminary outline of a longitudinal study designed to determine observer motivation and intentions to continue employment as an observer.

Phase 1: Link the individual’s responses to the pre-employment survey addressing recruitment (Appendix IV) to the post-employment survey to address retention discussed below.

Phase 2: After successfully completing training a second survey is performed to ascertain if position expectations have been met to date (e.g., how prepared do candidates feel to perform their duties).

Phase 3: After completing the first deployment and debriefing a follow-up survey is conducted. This is a time to assess if the work of observing meets the original motivation of the individual seeking to become an observer any needs in recruitment and training. How prepared they felt for the work and what stressors were encountered. Questions regarding observer feelings about deployment as observers can be asked to help better address the stressors of entering this type of work. Questions regarding the observer’s intentions to continue as an observer should also be included.

Phase 4: Randomly select a representative cross section of observer who completed the surveys for Phases 1-3. If one of the selected observers is inactive for one and a half years, a final survey addressing the reason(s) for leaving should be performed.

Each survey should be followed up with an interview to clarify any information and explore questions further if warranted. To facilitate honest disclosure, the interviewer should not be anyone the observer will have a working relationship with during the course of their training or deployment.

Sample questions for Phases 2-3: All surveys should contain basic demographic information (e.g., gender, ethnicity, age, country of citizenship, etc.). Demographic differences have been observed in job satisfaction (and hence turnover) of other professions (Jones 1996).

Rank the following statements on a 5-point scale

Training adequately prepared me for the following tasks:

Not at all

Some-what

Neutral Mostly Completely

Fish identificationInvertebrate identificationMarine mammal identificationSea turtle identificationSeabird identification

Completing forms correctly

110

Time management

Conflict resolutionInteractions with fishermen

Safety in the work environment

Were your interactions with fishermen contentious in any way? Yes or no. If yes, please explain.

Were you asked to write affidavits for violations you witnessed?

Did you witness any violations that you did not report?

Will you return to work as an observer for this program? Yes, no, maybe. Explain why or why not.

Will you work as an observer in another program? Yes, no, maybe.

111

Appendix VIII

Tables reprinted from 2003 Management report with permission from Alaska Department of Fish and Game.

Crab observer training and participation in the onboard observer program, 1988 - 2003.

Year ClassNumber of Certified at

Year's EndaPercent

Turnover

Certification Status for Year Class as of

December 31, 2003

Classes Trainees Currenta Expiredb Otherc

1988 3 81 80 1.0 0 67 141989 1 41 98 19.0 1 35 51990 3 27 121 3.2 0 25 21991 4 59 108 40.0 0 54 51992 3 40 104 29.7 1 38 11993 2 19 78 36.6 0 17 21994 1 14 65 29.3 0 11 31995 3 55 77 35.8 3 48 41996 3 36 72 36.3 3 33 01997 2 27 67 32.3 3 23 11998 2 22 54 39.3 3 19 01999 1 11 43 33.8 0 11 02000 2 14 37 35.1 3 11 02001 3 25 57 8.1 10 14 12002 2 28 67 21.2 18 8 22003 2 26 71 23.7 26 0 0

Totals 37 525 N/A N/A 71 414 40

a Represents all crab observers who hold a certificate or trainee permit.b Due to 12-month shellfish observer employment inactivity or trainee permit expiration.c Certification revoked for non-compliance with shellfish observer program standards.

112

Scallop observer training and participation in the onboard observer program, 1991 - 2003

Year ClassNumber of Certified at

Year’s EndaPercent

Turnover

Certification Status for Year Class as of December 31,

2003

Classes Trainees Currenta Expiredb Otherc

1993 3 23 22 4.0 0 22 11994 3 16 5 86.8 0 13 31995 0 0 2 60.0 0 0 01996 2 10 5 58.3 0 10 01997 2 10 7 53.3 0 10 01998 1 8 5 66.7 0 8 01999 1 9 6 57.1 0 8 12000 1 6 6 50.0 0 6 02001 1 6 4 66.7 0 6 02002 1 5 9 0.0 3 2 02003 2 6 9 40.0 6 0 0Totals 15 93 N/A N/A 9 85 5

a Represents all scallop observers who hold a certificate or trainee permit.b Due to 12-month shellfish observer employment inactivity or trainee permit expiration.c Certification revoked for non-compliance with shellfish observer program standards.

113

Appendix IX

In 2002, the Association for Professional Observers performed an online survey for fisheries observers. Respondents were primarily from the NPGOP. Responses to retention-related questions are summarized below.

Which factors do you feel most affect your decision whether or not to continue observing? (Rank with 1 being most important and 4 being least important)

1 2 3 4Current conditions of

assignments (specific to vessels)

46% (28) 26% (16) 15% (9) 13% (8)

Current conditions of employment (specific to contractors) 51% (31) 28% (17) 11% (7) 10% (6)

Current conditions of deployment (specific to NMFS) 19% (11) 14% (8) 42% (24) 25% (14)

How the data is currently used (data users/ management) 11% (6) 14% (8) 19% (11) 56% (32)

Total Respondents   67

How often do you feel you have satisfactory interactions with the following groups?

All of the time

Most of the time

Some of the time Never No

interactionsObserver program personnel 29% (20) 58% (40) 10% (7) 1% (1) 1% (1)

OTC personnel 41% (28) 41% (28) 6% (4) 0% (0) 12% (8)

Enforcement personnel 33% (23) 25% (17) 14% (10) 1% (1) 26% (18)

Other observers 28% (19) 63% (43) 9% (6) 0% (0) 0% (0)

Contractor personnel 30% (21) 46% (32) 23% (16) 1% (1) 0% (0)

Fishing industry personnel 7% (5) 68% (47) 23% (16) 1% (1) 0% (0)

Total Respondents   70

Which aspects of being an observer do you like the most? (Rank with 1 being most liked)

1 2 3 4 N/A

Compensation 62% (16) 31% (8) 0% (0) 4% (1) 4% (1)

Type of work schedule(months at sea/months off) 56% (15) 30% (8) 7% (2) 4% (1) 4% (1)

Being able to contribute to scientific knowledge 40% (8) 30% (6) 5% (1) 20% (4) 5% (1)

Being able to contribute to promoting sustainable marine resource harvest 32% (7) 36% (8) 14% (3) 9% (2) 9% (2)

114

Not having to work up data, just collecting it(i.e., not connected to

data users)20% (4) 0% (0) 20% (4) 50%

(10) 10% (2)

The other job opportunities I'm exposed to with the federal

government22% (4) 11% (2) 11% (2) 28% (5) 28% (5)

The other job opportunities I'm exposed to through APO

announcements44% (8) 11% (2) 22% (4) 6% (1) 17% (3)

The other job opportunities I'm qualified for because of my work in

Alaska23% (5) 23% (5) 27% (6) 14% (3) 14% (3)

The kinds of people I've met and the experiences I've had with other

people who observe58% (14) 12% (3) 12% (3) 17% (4) 0% (0)

The kinds of people I've met and the experiences I've had with people

who fish43% (10) 13% (3) 26% (6) 17% (4) 0% (0)

The kinds of people I've met and the experiences I've had with people

who manage the fishery37% (7) 16% (3) 16% (3) 26% (5) 5% (1)

The adventure, the good stories 52% (11) 33% (7) 14% (3) 0% (0) 0% (0)

The things I've learned about sampling 25% (5) 15% (3) 25% (5) 35% (7) 0% (0)

Total Respondents   30

115

How important have the compensation levels been in your decision to continue observing?

  Response Percent

Response Total

    Very important 50.7% 37

    Fairly important 42.5% 31

    A little important 5.5% 4

    Not at all important 1.4% 1

Total Respondents   73

What kind of job do you think observing is?

Response Percent Response Total    Career path/professional 5.4% 4

   A professional job/ but not a career 47.3% 35

    Transitional to federal employment 1.4% 1

   Transitional to other employment in biology 29.7% 22

    Transitional to continued education 5.4% 4

  Other (please specify) 10.8% 8

Total Respondents   74

116

One of the stated objectives of NMFS and of the fishing industry itself is to find ways to retain experienced observers Are there any changes that could be made by Contractors, Industry or NMFS that could make observing an attractive career path to you?

  Response Percent

Response Total

    Yes, I think so 48.6% 36

    Yes, but I don’t know what kind of changes 12.2% 9

    No, I don’t think so 27% 20

    Don’t know 10.8% 8

  Other (please specify) 1.4% 1

Total Respondents   74

117

Appendix X

Observer Bill of RightsDrafted at U.S.-Canada Observer Program Workshop, 2000.

1. Observers have a right to a living wage, including but not limited to: Health Insurance (Option for year-round coverage and consideration of a

national pool to decrease cost) Disability insurance Life Insurance 401-K retirement plan Paid vacations and holidays Counseling (peer as well as professional) Personal and professional insurance Transferability of observer credit for purposes of financial compensation from

one program to another.

2. Definition of “Observer work” for the purpose of compensation should include the following for each program:

Training Debriefing Deployment Stand-by time (including time between deployments and briefing/debriefing) Step-based pay system that encourages experience and exceptional work Travel Searching for vessel

3. Observers have the right to a safe working environment Right of refusal to any vessel without repercussions No observer to be placed on a vessel that is considered unsafe Define the procedure for what to do if a vessel is considered unsafe (A national

protocol should be developed; information of the vessel’s safety should be provided to observers)

Increase minimum safety training standards for all programs and design training to be observer program-specific

Establish better communications between Coast Guard and fisheries agencies Ensure reasonable accommodations and food Provide observers with vessel’s past safety records via web access

4. Observers have the right to be acknowledged for their contribution to science and resource management, encompassing the following:

Attendance at workshops Credit in publications and other literature

5. Observers have the right to support from their program/agency

118

The program should develop support mechanisms for observers which cultivate a sense of belonging

Each program needs to develop protocols to improve communication, understanding, and support for observers

A grievance procedure should be established that encompasses the work performed by the observer provider or government agency

6. Additional goals suggested for observer programs: Standardize data forms and species/gear codes nationally or internationally (e.g.

electronic logbook program) Creation of a clearinghouse on national/international level for certified observers

who span various programs Establishment of an electronic mailing list or forum devoted to observer issues Direct management staff (e.g. debriefers and trainers) should be required annually

to serve at sea as observers, but not as a displacement for regular observers

119

Appendix XI

Non-Competitive Eligibility Status (NCES) or non-competitive action means an appointment to or placement in a position in the competitive service that is not made by selection from an open competitive examination, and that is usually based on current or prior Federal service7. This is a benefit given to returning Peace Corps volunteers and personnel, employees of Canal Zone Merit System and Panama Canal Employment System, and Foreign Service Officers and employees (5 CFR 315). To receive the benefit a minimum amount of satisfactory service must be met. This benefit provides NCES to qualified individuals for a specified period of time, usually one to three years, although extensions can be granted under certain circumstance in some programs.

This type of non-competitive application authority can only be granted by Congressional authorization. Congressional authorization permits the Office of Personnel Management to grant the Agency the right to administer the NCES program. The next steps would be to draft language for a new NCES Program including qualification standards, draft and submit a bill for congressional approval, coordinate with Office of Personnel Management to implement the program.8

The non-competitive eligibility status program for fishery observers could include a minimum amount of work time and satisfactory performance to encourage retention and high quality data collection. A central entity, such as the National Observer Program, should be responsible for the issuance of NCES to ensure consistent implementation of the program. Fishery observer applicants will be responsible for submitting a request of NCES to the National Observer Program. Other aspects of the program could be developed using guidance from established NCES programs.

Draft language for NCES Program:(a) An agency in the executive branch may appoint non-competitively, for other than

temporary appointment, an individual:(1) Who has completed a cumulative of three years of fishery observer

experience in any of the federal fishery observer programs; (2) Whom NMFS certifies as having satisfactorily served as a fishery

observer; and(3) Who meets OPM qualification standards—including any written test

requirements—for the position in question.(b) Time limitations. An individual’s eligibility under this section extends for a period

of two years after service. However, upon request the agency may extend the period annually if the person is:

a. Continuing service as a fishery observer in any federal observer program; or

b. In the military service; or7 U.S. Office of Personnel Management, Operating Manual, Qualification Standards, General Policies and Instructions, Part C. Explanation of Terms8 March 8, 2004, U.S. Department of Labor, Employment Standards Administration, Human Resources, pers. com.

120

c. Studying at a recognized institution of higher learning; ord. In another activity which, in the agency’s view, warrants extension.

(c) Conditions. Any law, Executive order, or regulation which disqualifies an applicant for appointment in the competitive service also disqualifies an applicant for appointment under this section.

(d) Acquisition of competitive status. A person appointed under paragraph (a) of this section acquires competitive status automatically upon completion of probation.

(e) Tenure on appointment. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (e) (2) of this section, a person appointed under paragraph (a) of this section becomes a career-conditional employee.(2) A person appointed under paragraph (a) of this section becomes a career employee if accepted from the service requirement for career tenure by Sec. 315.201(c).

NMFS might also consider whether work experience in other observer programs should further define the required amount of experience and consider incorporating credit for work experience in other observer programs (i.e., State or foreign programs should be considered in determining eligibility).

121

Appendix XII

Best Observer Award - DRAFT

The National Observer Program will be awarding prizes to the 4 observers who are selected as having performed their job above and beyond the call of duty in the following categories.

Solving Greatest Sampling Challenge

Greatest Contribution to Science

Endurance Award for courage under harsh conditions

Best Overall Observer

Who is eligible?

All fisheries observers working within the past 2 calendar years for any federal or state observer program.

What is the nomination process?

Any fellow observer, observer program staff, observer provider staff or a member of the fishing community can nominate an observer for these awards by submitting a one page or less description of why this person deserves one of these awards.

When are nominations due?

Nominations will be due by September 30th and awards made by December 1.

What is the selection process?

One person from the National Observer Program and two other regional observer program staff will review all the submitted nominations. The selection committee may query observer providers, program staff and fellow observers to substantiate submissions.

What are the prizes awarded?

One thousand dollars will be awarded to each observer selected. Additional benefits may be available.

122