HD80 - Review of the Department of Conservation and Recreation


Executive Summary:
Item 14 of the 1997 Appropriation Act directed JLARC to "review the organization, operation, and performance of the Department of Conservation and Recreation" and the department's compliance with legislative intent. The agency currently known as the Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) underwent numerous changes prior to receiving its current name in 1989. The agency's mission is "to conserve, protect, enhance, and advocate the wise use of the Commonwealth's unique natural, historic, recreational, scenic, and cultural resources." The agency houses many functions, but two of the department's leading responsibilities are managing the State park system and conducting soil and water conservation activities that address nonpoint source pollution.

DCR has some organizational strengths which can be built upon in the future. For example, its operational divisions, such as parks, soil and water conservation, and natural heritage, have a record of positive accomplishments over the years. Nonetheless, the agency has some substantial internal problems that have prevented the agency from reaching a higher level of effectiveness. These problems must be dealt with if the agency is to successfully cope with increasing demands and expectations that are being placed upon it.

This report summary highlights some of the strengths of the agency. It also summarizes the agency's internal problems, including the historical context for these problems, the increased demands and resource issues the agency faces, and how some of those problems have been manifested in slow progress on the 1992 bond issue for parks and recreational facilities and in some questionable decisions about the use of bond funds.

Organizational Strengths of DCR

DCR has enjoyed some successes in its programs, such as the parks, soil and water conservation, and natural heritage programs. The State parks, for example, offer safe, clean places for people to enjoy a variety of recreational activities. Park visitors appear to have a very favorable reaction to the parks they visit. Further, State park attendance and facility use has been increasing, indicating that people are becoming more aware of, and are more frequently using, the parks. Recent fee increases at the parks have also appeared appropriate, as they have increased revenues without negatively impacting attendance or facility use levels.

DCR's soil and water conservation division has a long history of assisting farmers and others in reducing erosion and engaging in nonpoint source pollution management activities. Through the efforts of division staff and others, including the staff of local soil and water conservation districts who receive funding from and assist the division, many nutrient management plans have been written, and many nonpoint source pollution projects have been put into place on a cost-share basis (the State shares the cost of the nonpoint source pollution management measure). Division staff have also had an instrumental role in the State's progress to date on tributary strategy development, although much more remains to be done.

DCR's natural heritage program is generally effective in conducting its responsibility to identify and protect Virginia's rare, threatened, and endangered natural heritage resources. In 1994, Virginia's program won an award from an international conservation organization for excellence among natural heritage programs.

Historical Management and Cohesiveness Problems Still Persist

DCR has maintained certain strengths in its operational divisions over the years, despite the fact that the agency has lacked cohesiveness and has historically had management problems. These problems were identified and discussed in some detail in a 1993 report on DCR that was authored by staff of the Department of Planning and Budget (DPB). Historical problems have included a lack of leadership continuity, lack of a clear and comprehensive vision for the agency, a lack of cooperation between divisions, and resource (staffing and equipment) limitations. The Auditor of Public Accounts (APA) has also noted problems at DCR over a number of years.

JLARC staff's current review indicates that internal problems have persisted in recent years at DCR, and in some ways the problems have been exacerbated. Current agency management has promoted certain initiatives, such as a watershed approach to water quality issues, increasing park revenues, and creating some internal task forces to consider agency problems, that have some potential to improve agency operations. However, many problems have not yet been successfully addressed, and some new problems appear to have been created. Agency staff have operated for the last few years without knowledge of an agency strategic plan. The 1997 strategic plan for the parks division embraced only one goal, revenue generation. A majority of DCR employees do not believe that current management of the agency values the conservation of natural resources, and there is a lack of trust between management and employees of the agency.

These problems call into question DCR's ability to effectively respond to a recent rise in the expectations and demands that are being placed upon the agency by the General Assembly and the public, as discussed in the next section. A recent development that has some promise, however, is that in the last few months, the agency has worked to develop a strategic plan, and the strategic plan for parks for 1998 is addressing more goals than revenue generation. However, as in the past, this effort appears to be coming at the end of an administration rather than the beginning, when it would likely have had the most impact.

DCR Faces Increased Demands for Services and Has Resource Needs

The 1993 DPB report on DCR indicated that DCR had staffing problems. For the park system alone, the report suggested the need for about 50 additional positions. In apparent recognition of some of the agency's needs, subsequent Appropriation Acts have allowed DCR to have in place more positions than it had in FY 1993. However, the agency's actual filled positions in FYs 1995 and 1996 dropped below the FY 1993 level, and only rose to the same level as in FY 1993 after a 1997 General Assembly mandate directing DCR to fill its positions (see figure on page III). DCR did not meet that mandate, and recently, agency management internally specified maximum position levels by division that would artificially restrict staffing levels for at least the period between mid-November 1997 and January 1998.

In addition to DCR management decisions to not fill available positions, this review found that DCR has maintenance and equipment replacement needs in the parks that are not being met. Based on site visits and a survey of park managers, JLARC staff identified 113 facility and infrastructure improvement projects that have not been adequately addressed by the department. Many park managers report that they have equipment replacement needs, including items such as trucks, tractors, and mowers.

There appears to be a mismatch between increasing demands being made upon DCR, and the agency's approach to staffing and resource issues. The public has indicated a heightened interest in park and recreational services, as indicated by its support for the parks and recreational facilities bond issue of 1992 and by its increasing visitorship at the parks. The General Assembly supported the 1992 bond issue, and also recently passed the Water Quality Improvement Act of 1997, which indicates a DCR leadership role on nonpoint source pollution issues as part of a heightened effort to address water quality concerns. In the near future, the amount of resources that will be available to DCR - and which DCR will choose to employ - is unclear. However, the agency's ability to successfully respond to its emerging challenges is questionable without addressing barriers to greater productivity (such as its information system problems and park system equipment needs) and without a receptivity to addressing staffing deficiencies where they exist.

Numerous Factors Have Contributed to the Pace of Progress on the 1992 Park Bond Issue

One of the recent concerns that has been raised about DCR's performance has been the pace of progress on the 1992 park bond issue. As of July 1997, or nearly five years after the bond passed, 54 percent of the funds still had not been spent. The progress made on the bond issue was noticeably slower than on bond issues for mental health and education programs that had passed at the same time as the parks bond.

This review found, as DCR management has argued, that a direct comparison between DCR's bond issue and its pace with the other bond issues is misleading, as there are substantial differences in the nature of the projects that are required. However, a number of factors that have led to delays appear to have been within DCR's control. These problems began prior to the passage of the Bond Act, with a lack of adequate planning. Problems have continued, in part due to a lack of dependable staffing and poor organization within DCR's Design and Construction Section. There has also been a change in focus by DCR management (for example, downsizing projects for budget reasons and redesigning some projects to generate revenue) that has led to project delays.

Despite considerable delays in completing the projects from 1992 to 1996, department management indicates that it is committed to completing the projects by December 1998. Some DCR staff indicated during this review that there were some early indications that project quality might be compromised to now rush projects to completion. DCR management needs to ensure that project quality is maintained in pursuing its timeframe goal, and the December 1998 deadline should be revisited if needed to ensure project quality.

There Are Questions About the Way Bond Funds Are Being Spent, Including Whether Legislative Intent Is Being Fully Met

Many of the bond projects will not reflect the scope that was originally intended for them. When the bond referendum passed, DCR management expected to complete many of the projects by acquiring funds from additional sources when necessary. However, subsequent DCR directors have determined that the projects will largely be completed using only the $95 million authorized by the bond. Therefore, many projects were down-sized.

In addition, recent DCR directors have changed the focus of some projects toward revenue generation. In some instances, it appears that the use of certain bond funds may not be fully meeting legislative intent. Funds specified in the 1992 Bond Act to be used for environmental education centers at Natural Tunnel State Park and Smith Mountain Lake State Park are being used for other projects.

Recent DCR directors have also placed a higher priority on the development of the new State parks over additional land acquisition. According to DCR staff, advantages of this approach are that the parks will be better able to meet the agency's goal for revenue generation, and the new parks will be further developed with bond funds than they would have been if more funds were spent on land acquisition. However, this has also resulted in new parks that are incomplete, and missed opportunities for cost savings.

This review has also identified numerous transfers of funds among projects, and questions regarding specific project expenditures. Further, recent audits by the Auditor of Public Accounts (APA) and the department's own internal auditor have identified examples of misuse of bond funds, including expenditures that violated the intent of the Bond Act, and a duplicate payment to a vendor. Therefore, the APA and the counsel selected by the Attorney General to interpret the Bond Act need to be further involved in DCR's administration of this bond.

DCR Needs Organizational Unity and Substantial Internal Improvements

In conclusion, DCR appears to need substantial internal improvements, especially in order to address its added and emerging responsibilities. Management leadership of the agency needs to articulate a vision to employees that embraces the full mission of the agency. It appears that agency management has recently started to improve in this area, allowing the 1998 strategic plan for the park system to include but also go beyond revenue generation, to address issues such as environmental education and resource protection. Those issues have been recognized as being important by the department (in the Virginia Outdoors Plan) and by the public, but in practice have not had any significant priority at the agency. Additional planning of priorities is also needed regarding soil and water conservation programs.

Agency management also needs to work toward organizational cohesion. DCR needs a broad-based effort to develop an agency focus, as has been done at some other agencies in State government such as the Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy and the Department of Forestry.

Agency leadership also needs to address barriers to staff productivity and frankly assess and pursue resource needs that cannot be met through increased productivity and alternative labor (inmate and volunteer) sources. Barriers to productivity have included a lack of clear and appropriate policies and procedures, information system problems, old equipment, and the withdrawal at times of authority at the park level on some basic matters such as the hiring of wage staff for the parks. On resource need issues, the department has sought to increase its use of volunteer and inmate labor, and its data indicate success in this regard. However, the department also needs to be willing to consider whether it has needs that can only be adequately addressed by permanent, professional staff. DCR indicates in its recent strategic plan that it now has an objective to "fully fund the staffing, training, equipment, and facility operational needs" for activities such as parks. It has set a timetable for achieving this goal in the year 2004.