United States Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service		 Kentucky Go to Accessibility Information
Skip to Page Content

   





 

WORKLOAD ANALYSIS

Updated 08/05/2008

2006 Workload analysis process

In January of 2006, Kentucky began an in depth study of the workload across the state. Field Offices participated by providing information on applications and contracts for all the Farm Bill Programs as well as State and Local Cost Share Programs and conservation planning. Weights were given to each application and contract depending on the level of work required at the field level. Performance from the previous year was also taken into consideration.

Scores were calculated using the methodology provided in this section. The map that follows is a result of these scores.
 

ABC Analysis – Activity Based Cost Analysis

  • In September of 2006, the National NRCS Office conducted the ABC Workload Analysis. The results of that process serve as a compliment to the original Workload Analysis conducted earlier in the year.

GAP Analysis ABC Analysis – Activity Based Cost Analysis

  • A final study was conducted using the ABC data. The number of practices yet to be applied (according to the National Conservation Planning Database (NCPD)) was multiplied by the time it takes to complete the practice (averaged by Area ? from ABC data). The total hours were compared against the current staff level and the GAP analysis was formed.
  • The results of the GAP Analysis using the proposed office combinations are included in this section.

Workload Analysis Methodology

Data Collected

  • Total # of applications taken in 2006 for all programs
  • Total # of active Farm Bill contracts, easements, etc.
  • Practices yet to be applied for EQIP, WHIP, & State Cost Share for all program years
  • 2006 State Cost Share applications received
  • Local Cost Share applications received in 2006
  • Urban land conservation planning acres and conservation to be applied for 2006
  • Conservation Technical Assistance (CTA) field office level goals for 2006

Scoring Process

  • The SRC staff, Area Conservationists, Area Resource Conservationists, and State Conservation Engineer were asked to assign a workload score (between 1 and 10) to the following: <
    • Application process for each program, scoring the field staff separate from the technical staff
    • Contract development process for each program, scoring the field staff separate from the technical staff
    • Each individual practice, scoring the field staff separate from the technical staff
    • A typical unit size was also assigned for each practice
  • Those scores were then averaged for each of those categories and used in the overall scoring calculation

Formulas

  • Application Score = total number of applications by county x average application field staff workload score for the program.  All program application scores were then summed to get one application score.
  • Active Contract/Easement Score = total number of contracts/easements by county x average contract field staff workload score for the program.  All program application scores were then summed to get one contract/easement score.
  • Practice Score = (Individual practice acres for each county/Average practice typical unit) field staff workload score for practice.  All individual practices scores were then totaled together.
  • An application score and active contract score was developed for Farm Bill Program separate from CTA programs.  The two individual scores were added together for one final overall county workload score.

Office Combination Methodology

NRCS in Kentucky serves 120 counties from 95 staffed field offices.  The Conservation Operations budget continues to be cut leaving less each year to cover expenses like rent and utilities.  Our lease obligation alone amounts to over $1.7 million annually. 

In addition to this, Kentucky has experienced a loss of 17 DC positions over the last year, positions that will not be refilled due to budget constraints.  It is for these reasons that a restructuring plan was initiated.

Considerations

  • In most cases, the smaller workload office was combined with the larger workload headquarters office. 
  • RC&D boundaries were used with exceptions only where NRCS was not aligned with FSA.  The RC&D boundaries were based on the resource base which is an important piece of criteria in the office groupings.
  • FSA Phase I and II office combinations were considered and in most cases the placement of the NRCS headquarters was in agreement with the proposed FSA headquarters. Through FSA’s restructuring plan, farmer travel patterns were considered and placement of the headquarters considered the location where more farmers would benefit.
  • Counties that were staffed with GS-12 DC positions were given priority for headquarter locations in most cases.
  • Combinations were also reviewed based on the locations of Resource Conservationists.
  • The combinations were arrived at without regard to personalities in office groupings.

 

Click here for Executive Summary

Click here for Purpose and Teamwork Concept

Click here for map of the consolidated counties and offices

Click here for Workload Analysis Maps

< Back to Kentucky Homepage