.png)
Anyone running an outdoor or experiential education (O/EE) program in the United States has likely been wondering about the impact of cuts to federal funding and federal agencies (on which we depend for access, safety, and partnership in delivering our programs). This has been an incredibly challenging time for many organizations and people. The team at Experiential Consulting understands the frustrations, stress, and pain that many are feeling right now, and we hope this article offers support in the form of helpful risk assessment and methodology.
As the Executive branch of the US federal government continues to make deep cuts to government functions and agencies, this blog post will highlight some of the less obvious impacts and risk management implications for outdoor and experiential education (O/EE) programs, especially those operating on public lands.
The impacts being created by these layoffs are not simple and linear, and can’t be adequately understood through linear analysis. In order to place these changes within the context of systems thinking, we will use Rasmussen’s Risk Management Framework (1997). Rasmussen’s model describes a way that different factors can interact and influence each other. Factors within the different levels interact in ways that influence human behavior, decision-making, safety, success, and failure. Unforeseen risks may emerge from these interactions.
Levels in Rasmussen’s model typically include the following:
A Government level (at which laws and regulations are developed);
A Regulatory level (at which standards are developed);
A Company level (at which an organization’s internal policies govern work, influenced by the preceding two levels);
A Management level (overseeing the implementation of company policies and procedures);
A Staff level (workers doing their jobs);
A Work level (equipment and environment).
Workplace safety within Rasmussen’s model works most effectively when information is not just coming downwards from the top, but also from the bottom of the chart (where work actually gets done) and rippling upwards through the management (towards the regulators and government). In other words, there should be feedback loops that help the upper levels understand and adapt to what’s happening at the ground level, not just the other way around.
What impacts should O/EE programs be watching out for?
Federal budget cuts and layoffs impacting outdoor program risk management include the following organizations:
US Forest Service (USFS)
National Park Service (NPS)
Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
Heath and Human Services (HHS)
Center for Disease Control (CDC)
And many others, some on the periphery to O/EE programs such as the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Using Rasmussen’s model, we can identify not only the individual impacts these cuts have had, but also recognize the ways in which these individual elements interact with each other and combine. The following is merely an example, not necessarily representative of the (dynamic) current situation today.
Applying the model above, consider the following potential scenarios:
Outdoor Education: A youth backpacking program is abruptly asked to shift from their normal, known course area to a new area due to the threat of wildfire, with no fire crews available to offer any assessment or support. As a result of this shift, instructors find themselves in new terrain with a new itinerary that does not support their goals for their students. What was meant to be an appropriately challenging, student-led expedition becomes a struggle just to get from one campsite to the next, with instructors overwhelmed and students asking to leave the program early, which adds even more stress to the overtaxed program administrators.
Conservation Corps: A backcountry youth crew is assigned to do trail maintenance in a remote part of a national park. The corps has prided itself on being inclusive, while hiring talented crew leaders who can work with members of varying abilities and levels of fitness. The crew experiences extraordinarily difficult conditions, much harder work than anticipated, unreliable weather forecasts, a staffing shortage that leads them to field much less experienced crew leaders than usual, and a complete lack of support from agency partners when they encounter a series of behavioral problems that lead to medical challenges from injuries that occur.
Climbing Guide Service: A climbing guide service relies on current, accurate avalanche and weather forecasting to plan and support their guides and clients in the field. They also design their trip offerings and daily pay rates for guides on the assumption that roads are open and trails are reasonably maintained. Due to the federal layoffs, many of these basic services are compromised or missing altogether, creating a compounding series of challenges for guides and clients in the field. Due to the lack of backcountry rangers or any government oversight, normal campsites are unmaintained or completely overrun by unpermitted users, creating conflicts and confusion in the backcountry. In addition, bathrooms that are normally maintained are overwhelmed, creating ecological and health issues for all users.
Habitat Restoration: An organization doing streamside fish survey/native plant restoration comes to a locked gate on a remote access road and the key they normally use doesn't work. The locksmith who normally would respond was laid off and there is no one equipped to address the problem. They plan to walk to the stream but it is a four mile walk and they did not plan the time to do this walk. There is also a new sign on the gate restricting access but nobody at the federal office will answer the phone. Leaders wonder if they can still walk past the gate to finish their research/conservation project? Will it be safe to do so with supplies they brought and the time left in the day?
We could easily extrapolate these hypothetical examples to wilderness therapy, school groups, summer camps, and the general backcountry user operating on public lands. It’s our hope that this blog post helps outdoor programs think beyond the immediate impacts of these cuts (loss of personnel) to consider the downstream or less obvious implications as well.
Finally, we’d like to highlight an additional risk arising from these orders and cuts: the risk to the resource itself (public lands). Already suffering from a backlog of deferred maintenance, staffing and budget challenges, public lands are more at risk than ever of the impacts these cuts will cause. From fire to pollution, trash and damage, or normal routine services that may not be conducted (trail maintenance, rebuilding damaged roads and facilities, etc.) it's hard to imagine the impact these cuts will have on the public lands themselves, and the wildlife habitat / ecosystems within them. What do all of these changes mean to the future of access to the public lands, as well?
Stay informed and speak up
Consider learning about and supporting outdoor organizations making organized efforts to advocate for reform to these policies that threaten safe access to and use of public lands.
Two of Experiential Consulting’s long-time client/partners are leading the charge locally in WA State:
The Mountaineers blog and action alert
Washington Trails Association blog and action alert
Additionally, various groups are organizing at a federal level:
Outdoor Alliance blog and action alert
REI Cooperative Action Network action alert
Feel free to contact us at Experiential Consulting if you have questions or concerns that we can help you with, and subscribe to receive future blog posts like this.
