National Park Foundation
Better Communication of Roles and Responsibilities Is Needed to Strengthen Partnership with the National Park Service Gao ID: GAO-04-541 May 17, 2004In 1967, the Congress created the National Park Foundation (Foundation)--a nonprofit organization with the sole purpose of providing private support to the National Park Service (Park Service). However, some Park Service officials have raised concerns that the Foundation's support is not meeting parks' priority needs. In this context, congressional requesters asked GAO to review the activities of the Foundation by determining the (1) Foundation's roles and responsibilities for raising funds to support the Park Service, (2) amount and kinds of donations the Foundation has raised between fiscal years 1999 and 2003, and (3) extent to which the contributions obtained by the Foundation assisted the Park Service in addressing park priorities.
In accordance with its legislative charter, the Foundation raises private donations from a variety of sources and has broad discretion in how it distributes these donations to support the Park Service. In general, the Foundation's policy is to support systemwide projects that serve the Park Service and are not otherwise federally funded, such as supporting temporary transportation advisors to help alleviate congestion at national parks. Overall, annual private donations to the Foundation have more than doubled--from $18 million in fiscal year 1999 to $41 million in fiscal year 2003. Much of this increase has stemmed from the Foundation's concerted effort to target corporate donations, which accounted for the bulk of the donations received. Most of the corporate donations are noncash or "inkind," such as providing expertise to renovate the red bus fleet in Glacier National Park or providing electric vehicles to parks in California. Corporate donors typically specify how their donations are to be used. For example, one corporation donated funds to renovate a national monument in the District of Columbia. The Foundation, in consultation with the Park Service, decided to use these funds to renovate the Washington Monument. Because the majority of the Foundation's donations are restricted by the donors for a specific use, there are limited funds available to respond to some parks' requests, such as for fund-raising assistance or support for local nonprofit groups. Consequently, some park officials question the usefulness of Foundation donations and believe support should be directed at park priorities. In an effort to raise more discretionary funds and possibly better support individual park needs, the Foundation is expanding its fund-raising approach to attract more donations from individuals. The Foundation's efforts to assist the Park Service are hampered by poor communication and documentation problems. First, unlike most other partner relationships with the Park Service, the Foundation and the Park Service do not have a comprehensive written agreement that clearly describes the Foundation's fund-raising strategy and clarifies the roles and responsibilities of each partner. Second, the Foundation and the Park Service sometimes enter into verbal rather than written fund-raising agreements, thereby making it more difficult to determine the responsibilities of each party and whether commitments were met. Third, Foundation and Park Service officials disagree about the fund-raising strategy as well as the objectives for one of the Foundation's key fundraising programs. Both parties have taken initial steps to address these and other communication problems.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-04-541, National Park Foundation: Better Communication of Roles and Responsibilities Is Needed to Strengthen Partnership with the National Park Service
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-541
entitled 'National Park Foundation: Better Communication of Roles and
Responsibilities Is Needed to Strengthen Partnership with the National
Park Service' which was released on May 25, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, House of Representatives:
May 2004:
National Park Foundation:
Better Communication of Roles and Responsibilities Is Needed to
Strengthen Partnership with the National Park Service:
[Hyperlink, http: //www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-541]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-541, a report to the Chairman and Ranking Minority
Member of the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committee
on Appropriations, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
In 1967, the Congress created the National Park Foundation (Foundation)”
a nonprofit organization with the sole purpose of providing private
support to the National Park Service (Park Service). However, some Park
Service officials have raised concerns that the Foundation‘s support is
not meeting parks‘ priority needs. In this context, congressional
requesters asked GAO to review the activities of the Foundation by
determining the (1) Foundation‘s roles and responsibilities for raising
funds to support the Park Service, (2) amount and kinds of donations
the Foundation has raised between fiscal years 1999 and 2003, and (3)
extent to which the contributions obtained by the Foundation assisted
the Park Service in addressing park priorities.
What GAO Found:
In accordance with its legislative charter, the Foundation raises
private donations from a variety of sources and has broad discretion in
how it distributes these donations to support the Park Service. In
general, the Foundation‘s policy is to support systemwide projects that
serve the Park Service and are not otherwise federally funded, such as
supporting temporary transportation advisors to help alleviate
congestion at national parks.
Overall, annual private donations to the Foundation have more than
doubled”from $18 million in fiscal year 1999 to $41 million in fiscal
year 2003. Much of this increase has stemmed from the Foundation‘s
concerted effort to target corporate donations, which accounted for the
bulk of the donations received. Most of the corporate donations are
noncash or ’in-kind,“ such as providing expertise to renovate the red
bus fleet in Glacier National Park or providing electric vehicles to
parks in California. Corporate donors typically specify how their
donations are to be used. For example, one corporation donated funds to
renovate a national monument in the District of Columbia. The
Foundation, in consultation with the Park Service, decided to use these
funds to renovate the Washington Monument. Because the majority of the
Foundation‘s donations are restricted by the donors for a specific use,
there are limited funds available to respond to some parks‘ requests,
such as for fund-raising assistance or support for local nonprofit
groups. Consequently, some park officials question the usefulness of
Foundation donations and believe support should be directed at park
priorities. In an effort to raise more discretionary funds and possibly
better support individual park needs, the Foundation is expanding its
fund-raising approach to attract more donations from individuals.
The Foundation‘s efforts to assist the Park Service are hampered by
poor communication and documentation problems. First, unlike most other
partner relationships with the Park Service, the Foundation and the
Park Service do not have a comprehensive written agreement that clearly
describes the Foundation‘s fund-raising strategy and clarifies the
roles and responsibilities of each partner. Second, the Foundation and
the Park Service sometimes enter into verbal rather than written fund-
raising agreements, thereby making it more difficult to determine the
responsibilities of each party and whether commitments were met. Third,
Foundation and Park Service officials disagree about the fund-raising
strategy as well as the objectives for one of the Foundation‘s key fund-
raising programs. Both parties have taken initial steps to address
these and other communication problems.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO made several recommendations to improve communication between the
Park Service and the Foundation. The Park Service generally agreed with
the recommendations. The Foundation disagreed with a recommendation
calling for an overall written agreement with the Park Service.
However, GAO believes that such an agreement is needed, as does the
Park Service, given that communication problems exist in the Park
Service regarding the Foundation‘s roles and responsibilities.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-541.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Barry T. Hill at (202)
512-3841 or hillbt@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The National Park Foundation Has Considerable Discretion in Raising and
Distributing Private Donations to Parks:
Corporations Contributed to Significant Rise in Private Support:
Poor Communication and Documentation Affect Efforts to Assist the
National Park Service:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Recommendations to the National Park Foundation:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Grants to National Parks as Reported in the National Park
Foundation's GIFTS Database:
Appendix III: Cooperative Agreements and the National Park Pass
Contract:
Appendix IV: Proud Partners of America Program Contributions and
Pledges as Reported by the National Park Foundation:
Appendix V: Foundation Compensation:
Appendix VI: Comments from the National Park Service:
Appendix VII: Comments from the National Park Foundation:
GAO Comments:
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Selected National Park Grant Recipients for Fiscal Years 2000
through 2003:
Table 2: Original Agreement and Modifications to Cooperative
Agreements, Products and Services, and Funding Amounts Awarded, Fiscal
Years 1997 through 2003:
Table 3: Proud Partner Product Categories, Agreement Length, and
Contributions as Reported by the National Park Foundation:
Table 4: Major Proud Partners Initiatives and Their Estimated Value as
Reported by the National Park Foundation:
Table 5: National Parks Receiving Direct Proud Partners Assistance from
November 2000 through June 2003 as Reported by the National Park
Foundation:
Table 6: Comparison of Nonprofit CEO/President Salaries for 2001 or
2002:
Figures:
Figure 1: Trends in the National Park Foundation's Revenue and Expenses,
Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Figure 2: The National Park Foundation's Revenues and Expenses, by
Category, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Figure 3: Percentage of Donations, by Source, Fiscal Years 1999 through
2003:
Figure 4: Corporate Donations, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Figure 5: Phases of the National Park Foundation's Fund-raising and
Grant-Making Processes:
Figure 6: Restricted and Discretionary Donations, Fiscal Years 1999
through 2003:
Figure 7: Grant Dollar Totals Awarded in Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003
as Reported in the National Park Foundation's GIFTS Database and
Audited Financial Statements:
Figure 8: Grant Awards for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003 as Reported in
the National Park Foundation's GIFTS Database:
Letter May 17, 2004:
The Honorable Charles Taylor:
Chairman:
The Honorable Norm Dicks:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
For the last few decades, the National Park Service (Park Service) has
relied increasingly on private donations in meeting its mission to
promote and protect the national parks. Although national parks remain
primarily a public responsibility, parks benefit from other sources of
support, including individuals, corporations, and nonprofit
organizations. These entities donate time, materials, and funds to
support the park system. In 1967, the Congress created an official
national, nonprofit partner of the Park Service--the National Park
Foundation (Foundation)--to raise private contributions for the benefit
of the Park Service, its activities, or its services.
The Congress and the Park Service have long recognized the important
role of private support in meeting the needs of America's parks.
However, there have been some recent concerns within the Park Service
that the Foundation is not supporting its priority needs. In this
context, you asked us to determine (1) the Foundation's roles and
responsibilities for raising funds to support the Park Service, (2) the
amount and kinds of donations the Foundation has raised between fiscal
years 1999 and 2003, and (3) the extent to which the contributions
obtained by the Foundation assist the Park Service in addressing park
priorities. You also asked us to address several questions pertaining
to the Foundation's grant disbursements, employee salaries, cooperative
agreements, and contributions made by Proud Partners,[Footnote 1] which
are discussed in appendixes to this report.
To address the roles and responsibilities of the Foundation, we
reviewed the Foundation's charter, as amended, and its bylaws. We
reviewed Park Service rules and regulations governing fund-raising and
donation and discussed their applicability to the Foundation with the
Department of the Interior's Office of the Solicitor officials. To
determine the amount and kinds of donations the Foundation has raised
on behalf of the Park Service, we reviewed Foundation revenues from
fiscal years 1999 through 2003 and analyzed private contributions made
to the Foundation during this same period. We also examined 41
cooperative agreements between the Foundation and the Park Service or
other federal agencies (see app. III). Moreover, we reviewed strategic
plans of the Foundation and its fund-raising goals. To determine the
extent that contributions assisted the Park Service in addressing park
priorities, we reviewed the Foundation's available discretionary funds
and grants to Park Service units and interviewed Foundation officials
about how these funds and grants are used to satisfy park requests. We
also reviewed the Foundation's processes over contributions. We
analyzed the Foundation's financial statements for fiscal years 1999
through 2003, which received an unqualified opinion by independent
auditing firms. We did not attempt to track each park's receipt and use
of contributions due to the time that would be required. Appendix I
provides further details about the scope and methodology of our review.
We conducted our work from August 2003 through May 2004 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
In accordance with its charter, the Foundation raises private donations
from a variety of sources to support the Park Service and has broad
discretion in how it raises and distributes these donations. In
general, the Foundation's policy is to support systemwide projects that
serve the Park Service and are not federally funded, such as supporting
temporary transportation advisors to help alleviate congestion at
national parks. The Foundation has determined that these types of
projects have the greatest potential for fund-raising success.
Overall, annual private donations to the Foundation have more than
doubled from $18 million in fiscal year 1999 to $41 million in fiscal
year 2003. Much of this increase has stemmed from the Foundation's
concerted effort to target corporate donors, whose donations accounted
for the bulk of contributions received for fiscal years 1999 through
2003. Most corporate donations are noncash or "in-kind," such as
providing expertise to renovate the red bus fleet in Glacier National
Park or providing electric vehicles to parks in California to reduce
air pollution. For example, in fiscal year 2003, corporate donors
contributed $27 million, or 100 percent, of the total in-kind
contributions that the Foundation received that year. Moreover, the
corporate donors may specify how their donations are to be used. For
example, according to the Foundation, one corporation donated funds
specifically to renovate a structure on the National Mall. The
Foundation, in consultation with the Park Service, decided to use these
funds to renovate the Washington Monument. Because the Foundation's
fund-raising is directed at obtaining support for systemwide programs
that do not receive federal funding, donations are usually restricted
to meet these objectives and are not made available to support
individual park needs. We were unable to ascertain how many individual
park requests the Foundation had received or how many it agreed to
support because neither the Foundation nor the Park Service tracks this
information. However, officials from both organizations agreed that
many such requests are received and few receive Foundation support.
Consequently, some park officials have begun to question the usefulness
of the Foundation in its partnership role with the Park Service. In an
effort to raise more discretionary funds and possibly to better support
individual park needs, the Foundation is expanding its fund-raising
approach to attract more donations from corporations and individuals
that can be used for discretionary purposes.
The Foundation's efforts to assist the Park Service are hampered by
poor communication and documentation problems in three main areas.
First, the partners have no written agreement that clearly describes
the Foundation's fund-raising strategy and clarifies the roles and
responsibilities of the Foundation and the Park Service in their
partnering relationship. This lack of an agreement has contributed to
misunderstandings between Foundation and Park Service officials
regarding the effectiveness of the Foundation's fund-raising strategy
in supporting Park Service programs. Typically, other nonprofit
partners do have agreements that, for example, include detailed
statements of the work agreed to by each partner. Park Service
headquarters officials said that an agreement, similar to those it has
with other nonprofits, would benefit the partnership and help to
minimize confusion about the partners' roles and responsibilities.
Second, the Foundation and the Park Service frequently enter into
verbal fund-raising agreements, thereby making it difficult to ensure
that fund-raising commitments and responsibilities are met. For
example, one Park Service regional official stated that the Foundation
had verbally agreed to raise $500,000 for the restoration of a historic
site in Atlanta, Georgia. Foundation officials, however, denied making
this commitment and attributed the misunderstanding to erroneous
information provided by a Park Service headquarters official. Third,
Foundation and Park Service officials disagree about the fund-raising
strategy and objectives of, as well as certain arrangements made under,
the Proud Partners of America Program. Specifically, some Park Service
regional officials believe that the Foundation's fund-raising efforts
are misdirected because they focus on systemwide programs, rather than
on individual park needs. However, the Park Service has never provided
the Foundation with a list of these needs. In addition, the
organizations have different views about whether other nonprofits can
engage in marketing campaigns with companies that provide similar
products or services like those provided by Proud Partners. The Park
Service and the Foundation have taken initial steps to address these
and other communication problems, such as planning to provide training
to Park Service regional and field staff on the Foundation's roles and
responsibilities and fund-raising policies. However, the training has
not been provided to date.
This report contains recommendations directed at improving
communication between the Foundation and the Park Service and reducing
much of the confusion and misunderstandings that exist between these
two partners.
We provided the Park Service and the Foundation with a draft of this
report for their review and comment and received written comments from
both entities, which are included in appendixes VI and VII of this
report. The Park Service generally agreed with our recommendations made
to the Secretary of the Interior. The Foundation agreed with three of
the four recommendations made to it. While the Foundation agreed that
close coordination with the Park Service is important, the Foundation
disagreed with our recommendation directing it to work collaboratively
with the Park Service to develop a comprehensive written agreement. The
Foundation stated that such an agreement was unnecessary because its
enabling legislation established a procedure for ensuring cooperation
by placing the Secretary of the Interior--as chairperson--and the
Director of the Park Service--as secretary--on the Foundation's Board
of Directors. We believe that additional mechanisms are needed at the
operational level in order to achieve and document a mutual
understanding of the Foundation's roles and responsibilities. In
commenting on a draft of this report, the Park Service also believes
that such an agreement would benefit communication between it and the
Foundation.
Background:
The national park system is comprised of 387 parks, including a diverse
array of national parks, military parks, national monuments, national
historic sites, recreation areas, and other designations.[Footnote 2]
The Park Service manages the park system and is charged with preserving
and protecting these public lands for future generations. To manage
this diverse system, parks are arranged under seven regional offices.
These offices offer administrative or specialized support that is not
always available at the local park level. Within these regions, a
superintendent manages each park and has considerable decision-making
authority over local park operations.
Federal appropriations to the Park Service have increased from about $2
billion to about $2.5 billion over the past 5 years, but these funds
still fall short of addressing system needs. For example, the park
system has a maintenance backlog estimated to be about $5 billion. In
addition to federal appropriations, the Park Service relies on support
from various sources. For example, the Park Service receives additional
support through (1) admission and user fees collected at park sites;
(2) franchise fees paid by over 600 park concessionaires; and (3)
donations from various individuals and groups, such as nonprofit
organizations, which provide, among other things, technical, volunteer,
and financial assistance to parks. The Park Service is actively
increasing its partnerships with nonprofit organizations as an
additional source of support.
In 1967, the Congress chartered the Foundation as the official
national, nonprofit fund-raising partner of the Park Service.[Footnote
3] The Foundation's primary purpose is to encourage private
contributions that benefit park programs, activities, or services. The
Foundation's charter was expanded in 1998 to assist and promote fund-
raising at individual national parks.[Footnote 4] The Foundation is
governed by a board of directors. The Secretary of the Interior is the
board's chairperson and appoints all board members, who serve without
pay or other compensation. With the exception of appointment powers,
most of the chairperson's responsibilities for overseeing Foundation
operations are delegated to the board's vice chairman, who is the
private citizen leader of the board. The Foundation has a staff of
about 40 employees, including a chief executive officer/president who
is responsible for managing the Foundation's day-to-day operations.
Although congressionally chartered, the Foundation does not receive
federal appropriations. Its expenses are paid from the revenues that it
collects.
The Foundation's revenues and expenses have dramatically increased in
recent years. Foundation revenues more than doubled from about $24
million in fiscal year 1999 to about $52 million in fiscal year 2003.
Similarly, the Foundation's expenses, which are mostly contributions to
the parks, have increased from $16.5 million to over $48 million during
this period. Figure 1 show the trends in the Foundation's revenues and
expenses for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
Figure 1: Trends in the National Park Foundation's Revenue and
Expenses, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The total Foundation revenues for fiscal years 1999 through 2003
amounted to about $200 million. Of these, contributions (cash and in-
kind) were the largest category of revenues, accounting for about $160
million, or 80 percent. Other revenue sources included income from
investments, payments from federal agencies, litigation settlements,
and fees imposed for services provided to other nonprofit
organizations. On the other hand, the Foundation's total expenses were
about $176 million during this time. The majority of these expenses
were for direct program support and grants, amounting to $160 million,
or 91 percent, of all expenses. Other expenses were for general and
administrative costs and fund-raising costs. These costs included rent
payments, purchases of equipment and supplies, and salaries for
administrative personnel. Figure 2 shows the Foundation's total
revenues and expenses for fiscal years 1999 through 2003, by category.
Figure 2: The National Park Foundation's Revenues and Expenses, by
Category, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The National Park Foundation Has Considerable Discretion in Raising and
Distributing Private Donations to Parks:
The Foundation has considerable discretion in raising and distributing
private contributions to the Park Service. The Foundation's chartering
legislation does not prescribe a specific process to be used by the
Foundation in raising donations for the Park Service. The Foundation
has determined that systemwide projects that are unlikely to receive
federal funding have the greatest potential for fund-raising success.
Legislative Charter Provides Broad Discretion in Fund-raising:
The 1967 legislative charter provides the Foundation with broad
discretion in determining its fund-raising approach. Under the
legislation, the Foundation is authorized to "accept, receive, solicit,
hold, administer, and use any gifts, devises, or bequests, either
absolutely or in trust of real or personal property or any income
therefrom or other interest therein for the benefit of or in connection
with, the National Park Service, its activities, or its services." In
1998, the Congress amended the Foundation's charter and also required
it to "design and implement a comprehensive program to assist and
promote philanthropic programs of support at the individual national
park unit level."
Fund-raising Is Targeted at Systemwide Projects That Are Not Federally
Funded:
In general, the Foundation attempts to secure private support for
systemwide projects that are not federally funded. Foundation officials
refer to this selection approach as its "Bright Line Theory." This
theory is based on the view that donors will typically not make a
contribution if they believe their donations will simply be used to
supplant government funds or if their donations do not provide
additional value. The Foundation considers projects that are systemwide
and nonfederally funded to be above the bright line and to have the
greatest possibility of attracting private support. The Foundation
usually identifies these projects in consultation with Park Service
headquarters officials. Such projects include the Park Service's Junior
Rangers Program, which seeks to provide school children with knowledge
about the benefits of national parks, and the Parks as Classrooms
Program, whereby teachers are encouraged to supplement learning about
nature by visiting local parks. Because the Foundation focuses on
systemwide, nonfederally funded projects, it does not typically attempt
to secure private donations for certain individual park priorities,
which, Foundation officials believe, fall below the bright line and
would potentially be viewed by donors as a federal responsibility.
Corporations Contributed to Significant Rise in Private Support:
For fiscal years 1999 through 2003, private contributions more than
doubled, from approximately $18 million in 1999 to just over $41
million in 2003. Cumulative private contributions during this period
were about $160 million, with the majority of these contributions
coming from corporations. Most corporate donations are targeted for a
specific use (restricted). The Foundation is in the process of revising
its current fund-raising approach in an effort to increase its pool of
discretionary donations. The Foundation hopes to satisfy more
individual park needs with these discretionary donations.
Corporations Are a Major Source for Private Donations:
The Foundation has made a concerted effort to direct its fund-raising
efforts primarily at corporations. Of the approximately $160 million
that the Foundation raised in private donations for fiscal years 1999
through 2003, $120 million, or 75 percent, came from corporations.
Individuals and foundations accounted for the remaining $40 million, or
25 percent. Figure 3 shows the percentage of donations, by source, for
fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
Figure 3: Percentage of Donations, by Source, Fiscal Years 1999 through
2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In-kind contributions comprised about 52 percent of the corporate
contributions during this time. As shown in figure 4, in-kind
contributions have increased, whereas cash contributions have decreased
in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, due largely in part to the
implementation of the Foundation's Proud Partners Program.
Figure 4: Corporate Donations, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Fund-raising and Grant-Making Processes:
The Foundation's fund-raising and grant-making processes consist of
several phases. Fund-raising efforts typically begin with the
Foundation's board members identifying corporate donors that could
potentially provide donations in support of the Park Service. After
identifying these corporate donors, the Foundation researches their
philanthropic interests, such as demonstrated support for educational
programs. Next, the Foundation contacts potential donors to explore the
donors' philanthropic interests and to ascertain their willingness to
make donations in support of the Park Service. If the donors are
willing to contribute, the Foundation then contacts Park Service
headquarters officials with relevant subject matter expertise to help
identify potential systemwide projects that correspond with the donors'
interests. The Foundation then presents these projects to the donors
for their consideration. The donors then may decide to make a cash or
in-kind contribution through the Foundation to support (1) one or more
of the proposed systemwide projects, (2) projects in a specific park,
or (3) general Park Service activities. In instances where the donors
decide to support systemwide projects, the Foundation requests that all
interested parties submit grant proposals, indicating how they would
use these donations.[Footnote 5] The Foundation, in consultation with
Park Service officials, reviews the submitted proposals and selects
recipients for the awards. In instances where the donors decide to
support projects in a specific park, the Foundation makes a grant to
the selected park. The Foundation may use various means to distribute
general donations to support park activities. Figure 5 illustrates the
steps involved in the Foundation's fund-raising and grant-making
processes. Appendix II provides additional details on the grant-making
process.
Figure 5: Phases of the National Park Foundation's Fund-raising and
Grant-Making Processes:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
To better align its fund-raising with Park Service programs, the
Foundation is currently expanding its fund-raising approach and
reviewing, with the Park Service, the priority uses of the funds
raised. Under its expanded approach, the Foundation and the Park
Service have identified five program areas--Volunteerism, Visitor
Experience, Education, Community Engagement, and Programs of National
Significance--for which to target donations. Within each of these five
program areas, the Foundation and the Park Service have identified
systemwide programs that donors can support. Moreover, these programs
will be used as a basis for identifying potential donors that have a
history of supporting similar type programs.
Proud Partners of America Program:
Corporate donors support the Foundation's Proud Partners of America
Program, which was initiated in November 2000. The Foundation names as
Proud Partners those corporations that have committed to multiyear
support to help raise awareness about national parks, promote interest
and support through sales of the National Park Pass, and encourage and
provide meaningful experiences for park visitors. Currently, there are
five Proud Partners: American Airlines; Discovery Communications, Inc.;
Ford Motor Company; Eastman Kodak Company; and TIME magazine. Each
Proud Partner is expected to pledge a minimum of $12 million over a 3-
year or longer period, and, according to Foundation officials, the
Proud Partners have committed an estimated $88 million to the
parks.[Footnote 6] The program was limited to five corporations to
allow close management of the program and to minimize potential
conflicts with donations tied to advertising at individual parks. A
Foundation official stated that they have, however, recently initiated
discussions with the Park Service and the Foundation's Board of
Directors about doubling the number of partnering corporations to 10.
Under the Proud Partners Program, the Foundation receives both cash and
in-kind[Footnote 7] donations from corporations. This support is
centered on (1) increasing public awareness of the breadth and depth of
the parks, (2) engaging the public in support of parks through purchase
of the National Park Pass and encouraging voluntary contributions, and
(3) providing grants to parks for pilot programs intended to help
improve the visitor experience. Appendix IV provides more detailed
information on the Proud Partners Program and its related support.
Bulk of Donations to the Foundation Is Restricted for a Specific Use:
The bulk of the private donations received by the Foundation is
restricted or targeted for specific uses. For example, about $139
million, or 87 percent, of the $160 million in donations that the
Foundation received for fiscal years 1999 through 2003 were restricted.
Conversely, the Foundation raised $21 million--the remaining 13
percent--in discretionary donations, most of which were used to support
systemwide programs. Figure 6 shows the amount of restricted and
discretionary donations for fiscal years 1999 through 2003.
Figure 6: Restricted and Discretionary Donations, Fiscal Years 1999
through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The Foundation is also developing procedures to secure more
discretionary funds from corporations and individuals. With regard to
corporations, the Foundation plans to develop a pool of discretionary
donations within each of its five program areas. Corporations can make
discretionary donations within these broad program areas that can then
be used to support individual park needs. To increase discretionary
donations from individuals, the Foundation is exploring various means
to better target individual donors. For example, the Foundation and the
Park Service are exploring the feasibility of allowing park visitors to
volunteer their contact information in order to follow up and ascertain
how they can support national parks.
Poor Communication and Documentation Affect Efforts to Assist the
National Park Service:
Poor communication and documentation problems as well as weaknesses in
management oversight hamper the Foundation's partnering relationship
with the Park Service. We identified three factors that contribute to
the problems that affect the Foundation's efforts in assisting the Park
Service: (1) no written agreement exists between the Foundation and the
Park Service describing the Foundation's fund-raising strategy and
clarifying the roles and responsibilities of each partner, (2) the lack
of written agreements on certain fund-raising and donation projects and
the lack of effective management procedures to ensure that
documentation standards are met, and (3) disagreement about the
Foundation's fund-raising and donation strategy and the objectives of
the Proud Partners Program. The Foundation and the Park Service have
efforts under way to improve communication and enhance the partnering
relationship, but these efforts have not addressed the need for written
agreements.
The Foundation and the Park Service Lack Comprehensive Agreement
Specifying Their Respective Partnering Roles and Responsibilities:
The Foundation and the Park Service have not documented in a written
agreement the Foundation's fund-raising and donation strategy, the
roles and responsibilities of the parties to implement the strategy,
the approach for accomplishing the strategy, or the specific guidelines
and procedures that should be followed to implement the strategy. The
lack of a written agreement providing more specificity has created
confusion about how the Foundation performs its role of supporting the
Park Service. Foundation officials informed us that they view the
Foundation's charter as the overarching agreement between the
Foundation and Park Service, and that certain activities of the
partners are further documented through standard operating procedures
as well as a memorandum of agreement. While (1) the Foundation's
legislative charter provides a basic framework for its fund-raising
efforts, (2) the memorandum of agreement addresses advertising and
promotional campaigns for Proud Partners, and (3) the Foundation's
standard operating procedures provide direction with regard to grant-
making activity, there is no one comprehensive document that clearly
discusses the Foundation's fund-raising strategy, work requirements,
and roles and responsibilities of the Foundation and the Park Service
in their partnering relationship. The Park Service does, however, enter
into detailed written agreements with other nonprofit organizations
that include detailed descriptions of the fund-raising approach to be
used and the work to be performed by each partner. Park Service
headquarters officials said that an agreement, similar to those it
requires for other nonprofits, would benefit the partnership with the
Foundation and help to minimize confusion on the partners' roles and
responsibilities.
The Foundation and Individual Parks Sometimes Enter into Verbal Fund-
raising Agreements:
The Foundation and individual parks sometimes rely on verbal agreements
in conducting fund-raising, leading to misunderstandings between the
Foundation and the Park Service officials regarding the roles and
responsibilities that each party is to perform, such as the specific
fund-raising objectives and agreed-upon fund-raising actions.
Furthermore, neither the Foundation nor the Park Service tracked fund-
raising requests or verbal agreements. Thus, neither agency can measure
whether performance under these agreements met expectations. We
requested the views of officials from all seven regional offices about
their relationship with the Foundation. Deputy and associate regional
directors confirmed that some field staff are dissatisfied with the
Foundation for not keeping its fund-raising promises. For example, some
regional Park Service officials told us that they had verbal fund-
raising agreements with the Foundation, and that the Foundation did not
honor its commitments. In one instance, a Park Service regional
official stated that the Foundation agreed to raise $500,000 for a
restoration of a historic site in Atlanta, Georgia. The Foundation
denied it had made the commitment and attributed the misunderstanding
to erroneous information provided by a Park Service headquarters
official. Similarly, a Park Service regional official stated that the
Foundation had verbally agreed to raise support for the region's top
priority--construction of a Native American memorial at Little Bighorn
Battlefield National Monument. In this case, Park Service regional and
Foundation officials collaborated on a work plan that identified these
priorities for Foundation assistance. However, the support never
materialized. According to the Foundation, it was unable to attract
sufficient private contributions to implement all of the early phases
of its campaign.
Without written fund-raising agreements and a system for tracking
verbal agreements, the Park Service and the Foundation cannot ensure
proper management oversight that is consistent with sound internal
control and management practices. Specifically, internal control
standards[Footnote 8] specify that all transactions and other
significant events need to be clearly documented, that the
documentation should be readily available for examination, and that all
documentation and records should be properly managed and maintained.
Other fund-raising efforts on behalf of the Park Service must comply
with Director's Order 21--the Park Service's guidance on fund-raising
and donations--and be authorized in a written agreement. Under
Director's Order 21, fund-raising agreements should include the (1)
project or programs to be funded and the priority order of funding; (2)
procedures under which the fund-raising will be conducted, including
adherence to Park Service policies; and (3) procedure for Park Service
review and approval of planning, design, and construction when
appropriate. An official from Interior's Office of the Solicitor told
us that this order does not apply to the Foundation given its unique
status as a congressionally chartered fund-raiser. Although Foundation
officials stated that they comply with the order on a voluntary basis,
and that their procedures require written agreements for fund-raising
involving specific park projects, we found that there were no written
agreements.[Footnote 9] Foundation officials stated that this is a
recent policy and that they have not entered into any local park
agreements since this policy was adopted. In any event, the Park
Service and the Foundation could improve their internal control
procedures by entering into written fund-raising agreements. Doing so
would provide a means for the Park Service and the Foundation to
improve their management oversight of fund-raising activities.
Some Park Service Officials Disagree with the Foundation's Fund-raising
Strategy and Key Aspects of the Proud Partners Program:
There is also disagreement within the Park Service about the
effectiveness of the Foundation's fund-raising strategy for raising
funds to support Park Service programs. Some Park Service headquarters
officials agree with the Foundation's fund-raising strategy and the
Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the National Park Service
serve on the Foundation's Board of Directors, which approves all fund-
raising activities of the Foundation. However, some regional Park
Service officials, while appreciative of the Foundation's support,
disagree with the Foundation on its fund-raising strategy and
objectives of the Proud Partners Program. With regard to the fund-
raising strategy, these officials told us that the Foundation's
strategy should be targeted at the priority needs of individual parks.
For example, several regional officials commented that the Foundation's
unfamiliarity with park needs resulted in missed opportunities to
solicit contributions for important park projects. In addition, these
officials suggested that the Park Service periodically provide its list
of individual park priorities to the Foundation for fund-raising
consideration. Although the current park priority listing focuses on
projects eligible for funding from over 80 federal sources, the
officials believe the list could be modified to include projects for
which nonprofit funding is needed and appropriate. Foundation officials
believe that individual park priorities can be better addressed by
local nonprofit organizations. Foundation officials acknowledge that,
in some cases, donors are interested in supporting a park priority need
that could be viewed as a federal responsibility. For example, one
corporation agreed to raise $5 million to support the restoration of
the Washington Monument in Washington, D.C.--a project that was on the
Park Service's priority list in anticipation of future federal funding.
Some regional officials stated that some support provided through the
Proud Partners Program was unrelated to park needs. For example, one
company donated 500 electric vehicles, valued at about $4.2 million, to
national and state parks in California,[Footnote 10] and, according to
one Park official, the actual funds would have better met park needs.
Park Service headquarters' officials recognize that much of the
Foundation's corporate revenues are restricted and heavily tied to
promotional or advertising objectives, but they believe these
contributions have nevertheless provided valuable assistance.
In addition, the Park Service and the Foundation appear to have
differing viewpoints with respect to one of the three objectives of the
Proud Partners Program. In a May 2001 memorandum sent to the Park
Service's Leadership Council, the Acting Park Service Director
communicated to the service's regions and local park superintendents
that the objectives of the Foundation's Proud Partner Program includes
providing "direct support for National Park Service priorities."
According to Foundation officials, the objectives of the Proud Partner
Program were designed to support systemwide Park Service programs, not
individual park priorities. The Foundation's published objectives for
the Proud Partner Program are to provide servicewide benefits to the
park system by (1) raising awareness about the breadth and depth of
national parks, (2) generating individual interest and support for
parks through sales of the National Parks Pass and encouraging
contributions, and (3) piloting visitor experience grant programs to
help the Park Service address the challenges of encouraging and
providing meaningful park experiences while preserving park resources.
In practice, however, the Foundation policy has not always been
followed. For example, the Director of the Park Service and the Park
Service's Associate Director for Partnerships, Interpretation and
Education, Volunteers, and Outdoor Recreation, recently stated that the
Proud Partners Program has supported some local park projects, such as
the restoration of the historic fleet of red buses at Glacier National
Park at a cost of about $8 million. Such inconsistencies in
communication and practice have led to misunderstandings about the
kinds of projects the program will support.
Lastly, Foundation and Park Service officials have different views
about the exclusivity terms in the Proud Partner agreements. A
memorandum of agreement between the Foundation and the Park Service,
originally signed in 1994,[Footnote 11] established policies and
guidelines that should be followed in managing commercial advertising
and promotional campaigns, such as the Proud Partner Program. Although
predating the Proud Partner Program by 6 years, this agreement, along
with an earlier internal Park Service memorandum, establishes the
Foundation's responsibility for managing national, cause-related
marketing campaigns.[Footnote 12] The 1994 agreement also stipulates
that all promotional and advertising arrangements will be consistent
with Park Service policies and provides for Park Service review of
promotional material before their public distribution. Additionally,
the agreement authorizes the Foundation to sign letters of agreement
with corporate partners and to provide product or service category
exclusivity.
The issue in question is whether these exclusivity arrangements
preclude other nonprofits from making park-based marketing agreements
with businesses that promote products or services that fall within the
Proud Partners' categorical areas of operation.[Footnote 13] Foundation
officials advised us that the terms of their agreements with corporate
partners do not prevent other Park Service nonprofit partners from
negotiating park-based marketing agreements with businesses that
provide the same type of product or services as the Foundation's five
national partners. However, the Interior's Office of the Solicitor
officials, along with nonprofit officials with whom we spoke, believe
that such park-based agreements are generally prohibited. Under this
interpretation, a local friends group at any national park, for
example, generally could not negotiate a park-based automotive-related
marketing agreement with the Toyota Corporation because the Ford Motor
Company is a Proud Partner and has exclusive marketing rights within
the automotive product category. Because the Foundation has provided
nondisclosure guarantees to its Proud Partners, it does not make the
actual terms within the specific agreements between the Foundation and
the Proud Partners available for Park Service review (see app. IV for
more details).
The Foundation and the Park Service Have Efforts Under Way to Improve
Collaboration and Communication:
Both the Park Service and the Foundation have several ongoing efforts,
which when fully implemented should help address recognized
communication problems between their organizations. In April 2003, the
Park Service and the Foundation jointly created the Partnership
Committee to take actions to, among other things, ensure common,
consistent, open, and timely communication between the two entities.
This committee, comprised of Park Service headquarters officials and
regional directors and Foundation board members and staff, also focuses
on achieving shared goals and recommending actions to resolve
differences between the two organizations. In addition, the Director of
the Park Service and Foundation officials recently agreed to meet
monthly to find ways to promote better communication. Although this
committee has been formed, it has yet to develop any action plans to
address specific communication issues that it has identified.
The Foundation and the Park Service are also taking independent actions
to improve communication. For example, the Foundation is providing
quarterly reports to the Park Service's National Leadership Council
that provide updated information on the Foundation's grants, Proud
Partners Program, funding, and partnership highlights. The reports are
then distributed to all park superintendents, program managers, and
other staff in the Park Service. The Foundation also plans to provide
briefings to Park Service regional staff that discuss and clarify the
Foundation's roles and responsibilities and fund-raising policies.
Similarly, the Park Service established the NPS Partnership Council in
2002 that facilitates open communication and dialogue among the Park
Service's field, regions, and directorate; the National Park
Foundation; and other nonprofit partners. The council consists of 24
members, including Park Service headquarters officials, regional
directors, and field representatives (preferably at the superintendent
level) and a Foundation representative.[Footnote 14] In addition, Park
Service officials said that they were considering a proposal for a
general agreement between the organizations to clarify the roles and
responsibilities of the Foundation and the Park Service in their
partnering relationship.
Although the Foundation and the Park Service have taken positive steps
to improve communication, these actions are recent and have not been
fully implemented. For example, although the Foundation has recognized
the need to provide briefings to Park Service regional officials, the
briefings have not been provided to date.
Conclusions:
Although the Foundation's support has contributed to the betterment of
the Park System, poor communication between the Foundation and the Park
Service has caused confusion regarding how each of the parties is
operating in the partnership. Much of this confusion stems from the
lack of a written agreement that clearly describes the Foundation's
fund-raising strategy and clarifies the roles and responsibilities of
the Foundation and the Park Service in its partnering relationship.
Until roles and responsibilities are better defined and policies and
procedures are outlined to implement fund-raising efforts, confusion
and uncertainty may result and fund-raising opportunities may be
overlooked.
The Foundation's approach to fund-raising for systemwide programs has
led some Park Service officials to contend that the Foundation's
support is not being focused where it could do the most good--to better
support individual higher priority projects at local parks. Although
the Foundation is attempting to increase its discretionary funds that
could be used for individual park priorities, the Foundation could also
benefit from a list of individual park priorities, which the Park
Service has not yet provided.
Some Park Service officials are concerned that the Foundation has not
fulfilled its commitments to provide fund-raising support. Without
written fund-raising agreements, neither the Foundation nor the Park
Service can demonstrate that they met fund-raising commitments and that
the agreements were carried out.
The Foundation and the Park Service are embarking on several
initiatives to remedy some of these problems, such as providing formal
briefings to Park Service regional officials on the Foundation's roles
and responsibilities. Moreover, the Park Service is currently
considering the development of an overall written agreement with the
Foundation that clearly articulates each party's roles and
responsibilities in the partnering relationship. While these are steps
in the right direction, many of these initiatives are still in the
initial planning phase. However, the proper implementation of these
steps should help resolve the communication problems that exist between
the Foundation and the Park Service and strengthen their partnership.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To reduce the confusion and misunderstanding and improve communication
between the National Park Foundation and the Park Service, we are
recommending that the Secretary of the Interior require the Director of
the National Park Service to take the following five steps:
* work collaboratively with the Foundation to develop an overall
written agreement that, among other things, articulates the
Foundation's fund-raising strategy and clarifies the roles and
responsibilities of the Foundation and the Park Service in their
partnering relationship;
* identify and document all current and future fund-raising agreements
made with the Foundation, specifying the terms of work agreed to by
each party;
* provide a list of individual park project priorities, including those
potentially fundable by nonprofits, and communicate them to the
Foundation for consideration in fund-raising;
* develop and implement internal controls such that fund-raising
agreements are documented in writing and subsequent performance is
tracked against the agreement; and:
* clarify whether the exclusivity terms in Foundation agreements with
Proud Partners apply to park-based cause-related marketing arrangements
and communicate this information to all of the Park Service's fund-
raising partners.
Recommendations to the National Park Foundation:
To improve its communication with the Park Service and improve
management controls, we are making four recommendations to the National
Park Foundation, namely that it take the following four steps:
* enter into an overall written agreement with the Park Service that
includes its fund-raising strategy and clarifies the roles and
responsibilities of the Foundation and the Park Service in their
partnering relationship;
* identify and document all current and future fund-raising agreements
made with the Park Service, specifying the terms of work agreed to by
each party;
* develop a process, either through training or briefings, to help
ensure complete and consistent understanding of its fund-raising
strategy and roles and responsibilities with the Park Service
headquarters, regional, and local park officials; and:
* in developing its fund-raising approach, consider the list of
individual park priorities compiled and provided by the Park Service--
this list could be used for identifying patterns of park needs for
systemwide projects as well as for identifying specific needs that may
be of interest to potential donors.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the National Park Service and the
National Park Foundation for review and comment. Both provided written
comments. The Park Service agreed with the five recommendations we made
to the Secretary of the Interior. The Foundation agreed with three of
the four recommendations that were directed to it and stated that it is
committed to working with the Park Service to ensure the implementation
of these recommendations. While the Foundation agreed that close
coordination with the Park Service is important, it disagreed with our
recommendation calling for the development of a comprehensive written
agreement that clarifies the respective roles and responsibilities of
the two parties. The Foundation stated that such a written agreement is
unnecessary because cooperation is already adequately ensured by its
chartering legislation and the positions held by the Secretary of the
Interior and the Director of the Park Service, who serve as chairperson
and secretary, respectively, on the Foundation's Board of Directors.
Moreover, the Foundation cited that the powers of the board's
chairperson to appoint all board members as an effective means of
ensuring cooperation. Finally, the Foundation stated that its recent
efforts to consult extensively with the Park Service regarding fund-
raising and grant-making, as well as its efforts to create standard
operating procedures, underscores the Foundation's commitment to
furthering cooperation between the two entities.
We agree that the Foundation's charter and the positions held by the
Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Park Service on the
Foundation's board are important elements of coordination between the
Foundation and the Park Service. This arrangement is an important part
of the Foundation's governance structure. Because neither the Secretary
of the Interior, nor the Director of the Park Service, nor the
appointed board members are responsible for, or involved with, daily
operational relationships, additional safeguards are needed at the
operational levels to help ensure effective communication and working
relationships. Although board policies and guidance can facilitate
effective communication and working relationships, it is the
Foundation's managers and staff that are responsible for the
implementation of such policies and guidance. As our report indicates,
implementation can be improved. We continue to believe that a
comprehensive written agreement between the Foundation and the Park
Service would further enhance communication, working relationships, and
management controls at all levels of the partnership. In commenting on
the draft report, the Park Service also stated that such an agreement
would enhance the communication between it and the Foundation.
The Park Service comments are contained in appendix VI, and the
Foundation comments are provided in appendix VII.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce the
contents of this report earlier, we will plan no further distribution
of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that
time, we will send copies of this report to other interested
congressional committees, the Secretary of the Interior, and the
National Park Foundation. We will make copies available to others upon
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Signed by:
If you or your staff have any questions, please contact me at (202)
512-3841 or [Hyperlink, hillbt@gao.gov]. Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix VIII.
Signed by:
Barry T. Hill:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We examined the partnership relationship between the National Park
Foundation (Foundation) and the National Park Service (Park Service),
focusing primarily on the Foundation's efforts to provide assistance to
the Park Service in accordance with its stated charter.
To identify the Foundation's roles and responsibilities, we gathered
and reviewed several documents. We reviewed the Foundation's
legislative charter, and its amendments, to identify the purpose for
which the charter was established and what functions it is responsible
for performing. We discussed the basis and application of the
authorities with Foundation and Park Service officials to understand
how the Foundation should perform its fund-raising to support the Park
Service. We also reviewed the Foundation's bylaws and the policies and
procedures that govern its fund-raising and donation strategies and
operations, and we discussed their application with Foundation
officials. We reviewed Park Service rules, regulations, and guidance,
specifically director's orders governing fund-raising and donation
activities and agreements. We discussed the application of these rules,
regulations, and guidance with the appropriate Park Service and
Foundation officials to gain an understanding of how they are to be
applied to the Foundation's roles and responsibilities. In addition, we
reviewed the Foundation's strategic plans and 41 existing cooperative
agreements between the Foundation and the Park Service or other federal
agencies to ascertain the roles and responsibilities contained therein.
We examined Foundation financial and management reports to determine
the amount and kinds of donations that the Foundation has raised on
behalf of the Park Service. Specifically, we collected, reviewed, and
analyzed the Foundation's audited financial statements for fiscal years
1999 through 2003 to identify the revenues and expenses of the
Foundation. From these statements, we identified the sources and
amounts of contributions made. We discussed with Foundation officials
their fund-raising and grant-making processes and activities, including
the Proud Partners of America Program. The Foundation provided us with
data describing how the Proud Partners and other grants were allocated
within the Park Service. In assessing the reliability of these data
through (1) interviews with knowledgeable officials and (2) reviews of
existing information, we found problems with the accuracy and
completeness of these data. Nevertheless, we determined that the
reliability of these data was adequate to describe the grants within
the Park Service. We performed an analysis of this information to
determine the (1) sources of donations, such as corporations,
individuals, or other foundations; (2) amounts received from these
sources; (3) types of contributions, for example, cash versus noncash
(in-kind); and (4) amounts of contributions that were for discretionary
use or dedicated for a specific purpose (restricted). We also developed
a list of cooperative agreements using data provided independently by
the Foundation and the Park Service. We assessed the completeness of
this information by comparing the documentation provided by the two
organizations. We collected the source documents for all of the
cooperative agreements to ensure the accuracy of the information.
To determine the extent that contributions assisted the Park Service in
addressing park priorities, we reviewed the Foundation's grant awards
and available discretionary funds and interviewed Foundation officials
about how these funds are raised and used to fulfill individual park
requests. We discussed with current and former Park Service officials
the support provided by the Foundation. These individuals included
officials at Park Service headquarters, regional offices, and some
individual park units. We discussed with these officials their views
regarding the usefulness of the support provided by the Foundation,
such as how the support addressed local park priorities. We did not
attempt to track each park's receipt and use of contributions due to
the time that would be required to review such data. We also reviewed
internal control documentation standards to ascertain whether the
agreements between the Park Service and the Foundation met those
standards. Finally, we analyzed the Foundation's financial statements
for fiscal years 1999 through 2003, which received an unqualified
opinion by independent auditing firms.
We conducted our work from August 2003 to May 2004 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Grants to National Parks as Reported in the National Park
Foundation's GIFTS Database:
The Foundation uses its GIFTS database to, among other things, monitor
the number of grants awarded to national parks. The information
contained in this appendix is based on a query of this database.
According to Foundation officials, GIFTS is a newly installed database
and does not contain all of the grant information for fiscal years 2000
through 2003. We performed several tests of the database and found that
the data were indeed incomplete. For example, although GIFTS includes
some information on grants awarded to Glacier National Park for the
renovation of its red bus fleet, the database does not contain all
grants awarded for this project. Though we found that the data in the
GIFTS system were incomplete in our reliability assessment, we present
the data in this appendix as background information on grants awarded
to national parks. Consequently, information pertaining to grant award
amounts and allocations may be underreported.
According to the GIFTS database, for fiscal years 2000 through 2003,
the Foundation awarded 768 grants totaling approximately $58 million to
support the Park Service. Of this, 610 grants for $32 million went to
210 national parks.[Footnote 15] In addition, Park Service offices
received 88 grants totaling $22 million. The remaining 70 grants went
to such entities as foundations, societies, and local friends groups
for activities in support of the Park Service. Grants included both
monetary and nonmonetary (in-kind) contributions, such as photoimaging
equipment and electric vehicles.
The Foundation typically awards grants through a competitive process.
Grant applicants must submit proposals for specific funds indicating,
among other things, how they plan to use the grant. A selection
committee, comprised of Foundation and Park Service officials, reviews
all proposals and makes a selection. The committee then presents its
selection to the Foundation Board of Directors for approval. To be
approved, (1) grant proposals must have gone through the standard
review process or be for a grant that a donor has directed for a
specific purpose; (2) grant proposals must fall within one of the
Foundation's four program areas--Visitor Experience, Volunteerism,
Education, or Community Engagement--or fill a pressing need for the
Park Service under the category of Programs of National Significance;
and (3) funds must be available. A grant agreement is then forwarded to
the recipient for signature, and once it is received by the Foundation,
a disbursement is made. The Foundation tracks the grants throughout the
process using its GIFTS database. Figure 7 shows the total grant
dollars awarded for fiscal years 2000 through 2003 as reported in the
Foundation's GIFTS database and audited financial statements.
Figure 7: Grant Dollar Totals Awarded in Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003
as Reported in the National Park Foundation's GIFTS Database and
Audited Financial Statements:
[See PDF for image]
Note: According to Foundation officials, the difference in the amounts
reported in the GIFTS database and the audited financial statements is
the result of additional grants that were not recorded in GIFTS.
[End of figure]
The GIFTS database shows that the number of grants awarded by the
Foundation significantly increased in recent years. Foundation grant
awards doubled from fiscal years 2000 through 2003, from about 120
grant awards to just over 265 grant awards, as shown in figure 8.
Figure 8: Grant Awards for Fiscal Years 2000 through 2003 as Reported
in the National Park Foundation's GIFTS Database:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
For fiscal years 2000 through 2003, the Foundation provided grants to
210 national parks. On the basis of the grants included in the GIFTS
data, the top 3 national parks receiving grant assistance during this
time were Edison National Historic Site, Glacier National Park, and
Yellowstone National Park. These 3 national parks combined received
about $13 million, or 22 percent, of the total grant dollars awarded
during this time. Edison National Historic Site received the largest
grant awarded--approximately $5 million for building restoration. Table
1 provides selected national park grant recipients for fiscal years
2000 through 2003.
Table 1: Selected National Park Grant Recipients for Fiscal Years 2000
through 2003:
Name of park: Edison National Historic Site;
Total amount awarded: $5,016,526;
Largest grant received: Amount: $4,993,933;
Largest grant received: Purpose: Building restoration.
Name of park: Glacier National Park;
Total amount awarded: 4,863,181;
Largest grant received: Amount: $4,512,500;
Largest grant received: Purpose: Refurbishment of red bus fleet.
Name of park: Yellowstone National Park;
Total amount awarded: 2,885,820;
Largest grant received: Amount: $1,365,000;
Largest grant received: Purpose: Production and broadcast of feature
film.
Name of park: Mesa Verde National Park;
Total amount awarded: 1,835,626;
Largest grant received: Amount: $850,000;
Largest grant received: Purpose: Park preservation.
Name of park: Washington Monument;
Total amount awarded: 1,500,000[A];
Largest grant received: Amount: $1,500,000;
Largest grant received: Purpose: Phase 3 of monument restoration.
Name of park: George Washington Memorial Parkway;
Total amount awarded: 1,482,136;
Largest grant received: Amount: $1,100,000;
Largest grant received: Purpose: Rehabilitation of Lyndon Baines
Johnson Memorial Grove.
Name of park: Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove;
Total amount awarded: 1,100,000;
Largest grant received: Amount: $1,100,000;
Largest grant received: Purpose: Rehabilitation of Lyndon Baines
Johnson Memorial Grove.
Name of park: Yosemite National Park;
Total amount awarded: 993,814;
Largest grant received: Amount: $402,645;
Largest grant received: Purpose: Electric vehicles.
Name of park: Olympic National Park;
Total amount awarded: 884,002;
Largest grant received: Amount: $252,899;
Largest grant received: Purpose: Elwha River restoration.
Name of park: Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial;
Total amount awarded: 865,000;
Largest grant received: Amount: $355,000;
Largest grant received: Purpose: Sculptural design services for the
addition of the Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial.
Source: GAO analysis of National Park Foundation data.
[A] This project received grant funding in previous years that is not
included in this amount.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Cooperative Agreements and the National Park Pass
Contract:
Since fiscal year 1997, the Foundation has entered into 41 cooperative
agreements with federal agencies that total over $3.1 million. Of these
41 agreements, 37 are with the Park Service,[Footnote 16] and 4 are
with the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, respectively, to support joint programs between those agencies
and the Foundation.[Footnote 17] Each agreement establishes the
responsibilities of the Foundation and its federal partner, specifying
the product or service the Foundation must provide as well as the
funding the federal partner must provide. These agreements between the
Foundation and federal agencies have often been modified and extended.
Table 2 provides a detailed list of the Foundation agreements with the
Park Service and other Department of the Interior agencies.
Not all of the 37 agreements that the Foundation has with the Park
Service have been completed. Park Service contracting officers who are
responsible for monitoring these agreements reported that, for those
completed, the Foundation successfully met agreement terms. The
Foundation also has a contract with the Park Service to administer the
National Park Pass Program. This program allows park visitors to
purchase a pass, good for 1 year, that allows for admission to parks
with entry fees. Current contract terms allow for cost reimbursement
for administration, limited to 15 percent of the National Park Pass
revenue. In October 2003, the Park Service contract officer expressed
concern with the Foundation's reimbursement request because it exceeded
the program budget by over $300,000. Upon review, the contracting
officer agreed that most of these costs were appropriate, disallowing
about $33,000.
In March 2004, the Foundation and the Park Service signed a general
agreement that lays out policies related to cooperative agreements.
Among other things, the agreement lists the prerequisites for entering
into cooperative agreements. Specifically, these criteria are that the
activity covered by the agreement (1) is of a type that is consistent
with the mission of the Park Service, (2) is not normally undertaken
through a procurement contract, (3) requires the Park Service and the
Foundation to be active participants, and (4) is consistent with
congressional mandates for both the Park Service and the Foundation. In
addition, the agreement details various procedural requirements. Table
2 provides the name of the agreement and information on the original
and modifications to it, the product or service to be delivered, and
the awarded funding amount for each agreement from fiscal years 1997
through 2003.
Table 2: Original Agreement and Modifications to Cooperative
Agreements, Products and Services, and Funding Amounts Awarded, Fiscal
Years 1997 through 2003:
Agreements with the National Park Service:
Name of the agreement: Capacity Building-Intermountain Partnerships
1443CA120098003;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Establish general framework for cooperation,
collaboration, and training between the IMR and the NPF to help define
partnership between IMR and NPF and various friends groups in the
region;
Funding amount: [A].
Name of the agreement: Capacity Building-Intermountain Partnerships
1443CA120098003;
Original agreement and modifications: 1;
Product or service: Support planning for engaging partners at the Mesa
Verde National Park;
Funding amount: $50,000.
Name of the agreement: Capacity Building-Intermountain Partnerships
1443CA120098003;
Original agreement and modifications: 2;
Product or service: Support strategic planning process for Chamizal
National Memorial;
Funding amount: $85,000.
Name of the agreement: Capacity Building-Intermountain Partnerships
1443CA120098003;
Original agreement and modifications: 3;
Product or service: Presentation on market research and the messaging
project;
Funding amount: $3,000.
Name of the agreement: Capacity Building-Intermountain Partnerships
1443CA120098003;
Original agreement and modifications: 4;
Product or service: Support feasibility study of potential for private
land acquisition necessary to construct new visitor and administrative
facility at Timpanogos Cave National Monument;
Funding amount: $33,000.
Name of the agreement: Capacity Building-Intermountain Partnerships
1443CA120098003;
Original agreement and modifications: 5 and 6;
Product or service: Explore elements of the draft partnership
framework;
increase the range, level, and quality of stewardship around the parks
in the IMR;
Funding amount: $95,500.
Name of the agreement: Chesapeake Bay Gateway Network;
CA4560-B-0014;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Plan, design, fabricate, and install a permanent
exhibit utilizing text, graphics, and primary source materials at the
Yorktown Visitor Center, which will interpret how the Chesapeake Bay
affected Yorktown;
Funding amount: $10,000.
Name of the agreement: Crater Lake Centennial; P9320010045;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Develop and implement centennial celebration at
Crater Lake National Park;
Funding amount: $15,000.
Name of the agreement: Crater Lake Traveling Exhibit; P9320010046;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Develop traveling exhibit;
Funding amount: $13,346.
Name of the agreement: Feasibility Study for Tuskegee Airmen National
Historic Site; CA5000000229;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Feasibility and marketing study and campaign to
raise funds for the Tuskegee Airmen National Center;
Funding amount: $125,400.
Name of the agreement: Feasibility Study for Tuskegee Airmen National
Historic Site; CA5000000229;
Original agreement and modifications: 1;
Product or service: Modification of original agreement to revised
budget and add additional funding;
Funding amount: $28,350.
Name of the agreement: Lake Mead; 1443CA836001005;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Support partnership capacity building and project
implementation at Lake Mead National Recreation Area;
Funding amount: [A].
Name of the agreement: Lake Mead; 1443CA836001005;
Original agreement and modifications: 1 and 2;
Product or service: Transferred to cooperative agreement with BLM;
Funding amount: [B].
Name of the agreement: Lake Mead; 1443CA836001005;
Original agreement and modifications: 3;
Product or service: Development of interpretive plans, displays, and
materials;
Funding amount: $103,300.
Name of the agreement: Lake Mead; 1443CA836001005;
Original agreement and modifications: 4;
Product or service: Implementation of antilitter strategy for Outside
Las Vegas Foundation;
Funding amount: $60,000.
Name of the agreement: Lake Mead; 1443CA836001005;
Original agreement and modifications: 5;
Product or service: Support Forever Earth Floating Laboratory to
encourage student education and water quality research;
Funding amount: $30,000.
Name of the agreement: Lake Mead; 1443CA836002001;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Outside Las Vegas Partnership Meeting Coordination;
Funding amount: $8,000.
Name of the agreement: Message Project; 1443CA000100005;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Gain a better understanding of the public's current
awareness of NPS and enhance NPS's ability to communicate the relevance
of national parks and the mission of the service;
identify alternative actions that can be taken to enhance the public's
understanding of NPS and take appropriate actions to enhance that
understanding;
Funding amount: $575,000.
Name of the agreement: Message Project; 1443CA000100005;
Original agreement and modifications: 1;
Product or service: Modification to original agreement to increase
funding amount;
Funding amount: $40,500.
Name of the agreement: Message Project; 1443CA000100005;
Original agreement and modifications: 2;
Product or service: Create consistent graphic standards for NPS;
create printed, exhibit, Internet, and other materials that will help
share progress of the project with NPS employees and key audiences;
Funding amount: $13,000.
Name of the agreement: Message Project; 1443CA000100005;
Original agreement and modifications: 3;
Product or service: Modification of original agreement to increase
funding amount;
Funding amount: $323,000.
Name of the agreement: Message Project; 1443CA000100005;
Original agreement and modifications: 4;
Product or service: Expand and enhance the public's understanding of
the role that infrastructure plays in the visitor's perception of
national parks;
support publication of two volumes that are based on NPS Historic
American Engineering Record accounts of park roads, bridges, and
parkway surveys of the last 13 years;
Funding amount: $49,500.
Name of the agreement: Message Project; 1443CA000100005;
Original agreement and modifications: 5;
Product or service: Expand and enhance the public's understanding of
the role that infrastructure plays in the visitor's perception of
national parks;
support publication of brochure series based on NPS Historic American
Engineering Record accounts of park roads, bridges, and parkway
surveys;
Funding amount: $20,000.
Name of the agreement: New York Harbor; H4560-03-003;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Establish a National Parks of New York Harbor fund,
build long-term advocates and support for park programs and projects,
share expertise, provide funding and project management services to
carry out priority projects;
Funding amount: [A].
Name of the agreement: New York Harbor; H4560-03-003;
Original agreement and modifications: 1;
Product or service: Conduct project review, park assessment, planning
framework, initial interviews, and priority products;
conduct market analysis;
conduct preliminary financial and physical feasibility analyses;
and prepare implementation strategy and solicitation materials;
Funding amount: $30,000.
Name of the agreement: Park Flight; H0001020016;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Support efforts to increase the understanding of
NPS and partner's migratory bird conservation efforts by NPS employees
and park visitors;
develop proposals and projects that enhance and advance the
conservation of migratory birds;
Funding amount: $65,000.
Name of the agreement: Partnership Office Tool Project;
1443CA000197018;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Develop tools to enhance and encourage partnerships
with friends groups and other nonprofit park support organizations;
Funding amount: $25,000.
Name of the agreement: Partnership Office Tool Project;
1443CA000197018;
Original agreement and modifications: 1;
Product or service: Develop the NPS's Cultural Resources Diversity
Initiative;
Funding amount: $15,000.
Name of the agreement: Partnership Office Tool Project;
1443CA000197018;
Original agreement and modifications: 2;
Product or service: Not executed;
Funding amount: [C].
Name of the agreement: Partnership Office Tool Project;
1443CA000197018;
Original agreement and modifications: 3;
Product or service: Develop information on individuals, foundations,
and corporations with an interest in the Underground Railroad Network;
creation of a symbol for the National Underground Railroad Network to
Freedom;
and development of a newsletter;
Funding amount: $235,000.
Name of the agreement: Partnership Office Tool Project;
1443CA000197018;
Original agreement and modifications: 4;
Product or service: Develop a newsletter, produce a report on
internship program, and produce printed materials for conference
(2000);
Funding amount: $45,000.
Name of the agreement: Partnership Office Tool Project;
1443CA000197018;
Original agreement and modifications: 5;
Product or service: Support NPS Partnership Office's efforts to hold a
conference for NPS personnel and park support groups on developing and
maintaining successful partnerships;
develop two publications to guide this effort;
Funding amount: $99,000.
Name of the agreement: Partnership Office Tool Project;
1443CA000197018;
Original agreement and modifications: 6;
Product or service: Support NPS Partnership Office's efforts to develop
Internet and intranet sites with information about partnerships;
Funding amount: $50,000.
Name of the agreement: Partnership Office Tool Project;
1443CA000197018;
Original agreement and modifications: 7;
Product or service: Support the Park Flight Program's efforts to
develop partnership activities that result in improved outlook for
migratory bird species;
Funding amount: $30,000.
Name of the agreement: Partnership Office Tool Project;
1443CA000197018;
Original agreement and modifications: 8;
Product or service: Develop a newsletter, produce a report on
internship program, and produce printed materials for conference
(2001);
Funding amount: $30,000.
Name of the agreement: Partnership Office Tool Project;
1443CA000197018;
Original agreement and modifications: 9;
Product or service: Provide partnership training to NPS professionals,
produce a report, enhance Web site, and identify areas of critical need
to the NPS;
Funding amount: $235,000.
Name of the agreement: Partnership Office Tool Project;
1443CA000197018;
Original agreement and modifications: 10;
Product or service: Extends agreement;
Funding amount: [D].
Name of the agreement: Rock Creek Park Foundation; CA3450-9-0003;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Support planning for the development of the Rock
Creek Park Foundation;
Funding amount: $70,000.
Agreements with the Bureau of Land Management:
Name of the agreement: Large Scale Native Plant Production; FAA010051-
BLM;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Develop strategy and implement large-scale native
plant production, the material of which will be used for restoration of
riparian areas on federal lands;
Funding amount: $421,134.
Name of the agreement: Oliver Ranch; FAA020002-BLM;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Feasibility study report for an Environmental
Education Field School at Oliver Ranch, including an engineered site
assessment of the site and an assessment of the economic and
programmatic viability of an Interagency Field School serving the Las
Vegas Valley;
Funding amount: $100,000.
Agreements with the Fish and Wildlife Service:
Name of the agreement: Master Agreement with Fish and Wildlife Service;
145502J001-FWS;
Original agreement and modifications: Original;
Product or service: Master Agreement for the Desert National Wildlife
Refuge Complex;
Funding amount: [A].
Name of the agreement: Master Agreement with Fish and Wildlife Service;
145502J001-FWS;
Original agreement and modifications: 1;
Product or service: Support events or activities for the understanding,
protection, management, and enhancement of the areas, resources, and
relationships of the Desert National Wildlife Refuge Complex;
Funding amount: $10,000.
Legend:
BLM: Bureau of Land Management:
FWS: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
IMR: Intermountain Region:
NPF: National Park Foundation:
NPS: National Park Service:
Source: GAO analysis of National Park Foundation data.
[A] Not applicable. Covered in modifications.
[B] Covered in BLM Agreement.
[C] Not Applicable.
[D] No new funding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Proud Partners of America Program Contributions and
Pledges as Reported by the National Park Foundation:
The Foundation representatives provided us with data estimating the
value of Proud Partners' contributions that directly benefited national
park units. Subsequently, Foundation officials stated these data were
not reviewed by management and were inaccurate. They provided new data
that made significant changes, including how systemwide and park-
specific support was allocated. In assessing the reliability of these
data through interviewing knowledgeable officials, we found problems
with accuracy. For example, the Foundation had listed about $10 million
as a park-specific contribution to Glacier National Park. In reviewing
the supporting material for that contribution, we determined that about
$2 million of the $10 million was a systemwide contribution. As a
result, these data should be viewed as background information on
contributions and pledges made under the Proud Partners of America
Program.
Under the Proud Partners Program, five large corporations and the
Foundation develop a marketing campaign that provides mutual
promotional benefits to the Park Service and the corporation. Since the
program's inception in November 2000, the Foundation estimates that
partners have provided or committed $93 million to the parks.
Foundation data show that about $62 million has been received and used
primarily for systemwide ($38 million) and park-specific support ($13
million).[Footnote 18] Included in these data, as systemwide support,
is over $6 million of in-kind contributions for on-air programming
featuring individual national parks. For example, Discovery
Communications, Inc., donated programming for films on Glacier National
Park valued at $630,000, Grand Canyon National Park valued at $1.7
million, and Yellowstone National Park valued at $1,365,000. Foundation
officials stated that these films were part of a broader effort to
raise awareness about all national parks and were considered
systemwide, rather than park-specific support. Proud Partner park-
specific support has directly benefited about 190 parks, with Glacier
National Park being the primary recipient because of the Ford Motor
Company's red bus renovation initiative.
In addition to providing systemwide and park-specific support, nearly
$3 million of the Proud Partner funds supported entities outside of the
Park Service, such as other federal and state organizations and
nonprofits. For example, Ford's donation of 500 electric vehicles
included 225 vehicles, valued at about $1.8 million, which benefited
non-Park Service operations--mostly California state parks. Also,
Eastern National, a Park Service cooperating association, received a
professional digital camera donation from the Eastman Kodak Company
valued at $3,000, and the National Park of American Samoa received
photoimaging equipment from Kodak valued at $2,000. The Foundation
reports that administrative and fund-raising costs associated with the
Proud Partners Program have totaled about $7 million.
The Proud Partner Program is based on the view that large corporate
sponsors seek to invest in the positive image, exposure, visibility,
and public acceptance that are associated with the national parks.
Recognizing this, Foundation staff attempt to customize a promotional
program for each partner that meets corporate marketing, philanthropic,
and public affairs objectives and that is consistent with the
Foundation's principal program objectives for benefiting the park
system.
The Foundation's Board of Directors plays a key role in developing
corporate partnerships. Usually, board members identify prospective
partners. They also may contact the corporation directly or facilitate
contacts by Foundation staff. Before meeting with a prospective
partner, Foundation staff perform research to identify the
corporation's philanthropic and promotional interests. Also, informal
discussions may occur among the board, Foundation staff, and the Park
Service to ensure that the corporation's values are in-line with those
of the Park Service and the Foundation.
As the process continues, Foundation representatives make a customized
presentation to the potential partner. The presentation uses
information gleaned from staff research, such as the corporation's
philanthropic interests, and identifies partnering contribution
requirements as well as broad program benefits that corporations might
expect. For example, if a corporation has a philanthropic interest in
education, Foundation representatives would note educational
opportunities and needs associated with the national parks. Among the
broad benefits, the representatives note that by aligning their
corporate image with the popularity of the national parks, corporate
sponsors can demonstrate excellent corporate citizenship, increase
sales, heighten brand awareness, and target specific markets and
consumer demographics. Information on specific program benefits may
also be provided during the presentations. Foundation staff point out,
for example, that Proud Partners receive the following:
* exposure through Proud Partner advertising and promotional
literature,
* outreach to park visitors,
* exclusive advertising and promotional rights,
* unique hospitality opportunities, and:
* the use of a highly visible Foundation Web site.
As with other Foundation programs and grants, Proud Partners Program
initiatives and grants are reviewed and approved by a board committee
and require board approval. Grants are expected to align with program
objectives identified during a planning process that entails
considerable Park Service input. Also, the distribution of partner
donations, via grant awards, works much the same as with other
Foundation grants, implementing a standard request for proposals
process to direct partner support to the parks. At times, a
representative of the Proud Partners participates in the review of
grant applications.
The Foundation provided us with data describing how the Proud Partners'
contributions were allocated within the Park Service. In examining data
provided by the Foundation, we found that it was not clear how these
contributions were allocated systemwide versus to specific parks. For
example, the Foundation categorized a contribution for filmmaking at
Glacier Park as systemwide because it viewed the film as benefiting the
whole national park system. We also performed tests to determine the
completeness and accuracy of these data and found problems. Due to time
constraints, we did not assess the complete reliability of the Proud
Partners data. Thus, we present these data in this appendix as
background information on contributions and pledges made under the
Proud Partners Program.
Table 3 identifies the Proud Partners, the category of product or
services they provide, and the term of their agreement with the
Foundation. It also shows each partner's reported total contributions
as of June 30, 2003, and estimated contributions over the program's
life. Contributions as of June 2003 do not include $7 million in
administrative support contributed by the Proud Partners.
Table 3: Proud Partner Product Categories, Agreement Length, and
Contributions as Reported by the National Park Foundation:
Partner: American Airlines;
Category: Airline;
Length of agreement (years): 4;
Contributions through June 30, 2003: $9,875000;
Total estimated contributions over program life: $13,580,000.
Partner: Discovery Communications, Inc.;
Category: TV, Internet, mass communication, entertainment;
Length of agreement (years): 3;
Contributions through June 30, 2003: $9,784,000;
Total estimated contributions over program life: $28,567,000.
Partner: Ford Motor Company;
Category: Automotive;
Length of agreement (years): 3;
Contributions through June 30, 2003: $21,056,000;
Total estimated contributions over program life: $21,056,000.
Partner: Eastman Kodak Company;
Category: Photoimaging;
Length of agreement (years): 5;
Contributions through June 30, 2003: $3,720,000;
Total estimated contributions over program life: $12,000,000.
Partner: TIME magazine;
Category: Print media;
Length of agreement (years): 3;
Contributions through June 30, 2003: $9,346,000;
Total estimated contributions over program life: $18,000,000.
Total;
Contributions through June 30, 2003: $53,780,000;
Total estimated contributions over program life: $93,203,000.
Source: GAO analysis of National Park Foundation data.
[End of table]
Proud Partners' support is commonly directed at promoting visitor
interest in the parks. However, the support initiatives designed to
accomplish this differ markedly from partner to partner. Moreover,
while most initiatives are intended to support servicewide benefits,
considerable Proud Partner support has benefited individual parks.
TIME magazine, for example, focuses on raising awareness of parks
through special magazine features and advertising in its magazine, as
does Discovery Communications, Inc., through public service
advertisements and television programming. American Airlines supports
the objective of generating interest and support for the parks through
sales of the Park Pass and encouraging contributions. The airline's
support initiatives include offering frequent flyers extra miles for
contributions and providing funding for migratory bird conservation and
education projects within national parks. Kodak also promotes Park Pass
sales and enhancing visitor experiences. Kodak initiatives include
supporting an annual national park photo contest and a national park
"photo quilt" on its Web site. Table 4 shows the major Proud Partner
initiatives and their estimated value.
Table 4: Major Proud Partners Initiatives and Their Estimated Value as
Reported by the National Park Foundation:
Proud Partner: American Airlines;
Initiative description: Park Flight (migratory bird conservation and
education program);
Estimated value: $752,000;
Initiative description: Exhibits at Wright Brothers National Memorial
Pavilion;
Estimated value: $100,000.
Proud Partner: Discovery Communications, Inc.;
Initiative description: On-air programming;
Estimated value: $7,770,000;
Initiative description: Visitor education films;
Estimated value: $388,000;
Initiative description: Public service advertisements;
Estimated value: $1,570,000.
Proud Partner: Ford Motor Company;
Initiative description: Glacier National Park red bus restoration;
Estimated value: $7,837,500;
Initiative description: Transportation interpreters;
Estimated value: $900,000;
Initiative description: Transportation scholars;
Estimated value: $600,000;
Initiative description: Electric vehicles for California national and
state parks;
Estimated value: $4,200,000;
Initiative description: Transportation studies;
Estimated value: $500,000;
Initiative description: Rosie the Riveter grants;
Estimated value: $50,000.
Proud Partner: Eastman Kodak Company;
Initiative description: Product donations;
Estimated value: $600,000;
Initiative description: Ambassadors (providing photo services to
visitors);
Estimated value: $800,000;
Initiative description: National Park Pass Photo Contest;
Estimated value: $1,700,000;
Initiative description: Web site features (the National Park Photo
Quilt);
Estimated value: $600,000.
Proud Partner: TIME magazine;
Initiative description: Park magazine features;
Estimated value: $4,900,000;
Initiative description: Public service advertising;
Estimated value: $4,200,000.
Source: GAO analysis of National Park Foundation data.
[End of table]
The Proud Partner agreements provide considerable support to the Park
Service, but the Park Service does not review the agreement and is not
a signatory. The Foundation advised us that Proud Partner agreements
provided corporate partners with nondisclosure assurances, and that the
agreements are kept confidential because of proprietary information
contained therein. Instead, the Foundation makes agreements with
corporations and then provides the Park Service with information
describing the terms of their partnering agreement. The Foundation also
provides advertisements and other promotional materials intended to be
used for the Proud Partners Program to the Park Service for its review
before distribution. The Foundation did not provide agreements to us
for our review,[Footnote 19] but they did provide us with a standard
contract template that, according to Foundation officials, is included
in each agreement. Although the template does not address financial
arrangements or specifically refer to Park Service policies or
guidelines, it appears to promote conformity with the Park Service's
advertising and promotional policies.
When the Proud Partners Program was first announced, several Park
Service regional directors requested additional information on how the
program related to park fund-raising efforts. Park Service and local
nonprofit officials also voiced concern about categorical exclusions
limiting fund-raising opportunities by other partners without Park
Service review of the partner agreements. To date, neither the
Foundation nor the Park Service has conducted a formal assessment of
the extent to which exclusivity terms that are part of the Proud
Partners' agreements affect local nonprofits. Table 5 provides a
detailed list of national parks that have received direct program
contributions. The table also contains an unverified estimate, provided
by the Foundation, of the value of those contributions ($13 million).
Table 5: National Parks Receiving Direct Proud Partners Assistance from
November 2000 through June 2003 as Reported by the National Park
Foundation:
Dollars in thousands.
Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Acadia National Park[A];
Estimated donation: $125.
Adams National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Agate Fossil Beds National Monument;
Estimated donation: $3.
Alagnak Wild River;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Allegheny Portage Railroad National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $8.
Amistad National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Andersonville National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Andrew Johnson National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $2.
Aniakchak National Monument; Aniakchak National Preserve;
Estimated donation: $7.
Antietam National Battlefield;
Estimated donation: $5.
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore;
Estimated donation: $3.
Appalachian National Scenic Trail;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Appomattox Court House National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Arches National Park[A];
Estimated donation: $3.
Arkansas Post National Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Arlington House - The Robert E. Lee Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Assateague Island National Seashore;
Estimated donation: $1.
Aztec Ruins National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Badlands National Park;
Estimated donation: $8.
Bandelier National Monument;
Estimated donation: $29.
Bent's Old Fort National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Bering Land Bridge National Preserve;
Estimated donation: $7.
Big Bend National Park[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
Big Cypress National Preserve;
Estimated donation: $4.
Big Hole National Battlefield;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Big South Fork National River & Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: $3.
Big Thicket National Preserve;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: $3.
Biscayne National Park[A];
Estimated donation: $12.
Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument;
Estimated donation: $3.
Blue Ridge Parkway;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Bluestone National Scenic River;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Booker T. Washington National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Boston African American National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: $64.
Boston National Historical Park[A];
Estimated donation: $85.
Brices Cross Roads National Battlefield Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Brown vs. Board of Education National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Bryce Canyon National Park;
Estimated donation: $32.
Buck Island Reef National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Buffalo National River;
Estimated donation: $19.
Cabrillo National Monument;
Estimated donation: $32.
Canaveral National Seashore;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Cane River Creole National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $5.
Canyon de Chelly National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Canyonlands National Park[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
Cape Cod National Seashore[A];
Estimated donation: $1.
Cape Hatteras National Seashore;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Cape Krusenstern National Monument;
Estimated donation: $7.
Cape Lookout National Seashore;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Capitol Reef National Park;
Estimated donation: $4.
Capulin Volcano National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Carl Sandburg Home National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $3.
Carlsbad Caverns National Park;
Estimated donation: $10.
Carter G. Woodson Home National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Casa Grande Ruins National Monument[A];
Estimated donation: $3.
Castillo de San Marcos National Monument;
Estimated donation: $2.
Castle Clinton National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Catoctin Mountain Park;
Estimated donation: $9.
Cedar Breaks National Monument;
Estimated donation: $2.
Cedar Creek and Belle Grove National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Chaco Culture National Historical Park[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
Chamizal National Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Channel Islands National Park[A];
Estimated donation: $7.
Charles Pinckney National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park[A];
Estimated donation: $59.
Chickamauga & Chattanooga National Military Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Chickasaw National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Chiricahua National Monument/Fort Bowie National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $5.
Christiansted National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
City of Rocks National Reserve;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Clara Barton National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Colonial National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Colorado National Monument;
Estimated donation: $3.
Congaree Swamp National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Constitution Gardens;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Coronado National Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Cowpens National Battlefield;
Estimated donation: $5.
Crater Lake National Park[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
Craters of the Moon National Monument;
Estimated donation: $4.
Cumberland Gap National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $5.
Cumberland Island National Seashore;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Curecanti National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: $85.
Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $28.
De Soto National Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Death Valley National Park;
Estimated donation: $139.
Delaware National Scenic River;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Denali National Park[A];
Denali National Preserve;
Estimated donation: $28.
Devils Postpile National Monument;
Estimated donation: $19.
Devils Tower National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Dinosaur National Monument[A];
Estimated donation: $3.
Dry Tortugas National Park;
Estimated donation: $4.
Ebey's Landing National Historical Reserve;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Edgar Allan Poe National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Edison National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $7.
Effigy Mounds National Monument;
Estimated donation: $5.
Eisenhower National Historic Site[A];
Estimated donation: $8.
El Malpais National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
El Morro National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Eugene O'Neill National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $8.
Everglades National Park[A];
Estimated donation: $16.
Federal Hall National Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fire Island National Seashore;
Estimated donation: $4.
First Ladies National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Flight 93 National Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
Ford's Theatre National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Caroline National Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Clatsop National Memorial;
Estimated donation: $55.
Fort Davis National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Donelson National Battlefield;
Estimated donation: $4.
Fort Frederica National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Laramie National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Larned National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Matanzas National Monument;
Estimated donation: $2.
Fort McHenry National Monument & Historic Shrine;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Necessity National Battlefield;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Point National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Pulaski National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Raleigh National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Scott National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Smith National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $4.
Fort Stanwix National Monument;
Estimated donation: $3.
Fort Sumter National Monument;
Estimated donation: $40.
Fort Union National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $2.
Fort Vancouver National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fort Washington Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Fossil Butte National Monument;
Estimated donation: $8.
Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
Frederick Douglass National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Frederick Law Olmsted National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $2.
Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National
Military Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Friendship Hill National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Gates of the Arctic National Park;
Gates of the Arctic National Preserve;
Estimated donation: $7.
Gateway National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: $520.
Gauley River National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: N/A.
General Grant National Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
George Rogers Clark National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
George Washington Birthplace National Monument[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
George Washington Carver National Monument;
Estimated donation: $3.
George Washington Memorial Parkway;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Gettysburg National Military Park[A];
Estimated donation: $1.
Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Glacier Bay National Park[A]; Glacier Bay National Preserve;
Estimated donation: $10.
Glacier National Park;
Estimated donation: $7,867.
Glen Canyon National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: $3.
Golden Gate National Recreation Area[A];
Estimated donation: $411.
Golden Spike National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Governor's Island National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Grand Canyon National Park[A];
Estimated donation: $33.
Grand Portage National Monument;
Estimated donation: $19.
Grand Teton National Park[A];
Estimated donation: $50.
Grant-Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Great Basin National Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Great Egg Harbor Scenic and Recreational River;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Great Sand Dunes National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Great Sand Dunes National Preserve;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Great Smoky Mountains National Park;
Estimated donation: $90.
Greenbelt Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Guadalupe Mountains National Park;
Estimated donation: $5.
Guilford Courthouse National Military Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Gulf Islands National Seashore;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Haleakala National Park[A];
Estimated donation: $1.
Hamilton Grange National Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Hampton National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park[A];
Estimated donation: $102.
Harry S. Truman National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $4.
Hawaii Volcanoes National Park[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
Herbert Hoover National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Hohokam Pima National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic Site[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
Homestead National Monument of America;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Hopewell Culture National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $2.
Hopewell Furnace National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $7.
Horseshoe Bend National Military Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Hot Springs National Park[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
Hovenweep National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Independence National Historical Park[A];
Estimated donation: $4.
Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore;
Estimated donation: $4.
Isle Royale National Park[A];
Estimated donation: $69.
James A. Garfield National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park & Preserve;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial;
Estimated donation: $5.
Jewel Cave National Monument;
Estimated donation: $3.
Jimmy Carter National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway;
Estimated donation: N/A.
John Day Fossil Beds National Monument;
Estimated donation: $3.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
John Muir National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $16.
Johnstown Flood National Memorial;
Estimated donation: $16.
Joshua Tree National Park;
Estimated donation: $55.
Kalaupapa National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $4.
Katmai National Park[A]; Katmai National Preserve;
Estimated donation: $7.
Kenai Fjords National Park;
Estimated donation: $12.
Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Keweenaw National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Kings Canyon/Sequoia National Parks;
Estimated donation: $115.
Kings Mountain National Military Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Klondike Gold Rush National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $44.
Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $1.
Kobuk Valley National Park;
Estimated donation: $7.
Korean War Veterans Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Lake Chelan National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Lake Clark National Park;
Lake Clark National Preserve;
Estimated donation: $7.
Lake Mead National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: $4.
Lake Meredith National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Lassen Volcanic National Park;
Estimated donation: $69.
Lava Beds National Monument;
Estimated donation: $33.
Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial[A];
Estimated donation: $3.
Lincoln Home National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Lincoln Memorial[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Little River Canyon National Preserve;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Longfellow National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Lowell National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $40.
Lyndon Baines Johnson National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $18.
Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove on the Potomac;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Mammoth Cave National Park;
Estimated donation: $3.
Manassas National Battlefield Park;
Estimated donation: $5.
Manzanar National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $36.
Marsh - Billings National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $2.
Martin Van Buren National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Mary McLeod Bethune Council House National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Mesa Verde National Park;
Estimated donation: $5.
Minidoka Internment National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Minute Man National Historic Park;
Estimated donation: $24.
Minuteman Missile National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $5.
Mississippi National River & Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Missouri National Recreation River;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Mojave National Preserve;
Estimated donation: $4.
Monocacy National Battlefield;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Montezuma Castle National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Moores Creek National Battlefield;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Morristown National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Mount Rainier National Park;
Estimated donation: $4.
Mount Rushmore National Memorial[A];
Estimated donation: $110.
Muir Woods National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Natchez National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Natchez Trace Parkway;
Estimated donation: $4.
National Capital Parks - East;
Estimated donation: N/A.
National Mall;
Estimated donation: $14.
National Park of American Samoa;
Estimated donation: $2.
Natural Bridges National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Navajo National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $5.
New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
New River Gorge National River;
Estimated donation: $4.
Nez Perce National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Nicodemus National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Ninety-Six National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $5.
Niobrara National Scenic Riverway;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Noatak National Preserve;
Estimated donation: $7.
North Cascades National Park;
Estimated donation: $11.
Obed Wild and Scenic River;
Estimated donation: $2.
Ocmulgee National Monument;
Estimated donation: $1.
Olympic National Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Oregon Caves National Monument;
Estimated donation: $3.
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Ozark National Scenic Riverways;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Padre Island National Seashore;
Estimated donation: $5.
Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Pea Ridge National Military Park;
Estimated donation: $5.
Pecos National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $25.
Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Perry's Victory & International Peace Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Petersburg National Battlefield;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Petrified Forest National Park;
Estimated donation: $7.
Petroglyph National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore;
Estimated donation: $2.
Pinnacles National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Pipe Spring National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Pipestone National Monument;
Estimated donation: $2.
Piscataway Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Point Reyes National Seashore;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail;
Estimated donation: $2.
Poverty Point National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Prince William Forest Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Puukohola Heiau National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Rainbow Bridge National Monument;
Estimated donation: $3.
Redwood National Park;
Estimated donation: $5.
Richmond National Battlefield Park;
Estimated donation: $5.
Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Rock Creek Park;
Estimated donation: $47.
Rocky Mountain National Park;
Estimated donation: $52.
Roger Williams National Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historic Park;
Estimated donation: $86.
Ross Lake National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Russell Cave National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Sagamore Hill National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Saguaro National Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Saint Croix Island International Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Saint Croix National Scenic Riverway;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Saint Paul's Church National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Saint-Gaudens National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $1.
Salem Maritime National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $16.
Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve;
Estimated donation: N/A.
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $5.
San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $45.
San Juan Island National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $3.
San Juan National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $13.
Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area[A];
Estimated donation: $5.
Saratoga National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Scotts Bluff National Monument;
Estimated donation: $32.
Shenandoah National Park;
Estimated donation: $4.
Shiloh National Military Park;
Estimated donation: $2.
Sitka National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $7.
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore;
Estimated donation: $9.
Springfield Armory National Historic Site[A];
Estimated donation: $8.
Statue of Liberty National Monument[A];
Estimated donation: $5.
Steamtown National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Stones River National Battlefield;
Estimated donation: $3.
Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve;
Estimated donation: $5.
Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Theodore Roosevelt Island;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Theodore Roosevelt National Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Thomas Jefferson Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Thomas Stone National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Timpanogos Cave National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Timucuan Ecological & Historic Preserve;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Tonto National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Tumacacori National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Tupelo National Battlefield;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Tuskegee Airman National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Tuzigoot National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River;
Estimated donation: N/A.
USS Arizona Memorial;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Valley Forge National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $27.
Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $204.
Vicksburg National Military Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Vietnam Veterans Memorial[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Virgin Islands National Park;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Voyageurs National Park;
Estimated donation: $24.
Walnut Canyon National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
War in the Pacific National Historical Park;
Estimated donation: $4.
Washington Monument[A];
Estimated donation: N/A.
Washita Battlefield National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Weir Farm National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: $5.
Whiskeytown--Shasta--Trinty National Recreation Area;
Estimated donation: $63.
White House;
Estimated donation: N/A.
White Sands National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Whitman Mission National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
William Howard Taft National Historic Site;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Wilson's Creek National Battlefield;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Wind Cave National Park;
Estimated donation: $5.
Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts;
Estimated donation: $16.
Wrangell - St. Elias National Park[A]; Wrangell - St. Elias National
Preserve;
Estimated donation: $11.
Wright Brothers National Memorial;
Estimated donation: $100.
Wupatki National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Yellowstone National Park[A];
Estimated donation: $173.
Yosemite National Park[A];
Estimated donation: $681.
Yucca House National Monument;
Estimated donation: N/A.
Yukon - Charley Rivers National Preserve;
Estimated donation: $7.
Zion National Park;
Estimated donation: $5.
Source: GAO analysis of National Park Foundation data.
[A] National parks featured in promotional programming or materials by
Discovery Communications or TIME magazine. According to Foundation
officials, these are systemwide benefits and the estimated value of
these promotions was not included in this table. The estimated donation
total does not include assistance provided to Park Service regions and
the Women's Rights National Historical Park, which received less than
$200.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Foundation Compensation:
The Foundation's Board of Directors establishes compensation for the
chief executive officer (CEO) on the basis of comparisons with persons
in similar positions in big foundations and major nonprofits. The CEO,
within the established Foundation budget, sets compensation for the
Foundation's staff. In 2003, the Foundation's CEO received compensation
of $311,000 (excluding fringe benefits). This amount included the
following:
* $220,000--salary:
* $40,000--bonus:
* $51,000--retirement contributions and deferred compensation:
In fiscal 2002, compensation (excluding fringe benefits) for other
senior management staff was as follows:
* $173,009--chief operating officer:
* $132,471--senior vice president, marketing and communications:
* $120,743--vice president, field development:
* $87,419--senior director, finance:
The salaries of executive directors of the Foundation's affiliated
groups in fiscal year 2002 ranged from $84,000 at Outside Las Vegas to
$40,000 at the Glacier Fund.
Generally, reasonable compensation is defined as an amount that similar
persons in similar positions with similar duties at similar
organizations are paid. Although there are no hard-and-fast rules for
setting compensation, the Internal Revenue Service applies three
conditions when evaluating the reasonableness of executive compensation
set by foundations and nonprofits: (1) approval by a board of directors
that does not have a conflict of interest with respect to the
compensation arrangement, (2) reliance on comparable data such as
compensation surveys, and (3) adequately document the basis for the
determination concurrently with making the determination. The
Foundation has not made its salary information publicly available. The
Foundation is exempt from all taxes, and the Internal Revenue Service
has issued an opinion that the Foundation need not file a tax-exempt
report. The Foundation recently decided that it would file a tax report
for fiscal year 2003.
In setting its CEO's compensation, the Foundation's Executive Committee
relied on a compensation survey published in the Chronicle of
Philanthropy that captured CEO compensation (mainly salary) and total
assets managed by the organizations. Although the Foundation's total
assets were about $89 million in fiscal year 2003 (revenue was $52
million and program contributions were about $43 million), Foundation
officials decided that compensation data from the survey's list of "Big
Foundations" and "Major Nonprofit Organizations" ($500 million to $1
billion organizations) were most applicable to the Foundation.
Foundation officials explained that the Foundation provides benefits
(including direct grants) of $50 million a year, and that grant-making
foundations with $500 million in assets would ordinarily make grants of
5 percent of that amount, or $25 million. On the basis of its
comparison with big foundations and major nonprofit organizations, the
Foundation's Executive Board concluded that its CEO compensation was
within the correct range.
Table 6 compares CEO compensation among the Foundation and nine
nonrandomly selected nonprofit organizations, as recorded on their tax
reports.[Footnote 20] Six of the nine organizations we included had
greater revenues and assets than the Foundation; of these six, four
compensation packages were below the Foundation CEO's compensation. Two
of the nine organizations had revenue and assets that were below the
Foundation's; both had compensation that was below the Foundation
CEO's. One organization had lower revenues but higher assets. The CEO's
compensation for this nonprofit was below that of the Foundation's CEO.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the median salary for
chief executives at nonprofits with annual budgets of $25 million or
more was about $176,800 in 2002. We focused on CEO compensation
because, although other employees are hired and can resign or be
terminated relatively freely, CEOs are generally hired on a contractual
basis and the terms of their employment can vary considerably. In
addition, CEO compensation, including CEO nonprofit compensation, has
been the subject of considerable scrutiny and criticism in recent
years.
Table 6: Comparison of Nonprofit CEO/President Salaries for 2001 or
2002:
Organization: National Park Foundation[B] (2002);
Organization's revenues and assets: Revenue: (millions): $$45;
Organization's revenues and assets: Assets: (millions): $$83;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Compensation,
including bonuses: (thousands): $$270,000;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Contributions and
deferred compensation: (thousands)[A]: $$77,440.
Organization: Chesapeake Bay Foundation (2002);
Organization's revenues and assets: Revenue: (millions): $23;
Organization's revenues and assets: Assets: (millions): $68;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Compensation,
including bonuses: (thousands): $136,707;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Contributions and
deferred compensation: (thousands)[A]: $14,844.
Organization: The Conservation Fund (2001);
Organization's revenues and assets: Revenue: (millions): $64;
Organization's revenues and assets: Assets: (millions): $218;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Compensation,
including bonuses: (thousands): $192,294;
Nonprofit CEO/ President salaries: Contributions and
deferred compensation: (thousands)[A]: $16,213.
Organization: Environmental Defense (2002);
Organization's revenues and assets: Revenue: (millions): $42;
Organization's revenues and assets: Assets: (millions): $54;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Compensation,
including bonuses: (thousands): $286,539;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Contributions and
deferred compensation: (thousands)[A]: $40,875.
Organization: National Audubon Society (2002);
Organization's revenues and assets: Revenue: (millions): $79;
Organization's revenues and assets: Assets: (millions): $221;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Compensation,
including bonuses: (thousands): $285,000;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Contributions and
deferred compensation: (thousands)[A]: $26,247.
Organization: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation[B];
(2002);
Organization's revenues and assets: Revenue: (millions): $54;
Organization's revenues and assets: Assets: (millions): $145;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Compensation,
including bonuses: (thousands): $214,050;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Contributions and
deferred compensation: (thousands)[A]: $8,133.
Organization: Nature Conservancy (2002);
Organization's revenues and assets: Revenue: (millions): $972;
Organization's revenues and assets: Assets: (millions): $3,282;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Compensation,
including bonuses: (thousands): $378,366;
Nonprofit CEO/ President salaries: Contributions and
deferred compensation: (thousands)[A]: $20,867.
Organization: National Trust for Historic Preservation[B] (2002);
Organization's revenues and assets: Revenue: (millions): $48;
Organization's revenues and assets: Assets: (millions): $150;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Compensation,
including bonuses: (thousands): $306,000;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Contributions and
deferred compensation: (thousands)[A]: $93,301.
Organization: Sierra Club Foundation (Executive Director) (2001);
Organization's revenues and assets: Revenue: (millions): $24;
Organization's revenues and assets: Assets: (millions): $108;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Compensation,
including bonuses: (thousands): $127,265;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Contributions and
deferred compensation: (thousands)[A]: $10,739.
Organization: World Wildlife Fund (2002);
Organization's revenues and assets: Revenue: (millions): $93;
Organization's revenues and assets: Assets: (millions): $240;
Nonprofit CEO/President salaries: Compensation,
including bonuses: (thousands): $265,000;
Nonprofit CEO/ President salaries: Contributions and
deferred compensation: (thousands)[A]: $32,991.
Source: Guidestar.com Web site (Philanthropic Research, Inc.).
[A] Includes payments to welfare benefit plans that may provide medical
and life insurance.
[B] Congressonally chartered organizations.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Comments from the National Park Service:
IN REPLY REFER TO:
United States Department of the Interior:
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
1849 C Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20240:
April 28, 2004:
Mr. Barry Hill, Director:
Natural Resources and Environment
441 G Street, NW
Room 2P23A
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Hill:
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Report NATIONAL
PARK FOUNDATION: Better Communication of Roles and Responsibilities
Needed to Strengthen Partnership with the National Park Service (GAO-
04-514). This report contains very helpful information that will assist
us in establishing stronger working relations and partnerships with the
National Park Foundation. The following comments are those of the
National Park Service (NPS). Previous comments from the National Park
Foundation (Foundation) were submitted on April 26, 2004.
Overall, we support the report's findings that there is a need to
document and formalize roles, responsibilities, goals, and
communications between the Foundation and NPS. The report does address
the need to clarify the relationship between the Foundation's
fundraising policy of supporting system-wide projects that are not
federally funded and the new efforts by the Foundation to satisfy
individual park needs with discretionary donations through their grant
program. NPS is committed to working with the Foundation to also
clarify the Foundation's implementation of the Omnibus National Park
Act of 1998, in which Congress amended the National Park Foundation
charter, instructing the Foundation to design and implement a
comprehensive program to assist and promote philanthropic programs of
support at the individual national park unit level.
While we recognize that there has been some confusion and
miscommunication due to the lack of a general agreement between the
Foundation and NPS, we believe that the relationship between the two
organizations continues to grow stronger. However, we acknowledge that
general agreements, fundraising agreements, lists of park priorities,
training, and standard operating procedures will best establish the
necessary roles and responsibilities to ensure greater partnership
success between NPS and the Foundation.
NPS generally agrees with Report recommendations and is moving forward
in many areas to address the report's findings.
Comments on Report Recommendations for Executive Action:
* NPS concurs with the recommendation to work collaboratively with the
Foundation to develop an overall written agreement that, among other
things, articulates the Foundation's fundraising strategy and clarifies
the roles and responsibilities of the Foundation and Park Service in
their partnering relationship. NPS has identified a team of individuals
including representatives of the Department of the Interior's
Solicitor's Office to work collaboratively with the Foundation to
develop an overall written agreement which includes goals for both
parties.
NPS concurs with the recommendation to identify and document all
current and future fundraising agreements made with the Foundation,
specifying the terms of work agreed to by each party. NPS will work
with the Foundation to develop general agreements and fundraising
agreements as required under Director's Order #21 - Donations and
Fundraising for all current and future fundraising.
* NPS concurs with the recommendation to provide a list of individual
park project priorities, including those potentially fundable by
nonprofits, and communicate them to the Foundation for consideration in
fundraising. NPS will develop a process to meet this recommendation and
will share the list with the Foundation and other national and park-
based support organizations as appropriate.
NPS concurs with the recommendation to develop and implement internal
controls such that fundraising agreements are documented in writing and
subsequent performance is tracked against the agreement. NPS concurs
that informal or verbal agreements are not acceptable ways of entering
into fundraising arrangements. NPS is revising Director's Order #21,
which will address the internal controls of agreements for fundraising
and donations. NPS will work with the Foundation to develop a process
to track implementation and performance of these agreements.
* NPS concurs with the recommendation to clarify whether the exclusivity
terms in Foundation agreements with Proud Partners apply to park-based
cause-related marketing arrangements and communicate this to all of the
Park Service's fundraising partners.
NPS is assessing the issue, documenting the four current program goals,
developing procedures to govern Proud Partner and cause-related
marketing activities, and will make appropriate changes to the
Corporate and Business Donation section of Director's Order #21. The
revised Director's Order will be made available to all Park Service
fundraising partners.
Comment of the Report Recommendations to the National Park Foundation:
* NPS agrees with the recommendation to the Foundation to enter into an
overall written agreement with the Park Service that includes its
fundraising strategy and clarifies the roles and responsibilities of
the Foundation and the Park Service in their partnering relationship.
NPS has identified a team of individuals including representatives of
the Department of the Interior's Solicitor's Office to work
collaboratively with the Foundation to develop an overall written
agreement which will include goals for both parties.
* NPS agrees with the recommendation to the Foundation to identify and
document all current and future fundraising agreements made with the
Park Service, specifying the terms of work agreed to by each party. See
NPS comments above.
* NPS supports this recommendation for the Foundation to develop a
process, either through training or briefings, to help ensure complete
and consistent understanding of its fundraising strategy and roles and
responsibilities with the National Park Service headquarters, regional,
and local park officials. NPS will seek to collaborate with the
Foundation on this critical communication effort to assure clarity of
mission, roles, and responsibilities.
* NPS support the recommendation for the Foundation to consider the list
of individual park priorities compiled and provided by the Park
Service, in developing its fundraising approach. This list could be
used for identifying patterns of park needs for system-wide projects as
well as for identifying specific needs that may be of interest for
potential donors. NPS commits to developing a process to compile such a
list to share with the Foundation. NPS commits to playing a greater
role in the initial steps of the Foundation's Fundraising and Grant
Making Process.
We thank you once again for the opportunity to review and comment on
the report. If you have any questions regarding this response, please
contact Associate Director, Christopher Jarvi at 202-208-4829.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Fran P. Mainella:
Director:
[End of section]
Appendix VII: Comments from the National Park Foundation:
NATIONAL PARK FOUNDATION:
11 Dupont Circle, NW Suite 600:
Washington, DC 20036-1224:
April 22, 2004:
Mr. Roy K. Judy
Assistant Director
Natural Resources and Environment
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Judy:
Thank you for this opportunity to comment on the draft audit report
entitled "Better Communication of Roles and Responsibilities Needed to
Strengthen Partnership with the National Park Service.":
Let me first say how pleased I am that your thorough review of our
management and financial policies and practices --one conducted over
more than seven months and which included the review of thousand of
pages of documents and many interviews --found no significant
management or financial concerns. It was our pleasure to cooperate
fully with you and your audit team.
Your report makes four recommendations with respect to the National
Park Foundation ("NPF"). We look forward to working toward
accomplishing each one.
First, you recommended that the NPF: "Enter into an overall written
agreement with the National Park Service that includes its fundraising
strategy and clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the Foundation
and the Park Service in their partnering relationship." Although we do
not share your conclusion that such an agreement is needed, we
recognize the need for close coordination between NPF and the National
Park Service. We believe that the federal statute creating NPF
established a procedure for ensuring that cooperation: The Secretary of
Interior is Chairman of the Board and she has the authority to appoint
all Board members. In addition, the Director of the National Park
Service serves as Secretary of the Board. In our opinion, Board
Chairmanship and the right to appoint Board members are much more
effective cooperation forcing tools than "overall written agreements."
Further, as your report recognizes, we have recently launched an
extensive consultative process with the National Park Service regarding
our fund raising and grant making programs and have created Standard
Operating Procedures between NPF and NPS for our flagship programs.
Nevertheless, we commit to work cooperatively with the National Park
Service to explore the scope and terms of a possible overall written
agreement between both entities.
Second, you recommend that the NPF: "Identify and document all current
and future fundraising agreements made with the Park Service,
specifying the terms of work agreed to by each party." We
commit to executing such an agreement whenever the NPF undertakes a
specific fundraising campaign.
Third, you recommend that the NPF, "Develop a process, either through
training or briefings, to help ensure complete and consistent
understanding of its fundraising strategy and roles and
responsibilities with the National Park Service headquarters, regional,
and local park officials." Such a program is already aggressively
underway. We commit to completing the program promptly.
Fourth, you recommend that the NPF: "In developing its fundraising
approach, consider the list of individual park priorities compiled and
provided by the Park Service." We commit to considering such a list as
we develop our fundraising approaches.
Finally, in the attachment to this letter we set out several
clarifications, corrections and modifications to the body of the
report.
Thank you again for this opportunity to respond. We are proud of our
role as the national Congressionally-recognized partner of the National
Parks. We are also proud of the recent growth of the NPF and the
private resources which we make available to support our national
parks.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jim Maddy:
President:
Attachment:
The report sites three specific areas that require correction/
clarification:
1. Proud Partner Program:
The Report states that there is disagreement between the National Park
Service and NPF about the Foundations' fundraising and donation
strategy and the objectives of the Proud Partner program. In response,
the Foundation fully supports and continues to operate on the original
stated goals of the Proud Partner program as reflected in the National
Park Service Memorandum to the Field, signed by Acting Director Deputy
Galvin. "The Proud Partner program is designed to accomplish three
goals: Expand our ability to reach the American public with information
about the depth and breadth of the national parks and the mission of
the National Park Service; Promote the National Parks Pass in ways that
invite the public to experience these places and to join in their
stewardship; and, provide direct support for National Park Service
priorities." The determination of specific National Park Service
priorities that receive support from the Proud Partner program is also
influenced by the restrictions placed on the gifts, by the donor. These
restrictions were fully discussed and approved, in advance, by the
National Park Service. NPF's experience is that projects with
systemwide impact are a priority with donors.
The Report goes on to state that the Glacier Red Bus restoration,
supported by the Ford Motor Company, a Proud Partner of America's
National Parks, conflicts with this systemwide strategy. In fact, the
Glacier Red Bus project is the signature project of a comprehensive,
systemwide transportation program funded by Ford, designed to help the
NPS advance innovative transportation solutions that preserve resources
while providing safe and enjoyable access to National Parks. To date,
this project has resulted in the donation of 600 electric vehicles and
numerous K2 mountain bikes to multiple National Parks; 35 students per
year participating in parks across the country ranging from Scott's
Bluff (Arizona) to the Everglades (Florida) as transportation
interpreters; 17 graduate and post-graduate students living and working
in National Parks ranging from Fort Clatsop (Oregon) to Gateway
National Recreation Area (New York) to work on solutions to
transportation problems.
Last, the Report states there is confusion between the National Park
Service and NPF regarding potential conflicts to the Proud Partner
program. The NPF fully understands and supports the policy parameters
of the Proud Partner program as reflected in D.O. 21. `By written
agreement, the NPS has delegated to the NPF, in recognition of its
charter to support the entire NPS, management of all national cause-
related marketing campaigns that have Servicewide benefits " NPF
operates in full compliance with this policy and with full knowledge
and support of the policy by National Park Service leadership. In
January 2004, a potential conflict was identified. NPF and National
Park Service leadership met, reviewed and agreed upon the policy
parameters, and worked through the potential conflict satisfactorily.
NPF and the National Park Service leadership recognize that potential
conflicts only arise under circumstances where park-based projects
include a national cause-marketing component. In such an event, the
project is to be referred to the Director, National Park Service for
review.
2. Park Fundraising projects: Little Bighorn and Ebenezer Baptist
Church.
The Report provides two examples where the National Park Service felt
the NPF agreed to provide fundraising support which did not materialize
- Little Bighorn and Ebenezer Baptist Church.
In response, it should be understood that there are no guarantees in
the world of fundraising, and certain unanticipated variables often
come to light that impact a project's success. In the case of the
Ebenezer Baptist Church, however, NPF provided direct grants of
$469,000, toward an original goal of $500,000, and worked as a partner
with the park to facilitate an additional $614,000 toward that project
through NPF's African American Experience Fund.
In the case of Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument, a
professional feasibility study was conducted using outside consultants
that stated that for the $1 million - $1.5 million campaign for a new
memorial to be successful, the first support must come from the Native
American community. National Park Service - Intermountain Region and
NPF were both informed of the results of the feasibility study and
agreed with its conclusions. In reaching out to the tribes, it became
apparent to both the National Park Service and NPF that this support
would not be forthcoming, the Native American community had more
pressing priorities in need of private sector support, and therefore,
despite a fully professional effort, the overall fundraising did not
succeed.
3. NPF Grants:
The National Park Foundation believes the chart derived by the GAO from
our GIFTS database understates the full amount of the Foundation's
grants significantly. We recognize that not all grants are included in
GIFTS for several reasons, primarily the new installation of the
system
or the restricted designation of the grant funds for a specific
individual park priority such that the grant could not be bid or used
for any other park or purpose. We provide the chart (attached) so that
readers of this report will understand the full extent of the
Foundation's grants.
Total Grants Provided by NPF, FY 2000-2003:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
The following are GAO's comments on the National Park Foundation's
letter dated April 22, 2004.
GAO Comments:
1. We agree that the Foundation's charter and the positions held by the
Secretary of the Interior and the Director of the Park Service on the
Foundation's board are important elements of coordination between the
Foundation and the Park Service. This arrangement is an important part
of the Foundation's governance structure. Because neither the Secretary
of the Interior, nor the Director of the Park Service, nor the
appointed board members are responsible for, or involved with, daily
operational relationships, additional safeguards are needed at the
operational levels to help ensure effective communication and working
relationships. Although board policies and guidance can facilitate
effective communication and working relationships, it is the
Foundation's managers and staff that are responsible for ensuring the
actual implementation of such policies and guidance. As our report
indicates, implementation can be improved. We continue to believe that
a comprehensive written agreement between the Foundation and the Park
Service would further enhance communication, working relationships, and
management controls at all levels of their partnership. Furthermore, as
evidenced by the Park Service's comments, it also agrees that such an
agreement is needed to help improve communications between it and the
Foundation.
2. Although we recognize the influences that donors have in directing
support provided through the Foundation (see pp. 9 and 38 of the
report), we believe that the Foundation's comments are overall
inconsistent with its literature, our prior conversations with its
officials, the views of some Park Service regional officials, and our
review of Proud Partner Program grants. As stated on page 19 of the
report, and supported by discussions with Foundation officials, the
literature of the Foundation does not mention providing direct support
for National Park Service priorities as an objective of the Proud
Partners Program. Moreover, as noted on page 18, this interpretation is
inconsistent with views held by several park regional officials who
believed that the program should be targeted at securing support for
individual park priorities as opposed to systemwide needs. Finally,
this interpretation appears incongruent with some grants that have been
issued under the Proud Partner Program. As noted on page 19 of the
report, our review found that some Proud Partner grants, such as those
used to restore the red bus fleet at Glacier National Park, principally
appear to support local, rather than systemwide, Park Service
priorities.
3. The Foundation takes issue with our mentioning the Glacier red bus
renovation as an example of an inconsistency in application of its
program strategy. Although we agree that several cited transportation
initiatives provided systemwide benefits, most of these initiatives'
support did not provide systemwide benefits. For example, of about 500
electric vehicles donated during the period we examined, 225 went
primarily to California state parks (parks not affiliated with the
National Park Service). Additionally, virtually all of the 275 electric
vehicles donated to Park Service units were directed to park units only
in California. Further, the National Park Service Director as well as
the Park Service's Associate Director for Partnerships, Interpretation
and Education, Volunteers, and Outdoor Recreation referred to the
Glacier bus restoration as supporting a local park project (see p. 19).
4. We do not agree with the Foundation's position that potential
conflicts only arise under circumstances where a park-based project
involves a national marketing component. Director's Order 21 states
that when the Foundation has a national cause-related marketing
arrangement, this may take precedence over a park-based cause-related
marketing effort in the same business category. The order does not
specify that the precedence applies only when the park-based project
has a national marketing component as interpreted by the Foundation.
Further, as reported on page 20, Interior's Office of the Solicitor
officials, along with nonprofit officials with whom we spoke, believe
that park-based agreements, in the same business category as a Proud
Partner, were generally prohibited. Thus, we continue to believe (1)
that there is general confusion in the Park Service, especially in the
field locations, regarding the applicability of the Proud Partner
exclusivity terms to park-based cause-related marketing arrangements
and (2) that the Foundation should help further clarify this issue.
5. Although there is evidence that the Foundation has contributed
funding toward renovation of the Ebenezer Baptist Church (a facility
within the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site) and did
complete a feasibility study for the Native American monument at the
Little Bighorn National Monument, the exact terms and conditions for
these two fund-raising efforts is speculative because there was no
written agreement. Our point in this section is not whether the
Foundation did or did not provide support. Rather, the examples
illustrate that verbal fund-raising agreements can lead to
disagreements about whether commitments were met. Verbal agreements
also provide little means for measuring performance in such
arrangements.
6. We agree that the information contained in figure 8 may understate
the full amount of grants issued by the Foundation for fiscal years
2000 through 2003. On page 28, we clearly stated that the GIFTS
database was incomplete. At the time we completed our audit work, the
Foundation had not provided us with information showing the extent to
which the database was incomplete. We have revised figure 8 to reflect
those total grant amounts contained in the Foundation's audited
financial statements.
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Barry T. Hill (202) 512-3841 ( [Hyperlink, hillbt@gao.gov]
hillbt@gao.gov):
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, John C. Johnson, Roy K.
Judy, Stephanie A. Luehr, Jonathan S. McMurray, Peter J. Oswald, and
Amy E. Webbink made key contributions to this report.
(360390):
FOOTNOTES
[1] The Foundation's Proud Partners of America Program allows mutual
promotional benefits to corporate donors (called Proud Partners) and
the Park Service.
[2] In this report, we use the term "parks" or "individual parks" to
encompass all units of the national park system, regardless of
designation.
[3] The National Park Foundation Act, Pub. L. No. 90-209 (1967),
established the National Park Foundation.
[4] Pub. L. No. 105-391, Title VII, § 701 (1998) (codified at 16 U.S.C.
§ 19o).
[5] Interested parties can include individual park units and regional
offices of the Park Service as well as nonprofit organizations that
support the Park Service.
[6] According to Foundation officials, this is the estimated value of
commitments made by Proud Partners in letters of agreement with the
Foundation. One Proud Partner, Ford, has already contributed more than
this committed amount (see app. IV).
[7] The value of in-kind contributions is generally designated by
donors and is subject to review by the Internal Revenue Service if
reported as a charitable contribution.
[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Standards for Internal Control in
the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November
1999).
[9] Foundation officials said they did not need to have written
agreements since the projects were documented in Park Service regional
office work plans. While some projects may have been documented in work
plans, these plans did not contain all of the items noted in Director's
Order 21.
[10] About 275 of these vehicles went to national park units. About 225
vehicles were donated to California state parks and to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.
[11] In 1999, the 1994 agreement was extended for an additional 5
years.
[12] Corporations and businesses generally offer two primary forms of
donations: philanthropic donations or donations that are tied to
advertising or product sales--known as cause-related marketing.
[13] These categories include airline, mass communication, automotive,
photoimaging, and print media (see app. IV, table 3 for additional
details).
[14] A representative from the Association of Partners for Public
Lands, representing park cooperating associations and friends groups,
also serves as an informal member. The Foundation is the only official
non-Park Service entity on this council.
[15] Some of the 210 parks received multiple grants.
[16] The Park Service is authorized to enter into cooperative
agreements with other public entities and nonprofit partners to support
its mission, programs, and projects. The Park Service provides
appropriated funds to partners under these agreements. For this review,
the term "agreement" includes both original agreements and
modifications.
[17] The Foundation's legislative charter specifies that it is to
provide support for the Park Service and its activities and services.
Foundation and Park Service officials stated that the agreements with
these other Interior agencies provide products or services that are
related to the Park Service's mission.
[18] An additional $1million in cash was pledged or received but, as of
June 30, 2003, had not been used for park support.
[19] No one outside of the Foundation reviews the Proud Partner
agreements, although transmittal of the agreements to congressional
committees was contemplated but never enacted. See S. Rep. 104-299
(1996).
[20] The organizations in table 6 were not randomly selected. Rather, a
list of nonprofits involved with land, wildlife, or environmental
activities and known by GAO staff was compiled. Those nonprofits with
revenue or assets that were greater than or similar to the Foundation's
are included in our table. At the suggestion of a Foundation
representative, we included compensation data from the congressionally
chartered National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United
States, which the representative described as "strikingly similar" to
the Foundation in design, purpose, geographic location, revenues, and
program expenditures.
GAO's Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
