Donations Have Provided Significant Support to Park Programs and Projects, and Partnerships Amplify These Donations with Intangible Benefits

Donations from nonprofit partners and corporations have provided  significant support to park programs and projects, including interpretation  and education, repair and rehabilitation of facilities, and cultural resource  management and protection, among others. In addition, related  partnerships have amplified the value of those donations with countless  other benefits that go beyond dollar values or a simple tally of projects. For example, some partners said their  donations supported construction of new facilities. From 2005 through 2008,  friends groups contributed over $100 million for at least six construction  projects. In  addition, the Park Service has improved its partnership construction  process in response to past accountability concerns, but some gaps  remain. Donations and Fund- raising Policy Requirements Address Key Areas, but Weaknesses Remain in Implementation

The Park Service’s donations and fund-raising policy requirements address  key areas to protect the agency against risk, but their effect is diminished  because parks and partners do not always follow them; ambiguities in the  policy create challenges for parks and partners attempting to follow it; and  the agency lacks a systematic, comprehensive approach for monitoring  conformance. The agency has made progress on some but not all of these  recommendations (see table 5). Still, gaps remain, leaving the agency  vulnerable to risks in some situations. And by  further refining its information on donations, it could support such an  approach while also enhancing its accountability. Also, by increasing  employees’ knowledge and skills in working with nonprofit and  philanthropic partners, the agency could improve partner relations and  better protect itself against the risks that may accompany donations. A More Strategic Approach to Management of Donations Could Enhance Effectiveness and Efficiency

Even as the potential for a dramatic expansion of donations increases with  the Centennial Challenge program, the Park Service has no long-range  vision for philanthropy and related partnerships and no plans for how to  achieve such a vision. Meanwhile, indications have been growing that such strategic thinking is  needed now. Further Refinements to Information on Donations Could Strengthen Accountability and Transparency

The Park Service is further constrained in its ability to pursue a strategic  approach for donations and related partnerships because it has limited  information on donations. The information is incomplete for several reasons. The information from IRS forms is also based on  inconsistent determinations of support. The Park Service acknowledges that its estimates of support provided by  partner organizations are not precise measures of the value received, but  agency officials believe that the costs of developing precise, reliable data  would outweigh the benefits to the agency, especially because they believe  the total value of such donations to be relatively small. Additional Skills and Knowledge about Working with Nonprofit and Philanthropic Organizations Could Promote More-Effective Partnerships

Park Service employees and partner organizations identified challenges  with understanding each other’s cultures, policies, and constraints and  said they lack sufficient skills in these areas, which they believe are  critical for successful partnerships. In addition, to better position Congress and the agency to make informed  decisions and plan for the future, we recommend that the Secretary direct  the Park Service Director to take the following two actions:  In collaboration with representatives of friends groups, cooperating  associations, and the National Park Foundation, develop a strategic plan  that defines the agency’s vision for donations and related partnerships;  sets short- and long-term management goals; delineates desired roles and  responsibilities for agency offices and employees involved in managing  donations and partnerships, so as to maximize efficient allocation of  resources; and identifies steps to take in the short and long terms to  achieve agency goals. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We were asked to determine (1) how donated funds, goods, and services  and related partnerships have supported the National Park Service (Park  Service); (2) the policies and processes the agency uses to manage  donations and related partnerships and how well they are working; and (3)  what, if anything, could enhance the agency’s management of donations  and related partnerships. We also interviewed Department of the Interior  (Interior) and Park Service officials, as well as representatives of partner  organizations and others, at the national, regional, and park levels.
Why GAO Did This Study

The National Park Service (Park Service) in the Department of the Interior (Interior) annually receives hundreds of millions of dollars in donated funds, goods, and services to support its 391 parks and other sites. But concerns have been raised about potential accompanying risks, such as undue donor influence, new long-term maintenance costs, or commercialization of parks. To address these concerns, the Park Service has developed and refined policies for managing donations, but questions remain about the agency's ability to do so effectively. GAO was asked to examine (1) how donations and related partnerships have supported the Park Service, (2) the policies and processes the agency uses to manage donations and how well they are working, and (3) what the agency could do to enhance its management of donations and related partnerships. GAO reviewed applicable legal and policy documents, interviewed Interior and Park Service officials and partner organizations, and visited selected national parks.

What GAO Found

Donations from individuals, nonprofit organizations, corporations, and others have provided significant support to park projects and programs, and related partnerships have amplified the value of those donations with countless other benefits. The collective value of these donations is substantial--including over $500 million since 1986 at a single park and over $100 million for six recent construction projects, for example--but their total worth is difficult to quantify, in part because of the numerous and often indirect ways in which parks receive donations. Donations support park programs and projects, such as interpretation and education, new construction, repair of facilities, and cultural resource management and protection. Park partners also provide other benefits that go beyond dollar values or a simple tally of projects. These benefits include enabling projects and programs that would not otherwise have been possible, accomplishing projects more quickly, and expanding parks' connections with their communities. The Park Service's donations and fund-raising policy includes directives in key areas to protect the agency against risks, but their effectiveness is diminished because parks do not always follow these program requirements, and the agency has no systematic process to monitor conformance. Agency officials acknowledged some cases of nonconformance but believed they were justified because they involved parks and partners with long track records of success and therefore did not pose significant risks to the agency. While reasonable, this justification indicates that the policy's requirements (and the resource investment needed to meet them) are not always commensurate with the level of risk to the agency. The Park Service has made improvements to its partnership construction process to address past accountability concerns, but remaining gaps leave the agency exposed to risks in some situations, such as when operations and maintenance costs increase for new construction. To enhance management of donations and related partnerships, GAO believes the Park Service could take a more strategic approach, further refine its information on donations, and increase employees' knowledge and skills for working with nonprofit and philanthropic partners. The agency could benefit from a long-range vision of the desired role of donations and related partnerships, but despite growing indications of the need for one, the Park Service has neither a strategic vision nor a plan for how to achieve it. Also, by enhancing its information on donations, which is currently limited, the agency could better support such a strategic approach. For various reasons, agencywide information on donations from some of its partners is incomplete, out of date, and based on inconsistent determinations of support. Finally, by improving its employees' skills in understanding the culture, policies, and constraints of nonprofit and philanthropic partners, the agency could better manage the risks that accompany donations. Park Service employees and partners say they face challenges and are not sufficiently skilled in this area, although they believe the skills are critical.