[Senate Hearing 109-150]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 109-150
NPS OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
TO
REVIEW THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE'S BUSINESS STRATEGY FOR
OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM,
INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF BUSINESS PLANS, USE OF
BUSINESS CONSULTANTS, AND INCORPORATING BUSINESS PRACTICES INTO DAY-TO-
DAY OPERATIONS
__________
JULY 14, 2005
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
23-861 WASHINGTON : 2005
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico, Chairman
LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska RON WYDEN, Oregon
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina, TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
JAMES M. TALENT, Missouri DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
CONRAD BURNS, Montana MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
GORDON SMITH, Oregon KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
Alex Flint, Staff Director
Judith K. Pensabene, Chief Counsel
Robert M. Simon, Democratic Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on National Parks
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming, Chairman
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee, Vice Chairman
GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii
RICHARD M. BURR, North Carolina RON WYDEN, Oregon
MEL MARTINEZ, Florida MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana
GORDON SMITH, Oregon JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey
KEN SALAZAR, Colorado
Pete V. Domenici and Jeff Bingaman are Ex Officio Members of the
Subcommittee
Thomas Lillie, Professional Staff Member
David Brooks, Democratic Senior Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Baekey, Geoffrey A., Senior Manager, PricewaterhouseCoopers...... 15
Hagood, Reginald, Senior Vice President for Strategic Initiatives
and Business Development, Student Conservation Association..... 13
Kiernan, Thomas C., President, National Parks Conservation
Association.................................................... 7
Sheaffer, Bruce, Comptroller, National Park Service, Department
of the Interior................................................ 2
Thomas, Hon. Craig, U.S. Senator from Wyoming.................... 1
APPENDIX
Responses to additional questions................................ 29
NPS OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2005
U.S. Senate,
Subcommittee on National Parks,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:20 p.m., in
room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Craig Thomas
presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CRAIG THOMAS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM WYOMING
Senator Thomas. We will go ahead and get started. As I
mentioned to the witnesses, we're a little mixed up today on
time, and we're going to have some votes, I think, at 3
o'clock. Then, at least according to the schedule, about 3:15
we're supposed to have our first meeting of the conference
committee on energy, and whether that will happen or not, I
don't know. But in any event, we certainly want to hear from
the witnesses, and so we are starting a little early, and I
hope we will be joined by some others.
So I do want to welcome you and welcome the witnesses here
today. The purpose of this meeting, of course, is to review the
Park Service's business strategy for operating and managing the
National Park System, including the development and
implementation of the business plans, the use of the business
consultants, and incorporating business practices into the day-
to-day operations of the parks.
The Park Service, of course, has a challenging mission of
preserving the parks, providing for visitor enjoyment, at the
same time operating under a limited amount of resources, and so
hopefully using those as effectively as we can, while also
seeking more, of course.
Since 1916, the Park Service has grown, and continues to
grow, 388 units now with visitation of approximately 300
million people. Involved in that visitation and those units are
23,546 employees managing an annual budget which is indeed
sizable, about $2.6 billion.
Improperly, we think the Park Service's responsibility is
to manage the resource and to make it good for visitors, but
also with a program of this size, one of the responsibilities
is to do it as efficiently as we can and in the most business-
like way that we can. I've been pleased with the progress that
I think has been made over the last several years in terms of
moving in that direction.
So we want to gain a little better understanding today of
the business practices, the tools and the techniques that are
currently being used, how you evaluate those, and what you
think might be done to implement them in the future, and to
improve the accountability of the system.
So thank you all for being here and we look forward to your
remarks. They, of course, will be on the record, and even those
members that aren't here will have a chance to look at them,
and I think they will be very important.
Mr. Bruce Sheaffer is the Comptroller of the National Park
Service; Mr. Tom Kiernan is president of the National Parks and
Conservation Association; Mr. Flip Hagood is senior vice
president of the Student Conservation Association in Virginia;
and Mr. Geoff Baekey is manager of PricewaterhouseCoopers in
Boston, that of course is the business person involved.
So, gentlemen, we'll just go right down the list.
Mr. Sheaffer, if you'd like to begin.
STATEMENT OF BRUCE SHEAFFER, COMPTROLLER, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Mr. Sheaffer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the
opportunity to be here and to be sitting among my partners in
many of the ventures we're going to talk about briefly today.
At no time in the Park Service's history has it been more
important that we improve our processes, become more business-
like, and to the maximum extent possible be transparent in our
operations and effective and efficient in the way we do
business.
We're going to talk about some of the ones that you
mentioned in your summary statement there very quickly, and I
have a fairly lengthy statement that I would like to enter into
the record.
Senator Thomas. It will be entered in the record.
Mr. Sheaffer. Thank you, sir. I'm going to kind of
summarize these items in the order that they were kind of
invented, if you will. And I think the business plan process is
one you may have heard something about over time. Actually its
beginning really grew out of something I think that was very
personal to you, and that was in the mid-1990's when there was
some controversy over some decisions made actually in
Yellowstone National Park, Senator. And at that time there was
some discussion as to how it is they arrived at that particular
decision, the closing of a campground in this case, and how it
was that we were going to document--how it is we documented
those things that were important for the fundamental operation
of that park. And we had a difficult time in our communication
and our presentation. There wasn't a single document that could
be held out and used as a real clear presentation as to how
they were programming and spending their money. And thus the
business plan was born.
At the time we started the business plan process, we
engaged with NPCA, who voluntarily agreed to be our partner in
this process, and provided us some funds to get it moving. And
a determination was made that a way to get at a quick and
effective tool here would be to bring in business consultants,
consultants that had graduate degrees, had some experience
already in the business world. And so we went about recruiting
from some of those schools, using at the time NPCA, and have
had a summer program ever since that produced about a dozen
plans a year in 12 different parks or programs, major programs.
The business plans--and we have some examples that we can
leave with you and provide plenty more. The business plans fill
a number of gaps that exist in the way the parks present and
manage their budget, not the least of which is it has, under
one cover, all sources of funds that are brought to bear in
operating and developing a park area, including, of course,
donations, fee revenues, and a variety of the ever-growing
number of fund sources available to a park. It shows the
history of the funds, and the history of the park's operational
funding. It does provide some indication of additional needs
and has a very strong and ever-growing section that deals with
strategies for non-appropriated solutions to park operating
problems. In this particular day and age, with highly
constrained budgets, that is ever increasing in its importance.
As I said, the notion of bringing graduate students to bear
provided a number of things. It provided us an opportunity to
get some real fresh ideas from outside and in the private
sector on how we might improve our operations. And by the way,
as I think an important notable byproduct, we've been able to
hire some of these young people, and I question if we would
have been able to do so without exposing them first to the
National Park Service in this way. We actually have 17 of these
very well-educated people, from some of the best business
schools in the country working for us now, many of them in the
concessions arena, an area I know is of particular interest to
you.
Second is the scorecard. The scorecard is another process
that fills another gap, we feel. Historically the Park Service
set its priorities by rendering a series of judgments of park
managers. It didn't have as much structure as it needed in
order to convince those outside how it is we set our priorities
and how we went about evaluating our programs. The scorecard
fills that gap. It analytically looks at certain relationships,
certain deficiencies that should or do exist in park areas,
looks at the history of the funding as well, and draws
comparisons over time of one park to the other and how well
situated they are to handle the workload that they have to deal
with.
Core operations--one that I think you've had some recent
conversations about with our Deputy Director and Fran Mainella,
our Director--is a program that has been recently employed that
sits managers at different levels from regional level and
elsewhere down with organizational managers and they go
through, person by person, function by function, and review the
operation of the park to determine the things that are
essential to the mission of that park area and that program
that are at the center and core of that program, those things
that are legally mandated, and some of those things which are
very good and desirable to do, but not necessarily core.
There are a number of other processes we have underway, and
with more time, of course, we could get into more depth. Mr.
Chairman, I do want to mention that we are heavily engaged in a
program that I think is well known at this point called an OMB
PART review program, as well. It's a program that OMB has
invented that analyzes Federal programs in a fairly detailed
way, looking at the way in which the--making certain of certain
things. For example, they make sure the purpose of the program
is well defined, make sure that the success of the program in
fact can be measured, and make sure that it has effective
oversight and management.
So in a very short time, I've summarized these things, and
I think some of the folks to my left and our partners in these
processes will speak to some of these same items as well.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sheaffer follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bruce Sheaffer, Comptroller, National Park
Service, Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you at
this oversight hearing on the National Park Service's business strategy
for operation and management of the National Park System, including
development and implementation of business plans, use of business
consultants, and incorporating business practices into day-to-day
operations. The use of effective business practices to fulfill our core
work is one of the key aspects of promoting management excellence, one
of the Director's five stated goals for the next four years. We have
been moving on several fronts to adopt more business-like practices and
we are pleased to share with the subcommittee our progress in this
area.
One of the most important areas in which the National Park Service
(NPS) is pursuing more business-like practices is in our budget
formulation process the process we use to determine the most effective
and efficient allocation of funds requested in the President's budget
and appropriated to NPS by Congress. Over the past several years, we
have adopted four new tools that are improving that process: the park
scorecard, a core operations analysis, the budget cost-projection
module, and business plans. In addition, the NPS is participating in
the use of the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), a government-wide
initiative that attempts to move agencies toward greater levels of
budget and performance accountability. Examples of other areas in which
NPS is engaged in more business-like practices include the concessions
program, facility maintenance, the Department's all-in-one business
system, and competitive review processes.
The park scorecard NPS has developed is an indicator of each park's
financial, operational, and managerial health. In addition to serving
as a management tool for the park superintendent, the scorecard is used
to aid in the identification and evaluation of base budget increases
for park units. It provides an overarching snapshot of each park's
current situation by offering a way to analyze individual park needs
and to understand how parks are faring relative to one another based on
broad, objective criteria. The current version of the scorecard has
over 30 separate measures identified, all of which are grouped into
four categories: financial management, organizational management,
recreation, and resource management.
Although not yet fully developed, the scorecard played a role in
the selection of parks for the additional FY 2005 operations funding
provided by the Congress. The scorecard will be continually evaluated
and expanded to meet park performance and budget needs and we
anticipate that its use, in time, will aid NPS in evaluating all base
programs, as well as incremental changes.
In addition to the scorecard, we have developed a core operations
analysis process that integrates management tools to improve park
efficiency. This process has been used successfully in the
Intermountain Region, which has set a goal of reallocating resources
equivalent to at least 10 percent of base funds to key activities and
top park priorities. Each park within the region is seeking to: 1)
achieve personal services and fixed costs equal to or below 80 percent
of base funds; 2) pursue efficiencies based on cost-benefit analyses of
alternatives; and 3) ensure that each park's base budget relates to
core operations and overall National Park System goals and priorities.
To achieve these goals, the Intermountain Region went through a
multi-step process. The region:
Undertook an exercise of projecting their costs into the
future if they made no changes at all in organization
structures, program delivery, distribution of personnel and
resources, and management practices;
Compared this projection with likely available funding and
concluded that without any priority setting or improved
management they would experience a shortfall in resources;
Identified clear ``purpose statements'' for each park and
identified each park's priorities;
Reviewed and analyzed the current allocation of personnel
and resources by each activity, examining whether the activity
was a core activity, legal requirement, desirable but not
absolutely necessary, and determined whether FTEs could be
eliminated or whether more FTEs were needed for that activity;
Identified current and potential efficiencies that reduced
costs per unit of output, avoided costs, generated cost
recoveries, or eliminated lower-priority activities;
Developed an action plan to implement the potential
efficiencies; and
Worked with employees to communicate, implement, and adjust
the plan.
A sampling of the significant results generated by this effort
includes:
The region's Cultural Resources Division reorganized three
units into one functional organization, reducing FTEs by 12,
flattening the organization structure, and making possible a
reallocation of over $1 million annually;
Chickasaw National Recreation Area reorganized trash pickup
in campgrounds to reduce the number of hours from 1,800 to 600,
making possible a redirection of $37,020 to higher priority
activities;
Rocky Mountain National Park proposed to close one of six
visitor centers, which would enable reallocation of three FTEs
and over $40,000 to underserved core activities; and
San Antonio Missions National Historic Site combined
administrative and special projects officer positions with a
reduction of one FTE and a possible reallocation of $100,000 to
maintain needed ranger positions.
The core operation analysis process is designed to assist park
management in making fully informed decisions on staffing and funding
alternatives that tie to core mission goals. This will ensure that
funds are spent in support of a park's purpose, that funds are spent in
an efficient manner, that a park's request for funding is credible, and
that there are adequate funds and staff to preserve and protect the
resources for which parks are responsible.
Both the scorecard and the core operations analysis process are
used in preparing park business plans. Business plans help parks to
focus on operations, develop cost objectives, identify revenue sources
beyond appropriated funds, and plan out the highest priority projects
for the next three to five years. Our business planning has evolved and
improved. Early generation plans tended to identify park activities and
core needs; restructuring or changing service practices to achieve
efficiencies; or developing strategies for meeting goals beyond seeking
additional appropriations. Our business plans now provide a better
roadmap and strategies for addressing priority needs and park goals.
As part of our business plan initiative, the Student Conservation
Association, a nonprofit organization, sends graduate students from top
business, environmental management and public policy schools across the
country to work at park units during an 11-week summer internship. Over
the last nine years, more than 200 students have participated in the
program, with many of them now working full time at the park, regional,
and national levels. With the help of the Student Conservation
Association internship program, we will be able to complete 12 business
plans this summer.
To assist park units in preparing business plans, we have
developed, through a contract, an Electronic Performance Support
System. This system supports consistency across the entire program
through the use of a standardized template, reduces workload on
existing park staff, and allows for archiving of business plan-related
data. Through automation, the time needed to assemble and process data
has decreased, providing more time during the summer for parks to
develop a true action plan and to focus on financial strategies.
Park scorecards, the core operations analysis process, and the
business plan initiative have been developed with built-in connections
to the individual park's goals, the NPS's goals, and the Department's
Strategic Plan to assure that all business strategies and processes
conform to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA),
which requires the utilization of budgetary resources to reach
strategic outcomes and to measure our efforts to reach our goals
against documented baselines.
Complementing these processes is the recent development of the
budget cost-projection module, a tool that allows park managers to
project the financial impact of decisions made today on future park
budgets. Managers enter their assumptions regarding staffing (e.g.
retirements, filling vacancies), pay and benefit changes, inflation,
and the cost of meeting new program requirements over a five-year
period. The system then provides a financial roadmap for the manager to
determine the sustainability of their financial assumptions.
In addition to these measurement tools and methodology, the NPS is
also participating in the use of PART, a government-wide initiative
that attempts to move agencies toward greater levels of budget and
performance accountability. PART is a systematic method of assessing
the performance of program activities across the Federal government
that was created and implemented by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). It is a diagnostic tool used to improve program performance by
reviewing overall program effectiveness, including program design and
implementation and the ability to achieve results.
PART reviews have been completed, or are currently underway, on
about seventy-five percent of the programs in the FY 2006 NPS budget
request. The remaining programs are scheduled for review in 2006. All
NPS programs which have completed PART reviews received acceptable
scores except for Land and Water Conservation Fund State Grants, which
received a ``Results Not Demonstrated'' rating due to a failure to
demonstrate an adequate process for measuring performance and
accomplishments. Both the Natural Resource Stewardship and the National
Historic Preservation Programs received a score of 83 percent and were
deemed moderately effective.
The NPS continues to work with OMB to develop performance measures
for programs that have insufficient or inappropriate metrics in place
and implement recommendations to improve program performance and
efficiency. PART evaluations and recommendations continue to inform
both budget formulation and program management decisions.
There are several other areas in which NPS has adopted more
business-like practices in its operations. A critically important one
is our concessions program, where business consultants have helped
bring best business practices to our efforts and develop protocols that
focus on the key processes of contracting and contract oversight in all
concession contracts. We are also professionalizing our concessions
work force; in fact, several of the business graduate students who have
helped develop business plans have been hired by NPS for concession
management positions. These practices are helping ensure that park
visitors receive the best possible services. The concessions program is
one of the NPS programs that is currently undergoing a PART evaluation.
Another key area where the adoption of business practices is
demonstrating real results is in facility maintenance. As part of the
President's initiative to address the deferred maintenance backlog, NPS
has, for the first time, developed an inventory of all facilities in
eight industry-standard categories. We will complete comprehensive
condition assessments of those facilities, for the first time, by the
end of 2006. Those assessments will be critically important in future
decisions about the most effective and efficient way to allocate
maintenance dollars.
The NPS is also a full partner in the Department's effort to
implement an all-in-one business system--the Financial and Business
Management System--that will not only replace all of its bureaus'
individual finance systems but will also encompass all other business
activities such as procurement and travel, and make use of activity-
based costing methodology as a tool for best practice identification
and the strategic realignment of resources.
The NPS has improved its competitive review process by conducting
preliminary planning with the assistance of outside industry expertise
to ensure that we have the best, most efficient organization and
operations in place. Significant benefits are being realized in terms
of aggressive staff management, which include position review,
replacing vacant park administrative positions with new business
management positions, and determining to compete functions if they are
found more efficiently performed in the private sector. One successful
outcome of this process occurred at our Southeast Archeological Center,
where operations were reconfigured to a more efficient workforce
structure, saving an estimated $850,000 per year over five years.
Another was at Natchez Trace Parkway, where facility maintenance
savings resulting from a competitive review will save $1.2 million over
five years. In both of these cases, by improving the management of
these functions, the NPS employees were retained and the savings were
kept by the park. Five areas began undergoing preliminary planning
efforts in 2004. Another three parks are scheduled for preliminary
planning this year.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be happy to
answer any questions you or other members of the committee might have.
Senator Thomas. Good, fine. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Kiernan.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS C. KIERNAN, PRESIDENT,
NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Kiernan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity
to testify. I'm Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks
Conservation Association. We have, since 1919, been the
nonpartisan leading voice for the American people in protecting
and enhancing the National Park System. We currently have about
300,000 members nationwide.
Mr. Bruce Sheaffer summarized some of the history of the
business plan initiative. Let me just build on what he said by
highlighting two, if you will, external benchmarks of success
of this program. There are a lot of examples inside the Park
System of the success too that the committee may not be aware
of. One is, in 2003, the Harvard Business School wrote a
business case, that is now being taught to many of the students
at the Harvard Business School, on effective public-private
partnerships and that case was on the business plan initiative
that was created through this partnership, and I think helps
justify or helps explain the importance and the success of this
initiative.
The second is the extent to which, through a number of
means, including NPCA Center for Park Management, this
methodology is now being employed on many other public lands.
About a dozen national forests now use the business plan
methodology, a number of State park systems--Vermont, New
Mexico, and others--and a number of international national park
systems, for example, the parks of Egypt. The Red Sea parks in
Egypt, the national parks in Madagascar, and other countries
are as well employing either this methodology or a derivative
thereof, and it speaks, I think, to the importance and
effectiveness of the methodology.
I do have a few recommendations, a number of which are in
our written testimony, which we have submitted to the
committee, and I'll just summarize a few of them in a moment.
First, with regards to the methodology itself, over the last 8
years, the Park Service, with NPCA, and now with SCA, has
created this platform of the business plans to help
communicate, budget, plan, and manage in the parks.
And it's our strong recommendation that what's needed is a
continued evolution, enhancement, improvement, and keeping this
methodology alive and evolving. And one way of doing so relates
to the other methodologies that Mr. Sheaffer mentioned, the
core operations and the scorecard and others that we do support
and we do encourage, as I believe the Park Service is doing,
working to integrate, to link, to bring together these multiple
methodologies so that they are linked, so that we avoid any
potential confusion and also so we get the synergy of the
different methodologies.
The second recommendation regards the implementation of the
business plan recommendations. We have noted over the years
that many of the parks have been able to effectively implement
the recommendations of the business plan, at Gettysburg, at
Golden Gate, at Eisenhower National Historic Site. A number
have very effectively implemented recommendations, saved some
money, enhanced revenue sources, but a number of parks have had
difficulty doing that.
Thus, it's our recommendation to this committee that it
continue to provide additional funding, because in some cases
the funding is short or the staff time has been short, or the
staff and the park have not had the internal expertise to
implement some of the recommendations. And the parks need
additional funds both to meet the needs of the parks, as well
as to improve the management systems and their management
capability inside the parks.
The third recommendation regards the data. The business
plans are a very significant data and strategy resource for the
Park Service, Congress, and the public that, we would
encourage, might be more fully utilized. We would recommend the
Park Service construct an even more enhanced program for mining
the data and the strategies that have been generated by the
business plan process.
For example, a number of the parks, through the business
plans, identified a need to improve their vehicle fleet
management, or to improve their fee collection program. And the
Park Service has now come up with a multi-park strategy for
helping the parks implement those recommendations. We think
there may be some other similar multi-park strategies and the
Park Service should be encouraged to mine that data, and
frankly may need some additional funding to do so.
The last recommendation regards model parks. There are a
number of different management strategies that Mr. Sheaffer
mentioned that are underway to help codify or to celebrate or
to demonstrate, and to extend these successes we would
recommend that together the Park Service and Congress establish
some type of a model parks program. Such a program would help
demonstrate current management improvements, transfer them to
other parks, and by investing additional funds into these model
parks, help demonstrate and test strategies for other parks, as
they get additional funds, for how to most efficiently and
effectively use those added funds.
In conclusion, we are very pleased to note that the Park
Service appears to be making significant headway in improving
its internal management strategies and we commend them for it,
and are happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Kiernan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Thomas C. Kiernan, President,
National Parks Conservation Association
Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the utility of business planning in national
parks. I am Tom Kiernan, president of the National Parks Conservation
Association. Since 1919, the nonpartisan National Parks Conservation
Association has been the leading voice of the American people in
protecting and enhancing our National Park System for present and
future generations. Today we have 300,000 members nationwide who visit
and care deeply about our national parks.
The subject of today's hearing is of considerable importance to
NPCA and we have been working to import the concept of business
planning into the national parks and other protected areas for the past
eight years. As you know, the concept for bringing this standard
business tool to use in national parks was an idea that was hatched in
Yellowstone in 1997, when Congress asked for documentation of how the
superintendent arrived at a decision to close a campground due to
funding problems. It took the park months to gather the needed
paperwork and make its case satisfactorily. Through this experience, it
became apparent that the park could use some strategic assistance from
the business community.
The National Parks Business Plan Initiative was born the following
year as a partnership between NPCA and the National Park Service with
the support of several philanthropies in testing the use of business
plans in a park environment. As partners, together NPCA and NPS
approached the task by importing the talents of the best and brightest
from business and public policy schools around the nation and focusing
their talents on developing the business plans during their summer
break, working hand-in-glove with park managers in the field. Over
time, NPCA and NPS developed a comprehensive template for the business
students to use that both harnessed existing park data and utilized the
students' insight.
The business plans the Park Service has been producing at many
national park units provide important information about how well
existing resources enable park managers and staff to accomplish their
mission. This has been, and continues to be, an evolving program; the
Park Service deserves credit for continuing to use and improve the
business planning process. The Business Plan Initiative helps
strengthen financial management capabilities at parks and facilitate
meaningful dialogue about park needs. Every year the Park Service's
business plans get stronger, and the evolution of the program promises
to continue delivering important benefits in the coming years.
It took several years to refine the program to the point that it
appears today--a web-based system that assesses the human and financial
capacity of parks to respond to their responsibilities in dozens of
categories from concessions management to trails maintenance. The
program now used by the Park Service is replicable by the parks on a
regular basis and has the capacity to allow managers to track their
progress towards addressing shortfalls and problems identified by the
plans. The partnership between NPCA and NPS lasted for six years and in
that time we completed 64 park business plans. In the past two years,
NPS and the Student Conservation Association have completed 24 business
plans for park--though seven of these plans are updated plans from
parks that completed the process years ago. Once the plans being done
this summer are published, we estimate that more than 25% of all units
in the National Park System will have complete business plans.
PURPOSE OF PARK BUSINESS PLANS
From the time that the concept was conceived in Yellowstone to
today, business plans have been intended to serve a dual purpose: to
provide parks with an effective external communications tool and to
provide park managers with a useful management tool. In 1997, during
the first business plan training session at the historic Lake Ranger
Station in Yellowstone, the park managers participating in the program
had an extended and prescient discussion about this dual role and the
potential importance of business planning to the national parks. The
conclusion in that meeting was that the communications role of business
plans would be the role most used by the parks but the most important
role of the business plans was their use as a management tool,
providing the most long-term utility in helping park managers operate
as effectively as possible, no matter the resources available. That
observation. remains true today and outlines both the problems that the
Park Service has experienced and the promise that well-done business
planning holds for the parks.
As a communications tool, the focus of the business plan program is
on the product itself. Like no other product available to the Park
Service (or most other federal or state agencies) business plans
encapsulate the ``business'' of the park: what the park is about, its
mission, focus, strategic direction, allocation of human and financial
resources, additional resources needs, and opportunities for
betterment. This is accomplished in a compressed period of time and
expressed in a reader-friendly, open format. Parks have used the
business plans to educate new staff, new management, and stakeholders
of all kinds, from members of Congress to gateway community leaders.
They have also proven useful as internal educational tools for NPS
regional and national managers, giving parks that have completed
business plan an advantage over others in arguing for the allocation of
limited dollars distributed at the Washington and regional levels.
As a management tool, however, the focus and greatest benefit of
the business plan program is in the process of business planning
itself. The program today is ``managed'' and the product delivered by
the business planning team in Washington, using student consultants in
each park to produce individual plans. But development of each plan and
the analysis behind it requires very heavy participation by the entire
management structure of the park itself, and frequently requires the
involvement of line staff as well. This process, though sometimes
painful for the parks as they struggle to meet their existing
responsibilities, forces a creative and useful interaction between
business-focused bright young minds and more traditional park-focused
staff. The result for many parks has been an infusion of energy and
focus on core priorities by both management and staff and a clearer
realization of the opportunities as well as challenges facing the
parks. In short, it helps parks to define their forward focus and
remind parks of their own core ``business,'' aligning mission
priorities with the distribution of park human and financial resources.
BUSINESS PLANS REVEAL TRENDS
The plans examine funding and staffing trends, describe the history
and growth of the parks, provide functional analyses, and identify
strategic priorities and ways to more efficiently use scarce financial
resources for the benefit of park resources and visitors. The plans
typically examine five program areas: (1) resource management; (2)
visitor experience and enjoyment; (3) facility operations; (4)
maintenance; and (5) management and administration.
Importantly, the business plans have helped identify the park
operational areas with the most significant needs, as well as produce a
variety of recommendations and innovative solutions. The two functional
areas generally shown to need the most attention throughout the park
system have been resource protection and visitor experience and
enjoyment, both of which are generally also the most under funded.
Resource protection programs generally include collections, historic
structures, and natural resources. Visitor experience programs
generally include interpretation, education, and visitor safety.
business plans as the first--not the last--step toward improvement
The success of business plans as tools for enhancing communications
and management is tied very tightly to the understanding that business
plans are the first step in a process of improvement--not the last
step. In NPCA's experience, there is a one-to-one correlation between
parks that have had a successful experience with business planning and
the superintendent and management team's level of understanding of this
principle. Park managers that see the document as the final deliverable
and expect it to work magic for them by itself are always disappointed.
Park managers that take the document with them wherever they go, have a
coherent distribution plan, and take the resulting recommendations as
the launching platform for defining practical and implementable
strategies for improvement inevitably go on to achieve results that
empower their staff and deliver both efficiencies and additional
resources. The Park Service is now on a path toward repeating the
business plan analysis accomplished in the parks in the early years of
the program. This should prove to be an especially powerful next step
as it provides an opportunity to actively measure progress.
NPS USE AND SUCCESS WITH BUSINESS PLANS
Business plans have enabled many national parks to identify and
address issues that saved money, leveraged additional resources, and
improved management, among other things. For example, Gettysburg
National Military Park and the Eisenhower National Historic Site, two
separate units overseen by one superintendent, completed their business
plan in 2002. In the past three years, the park units have acted on a
number of the business plan's strategies for reducing costs and
increasing non-appropriated funds. The park staff has implemented a
Workforce Planning Strategy through which managers review every
position as it becomes vacant to evaluate how critical those positions
are to accomplishing the park mission. While this strategy does not
help the park fill all necessary vacant positions, it does help them
manage the vacancies better.
One of the greatest achievements was the combining of Gettysburg
and Eisenhower operations: Park managers have eliminated positions that
were dedicated to site management and maintenance of Eisenhower and
have made those tasks collateral duty for Gettysburg staff. The
estimated savings of $150,000 to $180,000 annually enables the park to
cover other critical needs at Gettysburg that were threatened by
diminished ONPS spending power.
At Golden Gate National Recreation Area in California, the park
followed through with its business plan recommendation to increase
visitor fees at Muir Woods, capturing an additional $700,000 annually;
and the park has moved forward with transferring operating costs for
building maintenance to third parties that occupy some of the many
buildings in this former military base and improving energy
conservation. The park has also leveraged its volunteer program; it now
generates the equivalent work of 150 full-time equivalents a year.
At the conclusion of the business plan partnership between the Park
Service and NPCA, however, it became quite clear that some parks had an
easier time meeting the challenge of implementing the plans than
others. In fact, many parks were approaching the challenge if
implementing their business plans with a passive attitude that NPCA
feared could lead to the end of a program with enormous potential for
improving the national parks. After some investigation, we discovered
that the reason for the passive approach expressed by some parks was a
direct result of their not understanding how to implement the plans.
Though the analytic resources were available to them for the purpose of
developing the plans themselves, there were no tools available to help
determine the next steps and which management strategies might be more
successful than others. To respond to this, NPCA established the.
Center for Park Management to redouble our efforts on business
planning--this time with an emphasis several critical areas: (1)
helping parks follow through with their own business plans; (2)
developing communications plans for parks; (3) helping park managers
through the decision-making process regarding the steps to take in
implementing solutions to needs identified in the plans; (4)
identifying the management strategies most likely to produce the most
beneficial results; and (5) helping to resolve any underlying staff or
analytic challenges that impeded progress. In order to directly help
the parks that were interested, CPM established consulting/client-type
relationships with the parks and divorced itself from any role as a
more active external advocate.
WORLD-WIDE UTILITY OF THE BUSINESS PLAN CONCEPT
The National Park Service is by no means alone in thinking that
business planning has a place in fostering the long-term health of
parks. As NPCA's Center for Park Management has focused on helping
parks implement their business plans, we have also reached beyond the
parks to develop business plans with more than a dozen national
forests, a growing list of state park systems, and systems of protected
areas abroad. The issues and pressures facing the parks--funding
shortfalls, unclear priorities, and communications challenges--are not
unique to America's national parks. To the contrary, there are
surprising parallels in every system with which we have worked, from
New Mexico State Parks to the Red Sea parks in Egypt.
Business plans and other analytic and management tools are
commonplace to the business of managing protected areas worldwide, and
this concept can be helpful to park managers here and elsewhere. From
generating efficiencies so that fee collection rangers can do more with
their time and efforts at Virgin Islands National Park, to the reversal
of a negative gateway community relationship at Fort Stanwix, to the
creation of a marketing plan to increase visitation at Big Bend in the
off-season, parks that implement their business plans experience
material gains.
LESSONS LEARNED AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES
NPCA's experience nationally and internationally with business
planning allowed us to identify some of the limitations of the existing
program and develop ideas for improving it. Our observations are as
follows:
1. Many parks are using the business plans for outreach to
stakeholder groups, but many more would benefit from more coherent
planning to define the outreach message they want to convey, and to
identify the audiences that may be the most helpful or strategic.
2. The business plan program remains a time-intensive program that
ties the student consultants to data collection instead of analysis for
the majority of their time. The program should be tweaked to allow much
more time for analysis and identification of useful management
strategies as well as some teaching of the managers to ``open up'' the
analytic process and prepare them for moving toward implementation on
their own.
3. The Park Service should find a means for staffing the business
plan office in Washington or elsewhere with sufficient human resources
so that the agency itself can respond to the needs of the parks as they
move toward implementation. Through the Center for Park Management,
NPCA has provided this service to date, but alone we have insufficient.
staff and financial resources to provide support to all of the national
park units that need assistance.
4. The Park Service should construct a program that focuses on
actively ``mining'' the data that has been generated by the business
plan process. Standing behind every 30-40 page business plan is a pile
of data and analysis. Focus on this could tell the agency and Congress
much about the allocation of existing funds toward priorities, the
balance of visitor-directed funds as compared with resource-directed
funds, the unit cost of certain types of programs, and more.
5. Business plans themselves should be analyzed for common themes
and strategies that emerge from the field and the common issues should
then receive appropriate regional or national attention. This will
allow for the development of common implementation strategies that work
for both the individual park units and the more centralized managers.
Fleet management and fee collection management are two areas that come
easily to mind for us, as we have seen and worked on them with a broad
variety of parks.
6. Park managers should start talking about their experience with
business planning with other protected area managers outside of the
National Park System. Business planning in one form or another is a
increasingly popular tool in protected areas of all types, both in the
United States and around the world. Rather than thinking only about
their own experience with business planning, the Park Service should be
actively seeking the experience of others--in the Forest Service, in
state parks, in Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and elsewhere to
identify best practices.
7. The Park Service should be actively evolving the business plan
program to best meet the needs of park managers. Even the best-designed
programs in business and government require constant updating if they
are to remain vital, useful, and strategic. The Park Service should
approach its efforts with business planning no differently, preferably
with some insight to what works outside the Park System itself.
8. Together, the Park Service and Congress should establish a
``venture capital'' fund to invest in the analysis required to identify
the best, most practical opportunities that save money for better,
broader use by the parks, or generate or leverage funds best. It is a
simple and true adage that sometimes it takes money to make money. It
is no different in the Park Service--many parks need the financial
resources to move ahead with business plan strategies that will save
money now or generate more later.
9. Congress should ask for a periodic accounting of how additional
funds are being allocated to business plan parks--and to the agency as
a whole--as compared with the needs identified in those plans.
10. Finally, the Park Service should regard the business plan
process and products as the single ripest opportunity to reach out to
existing partners and develop new ones. The Director is absolutely
correct in her statements that the agency can not survive without the
assistance of many partners. The business plan process is a tool that
is tailor-made for introducing parks to new potential partners and
involving current partners. Currently, some parks see this clearly and
others less so. National and regional emphasis is required to identify
the cultivation of beneficial partnerships as a target goal of business
plans.
RELATION OF BUSINESS PLANS TO CORE OPERATIONS
The National Park Service has been developing a new core operations
analysis that can be used to supplement and further inform the business
plan process in the future, if done right. The Park Service has yet to
finalize how the core operations process will or should work, so NPCA
continues to watch this developing approach closely. As we understand
it, however, we believe the new core operations approach can be useful
in helping national parks prioritize how best to spend their limited
funds in light of their core mission. This being said, it is essential
that core operations analysis be used to inform and supplement, not
replace, business planning. In addition, it will be important for the
Park Service to develop a core operations process that is sufficiently
flexible that it allows the mission and focus of particular national
parks to evolve as we learn more about the treasures those parks
preserve. For example, last year Congress, with the help of this
subcommittee, passed legislation to expand Petrified Forest National
Park. Among the primary purposes of that expansion was the realization
that the park and surrounding areas are a world class paleontological
resource. But when the park was first set aside, we only knew about the
beautiful petrified wood that was there. In addition, core operations
must ensure that park visitors have the best possible opportunity to
benefit from Park Service interpretation of the resources and artifacts
preserved in our 388 national parks.
CONCLUSION
The challenge for the Park Service is to continue to develop the
program in a manner that maintains the focus on the needs of managers
in the field, continually evolves to reflect lessons learned and best
practices from within and outside the agency, and uses the information
generated for productive, strategic purposes on a regional and national
scale.
For ourselves, NPCA will continue to press for ways that the
national parks can improve their management and efficiency, while
advocating that the parks also receive the additional resources for
which virtually every business plan demonstrates a need. Although many
parks have room to improve their management efficiency, our extensive
experience with business planning in the parks has made it clear that
the shortage of needed fiscal resources lies at the root of many of the
ills facing the parks today. As the subcommittee knows, the national
parks face significant funding shortfalls.
Clearly, the national parks must make every dollar count, no matter
the level of funding available, and we are working to ensure that the
parks have the best tools and the right human resources to make sure of
this for the future. But business plans, themselves, are not a panacea.
Rather, they provide powerful tools to help lead the way to the
fiscally sound, healthy, well-protected National Park System that
Americans respect and deserve. For business plans to produce a long-
lasting impact, Congress must use this tool to guide, and where
necessary, make investments in park operations and maintenance, demand
from the Park Service broader implementation of the plans' recommended
efficiency improvements, and help the Park Service extend and adapt the
business plan process throughout the Park System. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I am happy to answer any questions.
Senator Thomas. Okay. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hagood.
STATEMENT OF REGINALD HAGOOD, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
STRATEGIC INITIATIVES AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, STUDENT
CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION
Mr. Hagood. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I'm Flip Hagood,
senior vice president of the Student Conservation Association
and the current partner of the National Park Service in its
business plan initiative. SCA is a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit
that has been in partnership with the National Park Service for
48 years, one of the oldest non-governmental organizations
working in partnership with the national parks.
Annually SCA places young people, high school and college
age, in national parks in service to the land. Our high school
program annually puts about 1,000 young people out on our
public lands, our college program about 2,500 internships, and
the business planning initiative consultants are included
within that group.
Two years ago, we were approached by the National Park
Service and the Department of the Interior to become the not-
for-profit liaison with the National Park Service in continuing
the work of the National Parks Conservation Association to
recruit, to place, to assist in the training, to facilitate the
ongoing support for the consultants while they were in the
field, to do two follow-on activities of a closing workshop,
and also to provide career resource transition assistance for
further job placement upon completion of the program.
We have had a great partnership within the last 2 years,
having placed, with the current crop, 57 intern consultants
within the field, along with working at 26 varying park units,
and now three additional offices as a forum for the business
planning activity.
The Student Conservation Association also views this
particular work as very, very important to the effective
management and also operation of the National Park Service. The
Student Conservation Association works under a cooperative
agreement with the National Park Service to provide the
services that are outlined that support the business planning
initiative. And that starts out with the planning process,
right down through the closing activities and the career
transition effort.
We assist with the recruitment of the interns by a network
of over 5,000 colleges and universities that we have ongoing
relationships with. We recruit nothing but the best, we think,
graduate-level programs within the United States. The cadre of
young people that are recruited for the consultancies, we
think, are some of the best and brightest, and we are also
quite proud of the fact that now many of them are moving on to
job placement opportunities within the National Park System,
within government, and also within the private sector.
I know that Mr. Baekey will speak of the role with Coopers,
and we've got interns now there. Booz Allen Hamilton also has
interns, so we're certainly seeking some equity in that sense.
We have also been able to support upper governmental placements
and we are looking forward to that transition out of the
current class as well.
In addition, the Student Conservation Association is
assisting in what I would call hoping to institutionalize the
model of the business planning process by giving support,
counsel, and following the process by ongoing site evaluation
and program support for the interns while they are in the
field. I, myself, this summer will be visiting a number of
those sites, working with the park staff and with the interns
as they go through the business planning process, and will also
be a part of the close-out presentation that will be given to
the directorate of the National Park System this coming early
fall.
The important component of the career transition element
that we have been asked to put into place will continue to
grow, and we feel that we can bring added value to that process
to the National Park Service by supporting the efforts, by
giving career counsel, and also supporting the transition of
the interns into possible job opportunities, and hopefully to
expand that in government. And we're already about that process
by continuing our work with the land management family overall.
We have agreements with 14 Federal agencies, wherein this
kind of process, we think, might have similar application. We
are a part of a consortium called the Cooperative Ecosystem
Study Units that is led by the National Park System, working
with 195 colleges. And we work collaboratively with those
schools and institutions to support the work stated as the
goals and objectives of the business planning internship.
Currently, for this summer, there are 31 interns in the
field on the Student Conservation Association partnership with
the national parks at 12 sites. And I'd like to cite the fact
that we have now moved beyond the traditional parks by also
working with an educational initiative and creating a business
plan, working with one of the regional office staffs, as well
as working to assist one of the park's units in furtherance of
its business plan at one of the training centers of the
National Park Service.
We look forward to continuing this relationship with the
National Park Service. We will be doing the evaluation in
partnership this year with the National Park Service and a
close-our presentation to them as we are required to do
annually under our cooperative agreement. We thank you for this
opportunity to testify here today in support of what we feel is
a very strong and valuable initiative for our national parks,
and we look forward to this continuing relationship. Thank you
very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hagood follows:]
Prepared Statement of Reginald Hagood, Senior Vice President for
Strategic Initiatives and Business Development, Student Conservation
Association
The National Parks Business Plan Initiative (BPI) is a creative
public/private partnership designed to promote the long-term health of
our national parks through development of improved financial planning
and management tools. The BPI is collaboration between the Student
Conservation Association (SCA) and U.S. National Park Service (NPS).
Graduate students from leading business and public policy schools are
placed in an internship by SCA as management consultants in selected
national parks. The consultants work with park staff to produce a
business plan that clearly outlines park operational requirements,
identifies available financial resources that are currently available,
and analyzes any funding gap that exists. Consultants also work with
park staff to identify operational and investment priorities and
develop strategies for meeting those needs. In addition, some parks
that have produced business plans in the past are revisited to update
their plans and/or perform various in-depth analyses to assist in
program development. In the past two years, SCA has engaged 26 National
Park units and placed 57 Business Planning consultants through this
partnership.
SCA's established relationship with educational institutions,
introduces students to the BPI Program and its valuable career and life
enhancing experiences. SCA assists the NPS with recruiting, site
placement, training coordination, and administration. BPI consultants
are recruited and selected by the NPS Business Management Group and
SCA. They participate in an eleven-week program that typically begins
the first week in June with a week-long orientation session in a
national park and ends in mid-August. SCA administrative support
includes logistical support for participant travel to trainings,
facilitation of the orientation workshop, administrative and financial
liaison with the consultant's park site, and the planning and
conducting of a fall wrap-up meeting held in Washington DC, where
participants present their Business Plan Document. Finally SCA assist
in the administration of program monitoring and evaluation as well
conducting site visits directed at improving future program development
and training.
Each consultant reports directly to their park's supervisor, with
oversight provided by NPS Business Management Group staff which
additionally provides program leadership, technical guidance, and
quality assurance focused on maintaining consistency of the analysis.
Additionally, SCA staff is made available to the consultants for
additional training, logistical support, and counseling. SCA also
provides emergency management support for all consultants while they
are in the field. Each park provides housing and office space.
Over the course of the summer, teams of consultants interview park
staff and review budgets and other relevant documents. Consultants
analyze the park's programs, operations, and activities; identify
standards of operation for each program; and develop financial and
management strategies. Consultants produce business plans and utilize
the online Business Plan Developer (BPD) system for data collection and
presentation. At the conclusion of their internship, the teams of
consultants present a report of their findings to park management.
Upon completion of the program the participants become SCA Alumni
and through the NPS/SCA partnership we are also able to provide ongoing
mentorship, career resources and counseling which has resulted in
employment opportunities for program participants. Numerous BPI alumni
from the 2004 Business Plan consultant group have accepted positions
with the National Park Service. Other consultants have gone on to
accept job placements with other public and private institutions
introduced to them throughout the program as well as in follow-up
career transitioning sessions. This has resulted in placements with
such firms as Booz Allen Hamilton, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the
General Accounting Office.
Senator Thomas. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that very
much.
Mr. Baekey.
STATEMENT OF GEOFFREY A. BAEKEY, SENIOR MANAGER,
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS
Mr. Baekey. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you very much for the opportunity to testify today regarding
business practices within the National Park Service. My name is
Geoff Baekey. I'm a senior manager with PricewaterhouseCoopers,
and I work extensively with the National Park Service on
business-related issues.
Over the next couple of minutes, I'd like to provide you
with my perspective on how PricewaterhouseCoopers has worked
with the National Park Service to incorporate best business
practices. Furthermore, I plan to provide you with specific
examples of how the NPS has utilized these new business
practices to enhance their mission.
Since 2000, PricewaterhouseCoopers has been working closely
with the National Park Service to enhance their concessions
program. As you know, this is one of the biggest and largest
business-based programs in the National Park Service,
generating over $800 million in gross revenues and serving
millions of visitors.
Back when PricewaterhouseCoopers was first hired, the
National Park Service faced a significant backlog of small and
large concession contracts. In addition, the Park Service was
just beginning to implement changes resulting from a new law
governing concessions. These major hurdles required a new way
of looking at the business of managing the concessions program.
Initially, the National Park Service engaged
Pricewaterhouse- Coopers to complete a comprehensive review of
the concessions program. One of the major findings from this
review was that the National Park Service needed to treat the
largest and most complex of the concession contracts with a
much higher level of business and financial scrutiny than the
smaller ones. Pricewaterhouse- Coopers identified 50 contracts
which necessitated this heightened set of business procedures.
From 2000 until today, PricewaterhouseCoopers and the
National Park Service have worked closely to develop detailed
strategic contracting plans for these ``big 50'' contracts.
This involved having a multi-disciplined team of professionals,
including financial, legal, engineering, et cetera, to assemble
new contracts. Most of these new contracts have 10 to 20 year
terms, so in essence we were supplementing other efforts in
developing and implementing long-term business plans for
visitor services with local park and regional support.
When we first commenced our work, PricewaterhouseCoopers
and our subcontractors were responsible for most aspects of the
contracting process. Over time, however, National Park Service
professionals have been taking on a greater share of the
contract due diligence and prospectus development process. One
recent example of this is in the Intermountain Region, which
I'd like to share with you.
The Intermountain Region has the greatest proportion of
large concession contracts in the National Park Service. Over
the past year, the region has been recruiting and hiring
managers with MBAs from top business schools or from recognized
consulting firms to work in their business management division.
In addition, the region has been conducting on-the-job training
with these managers to provide them with the tools they need to
be effective in the field.
Today, Intermountain Regional office managers are taking on
a much more significant role in the contracting process for the
``big 50'' contracts. With their strong business backgrounds,
these professionals can handle overall project management as
well as much of the drafting of the prospectus document.
The National Park Service is more than halfway through the
contracting workload that they commenced in 2000. Much is left
to be accomplished. However, with the introduction of new
National Park Service business professionals and the knowledge
that has been gained by the National Park Service, the next few
years should be very productive.
Another area where PricewaterhouseCoopers has worked
closely with the National Park Service is in the business
process improvement of concessions. With the new law and new
regulations, the National Park Service engaged
PricewaterhouseCoopers to help enhance some of the procedures
used to oversee concession contracts. In the private sector, we
call this asset management. And, Mr. Chairman, the law that you
passed in 1998 also contemplated the need for this enhanced
oversight.
Once a new contract has been executed, much has to be done
to provide quality control and compliance. Contract oversight
activities include financial and operational reviews,
environmental compliance, management oversight, and other
compliance activities. One of the most significant activities
is in the areas of concession evaluation and rate approval. In
2003, the National Park Service engaged PricewaterhouseCoopers
to overhaul the concessions standards evaluation and rate
approval system, also commonly known as SERA.
Much of the work on SERA involves attempting to instill
private sector operating and facilities standards to
concession-operated assets throughout the National Park
Service. In fact, when PricewaterhouseCoopers first started
work on SERA, we tried to overlay industry standards and best
practices to the large concession contracts. What we quickly
found out is that this did not always work. Park Service assets
have unique characteristics which are not generally found in
the private sector. For instance many National Park Service
locations are historic and require special consideration.
Working closely with the National Park Service,
PricewaterhouseCoopers and others tailored best practices from
the hospitality and travel industries for several asset types.
The end result was a set of standards which can be used for
objective evaluation and rate-setting.
Perhaps the most important benefit of this contract
oversight re-engineering has been the close collaboration
between the National Park Service, the concessioners, and
industry experts. Over the past 2 years, the National Park
Service has formed a close-knit group of experts within and
outside the Service who can effectively address all necessary
business and financial challenges. The feedback from all
involved has been very, very positive.
Over the past 5 years, the National Park Service
concessions program has undergone dramatic change. This has
been due in part to our efforts, but the real change has come
from within the National Park Service. Today's National Park
Service managers have a much better grasp of current business
and financial best practices and how this applies to their
jobs. Perhaps most importantly, National Park Service managers
now understand what needs to be completed within the Service
and when they need to engage outside advisers.
Mr. Chairman, thank you once again for the opportunity to
testify. I'd be pleased to answer any of your questions.
Senator Thomas. Fine. Thank you very much. Welcome to the
Senator from Colorado. We've hurried things up a little bit
and, as you know, we have votes here in a few minutes. So would
you have any opening comments or general comments?
Senator Salazar. I'm here to support the national parks and
the chairman of this committee.
Senator Thomas. We're glad to have you here. Well, we'll
have some questions.
Mr. Sheaffer, do you have written guidelines for the people
on the ground to promote practices and--I guess I'm concerned
about the fact that you have general policies and you do it
here in Washington or perhaps even in the regional offices; but
are they on the ground? Do people actually have them in hand?
Mr. Sheaffer. For all of these processes we've discussed
briefly here today, we have guidelines for each of them. And,
yes, I believe they're on the ground. I think we have done a
fair amount of increased documentation over the past--over
many, many years out of necessity, because processes and
procedures have become more and more complex, and producing
these documents is not a simple matter. All of these processes
take some level of commitment and expertise that frankly in
many parks is not available to them. The Park Service doesn't
have a great number of the kind of people that we have supplied
them with in order to pull these processes off in these areas.
So, yes, I think we have extensive documentation in all of
the programs we're discussing, from concessions through the
business planning process.
Senator Thomas. I know that sometimes that is a difficulty
or it appears to be a difficulty in larger agencies to have
policies at the top and get them implemented on the ground.
And, of course, all the parks are different and so on. It's my
understanding you have a business plan initiative in about 70
parks.
Mr. Sheaffer. That's correct.
Senator Thomas. What's your projection on the 388 parks?
Mr. Sheaffer. Well, the way we're going about it
accomplishes about a dozen a year. And we have actually taken
on some of the larger parks in the system, so in terms of the
percentage of dollars, it's a much higher percentage than the
70 would represent. And not that we've ignored smaller- or
medium-sized parks, but we have found that the greatest benefit
comes from going into the larger park areas.
We have developed, by the way, a form, a way of allowing
parks that are smaller to go out on their own and attempt to
produce in some fashion some of the components of this business
plan on their own. And that has--taking advantage of some
fairly modern technologies, IT technologies in particular.
So ultimately getting all the parks done, it's going to
take quite a while to actually have business students in 380
parks for sure. But I think in terms of its effect, I think the
effect is already being copied. Some of the better, more
important components are being copied in parks that don't have
the benefit of this, so the effect is still dramatic service-
wide.
Senator Thomas. Sure. In the Park Service--and I'm always
impressed with the overall employees and how loyal they are and
the background and most of them are very interested in
resources and this and that. Do you now select and hire people
that have a business background for this particular program
that may not have a history in parks, but do have training in
business?
Mr. Sheaffer. Well, as I mentioned, we've had great success
in bringing some of these folks in, and it's of course no
surprise to anyone that some of these folks can command
substantial salaries in the private sector that in many cases
we in the Federal Government frankly can't match. Nonetheless,
we've been able to attract a fair number of them, as I said, 17
that we have working at various places in the Park Service.
The effect that those 17 can have is fairly dramatic,
especially if they're sitting, say, in my office and providing
direct aid to these parks, or in a regional office--Mr. Baekey
mentioned the Intermountain Region being among the leaders in
hiring these folks--or for that matter, in complementary
organizations like NPCA, or even our consultants. So we have
made more resources, more business-like resources available to
the park today than we ever have in the past.
Senator Thomas. That's good. They should remember that if
they want a lot of money, to live in New York City, but they
get to live in Teton Park.
Mr. Sheaffer. I think that's very true, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Kiernan, do you see an emphasis on the
need, for example, in the commercial activities, more than the
parks in general, or concessions, where all the bucks are? How
do you see these things work together?
Mr. Kiernan. It's our sense, yes, there needs to be that
additional expertise on the concessions side, the traditional
business activities, but I would not diminish the benefit of
the skill set of some of these business-minded folks on
managing the resources, on managing visitor flow, on fee
collection. In all candor, it's our sense that this skill set
has application across the full functional spectrum of the Park
Service.
And if I may add, with your previous question, that NPCA
has been known to advocate for additional funding for the
parks. I would add that funds are needed to help some of these
additional staff members in the Park Service improve the
management of the parks. As they say in business, sometimes it
takes money to make money. In some of these cases I would
suggest that additional funds to improve the management of
efficiency in management training of the Park Service can, as
well, in the long run, improve the park operations, resource
protection, et cetera.
Senator Thomas. It's a little more difficult, I suppose, to
deal with resource management as opposed to concession
management in terms of the economics of it. Nevertheless, they
both exist, don't they?
Mr. Kiernan. And issues of work flow management, of long-
range planning, of how to efficiently deploy your resource
staff can--you can do that efficiently from some business and
management expertises.
Senator Thomas. True. What--just in general, I don't mean
to be specific, but what changes, what direction, what
additional activities, what are your priorities for the future
in terms of strengthening this program?
Mr. Kiernan. The business plans in particular?
Senator Thomas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kiernan. I think I'd come back to one of my fundamental
points. This program has been in place now 8 years, and a deep
concern we have is that it continue evolving and growing and
being used in the park, at the regional office, by Congress, by
the Director, et cetera, that it not become a methodology we
used in the past and we're now on to some new gizmo
methodology. It's rolled out there, it's proving very
effective, and I think Congress and the Park Service need to
keep building on it. And as I said, with things like core
operations and the scorecard, which we on NPCA side are still
getting to understand at the conceptual level we support, I
think these things can be additive and help move the whole
management process forward. I would hope it not be set aside
and we move on to some new management fad. That would be a
major loss.
Mr. Sheaffer. If I may, Mr. Chairman, on that question as
well, one thing that these other two processes we discussed,
core operation and scorecards, I think will help us do is
better scrutinize and defend the additional resources that the
parks, the superintendents, represent that they need in these
documents. And that's been, quite frankly, a failing in the
past. And I think that's critical and I think that's one of the
areas that these other processes are intended to help correct.
Senator Thomas. As you move, spread out, some of the
experience you've had can just be spread to the other parks
and----
Mr. Sheaffer. Absolutely. That's correct.
Senator Thomas. Mr. Hagood, where is your organization
located?
Mr. Hagood. Our headquarters, sir, is in New Hampshire.
However, we have a fairly large regional office right here in
Arlington, Virginia, which I manage.
Senator Thomas. For training people. Where is that? All in
New Hampshire?
Mr. Hagood. It is primarily in New Hampshire. We have
what's called the Conservation Career Center, which is in New
Hampshire in the small town of Charlestown, New Hampshire, near
Springfield, across from Springfield, Vermont, right in the
Connecticut River Valley. And we actually do the training in
partnership with the National Park Service in field-based
sites.
Senator Thomas. Now, your organization is not entirely
oriented toward Park Service, is that right?
Mr. Hagood. No, sir, it is not. We have agreements with 14
other governmental partners that we work with. The Park Service
happens to be the largest, with the Department of the Interior
providing a lot of that work. All of the bureaus within the
Department of the Interior, we work very much with in bringing
forth a very similar program style. And we've been able to
actually bring to the attention to some of the sister bureaus
within the Department of the Interior this particular process
by orienting their managers to the fact that the business
planning initiative is ongoing within national parks,
specifically the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau
of Land Management.
Senator Thomas. I see. Now, are these students there
generally just for a short period in the summertime? Is that
part of it?
Mr. Hagood. Yes, sir. They are in the field for
approximately 11 weeks, including 1 week at the beginning that
is a field training and orientation week that we do in a
national park. We rotate that east or west for taking advantage
of a park location to get them familiarized before they
actually go to their specific site within the field to do the
business planning process for 10 weeks.
Senator Thomas. I see. That's interesting. It's a great
program.
Mr. Sheaffer. I might just add, too, if I might, that this
is a plan that, if you've ever been familiar with other plans
that agencies, or the Park Service, for that matter, has done,
this is a plan that we produce in 10 weeks, from start to
finish, at a fairly modest cost of something in the order of
$35,000 a plan. By most standards, that's a pretty efficient
operation.
Senator Thomas. But they then have to be supervised by
somebody there who is trained, so they're not implementing,
they're not----
Mr. Hagood. No, sir, they are actually supervised. We
actually bring the park liaisons to the training and they go
through an orientation for a day and a half as a part of that
week-long training process that's facilitated by the National
Park Service and SCA. And then they--the business planning
group actually provides the ongoing technical assistance
throughout the entire 10 weeks, along with the support of SCA
on a park-by-park basis.
Senator Thomas. I see. Thank you. Mr. Baekey, are you
pretty much confined in your activity to the concession portion
of the park projects?
Mr. Baekey. Yes, we are, sir.
We focus predominantly in two areas. We support the Park
Service in the analysis and development of prospectuses that
get issued for opportunities within the parks relative to
concessions. And we also provide broader advisory services to
the Washington office on unique issues or problems that they're
facing.
Senator Thomas. I see. Do you see the implementation of
your suggestions on the ground?
Mr. Baekey. No question. As we look toward the contracting
side, the prospectus development side of the work that we
assist the Park Service with, clearly there is evidence that
suggests that a lot of the tools and the templates that we have
developed in the due course of our work are now being employed
by concession managers in regions and in some of the larger
parks. There are a number of training exercises that we have
also given, and we find that when we visit some of the parks, a
lot of those training binders in some of the concession
managers' offices.
So we are starting to see the existence and the
implementation of some of the processes that we've developed.
There's still quite a bit of work to do. The business of
concessions is pretty complex.
Senator Thomas. And different, isn't it?
Mr. Baekey. Very different, sir.
Senator Thomas. In every situation.
Mr. Baekey. Very different.
Senator Thomas. I understand that. You're not responsible
for oversight then?
Mr. Baekey. No. We act as a service provider to the Park
Service. We have been in discussions with them on a couple of
different occasions about project management roles, with some
other contractors that may not be as familiar with the process.
We do get involved to varying degrees within that role, but for
the most part, we are a service provider to the Park Service in
the area of concessions.
Senator Thomas. Senator.
Senator Salazar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
your continuing leadership of this committee and of our
involvement with the National Park Service. I have just a few
questions. First, it's Sheaffer or Shieffer? Sheaffer?
Mr. Sheaffer. Sheaffer.
Senator Salazar. Sheaffer, with an A. I know we have
approximately 400, 388 units within the National Park Service,
and I assume that we're applying the scorecard not only to the
national parks, but also to the national monuments and the
other units within the Park Service. My question to you is,
one, am I accurate in that assumption that it's more than just
the parks, it also includes the monuments?
And then second is, what is the status of the completion of
the national scorecard? If I were to go to all my parks and
monuments in Colorado, for example, could we have a report on
the status of completion of the scorecard with respect to each
of those parks?
Mr. Sheaffer. Senator, first of all, it applies to all
programs in the National Park Service, and I have to be clear
on one point, it is still under development. We're still
testing the metrics and the measures. We're still doing some
statistical sampling. We have people in the field who are
seeing about the application of all of these measures.
We can run a scorecard, if you will, we can run these
metrics against any one part. They tend not to be as useful
until employed in comparison or over time, and so far we've
found that the best application is in reviewing annual
budgetary increases where a park superintendent comes in and
with the good graces of Congress we are given some additional
resources. We look at an increase request and we look at it and
use these metrics to see how it measures up, say, to other
priorities in the National Park System. We look at how
efficient the park is, how much overhead they have relative to
other areas, how their workload compares per dollar to other
park areas, and that helps us evaluate more effectively. But,
yes, we can run the numbers on all of these. But as I said,
they tend to be more meaningful when put on a spectrum and
compared to other parks and programs.
Senator Salazar. What is the timing for you to be able to
have that national scorecard completed and for us to be able to
look at the whole system?
Mr. Sheaffer. I'm going to say that at this point I'm
hoping to have it far more refined by the fall than it is now,
and to that point where we can see where those parks fall on
that spectrum for all of these metrics, sometime this fall. We
have contractors helping us and we're using a contractor, not
Pricewaterhouse in this case, that is helping us develop some
of these metrics. So that's when I would hope to have it in a
more refined way that would lend itself to the kind of review
that you're talking about.
Senator Salazar. I think it would be useful for this
committee, and, Mr. Chairman, would particularly--I know I
would have an interest in seeing the results of that survey
nationally, as well as the results of that survey with respect
to the nine parks units we have within the State of Colorado.
This is a question for Mr. Hagood. I know you work with
about 600 people in my State who help out with the Park Service
there. If you look back at the history of the involvement of
volunteers with the National Park Service, can you give us a
sense of how those trends have gone? Are we getting more
volunteers, are we getting less volunteers? If you look back 10
years, what are the trends?
Mr. Hagood. That's actually a good measure for me to give a
look at. I have actually been working with the Student
Conservation for 10 years, and in that role have watched the
growth over that period of time with a steady increase of
volunteers, certainly not just from the Student Conservation
Association, but from other not-for-profits, many of the
conservation service groups nationally. You have some very
highly recognized ones within your State that provide a lot of
service volunteers--Outdoor Colorado would be an example--and a
number of the youth corps that work on the public lands of
Colorado.
But there has been a steady and incremental increase over
the last decade of the number of volunteer service hours
provided in partnership with the National Park Service. The
Student Conservation Association growth within that period has
been enhanced through the Public Land Corps Initiative, whereby
fee revenues are provided as a source of support in
partnership, and then we match those dollars with dollars as a
not-for-profit to provide opportunities for leading volunteers
in parks, for bringing youth to parks, and certainly some of
the other disciplines outside--or in addition to the business
plans, whether that be interpretive in visitor services,
certainly in the maintenance arena where we have conservation
service crews doing trail restoration, as well as the work that
we do in terms of both structures for historic parks in even
addressing some of the prioritization within the--in the
backlog.
Senator Salazar. Can you quantify what the increase has
been in volunteer participation in some of these activities
over the last 10 years? I mean, you're telling me they're
trending up.
Mr. Hagood. Yes, sir.
Senator Salazar. But do you have a sense of what that
increase has been?
Mr. Hagood. Yes, sir. I would say that on the number of
volunteer service hours--and I'll just be able to speak to my
organization alone--when I started at the Student Conservation
Association, we were probably averaging about 750,000 volunteer
hours per annum. We are now at 1.25 million per annum.
Senator Salazar. That's impressive. Mr. Hagood, let me ask
you this question. Other members of the panel can jump in as
well. In one of my prior lives, I oversaw the Division of State
Parks. I was Colorado director of the Department of Natural
Resources, and State parks were one of my divisions. One of the
things that I created during my tenure at the Department was a
program called the Youth and Natural Resources Program. That
program, over its 10 years of existence, brought in about 5,000
young people, mostly of high school age, to work out in parks
facilities and also the other divisions of the Department,
wildlife and water, all the rest of the divisions.
And the idea was to expose young people of diverse
backgrounds to the opportunities that existed in parks and
outdoor recreation kinds of careers. It was a very successful
program in Colorado. Do we have a similar kind of program that
aims at young people within the Park Service?
Mr. Hagood. Yes, sir. There are three different elements
that are directed toward youth, and I'm referring now to, shall
we say, high school youth to early college age youth. Certainly
the first would be the Park Service's YCC or Youth Conservation
Corps program. Annually they provide opportunities for youth in
all national park units to come to the park to work for a
summer on conservation service projects.
In addition to that, the National Park Service, through its
partnering efforts under its partnership initiative, is also
working with organizations like the Student Conservation
Association and the National Organization of Service and
Conservation Corps, approximately 150 of those nationally, to
bring youth into the parks, jurisdiction--I mean, State by
State, or in close proximity to parks. For example, within the
State of Colorado, you would have the youth corps there that
would be at the closest park site, that would be the way that
it would be done. Here, locally, we work in all 14 of the
national park units. I currently have approximately 100 youth
working in national parks today, right here within the national
capital region in an urban setting. But we have just as many
resources for placing youth in national parks, national
forests, and fish and wildlife refuges throughout the United
States.
The third element would be the ongoing local opportunities
that are done case by case with units using outreach to local
not-for-profits to bring youth on board within that arena.
Senator Salazar. Let me ask you a follow-up question, and
anybody else can jump into this that has some knowledge. Talk
to me about the diversity of the people that you have within
the different volunteer groups, especially with the young
people. One of the issues that I found in Colorado was that we
were not getting many people from African-American backgrounds
to participate in our program, so we had a very specific
outreach effort to try to get young people from the African-
American community to participate. So as you carry out the
diversity initiatives of your non-profit or within the
Department, are we able to achieve diversity within the
representation of these young people we have working within our
facilities?
Mr. Hagood. Well, I can only speak to the Student
Conservation Association's effort within this arena, and also
my degree of knowledge about the National Parks Conservation
Association and its work within the same area.
Both organizations have collaborated with the National Park
Service to enhance its ability for outreach in the
inclusiveness of youth of diverse backgrounds having these
kinds of opportunities nationally. Approximately 30 percent of
all of the youth placed by the Student Conservation Association
are of diverse backgrounds, and that is done from a national
recruitment effort. Also, we use the fact that we have offices
located in seven cities that can really reach out into urban
communities and to connect those youth to those opportunities.
And those youth can stay local or go national in terms of the
programming that we provide.
I also know that the National Parks Conservation
Association also provides that opportunity, and I'll defer to
Tom on the specifics of that. But we work collaboratively with
the National Park Service to do that.
And one last point, we are currently in consultation with
the National Park Service to assist in future efforts on the
recruitment and diversity as well.
Senator Salazar. Thank you. And I'll have just one more
question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. And, Mr. Kiernan, you can
follow up on this question as well. I'm a co-sponsor, along
with Senator Alexander and others, of the Centennial Act. And
my question to you is, if we are successful in getting the
Centennial Act passed, how will that impact your particular
program and your efforts?
Mr. Kiernan. If the act is passed, most importantly, we
believe it will dramatically improve the parks, both the
protection of the resources and the visitor experience in the
parks, and give the Park Service the funds to most efficiently
manage both the parks and the business plan program. So the
Centennial Act we see as a means, frankly, of preparing the
National Park System for its second century, starting in 2016.
It is a means of giving the parks both the funds and the
management expertise to meet its full set of obligations.
Two additional comments back on the diversity program, just
a summary comment. As Mr. Hagood mentioned, we have, over the
years, had a series of diversity programs and efforts to assist
the Park Service in both diversifying itself and in increasing
diversity of visitors to the national parks.
I did also want to make one additional comment. You were
asking about the growth in volunteers. If I can broaden that,
there has been, thank goodness, over the last many years, a
growth in volunteers and a growth in philanthropy with the
national parks, and that is of significant importance to the
parks, significant benefit to the parks. Thank goodness for
both the volunteers and the private dollars.
However, it is important to note, and perhaps worthy for
the committee to more deeply understand, some of the
ramifications that ripple from the increased volunteers and
private philanthropy. Obviously there is an impact of the Park
Service needing to change how they do their work, a lot of
which is positive, but there are ramifications. And so it's
worth just understanding. And, once again, thank goodness for
the volunteers and the private philanthropy, but they need to
be knit with what the Federal Government is doing, what
Congress is providing, especially when you look at the dollar
side of it. There is a correlation between----
Senator Salazar. Is that happening now, Mr. Kiernan, where
you see that knitting taking place?
Mr. Kiernan. In some ways it's positive. In all candor, we
hear of some situations where there are some private
philanthropists that might be giving money to the parks that
deeply worry--and I'm not saying this is true or not, but worry
that if they provide X number of dollars to the park, the Park
Service or Congress may pull, if you will, X number of dollars
away from that park. So there is a concern that that might be
happening. So there is a correlation and it's worth
investigating.
Senator Salazar. Excuse me, Mr. Sheaffer. In the national
scorecard that's being developed and in the matrix, is that
factor accounted for somehow in the scorecard that if you get a
philanthropic contribution to a park, that it somehow doesn't
end up punishing the park.
Mr. Sheaffer. No, no, to the contrary. The increased use of
volunteers, increased use of partnership is seen as a positive
and a good management, an indication of quality management, and
that is to be rewarded. That's very clearly a direction I have
from Director Mainella, and it's one that is a part of the
scorecard.
I understand the fear, the offset fear, and the same would
be true of the Centennial funding. There's always the fear when
new fees come our way, when new revenues come our way. The
concern is that they're going to be offset. I can tell you that
in the new revenues and sources we've had given to us, there's
been no direct offset of any of those funds. But I understand
the concern of those on the outside, and I suppose it's a
logical concern for some people to have.
Mr. Kiernan. And if I may just add, the positive side of
all of that, I believe, is there is the potential, frankly, to
increase on both sides and have the private sector and Congress
both step forward, hand in hand, to meet the full needs of the
parks and, frankly, the Centennial Act envisions that as well.
And I think, if well choreographed, we can increase on both
sides and meet the full needs.
Senator Thomas. We have to thank you. We've got a buzzer
ringing over there, Senator. We have to make sure we get the
message out to people that the demands are greater on the
parks. We're having more responsibilities in the parks, and
therefore, funding has to be recognized on that basis.
Just in closing, I hope we have plans beyond the business
plan and kind of what the future of parks need to be, so we
have some idea of where we're going over time and what the
needs are there. I hope we're able to have business software
available to be able to implement these plans and people able
to do that.
We certainly need to get the business plan and the
financial plan integrated into the total park planning in the
future, because it is part of it. And I hope the deferred
maintenance and so on is also part of the plan, because that's
part of it. But I understand. I guess I'm very impressed with
what has happened over the last less than 10 years in terms of
moving forward with the business plan and the approach to it.
It's not complete, it takes time, and there's an awful lot of
things to do. But it's a good program and I think it will be
even more important as dollars grow tighter and you have more
demands through numbers and through visitors and all these
things.
So I do believe, however, that the Park Service has been
committed to doing this, and I'm impressed with that. And I
know sometimes it's hard to implement new things in a large
agency and get it down on the ground, and so we need to do
that. The National Park Conservation Association has been a key
in getting this going, and we certainly appreciate the
leadership that has been done there. The training and the
volunteers is something that's very important, and whether it's
little park rangers or whatever, all those things are
important. And I'm especially pleased that we have commercial
business people who are in the business being called upon to
help advise where we need to be on this, because most of us
understand that in the past most of the people in the Park
Service, that hasn't been their direction and training and
shouldn't have been, they're doing other things. But this also
becomes a bigger part of it.
So I think the reason for this hearing was to kind of get
an update on where you think we are, and then as we go forward,
what needs to be done here to implement what you're doing, and
certainly we want to continue to communicate with you in that
regard. So thank you very much for being here. Thank you for
your input, and we look forward to working with you in the
future. The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:18 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIX
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Department of the Interior,
Office of Legislative and Congressional Affairs,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2005.
Hon. Craig Thomas,
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Committee on Energy and
Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Enclosed are responses to the follow-up
questions from the oversight hearing on the National Park Service's
business strategies held by the Subcommittee on National Parks on July
14, 2005. These responses have been prepared by the National Park
Service.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to respond to you on these
matters.
Sincerely,
Jane M. Lyder,
Legislative Counsel.
[Enclosure.]
Questions From Senator Thomas
COST OF DEVELOPING BUSINESS PLANS
Question 1a. How much has the National Park Service spent to
prepare business plans during the past 5 years?
Answer. During each of the past 5 years, the National Park Service
(NPS) has incurred direct costs of approximately $375,000, or about
$35,000 per developed plan. About $175,000 is for the stipends paid to
the management consultant interns; about $90,000 is spent for
contractual support, including the automated system used to standardize
and archive business plan data; and, about $110,000 is used for
training, review sessions, travel, and the printing of the training
materials and the final plans.
Question 1b. Can you show a direct savings that may not have
occurred without the development and implementation of business plans?
Answer. At Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area (NRA),
savings involved reductions in identified needs, revenue generation,
and implementing management efficiencies, all resulting from its
successful implementation of 27 of 33 investment strategies and half of
the operational strategies identified in its Business Plan. As a
result, the park was able to redirect staffing and cost savings to
close gaps in required needs. Our 2003 Business Plan analysis shows we
reduced the gap by 11%, resulting in $1.6 million in increased
management effectiveness and services.
Question 1c. Has the investment in business plans been worthwhile
and should it continue?
Answer. We estimate the cumulative tangible benefit from the
investment in business plans over the last 5 years to be in excess of
$5 million dollars. One of the greatest impacts that business plans
have is getting parks to refine their view of their needs and
prioritize them so that each dollar brought in will have the greatest
possible net benefit. We also believe that this program has been
worthwhile, as it exposes NPS field managers and their core teams to
the highest caliber of business management practices and analysis from
an independent perspective. The continuation of this program is an
essential part of our workforce planning for developing business acumen
and for developing future leaders with a strong background in financial
management.
Question 2. Which National Park would you say has the best business
approach to operations, maintenance and visitor services? What makes it
so good?
Answer. Among parks that have completed the business plan program,
Santa Monica Mountains NRA has been very successful in implementing new
strategies and developing efficient operations based on its plan.
Additionally, the park's management is continually on the lookout for
new ideas and methods, and accepts change willingly. The leadership is
dynamic, takes chances, and manages the work with a high degree of
professionalism.
Question 3. In addition to business plans, what has the National
Park Service done to promote a business approach for operating and
maintaining the national park system?
Answer. The NPS has pioneered several new tools for promoting
private-sector management concepts: the NPS Scorecard, Asset Condition
Assessments, the Budget Cost Projection Module, and the Core Operations
Analysis. In addition, new developments in the Concessions Management
program, such as using non-appropriated dollars for contract oversight,
are also assisting the NPS in managing operations in a more business-
like manner.
THE NPS SCORECARD
The Scorecard, which is being developed under the leadership of the
NPS Comptroller, will consist of two key elements. First, NPS will
utilize a four-part set of metrics (where applicable) including
background information for each park, descriptive information,
efficiency measures, and performance measures. Second, in order to
ensure that the Scorecard is used to measure performance of similar
parks, the units of the national park system will be stratified and
grouped along three parallel lines--one based on the park's annual
operating budget and Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) usage, one based on the
park's ``business model,'' and one based on the park's region. The six
``business model'' categories are: Multi-Service Provider Parks,
Entrepreneurial Parks, Resource Preservation Parks, Partnership Parks,
Focused-Service Provider Parks, and Visitor Services Parks.
ASSET MANAGEMENT THROUGH CONDITION ASSESSMENTS
The NPS is conducting annual and comprehensive condition
assessments in parks. We are on track to complete the first cycle of
comprehensive condition assessments by the conclusion of FY 2006. When
collected, the information is loaded into the Facility Management
Software System (FMSS), so it is easily accessible and can support
daily decision-making.
The NPS uses two industry-standard measurements for its assets: the
API, which assigns a priority rating to an asset in relation to its
importance to the park mission, and the FCI, which quantifies the
condition of a structure by dividing the deferred maintenance backlog
of a facility by the current replacement value of the same facility.
Using the API and the FCI to manage an asset through its life cycle
maximizes the productivity of operations and maintenance funds applied
against assets. This business approach to asset management will assist
the NPS in determining which facilities are necessary for the mission
and which could be excised from the inventory. It will also allow the
NPS to prioritize assets for receiving immediate and long-term care.
With regard to transportation assets within parks, the NPS works
with the Federal Lands Highway Program to collect inventory and
condition data through the NPS Road Inventory Program and Bridge
Inspection Program. Monitoring and reporting on system performance and
conditions over time is essential for implementing transportation asset
management. For basic preservation, operations, and capacity expansion
decisions, condition data can be used to assess facility condition,
predict long-term preservation needs, and estimate maintenance and
repair schedules.
BUDGET COST PROJECTION MODULE
The Northeast Region and the Accounting Operations Center developed
the Budget Cost Projection Module (BCP), a tool designed to provide
Park Management, Regional Offices and the NPS Comptroller with
financial information regarding the future costs of their operating
units. The BCP tool allows organizations to project future operational
requirements and costs over five years. This tool utilizes baseline
information in parks' financial execution plans to formulate future
costs for labor and non-labor expenses. Additionally, this tool
anticipates the level of future funding available to meet these
requirements based on parks' historic allocations. It provides managers
the flexibility to modify these details to plan for alternate operating
scenarios within these constraints.
CORE OPERATIONS ANALYSIS
Over the past two years, the Intermountain Region has developed and
implemented the Core Operations Analysis program, designed to assist
park management in making fully informed decisions on staffing and
funding alternatives that tie to core mission goals. The process can
also be considered as a precursor to other management planning efforts
such as competitive sourcing and business plan development. The intent
of the process is to ensure funds are spent in support of a park's
purpose and in an efficient manner, that a park's request for funding
is credible and, most importantly, that there are adequate funds and
staff for the tasks appropriate to conserve and protect a park's
resources. Each Core Operations Analysis is expected to result in the
park's ability to reallocate the equivalent of 10 percent of base funds
to more essential activities and high-priority goals, and to work
toward the following within one year of the analysis:
Ensuring staffing costs will be equal to or below 80% of
operating base funds;
Completing cost/benefit analysis of efficiencies and
implement those feasible;
Evaluating current requests in the NPS Operations
Formulation System (OFS) in relationship to park goals to
ensure the OFS requests relate to activities that are
demonstrably essential and important; and
Determining opportunities for competitive sourcing.
The NPS is beginning the process of making this management tool
available Servicewide. The planned accomplishments of this program in
FY 2005 are: analyses in 32 parks in the Intermountain Region and one
park each in the Southeast, National Capital, and Northeast Regions;
analyses of the Intermountain Regional Office and of the Office of the
Associate Director for Administration; and, the training of
facilitators in the Regional and Washington offices to conduct future
analyses.
Question 4. Has the National Park Service developed written
guidelines for promoting business practices? Are concessioners and
commercial operators encouraged or required to follow the guidelines?
Please provide a copy of the business plan guidelines for the record.
Answer. The NPS Scorecard, the Budget Cost Projection Module, the
Core Operations Analysis, the Facility Management Software System, and
the Business Plan Initiative are all tools being used to promote the
use of better business practices by all NPS managers. The NPS also has
several sources of detailed written guidance, including the 2001
Management Policies, supplemented by staff directives, special
directives, and numbered guidelines. The NPS is updating the Management
Policies and is currently revising and rewriting these supplemental
materials so that they conform to the new NPS Directives System, which
consists of Director's Orders, Handbooks and Reference Manuals, in
addition to Management Policies.
Regarding concessioner business practices, the NPS has guidelines
for operations and maintenance practices contained within each
concessioner's contract. These guidelines are reviewed on a yearly
basis by the park and the concessioner, and changes are made as
appropriate. The NPS Concession Program is working closely with the
concession community to establish a Standards, Evaluation and Rate
Approval Program that will further define business practices and set
standards based on private-sector business practices for all types of
concession operations. Once in place, these revised standards will be
incorporated into new contracts and will ensure more consistent
business practices System-wide.
The 2005 Business Plan Training Manual, which contains the
program's guidelines, is attached.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Retained in subcommittee records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 5. The business plan initiative has established a baseline
for over 70 parks throughout the National Park System over the past
nine years. Has a comprehensive review of the business plan initiative
been conducted for trends analysis? Is it feasible to expect to
complete business plans for all parks?
Answer. The NPS Business Planning process is being refined and
improved on an ongoing basis. Business plan data is aggregated and
trends are analyzed each year. A survey form is used to solicit
feedback from the participating park staff and the summer consultants.
In addition, each year the NPS Business Planning Office reviews the
summer efforts and incorporates all feedback into system and
performance improvements for the next year. As a result, each year,
final business plans are stronger.
The overall content of business plans has also expanded to respond
to NPS leadership requests for additional information in the last few
years. As a result, the Business Planning Office is participating in
other financial management initiatives, including the NPS Scorecard,
the Budget Cost Projection Module, and Core Operations Analysis,
ensuring data consistency throughout these financial management tools,
as well as encouraging the sharing of best practices among offices.
It is possible to complete a business plan for any unit of the
National Park System. However, due to Business Planning Office staff
time required for program oversight, NPS can only complete
approximately 12 per year at the present time.
Question 6. The Parks Scorecard has been highly praised by Director
Mainella and promises to be a helpful management tool service wide.
When is full implementation of the scorecard expected?
Answer. The NPS aims to have an improved, comprehensive Scorecard
developed by October, 2005. The initial gathering of information,
efficiency, and performance measures for each park was recently
completed, and NPS staff is collaborating with consultants to enter the
data into a centralized database. The next phase involves performing
statistical analysis of the data and establishing banding criteria for
each measure (i.e. High, Medium, Low ``scores'').
The Scorecard data will be tested extensively in parks that are
undergoing the Business Plan process in order to leverage the financial
expertise of Business Plan consultants at those parks. Two Regional
Offices will also be involved in the testing of Scorecard measures.
More testing in additional parks and Regions may be done if time
permits. After testing has been completed, it is anticipated that some
measures will be revised or removed and additional measures added.
The next phase will involve developing the Scorecard database to be
more ``user friendly'' for the Regional and Washington Office managers
who use the data. This involves establishing baselines for each
measure, establishing benchmarks for park management and performance,
and stratifying/grouping the units of the national park system so users
can compare scorecard measures for similar parks. System development
will most likely take the majority of FY 2006.
Question 7a. In your testimony you state that the Natural Resource
Stewardship and the National Historic Preservation Programs received
PART scores of 83 percent and were deemed moderately effective.
Please provide copies of the full PART evaluation to the committee
for the record.
Answer. Copies of the full Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
evaluations for the Natural Resource Stewardship and National Historic
Preservation Programs are attached?`
Question 7b. What recommendations does the PART suggest to make
these programs highly effective?
Question 7c. What are the NPS plans to implement these
recommendations?
Answer. The OMB PART recommendations for these two programs are as
follows:
NATURAL RESOURCE STEWARDSHIP PART
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0............................. OMB Recommendation Continue the
commitment to
gradual funding
increases for the
Natural Resource
Challenge.
2.0............................. OMB Recommendation Report on the
first group of
parks that have
identified vital
signs to show how
each park can use
these measures to
provide an
overview on the
health of its
ecosystem.
3.0............................. OMB Recommendation Refine efficiency
measures and use
them to identify
best practices,
such as the most
cost-effective
ways to treat
lands disturbed
with exotic
plants.
4.0............................. OMB Recommendation Integrate existing
performance
measures into the
Department of the
Interior's
overall strategic
plan.
5.0............................. OMB Recommendation Determine a
process and
schedule for an
independent
evaluation of the
program.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAM PART
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.0............................. OMB Recommendation Continue work with
State Historic
Preservation
Officers (SHPOs)
to collect and
report
performance
information.
2.0............................. OMB Recommendation Use more
performance data
in budget
requests.
3.0............................. OMB Recommendation Examine ways to
measure and
improve program
cost-
effectiveness.
4.0............................. OMB Recommendation Determine a
process and
schedule for an
independent
evaluation of the
program overall.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NPS has implemented some of these recommendations and is working
towards completing others.
Question 9a. Your testimony states that the NPS continues to work
with OMB to develop performance measures for programs that have
insufficient or inappropriate metrics in place.
Which programs are these?
Answer. Upon completion of the 2003-2004 NPS PART program
evaluations, OMB presented recommendations to improve the performance
measures for the six programs that went through the review. Those
programs are:
Facility Management (RePart) (2003)
LWCF Stateside Grants (2003)
National Historic Preservation Program (2003)
Natural Resource Stewardship (RePart) (2003)
Cultural Resource Stewardship (2004)
LWCF Land Acquisition (2004)
Question 9b. What is the time line for full PART evaluation of
these Programs?
Answer. The NPS continues to work with OMB to implement
recommendations, seeking improvements in performance measures. No
follow-up PART reviews of any previously reviewed programs are planned
at this time.
In 2005 the following programs are going through the PART process:
Concessions Management
External Programs--Technical Assistance
External Programs--Financial Assistance (Heritage
Partnership Program)
Visitor Services
These programs are still in the OMB evaluation process. They are
expected to be completed by January and will be made available with the
FY 2007 Budget.
Question 9c. As the PART evaluations are completed please provide a
copy to the committee.
Answer. Copies of the 2005 PART Program evaluations will be
provided to the committee upon completion.
Question 10. Your testimony provided several outstanding examples
of success stories from the competitive review process and described
ongoing competitive review efforts, with efforts continuing at five
areas begun in 2004 and three studies beginning this year. Please
provide an update of the review process for each unit conducting
reviews.
Answer. The competitive review process that began for five areas in
FY 2004 has been completed for three areas: Golden Gate National
Recreation Area maintenance functions, Intermountain Region Cultural
Resource Management, and Great Smoky Mountains National Park
maintenance functions. In each case, the existing organization was
reshaped into a most efficient organization (MEO), which was then
implemented. Therefore, those functions were not competed.
With regard to the two other areas begun in FY 2004, New York
Harbor Parks recently formed an MEO, and National Mall and Memorial
Parks, by the end of October, 2005. In each case, after that occurs,
the NPS Director will decide whether to implement the MEO or to proceed
with the competitive review process.
The preliminary planning effort is just beginning for the three
park areas designated for review in FY 2005. The review for Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore began in July; the review for San Juan
National Historic Site began in August; and the review for Boston
National Historical Park started in September.
Question 11. What level of integration occurs across the numerous
business software tools utilized by the service?
Answer. As the business tools are being developed and expanded, the
NPS is exploring ways to combine or integrate the processes. Currently,
the Budget Cost Projection module is part of the Administrative
Financial System (AFS3), the NPS tool for managing its budget and
financial information at working levels. The Budget Cost Projection
module has also become an integral portion of the Core Operations
Analysis initiative. As Core Operations is expanded for Servicewide
use, it is being adapted to incorporate the Scorecard and applicable
Regional/Servicewide procedures and policies. Eventually, Core
Operations will become part of the Business Plan process.
The Park Scorecard is also undergoing considerable revision. The
new measures will be tested at parks undergoing the business planning
process this summer. Many of the measures derive and manipulate data
from AFS3, the Facility Maintenance Software System (FMSS), and the
Performance Management Data System (PMDS). Once the Scorecard criteria
and data have been tested, the information will be incorporated in the
NPS Operations Formulation System (OFS), which is the repository for
unfunded operational needs for the Service.
Question From Senator Salazar
Question 1. I understand that the National Scorecard has not been
fully compiled yet and that the regional office in Denver has had a
good amount of input on its formulation. If you are aware of any
initial results from parks in my home state of Colorado would you be
willing to supply my office with that information? And secondly, when
do you plan on issuing the final Scorecard?
Answer. The NPS aims to have a fairly comprehensive list of
indicators for the Scorecard developed by October, 2005. Additional
system development will continue throughout FY 2006, in order to make
the scorecard database more ``user friendly'' for Regional and
Washington Office managers.
The NPS is gathering prototype information for parks in Colorado.
However, this data is in draft form. The Scorecard project coordinator
is in the Denver area and is planning to test draft information at our
Intermountain Regional Office in Denver. We would be happy to provide
more information on Colorado parks as we move further along in this
process.