National Park Service: Efforts to Link Resources to Results Suggest
Insights for Other Agencies (Letter Report, 04/10/98, GAO/AIMD-98-113).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed: (1) how the
Government Performance and Results Act has influenced planning and
budgeting at the National Park Service (NPS); (2) the extent to which
strategic and annual planning and budgeting processes have become linked
and the challenges in achieving such a linkage; and (3) any insight that
NPS's experiences with results-oriented management and budgeting suggest
for other agencies implementing the Results Act.

GAO noted that: (1) NPS implemented the Results Act by instituting a
results-oriented planning process that has introduced for the first time
servicewide goals to be achieved by park managers; (2) at the same time,
NPS addressed the diversity and decentralized nature of the park system
by requiring parks to develop strategic plans to address both applicable
servicewide goals as well as goals specific to their unique legislative
and operating environments; (3) both NPS and individual parks and
programs have prepared strategic and annual performance plans with
measurable outcome-oriented goals; (4) to link these plans to their
budget, NPS designed an information system to report park estimates of
spending according to goals; (5) although NPS has made some progress in
connecting performance plans with budgets, significant issues remain to
be resolved; (6) NPS's efforts to track actual spending according to
performance goals have been hampered by the incompatibility between its
activity-oriented budget and accounting systems and its goal-oriented
strategic plan; (7) the most frequently cited challenges involved
performance measurement and information systems; (8) performance
measurement is complicated by the difficulty of defining
outcome-oriented performance measures; (9) park staff also identified as
a challenge the absence of information systems that link spending
information to goals; (10) despite limited experience with managing for
results, parks reported some benefits from their initial efforts; (11)
benefits included better information about how park resources were being
spent on desired park outcomes and increased communication and resource
sharing across division lines; (12) although NPS is still in the early
stages of implementing the Results Act, the progress it has made and the
challenges that remain provide valuable insights that could prove useful
to other agencies as they implement the act; (13) NPS has demonstrated
how to develop an agencywide strategic planning process in a
decentralized operating environment; (14) NPS officials recognized that
strong field-level involvement in developing the servicewide plan and
the field-oriented approach to implementing the Results Act resulted in
greater ownership by the field staff charged with achieving the results;
and (15) however, changes to these systems will require extensive
consultations and consensus among the agency, the Office of Management
and Budget, and Congress.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  AIMD-98-113
     TITLE:  National Park Service: Efforts to Link Resources to Results 
             Suggest Insights for Other Agencies
      DATE:  04/10/98
   SUBJECT:  Agency missions
             Strategic planning
             National parks
             Program management
             Mission budgeting
             Accountability
             Federal agency accounting systems
             Financial management
             Management information systems
IDENTIFIER:  Government Performance and Results Act
             GPRA
             NPS Performance Management Data System
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Budget, House of
Representatives

April 1998

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - EFFORTS TO
LINK RESOURCES TO RESULTS SUGGEST
INSIGHTS FOR OTHER AGENCIES

GAO/AIMD-98-113

Park Service Resources and Results

(935236)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  FTE - Full Time Equivalent
  GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
  NLC - National Leadership Council
  NPS - National Park Service
  OSP - Office of Strategic Planning
  PMDS - Performance Management Data System

Letter
=============================================================== LETTER


B-279613

April 10, 1998

The Honorable John R.  Kasich
Chairman
Committee on the Budget
House of Representatives

Dear Mr.  Chairman: 

The National Park Service faces a variety of complex resource and
management challenges, including an ever-expanding base of park units
to operate, an ambitious set of resource protection and visitor
service goals, and a temporary new recreation fee authority that is
projected to significantly increase the revenues of many parks.  All
this suggests that the Park Service would benefit from aligning its
planning and budgeting processes to demonstrate how these challenges
can be met with available budgetary resources.  However, in a prior
report for you, we found that the Park Service's budget process is
unconnected to agency performance goals, decentralized, and focused
on justifying increases to a fixed base.\1 The approach the Park
Service has taken to develop its strategic plan and link its planning
and budgeting processes under the Government Performance and Results
Act of 1993 provides a case study in the challenges that need to be
overcome in (1) introducing servicewide goals to an organization that
has traditionally been managed as 376 separate park units and (2)
shifting from a budget process that is unconnected to servicewide
goals and performance to one that links results to be achieved with
available resources. 

Accordingly, you asked us to (1) describe how the Results Act has
influenced planning and budgeting at the Park Service, (2) discuss
the extent to which strategic and annual planning and budgeting
processes have become linked and the challenges in achieving such a
linkage, and (3) provide any insights that the Park Service's
experiences with results-oriented management and budgeting suggest
for other agencies implementing the Results Act. 

This review was an extension of previous work that described the
process the Park Service used to develop budgets and establish
operating priorities.\2 We drew heavily from this prior review to
describe the planning and budgeting practices at the Park Service
prior to its implementing the Results Act. 

To address the three objectives for this review, we selected a
judgmental sample of park units that reflected a variety of types of
operating units located in different regions of the country.  In
addition, we selected parks and service centers with different
degrees of experience in implementing the Results Act.  For example,
6 of the 10 units we reviewed had participated in early testing of
the Results Act, while 4 had not.  At each location, we conducted
structured interviews with officials at Park Service headquarters,
three regional offices, eight parks, and two service centers. 
Although we broadly summarize the views of these officials for
reporting purposes, their observations were not directly quantifiable
and, thus, are not necessarily generalizable across the Park Service. 
Also, at each of the locations, we reviewed planning and budget
documents, including strategic plans, annual performance plans,
budget requests, and financial plans.  The following regional
offices, parks, and service centers were included in our review. 

  -- The Intermountain Regional Office in Denver, Colorado, the
     National Capital Regional Office in Washington, D.C., and the
     Southeast Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia. 

  -- George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia, Great Smoky
     Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee, Harpers
     Ferry National Historical Park in Maryland, Virginia, and West
     Virginia, Independence National Historical Park in Pennsylvania,
     Olympic National Park in Washington, Rocky Mountain National
     Park in Colorado, Vicksburg National Military Park in
     Mississippi, and Yellowstone National Park in Idaho, Montana,
     and Wyoming. 

  -- The Denver Service Center in Lakewood, Colorado, and the Harpers
     Ferry Interpretive Design Center in Harpers Ferry, West
     Virginia. 

We reviewed a variety of our recent reports for general background
information on implementing the Results Act.\3 For information about
linking strategic plans to budgets in government programs, we
reviewed recent public administration literature and reports based on
our prior general management reviews. 

Because it is still early in the implementation of the Results Act,
we focused on the Park Service's approach to implementing the act and
on its progress to date, rather than on the quality of their plans or
on compliance issues.  Our work was done from July 1997 through March
1998 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Director of
the Office of Financial Management of the Department of the Interior
or his designee on March 26, 1998.  The Assistant Secretary for Fish
and Wildlife and Parks provided written comments that are
incorporated as appropriate.  The comments are reprinted in appendix
I. 


--------------------
\1 Park Service:  Managing for Results Could Strengthen
Accountability (GAO/RCED-97-125, Apr.  10, 1997). 

\2 GAO/RCED-97-125, Apr.  10, 1997. 

\3 See, for example, The Government Performance and Results Act: 
1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109,
June 2, 1997), Managing for Results:  Critical Issues for Improving
Agencies' Strategic Plans (GAO/GGD-97-180, Sept.  16, 1997), and
Managing for Results:  Agencies' Annual Performance Plans Can Help
Address Strategic Planning Challenges (GAO/GGD-98-44, Jan.  30,
1998). 


   RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1

The Park Service implemented the Results Act by instituting a
results-oriented planning process that has introduced for the first
time servicewide goals to be achieved by park managers.  At the same
time, the Park Service addressed the diversity and decentralized
nature of the park system by requiring parks to develop strategic
plans to address both applicable servicewide goals as well as goals
specific to their unique legislative and operating environments. 
Both the Park Service and individual parks and programs have prepared
strategic and annual performance plans with measurable
outcome-oriented goals.  To link these plans to their budget, the
Park Service designed an information system to report park estimates
of spending according to goals.  For fiscal year 1999, the Park
Service included its first annual performance plan in its budget
justification, along with traditional functional and park-by-park
presentations.  Lastly, budget formulation in the parks has changed
slightly by requiring parks to assign a servicewide goal to each
request for increased funds. 

Although the Park Service has made some progress in connecting
performance plans with budgets, significant issues remain to be
resolved.  The Park Service's efforts to track actual spending
according to performance goals have been hampered by the
incompatibility between its activity-oriented budget and accounting
systems and its goal-orientated strategic plan.  Park staff we
interviewed said it was too soon to tell whether the strategic
planning process will influence how budgets are executed--i.e.,
allocated and spent--at the park level. 

Park Service staff we interviewed said that key factors for
implementing the Results Act included

  -- combining strong central guidance and support with extensive
     field staff involvement in all phases of the process,

  -- demonstrating visible support from top management,

  -- stressing the importance of strategic plans for communicating
     budgetary needs, and

  -- holding park managers accountable for the results of their
     plans. 

The most frequently cited challenges involved performance measurement
and information systems.  Performance measurement is complicated by
the difficulty of defining outcome-oriented performance measures,
such as those for improving water quality and protecting endangered
species; a lack of baseline data to provide a starting point for
assessing performance; and the difficulty of aggregating park-level
performance to servicewide goals.  Park staff also identified as a
challenge the absence of information systems that link spending
information to goals. 

Despite limited experience with managing for results, parks reported
some benefits from their initial efforts.  Benefits included better
information about how park resources were being spent on desired park
outcomes and increased communication and resource sharing across
division lines.  Although few parks could provide examples of
significant changes arising from their strategic planning efforts,
most were hopeful that, with more experience, the focus on results
would prompt new ways of thinking about how to achieve park goals. 

Although the Park Service is still in the early stages of
implementing the Results Act, the progress it has made and the
challenges that remain provide valuable insights that could prove
useful to other agencies as they implement the act.  The Park Service
has demonstrated how to develop an agencywide strategic planning
process in a decentralized operating environment.  Park Service
officials recognized that strong field-level involvement in
developing the servicewide plan and the field-oriented approach to
implementing the Results Act resulted in greater ownership by the
field staff charged with achieving the results.  Also, by setting
broad servicewide goals and giving line managers flexibility to
create their own unique plans within the umbrella of the servicewide
plan, there is greater assurance that an appropriate balance can be
achieved between servicewide and park-specific goals.  Lastly, as
will be the case in most federal agencies, performance goals will
need to be better linked to budget and accounting systems to truly
affect formulation and execution decisions.  However, changes to
these systems will require extensive consultations and consensus
among the agency, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the
Congress. 


   BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2

The Park Service is the caretaker of many of the nation's most
precious natural and cultural resources.  Today, more than 100 years
after the first national park was created, the national park system
has grown to include 376 units, most of which were created
individually through legislation or presidential proclamation.  The
national park system covers roughly 83 million acres of land and
includes an increasingly diverse mix of sites.  In fact, there are
now 20 different categories of park units.  The most common
categories include (1) national parks, such as Grand Canyon in
Arizona, (2) national historical parks, such as Independence in
Pennsylvania, (3) national battlefields, such as Antietam in
Maryland, (4) national historic sites, such as Ford's Theatre in
Washington, D.C., (5) national monuments, such as the Statue of
Liberty in New York, (6) national preserves, such as Yukon-Charlie
Rivers in Alaska, and (7) national recreation areas, such as Lake
Mead in Arizona and Nevada.  Figure 1 depicts the geographic
dispersion and diversity of the units in the National Park System. 

The Park Service also operates servicewide programs from
headquarters.  For example, the Associate Director for Cultural
Resources, Stewardship, and Partnerships operates the Cultural
Resources Preservation Program, which provides funds for
archeological, ethnographic, and historical research; the preparation
of management studies, object cataloging, historic structure reports,
and cultural landscape reports; and other research, planning, and
data collection activities. 

The line of authority in the Park Service runs from the director and
the deputy director to seven regional office directors.  The function
of the regional offices is to provide oversight and support of park
operations.  Regional directors directly supervise the performance of
park superintendents in their regions.  Regional offices also run
programs for the parks in their regions.  For example, regional
offices run the Cyclic Maintenance Program, which provides funds for
regularly scheduled preventive maintenance and preservation projects
in the parks. 

In addition to the regional offices, the Park Service operates the
Denver Service Center, which provides planning, design, and
construction services for major park programs and complex projects
for parks and the Harpers Ferry Interpretive Design Center, which
provides the planning, design, and production of interpretive media
for the parks.  A variety of field resource centers, such as the
North Atlantic Historic Preservation Center and the Southeast
Archeological Center, also provide centralized technical services to
parks. 

Below the regional office level, parks in the same geographic area
are organized into one or more groups called clusters.  Each park in
the cluster is represented by its superintendent.  Cluster members
meet periodically to set priorities for park funding requests and to
provide mutual operating support.  For example, a manager of a park
with a short-term resource need, such as for a specific technical
skill or piece of equipment, could raise this issue at a cluster
meeting and obtain temporary assistance from another park in the
cluster. 


    Figure 1: 
   The National Park System is
   Diverse and Geographically
   Dispersed

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)



   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

As table 1 shows, the account structure of the Park Service's budget
is organized around functional activities, such as operations,
construction, and land acquisition. 



                                Table 1
                
                 National Park Service Budget Accounts,
                 Program Activities, and Subactivities

                                    Program activities/subactivities
Account name                        ----------------------------------
Operation of the national park      Park management
system

                                    Resource stewardship

                                    Visitor services

                                    Park support

                                    Maintenance

                                    External administrative costs

                                    Reimbursable program

Construction                        Construction

                                    Emergency, unscheduled, and
                                    housing projects

                                    Planning

                                    General management plans

                                    Equipment replacement

                                    Reimbursable program

National recreation and             Natural programs
preservation

                                    Cultural programs

                                    Grant administration

                                    International park affairs

                                    Statutory or contractual aid

                                    Heritage partnership programs

Land acquisition and state          Land acquisition
assistance

                                    Land acquisition administration

                                    State grants

                                    State grant administration

Operation and maintenance of        Operation and maintenance of
quarters                            quarters

Fee collection support, national    Fee collection support, national
park system                         park system

National Park Renewal Fund          National park renewal fund

Historic Preservation Fund          Grants-in-aid

                                    National trust for historic
                                    preservation

Construction (trust fund)           Cumberland Gap tunnel

                                    Baltimore-Washington Parkway

Urban park and recreation fund      Urban park and recreation fund

Miscellaneous permanent             Miscellaneous permanent
appropriations                      appropriations

Miscellaneous trust funds           Miscellaneous trust funds
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source:  President's Budget, Fiscal Year 1999. 

As figure 2 shows, most of the Park Service's budget is for
operations.  For fiscal year 1997, the Park Service obligated about
$1.7 billion.  Of this, about $1.2 billion covered the cost of
operating the national park system--including parks, headquarters,
regional offices, programs, and certain service centers. 

   Figure 2:  National Park
   Service Budget, Fiscal Year
   1997

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Sources:  President's Budget, Fiscal Year 1999; United States
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Fiscal Year 1999
Budget Justification. 

Figure 3 breaks down the nearly 69 percent of the budget that goes to
operations.  About 70 percent of the operating funds go directly to
the parks to cover the costs of their day-to-day operations.  This
operating budget is the primary funding source for any park and it is
generally referred to as the park's base budget.  Parks compete
within their regions or at the servicewide level for another 13
percent of the operating funds, which typically pay for one-time
projects, such as those involving cyclic maintenance, ethnography,
preservation of natural resources, or removal of hazardous waste. 
There are over 25 different sources of these project funds, each with
its own criteria and application process. 

   Figure 3:  National Park
   Service Operating Budget,
   Fiscal Year 1997

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

Sources:  President's Budget, Fiscal Year 1999; United States
Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Fiscal Year 1999
Budget Justification. 

The Park Service's detailed budget justification presents the budget
in a variety of ways.  The dominant presentation is by budget
account, program activity, and subprogram activity, as shown in table
1.  Each budget account has its own section justifying proposed
changes in funding.  In addition, the operating budget includes
separate sections for each major function--resource stewardship,
visitor services, maintenance, and park support.  The account-level
sections include other presentations for requested funds, such as by
object class.  Finally, the budget is presented according to the
specific operating, construction, or other funds being requested for
individual parks and programs.  These park-by-park presentations,
rather than the functional, object class, or performance
presentations, generally serve as the basis for allocating
appropriated funds to parks and programs and for controlling
spending. 

Park entrance and recreation fees represent another source of funds
for park units.  Until recently, fee revenues collected offset rather
than supplemented a park's income.  Recent legislation changed this
treatment.  The 1996 Recreation Fee Demonstration Program enabled 100
demonstration parks to raise park entrance or recreation fees and
retain 80 percent of total fees as added budget authority.\4 The
remaining 20 percent of the fees would be allocated for areas, sites,
or projects selected at the discretion of the agency head.\5


--------------------
\4 First enacted by the fiscal year 1996 appropriations act for
Interior and Related Agencies.  See Public Law No.  104-134, Sec. 
315, 110 Stat.  1321-200 (1996).  This provision was later modified
by the fiscal year 1998 appropriations act.  See Public Law No. 
105-83, Sec.  320, 111 Stat.  1596 (1997). 

\5 We recently testified that new revenues from the 3-year
demonstration fee program are anticipated to provide the Park Service
with over $100 million annually.  In some cases, the new revenues
will as much as double the amount of money available for operating
individual park units.  See National Park Service:  Maintenance
Backlog Issues (GAO/T-RCED-98-61, Feb.  4, 1998).  For a discussion
of federal user fees in general, see Federal User Fees:  Budgetary
Treatment, Status, and Emerging Management Issues (GAO/AIMD-98-11,
Dec.  19, 1997). 


   PLANNING AND BUDGETING BECOMING
   MORE OUTCOME-ORIENTED UNDER
   RESULTS ACT
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3

Under the Results Act, the Park Service for the first time has
introduced servicewide goals to be achieved by park managers.  Both
the Park Service and individual parks have prepared 5-year strategic
plans and annual performance plans.  Budget formulation has changed
slightly by requiring parks to assign a servicewide goal to each
request for increased funds.  Park staff we interviewed said it was
too soon to tell whether the strategic planning process will
influence how budgets are executed--i.e., allocated and spent--at the
park level.  Although the Park Service has made some progress in
aligning its budget structure and processes with its strategic plan,
its efforts to link its plans and budgets have been hampered by the
incompatibility between its activity-oriented budget and accounting
systems and its goal-orientated strategic plan.  Because park
managers do not have systems to track spending according to goals,
either dual systems or crosswalks will be required to communicate the
relationship between resources and results. 


      PLANNING AND BUDGETING AT
      THE PARK SERVICE BEFORE THE
      RESULTS ACT
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.1

At the level of the individual parks, long-range and annual planning
are not new.  For nearly 20 years, each unit in the park system has
been required to have a general management plan to guide the
preservation and use of each unit over a 10- to 15-year period.  The
planning process includes consultation with the public to clearly
define a park's purpose and significance, set goals and objectives,
identify desired future conditions, and evaluate alternatives.  Parks
are also required to have a resource management plan, which defines
park objectives concerning both natural and cultural resources and
documents the status of the resources and outlines actions to ensure
their well-being; it is the blueprint for comprehensive management of
a park's resources. 

A park's general management and resource management plans are
intended to identify the basic facilities, staff, interpretive
materials, and equipment needed to run the park in a manner
consistent with both its enabling legislation and the purposes,
goals, and objectives identified during the planning process. 
Therefore, the plans serve as the basis for funding requests, such as
for new construction, land acquisition, base operating increases, or
project funds. 

At the park level, annual planning closely follows the budget cycle. 
About 18 months prior to a fiscal year, staff in each park analyze
their needs and develop requests for increases to the prior fiscal
year's budget for base operations.  Park officials generally justify
such increases as needed to carry out new or higher levels of ongoing
operations, e.g., additional staff needed to run a new visitor center
or to restore operations that were previously curtailed because past
budgets did not keep pace with rising costs.  Parks compete against
one another for limited funds through the cluster, regional, and
headquarters hierarchy. 

During the summer prior to the start of the fiscal year, staff in
each park begin to plan how expected budget authority for base
operations will be allocated to various park divisions, such as
resources management, maintenance, or interpretation.  The final base
operating budget allocated to each park is the lump sum listed for
each park in the Park Service's budget justification, plus or minus
any changes that were made during the appropriations process.\6 The
Park Service imposes no additional controls on how the base funds are
spent.  For example, the financial plans developed by park managers
showing projected spending by object classes are for informational
purposes only.  Park managers have flexibility to obligate and spend
the funds as needed for ongoing operations.  However, as we
previously reported, many park budgets are dominated by the pay and
benefits costs associated with permanent staff.\7 According to many
Park Service officials we spoke with, this reduces the flexibility of
park managers to reallocate resources in the short term. 

The fee demonstration program has resulted in a new budgetary process
for the 97 projects selected to participate.\8 Under the
demonstration program, park proposals to spend added fee revenues
have not been subject to competition or scrutiny during the budget
formulation process.  Rather, parks must submit proposed spending
plans for estimated fee revenues to headquarters just prior to the
budget year and may only spend fee funds on projects that have been
approved.\9

As we noted in our report on the way the Park Service sets and
budgets for operational priorities,\10 previous long-range and annual
planning have not identified outcome-oriented park goals, results to
be achieved, or the resources necessary to achieve those results.  As
a result, accountability in the Park Service has lacked a focus on
the outcomes of park operations.  Accountability for park outcomes is
especially important for an agency like the Park Service, which has
traditionally set priorities and developed budgets at the park level. 
Under this decentralized management structure, individual park
managers can make decisions about park operations that may or may not
be consistent with the agency's mission, priorities, or goals. 


--------------------
\6 The regional offices we interviewed subtracted a small amount of
funds from each park's base allocation to pay for uniforms and
training for park staff.  One region we interviewed assessed 1
percent of each park's base budget to pay for unexpected park-level
needs that arise during the fiscal year. 

\7 Park Service:  Managing for Results Could Strengthen
Accountability (GAO/RCED-97-125, Apr.  10, 1997). 

\8 The temporary fee demonstration authority expires at the end of
fiscal year 1999, although revenues collected will remain available
through the end of fiscal year 2002 (16 U.S.C.  460 l-6C, note). 

\9 Park managers are restricted by law in how these funds may be
used.  The funds collected under this program must be used for
backlogged repair and maintenance projects (including projects
related to health and safety) and for interpretation, signs, habitat
or facility enhancement, resource preservation, annual operation
(including fee collection), maintenance, and law enforcement relating
to public use.  The funds may not be used to plan, design, or
construct any permanent structure without prior approval of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations if the estimated cost of the
facility exceeds $500,000. 

\10 GAO/RCED-97-125, Apr.  10, 1997. 


      PARK SERVICE USED
      FIELD-ORIENTED APPROACH TO
      STRATEGIC PLANNING
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.2

The nature of the Park Service's mission and decentralized structure
necessitated a phased, field-oriented implementation of the Results
Act.  We previously reported that the Park Service's mission has dual
objectives:  to provide for the public's enjoyment of the resources
that have been entrusted to its care and to protect its natural and
cultural resources so that they will be unimpaired for the enjoyment
of future generations.\11 Balancing these often competing objectives
has long shaped the debate about how best to manage the national park
system.  The competing missions and decentralized management culture
of the Park Service provided a challenging environment in which to
introduce common, servicewide missions and goals as called for by the
Results Act. 

To overcome these challenges, both headquarters and field staff were
engaged in drafting and exchanging comments on early draft strategic
plans.  Park Service staff have characterized this approach as
"diagonal" rather than "top-down" or "bottom-up"; all described this
approach as both difficult and frustrating.  However, the same staff
commented that this approach was probably the only way to develop a
servicewide plan that balanced the needs of both headquarters and
field staff and therefore achieved a degree of acceptance and
ownership by both groups. 

A key element of the Park Service's approach to implementing the
Results Act has been extensive field testing.  During the summer of
1995, the Park Service undertook "prototype" exercises in strategic
planning and performance measurement at six parks and three programs. 
The experiences of those prototype parks and programs along with help
from planners at the Denver Service Center shaped the Park Service's
strategic planning process and led to the development of some initial
performance measures.  During fiscal year 1996, staff from a park or
program from each cluster, known as lead parks, worked to refine the
goals in the servicewide plan and the implementation process.  The
experience of the prototype and lead parks also led to the
development of written guidance used to train staff at the rest of
the parks during the first part of fiscal year 1997.  A more detailed
description of the Park Service's approach to implementing the
Results Act is contained in appendix II. 


--------------------
\11 GAO/RCED-97-125, Apr.  10, 1997. 


      RESULTS ACT HAS LED TO
      OUTCOME-ORIENTED,
      SERVICEWIDE GOALS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.3

Under the Results Act, the Park Service for the first time has
developed a servicewide strategic plan stating the Park Service's
mission, mission goals, and outcome-oriented long-term goals that
describe in measurable terms a desired future condition.\12 The
servicewide plan serves as the umbrella for plans developed by parks,
programs, and offices.\13 The long-term goals in the plan are to be
achieved over a 5-year period from fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year
2002.  The top portion of figure 4 depicts the structure of the Park
Service's strategic plan.  Appendix III contains a more detailed
description of the Park Service's mission, mission goals, and
long-term goals. 

   Figure 4:  Structure of
   Servicewide and Park-Level
   Strategic and Annual
   Performance Plans

   (See figure in printed
   edition.)

According to Park Service officials, by September 30, 1997, each park
had prepared a long-term strategic plan that mirrored the goals in
the servicewide plans.  Parks whose activities contributed to any of
the servicewide long-term goals were required to include those
long-term goals in their strategic plans.  Parks could also include
long-term goals that were not in the servicewide plan, but still fit
within the Park Service's broad categories of goals.  Park-level
strategic plans cover the same 5-year period as the servicewide
strategic plan.  To link the strategic plans with park operations,
parks also prepared annual performance plans that detail the specific
performance goals for fiscal year 1998 and the activities, operating
funds, and full time equivalent (FTE) staff needed to achieve the
annual goals. 

Park Service officials told us that the first servicewide annual
performance plan was created by summing across all parks the annual
performance targets, such as the number of acres to be restored, for
each long-term goal, along with the operating funds and FTEs
associated with the annual performance target.  The Park Service
calculated servicewide percentage performance targets based on the
park-level input.  Figure 4 shows this process with an example of a
goal--and the actions and resources needed to achieve that
goal--taken from the strategic and annual performance plans of one of
the parks we visited. 


--------------------
\12 According to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs report
accompanying the Results Act, a performance goal is the target level
of performance (either output or outcome) expressed as a tangible,
measurable objective against which actual achievement will be
compared. 

\13 "Parks" refers to the 376 park units in the national park system. 
"Programs" refers to regional or servicewide programs, such as the
Hazardous Waste Program.  "Offices" refers to central support
offices, such as the seven regional offices as well as headquarters. 
Hereafter, unless otherwise noted, parks, programs, and offices will
be referred to collectively as "parks."


      CHANGES TO THE BUDGET
      PROCESS IN EARLY STAGES OF
      IMPLEMENTATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.4

The Results Act is based on the premise that budget decisions should
be more clearly informed by expectations about program
performance.\14 The Park Service has taken initial steps to align its
planning and budget processes.  Under the Results Act, the Park
Service's process for formulating requests for base funding increases
has changed slightly.  Parks requesting a funding increase are now
required to specify which long-term goal will be addressed by such an
increase.  Park Service guidance also suggests that parks justify
their requests for funding increases by describing how the increase
would enable the park to meet its goals.  Therefore, as such requests
are evaluated at the cluster, regional, and headquarters levels,
reviewers will have additional information about the specific Park
Service goal to which the request will contribute.  At the time of
our review, however, parks were not required to demonstrate the level
of performance that could be achieved with the requested funds. 

As a first step toward bringing the agency's budget presentations in
line with its performance goals, the Park Service has developed an
information system, called the Performance Management Data System
(PMDS), which enables parks to enter their annual performance goals,
along with the estimated funds and FTEs needed to achieve the goals,
into a servicewide information system.  PMDS is an internal Web site
for the Park Service that provides users with information on the
Results Act, including technical guidance, a list of the Park
Service's goals, data entry screens for performance and budget
information, and the ability to generate various reports, such as
performance and resource information by long-term goal, region, or
park.  For each goal, there is a data entry page on which parks enter
long-term goal, baseline, and annual target information, along with
the funds and FTEs needed to achieve the targets for fiscal years
1998, 1999, and 2000.  During the initial transition period, parks
entered data for fiscal year 1998 only.  According to Park Service
officials, out-year data was to be entered by staff in each park
during March 1998 for the next budget cycle. 

Park Service officials said that it was too soon to tell whether the
strategic planning process will influence how budgets are formulated
and executed.  Although the Park Service used PMDS data to produce
its fiscal year 1999 annual performance plan, which was included in
its fiscal year 1999 budget justification to Congress, the
justifications remained focused on traditional functional and
organizational budget presentations.  Most park managers also said
that it was too soon to evaluate the influence of strategic planning
on resource decisions.  For example, despite park managers' relative
freedom to spend base operating funds as needed within total
allocations, some Park Service officials cited the relative
inflexibility associated with budgets dominated by increasing
personnel costs as a barrier to changing resource allocations to
achieve performance goals.  One park official said that the strategic
and annual performance planning process will not likely lead to
changes in resource decisions until parks begin to track performance
against goals. 


--------------------
\14 Performance Budgeting:  Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA
Implementation (GAO/AIMD-97-46, Mar.  27, 1997). 


      NOT ALL FUNDING SOURCES
      LINKED TO PARK PLANS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.5

To develop park-level and servicewide annual performance plans, the
budget office instructed parks to assign only base operating funds to
their annual goals.  This decision was made because base operating
funds are considered the only stable source of funding for purposes
of planning over the 5-year period of the strategic plan.  However,
park-level officials commented that base operating funds are only one
of a variety of sources of funding used to accomplish a park's goals. 
Many parks also rely heavily on other sources of funding, including
project funds, volunteer time, and concession payments to accomplish
their goals.  For example, the budget division chief observed that
the servicewide strategic plan calls for parks to increase visitor
satisfaction.  A park manager may decide that fixing bathrooms will
contribute to this goal, but may use project rather than base
operating funds to pay for the repairs.  Because project funds cannot
be included in the park's annual performance plan, this activity
would be excluded from the park's plan. 

According to the budget division chief, the problem with parks
assigning project funds to their goals is that parks must compete for
those funds annually.  Since they cannot count on having those funds
from one year to the next, they cannot confidently project 5 years
forward how those funds will help them accomplish their long-term
goals.  Since headquarters program directors or regional directors
control the allocation of project funds, these managers were
responsible for assigning the funds and FTEs for each project to the
servicewide goals on the basis of past uses of the funds at the park
level. 

The budget division chief said that resolving this issue in a way
that allows park managers to incorporate project funds into their
plans may force the Park Service to require parks to submit
prioritized requests for project funds at the same time they request
increases to base funding (i.e., following the timetable for budget
formulation).  This would be a change from current practice, in which
overall levels of project funding are formulated and requested in the
President's budget, but specific projects are not subsequently
selected and placed in priority order until just prior to the budget
year. 


      PARK SERVICE GOALS DIFFER
      FROM ACTIVITY STRUCTURE OF
      BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING
      SYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.6

Park Service officials told us that creating a direct link between
planned and actual spending and the Park Service's annual goals is
complicated by the fact that the existing budget and accounting
structures are activity-oriented and do not mesh well with the
goal-orientation of the Park Service's strategic plan.  The activity
orientation of the account structure can be seen in table 1. 

The current budget structure is also the foundation for the Park
Service's accounting system.  As park and program managers execute
their budgets, they set up accounts associated with maintenance,
interpretation services, park support, etc., and use established
codes to record the nature of the expense, e.g., trails and walks
(maintenance), special interpretive programs (interpretation and
educational programs), and administration (park support).  Thus, park
and program managers can use the budget and accounting systems to
plan how much they intend to spend on an activity and then track
actual spending against the plan.  In the Park Service, these
planning and budgeting systems are for park-level management
purposes; for financial control purposes, the Park Service monitors
spending only against total allocations to individual parks and
projects. 

In contrast to the activity orientation of the budget and accounting
systems, the Park Service's goals describe desired future
conditions--or outcomes--in the areas of resource protection, visitor
services, preservation of resources through partnerships, and
organizational effectiveness.  PMDS captures estimated park and
program spending by goal.  It was not, however, designed to be an
accounting system.  Currently, park managers have no way to track or
report how actual spending compared to planned spending by goal at
the end of the fiscal year.  Park Service staff told us that until
the agency develops a system for linking its goals to its budget and
accounting systems, parks will continue to produce two sets of books: 
one for planning purposes using data from PMDS and another for
financial accountability and budget execution purposes using data
from separate budget and accounting systems. 

As a potential fix for this duplication, the Park Service is in the
process of modifying its park-based financial management system to
allow parks to create a crosswalk between their budget projections
and actual cost data and their strategic goals.  According to a
planning document prepared by the Park Service's Accounting
Operations Center, the crosswalk would allocate all of a park's
accounts in the budget execution system to the park's goals.  Park
managers would determine the percentage of the budgeted and actual
funds in a particular account that would be automatically allocated
to each park goal.  For example, a park could associate all funds in
an existing road maintenance account to a single goal, such as
enhancing the visitor experience, or it could split the funds among a
variety of goals using set percentages, such as 50 percent for
enhancing the visitor experience and 50 percent for preserving park
resources.\15


--------------------
\15 The Park Service's planned allocation of accounting data to goals
raises issues related to achieving the objectives of the Statement of
Federal Financial Accounting Standards No.  4--Managerial Cost
Accounting Standards.  The standard, which is being implemented by
federal agencies in their financial statements for fiscal year 1998,
calls for accumulating and reporting cost information by
"responsibility segments" and by "cost objects." For the Park
Service, an individual park is a responsibility segment and a
specific goal is a cost object.  According to the standard, there are
several ways to assign costs by responsibility segment and cost
object.  For example, a reasonable and consistent allocation of costs
could use a relevant common denominator, such as direct labor hours,
that would be consistently applied across parks. 


      CHANGES TO BUDGET STRUCTURE
      WOULD REQUIRE DIALOGUE WITH
      CONGRESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :3.7

Park Service officials commented that, carried to its logical end,
outcome-oriented management of the Park Service would require
dramatic changes to the existing budget structure.  The traditional
activity-oriented budget structures would need to change to reflect
the results or outcomes of the Park Service. 

However Park Service officials were concerned about such a change
because of the associated disruption, costs, and loss of historical
trend data.  Park Service officials we spoke to emphasized that any
change in the budget structure would need to involve extensive
discussions with Congress to determine if any proposed changes would
meet congressional needs for oversight and control. 

Some preliminary discussions have already occurred, but no changes
were proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget.\16 In its report on the
fiscal year 1998 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies
Appropriations Bill, the House Committee on Appropriations suggested
that "agencies examine their program activities in light of their
strategic goals to determine whether any changes or realignments
would facilitate a more accurate and informed presentation of
budgetary information."\17 In response to this suggestion, the Park
Service has developed a preliminary proposal to change its budget
structure to achieve a better alignment with the goals in its
strategic plan.  This proposal is currently being reviewed internally
by the Department of the Interior.  The proposal would keep current
budget accounts intact, but would replace existing program activities
or subactivities within those accounts with new program activities or
subactivities to reflect the Park Service's major goals in the areas
of resource protection, the visitor experience, and partnerships to
conserve resources and provide recreation. 


--------------------
\16 Hearings before the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies
of the House Committee on Appropriations, 105th Congress, 1st
Session, pp.  791-793 (1997).  Park Service officials discussed how
the budget presentation might change if the budget were linked to the
agency's strategic goals.  See also Senate Committee Report 105-56,
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill,
1998, p.  7. 

\17 OMB has also recognized that such changes are likely and has
encouraged agencies to consider modifying their budget structures so
that budget and performance information is presented in a more
understandable and thematic way. 


   PARK SERVICE'S EXPERIENCES WITH
   RESULTS ACT PROVIDE INSIGHTS
   FOR OTHER AGENCIES
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4

Park Service officials identified several key aids to implementing
results-oriented management in the Park Service.  These included
using a field-oriented approach to training and development of
strategic plans, providing top management support, and introducing
budget constraints.  These officials also identified challenges, such
as the difficulty of holding managers accountable for achieving park
goals, developing appropriate measures for achieving goals, and
linking planning systems to budget and accounting systems.  The
officials told us that, despite these challenges, the strategic
planning process produced benefits, such as increased communication
and resource sharing within parks and information about how resources
were being allocated among goals.  There was less agreement that the
process had resulted in any major operational changes to date.  Some
park staff said the process confirmed that they were generally doing
the right things; others said the process had led them to make
changes to meet a goal they had identified or to question assumptions
about park operations.  Several park managers were hopeful that their
strategic and annual performance plans would provide a more effective
way to justify their budgets. 


      FIELD-ORIENTED APPROACH TO
      TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT OF
      STRATEGIC PLANS WAS
      ESSENTIAL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.1

The Park Service's field-oriented approach, in which park managers
participated in the development of the planning process, the
servicewide plan, and, ultimately, the development of park-level
plans, was essential to make these plans and processes meaningful to
park staff and obtain their support.  For example, the Park Service
chose to pilot test the strategic planning process at 25 parks. 
Staff at one of those parks said they could see a lot of their work
reflected in the final servicewide strategic plan.  At a non-test
park, staff said they benefited from the pilot approach by avoiding
previously tested approaches that proved unworkable. 

Training developed by the Park Service was also cited as a key aid to
implementing the Results Act at the park level.  Staff commented that
the guidance and hands-on form of training provided a good basis for
staff to develop their own strategic plans.  For example, one park
manager said that, in addition to presentations at the annual
superintendent's conference and cluster meetings, the park's
management staff received 4 hours of training with the director of
the Office of Strategic Planning (OSP) and a day of hands-on training
with the regional office's Results Act coordinator.  The training
sessions provided examples of mission statements and goals from other
parks and definitions of terms.  Among the handouts provided were
copies of templates for strategic and annual work plans.  The manager
said that all this material was helpful in getting started.  Another
park manager commented that his staff could not have developed their
strategic plan without the training.  In that region, nearby parks
formed groups and the staff from the region's lead parks and the
regional director's office led 2-day workshops for each group.  Staff
said they made a few wrong turns in the beginning, but the training
and feedback helped them get back on track. 

In addition to hands-on training, park managers reported that the
Park Service training and guidance aided implementation by stressing
that they should develop their park-level strategic plans in a way
most useful for their particular operations within the overall
framework of the servicewide plan.  This approach increased the
credibility and acceptance of the strategic planning process in
individual parks.  One park manager observed that most parks had a
great deal of control over how the Results Act was applied in their
parks and could focus on the elements of the servicewide plan that
were most useful to them according to their unique values and needs. 


      TOP MANAGEMENT DEMONSTRATED
      COMMITMENT TO SUCCESSFUL
      IMPLEMENTATION
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.2

Top management support for implementing the Results Act by both
regional directors and high-level headquarters managers aided
implementation by emphasizing the importance of the effort.  One park
manager told us that, at a recent superintendent's conference, the
deputy director of the Park Service made it very clear during his
presentation that the Results Act was a priority.  Such a show of
support made a positive difference in the attitudes of field staff
toward the strategic planning process.  Another park manager
commented that his regional director issued strongly worded guidance
to park superintendents supporting implementation of the Results Act. 
The regional director said she wanted park managers to be personally
involved in making presentations to her about their strategic plans. 
This led the park manager to take the effort more seriously and to
work intensively with division chiefs as a team to develop their
plan. 

Conversely, some headquarters managers have had less involvement with
Results Act implementation than park or regional officials. 
According to one headquarters official, mid-level managers at
headquarters have not had the same degree of training or direct
experience developing strategic plans as park managers since the Park
Service's implementation of the Results Act has been primarily
field-oriented to date.  As a result, there is more cynicism
concerning the Results Act among mid-level managers at headquarters
than in the field.  This official said that if they had to do this
again, headquarters staff would have received the same orientation
and training that park and regional staff received. 

In addition to visible top management support, centralized support
and guidance provided by OSP and regional office coordinators were
important aids to developing park-level plans.  For example, several
park managers said that the training manual developed by OSP,
entitled Field Guide to the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) and Performance Management, was timely and excellent, although
elements of the guide quickly became outdated.  Park managers also
found OSP's brief summary guide, entitled GPRA on the Go, to be a
concise and useful synopsis of how to implement the Results Act. 
Several park managers noted that as they were rushing to complete
their plans, central guidance changed frequently.  However, managers
also commended OSP's use of information technology, such as a
computer bulletin board for posting guidance, questions, and answers. 
One park official said that he had received over 100 electronic mail
messages from the regional office and headquarters providing
directions, examples, and suggestions on implementing the Results
Act. 

Finally, park officials suggested that a team approach to developing
strategic and annual performance plans resulted in better plans with
more buy-in from participants.  In the parks we visited, we generally
found that key management staff, such as the superintendent,
assistant superintendent, division chiefs, and financial managers
were personally involved in developing the strategic and performance
plans, although the extent of the involvement varied.  A park manager
also noted that the use of trained facilitators from parks with more
strategic planning experience to assist staff at less experienced
parks had been very helpful. 


      LINK TO BUDGET MADE PLANS
      MORE CONCRETE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.3

According to headquarters and regional office officials, the
requirement that parks estimate the budgetary resources associated
with each goal aided strategic planning by making the exercise more
concrete to park staff.  Headquarters and regional office officials
saw unambiguous benefits from linking park resources to their plans. 
For example, one headquarters official commented that making a
connection between Park Service goals and resources is essential to
make the Results Act work.  Without this connection, park staff would
view the effort as a paperwork exercise.  A regional office manager
added that the resource assessment phase of the strategic planning
process was critical as a reality check on goals.  Parks had to
answer the question:  Can these goals be realistically achieved with
existing resources?  If not, goals were adjusted.  Another
headquarters official thought that the park strategic plans would
minimize arguments about budget priorities in the parks--the goals in
each park's plan now represent the park's priorities for the next 5
years. 

Park officials also mostly agreed with the importance of the
budgetary link.  For example, the requirement to assume constant,
inflation-adjusted resources over the 5-year period of the strategic
plan led a number of parks to develop more realistic goals after
considering budgetary constraints.  For example, officials at one
park proposed a boundary study to address the protection of
historical resources currently located outside the park's boundaries,
which had been arbitrarily established.  However, staff decided to
scale back their initial plans because a sufficient level of funding
would not be available without a budgetary increase.  This contrasts
with an experience described to us prior to implementing the Results
Act, in which managers described a long-term management plan they
developed that was not realistic because there was no way to achieve
the goals in the plan without additional funding. 

While generally agreeing about the importance of a budgetary link for
internal planning purposes, several park officials had concerns about
how such data would be used by the Park Service or by Congress to
make budgetary decisions.  Some questioned whether estimated spending
for each goal was sufficiently precise to be used to challenge a
park's budget.  Park officials had fewer concerns about using budget
data at the park level to aid internal decision-making.  Such views
are not unique in the executive branch.  In our recent report on the
use of performance information in the budget process, executive
branch officials we interviewed said that the principal value of the
Results Act was internal and management oriented, stemming from its
ability to clarify missions and performance expectations.\18 They
also said that current budgetary pressures and apprehension about the
use of Results Act information could increase levels of defensiveness
among agency staff. 


--------------------
\18 GAO/AIMD-97-46, Mar.  27, 1997. 


      HOLDING MANAGERS ACCOUNTABLE
      FOR RESULTS IS AN IMPORTANT
      FACTOR, BUT CONCERNS REMAIN
      AT THE PARK LEVEL
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.4

The Park Service's intention to hold upper-level park managers
accountable for achieving the goals in their strategic and annual
performance plans lent greater importance to the strategic planning
effort, but it raised concerns for some park managers.  Headquarters
officials generally agreed that holding managers accountable for
achieving their goals was important for successful implementation of
the Results Act.  For example, one official said that holding
managers accountable for results would have a particularly strong
influence if managers believed that the results would affect their
performance evaluations and budgets.  However, at the park level,
officials from half of the eight parks we interviewed agreed that
holding managers accountable for achieving the goals in their plans
reinforced the importance of strategic planning.  Park staff
expressed the following concerns. 

  -- The focus on accountability is not really new in the Park
     Service because park managers have always been held accountable
     for the results of their actions.  The difference under the
     Results Act is that now managers will be held accountable for
     the measurable outcomes of their operations.  Park managers were
     also concerned about being accountable for achieving servicewide
     goals where outcomes cannot be directly controlled by park
     managers.  For example, the Park Service has a goal to improve
     air quality in certain parks.  However, this will be difficult
     for park managers to do because of the many external
     environmental factors that affect air quality that are beyond
     their control. 

  -- The operating environment of a park can change rapidly and park
     managers respond by moving resources to where they are needed
     most.  Holding managers accountable for achieving the goals in
     their plans will reduce park managers' flexibility in the
     short-term to move resources where they are needed most,
     especially when emergencies occur.  In their view, such reduced
     flexibility to address emergency needs could have negative
     consequences for resource protection and the visitor experience. 


      OUTCOME-ORIENTED GOALS ARE
      DIFFICULT TO ESTABLISH AND
      MEASURE
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.5

One of the most prominent challenges identified by Park Service
officials was developing meaningful outcome-oriented goals that could
be measured and for which managers could be held accountable.\19 In
particular, comments focused on the difficulty of measuring outcomes
for natural resource protection and customer satisfaction.  Park
Service officials commented on the difficulty of selecting
appropriate outcome measures for natural resources, such as water
quality, endangered species, or disturbed lands.  One official gave
the following examples. 

  -- A single goal may be difficult to apply uniformly across park
     units.  For example, there are hundreds of water quality
     measures that are specific to the unique characteristics of
     individual parks.  The water quality standards needed to support
     plants and animals can differ from one species to the next or
     may not yet be defined scientifically.  In contrast, the water
     quality standard for safe recreational swimming can be
     determined and is frequently defined at the state level.  The
     Park Service adopted the goal of reducing the number of days
     park recreational waters fail to meet state water quality
     standards for swimming since it could be clearly defined, was
     measurable, and applied more broadly within the park system than
     other water quality goals that had been identified. 

  -- The need to develop goals narrow enough to be aggregated
     meaningfully at the servicewide level may exclude closely
     related goals developed by parks.  Budget data taken from PMDS
     revealed that spending on the 31 long-term goals in the
     servicewide strategic plan represented 44 percent of the
     operating budget.  The remainder of the budget was linked to
     other mission-oriented goals developed by individual parks.  A
     Park Service official suggested that this may indicate that many
     park goals did not fit the specific definition of the goals in
     the servicewide plan.  For example, the servicewide goal for
     restoring disturbed lands focuses only on disturbances caused by
     development or invasions of exotic species.  However, many parks
     set related goals, such as restoring lands disturbed by flooding
     or past forest fire control practices.  Such goals would appear
     in the performance management system as park-specific goals,
     although they were closely related to the servicewide goal.  To
     address this problem, the Park Service will modify PMDS to allow
     park officials to indicate when a park goal is closely related
     to a servicewide goal.  This reorientation of goal labeling
     might offer a truer picture of the portion of the budget that is
     allocated to servicewide priorities. 

  -- It can be difficult to measure progress toward a final outcome
     because the final outcome itself is not easily measured.  For
     example, the Park Service has a goal to return land disturbed by
     development or exotic species to its natural state.  A
     particular park may not have any scientific criteria for
     determining exactly when the natural state has been recovered. 
     However, a first step toward recovering the land is to remove
     the exotic species.  This action can be measured in terms of
     acres and used as a proxy for the final outcome. 

  -- Even when a measure can be developed, the units to be measured
     can vary greatly, making it difficult to interpret aggregate
     data.  For example, both Independence National Historical Park
     in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and the Pierce-Klingle Mansion in
     Washington, D.C., are listed on the National Register of
     Historic Places.  Therefore the servicewide goal to maintain
     historic structures in good condition would apply to both
     structures.  However, a headquarters official suggested that
     Independence Park has greater historical significance than
     Klingle Mansion.  It is necessary to look behind aggregate
     figures to determine the relative weight and importance of
     individual performance goals. 

There is also the issue of whether park managers can control all the
outcomes in their parks.  For example, according to a headquarters
official, parks exist in a broader geographic context and do not
control all the variables that affect the quality of park resources. 
Some goals related to reducing pollution were abandoned because the
Park Service did not own the land that generated the pollution and
therefore could not directly prevent it. 

Most Park Service officials agreed that parks lack key baseline data
to begin measuring performance against goals.  Two large natural
resource parks said that the lack of baseline data to measure
progress in preserving natural resources was a problem because they
did not have extra funding in their base budgets to develop the data. 
Therefore, they will have to reduce spending on other park operations
to free the necessary funds.  To address the lack of baseline data,
an OSP official said that parks were allowed to establish "threshold"
goals aimed at establishing baseline performance data.  After
establishing baseline performance levels, park officials could then
focus on achieving the percentage improvement goals contained in the
servicewide strategic plan.  Several plans we reviewed included
threshold goals aimed at developing baseline performance data during
fiscal year 1998. 

In the area of customer satisfaction, many parks were concerned that
they were going to be held accountable for achieving improvements in
customer satisfaction, but that parks did not yet have an instrument
for measuring customer satisfaction.  A headquarters official told us
that the Park Service was in the process of addressing this issue by
developing a servicewide Visitor Survey Card which will be
distributed to all parks this summer.  The card will contain
questions pertaining to Park Service goals for visitor satisfaction
and understanding.  Randomly selected visitors would have the option
to fill the card out.  The Park Service will use a contractor to
process the responses and report on the results. 


--------------------
\19 For a broader discussion of these issues see Managing for
Results:  Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance
(GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138, May 30, 1997). 


      PLANNING SYSTEMS NOT LINKED
      TO BUDGET AND ACCOUNTING
      SYSTEMS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.6

Another major challenge cited by park managers was the lack of
systems needed to track actual spending by long-term goal.  A park
manager who commented on PMDS--the information system the Park
Service has developed for parks to report on planned performance,
spending, and FTEs--said the system worked well.  However, in
general, park managers expressed concern that PMDS only provides
estimates of funds to be spent to accomplish annual goals, not actual
funds spent.  In addition to preparing data for PMDS, park managers
must also prepare traditional financial plans and account for
spending according to the activities in the budget and accounting
systems.  Park managers were hopeful that some integration of these
systems could be achieved. 

In addition to the systems issue, a regional office official pointed
out that some parks lack the computer hardware needed to input the
data.  One headquarters official acknowledged that computer hardware
and systems were areas in which the Park Service has traditionally
made minimal investments.  However, he also said that information
technology and systems have become easier to develop and use and
steps will be taken in the near future to provide parks with the
computers and Internet access they need to be linked servicewide. 


      STAFF COMMENTED ON THE VALUE
      OF THE STRATEGIC PLANNING
      PROCESS FOR PARK OPERATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :4.7

According to Park Service officials, the strategic planning process
has led to increased communication and resource sharing within parks
and provided useful information about how resources were being
allocated.  There was less agreement that the process had resulted in
any major operational changes.  Some park managers said the process
confirmed that they were generally doing the right things.  Others
said the process led them to make changes to meet a goal they had
identified or to question assumptions about park operations.  Several
park managers were hopeful that their strategic and annual
performance plans would provide a more effective way to justify their
budgets. 

Within some parks, the strategic planning process fostered increased
communication across park divisions and facilitated resource sharing
to accomplish common goals.  For example, the strategic planning
process helped break down barriers between park divisions, such as
resource protection, interpretation, and maintenance at one park we
visited.  Through the process of identifying park goals, staff at
this park found that each division contributed to common goals.  For
example, prior to the Results Act, mowing the lawn was viewed as a
maintenance activity that was done for its own sake.  The strategic
planning process led maintenance staff to view this activity as
contributing to multiple park goals that cut across division lines,
including (1) protecting park land from erosion, (2) aiding
visitation, and (3) aiding the interpretation of the park's history
by revealing the vistas seen by Civil War battle participants. 

The process of linking annual performance plans to park budgets
provided useful information about how resources were being allocated
to long-term goals.  For example, staff from a large natural
resources park said that aligning budget information with park goals
provided factual confirmation that resource preservation goals
received substantially fewer resources than visitor services goals. 
According to park staff, out of a budget of $8 million, a small
share--about 6 percent--was being allocated to preserving natural
resources in the park.  They said having this information may lead
them to reconsider the small share of spending on resource
preservation.  At the headquarters level, an official we spoke to
hoped that parks' annual performance plans--by requiring parks to
link their goals to their operations--would provide headquarters with
information not previously available about the choices, in terms of
resource allocations, park managers are making among competing Park
Service goals. 

There was less agreement on whether strategic planning had led to
changes in park operations or how resources were allocated. 
Typically, staff said they went through the strategic planning
process with open minds, but found that the process confirmed that
current activities were consistent with the park's legislation and
contributed to the goals of the Park Service.  A few park managers
cited changes.  For example, developing strategic and annual
performance plans led one park to request funding for cataloging its
archives because they recognized that this was a major, but unmet,
goal.  The park signed a memorandum of understanding with a
university to do this work if funding becomes available. 

Some park staff said that the strategic planning process, by focusing
on outcomes to be achieved, had led them to question assumptions
about their operations and may help identify more effective and
efficient ways to accomplish Park Service missions and make resource
allocation decisions.  For example, staff from a large natural
resources park commented that half of the park's budget is spent on
maintenance activities, such as maintaining picnic tables for
visitors.  However, they reasoned that there may be a more effective
way to allocate resources to achieve the goal of enhancing the
visitor experience.  In addition, staff at a service center said
that, to meet one of their organizational efficiency goals, they will
be designing an Internet site to provide information about the
center's services, thus reducing staff time needed to answer
questions on the telephone. 

Finally, by showing what can be accomplished with existing base funds
and staff, some park managers hoped that their annual performance
plans would provide a more effective way to justify and communicate
the need for increased resources.  This view was not shared at one of
the larger parks.  These officials did not feel their strategic plan
was an effective tool for communicating their resource needs.  Their
main concern was that their strategic plan could not be used to
answer traditional questions about spending on activities, such as
how much will be spent to reduce their backlog of maintenance tasks. 


   OBSERVATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5

We concluded in a previous report that by implementing the Results
Act the Park Service can promote a better understanding by Congress
and other stakeholders of (1) the agency's and each park's
priorities, (2) the links between the agency's and each park's
priorities, (3) the results achieved with the funds provided, and (4)
the shortfalls in performance.\20 As it sought to implement the
Results Act, the Park Service has faced difficult circumstances,
including multiple missions that are often competing and resistant to
direct measurement, and extraordinarily decentralized operations, for
which many parks possess distinct legislative mandates. 

The Park Service's initial progress in implementing the Results Act
has laid a foundation for future performance management improvements
and provides valuable insights to other federal agencies or programs
also characterized by complex missions, which are carried out by
decentralized and largely autonomous operating units.  In such an
environment, strategic planning that is exclusively top-down will
likely lead to goals that are irrelevant to and/or ignored by
operating managers.  To be effective, the process must reflect a
partnership among key participants and include flexibility for
managers within the parameters of the organization's strategic goals. 
The active involvement of park managers in developing servicewide and
park-level goals, coupled with the Park Service's phased
implementation approach, has led to greater ownership of the goals by
field staff who are ultimately responsible for achieving results.  By
setting broad servicewide goals and simultaneously giving line
managers the authority to tailor local goals and performance measures
to their unique operating needs, the Park Service has greater
assurance that a balance can be achieved between park-level attention
to servicewide goals and the operating realities of each park. 

The strategic planning process called for by the Results Act and
discussed in many of our recent testimonies and reports starts with
an agency's mission and the long-term goals it wishes to achieve and
uses this information to shape the formulation and execution of
agency budgets.  For many years, the reverse has been the case--the
budget and the budget process often shaped an agency's plans, and
costs were assigned by activity or item of expense rather than
performance goal.  The Park Service has taken an important step by
asking managers to estimate the cost of achieving their goals and
aggregating this information at the servicewide level.  However, two
questions remain:  (1) whether the Park Service will be able to use
strategic and annual performance planning to direct agency and
park-level resources to affect the accomplishment of servicewide
goals and (2) whether the new focus on accomplishing servicewide
goals can be achieved without sacrificing the ability of park
managers to respond to their unique operating environments.  In the
Park Service, as will likely be the case in many federal agencies,
budget and accounting systems are more typically structured by
organization, project, or activity than by goals.  Thus, agencies
will have to consider how best to achieve a linkage, whether by
retaining existing budget structures and creating crosswalks to the
goals in their plans or by reorganizing the structure of their
program activities to better mirror goals in their strategic plans. 
The latter approach will require extensive dialog with congressional
appropriations and oversight committees, parent departments, and OMB,
and continued development of cost allocation systems. 

Although the challenges experienced by Park Service officials are
hardly unique, their responses reflect long-term management
commitment and an understanding that achieving results-oriented
management will be neither easy nor quick.  Park Service officials
readily admit that much work remains to be done and that many of the
successes they have achieved have occurred only after identifying and
resolving problems in initial approaches or techniques.  Overall, the
experiences of the Park Service demonstrate that implementing the
Results Act should be viewed not as a series of events, but as an
evolving process. 


--------------------
\20 GAO/RCED-97-125, Apr.  10, 1997. 


   AGENCY COMMENTS AND OUR
   EVALUATION
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Assistant Secretary for
Fish and Wildlife and Parks substantially agreed with our portrayal
of Results Act implementation in the Park Service.  Interior provided
information on several improvements to its planning and budgeting
processes including:  (1) providing parks greater flexibility to
report on park-specific goals that are associated with, but not
identical to, the servicewide goals, (2) modifying the Performance
Management Data System so that parks can report on funds other than
base funds used to accomplish their goals, and (3) entering fiscal
year 1999 and 2000 budget and performance data at the park level to
supplement the existing budget formulation process.  Other comments
are incorporated in the report as appropriate.  Interior's comments
are reprinted in appendix I. 


---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :6.1

We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Member
of your Committee, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations; the Director, OMB; and other interested parties. 
Copies will also be made available to others upon request. 

Please contact me at (202) 512-9573 if you or your office have any
questions concerning this report.  Major contributors to this report
are listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours,

Paul L.  Posner
Director, Budget Issues




(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix I
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
============================================================== Letter 



(See figure in printed edition.)



(See figure in printed edition.)


The following are GAO's comments on the Department of the Interior's
April 10, 1998, letter. 

GAO COMMENTS

1.  See "Agency Comments and Our Evaluation" section of the report. 

2.  Report text was revised. 

3.  As indicated in the report, the Park Service is currently
reconsidering its process for formulating requests for project funds. 


IMPLEMENTATION OF THE GOVERNMENT
PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT BY THE
PARK SERVICE
========================================================== Appendix II

The Park Service's approach to implementing the Results Act was
phased and iterative and involved both top management and field
staff.  The four basic principles the Park Service followed while
formulating and implementing a strategic plan involved

(1) creating a useful management tool for the National Park Service
at all levels of the organization,

(2) achieving a field-orientation,

(3) integrating all aspects of performance management into a single
comprehensive system, and

(4) complying with the requirements of the Results Act and associated
mandates. 

Because both top management and field staff were engaged in drafting
and exchanging comments on early draft strategic plans, Park Service
staff have characterized the approach they used as "diagonal." Both
field staff and management were approaching the Results Act from
their ends and meeting in the middle to work out needed changes. 
Both park staff and headquarters officials described this approach to
planning as difficult and frustrating.  However, the same staff
commented that this approach was probably the only way to develop a
servicewide plan that balanced the needs of both headquarters and
field staff and therefore achieved a degree of acceptance and
ownership by both groups.  According to the Deputy Director, although
the process of developing the servicewide strategic plan and the Park
Service's approach to performance management was "arduous," in
hindsight, the process worked well and he would not have done
anything differently. 

OFFICE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING

At the time of our review, the Park Service's Office of Strategic
Planning (OSP) had a Director and two program analysts all located in
Denver, Colorado, and one program analyst located at headquarters. 
The OSP director reports to the Deputy Director of the Park Service. 

OSP has been responsible for coordinating the development of the
servicewide strategic plan based on input from headquarters and field
staff and consultations with Congress, the Office of Management and
Budget, the public, and other key stakeholders.  OSP has also led the
effort to implement strategic planning and performance management at
the park level.  This involved developing guidance for field staff on
how to implement the Results Act, conducting training, and providing
continuing guidance and responding to questions through OSP's
computer bulletin board. 

EARLY IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
RESULTS ACT

The Park Service held its first meeting on implementing the Results
Act in December 1994.  In May 1995, the Park Service established the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Task Force to oversee
and coordinate the development of a servicewide performance
management system, including national strategic planning and
budgeting, park- and program-level planning and goal setting,
resource allocations, performance measurement, and servicewide
evaluations and reporting.  The Task Force includes representatives
from each region, from the key headquarters offices, and from park
and partnership programs.  The Task Force reports its findings to the
National Leadership Council (NLC), which consists of the Director,
the Deputy Director, the seven regional directors, and the five
associate directors for programs. 

The Task Force has been the Park Service's mechanism for working out
Results Act implementation problems.  For example, OSP received 116
substantive comments from the public on the final draft of the
servicewide strategic plan issued for comment in October 1996.  The
Task Force broke into groups, worked through the comments, and
incorporated the comments into the final servicewide strategic plan,
which was issued September 30, 1997. 

The Task Force has met three times a year to discuss Results Act
implementation issues, vet policy recommendations, and make
recommendations to NLC.  NLC acts on every Task Force recommendation
and, to date, has approved all Task Force recommendations.  For
example, NLC members each signed off on the final Park Service
strategic plan. 

FIELD TESTING

A key element of the Park Service's approach to implementing the
Results Act has been extensive field testing.  During the summer of
1995, the Park Service undertook prototype exercises in strategic
planning and performance measurement at six parks and three programs. 
The experiences of those prototype parks and programs along with help
from planners at the Denver Service Center helped shape the Park
Service's "Eight Step Process" (described below) and develop some
initial performance measures.  During fiscal year 1996, a park or
program from each cluster, known as "lead" parks, worked to refine
the goals in the servicewide plan and the implementation process. 
The experience of the prototype and lead parks also led to the
development of written guidance that could be used to train staff at
other parks. 

The Park Service plans to continue learning from the field.  For
example, the Deputy Director has asked OSP to survey all the
park-level strategic and annual performance plans for best practices. 
These best practices can then be transmitted to the field as guidance
for the next iteration of park-level plans. 

THE EIGHT STEP PROCESS

The early experimentation of the prototype parks led to the
development of the Park Service's Eight Step Process for performance
management.  The Eight Step Process was designed to help parks,
programs, and offices go from the Park Service's mission goals, to
their daily work, to evaluation of results.  Steps one to five are
the required elements of the strategic plans.  Steps six and seven
produce and implement the annual performance plan.  Step eight
produces the annual performance report that compares accomplishments
to goals.  The eight steps were developed within the framework of
three basic questions--why, what, and how.  A description of the Park
Service's Eight Step Process follows. 


      WHY ARE WE DOING WHAT WE ARE
      DOING AT OUR PARK? 
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.1

(1) Review the Park Service's enabling legislation and legislative
history, the servicewide strategic plan, any other legislation
affecting your park, and any other planning documents already in
place. 

(2) Establish the mission of the specific park or program by its
purpose and significance.  Purpose is the specific reason the park or
program was established.  Significance is the distinctive features
that make the park or program different from any other.  Together
they lead to a concise statement--the mission of the park or program. 


      WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? 
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.2

(3) Develop the park's or program's mission goals.  Mission goals are
broad conceptual goals based on ideal future conditions.  They should
focus on results (outcomes) not efforts.  Park and program mission
goals should reflect both the servicewide mission goals as well as
the mission of the park or program. 

(4) Determine the park or program's 5-year, long-term goals (range of
3 to 20 years).  Long-term goals tier off mission goals, describe
results to be achieved, and are stated as desired future conditions. 

(5) Establish the availability of human and fiscal resources, the
condition of park natural, cultural, and recreational resources, and
the condition of visitor experiences. 


      HOW ARE WE GOING TO DO IT? 
------------------------------------------------------ Appendix II:0.3

(6) Develop the annual performance plan.  The annual performance plan
links outcome-related performance goals to specific inputs and
outputs for a single year.  The annual performance plan consists of
two major parts:  annual goals and annual work plans.  Annual goals
are the incremental outcomes needed to meet the long-term goals. 
Annual work plans identify the inputs and outputs needed to achieve
the annual goals.  Inputs are the fiscal and human resources required
to produce the outputs. 

(7) Implement the annual performance plan.  Park and program
officials receive budget allocations and update annual goals to
reflect available funding and staffing and use these resources to
implement their plans. 

(8) Develop annual performance reports.  Park and program officials
monitor performance toward annual goals, evaluate results by
comparing accomplishments with goals, and provide feedback and adjust
subsequent annual goals, work plans, and long-term goals, if
necessary. 

TRAINING AND GUIDANCE

The Park Service developed its Field Guide to GPRA and Performance
Management to provide park staff with a tool for improving their
ability to accomplish the mission of the Park Service using
performance management techniques.  The Field Guide includes an
overview of the Results Act and performance management, a detailed
discussion of the Eight Step Process, a discussion of how the budget
will be linked to annual performance plans, other key linkages,
examples of strategic plans and annual performance plans already
developed by certain parks, and exercises to be completed during
training sessions. 

Following initial training and testing of performance management in
prototype and lead parks, the Park Service held "train the trainer"
sessions in which 100 regional- and field-level staff received
training in performance management using the Field Guide.  These
sessions were held in late 1996 in four locations throughout the
country. 

During the late winter and spring of 1997, the trainers trained an
additional 2,000 park staff in performance management techniques.  A
representative from each regional office also received the initial
training and served as Results Act coordinator in their regions. 
After the training was completed, the trainers continued to serve as
consultants to the parks within their region.  For example, in the
southeast region, the trainers were involved in the first review of
all the strategic plans for that region. 

In addition to the Field Guide, OSP developed a quick reference
pamphlet to strategic planning at the Park Service entitled GPRA on
the Go:  Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) & Performance
Management.  Staff from two parks we interviewed cited this pamphlet
as an excellent summary of everything a manager needed to know to
prepare a strategic plan.  The pamphlet contains brief descriptions
of (1) performance management and the Results Act, (2) the Park
Service's approach to performance management, (3) Park Service
performance management terminology, (4) strategic plan requirements,
(5) the Eight Step Process, and (6) the Park Service's 31 long-term
goals.  It also provides helpful hints for making performance
management happen and lists key OSP and regional office staff who can
be contacted for further information. 

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SERVICEWIDE
AND PARK-LEVEL PLANS

Figure 4 in the body of the report portrays the relationship between
the servicewide and park-level plans.  Within its four servicewide
goal categories, the Park Service has defined 9 mission goals and 31
long-term goals.  Appendix III contains a complete description of the
goals listed in the Park Service's strategic plan.  Mission goals
were intended to reflect the Park Service's preservation mission,
which has a longer and indefinite time frame for goals than
anticipated by the Results Act.  Mission goals are not time-bound or
quantified, but are intended to be comprehensive and inclusive of all
Park Service activities.  For example, mission goal Ia states that
"natural and cultural resources and associated values are protected,
restored, and maintained in good condition and managed within their
broader ecosystem and cultural context." Long-term goals typically
span 5 years, are focused on specific Park Service activities, and
provide specific measurable goals to be achieved within the time
frame set.  For example, long-term goal Ia5 states that "by September
30, 2002, 50% of the historic structures on the 1998 List of
Classified Structures are in good condition."

Each park was also expected to develop its own strategic plan.  Park
strategic plans were to bring together both servicewide and
park-specific missions so that every strategic plan had both national
and local elements.  If a servicewide long-term goal was applicable,
the park was expected to incorporate the goal into its plan, although
measurable performance targets could vary from the servicewide
targets.  It was expected, for example, that some parks could easily
achieve performance greater than national goals, while some might
necessarily fall short; allowing performance targets to vary from
park to park promoted park-level relevance while ensuring that
performance could be aggregated on a servicewide basis.  The Park
Service also gave park managers discretion to incorporate long-term
goals that were unique to the missions of their individual parks but
still fit within the broad mission goals of the servicewide strategic
plan. 


MISSION, MISSION GOALS, AND
LONG-TERM GOALS, NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE STRATEGIC PLAN, 1997
========================================================= Appendix III

THE MISSION OF THE NATIONAL PARK
SERVICE

The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and
cultural resources and values of the national park system for the
enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations. 
The Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of
natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation
throughout this country and the world. 


      GOAL CATEGORY I:  PRESERVE
      PARK RESOURCES
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.1

Mission Goal Ia:  Natural and cultural resources and associated
values are protected, restored, and maintained in good condition and
managed within their broader ecosystem and cultural context. 

Long-term Goals to be Achieved by September 30, 2002: 

  -- Ia1.  Disturbed Lands / Exotic Species -- 5% of targeted
     disturbed park lands, as of 1997, are restored, and 5% of
     priority targeted disturbances are contained. 

  -- Ia2.  Threatened and Endangered Species -- 25% of the 1997
     identified park populations of federally listed threatened and
     endangered species with critical habitat on park lands or
     requiring NPS recovery actions have an improved status, and an
     additional 25% have stable populations. 

  -- Ia3.  Air Quality -- Air quality in at least 50% of class I park
     areas improves or does not degrade from 1997 baseline
     conditions. 

  -- Ia4.  Water Quality -- Reduce by 10%, from 1997 levels, the
     number of days park recreational waters fail to meet state water
     quality standards for swimming. 

  -- Ia5.  Historic Structures -- 50% of the historic structures on
     the 1998 List of Classified Structures are in good condition. 

  -- Ia6.  Museum Collections -- 68% of preservation and protection
     conditions in park museum collections meet professional
     standards. 

  -- Ia7.  Cultural Landscapes -- 50% of the cultural landscapes on
     the Cultural Landscapes Inventory are in good condition. 

  -- Ia8.  Archeological Sites -- 50% of the recorded archeological
     sites are in good condition. 

Mission Goal Ib:  The National Park Service contributes to knowledge
about natural and cultural resources and associated values;
management decisions about resources and visitors are based on
adequate scholarly and scientific information. 

Long-term Goals to be Achieved by September 30, 2002: 

  -- Ib1.  Natural Resource Inventories -- Acquire or develop 434 of
     the 2,287 outstanding data sets identified in 1997 of basic
     natural resource inventories for all parks. 

  -- Ib2.  Cultural Resource Baselines -- The 1997 baseline inventory
     and evaluation of each category of cultural resources is
     increased by a minimum of 5%. 


      GOAL CATEGORY II:  PROVIDE
      FOR THE PUBLIC ENJOYMENT AND
      VISITOR EXPERIENCE OF PARKS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.2

Mission Goal IIa:  Visitors safely enjoy and are satisfied with the
availability, accessibility, diversity, and quality of park
facilities, services, and appropriate recreational opportunities. 

Long-term Goals to be Achieved by September 30, 2002: 

  -- IIa1.  Visitor Satisfaction -- 80% of park visitors are
     satisfied with appropriate park facilities, services, and
     recreational opportunities. 

  -- IIa2.  Visitor Safety -- Reduce the visitor safety incident rate
     by 10% from the NPS five-year (1992-96) average. 

Mission Goal IIb:  Park visitors and the general public understand
and appreciate the preservation of parks and their resources for this
and future generations. 

Long-term Goals to be Achieved by September 30, 2002: 

  -- IIb1.  Visitor Understanding and Appreciation -- 60% of park
     visitors understand and appreciate the significance of the park
     they are visiting. 


      GOAL CATEGORY III: 
      STRENGTHEN AND PRESERVE
      NATURAL AND CULTURAL
      RESOURCES AND ENHANCE
      RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES
      MANAGED BY PARTNERS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.3

Mission Goal IIIa:  Natural and cultural resources are conserved
through formal partnership programs. 

Long-term Goals to be Achieved by September 30, 2002: 

  -- IIIa1.  Properties Designated -- Increase by 15%, over 1997
     levels, the number of significant historic and archeological
     properties protected through federal programs or official
     designation at local, state, tribal, or national levels. 

  -- IIIa2.  Properties Protected -- Increase by 20%, over 1997
     levels, the number of significant historic and archeological
     properties protected nationwide through federal, state, local,
     or tribal statutory or regulatory means, or through financial
     incentives, or by the private sector. 

  -- IIIa3.  User Satisfaction -- Achieve a 10% increase in user
     satisfaction, over 1997 levels, with the usefulness of technical
     assistance provided for the protection of historic and
     archeological properties. 

Mission Goal IIIb:  Through partnerships with other federal, state,
and local agencies and nonprofit organizations, a nationwide system
of parks, open space, rivers, and trails provides educational,
recreational, and conservation benefits for the American people. 

Long-term Goals to be Achieved by September 30, 2002: 

  -- IIIb1.  Conservation Assistance -- 1,100 additional miles of
     trails, 1,200 additional miles of protected river corridors, and
     35,000 additional acres of parks and open space, from 1997
     totals, are conserved with NPS partnership assistance. 

  -- IIIb2.  Community Satisfaction -- 80% of communities served are
     satisfied with NPS partnership assistance in providing
     recreational and conservation benefits on lands and waters. 

Mission Goal IIIc:  Assisted through federal funds and programs, the
protection of recreational opportunities is achieved through formal
mechanisms to ensure continued access for public recreational use. 

Long-term Goals to be Achieved by September 30, 2002: 

  -- IIIc1.  Recreational Properties -- The 40,000 recreational
     properties, as of 1997, assisted by the Land and Water
     Conservation Fund, the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery
     Program, and the Federal Lands to Parks Program are protected
     and remain available for public recreation. 


      GOAL CATEGORY IV:  ENSURE
      ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS
----------------------------------------------------- Appendix III:0.4

Mission Goal IVa:  The National Park Service uses current management
practices, systems, and technologies to accomplish its mission. 

Long-term Goals to be Achieved by September 30, 2002: 

  -- IVa1.  Data Systems -- 50% of the major NPS data systems are
     integrated/interfaced. 

  -- IVa2.  Employee Competencies -- 100% of employees within the 16
     key occupational groups have essential competency needs
     identified for their positions. 

  -- IVa3.  Employee Performance -- 100% of employee performance
     standards are linked to appropriate strategic and annual
     performance goals. 

  -- IVa4.  Workforce Diversity -- Increase by 25%, over 1998 levels,
     the representation of under-represented groups in each of the
     targeted occupational series in the NPS permanent workforce. 

  -- IVa5.  Employee Housing -- 35% of employee housing units
     classified as being in poor or fair condition in 1997 have been
     removed, replaced, or upgraded to good condition. 

  -- IVa6.  Employee Safety -- Reduce by 50%, from the NPS five-year
     (1992-96) average, the NPS employee lost time injury rate, and
     reduce the cost of new workers' compensation cases (COP) by 50%
     based on the NPS five-year (1992-96) average. 

  -- IVa7.  Construction Projects -- 100% of NPS park construction
     projects identified and funded by September 30, 1998, meet 90%
     of cost, schedule, and project goals of each approved project
     agreement. 

  -- IVa8.  Land Acquisition -- The time between the appropriation
     for land acquisition and when the offer is made is reduced by
     5%. 

Mission Goal IVb:  The National Park Service increases its managerial
capabilities through initiatives and support from other agencies,
organizations, and individuals. 

Long-term Goals to be Achieved by September 30, 2002: 

  -- IVb1.  Volunteer Hours -- Increase by 10%, over the 1997 level,
     the number of volunteer hours. 

  -- IVb2.  Donations and Grants -- Increase by 10%, over 1997
     levels, the dollar amount of donations and grants. 

  -- IVb3.  Concession Returns -- Increase the average return for
     park concession contracts to at least 10% of gross concessioner
     revenue. 

  -- IVb4.  Fee Receipts -- Increase by 20%, over the 1997 level, the
     amount of receipts from park entrance, recreation, and other
     fees. 


MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================== Appendix IV

ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C. 

Michael J.  Curro, Assistant Director, (202) 512-9969
Elizabeth H.  Curda, Evaluator-in-Charge
Claudia J.  Dickey, Senior Evaluator


*** End of document. ***