    Park Service: Agency Needs to Better Manage the Increasing Role
    of Nonprofit Partners (18-JUL-03, GAO-03-585).

    Two types of nonprofit organizations, cooperating associations
    and friends groups, provide substantial support to the national
    parks. GAO was asked to report on (1) the number of park units
    supported by nonprofits and the amount of their contributions,
    (2) the revenue-generating activities of nonprofits and how they
    compete with park concessioners, (3) factors that contribute to
    competition between nonprofits and for-profit concessioners, and
    (4) how park managers are held accountable for meeting goals for
    nonprofit financial support.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-03-585
        ACCNO:   A08119
      TITLE:     Park Service: Agency Needs to Better Manage the
    Increasing Role of Nonprofit Partners
         DATE:   07/18/2003
      SUBJECT:   National parks
    	     Nonprofit organizations
    	     Funds management
    	     Competition

    ******************************************************************
    ** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
    ** GAO 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.                                         **
    **                                                              **
    ******************************************************************
    GAO-03-585

                                           A

    Letter

    July 18, 2003 The Honorable George Radanovich Chairman, Subcommittee on
    National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands Committee on Resources House
    of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: The needs of America*s parks are not
    met with federal dollars alone. Although the national parks are primarily
    a public responsibility, parks have benefited for many years from other
    sources of support. In particular, individuals, corporations, and
    nonprofit organizations have donated time and money to enhance the U. S.
    National Park Service*s mission of promoting and protecting the parks.

    Because federal funding for the Park Service has not kept pace with such
    needs as visitor services and maintenance requirements, 1 the Congress and
    the Park Service are seeking expanded funding from other sources. One such
    source, the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, 2 allows parks to
    charge and retain visitor recreation fees. Similarly, the Park Service is
    attempting to increase the support it receives from nonprofit
    organizations and for- profit businesses* concessioners* that provide
    merchandise and services to park visitors under Park Service contracts. To
    help accomplish this objective, the Park Service has established
    agencywide and parkspecific plans and goals that encourage local park
    managers to work with these organizations to increase the donations and
    services provided by nonprofits as well as the fees paid to the Park
    Service by concessioners. Some concessioners are concerned that these park
    initiatives are resulting

    in nonprofit organizations expanding into sales and services that have
    traditionally been provided by concessioners.

    1 U. S. General Accounting Office, National Parks: Difficult Choices Need
    to Be Made About the Future of the Parks, GAO/ RCED- 95- 238 (Washington,
    D. C.: Aug. 30, 1995); and U. S. General Accounting Office, National Park
    Service: Efforts to Identify and Manage the Maintenance Backlog, GAO/
    RCED- 98- 143 (Washington, D. C.: May 14, 1998); and The National Parks
    Business Plan Initiative, a partnership of the National Parks Conservation
    Association and the National Park Service, 2001.

    2 The Congress established the recreational fee demonstration program in
    1996. It has provided over $900 million in additional revenue to parks
    since that time.

    In this context, you asked us several questions about the scope and roles
    of the two most common types of nonprofit organizations that work with the
    parks: cooperating associations and friends groups. Cooperating
    associations support parks by providing educational services to park
    visitors largely through sales and information assistance at bookstores.
    Friends groups support park operations by raising funds for specific park
    projects such as construction and maintenance projects. In addition, both
    cooperating associations and friends groups provide volunteer services
    such as maintaining trails and painting historic structures. As agreed
    with your office, we are reporting on (1) the number of national park
    units supported by cooperating associations and friends groups and the
    amount of contributions these groups made to the parks, (2) the
    revenuegenerating activities of cooperating associations and friends
    groups and the extent to which these activities compete with park
    concessioners, (3) factors that contribute to competition and potential
    conflicts between nonprofits and concessioners, and (4) how local park
    managers are held accountable for meeting agency goals for nonprofit
    financial contributions. In addition, you asked that we cite the specific
    statutory authorities for nonprofit operations in national parks.

    Our work involved the development of an original database that is based in
    part on a GAO survey of friends group organizations working with parks
    throughout the system. We obtained financial information on about
    twothirds of the friends groups queried, including all of those with
    annual revenue over $25, 000 that were required to file tax reports. Among
    other things, the database we compiled includes the name, location, park
    affiliation, and contribution amounts of every cooperating association and
    each friends group that responded. To help determine if, and how,
    nonprofit organizations compete with for- profit businesses serving park

    visitors, we visited six parks that have partnerships with such
    organizations. 3 These parks were selected based on the scale of their
    nonprofit and concession operations and, in two cases, because of known
    concessioner concerns about the activities of nonprofit organizations in
    those parks. Details of the scope and methodology of our review are
    presented in appendix I.

    3 The six parks we visited were the Badlands National Park, South Dakota;
    Fort Sumter National Monument, South Carolina; Gettysburg National
    Military Park, Pennsylvania; Grand Canyon National Park, Arizona;
    Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming; and Yosemite National Park,
    California.

    Results in Brief Cooperating associations and friends groups directly
    support 347 (90 percent) of the 385 units that comprise the national parks
    system. From 1997 through 2001, these organizations have contributed over
    $200 million

    to affiliated parks for educational purposes. These nonprofits also
    donated substantial amounts of volunteer services for trail maintenance,
    staffing visitor information kiosks, cleaning campgrounds, and other
    similar

    activities. Over these 5 years, financial contributions from cooperating
    associations totaled about $138 million, increasing from about $19 million
    in 1997 to $36 million in 2000, but dropping to $30 million in 2001.
    Although not inclusive of all friends groups, the financial information we
    obtained from tax data and groups responding to our survey shows
    contributions totaling about $71 million over 5 years, steadily increasing
    from about $8 million in 1997 to over $17 million in 2001. In addition to
    the contributions already made to parks, cooperating associations and
    friends groups hold some assets in reserve. These additional assets,
    totaling about $200 million in 2001, include endowments, investments, and
    property and are potentially available for future donations to the parks.

    Of the two types of nonprofit organizations, only cooperating associations
    sell merchandise or engage in other revenue- generating activities within
    parks that compete with park concessioners. At 84 of the 323 parks where
    they are present, cooperating associations sell merchandise or provide
    services that are the same as or similar to those offered by
    concessioners. In contrast, friends groups do not compete for business
    with concessioners because they generally do not raise funds by selling
    merchandise within parks or by providing visitor services but by
    soliciting donations from individuals or organizations. At 3 of the parks
    we visited* the Grand Canyon National Park (NP), Gettysburg National
    Military Park (NMP), and Fort Sumter National Monument (NM)* competition
    between the cooperating associations and concessioners or other local
    businesses led to conflicts. For example, Grand Canyon NP officials
    allowed the local cooperating association to sell visitor convenience
    items like film and disposable cameras. In letters to the park management,
    park concessioners asserted that permitting these sales is inconsistent
    with Park Service guidelines because cooperating association sales are
    supposed to be limited to educational or interpretational merchandise. The
    concessioners believe that this situation provides for unfair competition
    from a nonprofit organization. Competition between cooperating
    associations and concessioners was not a problem at the other three parks
    we visited. In

    fact, at two parks these organizations collaborated to meet visitor needs.

    There are three factors that contribute to competition and occasional
    conflicts between cooperating associations and concessioners. First, the
    Park Service*s goal of increasing the amount of financial contributions
    from cooperating associations provides for inherent conflicts between the
    associations and concessioners. To increase contributions, cooperating
    associations must increase the revenue they generate from park visitors,
    just as concessioners do. One way of doing this is for cooperating
    associations to expand their sales and services into areas traditionally
    supported by concessioners. Indeed, at 3 of the 6 parks we visited this is
    already occurring. Second, the Park Service gives local park managers
    broad discretion to decide whether nonprofit organizations and

    concessioners are permitted to operate at a park. Park managers also
    decide the kind of sales and services that are permitted by cooperating
    associations and concessioners. Sometimes the rationale for these
    decisions is not clear and this contributes to conflicts among park
    management, cooperating associations, and concessioners. Third, there are

    financial incentives for park managers to use cooperating associations
    instead of concessioners in instances where either one could provide
    needed services. For example, at the Grand Canyon, the park received about
    36 percent of cooperating association gross revenue compared to

    about 4 percent of gross revenue from concessioners. To minimize conflicts
    and better assure that park managers consistently apply agency policies in
    making decisions about whether and how to use cooperating associations and
    concessioners, Park Service guidelines call for individual park managers
    to develop *commercial services plans.* Among other things, these plans
    are intended to reduce conflicts by clarifying their respective roles and
    responsibilities within a park. However, only 3 of the 84 parks where both
    cooperating associations and concessioners sell merchandise have developed
    commercial services plans. According to Park Service officials, these
    plans are rarely used because resource limitations within the agency have
    relegated them to a low priority.

    The Park Service does not have a process for holding local park managers
    accountable for meeting nonprofit contribution goals. Even though one of
    the agency*s key goals is to increase its reliance on partnerships with
    nonprofit organizations, the Park Service does not collect the information
    needed to measure either the agency*s or local park managers* reliance on
    these groups or to establish contribution goals and measure progress in

    meeting these goals. For cooperating associations, the Park Service
    collects only aggregate information on the amount of contributions. Even
    though individual parks have specific goals for increasing the amount of
    contributions made by cooperating associations, the Park Service does not

    consistently or systematically track contributions on a park- by- park
    basis. For friends groups, the Park Service does not collect any
    information on the amount of contributions made to parks* either in the
    aggregate or on a park- by- park basis. In fact, the Park Service does not
    maintain an accurate, up- to- date list of friends groups currently
    working with the agency or the specific parks that they serve. Lacking
    this basic management information, the agency is unable to establish
    meaningful goals for local park managers and cannot monitor friends group
    contributions on an agencywide or parkby- park basis. Park Service and
    nonprofit officials expressed concern that collecting and reporting
    detailed information on the amount of nonprofit financial contributions
    made to parks could lead to offsetting reductions in congressional
    appropriations made available to the agency.

    This report contains recommendations directed at minimizing conflicts
    between the Park Service, concessioners, and cooperating associations as
    well as for improving the agency*s accountability in managing nonprofit
    contributions. The Association of Partners For Public Lands, representing
    park cooperating associations and friends groups, and the National Park
    Hospitality Association, which represents park concessioners, agreed with

    our recommendations. We also requested comments from the Department of the
    Interior but none were provided.

    Background The National Park System is a network of natural, historic, and
    cultural treasures. The system*s 385 park units include 56 areas that are
    formally

    titled *national parks,* as well as many other designations. 4 As the
    network*s federal manager, the National Park Service is charged with
    conserving *the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild
    life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner

    and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of
    future generations.* In short, the agency has the difficult task of
    balancing resource protection with providing for appropriate public use,
    including meeting the needs of nearly 300 million park visitors each year*
    responsibilities that entail considerable management and financial
    challenges.

    4 National park system units include national parks, as well as numerous
    military parks, national monuments, national historic sites, recreation
    areas, and many other designations. In this report we use the terms parks
    or national parks to encompass all units of the national park system
    regardless of designation. Several units were added to the park system
    since 2001; these units were not included

    in our study.

    To manage this diverse system, the 385 park units are arranged within
    seven regional offices. These offices offer administrative or specialized
    support not always available at the local parks. However, the true hub of

    the system*s management is the park superintendent. Superintendents
    oversee each park unit, and the agency relies heavily on their judgment
    for most decisions affecting local park operations. For financial support,
    the Park Service depends primarily upon federal funding. The agency*s
    fiscal 2003 annual appropriation totaled over $2 billion, supplemented by
    financial support from admission and user fees collected at park sites,
    franchise fees paid by over 600 park concessioners, and private donations.
    Nonetheless, federal funding has not kept pace with increasing
    responsibilities. Accordingly, the Park Service has launched several
    initiatives seeking expanded supplemental support, including one promoting
    increased partnering with nonprofit and other private organizations.

    Nonprofit organizations have a long history of partnering with the Park
    Service. Since the agency was created in 1916, 5 the Park Service has
    developed partnerships with nonprofit organizations, as well as for-
    profit concessioners, to help serve its mission. These partners supply
    important financial and nonfinancial assistance, in effect, supplementing
    congressionally appropriated funds available for park use. The Park
    Service is authorized by statute to accept donations and to enter into
    agreements with nonprofit organizations and other fundraising partners. 6

    The two types of nonprofit partners discussed in this report are
    cooperating associations and friends groups. Cooperating associations are
    corporate entities with boards of directors and an executive director
    responsible for day- to- day management. The Park Service requires that
    cooperating associations operate as tax- exempt organizations 7 and 5 Act
    of August 25, 1916, 39 Stat. 535 (commonly referred to as the National
    Park Service

    Organic Act). 6 See appendix II for information on the key statutes
    authorizing donations and agreements.

    7 Cooperating agreements require associations to obtain tax- exempt status
    under section 501( c)( 3) of the Internal Revenue Code. This section
    provides that organizations granted taxexempt status must operate
    exclusively for charitable, religious, or educational purposes. As tax-
    exempt organizations, associations enjoy certain benefits that for- profit
    organizations do not. In particular, tax- exempt organizations are
    required to pay federal income taxes only on unrelated business income.
    They are also exempt from many state and local taxes, under state law.

    employs a standardized cooperating association agreement identifying the
    specific federal statutes (see app. II) and agency policies that govern
    agency and association responsibilities. There is no specific legal
    definition

    or federal statute for friends groups; most are local volunteers organized
    for a specific purpose or interest in a particular park. The Park Service
    does not require friends groups to operate as tax- exempt entities or to
    have formal partnership agreements with the agency, unless these groups
    raise funds for the parks. Moreover, the Park Service does not have a
    standard agreement governing friends group operations or specific policy
    guidance for friends groups. Guidelines for park fund- raising activities
    are the primary source of park policy covering friends group activities.
    Although other nonprofit organizations also provide services and conduct

    commercial activities, such as guided hiking and rafting trips at park
    sites, these organizations are not included in this review. Park
    concessioners are a third type of Park Service partner discussed in this
    report. Concessioners provide such services as lodging, food, and guided
    services, and sell merchandise at park stores. Generally, concessioners
    are private, for- profit entities. Concessioners operate under

    Park Service contracts or permits that require them to pay a franchise fee
    to the park where they operate and that specify agency oversight functions
    and concessioner responsibilities.

    Parks* Reliance Cooperating associations and friends groups support 90
    percent of the

    on Nonprofits nation*s 385 national parks. Parks are increasingly reliant
    on support from

    these organizations; contributions from these organizations went from Is
    Substantial

    about $27 million in fiscal year 1997 to over $47 million in fiscal year
    2001, and Increasing

    totaling over $200 million during this period. In addition, cooperating
    associations and friends groups have accumulated funds and other assets*
    such as land, buildings, and equipment* worth more than $200 million that
    could become available for future park donations. Nonprofits also provide
    considerable nonfinancial assistance such as volunteer services.

    Nonprofit A cooperating association or a friends group supports park
    programs and

    Organizations Operate operations in 347 (90 percent) of the nation*s 385
    national parks. Of the 347

    parks, 136 have both types of nonprofit organizations, 187 have only a in
    Most Parks

    cooperating association, and 24 have only a friends group (see table 1).

    Thus, cooperating associations support about 84 percent of the nation*s
    parks and friends groups support about 41 percent.

    Tabl e 1: Parks Served by Nonprofit Organizations Organization Parks
    served Percentage of all parks

    Cooperating association or friends group 347 90 Cooperating association &
    friends group 136 35 Cooperating association only 187 49 Friends group
    only 24 6 Source: National Park Service and GAO.

    The Park Service does not maintain an accurate database of friends groups
    or complete financial information on cooperating associations working with
    the parks. As a result, we constructed a database using existing Park
    Service data, tax records that are available on nonprofit organizations,
    and friends group responses to a GAO survey. Appendix III lists each
    national park that is affiliated with a cooperating association and/ or
    friends group.

    Since 2001, an estimated 215 nonprofit groups* 66 cooperating associations
    and 149 friends groups* have worked with 347 parks across the country.
    Cooperating associations often serve multiple parks while friends groups
    are typically associated with a single park. 8 Table 2 shows the number of
    each type of organization and the number of parks served.

    Tabl e 2: Number of Nonprofit Organizations Serving National Parks Type of
    organization Number of organizations Number of parks served

    Cooperating association 66 a 323 Friends group 149 160 Source: National
    Park Service and GAO. a In 2001, 2 associations merged, reducing the
    number of such organizations to 65; however, Park Service 2001 data
    reports were for 66 organizations.

    8 Six National Park Foundation friends groups were recently created and
    these are an exception. These six groups are associated with 49 parks.

    Moreover, much of the support provided by nonprofit organizations is
    concentrated in a few large cooperating associations that serve many
    different parks. As table 3 shows, 5 cooperating associations serve about
    58 percent of all 385 national parks, or 70 percent* 225 of 323* of all
    parks served by cooperating associations.

    Tabl e 3: Parks Served by Five Cooperating Associations Cooperating
    association Number of parks served Percent of all national parks

    Eastern National 127 33 Western National 56 15 Alaska Natural History 19 5
    Parks and History 14 4 Northwest Interpretive 9 2

    Tot al s 225 58

    Source: National Park Service and cooperating associations.

    One of the key characteristics of these large cooperating associations
    that serve multiple parks is that they have the ability to serve smaller,
    less visited park units that might not be able to otherwise provide
    bookstores or educational services. For example, Eastern National operates
    some bookstores as an educational service to visitors even though the
    stores are not profitable. Eastern National can do so because it operates
    at 127 parks and shares money from its more profitable locations with its
    less profitable locations. This shared donation approach allows the
    association to operate bookstores at small locations like the Charles
    Pinckney National Historic Site (29,272 visitors in 2001) that are not as
    commercially viable as other parks. On average, as table 4 shows, the five
    large cooperating associations

    operate in parks with lower visitation and operating budgets than other
    associations.

    Table 4: Comparison of Average Recreational Visitation and Operating
    Budgets in Parks Served by Five Largest Versus All Other Cooperating
    Associations

    Dollars in millions

    Average park operating budget Parks served by associations Average park
    visitation a

    (FY 2003) Cooperating association

    category Number Percent Number Percent

    Largest (5) 225 70 783,000 65 $3. 9 All others (61) 98 30 932,000 35 8.8
    All 66 associations 323 100 828,000 100 5.4 Source: National Park Service
    and GAO.

    a We used calendar year 2001 visitation data because they were available
    in electronic form from the National Park Service*s Statistical Abstract
    for 2001.

    Nonprofit Financial Nonprofit contributions to the park system doubled
    from fiscal years 1997

    Contributions Have through 2000, before dropping in 2001. Specifically, as
    table 5 shows, the

    Dramatically Increased total contributions by cooperating associations and
    those friends groups

    for which we were able to obtain data rose from about $27 million in 1997
    to about $53 million in 2000, before dropping to about $47 million in
    2001. Cumulatively, these contributions are substantial. Cooperating
    associations and friends groups contributed over $200 million to support
    park programs

    and projects from 1997 through 2001. Table 5 also shows that revenues from
    both types of nonprofit organizations followed a pattern similar to that
    of contributions, increasing from about $110 million in 1997 to about $178
    million in 2000, but dropping to $148 million in 2001. The decrease in
    contributions and revenues in 2001 may be related to decreased park
    visitation or other negative commercial effects following the terrorist
    attacks of September 11, 2001, as agency officials speculate, or to the

    general economic downturn and corresponding reduction in charitable giving
    that has occurred across the United States. In addition, during the 1997-
    2001 fiscal year period, the Golden Gate National Parks Association made
    large contributions. 9 These varied considerably from year to year and
    help explain the fluctuation in cooperating association contributions (see
    app. IV).

    9 The Golden Gate Parks Association became the Golden Gate Parks
    Conservancy on March 1, 2003.

    Tabl e 5: Cooperating Associations* and Friends Groups* Revenue and
    Contributions by Fiscal Year

    Dollars in millions

    Contributions Revenue Cooperating

    Friends Cooperating Friends Fiscal year a associations b groups c Tot al
    associations groups c Tot al

    1997 $19.0 $7.7 $26. 7 $89.4 $20.3 $109.7

    1998 22. 6 15.0 37. 5 99.5 43.0 142.5

    1999 30. 8 13.7 44. 5 110.4 55.8 166.3

    2000 35. 8 16.9 52. 7 121.2 56.4 177.6

    2001 30. 1 17.3 47. 4 108.8 39.2 148.0 Tot al 138.3 70.6 208. 8 529.2
    214.8 744

    Sources: National Park Service, GAO, Urban Institute, and Guidestar. com
    Web site (Philanthropic Research, Inc.). Note: Totals may not add due to
    rounding. a For cooperating associations, the fiscal year corresponds with
    the federal fiscal year, as per Park Service reporting requirements. For
    friends groups, the fiscal year corresponds with each group*s tax

    year or, if tax statements were not available, to the year corresponding
    to financial statements. b Association financial contributions include a
    dollar value assigned to information assistance that

    association staff provide to visitors. The Park Service allows cooperating
    associations to claim up to 50 percent of association sales staff salaries
    for information assistance provided to park visitors. In 2001, 25 percent
    ($ 7.4 million) of association contributions were for information
    assistance provided by sales staff.

    c Friends group figures represent the two- thirds of the active groups we
    identified.

    Although contributions and revenues from both cooperating associations and
    friends groups increased considerably over the 5- year period, the
    increase in friends group contributions and revenues is most dramatic.
    This increase may be explained by recent increases in the number of
    friends groups as well as by the relative newness of friends groups
    compared to cooperating associations. According to Park Service data, the
    number of cooperating associations changed little from 1996 to 2001,
    rising from 64 to

    66 and then dropping to 65 as 2 associations merged. In contrast, friends
    groups are recent additions to the park scene and are expanding more
    rapidly throughout the park system. While the Park Service does not have
    historical data on friends groups, in the six parks we visited the years
    of incorporation for friends groups operating in these parks generally
    ranged from 1988 to 2001, with only one dating to 1959. By comparison, the
    years of incorporation for cooperating associations ranged from 1923 to
    1961 (see table 6). Moreover, while the median date of incorporation for
    associations also is 1941, the median incorporation date for the friends
    groups is 1995. Contributing to the establishment of new friends groups is
    recent legislation that directed the National Park Foundation to design a
    program fostering fund- raising at individual park units and specified
    that program implementation include assisting in the creation of local
    nonprofit groups. 10

    10 The National Park Foundation has established 6 new friends groups
    serving 49 parks as authorized in section 701 of the National Parks
    Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (Pub. L. No. 105- 391, 112 Stat. 3497, 3520
    (1998)).

    Tabl e 6: Incorporation Dates at Six Parks Date of incorporation Park
    Cooperating association Friends group

    Badlands NP 1961 None Fort Sumter NM 1948 2001 Gettysburg NMP 1948 1959,
    1989,1998 a Grand Canyon NP 1932 1995 Yellowstone NP 1933 1996 Yosemite NP
    1923 1988 Source: Guidestar. com Web site (Philanthropic Research, Inc.).
    a Three friends groups are affiliated with Gettysburg NMP: Gettysburg
    Battlefield Preservation

    Association (1959), Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg (1989),
    and Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation (1998).

    The importance of nonprofit support varied considerably across parks. For
    example, Golden Gate NP received over $10 million in aid in fiscal year
    2001, the highest contribution by a cooperating association that year,
    while Voyageurs NP received $3,233 from its cooperating association, the
    lowest financial contribution to a park that year. Similarly, one friends
    groups affiliated with the Statue of Liberty NM contributed over $8
    million to the park, while 34 friends groups reported zero financial
    contributions to their affiliated parks in fiscal year 2001. 11 Appendixes
    IV and V provide detailed revenue and contribution information for
    cooperating associations and friends groups, respectively.

    Nonprofits Have Additional In addition to the financial contributions they
    make to parks each year,

    Assets That Are Available cooperating associations and friends groups also
    hold over $200 million in

    for Future Donation accumulated net assets that are potentially available
    for future contributions to parks. According to tax data for 2001, friends
    groups

    retained over 60 percent of these accumulated assets. More precisely, the
    net assets of friends groups totaled $125 million in 2001, according to
    data collected for over two- thirds of the groups, including the largest
    friends groups (see app. V). In comparison, net assets held by cooperating
    associations, according to 2001 tax data, were $78 million (see app. IV).
    These assets represent the accumulated monetary assets (such as cash,

    11 According to data from 102 friends groups from GAO survey, Urban
    Institute, and Guidestar. com Web site (Philanthropic Research, Inc.).

    stocks, or bond investments) and nonmonetary assets (such as land,
    buildings, and equipment) of the organizations. The monetary component of
    these assets often consists of restricted and unrestricted accounts.
    Restricted accounts typically represent funds that have been earmarked for
    specific future projects, such as a park construction project or an
    endowment to fund future maintenance costs of a capital project.
    Unrestricted accounts usually represent funds that are currently available
    for any expenses related to a park project. For example, the friends group
    associated with Acadia NP has net assets of about $14 million, including

    $13 million in restricted accounts for 2001. The funds in the restricted
    accounts are for such things as an endowment to fund future maintenance of
    the carriage road in Acadia NP and an endowment to support future Acadia
    Youth Conservation Corps activities in the park. Further, information we
    obtained based on available tax records from 1998 through

    2000 indicates that friends groups are adding substantial amounts to their
    accumulated assets each year. Specifically, they retain about 40 percent
    of their revenue or about $20 million annually.

    Nonprofit Organizations In addition to contributions of funds, buildings,
    equipment, and other

    Provide Nonfinancial assets, cooperating associations and friends groups
    also provide volunteer

    Support to Parks services that are of considerable value. Nonprofit
    members of both

    cooperating associations and friends groups recruit and organize
    volunteers for park projects and promote support for parks in local
    communities. Some friends groups, such as the Appalachian Trail
    Conference, make little if any direct financial contributions but have a
    substantial volunteer base engaged in volunteer stewardship programs at
    the parks. The Appalachian Trail Conference reported that its 4,500
    volunteers contributed 187,475 hours to trail work in fiscal year 2000.
    The exact number of volunteers for all park- affiliated nonprofit
    organizations is not known. However, many groups have thousands of members
    and volunteers. Of these, the Statue of Liberty- Ellis Island Foundation,
    Inc., is the largest friends group donor within the national park system
    and has close to 160,000 members; other groups responding to our friends
    group survey averaged 3,700 members and volunteers. Table 7 provides
    examples of nonfinancial contributions made by selected nonprofit
    organizations.

    Tabl e 7: Examples of Nonfinancial Assistance Provided by Nonprofit
    Organizations Organization Nonfinancial assistance

    Friends of Acadia Contributed about 8,000 volunteer hours for trail and
    carriage road maintenance in 2000. Golden Gate National Parks Association
    Organized school children and other volunteers to help plant 100,000
    native plants. Over

    10,000 volunteers participated in association projects during 2001. Blue
    Ridge Parkway Foundation Over 30 foundation volunteers participated in
    repairing trails as part of a trail

    maintenance vacation week in 2001. Friends of the Great Smoky Mountains On
    an ongoing basis, its volunteers assist with the search for new species in
    the park, National Park including collection, sorting, and identification.

    Friends of the National Parks at On designated days in June and September
    2001, over 200 volunteers painted fences Gettysburg, Inc. and historic
    structures, removed brush, and rebuilt historic fence lines.

    Source: Cooperating associations and friends groups.

    In addition to volunteer service, at least two nonprofit organizations are
    legislatively authorized to provide operational and management services in
    parks. Specifically, the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site Foundation was
    authorized in 1980 12 to assist the Secretary of the Interior in *the
    operation, maintenance, management, development and interpretation of the
    Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic Site.* 13 More recently,
    The Island Alliance, a private nonprofit organization, was designated by
    the Congress as a financial support partner for the Boston Harbor Islands
    Recreation Area, a unit of the national park system established in 1996.
    14

    12 Pub. L. No. 96- 607, 94 Stat. 3541 (1980). 13 The Theodore Roosevelt
    Inaugural Site Foundation receives a portion of its funding through
    government grants to carry out its statutorily authorized management
    responsibilities.

    14 The Island Alliance reports that it is the *first and only private
    nonprofit organization formally designated by the Congress as a partner in
    the development of a new national park with the specific responsibility of
    raising and generating monies from the private sector.* Pub. L. No. 104-
    333, 110 Stat. 4232 (1996) established the Boston Harbor Islands
    Recreation Area and specified that the park should be managed in
    collaboration with nonfederal groups.

    Revenue- Generating The primary revenue- generating activities of
    cooperating associations are

    Activities of selling educational materials in park bookstores and
    providing educational services to park visitors. These activities,
    together with growing

    Cooperating association sales of visitor convenience items such as film
    and disposable

    Associations cameras, are responsible for 90 percent of association
    revenue. At many of

    Sometimes Compete the parks with cooperating associations, concessioners
    also provide

    park- related merchandise for visitor consumption, as well as visitor with
    Those of

    services and convenience items. Generally, the educational attributes Park
    Concessioners

    associated with association sales and services distinguish them from
    concessioner sales and services. However, this is not always the case. In
    fact, in three of the six parks we visited, competition between
    cooperating

    associations and concessioners or local businesses led to conflicts. In
    contrast, friends groups generally do not compete with concessioners
    because they rely primarily on donations and membership dues to generate
    revenue.

    Selling Educational Cooperating associations exist to support the
    educational, scientific,

    Materials and Providing historical, and interpretive activities of the
    National Park Service.

    Services Are the Main Accordingly, association activities are intended to
    provide the public with Revenue- Generating

    educational materials related to the parks and to generate revenue for
    other association programs and activities that support the agency.
    Activities of Cooperating

    Associations support park programs by making direct purchases on behalf
    Associations

    of the parks and by providing funds for use by park staff. Typically, each
    park has a standard agreement with an affiliated cooperating association.
    This agreement documents and clarifies the association*s scope of
    responsibility and permitted activities and is often supplemented to
    address association services specific to a park. Local park managers are
    responsible for overseeing association activities including ensuring that
    sales and services are consistent with the terms of the agreement and
    assuring that association support is appropriately targeted.

    Cooperating association activities focus on supporting parks by providing
    visitors with educational materials and services. The main
    revenuegenerating activity of associations is operating bookstores that
    sell educational and other merchandise, often at park visitor centers.
    Cooperating associations reported generating revenue of $109 million in
    fiscal year 2001. As figure 1 shows, of this amount, 90 percent came from
    sales and services to park visitors. Over $84 million (78 percent) was
    raised through the sale of educational materials* primarily books. About
    $10 million (9 percent) was from educational program services such as

    audio tours and organized backcountry hiking and camping activities.
    Association operated *field institutes* frequently provide these
    educational program services. Field institutes are a part of cooperating
    associations that focus on providing visitors with active learning
    experiences within a park. Another $3 million (3 percent) came from sales
    of visitor convenience items* items that are not educational and that the
    Park Service describes as necessary for the comfort and convenience of
    visitors. These items include beverages, aspirin/ antacids, insect
    repellent, sun screen, film, disposable cameras, and stamps. The remaining
    10 percent of association revenues came from fund- raising, membership
    fees, and park

    donation boxes.

    Figure 1: Cooperating Association Revenue Sources* Fiscal Year 2001

    Note: Educational materials and convenience item sales include Web- based
    sales as well as sales from stores that are not on park property.

    In addition, some associations support the needs of the parks they serve
    in other, nontraditional ways. For example, associations may act as
    concessioners, generating income by operating park concession contracts.

    This is the case at Mt. Rushmore NM, where the cooperating association has
    a 20- year concession contract for constructing and operating a parking
    facility at the site. Under these circumstances, associations are required
    to report this revenue to the park service as concession contract revenue.
    As such, these revenues are not included in figure 1. However, these
    circumstances are exceptional and do not occur frequently.

    A description of the sales and services offered by cooperating
    associations at the six parks we visited will help clarify the revenue-
    generating activities that occur throughout the system. Associations at
    each of the six parks operated a bookstore, and five of the six
    associations also sold merchandise via a park- affiliated Web site. At
    three parks, a field institute was a significant part of the association*s
    educational service program. At Grand Canyon NP, for example, the Grand
    Canyon Field Institute offered exploratory tours where visitors could
    learn about the canyon*s geology, ecology, and Native American and pioneer
    history. This institute also provided park- related educational materials
    to elementary classrooms

    across the United States. Two of the six associations provided other
    services* one provided a guided park tour and one operated the park*s
    wilderness reservation system.

    Except for visitor convenience items, we found that the merchandise sold
    and the services provided at each of the six parks visited were generally
    related to the educational mission of the cooperating associations and to
    park themes. Cooperating association bookstores carried a wide variety of
    park- related publications, maps, videos, and theme- related merchandise
    intended to enhance visitor understanding, appreciation, and knowledge of
    parks. For example, at areas managed by Fort Sumter NM staff, the
    cooperating association operated four bookstores with educational books
    and items related to Civil War occurrences in the Charleston, South
    Carolina area. At Yosemite NP, the association sold books, Native American
    artifacts and jewelry, and CD- ROMs that were generally consistent with
    its

    educational mission and park themes. Cooperating association Web sites
    generally offered the same merchandise as the bookstores. Although our
    examination of the items being sold at association bookstores and Web
    sites at the six parks we visited revealed a few items that were not
    clearly

    related to the association*s educational mandate, these were low volume
    and low cost items that were not financially significant. For example, the
    association sold magnets at Ft. Sumter, and slinkys and hula hoops at the
    Eisenhower National Historic Site. In commenting on our report, the
    association*s executive director noted that magnet sales were discontinued
    at this store. The director stated that hula hoops and slinkys are sold
    with

    interpretive text and help connect visitors to the lifestyle of the 1950s,
    which is a park interpretive goal. Like merchandise sales, we found that
    the services provided by cooperating associations at the six parks we
    visited were educational and consistent with park themes. Some of these
    services generated substantial revenue for individual parks. For example,
    at Gettysburg NMP, the local association operates the *Electric Map* and
    *Cyclorama* mural painting. The Electric Map orients visitors to the park
    by depicting the progress of the 3- day Gettysburg battle, while the
    historic mural depicts the cavalry battle known as *Pickett*s Charge* in a
    360- degree panorama. In fiscal 2000, these operations generated revenue
    of $758, 183 and $320,475, respectively,

    of which the association donated about 40 percent to the park.
    Associations, however, also provide services that generate little or no
    revenue or profit. At Yosemite NP, for example, the cooperating
    association operated the park*s backcountry reservation program and worked
    with

    concessioners to rent bear- resistant food canisters to visitors having
    backcountry reservations. All association receipts from this program were
    used to purchase more canisters. The park received no revenue from this
    activity.

    Revenue- Generating Generally, the educational and thematic attributes of
    association sales

    Activities of Cooperating items and services distinguish them from
    concessions sales items and

    Associations and services. However, this is not always the case. Sometimes
    the sales and

    Concessioners Are services of associations and concessioners as well as
    other for- profit

    businesses are in direct competition with one another. At three of the six
    Not Always Distinct

    parks we visited, sales and services by associations and for- profit and
    Sometimes Lead

    concessioners and other businesses were not clearly distinguished and this
    to Conflicts led to conflicts among these organizations. At the other
    three parks we reviewed, there were no apparent conflicts between
    associations and concessioners or other for- profit businesses.

    At Some Parks Competition The three parks with conflicts were Grand Canyon
    NP, Fort Sumter NM,

    between Cooperating and Gettysburg NMP. In each instance, the conflicts
    resulted from local

    Associations and Concessioners park managers* decisions to permit
    associations to sell goods or services

    Leads to Conflict that had been traditionally provided by concessioners or
    other for- profit businesses. At Grand Canyon and at Fort Sumter, the
    conflicts involved

    association and concessioner sales. At Gettysburg, the conflict involved
    services provided by the association and a local business that, like
    concessioners, depended on park visitors for its survival.

    At Grand Canyon NP, three concessioners operated stores throughout the
    park that sold, among other things, film, disposable cameras, and a
    variety of other visitor convenience items to the millions of people that
    annually visit the park. These items were traditionally sold by the
    concessioners and were an important part of their business. However, in
    2001, park managers began allowing the Grand Canyon Cooperating
    Association to sell visitor convenience items, including film and
    disposable cameras, at the association*s new bookstore. As a result, the
    association*s sales of these items went from zero in 2000 to over $50,000
    during a 7- month period in 2001. This change caused considerable concern
    among park concessioners,

    whose collective film sales total over $1.5 million. Representatives of
    each of the three park concessioners believe that park management*s
    decision allowing association sales of visitor convenience items resulted
    in unfair competition that would adversely affect their profitability. At
    the time of our review, each concessioner estimated that film sales had
    decreased considerably. One concessioner told us that film sales decreased
    by $140, 000 and another stated that, while overall sales declined by

    9.5 percent, film sales deceased by 10.5 percent. The concessioners*
    concerns were based on three factors. First, the association*s point of
    sale is located at the initial gathering place for most park visitors,
    which provides a marketing advantage that concessioners believe reduces
    their business. Second, because visitor convenience items are neither
    educational nor characteristic of a Grand Canyon theme, concessioners view
    these items as inconsistent with an association*s traditional scope of
    sales and educational mission. And third, because concessioners could not
    compete for operating the new bookstore at this location, they believe the
    association received favorable treatment that placed them at a competitive
    advantage. On the other hand, park managers

    and the cooperating association Executive Director pointed out that
    locating the association bookstore at the visitor center area was
    consistent with the park*s General Management Plan. Further, park
    officials told us that bids were not solicited on the bookstore operation
    because the

    bookstore was intended to serve an educational purpose* an activity
    consistent with the association*s mission and its agreement with the Park
    Service. They also noted that the cooperating association was willing to
    fund the building*s construction. In commenting on a draft of this report,
    the new association executive director stated that the conflict with

    concessioners was overstated and that the association has a strong working
    relationship with park concessioners.

    The situation at Fort Sumter NM is similar to that at Grand Canyon NP. At
    Fort Sumter there are two locations where merchandise is sold. 15 The
    largest of these is a bookstore operated by the cooperating association in
    the recently opened visitor center in Charleston, South Carolina. Because

    this center is the main departure point for visiting Fort Sumter, it has
    generated considerable increases in association sales revenue. Moreover,
    according to park plans, in the future it may be the only commercial
    location serving Ft. Sumter visitors. The other sales location is a small
    store at the fort (see fig. 2).

    Figure 2: Map of Charleston Harbor Area and Fort Sumter National Monument

    15 The cooperating association also operates bookstores at Fort Moultrie
    and the Charles Pinckney National Historic Site. Park officials at Fort
    Sumter NM also are responsible for managing these locations.

    When the bookstore in the Charleston visitor center opened in 2001, the
    park manager permitted sales of educational and theme- oriented
    merchandise traditionally sold by associations as well as visitor
    convenience items. Prior to the opening of the new bookstore, visitor
    convenience items were sold by the store at the fort. This store was
    operated by a concessioner during the peak season* March 15th through
    Labor Day* when the park gets about 65 percent of its visitors, and by the
    cooperating association during the remaining months. Park plans envisioned
    this store closing when the new visitor center opened in Charleston and,
    in August 2000, several months before the new bookstore opened, the park
    discontinued all concessioner sales operations at the fort. However, the
    park manager subsequently decided that there was a need for educational
    and theme- related merchandise at the fort 16 and determined that the
    association would operate the store at the fort on a year- round basis,
    including selling visitor convenience items. The concessioner questioned
    the decision to close the concession store at the fort because the
    association store remains open there and sells items similar to what the
    concessioner sold. The concessioner also believed that park officials

    should have afforded for- profit businesses an opportunity to compete for
    the bookstore operation in the new visitor center. This situation has
    contributed to conflict between the concessioner and park management. From
    park management*s perspective, the decision to have the association
    provide all of the sales at both the fort and the Charleston visitor
    center was consistent with the long- term plans for the park 17 and the
    association*s educational agreement. According to park plans, these
    decisions were made to de- emphasize commercial activities at the park, to
    reduce the time spent by staff in supervising concession sales operations,
    and to focus

    merchandise sales on the park*s educational and interpretive goals.
    Because the conflicts at both the Grand Canyon and Fort Sumter involved
    increased association sales of visitor convenience items, we examined
    convenience item sales data for the 323 parks with cooperating
    associations to determine if the increases at these parks were part of a

    16 This decision was made to provide association merchandise to park
    visitors who reached the fort from Patriots Point (see fig. 2). Patriots
    Point continues to serve as a departure point for fort visitors although
    park plans envisioned discontinuing service from this location. As a
    result, visitors from Patriots Point did not have access to association

    materials available at the visitor center bookstore. 17 A General
    Management Plan was published in 1998 to guide overall use of the park.
    This plan emphasized the use of additional partnerships and volunteers. It
    also anticipated closing the sales operation at the fort and moving it to
    the new visitors center.

    trend throughout the national park system. As table 8 shows, revenue from
    the sales of visitor convenience merchandise is expanding more rapidly
    than other sources of association revenue. These sales increased by 55
    percent (from $2. 06 to $3. 19 million) between 1997 and 2001, while
    revenue from other sources increased only about half as much* about 21
    percent.

    Tabl e 8: Cooperating Association Revenue Growth from Visitor Convenience
    Items and Other Revenue Sources

    Dollars in millions

    Percent Revenue category 1997 2001 Increase increase

    Visitor convenience $2.06 $3. 19 $1.13 55 Other revenues 87. 3 105.6 18. 3
    21 Source: National Park Service.

    These data indicate that this sales trend is occurring nationwide. In
    addition, five of the seven regional directors in the Park Service told us
    that cooperating associations were expanding sales of visitor convenience
    merchandise in their regions.

    Table 9 provides some contextual information on the potential scope of
    conflicts that could occur between cooperating associations and
    concessioners at the parks. Specifically, the table provides national data
    on parks where both associations and concessioners sell merchandise

    to visitors.

    Tabl e 9: Parks Served by Associations and Merchandise Concessioners
    Average visitation Park category Number per park (2001)

    National parks 385 807, 000 Parks with cooperating associations 323 828,
    000 Parks with merchandise concessioner 91 1,925, 000 Parks with both
    associations and merchandise concessioner 84 1,971, 000

    Source: National Park Service.

    Table 9 shows that 84 of 91 parks having at least one concessioner that
    sells merchandise to visitors also have cooperating associations that sell
    merchandise and provide services to visitors. The table also shows that
    merchandise concessioners typically operate in parks with high visitation.
    Accordingly, competition is more likely in the largest parks. Appendix III
    provides a complete list of parks that have cooperating associations and
    merchandise concessioners.

    The third park we visited where a conflict was evident was Gettysburg NMP.
    This conflict involved the cooperating association and a local for- profit
    business that, like concessioners, derived its revenue from visitors to
    the park. In contrast to the conflicts at Grand Canyon and Fort Sumter,
    the conflict involved competition over providing tour bus

    service, not the sale of merchandise. Specifically, with the approval of
    park management, the cooperating association initiated a bus tour in 2001
    that directly competes with locally operated bus tours. Further, because
    the association is affiliated with the park, this tour is permitted to
    pick up and drop off its customers at the park*s main visitor center*
    unlike the privately run for- profit tours. Neither of the local
    businesses that provided battlefield tours is permitted to pick up or
    discharge at the visitor*s center. Instead, their tours operate primarily
    from their offices in the commercial district of the town of Gettysburg* a
    few blocks from the visitor center.

    One of the local businesses contends that the association- administered
    bus tour service was unnecessary because similar tour services were
    already available to visitors. This business owner also was concerned
    because the

    association tour originates at the park visitor center and, as a result,
    has an important competitive advantage. Further, although park officials
    informally discussed the tour service with this business owner, the owner
    is concerned because the Park Service did not advertise and solicit bids
    for this new service and, thus, denied the business the opportunity to bid
    and compete for providing the service. Finally, this owner asserts that
    his business has already experienced adverse financial consequences as a
    result of the association tour, but because of difficulty in isolating the
    effects of this new service, cannot provide documentation supporting his
    assertion. In contrast, two other parks we visited, Yellowstone and Fort
    Sumter, also offered guided tours for visitors. In both instances, the
    tours were operated by for- profit businesses* concessioners* under
    contract with the respective parks.

    According to the park manager at Gettysburg, the association began
    operating the tour service at his request in order to enhance the

    educational and interpretive services offered to park visitors. Park
    managers told us that they require the cooperating association to use
    licensed park guides to provide narration and interpretation for customers

    on these tours and that this arrangement improves the quality of service
    provided to park visitors. Because park officials believed the tour
    service was consistent with the association*s agreement with the park,
    they decided that a concession contract and bid solicitation process was
    not necessary.

    Not All Concessioners Were While conflicts between cooperating
    associations and concessioners and

    Concerned about Competition similar for- profit businesses existed at some
    of the parks we visited, they

    from Cooperating Associations did not exist at others. In fact, at two of
    the six parks we visited* Yosemite

    NP and Yellowstone NP* these organizations worked collaboratively to
    enhance visitor service. At a third park, Badlands NP, the association
    operated a small bookstore. Both association and park officials stated
    that the concessioner at Badlands had minor concerns about this
    association*s sales. 18

    Yosemite is a good example of where competing entities work together to
    serve overall park interests. Although the association and concessioner
    sometimes sold competing merchandise, officials of these entities agreed
    that there was a good understanding of their respective roles at the park
    and there were no noteworthy problems among the entities. In fact, there
    were a number of coordinated efforts between the association and
    concessioner. The following activities demonstrate collaborative
    activities at the park:

     The concessioner*s chief operating officer is also a member of the
    cooperating association board of trustees.

     The association arranges for artists to provide classes for visitors at
    an art activity center operated by a concessioner.

     At park wilderness centers the association issues permits and sells
    several visitor convenience items that are useful in the park*s
    backcountry* backpacking stoves, fuel canisters for the stoves, water

    filters, and spades. The association buys these items from the
    concessioner.

    18 The concessioner abruptly discontinued its relationship with the park
    shortly before our visit.

     The association and the concessioner are involved in providing
    backcountry visitors with bear- resistant food canisters. Previously,
    bearresistant canisters were available only by purchase from a
    concessioner. The association and concessioner reached an agreement that
    provides for canister rentals from either the association or the
    concessioner and allows visitors to return canisters rented at a
    concession store to locations operated by the association.

     According to the association*s Executive Director, the concessioner is
    the biggest wholesale purchaser of the association*s publications.

    Friends Groups Generate Because soliciting donations from individuals,
    corporations, and

    Revenue Chiefly by foundations is their chief revenue- generating
    activity, friends groups

    Soliciting Donations typically do not sell goods or services within the
    national park system. Accordingly, these groups generally do not compete
    for business with concessioners or other for- profit businesses that serve
    the parks. However, there are some exceptions where the boundaries
    distinguishing these two

    kinds of organizations are indistinct. Typically, friends groups raise
    revenue through fund- raising campaigns to support a local park project.
    19 To raise funds on behalf of the Park Service, agency policy requires
    that friends groups have an agreement signed by a local park manager,
    usually the park superintendent, and the president or chief executive
    officer of the friends group. Under this policy, national fund- raising
    campaigns or fund- raising campaigns with a goal of $1 million or more
    require the approval of the Park Service Director. Fund- raising campaigns
    also require an approved fund- raising plan detailing techniques, timing,
    staff needs, strategy, and costs. Park Service policy states that
    fundraising plans will not be approved if overhead costs* which include
    fundraising and administrative expenses* are projected to exceed 20
    percent of revenues over the life of the campaign. The primary sources of
    friends group revenue are

     Direct Fund- raising Activities  Federal & State Grants

    19 The National Park Foundation is unique among fund- raising partners in
    that it is chartered by the Congress to support parks across the United
    States (Pub. L. No. 90- 209, 81 Stat. 656 (1967), codified at 16 U. S. C.
    S: 19e).

     Merchandise Sales 20  Special Events  Membership Fees  Park Donation
    Boxes The precise proportion of revenue that friends groups derive from
    these various sources is not known. The Park Service does not collect such
    data, and available federal tax data do not provide detailed information
    related to these revenue sources. However, the tax data that are available
    suggest that fundraising is by far the most important source of friends
    group revenue. A prominent ongoing fund- raising effort is the National
    Park Foundation*s Proud Partner of America*s National Parks campaign. The

    foundation recognizes in numerous publications that five corporations*
    American Airlines, Discovery Communications, Inc., Ford Motor Company,
    Kodak, and TIME magazine* are *Proud Partners of the National Parks*. In

    return, these corporations have committed $85 million in cash and
    resources over a 3- year period.

    Friends group tax reports show that several have received federal or state
    grants. The Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site Foundation, for example,
    reported a federal grant in connection with its legal mandate to support
    management functions at the Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural National Historic
    Site. Similarly, the Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg received
    a $1 million grant from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to restore a
    state memorial in Gettysburg. One friends group*s tax report recorded
    revenue from the sale of personalized state license plates as a government
    grant.

    Revenue generation through merchandise sales by friends groups is limited
    and occurs mostly outside park boundaries. None of the friends groups at
    parks we visited conducted sales activities within the parks. One of three
    friends groups at Gettysburg NMP, however, receives 10 percent of the
    gross revenue from a park bus tour operated by the cooperating association
    and a local bus company, although the friends group does not

    20 Park Service policy allows friends groups to sell items within a park
    with the approval of the cooperating association and park superintendent.
    Cooperating associations also may sell items on behalf of friend groups.
    However, such arrangements are infrequent.

    provide a service in return. More typical of friends group sales are those
    by the group at the Virgin Islands NP, which offers T- shirts, license
    plates, and park- related merchandise at its office outside the park, on
    its Web site, and through local stores in St. John, Virgin Islands. 21
    Similarly, the friends group at Great Smoky Mountains NP reported selling
    items such as hats, T- shirts, specialty license plates, and other
    merchandise with its logo outside park boundaries, at its offices in
    Tennessee and North Carolina, through its Web

    site, and at festivals. Friends groups also generate revenue membership
    fees, through special events, and park donation boxes. Many friends groups
    offer fee- based memberships that provide member benefits. For example, at
    Yellowstone NP, a friends group offers memberships beginning at $25; it
    reported having over 8, 000 members or volunteers. Paying members receive
    a free subscription to the group*s biannual newsletter, a copy of the
    annual report, and have their names displayed in the Yellowstone NP Honor
    Book at the

    Old Faithful Visitor Center for 1 year. Special fund- raising events
    hosted by friends groups usually consist of a one- time entertainment for
    which attendees are charged a fee. For example, in 2000, a friends group
    at Great Smoky Mountains NP raised over $133,000 through special events
    that included dinners, concerts, and hikes. Similarly, at Acadia NP the
    friends group netted about $250,000 through a special auction held in
    2001.

    The development of data on friends group revenues is complicated by a
    blurring of the functional and organizational boundaries between some
    friends groups and associations. Although both types of organizations work
    to help the Park Service meet its mission, distinctions between
    cooperating associations and a friends groups are not always clear as
    evidenced by several *hybrid* groups that serve the parks. For example,
    the association at Golden Gate NP combines cooperating association and
    friends group functions under the same organization. The nonprofit
    organization at Mt. Rushmore NM created a subsidiary group to allow
    distinct bookstore and fund- raising and concession contract operations.
    And at Rocky Mountain NP, one nonprofit organization conducts fund-
    raising activities and a second operates a bookstore. These distinct
    nonprofit organizations are administratively linked, however, sharing the
    same Board of Directors.

    21 According to the Virgin Islands NP superintendent, the friends group
    operated an information kiosk inside the park, where they also sold
    merchandise. This practice was discontinued upon the advice of the Park
    Service*s Solicitors Office and, for the past 2 years, the cooperating
    association has operated the kiosk.

    Several Factors Three primary factors contribute to competition and
    conflicts between

    Contribute to cooperating associations and concessioners and other for-
    profit businesses

    that serve the parks. First, Park Service policies intended to increase
    Competition and

    association support for parks lead to expanded association sales and
    Potential Conflicts

    services that compete with for- profit businesses for sales and services.
    between Associations

    Second, park managers have broad discretion in deciding the scope of park
    sales and services as well as whether cooperating associations and/ or
    forprofit and Concessioners

    businesses operate in a park. In some cases, the rationale for expanding
    cooperating associations* operations was not clear and contributed to
    conflicts among park management, cooperating associations, and
    concessioners. Third, cooperating associations return a higher percentage
    of their sales and service revenue to the parks compared to for- profit
    businesses, giving park managers a financial incentive to expand
    association operations. The Park Service recognizes the balancing

    act that is needed to manage the roles of cooperating associations and
    businesses that serve parks visitors, and agency policy encourages park
    managers to develop and implement plans addressing these roles. Among
    other things, these plans* called Commercial Services Plans* are intended
    to reduce conflicts in parks by clarifying the roles and competitive
    relationships of associations and concessioners and providing a more

    predictable business environment for them. However, these plans are rarely
    developed or used.

    Policies Encouraging Park Service policies and plans encourage park
    managers to generate

    Increased Financial Support increased financial support from cooperating
    associations and

    concessioners. The Park Service*s strategic and annual performance plans
    22 from Cooperating set programmatic and financial goals designed to
    substantially increase Associations Also Promote

    donations from cooperating associations as well as the amount of franchise
    Increased Competition

    fees from concessioners. For cooperating associations to provide increased
    financial support to parks, they must expand profit- making activities
    including the sale of merchandise. This promotes increased competition
    between cooperating associations and concessioners for park visitor
    dollars.

    The Park Service has set a goal of increasing cooperating association
    support by 35 percent between 1997 and 2005. As table 10 illustrates,
    between fiscal years 1997 and 2001 revenues increased about 22 percent*
    from about $89.36 million in fiscal year 1997 to about $108.78 in fiscal
    year 2001.

    Tabl e 10: Cooperating Associations* Revenue Increases from Fiscal Year
    1997* 2001

    Dollars in millions

    Revenue category 1997 2001 Change Percentage Increase

    Educational materials sales $67.23 $84.47 $17.24 26 Educational program
    services 9.91 10.20 .29 3 Fund- raising 5.77 6.91 1.14 20 Visitor
    convenience items 2.06 3.19 1.13 55 Memberships 1.26 2.13 .87 69 Other
    2.43 1.89 -. 54 -22

    Tot al 89.36 108.78 19. 42 22

    Source: National Park Service. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

    Table 10 also shows that $18.37 million (about 95 percent) of this revenue
    increase has come from activities that are most like those of

    22 The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Pub. L. No. 103-
    62, 107 Stat. 285) requires federal agencies to prepare these plans. In
    addition, the National Parks Omnibus Management Act of 1998 (Pub. L. No.
    105- 391) requires that each park unit prepare strategic and annual
    performance plans that reflect the policies, goals, and outcomes of the
    Park Service*s plan and make them available to the public.

    concessioners* merchandise sales of educational materials and visitor
    convenience items. Accordingly, this trend contributes to increased
    competition with concessioners. This trend is likely to continue as the
    Park Service and cooperating associations try to meet their increased
    revenue goals for 2005.

    Park Service policies and plans also have established goals for increasing
    revenue from concessioners. Specifically, the agency*s goal is to increase
    franchise fees paid by concessioners from about 4 percent of gross revenue

    in fiscal year 2000 to about 10 percent by 2005. While the mechanisms for
    concessioners achieving this goal are varied and complex, getting this
    done could involve increased concessioner offerings of their most
    profitable merchandise to park visitors. To the extent that concessioners
    and the associations are each vying for visitor dollars or offering
    similar merchandise, this would lead to increased competition.

    Further, the Park Service encourages concessioners to sell merchandise
    that is educational and consistent with park- related themes. Although
    there is no agencywide list of preferred merchandise, the Park Service*s

    Management Policies 2001 encourages concessioners to offer items for sale
    that foster awareness and understanding of a park. In this regard, the
    2001 policy directs each park with a concessioner to have a gift shop
    mission statement that ensures concessioners sell merchandise reflecting
    information about the park. For example, at the Grand Canyon, one

    concessioner*s gift shop mission statement states that *to the greatest
    extent possible, merchandise will have an identifiable relationship to
    Grand Canyon National Park* and identifies several park themes, such as
    the park*s geology and history, that serve as a guide for implementing
    this objective. While this increased emphasis on concessioners selling
    more educational and theme- related merchandise may help provide visitors
    with a better park experience, it also promotes greater competition among

    associations and concessioners. According to some concession officials at
    the parks we visited, this emphasis by the Park Service makes concessioner
    sales venues more like those of cooperating associations. On the other
    hand, concession officials at other parks we visited stated that this
    change did not pose serious competitive issues.

    In a broader context, the issue of competition between for- profit and
    nonprofit organizations is a long- standing one that is not limited to the
    Park Service. As we have previously reported, 23 representatives of for-
    profit businesses believe that the revenue- generating activities of
    nonprofit organizations exceed the traditional role of these
    organizations, and that the nonprofits receive a competitive advantage by
    virtue of their nonprofit tax status and other benefits. On the other
    hand, representatives of nonprofits believe certain nontraditional
    activities further their nonprofit

    purposes by generating additional revenue to fund these purposes. Although
    the Congress has attempted to address this issue in the past, it remains
    contentious. 24

    Park Service policy recognizes that a *delicate balance* exists between
    associations that have traditionally served an educational mission and
    concessioners that provide *necessary and appropriate* visitor services.
    Concessioners at two of the parks we visited, a local business at a park
    without a merchandising concessioner, and officials from the national
    organization representing park concessioners, 25 contended that this
    delicate balance has become unsteady, and expressed concern that
    cooperating association operations are expanding into areas traditionally

    served by concessioners or for- profit businesses. They were unsure of the
    bounds on association sales activity and believed some association
    merchandise and services duplicated or replaced merchandise and services
    available in or near parks, were inconsistent with nonprofit educational
    mandates, and placed for- profits in increased financial jeopardy. Park
    Service regional directors generally agreed that the roles of both
    associations and concessioners are changing and that the distinction

    between what associations and concessioners sell has become less clear. 23
    U. S. General Accounting Office, Tax Policy: Competition Between Taxable
    Businesses and Tax- Exempt Organizations, GAO/ GGD- 87- 40BR (Washington,
    D. C.: Feb. 27, 1987); and U. S. General Accounting Office, Competition
    Between Tax- Exempt Organizations and Taxable Businesses, GAO/ T- GGD- 88-
    43 (Washington, D. C.: June 28, 1988). 24 U. S. General Accounting Office,
    Tax Exempt Organizations: Additional Information on Activities and IRS
    Oversight, GAO/ T- GGD- 95- 198 (Washington, D. C.: June 29, 1995). 25 The
    National Park Hospitality Association represents park concessioners at the
    national level.

    Park Managers Have Broad In practice, park managers determine whether a
    cooperating association or

    Discretion in Deciding to concessioner will operate in a park. They also
    determine the scope, mix,

    Expand Cooperating and appropriateness of the sales and services that are
    provided. In this

    Association Sales and regard, local managers are also responsible for
    monitoring nonprofit

    operations, ensuring that association sales and services do not conflict
    Services and Do Not Always

    with the contractual rights of concessioners, and minimizing potential
    Provide

    conflicts with concessioners. However, the rationale for decisions on
    these Transparent Rationale

    matters was not always transparent, which contributed to conflicts among
    park management, cooperating associations, and concessioners.

    At each of the three parks we visited where there were conflicts* Grand
    Canyon, Fort Sumter, and Gettysburg* cooperating associations merchandise
    sales or services were expanded without concessioners or other local for-
    profit businesses having an opportunity to compete to provide these
    operations. Further, in each instance, the sales and services at the
    center of these conflicts were to be provided at prime locations within
    each park and the decision was made without providing a transparent
    rationale. In two cases, park officials decided to allow associations to
    provide new sales or services without addressing the decision in park
    plans. The following paragraphs provide a snapshot of the circumstances at
    each of these three parks.

    At the Grand Canyon, park officials requested that the association
    construct a bookstore adjacent to a new visitors center on the South Rim
    of the Canyon* by far, the most popular and heavily visited area of the
    park. The association raised $1. 8 million for the project, gave the store
    property

    to the Park Service, and assumed responsibility for operating the store.
    As previously discussed, park managers permitted the association to sell
    traditional, park- related educational merchandise as well as visitor
    convenience items. Concessioner officials at the Grand Canyon told us
    that, in their opinion, providing them an opportunity to compete to
    operate the bookstore would have been a more balanced approach. Further,
    the officials told us that a double standard is applied by park managers
    that is advantageous to the cooperating association. As evidence of this
    concern, the concessioners cited how signage restrictions are applied
    differently for

    concessioners than for the cooperating association. On the south rim of
    the canyon, a store operated by the concessioner was not permitted to post
    any outside signage or displays, while an adjacent store operated by the
    cooperating association was permitted to do so (see figs. 3 and 4). In
    commenting on these pictures, the current cooperating association
    executive director stated that the signage outside the association*s
    bookstore was justified because, unlike the concession store, the

    bookstore was not visible from the major visitor contact area. However, in
    our view, this does not justify different signage standards for
    concessioners and associations. Moreover, these displays do not make the
    store visible from where it was previously invisible. Finally, the
    sandwich board displayed outside this store, advertised an association
    bookstore that is located elsewhere in the park.

    Figure 3: Lookout Studio (Concession Store) on Grand Canyon Rim

    Figure 4: Kolb Studio (Association Store) on Grand Canyon Rim

    At Fort Sumter, the long- term plan for the development of the park
    specified that the concessioner- operated sales facility at the Fort would
    be relocated to a new visitor*s center. In a commercial services plan
    designed to implement the long- term plan, park officials decided that the

    cooperating association would operate the new sales facility at the
    visitor*s center, that the cooperating association could sell visitor
    convenience items as well as educational merchandise, and that no other
    merchandise facilities would be permitted. In accordance with the park*s
    commercial services plan, park managers did not provide the existing park

    concessioner an opportunity to operate the new sales facility. However,
    although both the long- term and implementation plans envisioned closing
    the sales facility at the Fort, this has not happened and the association
    operates two stores* one at the new visitors center and a second at the
    Fort. The park concessioner believes there should have been a bid
    solicitation process for operating the new facility* particularly since
    the cooperating association is selling noneducational visitor convenience
    items that had been sold by the concessioner.

    At Gettysburg, the local park manager permitted the association to manage
    a new, narrated bus tour for park visitors without giving for- profit
    businesses an opportunity to compete to provide this service. According to
    the owner of a competing local for- profit business near the park*s
    visitor center, the association- managed tour presents unfair competition
    because there was no public advertisement or discussion of the park*s
    proposal to initiate the association tours, nor was there a bid
    solicitation process that afforded for- profit businesses an opportunity
    to contract to provide this service. According to park officials, their
    decision to allow the cooperating association to manage a new tour from
    the visitor*s center instead of a concessioner or other for- profit
    business was made for several reasons, including their belief that the
    association would provide the best educational service to visitors; and
    that associations require less park resources to administer and allow
    changes that are responsive to the needs of park management.

    Financial Incentives Cooperating associations can provide a much higher
    return to parks

    Encourage Increased Use of than concessioners. This ability is not
    surprising since, as nonprofit Cooperating Associations

    organizations, they enjoy a number of important financial advantages by
    Parks

    over for- profits. Most park officials that we spoke with said that
    financial advantage was not a factor in deciding whether an association or
    a concessioner provides sales and services. Rather, they described service
    to park visitors as the most important criterion. However, park officials
    at Gettysburg did tell us that associations* higher financial return to
    parks was

    a factor in their decision to allow a cooperating association to operate a
    new bus tour. In commenting on a draft of this report, nonprofit
    organizations stated that although associations provide a higher return to
    the parks, this provides only a minimal incentive for park superintendents

    to select a cooperating association over a concessioner. Park Service data
    show that cooperating associations contribute a considerably higher
    percentage of total revenue to the parks than concessioners. Over 5 fiscal
    years, 1997 through 2001, association contributions averaged 26 percent of
    revenue. In contrast, the

    concessioners that sold merchandise paid the Park Service an average of
    about 4 percent of revenue over the same period (see table 11). 26

    26 Concessioner fees include franchise fees and payments to *special
    accounts.* Special accounts are payments set aside for specific purposes
    like improving park- owned buildings and infrastructure that a
    concessioner uses in providing services.

    Tabl e 11: Cooperating Associations* and Merchandise Concessioners*
    Contributions and Revenues (Fiscal Year 1997- 2001)

    Dollars in millions

    Average contribution rate Type of organization 5- Year contribution 5-
    Year revenues (percentage of revenue)

    Cooperating associations $138.3 $529. 2 26 a Merchandise concessioners
    148.0 3,325. 9 4 b

    Source: National Park Service. a This contribution rate does not include
    nonprofit revenues that are retained or accumulated for future

    contributions to the parks. Approximately one- fourth of association
    contributions are the estimated value of information assistance provided
    by nonprofit sales staff. b These concessioners also provide
    nonmerchandise sales or services. This percentage includes all such
    concessioner sales. For example, the cooperating association at the Grand
    Canyon NP gave

    about 36 percent of its gross revenue to the park. The concessioners paid
    about 4 percent of sales revenue to the park during this period. Also,
    local parks retain 100 percent of association contributions, but keep only
    80 percent of concession payments, consistent with legislation that was
    enacted in 1998. 27

    Cooperating associations generally provide a higher return to parks than
    concessioners owing, in large part, to associations* nonprofit status and
    charitable mission as well as to park policies that support association
    operations. The following factors provide associations with a considerable
    financial advantage when providing sales or services compared with
    concessioners:

     All cooperating associations are tax- exempt organizations under the
    Internal Revenue Code. Thus, they do not pay federal income taxes on funds
    collected to meet their nonprofit purpose.

     In most states, associations that are exempt from federal taxes do not
    have to pay state income tax on funds collected to meet their nonprofit
    purpose.

    27 Prior to 1998, all franchise fees paid by concessioners were deposited
    into the general fund of the Treasury. Under the National Parks Omnibus
    Management Act of 1998 (Pub. L. No. 105- 391), 80 percent of these fees
    are available without further appropriation for use at the local park and
    20 percent are for uses throughout the national park system.

     Associations that are exempt from federal taxes may obtain exemptions
    from state and local sales taxes. Such exemptions apply to the purchases
    of the association. In a few states, associations also may be exempted
    from collecting state and local sales taxes on the sale of

    merchandise.  Association sales and service revenues are substantially
    enhanced through donations and memberships fees from individuals and

    organizations wishing to support park activities.  Volunteers often
    provide association services and may staff bookstore

    operations, thereby reducing association salary expenses.  Association
    profits must be used to support the parks and are not

    shared with stockholders or company owners.  Association Boards of
    Directors generally are not salaried.  Parks routinely provide free sales
    areas and other facilities to the

    associations. For example, the parks provide bookstore space within
    visitor centers and support association field institutes by providing free
    facility space for classrooms and for instructor and participant housing.

     Parks provide free services that reduce overall association operating
    costs and overhead expenses. These services may include routine
    maintenance, garbage collection, interior work, repair services, and such
    utilities as water, heat, and air conditioning (to the extent these are
    required for the operation of the building for government purposes).

     Park staff sometimes assist in operating association bookstores. This
    assistance occurs after regular association operating hours, during
    offseason periods when the association may not have full- time staff, and
    at locations with low visitation where the association cannot afford to
    employ full- time staff.

    We did not attempt to quantify the value of tax- exempt status and park
    assistance to associations. However, Park Service, association, and
    concessioner officials agree that the nonprofit tax- exempt status is an
    association*s paramount financial advantage.

    Although cooperating associations usually enjoy financial advantages in
    competing with concessions, not all associations are profitable. For

    example, according to Park Service officials, the cooperating association
    that serves the 14 Park Service sites in Washington, D. C., has had
    serious financial problems. This association provides educational
    materials to visitors at facilities like the Washington Monument and
    Lincoln Memorial and has estimated debts exceeding $800,000. Further,
    according to its new

    executive director, the association lost money in 8 of the past 10 years.
    While other factors contributed to these losses, the director told us that
    one reason the association has not made money is that it could not sell
    many profitable items in its bookstores because Park Service officials
    viewed the items as competing with the sales of park concessioners.

    Park Service Does Not Use The Park Service is aware of the competitive
    tensions and potential

    Planning Tools Available to conflicts that can exist between cooperating
    associations and

    Better Define and Manage concessioners within a park. To minimize
    conflicts, help ensure that agency the Roles of Nonprofits

    policies are consistently followed, and provide a more systematic basis
    for and Concessioners making decisions about commercial sales and services
    in parks, Park Service guidance suggests that individual park managers
    develop Commercial Services Plans.

    Essentially, Commercial Services Plans are publicly available documents
    that, among other things, are intended to establish a predictable business
    environment in parks by better defining the roles of cooperating
    associations, concessioners, and other for- profit businesses in providing
    sales and services to park visitors. These plans also are intended to
    clarify what kind of sales and services are to be provided by the various
    commercial interests in a park. In brief, the plans rationalize a park*s
    approach to providing visitor sales and services and provide a

    decision- making framework that is transparent to the public, visitors,
    and commercial stakeholders at the park. To facilitate the development of
    this planning tool, the Park Service provides local park managers with
    guidelines, standards, and assistance.

    However, despite agency guidance and the benefits associated with
    Commercial Services Plans, they are rarely used. Data gathered from Park
    Service regional offices show that these plans were developed at only 3 of
    84 parks (4 percent) where both cooperating associations and concessioners
    provide sales and services (app. VI has a complete list of these parks and
    the status of their plans). Moreover, we visited two of the six parks that
    had developed plans* Fort Sumter and Yosemite* and found that the plans
    did not meet the agency*s standards. At Yosemite, the plan

    was more than 10 years old and was based on an outdated management

    plan for the development of the park. Moreover, the plan did not describe
    the commercial activities of the cooperating association. The Fort Sumter
    plan, developed in 2000 and containing considerable detail, did not
    address the current scope of cooperating association operations because
    these had expanded beyond what the plan envisioned.

    Park Service officials told us that the primary reason Commercial Services
    Plans were not developed or up to date was because park resources are
    limited and preparing the plans is not among the agency*s highest
    priorities. At Yosemite NP, for example, park officials believed an
    updated plan would be helpful but that the plan also would require an
    Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). They expected that preparing the EIS
    would cost extensive park resources and viewed this cost as a major
    obstacle. Further, Commercial Services Plans must be consistent with the
    long- term

    management plans for the parks. These long- term plans* known as General
    Management Plans* are frequently out of date. 28 In fact, over 25 percent
    of parks either do not have a General Management Plan or have a plan that
    is more than 20 years old. As a result, developing or updating Commercial
    Services Plans could also require that General Management

    Plans be updated. For example, at two of the six parks we visited the
    General Management Plans were more than 20 years old and needed updating.
    Updating and developing these plans would require a major resource
    commitment by the agency. Appendix VI provides a complete list of the
    status of General Management Plans.

    Park Service The Park Service does not have an effective process for
    holding local park

    Cannot Hold Local managers accountable for meeting nonprofit contribution
    goals, even

    though one of the agency*s strategic goals is to increase the amount of
    Park Managers

    contributions it receives from nonprofit organizations. The Park Service*s
    Accountable

    Strategic Plan FY 2000* FY 2005 establishes contribution goals for for
    Meeting

    cooperating associations and friends groups. The agency has identified
    these goals as critical to accomplishing the mission of the Park Service.
    For

    Contribution Goals cooperating associations, the agency*s goal is to
    increase the amount of

    donations and services by 35 percent from $19.0 million in the fiscal
    1997- baseline year to $25.6 million by 2005. For friends groups and other

    28 General Management Plans are the basic park guidance document. The
    National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. No. 95- 625, 92 Stat.
    3467, 3518), codified at 16 U. S. C. S:1a- 7, requires that each park unit
    maintain an up- to- date General Management Plan. Park Service guidance
    anticipates that these plans will be revised every 10- 15 years.

    sources, the goal is to increase cash and in- kind donations from $14.5
    million in fiscal 1998 to $50.0 million by 2005. These long- term
    strategic goals are broken into annual agencywide performance targets and
    used to establish contribution goals for each park unit.

    However, the Park Service does not collect the information needed to
    determine whether these goals are being met and to accurately measure
    nonprofit support. For cooperating associations, the Park Service collects
    only aggregate information on the amount of association contributions.
    Consequently, agency managers cannot always track contributions on a park-
    by- park basis because, as discussed previously, cooperating associations
    usually serve multiple parks. Specifically, about 40 percent of

    all cooperating associations operate in more than one park and six of the
    10 largest revenue- generating cooperating associations operate in more
    than one park. Table 12 lists the 10 largest associations and the number
    of parks served.

    Tabl e 12: Top 10 Cooperating Associations by Average Annual Revenue
    (1997- 2001)

    Dollars in millions

    Cooperating association Average annual revenue Parks served

    Eastern National $21.08 127 Golden Gate National Parks 19. 20 3 Western
    National 8.79 56 Grand Canyon 5.69 1 Parks and History 4.87 14 Jefferson
    National Parks 4.43 3 Great Smoky Mountains Natural History 4.26 1 Arizona
    Memorial Museum 3.33 3 Yellowstone 2.72 1 Yosemite Natural History 2.27 1
    Source: National Park Service and selected cooperating associations.

    As table 12 shows, the Eastern National cooperating association serves 127
    parks. However, the Park Service collects information only on the total
    contributions made by Eastern National and not on the amount of
    contributions made to each of the 127 park units it serves. Accordingly,
    collecting and reporting only aggregate contribution information for
    Eastern National and other associations that serve multiple park units
    precludes the agency from establishing meaningful performance goals,

    evaluating the performance of local managers against the goals, and
    holding managers accountable for meeting established contribution goals.

    Although the Park Service collects some information on the contributions
    made by cooperating associations, it does not routinely collect any
    information on the amount of contributions made to parks by friends
    groups* either in the aggregate or on a park- by- park basis. In fact, the
    Park Service does not maintain an accurate, up- to- date list of friends
    groups currently working with the agency or of the specific parks they
    serve. Lacking this basic management information, the agency is unable to

    establish meaningful goals for local park managers or to monitor friends
    group contributions on an agencywide or park- by- park basis.

    According to Park Service and nonprofit officials, more complete
    information on cooperating associations and friends groups is not
    collected and reported for two key reasons. First, because nonprofits are
    voluntary partners in assisting the agency in performing its mission and
    already must meet a wide range of administrative requirements, both agency
    and nonprofit officials are reluctant to initiate additional requirements
    for collecting and reporting information. Second, both agency and
    nonprofit officials are concerned that collecting and reporting detailed
    information on the amount of contributions could lead to offsetting
    reductions in the

    amount of congressional appropriations made available to the agency.
    Conclusions Between 1997 and 2001 cooperating associations substantially
    increased

    their financial support to parks. A major reason for this increased
    support is the additional revenue that cooperating associations generated
    from expanded sales of educational materials, services, and visitor
    convenience items. Friends group contributions also have dramatically
    increased, in large part because the number of these groups rose as did
    the scope of their

    fund- raising activities. These increased nonprofit donations are good
    news for the Park Service and the national park system because they
    supplement the appropriated funds provided by the Congress. However, the
    expanding presence and scope of cooperating association sales and service
    activities is causing some conflicts at parks where concessioners or other
    local, forprofit businesses are competing for similar sales and services.
    Given the conflicts we found at three of six parks we reviewed and the
    agency*s continuing emphasis on increasing the amount of nonprofit support
    for the

    national park system, we believe these conflicts will become more common.

    Several other factors add to the likelihood of increased conflict,
    especially at parks having both association and concessioner sales and
    services. Specifically, agency policies that encourage concessioner sales
    and services that are related to park themes, and agency decisions
    permitting increased visitor convenience item sales by cooperating
    associations, blur the distinction between concessioner and association
    activities. Local park managers* broad discretion in determining whether
    concessioners or cooperating associations provide needed sales and
    services and the substantial financial incentive for using cooperating
    associations also heighten the likelihood of conflict. In light of these
    circumstances, it is not surprising that park managers are expanding
    cooperating association roles. In the final analysis, these decisions may
    be in the best interest of the

    parks; however, the process for making these decisions does not serve to
    minimize conflicts because it does not provide a transparent rationale or
    give concessioners or other local for- profit businesses an opportunity to
    compete for new sales and services.

    The Park Service understands the competitive tensions that exist between
    concessioners and cooperating associations. To help minimize conflicts,
    park managers are advised to develop Commercial Services Plans. These
    plans are intended to provide a logical and consistent basis for
    decisions, reflect public comments, and provide a more predictable
    commercial environment in the parks, which would give businesses greater
    confidence in their long- term decisions. However, these plans are only
    rarely developed or used. As a result, the basis for park decisions is not
    always clear, and public accountability is diminished.

    Moreover, because the Park Service does not collect accurate or complete
    information on the contributions it receives from its nonprofit partners*
    either agencywide and on a park- by- park basis* it cannot hold park
    managers accountable for meeting strategic contribution goals. Further,
    without better and more complete information the agency cannot establish

    meaningful performance goals or monitor progress against these goals.
    Recommendations

    In order to (1) minimize conflicts among the Park Service, cooperating for
    Executive Action

    associations, and concessioners, (2) better ensure that decisions about
    providing commercial sales and services are made more consistently and
    that logical criteria are followed, (3) provide a predictable commercial
    environment in the parks, and (4) enhance public accountability for its

    decisions, we recommend that the Secretary of the Interior require the
    Director of the National Park Service to

     revise its policy regarding Commercial Services Plans so that all parks
    offering visitor sales and services are required to develop these plans
    and

     ensure that Commercial Services Plans include (1) an explanation of the
    roles and responsibilities of both concessioners and cooperating
    associations in providing visitor sales and services in a park unit and
    (2) rationale for decisions that specify associations or other nonprofits
    will provide new visitor sales or services and that do not afford
    concessioners and other local, for- profit businesses an opportunity to
    compete.

    To establish meaningful contribution goals and to improve the
    accountability of park managers in meeting agency goals, we recommend that
    the Secretary of the Interior require the Director of the National Park
    Service to

     develop and maintain an accurate and up- to- date list of friends groups
    on a park- by- park basis and

     require cooperating associations and friends groups to report key
    financial information on a park- by- park basis.

    Agency Comments and We provided the Department of the Interior, the
    Association of Partners

    Our Evaluation For Public Lands (representing park cooperating
    associations and friends

    groups), and the National Park Hospitality Association (representing park
    concessioners), with copies of a draft of this report. The Association of
    Partners For Public Lands and the National Park Hospitality Association
    generally agreed with the recommendations and contents of this report. The
    Association of Partners For Public Lands* comments are included in
    appendix VII. In addition, the Association provided technical and
    clarifying

    comments that we incorporated into the report as appropriate. The National
    Park Hospitality Association*s comments are in appendix VIII. The
    association suggested additional recommendations. However, we believe
    these are not warrented based on the information and analysis in the
    report. The Department of the Interior did not provide comments on the
    report.

    As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
    earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
    the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies of this report
    to appropriate congressional committees and other interested parties. We
    will also make copies available to those who request them. In addition,
    this

    report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http:// www.
    gao. gov.

    If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please call me
    or Cliff Fowler at (202) 512- 3841. Key contributors to this report were
    Michael Krafve, Paul Lacey, Peter Oswald, and Mona Sehgal. Sincerely
    yours,

    Barry T. Hill Director, Natural Resources and Environment

    Appendi Appendi xes x I

    Scope and Methodology We examined activities of two types of nonprofit
    organizations commonly found at parks: (1) cooperating associations and
    (2) friends groups. Although other nonprofit organizations also provide
    services and conduct commercial activities such as guided hiking and
    rafting trips at park sites, based on the subcommittee*s letter and
    discussions with subcommittee staff, these organizations were not included
    in the scope of this review.

    To identify the number of parks supported by nonprofit organizations and
    these organization*s contributions, we obtained annual reports of
    cooperating association*s aid and revenue from the National Park Service*s
    Division of Interpretation and Education. We obtained the National Par
    Service*s most recent directory of friends groups (1998- 1999) from the
    Park Service*s Partnership Office and contacted groups listed in the
    directory. To determine which groups were active, we telephoned all groups
    listed in the

    directory. For groups that could not be reached, we confirmed with the
    associated parks whether the group was still active. We also obtained
    organizational information from representatives of nonprofit groups,
    including the National Park Foundation, and National Park Service
    officials. We identified 149 friends groups, although it is possible that
    there are other groups that we

    were not able to identify. Contribution amounts and other nonprofit
    financial information used in this report are based on several sources. We
    received data on cooperating associations for 1997- 2001 from the Park
    Service; these data are based on annual reports that all cooperating
    associations are required to submit to the Park Service. Tax data for
    1998- 2000 were purchased from the Urban Institute, which contracts with
    the Internal

    Revenue Service to digitize data on tax- exempt organizations; 1 these
    data were based on tax returns submitted by nonprofit organizations with
    revenues over $25,000. Tax data were also obtained from the GuideStar Web
    site operated by Philanthropic Research Inc.; these data consisted of
    electronically scanned tax reports for friends groups and cooperating
    associations with revenues over $25, 000. We also surveyed identified
    friends groups, as described below.

    We did not verify that information in the annual reports and tax returns
    was correct. We relied heavily on self- reported donation and tax data
    from tax1

    Public charities under Internal Revenue Code Section 501( c)( 3) are
    required to file annual financial returns with the Internal Revenue
    Service. Larger charities* with gross receipts of $100, 000 or more* are
    required to file a *Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax (IRS
    Form 990); smaller charities* with gross receipts less than $100,000 and
    total assets of less than $250,000* are allowed to file an abbreviated
    Form 990- EZ; and charities with gross receipts of $25,000 or less, are
    not required to file.

    exempt organizations; however, we previously reported 2 that because
    potential donors look at what percentage of expenses go to the charitable
    purpose rather than management and fund- raising, nonprofit organizations
    have an incentive to report management and fund- raising costs as
    charitable expenses. Thus, there may be some over reporting of charitable

    contributions and underreporting of management and fund- raising costs. In
    this regard, we noted significant differences in reported tax information
    by two of the largest cooperating associations, Eastern National and Parks
    and History. Eastern National reports that about 20 percent of its
    expenditures are for charitable purposes and about 80 percent is used to
    cover the costs of materials, selling, and administrative expenses; Parks
    and History reports that about 90 percent of its expenditures are
    charitable expenses.

    Data from the Park Service on cooperating associations were not comparable
    with tax data from the Urban Institute and GuideStar because of
    differences in reporting periods and accounting practices. We assessed the
    reliability of the electronic data we received from the Park Service and
    the Urban Institute through tests to determine obvious problems with
    completeness or accuracy. We determined that the data were reliable enough
    for the purposes of this report.

    In addition, we conducted a survey of active friends groups regarding
    their financial information. We mailed the survey to all 149 identified
    groups in June 2002 and conducted several follow- ups by telephone and e-
    mail to encourage responses; we completed data collection in November
    2002. Of the 149 groups surveyed, 79 returned responses (53 percent).
    Survey data were supplemented with tax data for an additional 23 groups,
    resulting in

    102 of 149 groups (68 percent) with available financial data. Where
    possible, survey data were compared to tax data and any discrepancies were
    resolved through discussion with the groups. Figures presented in this
    report represent the two- thirds (68 percent) of identified friends

    groups for which we had either tax data or survey data, and dollar amounts
    should be considered a minimum estimate of the totals for all friends
    groups.

    2 U. S. General Accounting Office, Tax- Exempt Organizations: Improvements
    Possible in Public, IRS, and State Oversight of Charities, GAO- 02- 526
    (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 30, 2002).

    To identify the revenue- generating activities of nonprofits in the parks,
    and factors that contribute to cooperating association and concessioner
    competition and conflicts, and to assess how park managers are held
    accountable for meeting park service goals for nonprofit contributions, we

    (1) reviewed Park Service documents, plans, and policies; (2) obtained
    information from each of the Park Service*s seven regional offices; and
    (3) met with National Park Service officials, the Association of Partners
    For Public Lands 3 the National Park Foundation, the National Park
    Hospitality Association, and the Friends Alliance. 4 We also met with
    park, nonprofit, and concessioner officials at Gettysburg NMP, 5 Fort
    Sumter NM, 6 Grand Canyon NP, Badlands NP, 7 Yosemite NP, and Yellowstone
    NP and discussed a nonprofit- managed concession contract with park and
    association officials at Mt. Rushmore NM. We chose to visit Grand Canyon,
    Yosemite, and Yellowstone national parks because their cooperating
    association and

    concession operations were among the largest in the park system;
    Gettysburg NMP and Fort Sumter NM to explore concessioner and local
    business concerns about nonprofit activities in these parks; and Badlands
    NP for perspective on a smaller nonprofit operation. Because these parks
    were not a random sample, they may not be representative of the system as
    a whole. We obtained data identifying merchandising concessioners, along
    with fees paid to the parks, from the Park Service*s Concession Management
    Division.,

    We conducted our work from October 2001 to April 2003 in accordance with
    generally accepted government auditing standards.

    3 The Association of Partners For Public Lands is a nonprofit organization
    that represents member groups, including most cooperating associations, at
    a national level. Voting members must have a formal agreement as a
    *cooperating* or *interpretive* association with a public land management
    agency to operate a sales outlet and provide interpretive materials to
    visitors. Formerly known as the Conference of National Park Cooperating
    Associations, the Association of Partners For Public Lands also provides
    management and operations training for its members and for agency
    personnel.

    4 The Friends Alliance is a loosely formed network consisting of the
    largest friends groups. 5 The Eisenhower NHS and Gettysburg NMP are
    jointly managed. 6 The Park Service*s Fort Sumter NM staff manage Fort
    Sumter, Fort Moultrie, and the Charles Pinckney NHS. 7 We did not meet
    with the concessioner at Badlands NP. Shortly before our visit, the
    concessioner ceased operating because of financial problems. These
    problems were not related to cooperating association activities.

    Statutory Provisions Relating to Cooperating Associations and Friends
    Group Activities at

    Appendi x II

    National Parks 16 U. S. C. S: 1 Establishes the National Park Service and
    the basic mission of the agency: *to conserve the scenery and the natural
    and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the
    enjoyment of same in such manner and by such means as will leave them
    unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.*

    16 U. S. C. S: 1a- 2 (g) Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enter
    into contracts, including cooperative arrangements, with respect to
    conducting living exhibits,

    interpretive demonstrations, and park programs. 16 U. S. C. S: 1b( 5)
    Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to provide, on a reimbursable
    basis, supplies and equipment to persons that render services or perform

    functions that facilitate or supplement the activities of the Park
    Service. 16 U. S. C. S: 1g Authorizes the Park Service to enter into
    cooperative agreements that

    involve the transfer of Park Service appropriated funds to state, local
    and tribal governments, other public entities, educational institutions,
    and private nonprofit organizations for the public purpose of carrying out
    National Park Service programs pursuant to 31 U. S. C. S: 6305.

    16 U. S. C. S: 3 Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to issue rules
    and regulations for use and management of park areas.

    16 U. S. C. S: 6 Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept
    donations of lands, other property, and money for the purposes of the
    National Park System.

    16 U. S. C. S: 17j- 2( e) Authorizes the use of Park Service
    appropriations for the services of field employees in cooperation with
    nonprofit scientific and historical societies engaged in educational work
    in the parks.

    16 U. S. C. S: 18f Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept
    donations and bequests of money or other personal property, and use and
    administer these for the

    purposes of increasing the public benefits from museums within the
    National Park System.

    16 U. S. C. S: 19e Establishes the National Park Foundation, a charitable
    and nonprofit corporation, to accept and administer gifts of real and
    personal property

    for the benefit of, or in connection with, the National Park Service, its
    activities, or its services.

    16 U. S. C. S: 19jj- 4 Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to accept
    donations of money or services to meet expected, immediate, or ongoing
    response costs

    concerning destruction, loss, or injury to park system resources. 16 U. S.
    C. S: 462( e) Authorizes the Park Service to enter into contracts and
    cooperative

    agreements with associations and others to protect, preserve, maintain, or
    operate any historic or archaeologic building, site, object, or property
    in the National Park System.

    16 U. S. C. S: 464 Authorizes the Secretary of the Interior, in
    administering historic sites, buildings, and objects of national
    significance, to cooperate with and seek and accept the assistance of any
    federal, state, or municipal department or agency; any educational or
    scientific institution; or any patriotic association or individual.

    31 U. S. C. S: 6305 Authorizes federal agencies to use cooperative
    agreements when (1) the principal purpose is to transfer a thing of value
    to the recipient to carry out

    a public purpose and (2) substantial involvement is expected between the
    agency and the recipient when carrying out the activity contemplated in
    the agreement.

    National Parks Affiliated with Cooperating Associations, Friends Groups,

    Appendi x III

    and/ or Merchandise Concessioners National parks Cooperating associations
    Friends groups Merchandise concessioners

    Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site X Acadia National Park X
    X X Adams National Historic Site X X Agate Fossil Beds National Monument X
    Alagnak Wild River Alibates Flint Quarries National Monument X Allegheny
    Portage Railroad National Historic Site X Amistad National Recreation Area
    X X

    Andersonville National Historic Site X X Andrew Johnson National Historic
    Site X Aniakchak National Monument Aniakchak National Preserve Antietam
    National Battlefield X X Apostle Islands National Lakeshore X X
    Appalachian National Scenic Trail X Appomattox Court House National
    Historical Park X Arches National Park X Arkansas Post National Memorial X
    Arlington House* The Robert E. Lee Memorial X X Assateague Island National
    Seashore X X X Aztec Ruins National Monument X Badlands National Park X X
    Bandelier National Monument X X X Bent*s Old Fort National Historic Site X
    X Bering Land Bridge National Preserve X Big Bend National Park X X X

    Big Cypress National Preserve X Big Hole National Battlefield X Big South
    Fork National River & Recreation Area X X X Big Thicket National Preserve
    X X Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area X X X Biscayne National Park X
    X X Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument X X Blue Ridge Parkway
    X X X Bluestone National Scenic River Booker T. Washington National
    Monument X X

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    National parks Cooperating associations Friends groups Merchandise
    concessioners

    Boston African American National Historic Site X Boston Harbor Islands
    National Recreation Area X Boston National Historical Park X X Brices
    Cross Roads National Battlefield Site Brown v. Board of Education National
    Historic Site Bryce Canyon National Park X X Buck Island Reef National
    Monument X Buffalo National River X Cabrillo National Monument X Canaveral
    National Seashore X X Cane River Creole National Historical Park X X
    Canyon de Chelly National Monument X X

    Canyonlands National Park X Cape Cod National Seashore X X X Cape Hatteras
    National Seashore X X Cape Krusenstern National Monument X Cape Lookout
    National Seashore X X

    Capitol Reef National Park X X X Capulin Volcano National Monument X Carl
    Sandburg Home National Historic Site X X Carlsbad Caverns National Park X
    X

    Casa Grande Ruins National Monument X Castillo de San Marcos National
    Monument X Castle Clinton National Monument X Catoctin Mountain Park X X
    Cedar Breaks National Monument X Chaco Culture National Historical Park X
    Chamizal National Memorial X X Channel Islands National Park X Charles
    Pinckney National Historic Site X X Chattahoochee River National
    Recreation Area X X Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park X X X
    Chickamauga & Chattanooga National Military Park X X Chickasaw National
    Recreation Area X Chiricahua National Monument X Christiansted National
    Historic Site X City Of Rocks National Reserve X

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    National parks Cooperating associations Friends groups Merchandise
    concessioners

    Clara Barton National Historic Site X X Colonial National Historical Park
    X X Colorado National Monument X X Congaree Swamp National Monument X X
    Constitution Gardens X Coronado National Memorial Cowpens National
    Battlefield X Crater Lake National Park X X X

    Craters of the Moon National Monument X X Cumberland Gap National
    Historical Park X Cumberland Island National Seashore X Curecanti National
    Recreation Area X X

    Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area X X X Dayton Aviation Heritage
    National Historical Park X De Soto National Memorial X Death Valley
    National Park X X X

    Delaware National Scenic River Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area
    X X Denali National Park X X X Denali National Preserve X X X Devils
    Postpile National Monument X X Devils Tower National Monument X Dinosaur
    National Monument X X

    Dry Tortugas National Park X X Ebey*s Landing National Historical Reserve
    Edgar Allan Poe National Historic Site X Edison National Historic Site X X
    Effigy Mounds National Monument X Eisenhower National Historic Site X X El
    Malpais National Monument X El Morro National Monument X Eleanor Roosevelt
    National Historic Site X X Eugene O*Neill National Historic Site X X
    Everglades National Park X X X Federal Hall National Memorial X Fire
    Island National Seashore X X X First Ladies National Historic Site

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    National parks Cooperating associations Friends groups Merchandise
    concessioners

    Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument X X X Ford*s Theatre National
    Historic Site X X Fort Bowie National Historic Site X Fort Caroline
    National Memorial X Fort Clatsop National Memorial X Fort Davis National
    Historic Site X X Fort Donelson National Battlefield X Fort Frederica
    National Monument X X

    Fort Laramie National Historic Site X X Fort Larned National Historic Site
    X X Fort Matanzas National Monument X Fort McHenry National Monument &
    Historic Shrine X X

    Fort Necessity National Battlefield X Fort Point National Historic Site X
    Fort Pulaski National Monument X Fort Raleigh National Historic Site X
    Fort Scott National Historic Site X Fort Smith National Historic Site X X
    Fort Stanwix National Monument X Fort Sumter National Monument X X X Fort
    Union National Monument X X Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site
    X X Fort Vancouver National Historic Site X X Fort Washington Park X X
    Fossil Butte National Monument X Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial X X
    Frederick Douglass National Historic Site X X Frederick Law Olmsted
    National Historic Site X Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania County Battlefields

    X X Memorial National Military Park Friendship Hill National Historic Site
    X X Gates Of The Arctic National Park X Gates Of The Arctic National
    Preserve X Gateway National Recreation Area X X X Gauley River National
    Recreation Area General Grant National Memorial X George Rogers Clark
    National Historical Park X

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    National parks Cooperating associations Friends groups Merchandise
    concessioners

    George Washington Birthplace National Monument X X George Washington
    Carver National Monument X X George Washington Memorial Parkway X X
    Gettysburg National Military Park X X Gila Cliff Dwellings National
    Monument X Glacier Bay National Park X X X

    Glacier Bay National Preserve X X X Glacier National Park X X X Glen
    Canyon National Recreation Area X X Golden Gate National Recreation Area X
    X Golden Spike National Historic Site X Governor*s Island National
    Monument Grand Canyon National Park X X X

    Grand Portage National Monument X X Grand Teton National Park X X Grant-
    Kohrs Ranch National Historic Site X Great Basin National Park X X Great
    Egg Harbor Scenic & Recreational River Great Sand Dunes National Monument
    X X X

    Great Sand Dunes National Preserve Great Smoky Mountains National Park X X
    X Greenbelt Park X Guadalupe Mountains National Park X Guilford Courthouse
    National Military Park X Gulf Islands National Seashore X X

    Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument X Haleakala National Park X X X
    Hamilton Grange National Memorial X Hampton National Historic Site X
    Harpers Ferry National Historical Park X X Harry S Truman National
    Historic Site X Hawaii Volcanoes National Park X X

    Herbert Hoover National Historic Site X Hohokam Pima National Monument
    Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt National Historic X Site Homestead National
    Monument of America X X

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    National parks Cooperating associations Friends groups Merchandise
    concessioners

    Hopewell Culture National Historical Park X Hopewell Furnace National
    Historic Site X Horseshoe Bend National Military Park X Hot Springs
    National Park X X X Hovenweep National Monument X Hubbell Trading Post
    National Historic Site X X Independence National Historical Park X X X
    Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore X X Isle Royale National Park X X James
    A. Garfield National Historic Site Jean Lafitte National Historical Park &
    Preserve X Jefferson National Expansion Memorial X X Jewel Cave National
    Monument X Jimmy Carter National Historic Site X X John D. Rockefeller,
    Jr., Memorial Parkway X

    John Day Fossil Beds National Monument X John Fitzgerald Kennedy National
    Historic Site X John Muir National Historic Site X X Johnstown Flood
    National Memorial X Joshua Tree National Park X Kalaupapa National
    Historical Park X Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park X Katmai
    National Park X X Katmai National Preserve X X Kenai Fjords National Park
    X Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park X X Keweenaw National
    Historical Park Kings Canyon National Park X X X

    Kings Mountain National Military Park X Klondike Gold Rush National
    Historical Park X Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site X
    Kobuk Valley National Park X Korean War Veterans Memorial X Lake Chelan
    National Recreation Area X Lake Clark National Park X Lake Clark National
    Preserve Lake Mead National Recreation Area X X X

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    National parks Cooperating associations Friends groups Merchandise
    concessioners

    Lake Meredith National Recreation Area X X Lake Roosevelt National
    Recreation Area X Lassen Volcanic National Park X X Lava Beds National
    Monument X Lincoln Boyhood National Memorial X Lincoln Home National
    Historic Site X Lincoln Memorial X X Little Bighorn Battlefield National
    Monument X Little River Canyon National Preserve Little Rock Central High
    School National Historic

    X Site Longfellow National Historic Site X X Lowell National Historical
    Park X X Lyndon B. Johnson National Historical Park X Lyndon Baines
    Johnson Memorial Grove on the

    Potomac Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site X X Mammoth Cave National
    Park X X X

    Manassas National Battlefield Park X X Manzanar National Historic Site
    Marsh* Billings National Historical Park X Martin Luther King Jr.,
    National Historic Site X X Martin Van Buren National Historic Site X Mary
    McLeod Bethune Council House National X Historic Site Mesa Verde National
    Park X X X

    Minidoka Internment National Monument Minute Man National Historic Park X
    X Minuteman Missile National Historic Site X Mississippi National River &
    Recreation Area X Missouri National Recreation River Mojave National
    Preserve X Monocacy National Battlefield X X Montezuma Castle National
    Monument X Moores Creek National Battlefield X Morristown National
    Historical Park X X Mount Rainier National Park X X X Mount Rushmore
    National Memorial X X

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    National parks Cooperating associations Friends groups Merchandise
    concessioners

    Muir Woods National Monument X X X Natchez National Historical Park X X
    Natchez Trace National Scenic Trail Natchez Trace Parkway X X National
    Capital Parks X X

    National Mall X National Park of American Samoa Natural Bridges National
    Monument X Navajo National Monument X New Bedford Whaling National
    Historical Park X New Orleans Jazz National Historical Park X X New River
    Gorge National River X Nez Perce National Historical Park X Nicodemus
    National Historic Site X X Ninety- Six National Historic Site X Niobrara
    National Scenic Riverway Noatak National Preserve X North Cascades
    National Park X X Obed Wild and Scenic River X Ocmulgee National Monument
    X Oklahoma City National Memorial Olympic National Park X X X Oregon Caves
    National Monument X X Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument X Ozark National
    Scenic Riverways X X

    Padre Island National Seashore X Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic
    Site X Pea Ridge National Military Park X X Pecos National Historical Park
    X Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site X Perry*s Victory &
    International Peace Memorial X X Petersburg National Battlefield X
    Petrified Forest National Park X X Petroglyph National Monument X Pictured
    Rocks National Lakeshore X Pinnacles National Monument X X Pipe Spring
    National Monument X

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    National parks Cooperating associations Friends groups Merchandise
    concessioners

    Pipestone National Monument X Piscataway Park X Point Reyes National
    Seashore X X Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail X Poverty Point
    National Monument Prince William Forest Park X X X Pu*uhonua o Honaunau
    National Historical Park X X Puukohola Heiau National Historic Site X X
    Rainbow Bridge National Monument X Redwood National Park X Richmond
    National Battlefield Park X X Rio Grande Wild and Scenic River Rock Creek
    Park X X X

    Rocky Mountain National Park X X X Roger Williams National Memorial X
    Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front National

    Historic Park Ross Lake National Recreation Area X Russell Cave National
    Monument X Sagamore Hill National Historic Site X X Saguaro National Park
    X X Saint Croix Island International Historic Site X Saint Croix National
    Scenic Riverway X X Saint Paul*s Church National Historic Site Saint-
    Gaudens National Historic Site X X Salem Maritime National Historic Site X
    X Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument X Salt River Bay National
    Historical Park & Ecological

    Preserve San Antonio Missions National Historical Park X X San Francisco
    Maritime National Historical Park X San Juan Island National Historical
    Park X San Juan National Historic Site X Santa Monica Mountains National
    Recreation Area X X Saratoga National Historical Park X Saugus Iron Works
    National Historic Site X Scotts Bluff National Monument X Sequoia National
    Park X X X

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    National parks Cooperating associations Friends groups Merchandise
    concessioners

    Shenandoah National Park X X X Shiloh National Military Park X Sitka
    National Historical Park X Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore X X
    Springfield Armory National Historic Site X Statue Of Liberty National
    Monument X X

    Steamtown National Historic Site X Stones River National Battlefield X X
    Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument X Tallgrass Prairie National
    Preserve Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial X Theodore Roosevelt
    Birthplace National Historic X X Site Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural
    National Historic

    X Site Theodore Roosevelt Island X Theodore Roosevelt National Park X X X

    Thomas Jefferson Memorial X Thomas Stone National Historic Site X
    Timpanogos Cave National Monument X X Timucuan Ecological & Historic
    Preserve X Tonto National Monument X Tumacacori National Historical Park X
    Tupelo National Battlefield Tuskegee Airman National Historic Site X X
    Tuskegee Institute National Historic Site X Tuzigoot National Monument X
    Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site X Upper Delaware Scenic and
    Recreational River X USS Arizona Memorial X X Valley Forge National
    Historical Park X X Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site X X
    Vicksburg National Military Park X Vietnam Veterans Memorial X Virgin
    Islands Coral Reef National Monument Virgin Islands National Park X X
    Voyageurs National Park X X Walnut Canyon National Monument X X

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    National parks Cooperating associations Friends groups Merchandise
    concessioners

    War In The Pacific National Historical Park X Washington Monument X X
    Washita Battlefield National Historic Site X Weir Farm National Historic
    Site X Whiskeytown- Shasta- Trinity National Recreation X X Area White
    House X White Sands National Monument X X

    Whitman Mission National Historic Site X William Howard Taft National
    Historic Site X X Wilson*s Creek National Battlefield X X Wind Cave
    National Park X Wolf Trap Farm Park for the Performing Arts X Women*s
    Rights National Historical Park X Wrangell* St. Elias National Park X X
    Wrangell* St. Elias National Preserve X X Wright Brothers National
    Memorial X X Wupatki National Monument X Yellowstone National Park X X X
    Yosemite National Park X X X Yucca House National Monument X Yukon*
    Charley Rivers National Preserve X Zion National Park X X

    Source: National Park Service and GAO.

    Cooperating Association Revenue, Donations,

    Appendi x IV

    and Net Assets (1997- 2001) Cooperating association Revenue 1997 Revenue
    1998 Revenue 1999 Revenue 2000 Revenue 2001 Cooperating association
    revenue (1997- 2001)

    Alaska Natural History Association $1, 418,753 $1,532,706 $1,571, 455
    $1,531, 346 $1,687, 269 Arizona Memorial Museum Association 2, 618,276
    2,720,534 2,871, 385 3,666, 271 4,794, 228 Badlands Natural History
    Association 339,240 364,467 381, 401 402, 451 351, 226 Bent*s Old Fort
    Historical Association 123,971 128,205 120, 976 127, 808 106, 426 Big Bend
    Natural History Association 449,398 428,833 431, 011 435, 754 452, 197
    Black Hills Parks and Forests Association 178,953 207,926 209, 492 183,
    980 190, 941 Bryce Canyon Natural History Association 1, 028,129 1,058,597
    974, 541 956, 093 870, 065 Cabrillo National Monument Foundation 458,680
    478,919 543, 704 577, 965 553, 037 Canyonlands Natural History Association
    1, 187,237 1,282,924 1,438, 862 1,362, 918 1,464, 718 Capitol Reef Natural
    History Association 493,540 496,634 493, 450 482, 707 463, 650 Carlsbad
    Caverns* Guadalupe Mountains Association 1, 038,607 1,064,904 1,088, 802
    1,031, 613 955, 262

    Colorado National Monument Association 199,260 184,241 201, 025 188, 068
    191, 836 Crater Lake Natural History Association 243,479 231,326 238, 871
    223, 621 279, 516 Craters of the Moon Natural History Association 193,291
    187,698 211, 207 176, 952 168, 605

    Death Valley Natural History Association 894,761 959,973 857, 938 806, 604
    752, 113 Devils Tower Natural History Association 112,546 265,514 267, 030
    283, 139 265, 254 Dinosaur Nature Association 578,558 564,192 573, 521 66,
    438 550, 750 Eastern National 18, 247,596 19,825,301 21,864, 468 22,028,
    685 23,438, 700 Florida National Parks Association 736,840 778,587 833,
    865 867, 842 960, 632 Fort Clatsop Historical Association 168,354 244,112
    268, 225 284, 018 311, 768 Fort Frederica Association 104,002 107,028 72,
    886 60, 665 59, 059 Fort Laramie Historical Association 220,525 219,163
    213, 262 216, 871 232, 613 Fort Union Association 66,523 52,477 67, 923
    67, 087 63, 235 G. Washington Carver Birthplace District Association
    38,741 47,089 52, 287 48, 671 73, 420

    George Washington Birthplace NM Association 64,635 67,688 71, 812 81, 377
    91, 532 Glacier Natural History Association 929,607 926,579 1,049, 464
    1,025, 750 1,066, 902 Glen Canyon Natural History Association 387,781
    424,675 424, 524 452, 037 339, 562 Golden Gate National Parks Association
    13, 286,123 14,750,587 21,695, 810 30,188, 799 16,099, 944 Grand Canyon
    Association 5, 743,000 6,598,000 5,655, 000 5,535, 000 4,912, 000 Grand
    Teton Natural History Association 1, 381,821 1,384,336 1,325, 820 1,355,
    075 1,272, 971 Great Basin Natural History Association 93,123 93,207 92,
    664 87, 500 83, 146

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Cooperating association Revenue 1997 Revenue 1998 Revenue 1999 Revenue
    2000 Revenue 2001

    Great Smoky Mountains Natural History Association 3, 682,513 3,971,125
    4,363, 811 4,857, 324 4,431, 113 Harpers Ferry Historical Association
    412,530 565,428 478, 202 513, 823 514, 990 Hawaii Natural History
    Association 2, 060,169 2,116,614 2,188, 811 2,187, 261 2,030, 498 Historic
    Hampton, Inc. 191,215 848,385 376, 021 209, 291 420, 240 Isle Royale
    Natural History Association 142,576 162,226 160, 232 164, 312 154, 438
    Jefferson National Parks Association 4, 750,141 3,994,342 4,004, 649
    4,562, 507 4,837, 703 Joshua Tree National Park Association 379,862
    466,665 437, 107 458, 831 540, 371 Kennesaw Mountain Historical
    Association 174,276 182,653 217, 804 236, 324 224, 679 Lake States
    Interpretive Association 70,839 76, 570 92, 913 82, 394 73, 236 Lassen
    Loomis Museum Association 74,563 73,800 83, 290 112, 754 109, 075 Lava
    Beds Natural History Association 92,800 90,482 80, 076 82, 773 83, 807
    Mesa Verde Museum Association 974,063 1,106,710 949, 795 812, 220 972, 272
    Mount Rushmore History Association 335,139 470,715 599, 974 623, 448 585,
    604 Northwest Interpretive Association 1, 104,248 1,191,663 1,194, 081
    1,318, 844 1,182, 421 Ocmulgee National Monument Association 65,382 50,451
    77, 155 70, 297 64, 741 Oregon Trail Museum Association 105,369 102,196
    112, 452 114, 283 107, 776 Parks and History Association 901,842 5,813,160
    6,400, 936 6,029, 329 5,190, 742 Petrified Forest Museum Association
    502,978 480,723 479, 290 515, 451 547, 577 Pipestone Indian Shrine
    Association 336,517 353,490 373, 577 355, 418 315, 161 Point Reyes
    National Seashore Association 596,314 541,440 818, 444 1,002, 357 925, 840
    Redwood Natural History Association 233,164 277,590 437, 060 346, 016 347,
    488 Rocky Mountain Nature Association 1, 239,099 1,297,746 1,394, 231
    1,434, 519 1,321, 566 Roosevelt- Vanderbilt Historical Association 533,652
    290,839 278, 440 278, 214 282, 558 San Francisco Maritime Park Association
    0 0 0 355, 958 338, 421 Sequoia Natural History Association 851,538
    841,227 989, 603 1,107, 155 1,263, 304 Shenandoah National Park
    Association 604,659 557,200 596, 205 624, 237 625, 832 Steamtown Museum
    Association, Inc. 342,905 450,816 416, 374 530, 821 358, 971 Theodore
    Roosevelt Nature Association 237,515 258,853 258, 533 268, 583 266, 614
    Valley Forge Park Interpretive Association 344,595 408,074 482, 527 662,
    893 686, 234 Weir Farm Heritage Trust 98,646 113,500 123, 396 351, 596
    237, 981 Western Maryland Interpretive Association 0 0 0 444, 532 655, 051
    Western National Association 8, 781,645 8,358,187 9,194, 241 8,913, 794
    8,711, 832 Yellowstone Association 2, 346,813 2,518,248 2,841, 343 2,727,
    027 3,169, 563 Yosemite Natural History Association 2, 188,303 2,208,260
    2,150, 884 2,324, 083 2,494, 346 Zion Natural History Association 1,
    576,119 1,541,639 1,619, 067 1,690, 705 1,607, 507

    Total $89, 357,339 $99,457,439 $110,433, 205 $121,172, 479 $108,782, 129

    Source: National Park Service.

    Donations Donations

    Donations Donations Donations

    Net Cooperating association 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 assets

    Cooperating association donations (1997- 2001) and net assets a

    Alaska Natural History Association $163, 702 $173,626 $161,261 $335,262
    $397,028 $2,160, 429 Arizona Memorial Museum Association 378, 855 289,067
    461,537 1, 249,999 877,403 4,109, 933 Badlands Natural History Association
    75, 560 73,574 66,189 62,192 72,236 600, 544 Bent*s Old Fort Historical
    Association 11, 918 13,685 9, 526 10,964 14,064 45, 909 Big Bend Natural
    History Association 75, 223 294, 260 67, 730 77,128 88,756 358, 372 Black
    Hills Parks and Forests Association 17, 388 15,998 25,525 14,150 14,342
    152, 027 Bryce Canyon Natural History Association 139, 711 292,972 346,
    017 339,849 501,896 561, 406 Cabrillo National Monument Foundation 88, 251
    69,355 74,267 129,293 114,969 450, 009 Canyonlands Natural History
    Association 140, 962 188,886 232, 709 267,781 302,420 956, 672 Capitol
    Reef Natural History Association 74, 961 93,939 88,842 93,045 87,511 262,
    086 Carlsbad Caverns* Guadalupe Mountains Association 233, 676 192,387
    171,825 187,487 102,458 945, 092

    Colorado National Monument Association 25, 542 25,285 26,148 32,582 23,628
    154, 210 Crater Lake Natural History Association 30, 148 24,725 28,536
    28,879 65,570 301, 316 Craters of the Moon Natural History Association 41,
    435 52,385 54,811 48,700 42,833 161, 568

    Death Valley Natural History Association 139, 492 168,897 152,655 158,296
    70,282 786, 974 Devils Tower Natural History Association 51, 279 50,845
    59,939 63,620 57,510 344, 207 Dinosaur Nature Association 92, 239 96,494
    101, 440 29,062 96,169 580, 329 Eastern National 3,620, 835 3,904,053 5,
    176, 672 4, 669,363 4,961,095 7, 715, 736 Florida National Parks
    Association 125, 036 163,203 149, 317 92,031 154,193 539, 941 Fort Clatsop
    Historical Association 17, 422 17,700 18,873 16,758 20,753 225, 056 Fort
    Frederica Association 55, 570 29,008 38,251 43,056 19,718 137, 779 Fort
    Laramie Historical Association 28, 530 23,598 51,091 29,349 42,393 244,
    057 Fort Union Association 8, 893 6,903 6,713 8,536 14,783 145, 474 G.
    Washington Carver Birthplace District Association 6, 187 6,950 11,015
    11,131 8,339 40, 402

    George Washington Birthplace NM Association 12, 980 15,166 13,980 14,811
    13,974 71, 722 Glacier Natural History Association 69, 183 125,919 174,995
    149,604 146,582 958, 479 Glen Canyon Natural History Association 106, 331
    87,905 91,569 87,321 81,528 182, 116 Golden Gate National Parks
    Association 3, 392, 340 4,887,468 11, 227,534 14, 482,576 10, 233,779
    17,477, 392 Grand Canyon Association 1, 584, 000 2,006,000 1, 765,000 3,
    399,000 1,417,000 3, 304, 000 Grand Teton Natural History Association 215,
    438 414,971 201,907 312,812 243,989 1,807, 870 Great Basin Natural History
    Association 9, 960 14, 938 10, 501 11,106 17,133 83, 785

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Donations Donations

    Donations Donations Donations

    Net Cooperating association 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 assets

    Great Smoky Mountains Natural History Association 615, 473 766,919 1, 385,
    480 661,598 935,234 1, 450, 212 Harpers Ferry Historical Association 37,
    318 69,896 128, 675 112,716 126,291 330, 363 Hawaii Natural History
    Association 314, 615 351,958 435,938 485,982 436,017 1,404, 580 Historic
    Hampton, Inc. 23, 098 738,003 267, 523 132,366 179,135 523, 109 Isle
    Royale Natural History Association 15, 677 22,450 21,302 25,371 24,691
    147, 621 Jefferson National Parks Association 1, 870, 371 964,172 736,200
    900,788 1,073,501 2, 205, 718 Joshua Tree National Park Association 53,
    396 98,935 94,636 84,628 106,462 187, 905 Kennesaw Mountain Historical
    Association 19, 243 31,458 40,000 37,329 53,624 63, 218 Lake States
    Interpretive Association 7, 613 14,474 38,199 9,752 3,233 100, 252 Lassen
    Loomis Museum Association 22, 927 14,812 17,000 17,000 16,564 102, 571
    Lava Beds Natural History Association 11, 115 18,000 20,986 16,943 18,700
    80, 609 Mesa Verde Museum Association 135, 339 156,807 100, 488 99,398
    195,075 557, 475 Mount Rushmore History Association 62, 607 26,753 52,720
    74,497 103,572 3, 085, 548 Northwest Interpretive Association 220, 674
    230,334 262,487 184,979 227,290 1,892, 814 Ocmulgee National Monument
    Association 23, 033 18,993 20,148 29,630 15,010 41, 353 Oregon Trail
    Museum Association 13, 300 16,830 17,454 24,148 8,864 75, 510 Parks and
    History Association 96, 195 563, 161 919,941 662,014 579,345 (166, 087)
    Petrified Forest Museum Association 201, 352 170,276 172, 147 170,262
    168,038 298, 848 Pipestone Indian Shrine Association 7, 366 5,459 4,648
    3,469 23,976 194, 172 Point Reyes National Seashore Association 186, 781
    247,523 451,113 533,514 678,872 816, 321 Redwood Natural History
    Association 48, 811 90,796 149,023 59,889 84,197 325, 969 Rocky Mountain
    Nature Association 398, 314 415,918 404,366 407,754 338,747 821, 454
    Roosevelt- Vanderbilt Historical Association 38, 918 42,227 37,129 37,880
    97,418 238, 187 San Francisco Maritime Park Association 0 0 0 21,854
    21,767 1, 022, 136 Sequoia Natural History Association 149, 569 177,262
    188, 421 251,370 321,240 872, 512 Shenandoah National Park Association 77,
    039 73,198 100, 781 93,325 110,156 544, 919 Steamtown Museum Association,
    Inc. 43, 147 40,954 46,545 78,982 67,435 251, 922 Theodore Roosevelt
    Nature Association 38, 624 42,248 36,141 36,635 35,781 162, 787 Valley
    Forge Park Interpretive Association 50, 436 66,244 83,739 99,009 54,224
    457, 491 Weir Farm Heritage Trust 192, 332 123,877 159,188 251,169 236,151
    149, 250 Western Maryland Interpretive Association 0 0 0 7,600 15,162 114,
    043 Western National Association 1, 799, 325 2,102,022 2, 186,619 2,
    332,953 2,273,226 8, 860, 562

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Donations Donations

    Donations Donations Donations

    Net Cooperating association 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 assets

    Yellowstone Association 580, 591 412,584 504, 090 686,897 515,259 3, 000,
    151 Yosemite Natural History Association 297, 574 369,612 381,967 460,094
    352,671 1,181, 546 Zion Natural History Association 318, 035 257,545
    258,368 282,484 281,696 1,050, 117

    Total $19,003, 255 $22,561,862 $30, 789, 837 $35, 830,022 $30,082,958
    $78,310, 050

    Source: National Park Service and tax data. a Net asset information is for
    the latest year available (2001).

    Friends Group Revenue, Donations, and Net

    Appendi x V

    Assets (1997- 2001) Friends group Revenue 1997 Revenue 1998 Revenue 1999
    Revenue 2000 Revenue 2001 Friends group revenue (1997- 2001)

    Accokeek Foundation $1,047,413 $1,025,997 $894, 861 $2,282, 104 $1,325,
    704 Appalachian Trail Conference 3,309,149 3, 919, 121 4,534, 507
    Assateague Coastal Trust 57,903 63,846 88, 411 82, 381 148, 564 Big
    Thicket Association 11,240 6, 904 102, 157 175, 200 64, 130 Blue Ridge
    Parkway Foundation 22,636 115,639 136, 855 216, 096 250, 207 Chesapeake
    and Ohio Canal Association, Inc. 48,386 43,775 47, 419 51, 516 44, 271

    City of Rocks Historical Association 0 10,761 8, 843 13, 200 1, 782 Custer
    Battlefield Historical and Museum Association 84, 997 28,612 84,306 93,344

    Cuyahoga Valley Association 1,544,203 1,494,256 1,468, 358 210, 863 136,
    780 Death Valley 49ers 84,258 84,875 116, 704 87, 808 0 Denali Foundation
    662,676 533, 602 1,216, 985 Eastern Kenai Peninsula Environmental Action
    Association 0 0 0 0

    Eleanor Roosevelt Center at Val- kill 210,044 386,307 329, 359 652, 744 0
    Eugene O'Neill Foundation, Tao House 32,938 19,200 23, 822 55, 368 94, 153
    Fire Island Lighthouse Preservation Society, Inc. 153,604 214, 102 158,
    936 152, 727

    First Flight Centennial Foundation 356,494 444, 519 440, 801 Flagstaff
    National Monuments Foundation 2,495 Fredrick W. Vanderbilt Garden
    Association 35,790 37, 245 Freedom Trail Foundation 253,897 469, 079
    Friends of Acadia 1,187,673 1,051,077 9,089, 511 2,585, 303 157, 650
    Friends of Andersonville 167, 567 50,963 70,610 Friends of Bandelier
    16,646 13,192 15, 779 14, 420 13, 326 Friends of Big Bend National Park
    23,578 32,839 45, 594 81, 723 10, 200 Friends of Big Hunting Creek 0 0 0 0
    0 Friends of Carl Sandburg at Connemara 8, 861 9, 703 5, 141 Friends of
    Canaveral 6, 040 365 1, 450 7,441 625 Friends of the Chickamauga &
    Chattanooga NMP 117,031 36, 831

    Friends of Congaree Swamp 8,798 18, 278 216, 263 20, 600 Friends of Edison
    National Historic Site 116, 740 86,841 90,791 Friends of Fire Island
    National Seashore 1,164 Friends of Fort Union Trading Post 27,818 45,254
    (14, 511) 192, 262 171, 188

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Friends group Revenue 1997 Revenue 1998 Revenue 1999 Revenue 2000 Revenue
    2001

    Friends of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site 36, 376 4, 470 3,250
    10,478 19,666

    Friends of Gateway, Inc. 114,005 116,243 50, 485 126, 598 Friends of
    Glacier Bay 2,639 Friends of Grand Portage 7,608 5,880 6, 075 6, 970 6,
    710 Friends of Great Smokey Mountains National Park 506,173 896,385 1,044,
    606 1,577, 048 1,704, 130

    Friends of Haleakala National Park, Inc. Friends of Harpers Ferry National
    Historical Park

    Friends of Homestead 400 769 2, 214 15, 537 Friends of Hopewell Furnace
    National Historical Site 3,568 3, 641 0 1, 247 1, 197

    Friends of Hubbell Trading Post NHS 8,447 Friends of Independence National
    Historical Park 458,265 304,472 228, 881 313, 187

    Friends of Indiana Dunes, Inc. 53,353 61, 130 57, 521 Friends of Kennesaw
    Mountain National

    13,103 48, 977 0 Battlefield Park Friends of Meridian Hill 222,148 747,
    620

    Friends of Peirce Mill 7,125 59,329 76, 472 105, 328 50, 490 Friends of
    Perry*s Victory and International Peace Memorial, Inc. 69,440 66,946 61,
    707 36, 093 20, 555

    Friends of Pinnacles Friends of Saguaro National Park 43,852 55, 752 112,
    091 57, 886 Friends of Stones River National Battlefield 1, 541 430 1, 074
    1, 985 955 Friends of the Claude Moore Colonial Farm at Turkey Run, Inc.
    638,059 434, 227

    Friends of the Cape Cod National Seashore, 27, 999

    Inc. Friends of the Dunes, Inc. 17, 595 17, 293 14,556 65,139 80,289
    Friends of the Florissant Fossil Beds, Inc. Friends of the Gateway Parks
    Foundation, Inc. 33,164 32,190 504 199, 830

    Friends of the Longfellow House 28,800 28,200 125, 800 96, 170 169, 000
    Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg 1,220,128 1,261, 871 1,455,
    471 2,256, 694 Friends of the Sleeping Bear Dunes 52,875 31,608 15, 932
    20, 463 15, 269 Friends of the Virgin Islands National Park 112,889 2,
    352,971 167, 028 454, 717 560, 671 Friends of the William Howard Taft
    Birthplace 16,664 214,710 26, 473 19, 120 12, 989

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Friends group Revenue 1997 Revenue 1998 Revenue 1999 Revenue 2000 Revenue
    2001

    Friends of Valley Forge 8, 484 5, 438 7, 559 15, 937 7,901 Friends of
    Voyageurs National Park 5, 000 5, 600 3, 500 Friends of Wilderness
    Battlefield 7, 135 8, 850 14, 751 Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum
    Foundation 0 2,002,000 1,514, 177 404, 971 1,985, 549

    Glen Echo Park Foundation 51,685 129,717 170, 528 188, 738 Grand Canyon
    National Park Foundation 2,931,536 2,264, 957 681, 825 1,551, 725 Historic
    Hampton, Inc. 185,202 827,943 360, 821 195, 172 410, 972 Indiana Dunes
    Environmental Educational

    587, 619 Consortium Island Alliance 154,695 547,189 832, 838 947, 821 933,
    232

    John Muir Memorial Association 110, 319 98, 513 0 Lassen Volcanic Park
    Foundation 128,688 277, 615 41, 055 129, 867 Lowell Regatta Festival
    Charitable Foundation 439,766 461,479 452, 316 693, 601

    Los Compadres de San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 332,149
    246,817 605, 425 462, 287 376, 676

    Mesa Verde Foundation 11,647 198, 818 53, 319 153, 074 Minute Man National
    Park Association 70 2, 691 10, 278 63, 245 14, 544 Natchez Trace Parkway
    Association New Jersey Historical Garden Foundation 15,767 6, 880 9, 192
    9, 681 8, 871 Old Fort Militia 30 11, 250 Rocky Mountain National Park
    Association 528,795 979,771 1,110, 533 1,118, 387 852, 375 Saint- Gaudens
    Memorial 164,745 951,257 303, 957 267, 440 60, 962 Salem Partnership
    261,420 129, 802 227, 060 247, 287 Sandy Hook Foundation, Inc. 202, 452
    Santa Monica Mountains and Seashore Foundation 237, 588 0

    Save Historic Antietam Foundation 27, 585 37, 142 Saves the Dunes
    Conservation Fund 111, 392 Sequoia & Kings Canyon National Park Foundation
    89,298 90,674 95, 217 380, 106 162, 433

    Statue of Liberty* Ellis Island Foundation, Inc. 7,062,698 9,916,221
    14,615, 664 12,544, 590 6,946, 356

    Great Basin National Park Foundation 36, 949 47, 166 The Glacier Institute
    146,828 168,968 228, 694 255, 999 289, 746 Theodore Roosevelt Association
    423,531 892,768 445, 642 597, 091 445, 975 Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural
    Site Foundation 279,672 304,013 358, 711 424, 448 413, 416

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Friends group Revenue 1997 Revenue 1998 Revenue 1999 Revenue 2000 Revenue
    2001

    Thomas Alva Edison Preservation Foundation 1,259,265 367, 135 9,344, 177
    Voyageurs Region National Park Association 94,207 122,657 110, 585 121,
    691 117, 068 Wilson's Creek National Battlefield Foundation 17,940 122,456
    70, 388 96, 251 290, 205

    Yellowstone Park Foundation 481,028 1, 002,614 1,079, 286 2,478, 951
    4,417, 258 Yosemite Foundation 4, 051,309 3, 655,130 7,040, 784 5,597, 487
    7,976, 218 National Park Foundation: South Florida National Parks Trust
    1,616, 346 The Glacier Fund 118, 840 217, 590 African American Experience
    Fund 155, 024 168, 606 555, 022 Outside Las Vegas Fund 174, 308 85, 744
    USS Arizona Memorial Fund 241, 977 213, 491 Greater Washington National
    Parks Fund 73, 638 57, 700

    Total $20,336,727 $43,002,977 $55, 830, 271 $56,416, 216 $39,173, 741

    Source: GAO survey and tax data.

    Donations Donations Donations

    Donations Donations

    Net assets Friends group 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 MRFY

    Friends group donations (1997- 2001) and net assets a

    Accokeek Foundation $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,965, 658 Appalachian Trail
    Conference 0 0 0 0 4, 500 Assateague Coastal Trust 100 750 0 0 0 72, 838
    Big Thicket Association 0 0 0 160,132 98, 522 124, 977 Blue Ridge Parkway
    Foundation 88,593 71,631 47,065 3, 000 3, 500 178, 157 Chesapeake and Ohio
    Canal Association, Inc. 28, 779 26,625 11,589 11,707 25, 599 72, 517

    City of Rocks Historical Association 0 1,026 800 135 7, 200 11, 226 Custer
    Battlefield Historical and Museum Association 89,164 15,158 76,116 88, 136
    275, 938

    Cuyahoga Valley Association 0 1, 025,560 1,200 0 0 161, 375 Death Valley
    49ers 8,200 17,600 33,223 7,809 12, 151 174, 276 Denali Foundation 533,473
    410,843 1, 002,706 408, 436 Eastern Kenai Peninsula Environmental

    000 0 0 0 Action Association Eleanor Roosevelt Center at Val- kill 0 0 0 0
    0 332, 837

    Eugene O'Neill Foundation, Tao House 250 0 0 0 0 76, 509 Fire Island
    Lighthouse Preservation Society, Inc. 151,572 118,406 148,317 154, 411
    372, 072

    First Flight Centennial Foundation 330,186 87,126 76,632 Flagstaff
    National Monuments Foundation 0 0 0 0 0 602 Fredrick W. Vanderbilt Garden
    Association 56, 634 Freedom Trail Foundation 124,392 245,148 (32, 935)
    Friends of Acadia 399, 838 392,981 350,188 485,887 630, 901 13,745, 972
    Friends of Andersonville 17,708 13,503 38,907 543, 500 Friends of
    Bandelier 12,803 11,442 3,477 19,397 0 26, 369 Friends of Big Bend
    National Park 11, 595 48,835 61,300 1, 250 1, 650 17, 435 Friends of B ig
    H unting C reek 000 0 0 0 Friends of Carl Sandburg at Connemara 5, 864
    3,704 2, 400 4, 346 Friends of Canaveral 205 212 3,464 5, 769 527 3, 510
    Friends of the Chickamauga & Chattanooga NMP 194,811 20,395 166, 726

    Friends of Congaree Swamp 50 363 50 350 0 255, 761 Friends of Edison
    National Historic Site 19,780 45,068 16,213 28, 023 Friends of Fire Island
    National Seashore 0 0 0 0 0

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Donations Donations Donations

    Donations Donations

    Net assets Friends group 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 MRFY

    Friends of Fort Union Trading Post 8,893 11,404 7,790 35,023 642 505, 214
    Friends of Fort Vancouver National Historic Site 500 0 0 0 0 16, 230

    Friends of Gateway, Inc. 100,512 61,822 60,991 140,928 25, 366 Friends of
    Glacier Bay 0 0 0 0 1, 800 27, 379 Friends of Grand Portage 0 0 0 292 0 5,
    528 Friends of Great Smokey Mountains National Park 304,704 298,277
    745,221 972,213 788, 005 801, 020

    Friends of Haleakala National Park, Inc. 0 5, 851 8,525 25,312 12, 945
    Friends of Harpers Ferry National Historical

    000 0 0 0 Park Friends of Homestead 150 475 0 0 30 14, 396

    Friends of Hopewell Furnace National 0 0 0 40 0 3,744

    Historical Site Friends of Hubbell Trading Post NHS 0 0 0 0 566 9, 486
    Friends of Independence National Historical Park 317,356 285,385 199,750
    199,750 389, 348

    Friends of Indiana Dunes, Inc. 12,517 24,938 32,828 218, 314 Friends of
    Kennesaw Mountain National

    98, 640 80,339 0 0 Battlefield Park Friends of Meridian Hill 67,128
    124,997

    Friends of Peirce Mill 4,437 51,401 39,757 42,079 0 193, 081 Friends of
    Perry*s Victory and International Peace Memorial, Inc. 13,449 11,796
    11,600 100,110 26, 801 85, 907

    Friends o f Pinnacles 000 0 0 0 Friends of Saguaro National Park 0 0
    21,392 45,615 45, 018 88, 859 Friends of Stones River National Battlefield
    305 200 1,482 75 1, 488 1, 395 Friends of the Claude Moore Colonial Farm
    at Turkey Run, Inc. 236,641 267,447

    Friends of the Cape Cod National Seashore, Inc. 0 0 0 0 6, 955 113, 023
    Friends of the Dunes, Inc. 11, 783 2,666 2,944 54,370 2, 325 151, 198
    Friends of the Florissant Fossil Beds, Inc. 3,745 845 2, 000 2, 000 6, 629
    Friends of the Gateway Parks Foundation, Inc. 44,052 19,259 202,120 3, 963

    Friends of the Longfellow House 31,800 29,800 19,600 154,240 19, 800 193,
    368 Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg 84,137 295,730 272,088
    921,263 646, 152 1,667, 178 Friends of the Sleeping Bear Dunes 30, 627
    13,815 20,305 12,847 0 23, 889 Friends of the Virgin Islands National Park
    71, 098 150,185 246,022 247,777 246, 266 1,783, 796

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Donations Donations Donations

    Donations Donations

    Net assets Friends group 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 MRFY

    Friends of the William Howard Taft Birthplace 0 50,937 186,934 120,400 12,
    134 22, 108 Friends of Valley Forge 2, 552 4,013 6,297 2, 061 0 154, 284
    Friends of Voyageurs Nat. Park 1,400 1,600 3,000 500 0 10, 410 Friends of
    Wilderness Battlefield 0 0 100 100 100 14, 239 Gettysburg National
    Battlefield Museum Foundation 0 0 0 35 0 4,159, 107

    Glen Echo Park Foundation 19,316 42,426 111,786 141,949 483, 901 Grand
    Canyon National Park Foundation 1, 404,009 902,756 225,658 206, 666 4,077,
    070 Historic Hampton, Inc. 0 738,003 267,523 132,366 179, 135 834, 292
    Indiana Dunes Environmental Educational Consortium 0 0 0 0 98, 575 187,
    829

    Island Alliance 107, 449 12,988 480,689 598,670 515, 309 616, 147 John
    Muir Memorial Association 0 0 370 0 0 399, 912 Lassen Volcanic Park
    Foundation 21,195 100,009 7,198 208,769 104, 840 209, 598 Lowell Regatta
    Festival Charitable Foundation 370, 411 426,148 422,448 591,132 122, 929

    Los Compadres de San Antonio Missions National Historical Park 96, 625
    301,582 461,199 100,585 0 349, 563

    Mesa Verde Foundation 0 250 0 0 0 330, 697 Minute Man National Park
    Association 0 0 0 14,041 0 71, 888 Natchez Trace Parkway Association 0 0 0
    0 0 New Jersey Historical Garden Foundation 6, 130 2,250 5,497 2, 380 1,
    000 59, 388 Old Fort Militia 0 0 0 300 100 11, 281 Rocky Mountain National
    Park Association 320, 787 324,906 617,632 2, 579,573 267, 429 1,328, 117
    Saint- Gaudens Memorial 99,645 125,827 92,019 2, 200 208, 986 2,093, 614
    Salem Partnership 450,060 181,292 98,786 269, 934 28, 154 Sandy Hook
    Foundation, Inc. 0 0 0 0 83, 184 129, 021 Santa Monica Mountains and
    Seashore 208,604 14,021 21, 362 Foundation Save Historic Antietam
    Foundation 41,195 22,934 51, 024

    Saves the Dunes Conservation Fund 0 0 0 0 0 115, 782 Sequoia & Kings
    Canyon National Park Foundation 69,644 189,304 245,878 169,427 0 203, 697

    Statue of Liberty* Ellis Island Foundation, Inc. 2, 441,742 3, 763,190
    3,405,344 4, 240,431 8, 194, 628 48,556, 212

    Great Basin National Park Foundation 29,424 18,142 35, 800 The Glacier
    Institute 0 0 0 0 0 151, 664 Theodore Roosevelt Association 4, 533 703 611
    837 1, 399 1, 994, 864

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Donations Donations Donations

    Donations Donations

    Net assets Friends group 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 MRFY

    Theodore Roosevelt Inaugural Site Foundation 0 0 0 0 0 220, 893 Thomas
    Alva Edison Preservation Foundation 0 0 0 0 0 10,108, 011 Voyageurs Region
    National Park Association 300 1,000 0 0 0 23, 495 Wilson's Creek National
    Battlefield Foundation 600 525 495 150 12, 169 564, 995

    Yellowstone Park Foundation 315, 024 424,094 531,407 436,858 1, 477, 818
    6,081, 204 Yosemite Foundation 2, 155, 458 1, 912,673 1,905,335 1, 758,548
    2, 269, 801 11,964, 636 National Park Foundation: South Florida National
    Parks Trust 0 1,610, 622 The Glacier Fund 27,148 55, 595 159, 829 African
    American Experience Fund 0 129,000 494, 043 77, 950 Outside Las Vegas Fund
    10,000 19, 740 (33, 809) USS Arizona Memorial Fund 4,000 0 625, 290
    Greater Washington National Parks Fund 0 29, 850 53, 727

    Total $7, 667,479 $14, 958,693 $13,740,067 $16, 874,980 $17, 332, 725
    124,651, 867

    Source: GAO survey and tax data. a Net assets are for the most recent
    fiscal year (MRFY), which for most friends groups is 2001; however,

    when 2001 data were not available, the net assets are based on 2000 data.

    Parks with General Management and

    Appendi x VI

    Commercial Services Plans Commercial Service General Management Plans
    (GMP) Plans (CSP)

    Year Year updated National park

    GMP developed (complete/ due) CSP Stage of CSP

    Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site X 1963 Acadia National
    Park X 1992 2002 X Done in 2000 Adams National Historic Site X 1996 Agate
    Fossil Beds National Monument X 1966 Alagnak Wild River X 1983 Alibates
    Flint Quarries National Monument X 1978 2003 Allegheny Portage Railroad
    National Historic Site X 1980 Amistad National Recreation Area X 1987 2005
    Andersonville National Historic Site X 1981 1988 Andrew Johnson National
    Historic Site X 1965 Aniakchak National Monument X 1986 Aniakchak National
    Preserve X 1986 Antietam National Battlefield X 1992 Apostle Islands
    National Lakeshore X 1989 Appalachian National Scenic Trail X 1981
    Appomattox Court House National Historical Park X 1977 2003 Arches
    National Park X 1989 Arkansas Post National Memorial X 1975 2002 Arlington
    House * The Robert E. Lee Memorial X 1967 Assateague Island National
    Seashore X 1988 Aztec Ruins National Monument X 1989 Badlands National
    Park X 1982 2002 Bandelier National Monument X 1976 Bent's Old Fort
    National Historic Site X 1994 Bering Land Bridge National Preserve Big
    Bend National Park X 1980 2002 Big Cypress National Preserve X 1992 2004
    In process Big Hole National Battlefield X 1997 Big South Fork National
    River & Recreation Area X 1981 2002 In process Big Thicket National
    Preserve X 1980 2002 Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area X 1981 1990
    Biscayne National Park X 1983 2003 In process Black Canyon of the Gunnison
    National Monument X 1997

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Commercial Service General Management Plans (GMP) Plans (CSP)

    Year Year updated National park

    GMP developed (complete/ due) CSP Stage of CSP

    Blue Ridge Parkway X 1971 2005 In process Bluestone National Scenic River
    Booker T. Washington National Monument X 2000 Boston African American
    National Historic Site X 1986 2002 Boston Harbor Islands National
    Recreation Area 2002 Boston National Historical Park X 1980 Brices Cross
    Roads National Battlefield Site X 1987 Brown v. Board of Education
    National Historic Site X 1996 Bryce Canyon National Park X 1987 Buck
    Island Reef National Monument X 1983 In process Buffalo National River X
    1975 Cabrillo National Monument X 1996 Canaveral National Seashore X 1982
    Cane River Creole National Historical Park X 2001 Canyon de Chelly
    National Monument X 1990 2005 Canyonlands National Park X 1978 Cape Cod
    National Seashore X 1998 Cape Hatteras National Seashore X 1984 In process
    Cape Krusenstern National Monument X 1986 2005 Cape Lookout National
    Seashore X 1983 2001 Start in 2003 Capitol Reef National Park X 1982
    Capulin Volcano National Monument X 1964 2002 Carl Sandburg Home National
    Historic Site X 1971 2002 Carlsbad Caverns National Park X 1996 Casa
    Grande Ruins National Monument X 1958 Castillo de San Marcos National
    Monument X 1974 2005 Castle Clinton National Monument X 1997 Catoctin
    Mountain Park X 1967 Cedar Breaks National Monument X 1984 1989 Chaco
    Culture National Historical Park X 1985 Chamizal National Memorial X 1986
    Channel Islands National Park X 1984 2004 Charles Pinckney National
    Historic Site X 1994 Chattahoochee River National Recreation Area X 1990
    2002 In process Chesapeake & Ohio Canal National Historical Park X 1976

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Commercial Service General Management Plans (GMP) Plans (CSP)

    Year Year updated National park

    GMP developed (complete/ due) CSP Stage of CSP

    Chickamauga & Chattanooga National Military Park X 1988 Chickasaw National
    Recreation Area X 1980 2005 Chiricahua National Monument X 2001
    Christiansted National Historic Site X 1986 In process City Of Rocks
    National Reserve X 1996 Clara Barton National Historic Site Colonial
    National Historical Park X 1993 2002 Colorado National Monument X 1976
    2004 Congaree Swamp National Monument X 1988 Constitution Gardens X 1974
    Coronado National Memorial X 1976 2005 Cowpens National Battlefield X 1975
    Crater Lake National Park X 1977 2003 Craters of the Moon National
    Monument X 1992 2004 Cumberland Gap National Historical Park X 1979 In
    process Cumberland Island National Seashore X 1984 X Completed Curecanti
    National Recreation Area X 1997 2002 Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation
    Area X 1977 Dayton Aviation Heritage National Historical Park X 1997 De
    Soto National Memorial X 1966 Death Valley National Park X 2001 Delaware
    National Scenic River X 1987 Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area X
    1987 2000 Denali National Park X 1986 2003 Denali National Preserve X 1986
    2003 Devils Postpile National Monument X 1941 Devils Tower National
    Monument X 1986 2002 Dinosaur National Monument X 1986 Dry Tortugas
    National Park X 2001 X Completed Ebey's Landing National Historical
    Reserve X 1980 2003 Edgar Allan Poe National Historic Site Edison National
    Historic Site X 1977 Effigy Mounds National Monument X 1991 1999
    Eisenhower National Historic Site X 1987 El Malpais National Monument X
    1990

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Commercial Service General Management Plans (GMP) Plans (CSP)

    Year Year updated National park

    GMP developed (complete/ due) CSP Stage of CSP

    El Morro National Monument X 1965 Eleanor Roosevelt National Historic Site
    X 1980 Eugene O'Neill National Historic Site X 1991 Everglades National
    Park X 1979 In process Federal Hall National Memorial X 1997 Fire Island
    National Seashore X 1977 First Ladies National Historic Site 2005
    Florissant Fossil Beds National Monument X 1985 Ford's Theatre National
    Historic Site Fort Bowie National Historic Site X 2001 Fort Caroline
    National Memorial X 1971 In process Fort Clatsop National Memorial X 1995
    Fort Davis National Historic Site X 1962 2002 Fort Donelson National
    Battlefield X 1983 Fort Frederica National Monument X 1964 2002 Fort
    Laramie National Historic Site X 1993 2003 Fort Larned National Historic
    Site X 1994 Fort Matanzas National Monument X 1982 Fort McHenry National
    Monument & Historic Shrine X 1968 1988 Fort Necessity National Battlefield
    X 1991 Fort Point National Historic Site X 1980 Fort Pulaski National
    Monument X 1971 2003 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site X 1966 In process
    Fort Scott National Historic Site X 1993 Fort Smith National Historic Site
    X 1978 1985 Fort Stanwix National Monument X 1967 2002 Fort Sumter
    National Monument X 1998 X Completed Fort Union National Monument X 1985
    Fort Union Trading Post National Historic Site X 1978 Fort Vancouver
    National Historic Site X 1977 2002 Fort Washington Park Fossil Butte
    National Monument X 1980 1988 Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Frederick
    Douglass National Historic Site X 1967 Frederick Law Olmsted National
    Historic Site X 1983

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Commercial Service General Management Plans (GMP) Plans (CSP)

    Year Year updated National park

    GMP developed (complete/ due) CSP Stage of CSP

    Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania County Battlefields 1992

    Memorial National Military Park X Friendship Hill National Historic Site X
    1981 Gates Of The Arctic National Park X 1986 2005 Gates Of The Arctic
    National Preserve X 1986 2005 Gateway National Recreation Area X 1979 1995
    Gauley River National Recreation Area X 1997 General Grant National
    Memorial X 1997 George Rogers Clark National Historical Park X 1967 George
    Washington Birthplace National Monument X 1969 George Washington Carver
    National Monument X 1997 George Washington Memorial Parkway Gettysburg
    National Military Park X 1999 Gila Cliff Dwellings National Monument X
    1965 Glacier Bay National Park X 1984 2005 In process Glacier Bay National
    Preserve X 1984 2005 Glacier National Park X 1999 Glen Canyon National
    Recreation Area X 1979 Golden Gate National Recreation Area X 1980 2005
    Golden Spike National Historic Site X 1978 1987 Governor's Island National
    Monument Grand Canyon National Park X 1995 Grand Portage National Monument
    X 1973 2002 Grand Teton National Park X 1976 1991 In process Grant- Kohrs
    Ranch National Historic Site X 1993 Great Basin National Park X 1993 Great
    Egg Harbor Scenic and Recreational River X 2000 Great Sand Dunes National
    Monument X 1977 2005 Great Sand Dunes National Preserve X 1977 2005 Great
    Smoky Mountains National Park X 1982 Greenbelt Park X 1982 Guadalupe
    Mountains National Park X 1976 2002 Guilford Courthouse National Military
    Park X 1968 1997 Gulf Islands National Seashore X 1978 1983 Start in 2003
    Hagerman Fossil Beds National Monument X 1996

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Commercial Service General Management Plans (GMP) Plans (CSP)

    Year Year updated National park

    GMP developed (complete/ due) CSP Stage of CSP

    Haleakala National Park X 1995 Hamilton Grange National Memorial X 1995
    Hampton National Historic Site X 1983 2002 Harpers Ferry National
    Historical Park X 1980 Harry S Truman National Historic Site X 1999 Hawaii
    Volcanoes National Park X 1975 Herbert Hoover National Historic Site X
    1970 2002 Hohokam Pima National Monument Home of Franklin D. Roosevelt
    National Historic Site X 1977 Homestead National Monument of America X
    1999 Hopewell Culture National Historical Park X 1997 Hopewell Furnace
    National Historic Site X 1964 2005 Horseshoe Bend National Military Park X
    1964 Hot Springs National Park X 1986 Hovenweep National Monument X 1953
    Hubbell Trading Post National Historic Site X 1972 Independence National
    Historical Park X 1997 Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore X 1980 1997 Isle
    Royale National Park X 1999 James A. Garfield National Historic Site X
    1986 Jean Lafitte National Historical Park & Preserve X 1982 1995 Start in
    2003 Jefferson National Expansion Memorial X 1964 Jewel Cave National
    Monument X 1994 Jimmy Carter National Historic Site X 1993 John D.
    Rockefeller, Jr., Memorial Parkway X 1980 John Day Fossil Beds National
    Monument X 1979 John Fitzgerald Kennedy National Historic Site John Muir
    National Historic Site X 1990 Johnstown Flood National Memorial X 1980
    Joshua Tree National Park X 1995 2000 Kalaupapa National Historical Park X
    1980 Kaloko- Honokohau National Historical Park X 1994 Katmai National
    Park X 1986 Katmai National Preserve X 1986 Kenai Fjords National Park X
    1984

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Commercial Service General Management Plans (GMP) Plans (CSP)

    Year Year updated National park

    GMP developed (complete/ due) CSP Stage of CSP

    Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park X 1983 Keweenaw National
    Historical Park X 1998 Kings Canyon National Park X 1971 2003 Kings
    Mountain National Military Park X 1974 Klondike Gold Rush National
    Historical Park X 1997 Knife River Indian Villages National Historic Site
    X 1977 1986 Kobuk Valley National Park X 1986 2005 Korean War Veterans
    Memorial Lake Chelan National Recreation Area X 1995 Lake Clark National
    Park X 1984 Lake Clark National Preserve X 1984 Lake Mead National
    Recreation Area X 1986 Lake Meredith National Recreation Area X 1985 2003
    Lake Roosevelt National Recreation Area X 2000 Lassen Volcanic National
    Park X 1981 2002 Lava Beds National Monument X 1996 Lincoln Boyhood
    National Memorial X 1981 2004 Lincoln Home National Historic Site X 1970
    Lincoln Memorial Little Bighorn Battlefield National Monument X 1986
    Little River Canyon National Preserve Little Rock Central High School
    National Historic Site 2002 Longfellow National Historic Site X 1978
    Lowell National Historical Park X 1981 Lyndon B. Johnson National
    Historical Park X 1999 Lyndon Baines Johnson Memorial Grove on the Potomac
    Maggie L. Walker National Historic Site X 1987 Mammoth Cave National Park
    X 1983 In process Manassas National Battlefield Park X 1983 Manzanar
    National Historic Site X 1997 Marsh- Billings National Historical Park X
    1999 Martin Luther King Jr., National Historic Site X 1986 1994 Martin Van
    Buren National Historic Site X 1970 Mary McLeod Bethune Council House
    National Historic

    2002 Site

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Commercial Service General Management Plans (GMP) Plans (CSP)

    Year Year updated National park

    GMP developed (complete/ due) CSP Stage of CSP

    Mesa Verde National Park X 1979 Minidoka Internment National Monument
    Minute Man National Historic Park X 1990 Minuteman Missile National
    Historic Site 2004 Mississippi National River & Recreation Area X 1995
    Missouri National Recreation River X 1999 Mojave National Preserve X 2001
    Monocacy National Battlefield X 1979 Montezuma Castle National Monument X
    1975 Moores Creek National Battlefield X 1969 Morristown National
    Historical Park X 1976 2002 Mount Rainier National Park X 2001 In process
    Mount Rushmore National Memorial X 1980 1990 Muir Woods National Monument
    X 1980 Natchez National Historical Park X 1994 Natchez Trace National
    Scenic Trail X 1987 Natchez Trace Parkway X 1987 1998 National Capital
    Parks X 1983 National Mall X 1974 National Park of American Samoa X 1998
    Natural Bridges National Monument X 1997 Navajo National Monument X 1965
    2002 New Bedford Whaling National Historical Park X 2000 New Orleans Jazz
    National Historical Park X 1999 New River Gorge National River X 1982 2005
    Nez Perce National Historical Park X 1997 Nicodemus National Historic Site
    2002 Ninety- Six National Historic Site X 1980 Niobrara National Scenic
    Riverway X 1997 2002 Noatak National Preserve X 1986 2005 North Cascades
    National Park X 1988 Obed Wild and Scenic River X 1995 Ocmulgee National
    Monument X 1982 Oklahoma City National Memorial Olympic National Park X
    1976 2004

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Commercial Service General Management Plans (GMP) Plans (CSP)

    Year Year updated National park

    GMP developed (complete/ due) CSP Stage of CSP

    Oregon Caves National Monument X 1998 Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument
    X 1998 2002 Ozark National Scenic Riverways X 1984 Padre Island National
    Seashore X 1983 1997 Palo Alto Battlefield National Historic Site X 1998
    Pea Ridge National Military Park X 1963 2002 Pecos National Historical
    Park X 1997 Pennsylvania Avenue National Historic Site X 1975 Perry's
    Victory & International Peace Memorial X 1965 Petersburg National
    Battlefield X 1965 2002 Petrified Forest National Park X 1993 2003
    Petroglyph National Monument X 1997 Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore X
    1981 2002 Pinnacles National Monument X 1976 2002 Pipe Spring National
    Monument X 1978 Pipestone National Monument X 1965 2002 Piscataway Park X
    1983 Point Reyes National Seashore X 1980 2003 Potomac Heritage National
    Scenic Trail Poverty Point National Monument Prince William Forest Park X
    1999 Pu*uhonua o Honaunau National Historical Park X 1977 Puukohola Heiau
    National Historic Site Rainbow Bridge National Monument X 1993 Redwood
    National Park X 2000 Richmond National Battlefield Park X 1996 Rio Grande
    Wild and Scenic River X 1982 Rock Creek Park 2002 Rocky Mountain National
    Park X 1976 1987 In process Roger Williams National Memorial X 1973 Rosie
    the Riveter WWII Home Front National Historic Park 2004 Ross Lake National
    Recreation Area X 1988 Russell Cave National Monument X 1963 Sagamore Hill
    National Historic Site X 1963 Saguaro National Park X 1988 2005

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Commercial Service General Management Plans (GMP) Plans (CSP)

    Year Year updated National park

    GMP developed (complete/ due) CSP Stage of CSP

    Saint Croix Island International Historic Site X 1998 Saint Croix National
    Scenic Riverway X 1998 Saint Paul's Church National Historic Site X 1997
    Saint- Gaudens National Historic Site X 1996 Salem Maritime National
    Historic Site X 1975 2003 Salinas Pueblo Missions National Monument X 1984
    Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological

    In process Preserve San Antonio Missions National Historical Park X 1999

    San Francisco Maritime National Historical Park X 1997 San Juan Island
    National Historical Park X 1978 2004 San Juan National Historic Site X
    1985 Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area X 1982 2002 Saratoga
    National Historical Park X 1969 2002 Saugus Iron Works National Historic
    Site X 1968 2002 Scotts Bluff National Monument X 1998 Sequoia National
    Park X 1971 2003 Shenandoah National Park X 1983 2005 Shiloh National
    Military Park X 1981 2002 Sitka National Historical Park X 1998 Sleeping
    Bear Dunes National Lakeshore X 1979 2003 Springfield Armory National
    Historic Site X 1986 Statue Of Liberty National Monument X 1982 Steamtown
    National Historic Site X 1988 Stones River National Battlefield X 1999
    Sunset Crater Volcano National Monument X 1982 2002 Tallgrass Prairie
    National Preserve X 2000 Thaddeus Kosciuszko National Memorial Theodore
    Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site X 1997 Theodore Roosevelt
    Inaugural National Historic Site Theodore Roosevelt Island X 1967 Theodore
    Roosevelt National Park X 1987 Thomas Jefferson Memorial Thomas Stone
    National Historic Site X 1990 1995 Timpanogos Cave National Monument X
    1993

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Commercial Service General Management Plans (GMP) Plans (CSP)

    Year Year updated National park

    GMP developed (complete/ due) CSP Stage of CSP

    Timucuan Ecological & Historic Preserve X 1996 In process Tonto National
    Monument 2002 Tumacacori National Historical Park X 1997 Tupelo National
    Battlefield X 1987 Tuskegee Airman National Historic Site Tuskegee
    Institute National Historic Site X 1988 2004 Tuzigoot National Monument X
    1975 Ulysses S. Grant National Historic Site X 1995 Upper Delaware Scenic
    and Recreational River X 1987 USS Arizona Memorial Valley Forge National
    Historical Park X 1982 2005 Vanderbilt Mansion National Historic Site X
    1976 Vicksburg National Military Park X 1980 Vietnam Veterans Memorial
    Virgin Islands Coral Reef National Monument Virgin Islands National Park X
    1984 X Completed Voyageurs National Park X 1980 2002 Walnut Canyon
    National Monument X 1958 2002 War In The Pacific National Historical Park
    X 1983 Washington Monument X 1989 Washita Battlefield National Historic
    Site 2002 Weir Farm National Historic Site X 1995 Whiskeytown- Shasta-
    Trinty National Recreation Area X 2000 White House White Sands National
    Monument X 1975 Whitman Mission National Historic Site X 2000 William
    Howard Taft National Historic Site X 1981 Wilson's Creek National
    Battlefield X 1977 2002 Wind Cave National Park X 1994 Wolf Trap Farm Park
    for the Performing Arts X 1997 Women's Rights National Historical Park X
    1986 1991 Wrangell * St. Elias National Park X 1986 2005 Wrangell * St.
    Elias National Preserve X 1986 2005 Wright Brothers National Memorial X
    1997 In process Wupatki National Monument X 1982

    (Continued From Previous Page)

    Commercial Service General Management Plans (GMP) Plans (CSP)

    Year Year updated National park

    GMP developed (complete/ due) CSP Stage of CSP

    Yellowstone National Park X 1974 In process Yosemite National Park X 1980
    X Yucca House National Monument X 1961 Yukon- Charley Rivers National
    Preserve X 1985 Zion National Park X 2001 In process Source: Regional
    responses to GAO survey.

    Comments from the Association of Partners

    Appendi x VII

    for Public Lands Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text
    appear at the end of this appendix.

    See comment 1. See comment 2. See comment 3.

    See comment 4.

    See comment 5. See comment 6.

    See comment 7.

    The following are GAO*s comments on the Association of Partners for Public
    Lands* letter dated June 13, 2003.

    GAO Comments 1. We agree that NPS must better manage information on
    nonprofits, and this is one of our recommendations. We do not agree that
    the report

    title should be changed as proposed because the change would not capture
    another issue that our report and recommendations address -- the need to
    better manage the increasing role of nonprofits in providing visitor
    convenience items and services. Problems in these areas led to conflicts
    at three of the parks we visited. Moreover, our recommendation that parks
    develop commercial services plans is directed at managing the roles of
    nonprofits in the parks.

    2. The association correctly points out, as we likewise observed in the
    report, that our observations at six parks cannot be generalized to the
    system as a whole. However, because association sales of convenience items
    are growing more rapidly than other association revenue items (table 8),
    we are concerned that the likelihood of conflicts between associations and
    concessioners may also increase. Positive relationships between
    associations and concessioners are discussed in the section *Not All
    Concessioners Were Concerned about Competition from Cooperating
    Associations,* on pp. 25 - 26.

    3. We agree that cooperating associations provide benefits to visitors
    that are not measured by the amount of donations to the Park Service. We
    identified nonfinancial benefits that associations provide in a distinct

    report section on p. 14 and noted that association activities are focused
    on providing visitors with educational materials and services on p. 16. In
    addition, examples of nonfinancial assistance are in table 7. 4. This
    effort focused on the National Park Service*s role in partnering

    with nonprofits. We do cite prior GAO efforts that examined IRS oversight
    of nonprofits. For example, we cite TAX- EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS: Additional
    Information on Activities and IRS Oversight, (GAO/ T- GGD- 95- 198), which
    found compliance and administrative difficulties with Unrelated Business
    Income Tax reporting (see p. 32).

    5. We added the association*s view to the discussion on p. 36. As stated
    in this section, we believe cooperating associations offer a considerable
    financial advantage, owing to the associations* nonprofit status and

    other park support. However, we did not attempt to quantify the value of
    these advantages or to measure their effect on park decision makers.

    6. We agree that net assets are intended to cover operating reserves and
    are not held exclusively for future contribution. We added the
    clarification that these assets are *potentially* available (pp. 3 and 13)
    and *could become* available (p. 7) for contribution. To the extent that
    nonprofit assets exceed operating expenses and other liabilities, net
    assets can only be used for their tax- exempt purpose, which for most of
    the nonprofits discussed in this report, is solely to benefit national

    parks. 7. Detailed technical and clarifying comments were incorporated
    into the

    report as appropriate.

    Comments from the National Park Hospitality

    Appendi x VIII

    Association Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text
    appear at the end of this appendix. See comment 1.

    See comment 1. See comment 2.

    See comment 3.

    See comment 3. See comment 4. See comment 5. See comment 5. See comment 5.
    See comment 6.

    See comment 5. See comment 7.

    The following are GAO*s comments on the National Park Hospitality
    Association*s letter dated June 18, 2003.

    GAO Comments 1. We agree that Commercial Services Plans will require time
    to develop and implement and that development and implementation may be

    difficult because of resource constraints or because General Management
    Plans must first be prepared or updated. In this regard, we note on p. 1
    that federal funding for the Park Service has not kept pace with such
    needs as visitor services and maintenance requirements. On p. 40, we note
    that Park Service officials told us that Commercial Service Plans were not
    developed because park resources are limited and there are higher
    priorities. We also note that Commercial Services Plans must be consistent
    with long- term plans * General Management

    Plans * and while the National Parks and Recreation Act of 1978 requires
    that each park unit maintain an up- to- date General Management Plan,
    these are frequently out of date. Although progress in developing and
    implementing Commercial Services Plans is necessarily dependent upon the
    availability of agency resources and its consideration of other agency
    priorities, we believe the likelihood that concessioner and nonprofit
    conflicts will become more common (see p. 42) supports placing greater
    emphasis on Commercial Services Plans.

    2. As is clear from the heading on p. 33, the section *Park Managers Have
    Broad Discretion in Deciding to Expand Cooperating Association Sales and
    Services and Do Not Always Provide Transparent Rationale* already
    discusses the considerable autonomy park managers have at the local level.
    This was an important factor in our recommending that these managers
    provide rationale for decisions involving the scope, mix, and
    appropriateness of association and concessioner sales and

    services (see p. 44). Because we did not examine the advantages and
    disadvantages of the Park Service*s decentralized structure, we cannot
    address the need for increased headquarters* or regional oversight of park
    managers.

    3. We did not identify instances where the contractual rights of
    concessioners were not respected. In addition, D. O. # 32 makes reference
    to the preferential rights of concessioners. The National Parks Omnibus
    Management Act of 1998 (P. Law 105- 391) prohibits the Secretary of the
    Interior from granting a preferential right to a concessioner for most new
    contracts or services. Although D. O. # 32 could be updated for
    consistency with current law, we are not making

    this recommendation because we did not identify problems related to the
    outdated wording.

    Moreover, the contracts that we examined as part of our work usually did
    not give concessioners *exclusive* rights to sell or provide services. In
    fact, contract language in some cases specifies that concessioners are not
    granted *an exclusive or monopolistic right, to provide public
    accommodations, facilities, and services.*

    The Association correctly points out that the Reference Manual for D. O. #
    32 specifies that associations may be authorized to sell visitor
    convenience items when *concessioners are not presently providing such
    services*. This same instruction later specifies that a concessioner and
    an association generally will not carry on duplicative, competitive
    operations *in the same building.* Although the Park Service may wish to
    reexamine these provisions, we did not make this

    recommendation because, in some cases, concessioners and associations may
    need to provide similar services at a park. For example, prior to the new
    visitor center facility opening at Fort Sumter NM, the merchandise
    concessioner chose not to operate its store

    during the off- season. During this period, the association operated that
    facility, providing visitor convenience items in addition to interpretive
    materials.

    4. Table 5 notes that association financial contributions include a dollar
    value assigned to information assistance provided by association staff to
    visitors and that the Park Service allows associations to claim up to 50
    percent of association sales staff salaries. However, we agree that
    additional detail would provide a clearer picture of the composition of
    association contributions. We added language to tables 5 and 11 that 25
    percent of association contributions were for information assistance. We
    also added that information assistance is a primary type of park

    support to the discussion on p. 2. 5. The issues addressed in this report
    do not provide a basis for making

    these recommendations. 6. Associations have appointed concessioner
    officials to their Boards of Directors. This was the case, for example, at
    Grand Canyon NP and Yellowstone NP. We believe that deciding who should
    serve on its Board of Directors is a decision best left to the private
    cooperating association.

    (360137)

    Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and
    Public Lands, Committee on Resources, House of Representatives

    July 2003 PARK SERVICE Agency Needs to Better Manage the Increasing Role
    of Nonprofit Partners

    GAO- 03- 585

    Contents Letter 1

    Results in Brief 3 Background 5 Parks* Reliance on Nonprofits Is
    Substantial and Increasing 7 Nonprofit Organizations Operate in Most Parks
    7 Revenue- Generating Activities of Cooperating Associations

    Sometimes Compete with Those of Park Concessioners 16 Several Factors
    Contribute to Competition and Potential Conflicts

    between Associations and Concessioners 29 Park Service Cannot Hold Local
    Park Managers Accountable

    for Meeting Contribution Goals 40 Conclusions 42 Recommendations for
    Executive Action 43 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 44

    Appendixes

    Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 46

    Appendix II: Statutory Provisions Relating to Cooperating Associations and
    Friends Group Activities at National Parks 49

    Appendix III: National Parks Affiliated with Cooperating Associations,
    Friends Groups, and/ or Merchandise Concessioners 51

    Appendix IV: Cooperating Association Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets
    (1997- 2001) 62

    Appendix V: Friends Group Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets (1997- 2001)
    67

    Appendix VI: Parks with General Management and Commercial Services Plans
    75

    Appendix VII: Comments from the Association of Partners for Public Lands
    87 GAO Comments 91

    Appendix VIII: Comments from the National Park Hospitality Association 93
    GAO Comments 97

    Tables Table 1: Parks Served by Nonprofit Organizations 8 Table 2: Number
    of Nonprofit Organizations Serving

    National Parks 8

    Table 3: Parks Served by Five Cooperating Associations 9 Table 4:
    Comparison of Average Recreational Visitation and

    Operating Budgets in Parks Served by Five Largest Versus All Other
    Cooperating Associations 10 Table 5: Cooperating Associations* and Friends
    Groups* Revenue

    and Contributions by Fiscal Year 11 Table 6: Incorporation Dates at Six
    Parks 13 Table 7: Examples of Nonfinancial Assistance Provided by

    Nonprofit Organizations 15 Table 8: Cooperating Association Revenue Growth
    from Visitor

    Convenience Items and Other Revenue Sources 23 Table 9: Parks Served by
    Associations and Merchandise

    Concessioners 23 Table 10: Cooperating Associations* Revenue Increases
    from Fiscal Year 1997* 2001 30

    Table 11: Cooperating Associations* and Merchandise Concessioners*
    Contributions and Revenues (Fiscal Year 1997- 2001) 37 Table 12: Top 10
    Cooperating Associations by Average Annual

    Revenue (1997- 2001) 41 Figures Figure 1: Cooperating Association Revenue
    Sources* Fiscal

    Year 2001 17 Figure 2: Figure 2: Map of Charleston Harbor Area and Fort
    Sumter

    National Monument 21 Figure 3: Lookout Studio (Concession Store) on Grand
    Canyon Rim 34

    Figure 4: Kolb Studio (Association Store) on Grand Canyon Rim 35

    Abbreviations

    EIS Environmental Impact Statement GAO General Accounting Office MRFY Most
    Recent Fiscal Year NM National Monument NMP National Military Park NP
    National Park

    This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
    its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
    work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
    copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
    separately.

    Cooperating associations and friends groups help support 347 (90 percent) of our
                                    national parks.

    Cooperating associations and friends groups help support 347 (90 percent)
    of our national parks. Their contributions totaled over $200 million from
    1997- 2001 and were an important supplement to federal appropriations.
    These organizations also have additional assets totaling about $200
    million, which could become available for future donation to the parks
    (see table).

    The primary revenue- generating activities of cooperating associations are
    selling educational materials in park bookstores and providing educational
    services to park visitors. In contrast, friends groups generally rely on
    donations and membership dues to generate revenue. Accordingly, only
    cooperating associations directly compete with concessioners or other
    local for- profit businesses. In some parks, the sales and services
    provided by cooperating associations have caused conflicts between park
    management, the associations, and concessioners. There are three major
    factors that contribute to conflicts between

    associations and concessioners: (1) Park Service policies encourage an
    expanding reliance on nonprofit organizations; (2) the broad discretion
    local park managers have in deciding the role and scope of association
    activities has permitted expanded sales and service activities by
    cooperating associations; and (3) the agency has a financial incentive to
    use cooperating associations because they provide a higher return on sales
    revenue. To minimize conflicts and better ensure that park managers
    consistently apply agency policies in making decisions about whether and
    how to use cooperating associations and concessioners, Park Service
    guidelines call for individual park managers to develop *Commercial
    Services Plans.* However, these plans are rarely developed or used.

    In addition, even though one of the agency*s key goals is to increase its
    reliance on partnerships with nonprofit organizations, the Park Service
    does not have a process for holding local park managers accountable for
    meeting contribution goals.

    Cooperating Associations* and Friends Groups* Contributions by Fiscal Year

    Dollars in millions Year Cooperating associations Friends groups Total
    1997 $19.0 $7.7 $26.7

    1998 22.6 15.0 37.5

    1999 30.8 13.7 44.5

    2000 35.8 16.9 52.7

    2001 30.1 17.3 47.4 Total $138.3 $70.6 $208.8

    Source: National Park Service, GAO, Urban Institute, and Guidestar. com.
    Web site (Philanthropic Research, Inc.). Notes: Totals may not add due to
    rounding. Friends group figures represent the two- thirds of groups that
    responded to a GAO survey, including all groups with revenues over
    $25,000.

    Two types of nonprofit organizations, cooperating associations and friends
                  groups, provide substantial support to the natio...

    Two types of nonprofit organizations, cooperating associations and friends
    groups, provide substantial support to the national parks. GAO was asked
    to report on (1) the number of park units supported by nonprofits and

    the amount of their contributions, (2) the revenue- generating activities
    of nonprofits and how

    they compete with park concessioners, (3) factors that contribute to
    competition between

    nonprofits and for- profit concessioners, and (4) how park managers are
    held accountable for

    meeting goals for nonprofit financial support. GAO recommends that the
    National Park Service (1) require that parks offering commercial sales and
    services develop Commercial Services Plans, (2) ensure that Commercial
    Services Plans

    (a) explain the roles of concessioners and nonprofits in providing visitor
    services and (b)

    provide rationale for decisions specifying that nonprofits will provide
    new visitor services, (3) develop and maintain an accurate list of
    nonprofit groups serving the

    parks, and (4) require nonprofits to report key financial information. The
    Association of Partners For Public Lands, representing nonprofits, and the
    National Park Hospitality Association, representing concessioners, agreed

    with GAO*s recommendations. The Department of the Interior did not provide
    comments on this report.

    a

    GAO United States General Accounting Office

    www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 585. To view the full report,
    including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
    information, contact Barry T. Hill at (202) 512- 9775 or hillbt@ gao. gov.
    Highlights of GAO- 03- 585, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
    National

    Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands, Committee on Resources, House of
    Representatives

    July 2003

    PARK SERVICE

    Agency Needs to Better Manage the Increasing Role of Nonprofit Partners

    Page i GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Contents

    Page ii GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Contents

    Page iii GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 1 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners
    United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548

    Page 1 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    A

    Page 2 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 3 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 4 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 5 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 6 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 7 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 8 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 9 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 10 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 11 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 12 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 13 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 14 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 15 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 16 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 17 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 18 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 19 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 20 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 21 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 22 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 23 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 24 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 25 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 26 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 27 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 28 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 29 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 30 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 31 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 32 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 33 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 34 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 35 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 36 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 37 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 38 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 39 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 40 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 41 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 42 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 43 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 44 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 45 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 46 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix I

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 47 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix I Scope and Methodology

    Page 48 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 49 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix II

    Appendix II Statutory Provisions Relating to Cooperating Associations and
    Friends Group Activities at National Parks

    Page 50 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 51 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix III

    Appendix III National Parks Affiliated with Cooperating Associations,
    Friends Groups, and/ or Merchandise Concessioners

    Page 52 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix III National Parks Affiliated with Cooperating Associations,
    Friends Groups, and/ or Merchandise Concessioners

    Page 53 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix III National Parks Affiliated with Cooperating Associations,
    Friends Groups, and/ or Merchandise Concessioners

    Page 54 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix III National Parks Affiliated with Cooperating Associations,
    Friends Groups, and/ or Merchandise Concessioners

    Page 55 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix III National Parks Affiliated with Cooperating Associations,
    Friends Groups, and/ or Merchandise Concessioners

    Page 56 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix III National Parks Affiliated with Cooperating Associations,
    Friends Groups, and/ or Merchandise Concessioners

    Page 57 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix III National Parks Affiliated with Cooperating Associations,
    Friends Groups, and/ or Merchandise Concessioners

    Page 58 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix III National Parks Affiliated with Cooperating Associations,
    Friends Groups, and/ or Merchandise Concessioners

    Page 59 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix III National Parks Affiliated with Cooperating Associations,
    Friends Groups, and/ or Merchandise Concessioners

    Page 60 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix III National Parks Affiliated with Cooperating Associations,
    Friends Groups, and/ or Merchandise Concessioners

    Page 61 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 62 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix IV

    Appendix IV Cooperating Association Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets
    (1997- 2001)

    Page 63 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix IV Cooperating Association Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets
    (1997- 2001)

    Page 64 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix IV Cooperating Association Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets
    (1997- 2001)

    Page 65 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix IV Cooperating Association Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets
    (1997- 2001)

    Page 66 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 67 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix V

    Appendix V Friends Group Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets (1997- 2001)

    Page 68 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix V Friends Group Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets (1997- 2001)

    Page 69 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix V Friends Group Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets (1997- 2001)

    Page 70 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix V Friends Group Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets (1997- 2001)

    Page 71 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix V Friends Group Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets (1997- 2001)

    Page 72 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix V Friends Group Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets (1997- 2001)

    Page 73 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix V Friends Group Revenue, Donations, and Net Assets (1997- 2001)

    Page 74 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 75 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VI

    Appendix VI Parks with General Management and Commercial Services Plans

    Page 76 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VI Parks with General Management and Commercial Services Plans

    Page 77 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VI Parks with General Management and Commercial Services Plans

    Page 78 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VI Parks with General Management and Commercial Services Plans

    Page 79 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VI Parks with General Management and Commercial Services Plans

    Page 80 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VI Parks with General Management and Commercial Services Plans

    Page 81 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VI Parks with General Management and Commercial Services Plans

    Page 82 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VI Parks with General Management and Commercial Services Plans

    Page 83 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VI Parks with General Management and Commercial Services Plans

    Page 84 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VI Parks with General Management and Commercial Services Plans

    Page 85 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VI Parks with General Management and Commercial Services Plans

    Page 86 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 87 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VII

    Appendix VII Comments from the Association of Partners for Public Lands
    Page 88 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VII Comments from the Association of Partners for Public Lands

    Page 89 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VII Comments from the Association of Partners for Public Lands

    Page 90 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VII Comments from the Association of Partners for Public Lands

    Page 91 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VII Comments from the Association of Partners for Public Lands

    Page 92 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Page 93 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VIII

    Appendix VIII Comments from the National Park Hospitality Association

    Page 94 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VIII Comments from the National Park Hospitality Association

    Page 95 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VIII Comments from the National Park Hospitality Association Page
    96 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VIII Comments from the National Park Hospitality Association

    Page 97 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    Appendix VIII Comments from the National Park Hospitality Association

    Page 98 GAO- 03- 585 Agency Needs to Better Manage Nonprofit Partners

    GAO s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
    investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
    constitutional

    responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of
    the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of
    public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
    analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
    informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO s commitment to
    good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
    integrity, and reliability. The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies
    of GAO documents at no cost is

    through the Internet. GAO s Web site ( www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
    and full- text files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
    archive of older products. The Web site features a search engine to help
    you locate documents using key words and phrases. You can print these
    documents in their entirety,

    including charts and other graphics. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly
    released reports, testimony, and correspondence. GAO posts this list,
    known as Today s Reports, on its Web site daily. The list contains links
    to the full- text document files. To have GAO e- mail this list to you
    every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select Subscribe to e- mail
    alerts under the Order GAO Products heading.

    The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $ 2
    each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
    Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
    copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
    be sent to:

    U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
    20548

    To order by Phone: Voice: ( 202) 512- 6000 TDD: ( 202) 512- 2537 Fax: (
    202) 512- 6061

    Contact: Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E- mail:
    fraudnet@ gao. gov Automated answering system: ( 800) 424- 5454 or ( 202)
    512- 7470 Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov ( 202)
    512- 4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
    Washington, D. C. 20548 Obtaining Copies of

    GAO Reports and Testimony Order by Mail or Phone To Report Fraud, Waste,
    and Abuse in Federal Programs Public Affairs

    United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001
    Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Service Requested

    Presorted Standard Postage & Fees Paid

    GAO Permit No. GI00
    *** End of document. ***