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. ***