    Smithsonian Institution: Funding Challenges Affect Facilities'
    Conditions and Security, Endangering Collections (28-SEP-07,
    GAO-07-1127).

    The Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian) is the world's largest
    museum complex and research organization. Its annual operating
    and capital program revenues come from its own private trust fund
    assets and federal appropriations, with the majority of funds for
    facilities coming from federal appropriations. In 2005, GAO
    reported that the Smithsonian's current funding would not be
    sufficient to cover its estimated $2.3 billion in facilities
    projects through 2013 and recommended that the Smithsonian Board
    of Regents, its governing body, develop and implement a funding
    plan. As requested, GAO described changes in the condition of the
    Smithsonian's facilities and estimate for project costs since
    2005, analyzed the Smithsonian's steps taken and challenges
    regarding protecting and managing its real property portfolio,
    and assessed the Smithsonian's efforts to develop and implement
    strategies to fund its facilities' projects. GAO reviewed
    relevant documents and interviewed officials from the Smithsonian
    and other organizations.
    -------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
    REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-1127
        ACCNO:   A76816
      TITLE:     Smithsonian Institution: Funding Challenges Affect
    Facilities' Conditions and Security, Endangering Collections
         DATE:   09/28/2007
      SUBJECT:   Cost analysis
    	     Facility repairs
    	     Facility security
    	     Federal facilities
    	     Federal funds
    	     Fund audits
    	     Funds management
    	     Museums
    	     National historic sites
    	     Performance measures
    	     Physical security
    	     Real property
    	     Strategic planning
    	     Facility management
    	     Facility maintenance
    	     Facility construction
    	     Cost estimates

    ******************************************************************
    ** 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-07-1127

         * [1]Results in Brief
         * [2]Background
         * [3]Despite Some Improvements, Deteriorating Facilities Have Cau

              * [4]The Smithsonian Improved the Condition of a Number of Facili
              * [5]Problems with the Smithsonian's Facilities Since 2005 Have C
              * [6]Many Long-Term Facilities Problems Remain
              * [7]The Smithsonian's Estimated Cost for Facilities Projects thr

         * [8]The Smithsonian Follows Many Key Security Practices to Prote

              * [9]The Smithsonian Follows Key Security Practices
              * [10]The Smithsonian Faces Challenges in Ensuring That Museum and
              * [11]Due to Funding Constraints, Some Museum and Facility Directo

         * [12]The Smithsonian Has Taken Steps to Improve Real Property Por

              * [13]Several Factors Affect the Smithsonian's Real Property Manag
              * [14]The Smithsonian Has Taken Steps to Improve Its Real Property
              * [15]Smithsonian's Capital Planning Process Incorporates Many Cap
              * [16]Funding Constraints Have Presented Considerable Challenges
              * [17]The Smithsonian's Omission of Private Funds from Its Capital

         * [18]The Smithsonian Has Taken Some Steps to Develop and Implemen

              * [19]To Address Our Recommendation, the Smithsonian Requested an
              * [20]Some of Smithsonian's Evaluations of the Other Eight Funding

                   * [21]Evaluation of the Option to Close Museums Is Not
                     Complete
                   * [22]Evaluations of the National Fund-Raising Campaign and
                     Treasu
                   * [23]Evaluation of Implementing a General Admission Fee
                     Program L

         * [24]Conclusions
         * [25]Recommendations for Executive Action
         * [26]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
         * [27]Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
         * [28]Appendix II: Smithsonian's Efforts to Implement Key Security
         * [29]Appendix III: Comments from the Smithsonian Institution

              * [30]GAO Comments

         * [31]Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

              * [32]GAO Contact
              * [33]Staff Acknowledgments

                   * [34]Order by Mail or Phone

    Report to Congressional Requesters

    United States Government Accountability Office

    GAO

    September 2007

    SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

    Funding Challenges Affect Facilities' Conditions and Security, Endangering
    Collections

    GAO-07-1127

    Contents

    Letter 1

    Results in Brief 5
    Background 9
    Despite Some Improvements, Deteriorating Facilities Have Caused Further
    Problems, and Cost Estimate for Facilities Projects Has Increased 18
    The Smithsonian Follows Many Key Security Practices to Protect Its Assets
    but Faces Communication and Funding Challenges 31
    The Smithsonian Has Taken Steps to Improve Real Property Portfolio
    Management but Faces Challenges Related to Funding Constraints and Its
    Capital Plan 38
    The Smithsonian Has Taken Some Steps to Develop and Implement Funding
    Strategies, but Its Evaluation of Proposed Alternatives Has Been Limited
    52
    Conclusions 62
    Recommendations for Executive Action 63
    Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 64
    Appendix I Scope and Methodology 67
    Appendix II Smithsonian's Efforts to Implement Key Security Practices 71
    Appendix III Comments from the Smithsonian Institution 74
    GAO Comments 81
    Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 83

    Tables

    Table 1: Buildings Disposed of by the Smithsonian Since 2005, Including
    Elements of Decision and Proceeds, as Described by Smithsonian Officials
    42
    Table 2: Smithsonian Facilities Capital and Maintenance Appropriations,
    Fiscal Years 2002-2007 47
    Table 3: Funding and Total Cost of Smithsonian Capital Projects That Have
    Received Private Funds for Capital Costs, Fiscal Years 2002-2007 50
    Table 4: Nine Funding Options Evaluated by the Ad-Hoc Committee on
    Facilities Revitalization 53

    Figures

    Figure 1: Location of Smithsonian Institution Owned and Leased Facilities
    11
    Figure 2: Growth in Major Facilities Owned by the Smithsonian Institution,
    in Square Feet 13
    Figure 3: Key Security Practices in Facility Protection 14
    Figure 4: Smithsonian Operating Revenue, Fiscal Year 2006 16
    Figure 5: Obsolete Electrical Systems at the National Air and Space Museum
    20
    Figure 6: Plastic Sheeting Covers Native American Boats at the Cultural
    Resources Center to Prevent Water Damage 21
    Figure 7: Plastic Sheeting Put Up to Protect Collection Items from Water
    Damage in a Storage Area of the Quadrangle Complex 23
    Figure 8: The National Zoo's Invertebrate House, Located at the Back of
    the Reptile Discovery Center 24
    Figure 9: Ape House Exhibit at the National Zoo 26
    Figure 10: Sea Lion Pool at the National Zoo 27
    Figure 11: Leaking Skylight over the Museum of African Art 28
    Figure 12: Security Officer Levels at Smithsonian Museums and Facilities,
    2003 Compared with 2007 35
    Figure 13: Timeline of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Facilities Revitalization
    Key Events 55
    Figure 14: Closing All Smithsonian Museums on the National Mall for 3 Days
    a Week 57

    Abbreviations

    Air and Space Museum National Air and Space Museum
    American Art Museum Smithsonian American Art Museum
    Board of Regents Smithsonian Board of Regents
    CCTV closed circuit television cameras
    Cooper-Hewitt Museum Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum
    FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
    Forest Service Department of Agriculture's Forest Service
    Freer Gallery Freer Gallery of Art
    FRPC Federal Real Property Council
    IRC Independent Review Committee
    ISC Interagency Security Committee
    MOMA Museum of Modern Art
    Museum of African American History and Culture National Museum of African
    American History and Culture
    Museum of African Art National Museum of African Art
    Museum of American History National Museum of American History
    Kenneth E. Behring Center
    Museum of Natural History National Museum of Natural History
    Museum of the American Indian National Museum of the American Indian
    NAPA National Academy of Public Administration
    National Zoo National Zoological Park
    NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
    NJTTF National Joint Terrorism Task Force
    NPS National Park Service
    OFEO Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations
    OMB Office of Management and Budget
    OPS Office of Protection Services
    Portrait Gallery National Portrait Gallery
    RCM reliability centered maintenance
    Reynolds Center Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and
    Portraiture
    Sackler Gallery Arthur M. Sackler Gallery
    Smithsonian Smithsonian Institution
    Udvar-Hazy Center National Air and Space Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy
    Center

    This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
    protection in the United States. The published product 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.

    United States Government Accountability Office
    Washington, DC 20548

    September 28, 2007

    The Honorable Dianne Feinstein
    Chairman
    Committee on Rules and Administration
    United States Senate

    The Honorable Norman Dicks
    Chairman
    The Honorable Todd Tiahrt
    Ranking Minority Member
    Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    Committee on Appropriations
    House of Representatives

    The Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian) has been referred to as
    America's museum, as its museums hold and provide access to irreplaceable
    national collections in American and natural history, art, and other
    areas. The act establishing the Smithsonian in 1846 provided, among other
    things, that the business of the Smithsonian be conducted by a board of
    regents. Since its beginning, the Smithsonian has evolved into the world's
    largest museum complex and research organization; two of its museums on
    the National Mall in Washington, D.C., are the most visited in the world.
    The Smithsonian has 19 museums and galleries, 9 science centers, a
    zoological park, and various other facilities it uses to accomplish its
    mission: "the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men." In recent
    years, the National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA), the
    Smithsonian, and we have reported on the deterioration of the
    Smithsonian's facilities and the threat posed by this deterioration to the
    Smithsonian's collections. For example, in April 2005, we reported that
    the failing condition and closure of the Smithsonian's 1881 Arts and
    Industries building on the National Mall was the most significant example
    of a broad decline in the condition of the Smithsonian's facility
    portfolio.^1 Moreover, we reported that structural deterioration and
    failing systems in Smithsonian museums and other facilities presented
    serious long-term risks to the Smithsonian's collections. A 2001 report by
    NAPA found that prior to 2000, the Smithsonian had underestimated its
    revitalization needs, which were significantly larger than were identified
    in its budget requests.

    ^1GAO, Smithsonian Institution: Facilities Management Reorganization Is
    Progressing, but Funding Remains a Challenge, [35]GAO-05-369 (Washington,
    D.C.: Apr. 25, 2005).

    The Smithsonian's annual operating and capital program revenues come from
    its own private trust fund assets and federal appropriations; however, the
    majority of funds for facilities come from the Smithsonian's federal
    appropriations. Six percent of the Smithsonian's annual operating
    revenue--about $58.2 million in fiscal year 2006--comes from unrestricted
    private funds, and the Smithsonian's Board of Regents has the authority to
    spend these unrestricted private funds for various purposes, including
    facilities.^2 We reported in April 2005 that the Smithsonian's trust fund
    assets and federal appropriations at current levels would not be
    sufficient to cover the Smithsonian's estimated $2.3 billion in
    revitalization, construction, and maintenance projects--which include
    security-related projects--from 2005 through 2013. Given this significant
    funding challenge, we recommended that the Smithsonian Board of Regents
    (Board of Regents) develop and implement a strategic funding plan to
    address the Smithsonian's facilities projects. In April 2007, we testified
    that based on preliminary findings, the Smithsonian's estimated costs for
    facilities projects had increased.^3 A June 2007 report commissioned by
    the Board of Regents concluded that the Smithsonian had become more
    dependent on federal funds from January 2000 through March 2007. As the
    Smithsonian's chief decision-making body, the Board of Regents is
    responsible for the long-term stewardship of the Smithsonian's mission,
    which includes maintaining the Smithsonian's facilities and collections,
    as well as ensuring that the Smithsonian has a funding strategy that
    provides sufficient funds to support these activities.

    The Smithsonian is not the only entity receiving federal funds that faces
    challenges related to real property. We have found over the years that
    many federal agencies face long-standing challenges involving
    deteriorating facilities and protecting assets in the post-September 11
    environment, among other things. These findings have led to our inclusion
    of real property management on our high-risk list of federal programs
    since January 2003.^4 To address the problems we identified related to our
    high-risk designation, the administration added a real property initiative
    to the President's Management Agenda, and the president issued Executive
    Order 13327, which implements the real property initiative by outlining
    several requirements intended to help agencies accurately account for,
    maintain, and manage their real property assets. These requirements
    include, among other things, systematizing agency procedures and actions
    related to asset management through the development of an asset management
    plan and developing and using a complete and accurate real property data
    inventory and performance metrics. Although the Smithsonian is not covered
    by the executive order, the administration has encouraged all agencies and
    federal entities to use the executive order and related asset management
    principles as guidance.

    ^2The Smithsonian's private trust funds are divided into two categories:
    restricted and unrestricted. Restricted trust funds must be used for
    specified purposes. Unrestricted trust funds can be used to support any
    Smithsonian activity.

    ^3GAO, Smithsonian Institution: Funding for Real Property Needs Remains a
    Challenge, [36]GAO-07-725T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2007).

    In light of ongoing concerns over the Smithsonian's particular challenges
    in these areas, to address your request, we answered the following
    questions: (1) How has the condition of the Smithsonian's facilities and
    cost estimate for facilities projects changed since our 2005 report? (2)
    What steps has the Smithsonian taken to protect its assets, and what
    challenges has it experienced in doing so? (3) What steps has the
    Smithsonian taken to improve the management of its real property
    portfolio, and what challenges has it experienced in doing so? And (4) to
    what extent has the Smithsonian developed and implemented strategies to
    fund its revitalization, construction, and maintenance projects?

    To obtain information on how the condition of the Smithsonian's facilities
    has changed since our 2005 report, we interviewed the museum and facility
    directors^5 of 14 Smithsonian facilities. To obtain information on new
    facilities projects, problems with facilities, and adverse effects, if any
    on collections, we toured 8 facilities identified by the Smithsonian as
    having major revitalization projects or additional facilities-related
    problems since our April 2005 report. To determine how the Smithsonian's
    cost estimate for facilities projects has changed since our 2005 report,
    we reviewed the Smithsonian's revised cost estimate for major
    revitalization, construction, and maintenance projects from fiscal year
    2005 through fiscal year 2013. To obtain information on the steps the
    Smithsonian has taken to protect its assets and the challenges it has
    experienced, we reviewed documents such as the Smithsonian's 2005 All
    Hazards Risk Assessment Report and 2002 Disaster Management Program Master
    Plan, and the federal government's Interagency Security Committee's (ISC)
    key security practices. To obtain information on the steps the Smithsonian
    has taken to improve the management of its real property portfolio, we
    reviewed our prior work on this issue as well as Smithsonian documents
    related to asset management, capital planning, and master planning. To
    determine the extent to which the Smithsonian developed and implemented
    strategies to fund its revitalization, construction, and maintenance
    projects, we reviewed documents used by the Board of Regents to select a
    funding strategy and interviewed members of the Board of Regents.

    ^4GAO, High-Risk Series: Federal Real Property,  [37]GAO-03-122
    (Washington, D.C.: January 2003); and Federal Real Property: Progress Made
    toward Addressing Problems, but Underlying Obstacles Continue to Hamper
    Reform,  [38]GAO-07-349 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 13, 2007).

    ^5For this report, the term museum and facility directors refers to
    directors of museums, directors of nonmuseum facilities, such as research
    and storage centers, and key facilities and security managers of these
    museums and facilities.

    To address all of the above objectives, we also interviewed appropriate
    Smithsonian officials and conducted site visits at organizations in
    California and New York with characteristics similar to those of the
    Smithsonian, where we reviewed relevant documents, toured facilities, and
    interviewed officials. We visited the following organizations with
    characteristics similar to those of the Smithsonian: in California, the
    California Academy of Sciences, the California State University Office of
    the Chancellor, San Jose State University, San Francisco State University,
    the University of California Office of the President, the University of
    California at Berkeley, the University of California at San Francisco, and
    the Zoological Society of San Diego, including the Wild Animal Park; in
    New York, the American Museum of Natural History and the Museum of Modern
    Art. We selected California because several facilities' management experts
    recommended that a university system with old buildings and geographically
    dispersed campuses would have characteristics similar to those of the
    Smithsonian, and in California we could efficiently visit the University
    of California system and the California State University system, both of
    which meet these criteria, as well as a large and highly visited zoo and a
    science academy undergoing a major capital construction project. We
    selected New York so that we could efficiently go to two large and highly
    visited museums with characteristics similar to those of some Smithsonian
    museums. We conducted our work from September 2006 to September 2007 in
    accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. See
    appendix I for a more detailed explanation of our scope and methodology.

    Results in Brief

    The Smithsonian has made a number of facilities improvements since our
    2005 report, but the continued deterioration of many facilities has caused
    further access restrictions and has threatened collections, and the
    Smithsonian's cost estimate for facilities projects has increased. The
    Smithsonian improved the condition of a number of facilities since our
    2005 report. For example, the Smithsonian completed its revitalization of
    the Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture (Reynolds
    Center), which houses the Smithsonian American Art Museum (American Art
    Museum) and the National Portrait Gallery (Portrait Gallery). The
    Smithsonian also completed the construction of Pod 5, a
    fire-code-compliant space built to store alcohol-preserved specimens of
    the National Museum of Natural History (Museum of Natural History). Many
    of these specimens are currently stored within the museum building on the
    National Mall in Washington, D.C., in spaces that do not meet fire-code
    standards. Collections are scheduled to be moved to Pod 5 over the next 2
    years. At the same time, problems with the Smithsonian's facilities have
    resulted in additional access restrictions and damage and have continued
    to threaten collections and cause other problems, according to museum and
    facility directors:

               o At the National Air and Space Museum (Air and Space Museum),
               power capacity issues caused by inadequate electrical systems have
               forced the museum to occasionally close galleries to visitors.

               o A lack of temperature and humidity control at storage facilities
               belonging to the Air and Space Museum has caused corrosion to
               historic airplanes and increased the cost of restoring these items
               for exhibit.

               o Problems with the condensate system that provides humidification
               to the building housing the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery (Sackler
               Gallery) and National Museum of African Art (Museum of African
               Art) have caused unpredictable leaks throughout the complex,
               threatening collections.

               o Leaks in the National Zoo's sea lion and seal pools as of July
               2007 were causing an average daily water loss of 110,000 gallons,
               with a replacement cost of $297,000 annually.

               According to Smithsonian officials, repairs to some of these
               problems are scheduled to take place over the next several years.
               In light of such problems, the Smithsonian's cost estimate for
               facilities projects from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2013
               for which it expects to receive federal funds has increased since
               April 2005 from about $2.3 billion to about $2.5 billion for the
               same time period. According to Smithsonian officials, this
               estimate could increase further.

               The Smithsonian follows key security practices to protect its
               assets, but it faces challenges related to ensuring that museum
               and facility directors are aware of important security information
               and related to funding constraints. The Smithsonian follows key
               security practices we have identified in prior work,^6 such as
               allocating resources to manage risk by developing a risk
               assessment report and leveraging security technology. In its risk
               assessment report, the Smithsonian identified the primary risks to
               over 30 of its facilities and made key risk reduction and
               mitigation recommendations. Despite these efforts, we found that
               nine museum and facility directors we spoke with were unaware of
               the contents of the Smithsonian's risk assessment report, and many
               stated that on any given day, they do not know how many security
               officers will show up at their facility. The Smithsonian's Office
               of Protection Services (OPS) is responsible for operating programs
               for security management at Smithsonian facilities. However, some
               museum and facility directors' lack of awareness of the risk
               assessment report limits their ability to work with OPS to
               identify, monitor, and respond to changes in the security of their
               facilities. Furthermore, some museum and facility directors cited
               an insufficient number of security officers to protect assets due
               to funding constraints. Smithsonian obligations for security have
               increased since September 11, 2001, from $37 million in 2001 to a
               high of $67 million in 2006, but certain needs have gone
               unaddressed. In addition, due to funding constraints, the
               Smithsonian's two most visited museums have experienced a 31
               percent decrease in security officers since 2003, and the overall
               number of security officers has decreased at a time when the
               Smithsonian's square footage has increased. Some of the
               Smithsonian's museum and facility directors said that in the
               absence of more security officers, some cases of vandalism and
               theft have occurred. In addition, two museum directors stated that
               it has become more difficult for them to acquire collections on
               loan because lenders have expressed concern with the lack of
               protection.

               Faced with deteriorating facilities and an increased cost estimate
               for facilities projects, the Smithsonian has taken steps to
               improve the management of its real property portfolio but faces
               challenges related to funding constraints and its capital plan.
               Several factors affect the Smithsonian's efforts to manage its
               real property portfolio, including historical preservation
               requirements. The Smithsonian's centralized office for real
               property management, known as the Office of Facilities Engineering
               and Operations (OFEO), has made significant strides in several
               areas related to real property portfolio management, including
               improving real property data and developing performance metrics
               on, for example, maintenance and customer satisfaction. Many of
               these steps incorporate the administration's real property
               guidance. In addition, the Smithsonian has refined its capital
               planning process to improve its real property portfolio
               management. At the same time, however, funding constraints have
               presented considerable challenges to OFEO's efforts. For example,
               while a majority of museum and facility directors stated that OFEO
               does a good job of prioritizing and addressing problems with the
               amount of funds available, several museum and facility directors
               expressed frustration that projects at their facilities had been
               delayed, and OFEO officials stated that a lack of sufficient funds
               for maintenance has limited their ability to optimally maintain
               equipment, leading to more expensive failures later on. OFEO has
               worked to justify an increase in federal funds for facilities.
               However, although private funds made up 39 percent of the
               Smithsonian's capital funds for facilities projects for fiscal
               years 2002 through 2007, the Smithsonian has omitted privately
               funded projects from its capital plan and its estimate of $2.5
               billion for facilities projects through 2013, making it
               challenging for the Smithsonian and other stakeholders to
               comprehensively assess the funding and scope of facilities
               projects. Smithsonian officials noted that the majority of these
               private funds were donated for the construction of new
               facilities--namely, the National Museum of the American Indian
               (Museum of the American Indian) and the National Air and Space
               Museum Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center (Udvar-Hazy Center)--and there
               is no assurance that private funds would make up 39 percent of the
               Smithsonian's funds for capital projects in future years. Other
               organizations we visited include both private and public
               investments in their capital plans to inform their stakeholders
               about the scope of projects and the extent of such partnerships
               used to fund capital needs.

    ^6GAO, Homeland Security: Further Actions Needed to Coordinate Federal
    Agencies' Facility Protection Efforts and Promote Key Practices,
    [39]GAO-05-49 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2004).

               Funding constraints are clearly a common denominator with regard
               to the Smithsonian's security and real property management, but
               the Smithsonian Board of Regents' efforts to develop and implement
               strategies to fund its facilities revitalization, construction,
               and maintenance needs have been limited. The Board of Regents has
               taken some steps to address our 2005 recommendation regarding a
               strategic funding plan for facilities projects. After reviewing
               materials prepared by Smithsonian management that identified and
               evaluated nine options to address facilities projects--such as
               establishing a special exhibition fee and issuing a facilities
               revitalization bond--an ad-hoc committee established by the Board
               of Regents decided to request an additional $100 million annually
               in federal funds for facilities over its current appropriation for
               10 years, starting in 2008, for a total of an additional $1
               billion. To implement this recommendation, in September 2006,
               several members of the Board of Regents and the Secretary of the
               Smithsonian met with the President to discuss the issue of
               increased federal funding for the Smithsonian's facilities.
               According to two members of the Board of Regents, this option was
               selected because the Board of Regents believed that the
               revitalization, construction, and maintenance of Smithsonian
               facilities are federal responsibilities. According to Smithsonian
               officials, it is the position of the Smithsonian, based on an
               historical understanding, that the maintenance and revitalization
               of facilities are federal responsibilities. Smithsonian officials
               pointed out that as early as the 1850s, the federal government has
               provided appropriations to the Smithsonian for the care and
               presentation of objects belonging to the United States. The
               President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal included an increase
               of about $44 million over the Smithsonian's fiscal year 2007
               appropriation, far short of what the Smithsonian requested, and it
               is not clear how much of this proposed increase would be used to
               support facilities. Our analysis of the Smithsonian's evaluations
               of the eight other funding options, including the potential
               benefits and drawbacks of each, showed that the evaluations were
               limited in that they did not always include a complete analysis,
               fully explain specific assumptions, or benchmark with other
               organizations, items crucial to determining each option's
               potential viability. For example, the Smithsonian's analysis of a
               general admission fee option included an adjustment of annual net
               gains to account for losses in revenue at restaurants and stores.
               However, the Smithsonian's materials did not discuss whether other
               museums had experienced such losses after establishing admission
               fees. We spoke with six other museums and a zoological park that
               stated that instituting or increasing admission fees did not
               decrease the amount of money visitors spent in restaurants and
               stores. In addition, although several of the nine options are
               dismissed because independently the options would not generate the
               amount of revenue required to address the Smithsonian's facilities
               projects, the evaluation did not consider the potential of
               combining options to generate more revenue.

               Clearly, the Smithsonian is at a crossroads, with significant
               security and facilities projects and funding constraints that have
               limited its ability to complete these projects in a timely manner.
               The Smithsonian also faces communication challenges regarding
               security, and its omission of private funds from its capital plan
               and cost estimate has reduced the ability of the Smithsonian and
               other stakeholders to comprehensively assess the funding and scope
               of facilities projects. We are therefore making recommendations
               designed to improve communication and information about security
               and to improve the comprehensiveness of the Smithsonian's capital
               plan and cost estimate. Moreover, if the Smithsonian does not
               develop a viable strategy to address its growing cost estimate for
               facilities projects, its facilities and collections face increased
               risk, and the ability of the Smithsonian to meet its mission will
               likely decline. We are therefore recommending that the Smithsonian
               Board of Regents perform a more comprehensive analysis of
               alternative funding strategies beyond principally using federal
               funds to support facilities and submit a report to Congress and
               the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) describing a funding
               strategy for current and future facilities needs. According to two
               members of the Board of Regents, the board recognizes that it may
               need to undertake further analysis of the funding options
               presented and consider additional funding options; and in June
               2007, the Board voted to turn the ad-hoc committee into a standing
               committee on facilities revitalization. These members of the Board
               of Regents also stated they recognized the need to work closely
               with Congress on this issue in the future. However, these regents
               told us that in light of other priorities, the board has not yet
               had time to fully reconsider funding strategies. In commenting on
               a draft of this report, the Smithsonian concurred with our
               recommendations and provided additional information, which we have
               incorporated where appropriate. The Smithsonian also expressed
               concerns about several issues in the report. A summary of these
               concerns and our responses to them can be found in Agency Comments
               and Our Evaluation. The Smithsonian's full comments and our more
               detailed response can be found in Appendix III.

    			  Background

               Congress established the Smithsonian in 1846 to administer a large
               bequest left to the United States by James Smithson, an English
               scientist, for the purpose of establishing, in Washington, D.C.,
               an institution "for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among
               men." In accepting Smithson's bequest on behalf of the nation,
               Congress pledged the "faith of the United States" to carry out the
               purpose of the trust.^7 To that end, the act establishing the
               Smithsonian provided for the administration of the trust,
               independent of the government itself, by a Board of Regents and a
               Secretary, who were given broad discretion in the use of the trust
               funds. The Board of Regents currently consists of nine private
               citizens as well as members of all three branches of the federal
               government, including the Chief Justice of the United States, the
               Vice President, three senators, and three representatives.^8 As
               the Smithsonian's chief decision-making body, the Board of Regents
               is responsible for ensuring the maintenance of the facilities and
               collections of the Smithsonian Institution. This includes ensuring
               that the Smithsonian has sufficient funds, from either public or
               private sources, to support these activities.

    ^7A trust is a fiduciary relationship involving a right of property held
    by the trustee for the benefit of another.

               Over the last 160 years, the Smithsonian's facilities inventory
               has expanded to include 19 museums and galleries, 9 research
               centers, a zoo, and other facilities--most located in or near
               Washington, D.C. These facilities include more than 700 buildings
               and structures, owned and leased, ranging from major museum
               buildings to storage buildings and storage sheds (see fig. 1).

    ^8The three senators are appointed by the President of the Senate, the
    three representatives are appointed by the Speaker of the House, and nine
    citizens are appointed by joint resolution of Congress--two from the
    District of Columbia and seven from the states.

    Figure 1: Location of Smithsonian Institution Owned and Leased Facilities

    Note: Facilities under 50,000 square feet are not represented.

    The major buildings owned by the Smithsonian range in age from about 160
    years old to less than 1 year old, with most of the facilities' growth
    occurring since the 1960s (see fig. 2). The Smithsonian's growth will
    continue, with the construction of an aircraft restoration area--phase II
    of the Udvar-Hazy Center^9--and the design and construction of a National
    Museum of African American History and Culture (Museum of African American
    History and Culture), authorized by Congress in 2003. Beyond this, some
    members in both houses of Congress have expressed interest in developing a
    National Museum of the American Latino.^10

    ^9The Udvar-Hazy Center near Washington Dulles International Airport is the
    companion facility to the Air and Space Museum on the National Mall and is
    being built in two phases. Phase I opened in December 2003 and provides
    enough space for the Smithsonian to display thousands of aviation and
    space artifacts. Phase II will include a restoration hangar, archives,
    collections processing unit, conservation laboratory, and collections
    storage facility.

    ^10Several bills have been introduced in the 110th Congress to study the
    potential creation of a National Museum of the American Latino and whether
    the museum should be located within the Smithsonian. See S. 500, 110th
    Cong. (2007); and H.R. 512, 110th Cong. (2007).

    Figure 2: Growth in Major Facilities Owned by the Smithsonian Institution,
    in Square Feet

    Note: This figure tracks the square footage for all owned and leased
    buildings as they were added to the inventory over time. Only the major
    facilities are named in the figure, although the square footage of smaller
    buildings is included. Also, in November 2005, the Smithsonian Institution
    sold the Victor Building.

    The physical security of federal facilities, including those on the
    National Mall, has been a more urgent governmentwide concern after the
    terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We have issued several reports,
    including our November 2004 report, related to improving the physical
    security of federal facilities.^11 In that report, we assessed the actions
    of the ISC in coordinating federal facility protection efforts and
    delineated a set of six key practices that had emerged from the collective
    practices of federal agencies to provide a framework for guiding agencies'
    facility protection efforts.^12 These key practices are briefly described
    in figure 3.

    ^11 [40]GAO-05-49 .

    Figure 3: Key Security Practices in Facility Protection

    The Smithsonian significantly altered its facilities management approach
    in the wake of a 2001 report by NAPA. NAPA's report highlighted the need
    for major changes in the Smithsonian's facilities management practices to
    help address problems with its facilities, and the report included a
    number of recommendations. In March 2001, before NAPA issued its report,
    the Smithsonian had hired a new director to lead the reorganization of the
    facilities program. With the leadership of this director, in fiscal year
    2004 the Smithsonian reorganized and centralized its facilities program
    under the OFEO, a new, flatter facilities management organization. OFEO
    assumed responsibility for all facility-related programs and budgets for
    the Smithsonian. OFEO consists of six offices responsible for different
    areas of facilities management.^13 One of these, OPS, is responsible for
    operating programs for security management at Smithsonian facilities. All
    OFEO offices report directly to the OFEO director and are funded through
    one budget. OFEO received its first realigned budget in fiscal year
    2004.^14 In our 2005 report, we found that the Smithsonian had implemented
    the majority of NAPA's recommendations.

    ^12In October 1995, the President signed Executive Order 12977 to
    establish ISC, which is chaired by the Department of Homeland Security and
    has representation from all of the major federal real property holding
    agencies. ISC has three primary security responsibilities for nonmilitary
    activities: (1) establish policies for security in and protection of
    federal facilities; (2) develop and evaluate security standards for
    federal facilities, develop a strategy for ensuring compliance with such
    standards, and oversee the implementation of appropriate security measures
    in federal facilities; and (3) take such actions as may be necessary to
    enhance the quality and effectiveness of security and protection of
    federal facilities.

    Although the Smithsonian is a trust instrumentality with a private
    endowment, it is largely funded by federal appropriations. In fiscal year
    2006, the Smithsonian's operating revenues were about $947 million, of
    which about 65 percent were from federal appropriations. As shown in
    figure 4, the Smithsonian's federal appropriations are divided into two
    categories, both of which include some facilities-related funds. The
    facilities capital appropriation, which was about $98.5 million in fiscal
    year 2006, provides funds for construction and revitalization projects.
    The salaries and expenses appropriation, which was about $516.6 million in
    fiscal year 2006, includes funding for the program activities of each
    museum and research center; rents; utilities; and facilities' operations,
    maintenance, and security costs.

    The remaining 29 percent of the Smithsonian's operating revenues in fiscal
    year 2006 was from its private trust funds (private funds), which are also
    divided into two categories: restricted and unrestricted. Restricted trust
    funds include such items as gifts from individuals and corporations that
    specify the purpose of the funds. Generally, restricted funds support a
    particular exhibit or program, or are used to manage the collections or
    support research projects. Restricted funds have also been provided for
    some facilities' construction and enhancements related to revitalization
    projects. Unrestricted trust funds include income from investment earnings
    and net proceeds from business activities, and can be used to support any
    Smithsonian activity. The Smithsonian typically has used unrestricted
    trust funds, which in 2006 represented 6 percent of the Smithsonian's
    total operating income, for fundraising, some salary costs, and central
    administration costs. Although the Smithsonian can use unrestricted trust
    funds for any purpose consistent with the Smithson Trust and therefore
    could use them for facilities revitalization and maintenance, it has not
    done so. Smithsonian officials stated that the unrestricted trust fund
    budget is small and that if these salary and central administration costs
    were not paid for with unrestricted trust funds, the Smithsonian would
    have to use federal funds or eliminate positions or programs to cover
    these expenses.

    ^13The Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations (OFEO) consists of
    six offices, including Planning and Project Management; Engineering,
    Design, and Construction; Facilities Management and Reliability;
    Protection Services; Safety, Health and Environmental Management; and
    Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute Facilities Operations.

    ^14According to Smithsonian officials, for fiscal year 2004, the
    Smithsonian's budget justification to Congress was realigned to
    accommodate facilities integration from the museums, other facilities, and
    the National Zoo, as well as to reorganize the resources into the
    categories of facilities maintenance, facilities operations, security and
    support, and facilities capital.

    Figure 4: Smithsonian Institution Operating Revenue, Fiscal Year 2006

    In June 2007, at the request of the Board of Regents, a committee called
    the Independent Review Committee (IRC) issued a report of its examination
    of the former Smithsonian secretary's compensation and expenses and
    related board governance. The report found that private funds raised
    annually from donors declined over the former secretary's tenure, from
    January 2000 through March 2007. In addition, the IRC found that business
    revenue also dropped during the former secretary's tenure, while funds
    from federal appropriations and governmental grants increased more than 60
    percent. As a result, the IRC concluded that the Smithsonian became more
    dependent on federal funds during the former secretary's tenure.^15 Also
    in June 2007, the Board of Regents' Governance Committee issued a report
    and recommendations to strengthen the Board of Regents' oversight of the
    Smithsonian. One of several recommendations to the Board of Regents was
    that its ad-hoc Committee on Facilities Revitalization should become a
    standing committee in order to underscore the Board of Regents' commitment
    to resolving the Smithsonian's April 2005 estimate of $2.3 billion for
    facilities projects.

    While Congress has authorized major new museums and facilities, Congress
    has moved away from fully funding the construction of these facilities
    beginning in 1982. At that time, Congress authorized $36.5 million for the
    construction of the Museum of African Art and a Center for Eastern Art^16
    and required that the Smithsonian pay for the balance of the project with
    other funds. In 1989, Congress required that not more than two-thirds of
    the total cost of the Museum of the American Indian come from federal
    appropriations. More recently, in 2003, Congress also required that 50
    percent of the cost to construct the Museum of African American History
    and Culture come from nonfederal sources and the other 50 percent from
    federal appropriations.

    ^15According to Smithsonian officials, the Smithsonian disputes the IRC
    report's finding that overall private fund-raising declined during the
    former secretary's tenure.

    ^16The legislation authorizing the construction of the National Museum of
    African Art referred to a center for Eastern art or studies. See 20 U.S.C.
    S 50 note. The Smithsonian Quadrangle complex houses the National Museum
    of African Art, the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, S. Dillon Ripley Center, an
    auditorium, offices, and the Enid A. Haupt Garden. On July 28, 1982, the
    Smithsonian entered into an agreement to name the western half of the
    Quadrangle complex the Arthur M. Sackler Gallery, which was to be
    dedicated to Eastern Art.

    Despite Some Improvements, Deteriorating Facilities Have Caused Further
    Problems, and Cost Estimate for Facilities Projects Has Increased

    The Smithsonian has improved the condition of a number of facilities since
    our 2005 report, such as the revitalization of the Reynolds Center and
    parts of the National Zoo. However, problems with the Smithsonian's
    facilities since 2005 have continued to cause access restrictions and
    damage, and continue to threaten collections. Moreover, many long-term
    facilities problems remain. According to Smithsonian officials, repairs to
    some of these problems are scheduled over the next several years. At the
    same time, the Smithsonian's cost estimate for facilities projects through
    fiscal year 2013 has increased since April 2005, from $2.3 billion to $2.5
    billion for the same time period.

    The Smithsonian Improved the Condition of a Number of Facilities Since 2005

    Since our 2005 report, the Smithsonian has improved the condition of a
    number of its facilities through revitalization, construction, and repair
    efforts. For example, it completed a $238 million revitalization of the
    Reynolds Center, which houses the American Art Museum and the Portrait
    Gallery. These museums were reopened to the public in July 2006. The
    revitalization included upgrading the building's systems, such as heating,
    ventilation, and air conditioning, electrical, and plumbing, and adding
    life and safety upgrades. It also included a historical renovation of the
    building. As part of this renovation, for example, ruined encausted tiles
    on one floor were replaced with new tiles matching the original tiles, and
    a skylight that had been covered over for many years was opened up and
    restored. The renovation, which, according to Smithsonian officials, made
    60,000 square feet of building space previously used for storage or staff
    functions available for public use, also included several upgrades to the
    building's original space--such as a conservation center and an
    auditorium--that were paid for with private funds. In addition, the
    Smithsonian completed the revitalization of one section of the National
    Zoo (the Fujifilm Giant Panda Habitat and Asia Trail) in October 2006 and
    is in the process of further revitalizations at the National Zoo as well
    as major revitalizations at the National Museum of American History
    Kenneth E. Behring Center (Museum of American History), which is currently
    closed for revitalization, and the Museum of Natural History.

    In addition, the Smithsonian completed construction of a new storage
    facility known as Pod 5, which is located at the Museum Support Center at
    the Suitland, Maryland, campus. Pod 5 was built to provide a
    fire-code-compliant space to store and conduct research on
    alcohol-preserved specimens of the Museum of Natural History, many of
    which are currently stored within the museum building on the National Mall
    in Washington, D.C., in spaces that do not meet fire-code standards.
    Construction was completed in April 2007, and according to Smithsonian
    officials, collections are scheduled to be moved to Pod 5 over the next 2
    years.

    The Smithsonian also made some improvements to facilities since 2005
    through repairs. For example, according to the director of the Freer
    Gallery of Art and Arthur M. Sackler Gallery (Freer and Sackler
    Galleries), some external leaks along the perimeter of the Sackler Gallery
    have been eliminated by the installation of copper flashing.

    Problems with the Smithsonian's Facilities Since 2005 Have Caused Access
    Restrictions and Damage, and Continue to Threaten Collections

    Despite the progress the Smithsonian has made in improving a number of its
    facilities since our 2005 report, the continued deterioration of many
    facilities has caused further access restrictions and damage, and
    continues to seriously threaten collections. According to Smithsonian
    officials, repairs to some of the following problems are scheduled to take
    place over the next several years. For example, the electrical systems at
    the Air and Space Museum are scheduled to be replaced in fiscal years 2007
    through 2010. Access restrictions and damage caused by facilities'
    conditions include the following:

               o Power capacity issues caused by inadequate electrical systems
               have forced the Air and Space Museum to occasionally close
               galleries to visitors, according to the museum's director. The
               electrical systems at the Air and Space museum were installed in
               1975 and are obsolete and at the end of their useful life.
               Complete replacement is needed to avoid outages from equipment
               failure (see fig. 5).

               Figure 5: Obsolete Electrical Systems at the National Air and
               Space Museum

               o Recurring leaks in a Museum of African Art gallery that held an
               exhibit called Art of the Personal Object forced the museum to
               temporarily close the gallery several times from 2004 through 2006
               and take down part of the exhibit's collections until the leaks
               were repaired, according to the museum's director. Smithsonian
               officials noted that addressing such leaks is a regular
               maintenance issue.

               o Chronic leaks in the roof of the Cultural Resources Center at
               Suitland, Maryland, which was completed in 1998 and opened in 1999
               to hold collections of the Museum of the American Indian, have
               forced staff to place plastic over several shelving units used to
               store collections, such as a set of wooden boats that includes an
               Eskimo kayak from Greenland and a rare Yahgan dugout canoe from
               Tierra del Fuego, according to officials at this facility (see
               fig. 6).^17 The plastic sheeting limits visitors' visual access to
               the boats during open houses, which provide Native Americans and
               other groups with access to the collections. One museum official
               stated that it was also an embarrassment during open houses to
               have to explain that a roof leak threatens collections. According
               to Smithsonian officials, the building's roof is a spiral shape
               constructed with copper plate and compositional panels soldered
               together. However, the soldered joints on this complex roof design
               were not constructed well by the subcontractor responsible for
               building the roof. According to a Smithsonian official, the
               Smithsonian has worked with the company identified by the roofing
               manufacturer to assume the warranty for the roof to make repairs.
               While some of the costs to repair the roof were covered by
               warranty, others were not and were paid for by the Smithsonian.

    ^17In addition to significant collections from the United States, the
    Museum of the American Indian's collection also contains items from
    throughout the Western Hemisphere.

               Figure 6: Plastic Sheeting Covering Native American Boats to
               Prevent Water Damage at the Smithsonian Institution's Cultural
               Resources Center

               o A lack of temperature and humidity control at the Museum of Air
               and Space's collection storage facilities in Suitland, Maryland,
               which have large doors that do not seal and let in rain, has
               caused corrosion to historic airplanes and other collections and
               increased the cost of restoring these items for exhibit, according
               to museum officials.

               In addition, two museum and facility directors told us of alarming
               "near misses"--events related to inadequate facilities that could
               have been catastrophic to collections had they occurred at
               different times. According to Sackler Gallery officials, in
               October 2006, a major leak unexpectedly occurred in a holding area
               used by the museum to store exhibits on loan three weeks before
               $500 million worth of art arrived to be held there. If the leak
               had occurred while the art was being stored in this space, the art
               could have been destroyed. The leak was caused by ongoing problems
               with the steam system used to provide humidification to the
               Quadrangle complex, known as the condensate system. Problems with
               this system--which the gallery shares with the other facilities
               that make up the Quadrangle, including the Museum of African
               Art--have caused unpredictable leaks throughout the complex since
               1993, continually threatening collections.^18 Museum officials
               stated that staff must routinely spend time each morning searching
               for new leaks in order to move or cover collections to keep them
               safe--time that could be used for programmatic efforts--and
               several officials emphasized they have been lucky to avoid major
               damage to the collections thus far. (See fig. 7.)

    ^18In this condensate system, steam is piped to humidifiers located
    throughout the Quadrangle complex, which inject the steam into the air
    flow to provide humidification. However, when these pipes periodically
    clog up with metallic sediment, the steam turns into water and leaks
    through pipe joints.

               Figure 7: Plastic Sheeting Protecting Collection Items from Water
               Damage in a Storage Area of the Smithsonian Institution's
               Quadrangle Complex

               In addition, the director of the National Zoo stated that because
               of inadequate fire protection in the zoo's invertebrate house, a
               fire in this building in 2006 did not set off a smoke alarm and
               could have burned down the entire building--which also includes
               the reptile discovery center. (See fig. 8.) The fire occurred
               during work hours and was quickly put out by staff, but the
               director stated that the incident alerted him to the potentially
               disastrous consequences of a fire at the National Zoo to
               facilities and the animals living in them. Moreover, the director
               stated that inadequate fire protection systems throughout much of
               the National Zoo threaten the zoo's collections overall. For
               example, most buildings do not have sprinklers, some fire hydrants
               do not have enough water pressure for sprinkler systems that are
               in place, and the zoo has no smoke evacuation systems designed to
               remove smoke from a building in the case of a fire to prevent the
               death of people or animals from smoke inhalation. The director
               stated that until the zoo's fire protection systems are upgraded,
               there is the potential that a fire could cause devastation similar
               to a 1995 fire at the Philadelphia Zoo's primate house, which
               destroyed the building and killed 23 animals.

               Figure 8: The National Zoo's Invertebrate House, Located at the
               Back of the Reptile Discovery Center

               Similar problems at other Smithsonian facilities also threaten
               staff and collections. For example, the director of the Freer and
               Sackler Galleries stated that the Freer Gallery has also had leaks
               caused by problems with its condensate system. In addition,
               according to the Director of the Smithsonian Environmental
               Research Center, temporary trailers that have been in place at the
               center for 3 to 35 years are degrading and do not have fire
               suppression systems for life safety. At one point, the floor fell
               out of a trailer due to decay, and the collections landed on the
               ground; in other trailers, hallway floors have fallen through.

    			  Many Long-Term Facilities Problems Remain

               Other long-term facilities issues have caused additional problems
               for the Smithsonian since 2005, including increasing the
               Smithsonian's energy consumption and reducing its ability to carry
               out its mission. Ongoing problems with facilities' conditions that
               museum directors described to us include the following:

               o The Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden's building is not well
               insulated and is the Smithsonian's largest (on a per-square-foot
               basis) consumer of energy; in addition, its fac,ade is leaking in
               places.

               o The National Zoo is currently unable to provide many of its
               animals with the state-of-the-art habitats required to meet the
               zoo's goal of providing the highest quality animal care. Many of
               the zoo's animal areas and facilities are in relatively poor
               condition. For example, some of the zoo's facilities, including
               the bird house, small mammals house, and the reptile house, were
               built in the 1920s, while others, including the lion and tiger
               area and the ape house, were built in the 1960s. Many of these
               facilities do not meet current code requirements (buildings are
               brought up to code at the time they are renovated) and have many
               failing systems. (See fig. 9.)

               Figure 9: Ape House Exhibit at the National Zoo

               o In addition, according to officials at the National Zoo, the
               zoo's sea lion and seal pools have major leaks the zoo has not
               been able to fix without overhauling these exhibits. In January
               2007, average daily water loss from these two pools was 140,000
               gallons, and the lost water flowed into the Washington, D.C.,
               sewer system. According to these officials, preliminary site
               investigation of the pool indicated that while the structures
               themselves appeared sound, the source of most of the water loss
               was a result of the old underground supply and return piping.
               Temporary supply lines were installed, and it appeared that the
               amount of water loss in the seal pool was greatly decreased,
               reducing the average daily water loss from the two pools to
               110,000 gallons as of July 2007, with a replacement cost of
               approximately $297,000. A camera scoping system was being used to
               identify where to make temporary repairs to the sea lion pool.
               (See fig 10.)

               Figure 10: Sea Lion Pool at the National Zoo

               o The Director of the Museum of African Art stated that leaks in a
               skylight since 2005 have at times forced the museum to cover the
               skylight with plastic to protect the building and its collections
               (see fig. 11). The Director stated that the skylights have leaked
               for many years, were repaired in 2004, and started leaking again
               in 2005. In addition, according to the Director, in 2006, leaks in
               the roof membrane of the pavilion by the main visitor entrance
               forced the museum to put up plastic around the entrance and remove
               art objects from the area, reducing the visual appeal of the
               museum's entrance.

               Figure 11: Leaking Skylight over the Museum of African Art

               The Smithsonian's collections storage, conservation, and research
               facilities located in Suitland, Maryland, have many significant
               long-term problems. These facilities not only hold collections but
               also are actively used by Smithsonian staff and outside
               researchers for conservation and research. For example, according
               to the Director of the Museum Conservation Institute, which is the
               Smithsonian's center for advanced scientific study of the care of
               museum collections, the institute's facility has leaks, an
               inadequate electrical supply, inadequate air handling, and a
               general lack of office and lab space that makes it more difficult
               for the institute to carry out its research and conservation work.
               The Museum Support Center, which contains storage pods, research
               labs, and administrative space, has inadequate air handlers for
               the pods that need replacing, and some of the labs lack necessary
               equipment. For example, a lab that belongs to the Museum of
               American History was temporarily turned over to the American Art
               Museum while the Reynolds Center was being revitalized. This
               museum stripped out existing exhaust hoods because it did not need
               that type of equipment for the conservation work it was doing in
               the lab. The lab has now been turned back over to the Museum of
               American History, but funds are lacking to reinstall the exhaust
               hoods, limiting the lab's usefulness as staff prepare new exhibits
               for the museum's reopening after its current revitalization.
               Furthermore, a greenhouse at Suitland that is used for botany
               research is no longer fully enclosed, as several large glass panes
               have slipped from their frames, leaving open spaces that allow
               conditioned air to escape, increasing energy costs, and reducing
               the Smithsonian's ability to maintain the optimal environment for
               the plants being studied.

               According to Smithsonian officials, repairs to some of the major
               problems with its facilities are scheduled to take place over the
               next several years. For example, the electrical systems at the Air
               and Space Museum are scheduled to be replaced in fiscal years 2007
               through 2010, a contract was recently awarded to address the
               problems with the condensate system at the Quadrangle complex, and
               the Smithsonian's capital plan includes projects intended to
               address the fire protection problems at the National Zoo in fiscal
               years 2008 through 2010 and to design and renew systems at the
               seal and sea lion exhibit in fiscal years 2008 and 2009.

    			  The Smithsonian's Estimated Cost for Facilities Projects through
    			  Fiscal Year 2013 Has Increased Since 2005

               As of March 2007, the Smithsonian estimates it will need about
               $2.5 billion for revitalization, construction, and maintenance
               projects identified from fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year
               2013, an increase of about $200 million from its April 2005
               estimate of about $2.3 billion for the same time period. The
               Smithsonian's estimated revitalization and new construction costs
               are driven in part by the need to modernize or add systems, such
               as fire detection and alarm and security systems, and to comply
               with newer life safety code requirements, such as those for
               handicapped accessibility to buildings and restrooms. Maintenance
               costs include staff costs, minor repair and maintenance projects,
               and other contracts, supplies, materials, and equipment for
               Smithsonian's maintenance program. Smithsonian officials stated
               that to update its 2005 estimate, they identified changes that had
               occurred to the project cost figures used in the 2005 estimate and
               then subtracted from the new total the appropriations the
               Smithsonian had received for facilities revitalization,
               construction, and maintenance projects for fiscal years 2005
               through 2007.

               According to Smithsonian officials, this estimate includes only
               costs for which the Smithsonian expects to receive federal funds.
               Projects that have been or are expected to be funded through the
               Smithsonian's private trust funds were not included, although the
               Smithsonian has used trust funds to support some facilities
               projects. For example, the construction of Udvar-Hazy Center Phase
               I was funded through trust funds.^19 According to Smithsonian
               officials, maintenance projects are not generally funded through
               trust funds.^20

    ^19The law that authorized the National Air and Space Museum Stephen F
    Udvar-Hazy Center provided that no appropriated funds could be used to pay
    for construction expenses. See 20 U.S.C. S 77 note.

    ^20According to Smithsonian officials, a small amount of unrestricted
    trust funds have been used towards the salaries of some facilities'
    maintenance managers. According to Smithsonian officials, restricted trust
    funds have not been available for maintenance, as donors are not
    interested in giving money towards facilities' maintenance and do not
    donate funds for this purpose. The Smithsonian recently commissioned a
    benchmarking survey on fund-raising for facilities; all 12 respondents to
    the survey reported that efforts to secure support for deferred
    maintenance have been unsuccessful, except when embedded in programmatic
    improvements.

               The increase in the Smithsonian's cost estimate for
               revitalization, construction, and maintenance projects through
               fiscal year 2013 from about $2.3 billion in our April 2005 report
               to about $2.5 billion as of March 2007 was due to several factors,
               according to Smithsonian officials. For example, Smithsonian
               officials said that major increases had occurred in projects for
               the National Zoo and the Museum of American History because the
               two facilities had recently developed master plans that identified
               additional requirements.^21 In addition, according to Smithsonian
               officials, estimates for antiterrorism projects had increased due
               to adjustments for higher costs for security-related projects at
               the Air and Space Museum. According to Smithsonian officials, the
               increase also reflects the effect of delaying corrective work in
               terms of additional damage and escalation in construction costs.

    ^21A master plan is a proposal of a comprehensive renovation or expansion
    of a complex that aligns the physical plant with the organization's
    strategic goals. It includes proposals to make the complex conform to
    current codes and meet technology and security requirements. This process
    can also involve upgrading and replacing major building systems, including
    the electrical, plumbing, fire suppression, and heating and air
    conditioning systems; reinforcing the complex's structural integrity; and
    removing asbestos. Master plans also identify changes in building use and
    expansion requirements to meet mission needs.

               According to Smithsonian officials, the Smithsonian's March 2007
               estimate of about $2.5 billion could also increase, as the April
               2005 estimate of about $2.3 billion was largely based on
               preliminary assessments, and therefore, as Smithsonian completes
               more master plans, more items will be identified that need to be
               done. Moreover, this estimate does not include the estimated cost
               of constructing the Museum of African American History and
               Culture, which was authorized by Congress in 2003 and which the
               Smithsonian notionally estimates may cost about $500 million--half
               of which is to be funded by federal appropriations.

               The Smithsonian Follows Many Key Security Practices to Protect Its
    			  Assets but Faces Communication and Funding Challenges

               The Smithsonian follows key security practices to protect its
               assets but faces significant challenges ensuring that museum and
               facility directors are aware of important security information.
               Moreover, due to funding constraints, Smithsonian officials and
               some museum and facility directors cited an insufficient number of
               security officers to protect assets.

    			  The Smithsonian Follows Key Security Practices

               We found that the Smithsonian follows key security practices we
               have defined in prior work. For example, in order to allocate
               resources more effectively to manage risk, in 2004, the
               Smithsonian contracted for an all-hazards risk assessment report.
               This report, which includes individual assessments for over 30
               Smithsonian facilities, was completed in 2005.^22 These
               assessments identify the primary risks to each facility and also
               describe the key observed vulnerabilities and risks, as well as
               the key risk reduction and mitigation recommendations proposed for
               each facility in order to help the Smithsonian effectively
               prioritize security projects. As a supplement to this report, in
               the spring of 2006, the contractor completed a strategy that
               included specific recommendations on how to use the Smithsonian's
               capital and maintenance funds to implement future security
               projects and operational changes aimed at reducing the risk for
               Smithsonian facilities.

               In another example, the Smithsonian leverages security technology
               to protect its assets by using technologies such as perimeter
               vehicle barriers, closed circuit television cameras (CCTV),
               emergency voice systems, window blast film, and electronic
               screening of visitors and mail. According to a Smithsonian
               official, the technologies used for its physical security
               plan--which primarily consists of two separate programs for
               mitigating the risks to the Smithsonian's staff, visitors,
               collection and facilities--allows OPS to extend the capabilities
               of security staff and to improve facility security. For more
               information on the Smithsonian's following of key security
               practices, see appendix II.

    ^22According to Smithsonian officials, OPS consulted with the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the methodologies and consultants to
    use for the 2005 all-hazards risk assessment report. For a methodology,
    FEMA recommended its Risk Management Series Publication 452. For
    consultants, FEMA recommended the entity used to create the FEMA 452
    Publication.

               The Smithsonian Faces Challenges in Ensuring That Museum and Facility
    			  Directors Are Aware of Important Security Information

               Although the Smithsonian follows many key security practices, many
               museum and facility directors we spoke to stated that they lacked
               information on key security measures. For example, although OPS
               sent a notification letter with the relevant section of the
               all-hazards risk assessment report to museum and facility
               directors in late 2006, nine museum and facility directors we
               spoke with told us they were unaware of the results of this report
               for their facility and had not seen or been briefed on this
               report. In contrast, five museum and facility directors stated
               that they were aware of this report. OPS is responsible for
               security at the Smithsonian's museums and facilities. However, the
               lack of awareness of some museum and facility directors about the
               all-hazards risk assessment report limits their ability to work
               with OPS to identify, monitor, and respond to changes in the
               security environment of their facilities.

               In addition, many museum and facility directors stated that they
               did not always receive useful information from OPS regarding
               security officer staffing levels and other security decisions. For
               example, although security officer staffing levels at museums and
               facilities can vary on a daily basis due to attrition, absences,
               and OPS temporarily moving security officers from one facility to
               another to address needs with available staff, many museum and
               facility directors stated that on any given day, they do not know
               how many security officers will show up at their
               facility--information needed to oversee mitigation efforts and
               manage security. These museum and facility directors stated that
               knowing the security staff level at their museums is important for
               several reasons, such as knowing which galleries do not have
               sufficient protection from vandalism and limiting response time to
               emergencies. For example, one director stated he once went to
               report an emergency to a security officer at an established post.
               However, when he got to the post, the security officer was absent,
               and the director had to search for an alternate security officer.
               The director stated that had he known that security officer levels
               were down that day, he could have directly reported this emergency
               to a post where he knew an officer was on duty, which would have
               reduced the emergency response time.

               Also, some museum and facility directors stated that they do not
               know when security upgrades are being installed at their
               facilities. According to one museum director, about 1 year ago,
               contractors working for OPS arrived at the museum without any
               prior communication with the museum staff--including the museum's
               director or the assistant director of protection services--to
               begin work installing a key card access system. Staff were not
               supplied with key cards or trained in the use of the new system;
               as a result, once the system was installed, they were denied
               access to critical areas of the building, such as offices and
               collection storage areas.

    			  Due to Funding Constraints, Some Museum and Facility Directors
    			  Cite Insufficient Number of Security Staff to Protect Assets

               Funding constraints have also been a challenge to the
               Smithsonian's security efforts, according to museum and facility
               directors, some of whom stated that, in the absence of more
               security officers, some cases of vandalism and theft have
               occurred. According to OPS, 35 cases of vandalism were reported
               from January 2005 through August 2007. OPS officials stated that
               funding constraints have affected its ability to retain and
               recruit security officers. Following September 11, 2001, the
               Smithsonian's security costs significantly increased as a result
               of the mitigation recommendations of the 2002 Composite Risk
               Assessment.

               The Smithsonian's security efforts are funded entirely through
               federal funds.^23 Smithsonian obligations for security have
               increased since September 11, 2001--from $37 million in 2001 to a
               high of $67 million in 2006--but certain needs have gone
               unaddressed. For example, since 1999, the Smithsonian has
               identified $31.3 million in projects for its security system
               modernization program--which involves upgrading and integrating
               security capabilities across the organization--and thus far has
               received $17.6 million to complete security upgrades, such as CCTV
               and key card access systems. As a result, the Smithsonian has
               implemented some of these security systems upgrades at some
               facilities, but other facilities have not yet received the
               necessary funds to do so. Furthermore, the Smithsonian is still
               working on implementing blast and perimeter security projects,
               which were mitigation recommendations from its all-hazards risk
               assessment report. Completion of these projects depends on the
               availability of funds. Smithsonian officials noted that security
               projects compete with maintenance needs for facilities' funds.
               Therefore, the limited overall funds for these issues force a
               balancing of priorities in both areas, sometimes against one
               another.

    ^23According to Smithsonian officials, it is the position of the
    Smithsonian that the security of facilities is a federal responsibility,
    based on an historical understanding as well as accepted practice among
    federal entities. While Congress does appropriate funds every year for
    security expenses, the Smithsonian could raise additional revenue or use
    unrestricted trust funds for its security expenses.

               In addition, the number of Smithsonian security officers has been
               reduced steadily since May 2003, even as the Smithsonian's square
               footage has increased due to new museums being opened. As a
               result, there have been fewer officers and other security staff to
               cover more space. For example, from May 2003 to May 2007, 6 out of
               10 museums and facilities for which the Smithsonian provided data
               experienced a reduction in the number of security officers
               assigned to the facility; the reductions ranged from 4 percent to
               41 percent (see fig. 12). Smithsonian officials noted that some
               museums experienced a decrease in visitation during some of these
               years, and that OPS increased the use of technological security
               equipment, such as alarms and cameras, during this time.

    Figure 12: Security Officer Levels at Smithsonian Institution Museums and
    Facilities, 2003 Compared with 2007

    Note: Based on the data provided by the Smithsonian, we could compare 2003
    levels to 2007 levels only for these 10 museums because some museums were
    closed or opened between 2003 and 2007. For example, the Museum of
    American History was closed for renovation in 2006 and will reopen in the
    summer of 2008; therefore, its security staff was reduced from 2003
    levels. The Museum of the American Indian opened to the public in 2004. In
    addition, the National Air and Space Museum Stephen F. Udvar-Hazy Center
    Phase I has contract security officers overseen by two OPS officers.

    Five of the 10 Smithsonian facilities shown in figure 12 experienced
    security officer reductions of 25 percent or more. For example, the
    Smithsonian American Art Museum's Renwick Gallery experienced a 41 percent
    reduction in security officers since 2003. In addition, the security
    officer levels decreased significantly at both the Smithsonian Quadrangle
    (25 percent) and the Cultural Resources Center (28 percent). Some of the
    Smithsonian's most visited and largest facilities have experienced the
    greatest reductions in security officers. The Air and Space Museum, which
    contains 663,170 square feet, and the Museum of Natural History, which
    contains 1.98 million square feet, both experienced a 31 percent reduction
    in security officers in 2007 compared with 2003.

    Additionally, attendance has increased recently at many of the museums,
    intensifying the demands on the reduced security staff. Moreover, these
    reductions in the numbers of security staff at museums and facilities
    occurred even though the Smithsonian had one or more facilities closed for
    renovations during this time, and OPS assigned some security officers from
    the closed facility to other facilities. In the future, when the
    Smithsonian has all of its facilities open, the need for security officers
    will increase. For example, the Museum of American History currently is
    closed to the public; as a result, 28 of its security officers are
    temporarily reassigned to various museums. Smithsonian officials stated
    that when the Museum of American History reopens, those 28 officers will
    return to the Museum of American History, leading to vacancies at the
    Museum of the American Indian and the Portrait Gallery.

    All museum and facility directors we spoke with stated that the security
    officer levels at their facilities are inadequate. Some museum and
    facility directors stated that some of the galleries that used to have
    several security officers have been reduced to sharing one security
    officer with other galleries, resulting in too much square footage having
    to be protected by one officer. Another facility director stated that
    security alarms go off frequently and that a security officer is not
    available to check the validity of the alarm because the facility does not
    have an adequate amount of security officers. Moreover, one museum did not
    have enough security officers for 2 days to staff the museum's main
    entrance, resulting in the main entrance being closed. The museum was
    still open to the public through the lower-level staff entrance; however,
    the director of this facility stated that the closed main entrance
    deterred many people from entering. Also, museum and facility directors at
    other facilities stated they have strongly considered temporarily closing
    galleries due to an inadequate level of security officers needed to
    properly protect collections. Lastly, two museum directors stated that it
    has become more difficult for them to acquire collections on loan because
    lenders have expressed concern with the lack of protection.

    Some of the Smithsonian's museum directors stated that insufficient
    numbers of security officers contributed to some cases of vandalism and
    theft. For example, one museum director stated that on or before November
    2006, several mammalian fossils were stolen from an exhibit, and damage to
    dinosaur exhibits has periodically occurred from visitors throwing water
    bottles and other objects at them. Three other museum directors stated
    that their museums have experienced increased rates of vandalism due to
    the lack of security officers patrolling the galleries. At one museum, for
    example, an object that resembles a telephone booth was continually
    vandalized by visitors who would write on the exhibit. The vandalism
    stopped when the museum convinced OPS to install a camera near the object.
    In the same museum, visitors have in some instances spit on or kissed a
    few pieces of artwork in the building. According to an OPS official, the
    Smithsonian started a new program in the summer of 2007, in which college
    students were hired as gallery attendants. The program places gallery
    attendants in exhibits that cannot be manned by security guards. The
    gallery attendants do not wear uniforms or fulfill any security officer
    duties; however, they wear uniform polo shirts so they are easily
    recognizable by the public and serve as additional eyes and ears for the
    security officers.

    In addition to having insufficient numbers of security officers, according
    to a Smithsonian official, funding constraints have affected the
    Smithsonian's ability to recruit and retain security officers, who are
    able to find higher paying jobs at other federal agencies. According to
    Smithsonian officials, officer attrition has increased every year since
    2003. Smithsonian officials stated that after they invest in the training
    of their security officers, many of them leave for federal agencies, such
    as the Department of Defense, that can hire officers at a higher pay
    grade. The Smithsonian's experience is not unique: as we reported in 2003,
    more than 300 federal law enforcement officers in the Washington, D.C.,
    area left their jobs to join the Transportation Security Administration
    during fiscal 2002, which was able to offer air marshal recruits higher
    compensation and more flexible benefit packages than many other federal
    police forces.^24 After September 11, 2001, the Smithsonian attempted to
    address this problem by increasing its entry level security officer pay
    grade from a General Schedule-4 to General Schedule-5. However, according
    to Smithsonian officials, this pay grade increase has been insufficient to
    compete with other agencies and localities. OPS submitted a request
    through its budget process to upgrade all entry level security officers to
    a General Schedule-6 pay grade starting in fiscal year 2004, but the
    request was denied by Smithsonian management due to inadequate funds in
    the Smithsonian budget and higher internal budget priorities.

    ^24GAO, Federal Law Enforcement: Selected Issues in Human Capital
    Management, [41]GAO-03-1034T (Washington D.C.: July 23, 2003).

    The Smithsonian Has Taken Steps to Improve Real Property Portfolio Management
    but Faces Challenges Related to Funding Constraints and Its Capital Plan

    Faced with deteriorating facilities and an increased cost estimate for
    facilities projects, the Smithsonian has taken steps to improve the
    management of its real property portfolio but faces challenges related to
    funding constraints and its capital plan. Several factors, such as
    historic preservation requirements, affect the Smithsonian's efforts to
    manage its real property portfolio within funding constraints. The
    Smithsonian has taken steps to improve its real property portfolio
    management that incorporate the administration's real property guidance.
    These include improving real property data and developing performance
    measures on, for example, facility condition and customer satisfaction. In
    addition, the Smithsonian has taken steps to improve its capital planning
    process, which is also an important part of real property portfolio
    management. However, funding constraints have presented considerable
    challenges, and, while OFEO has worked to justify an increase in federal
    funding for facilities, the Smithsonian's capital plan omits privately
    funded projects. Although information on the scope and funding of
    privately funded projects is provided to stakeholders in other documents,
    the lack of this information in the capital plan has limited the ability
    of the Smithsonian and other stakeholders to comprehensively assess the
    funding and scope of facilities projects.

    Several Factors Affect the Smithsonian's Real Property Management Efforts

    Several factors affect the Smithsonian's efforts to manage its real
    property portfolio within funding constraints. As previously discussed,
    the condition of many of the Smithsonian's facilities is deteriorating. In
    addition, according to Smithsonian officials, many of the Smithsonian's
    buildings are either historic or signature buildings, which can increase
    the cost of revitalization or construction projects. Smithsonian officials
    stated that, by law, the Smithsonian is required to comply with historical
    preservation requirements and that preserving the historical character of
    its facilities is in the interest of the public and Congress. Smithsonian
    officials stated that the National Capital Planning Commission closely
    monitors the Smithsonian's compliance with historical preservation
    guidance.^25 As such, the Smithsonian's revitalization of historic
    buildings has included restoring historical elements that have increased
    the costs of these projects. For example, according to Smithsonian
    officials, the Reynolds Center revitalization included replacing windows
    with historically appropriate glass and replacing a ruined tile floor with
    matching tile that had to be imported from England. OFEO officials stated
    that they do not consider these decisions to be choices given the legal
    requirements necessitated by historic preservation laws and regulations.

    In addition, according to OFEO officials, when the Smithsonian is mandated
    by Congress to build new museums, particularly when they are on the
    National Mall or other prominent locations, the buildings, such as the
    Museum of the American Indian, are considered signature or landmark
    buildings and often have architectural elements that require innovative,
    creative, and sometimes expensive architectural and engineering
    techniques. This can increase not only the costs and difficulty of
    constructing these buildings but also the cost and difficulty of
    maintaining them after construction. However, OFEO officials stated that
    the Smithsonian strives to fulfill the architect's vision since
    stakeholders, including Congress and the public, expect these buildings to
    be landmarks.

    Another factor that affects the Smithsonian's efforts to manage its real
    property portfolio within funding constraints is the number of its
    facilities. Although the Smithsonian has disposed of a few facilities in
    recent years, as discussed below, OFEO officials stated that the
    Smithsonian considers its remaining facilities, in particular its museums
    and research centers, as central to its mission and, therefore, worthy of
    care and protection. According to OFEO officials, many Smithsonian units
    were created by statute or restricted gift, and the Smithsonian is legally
    limited in the kinds of decisions it can make about some of its
    facilities. In April 2001, the Smithsonian proposed closing the National
    Zoo's Conservation and Research Center in Front Royal, Virginia, but this
    proposal generated considerable opposition and was abandoned. In recent
    years, the Smithsonian's appropriations acts have included language
    prohibiting the Smithsonian from using federally appropriated funds to
    close facilities related to existing Smithsonian science programs without
    the approval by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.^26

    ^25The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies
    to consider the effect of their actions on historic properties and to
    undertake planning and actions necessary to minimize harm to the historic
    property. The Smithsonian Facilities Authorization Act of 2003, 20 U.S.C.
    S 75b note, states that in carrying out projects in the District of
    Columbia that are subject to the review and approval of the National
    Capital Planning commission, the Smithsonian Institution shall be deemed
    to be an agency for purposes of compliance with regulations promulgated by
    the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation pursuant to section 106 of
    the NHPA. The standards require owners to maintain the original structure,
    fabric, and character of the site (both interior and exterior) when making
    additions or upgrades.

    The Smithsonian Has Taken Steps to Improve Its Real Property Portfolio
    Management and Incorporate Real Property Guidance

    Faced with deteriorating facilities and an increased cost estimate for
    facilities projects, the Smithsonian has continued to build on efforts to
    improve its real property portfolio management that started in fiscal year
    2001, when it began to centralize its facilities management in response to
    NAPA's recommendations and its own internal review. In our 2005 report, we
    found that in reorganizing its facilities management under OFEO, the
    Smithsonian was incorporating recognized industry best practices so that
    its resources would go as far as possible toward addressing its rapidly
    growing revitalization, construction, and maintenance workload. Since
    then, OFEO has continued some of these efforts as well as implemented new
    ones. Specifically, OFEO has made significant strides in real property
    guidance, real property data inventory, maintaining the Smithsonian's real
    property at the right size and cost, facilities maintenance, and the
    development and use of performance measures. Many of these steps
    incorporate the administration's real property guidance.

    The Smithsonian's steps to improve its guidance on real property
    management are consistent with a goal of the real property initiative to
    systematize agency procedures and actions related to asset management
    through the development of an asset management plan. Since 2005, OFEO
    finalized and put into effect its first Operations and Maintenance
    Handbook and revised its Facilities Project Management Handbook to
    streamline and update its content. These handbooks define the
    Smithsonian's policies and procedures related to their respective
    subjects, and OFEO officials told us they are in effect throughout the
    Smithsonian. In addition, the Smithsonian has had a directive on real
    estate asset management in effect since May 1, 2003, which establishes
    policy for managing real estate assets. It is in the process of revising
    this directive. According to OFEO officials, OFEO is also developing a
    real estate management handbook that will articulate the Smithsonian's
    policies related to real property acquisitions and disposals, among other
    things. OFEO has also used a space utilization guide it developed in 2003
    to standardize the amount of space given to areas such as offices and
    conference rooms during new construction and new leases, and as it
    reconfigures space during revitalizations.^27

    26This prohibition was included in the Smithsonian's appropriations acts
    for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. (Public Law 108-447, 118 Stat, 3089
    (2004); Public Law 109-54, 119 Stat. 545 (2005). The Smithsonian's
    appropriations acts for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 contained a similar
    prohibition, except that for these years, approval to close such
    facilities was required from the Smithsonian's Board of Regents acting on
    recommendations from the Science Commission rather than from the House and
    Senate Committees on Appropriations. (Public Law 107-63, 115 Stat. 461
    (2001); Public Law 108-7,117 Stat. 11 (2003); Public Law 108-108; 117
    Stat. 1298 (2003).

    The Smithsonian has also recognized the importance of the real property
    initiative's goal of a complete and accurate inventory of all constructed
    assets to help with decision making. As part of the real property
    initiative, the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) identified and
    defined 24 data elements that must be captured and reported by the 15
    largest federal landholding agencies.^28 Although the Smithsonian is not
    required to capture or report this data, the Smithsonian has developed a
    database to do so. As of August, 15, 2007, a majority of the database was
    complete, and the Smithsonian was continuing to add data to it. For
    example, 80 percent of the data on the element of size was included in the
    database, and according to Smithsonian officials, the missing data on size
    were mostly for outlying and miscellaneous spaces that it will include
    when reasonably available. Four of the 24 data elements established by the
    FRPC are performance measures--utilization, condition index, mission
    dependency, and annual operating and maintenance costs. Smithsonian
    officials stated that the Smithsonian was currently in the process of
    inputting the data on condition index, mission dependency, and annual
    operating and maintenance costs into the database and that it planned to
    include data on utilization by the end of fiscal year 2008.

    OFEO has also taken steps to maintain the Smithsonian's real property
    inventory at the right size and cost to meet the Smithsonian's mission.
    For example, although OFEO officials described the Smithsonian's real
    estate portfolio as stable and said there is little opportunity for
    disposing of facilities, according to Smithsonian officials, since 2005,
    OFEO spearheaded the disposal of the only three owned buildings that the
    Smithsonian has disposed of in the past 20 years. According to Smithsonian
    officials, these disposal decisions were made to eliminate unneeded space
    or reduce costs, as shown in table 1.

    ^27OFEO officials stated that they are not attempting to reconfigure
    spaces that are not being renovated to meet the space guidelines, as this
    is not a high priority, but that moving forward, renovations of existing
    space will incorporate these guidelines.

    ^28In addition to the performance measures, the 24 data elements include
    elements designed to identify the property and describe the property's
    type, use, status, size, value, and restrictions.

    Table 1: Buildings Disposed of by the Smithsonian Since 2005, Including
    Elements of Decision and Proceeds, as Described by Smithsonian Officials

                              Key elements of disposal
    Building and purpose   decision                       Date and proceeds
    Bronx, New York,       No need for these warehouses   Sold in April 2005,
    warehouses used to     once these collections were    with proceeds of
    hold collections for   moved to the National Museum   $11.1 million, which
    the Museum of the      of the American Indian and the went to the
    American Indian        Conservation Research Center   Smithsonian trust
                              in Suitland, Maryland.         and debt related to
                                                             construction of
                                                             National Museum of
                                                             the American Indian.
    Victor Building in     Revitalization of area where   Sold in November
    Penn Quarter area of   building is located had        2005 with proceeds
    Washington, D.C., near increased the building's       of $59 million,
    the National Mall,     value; the Smithsonian         which went towards
    used for               determined it could reduce its relocating occupants
    administrative offices overall debt by selling,       to leased space and
                              moving many of its offices to  to the Smithsonian
                              more cost-effective real       trust.^a
                              estate, and leasing back two
                              floors.
    Cinderbed Road         The Smithsonian determined     Sold in November
    warehouse in Virginia  that the building should be    2005 with proceeds
    used for collections   sold for a number of reasons,  of $8.7 million,
    storage                including its lack of          which went to the
                              suitability for collections    Smithsonian trust.
                              storage and the chance to
                              maximize its underlying
                              monetary value. The property
                              was not fully utilized and
                              more cost-efficient locations
                              were available. As a
                              short-term solution, the
                              Smithsonian leased back 50
                              percent of the building until
                              it consolidates the
                              collections currently in this
                              warehouse into new leased
                              space, at which point it will
                              vacate the property.

    Source: Smithsonian Institution.

    aRegarding the proceeds from the Victor building, according to Smithsonian
    officials, per instruction from the Smithsonian's auditor, the proceeds
    from this sale were counted as cash in the Smithsonian's short-term
    portfolio and must be recognized at a rate of $4 million per year.

    OFEO has also taken steps to improve the maintenance of its facilities. In
    2005, we reported that OFEO identified and prioritized maintenance
    projects in conjunction with the museums and other facility groups by
    taking into account customer input; annual safety, health, and
    environmental inspections; code and regulatory requirements; and facility
    assessments. Since that time, it has made its prioritization process for
    maintenance projects more formal by establishing a 5-year maintenance plan
    in which maintenance projects are prioritized using the same matrix OFEO
    developed for capital projects.^29 OFEO also has been instituting a
    maintenance and inspection process called reliability centered maintenance
    (RCM) in an attempt to maximize the effectiveness of its maintenance
    resources. This process uses a combination of time-based actions,
    preventive maintenance, and run-to-failure approaches to reach the most
    cost-effective approach. OFEO officials stated that as part of this
    process, they completed an asset inventory and bar coding of all critical
    equipment and are in the process of inputting this information into a
    database that will produce work plans associated with each maintainable
    asset using RCM technology. The goals are that the system will ensure that
    predictive and preventive maintenance tasks are generated and performed
    for these assets, will contain historical cost and repair information
    about these assets, and will track the scheduling and completion of
    maintenance activities. They stated that the system will provide much more
    empirical data to make decisions with but that staff will need to be
    trained and become comfortable with using the system. They expect it to
    take 1 year before the system's data are fully accurate and useful.

    OFEO has also taken significant steps to develop and use performance
    metrics to monitor the effectiveness of its real property management
    efforts and help with decision making, which is also highlighted in the
    real property management initiative. OFEO has developed over 30 metrics
    that OFEO's director monitors monthly in order to benchmark with other
    organizations and spot possible problem areas. OFEO's metrics cover
    capital planning, project management, maintenance, customer satisfaction,
    worker safety statistics, and other areas. The director of OFEO requires
    staff to report on these metrics each month; the director then compiles
    the results and discusses them with Smithsonian leadership at a monthly
    meeting. According to Smithsonian officials, the monthly results of the
    metrics are also posted on the Smithsonian's intranet so that stakeholders
    throughout the institution can stay informed.

    Furthermore, OFEO has taken steps to improve its communications with
    museum and facility directors. OFEO holds regular meetings with museum and
    other facilities' directors in order to discuss and attempt to resolve any
    issues. OFEO also uses customer surveys to elicit feedback on maintenance
    and repair efforts, and it includes the results of these surveys as one of
    its metrics. All of the directors of museums and other facilities we spoke
    with said that OFEO communicates well with them. Several of the directors
    of museums and other facilities who were not satisfied with OFEO's
    customer service when we spoke with them for our 2005 report said that
    OFEO's customer service had improved significantly since then.

    ^29Under OFEO's prioritization matrix, each project is assigned one of
    four condition levels (catastrophic, critical, routine, and can defer) and
    one of five project types (shell/system failure, code compliance/security,
    nonroutine capital repairs, energy/operational efficiency, and
    alternations and modifications). This assignment determines the project's
    priority code, which may be from one (top priority for the budget year in
    which funding is sought) to five (lowest priority).

    Smithsonian's Capital Planning Process Incorporates Many Capital Planning
    Principles

    The Smithsonian has also taken steps to improve its real property
    portfolio management by refining elements of its capital planning process,
    which incorporates many capital planning principles as defined by our
    prior work and OMB.^30 According to our prior work, effective capital
    planning has clear implications for strategic real property management
    because it can help agencies make the most of limited resources. A number
    of laws enacted in the 1990s placed increased emphasis on improving
    capital decision-making practices, and OMB's Capital Programming Guide has
    attempted to address the government's shortcomings in this area.^31 In
    recent work, we identified five key capital planning principles contained
    in our and OMB's guidance. These principles are strategic linkage, needs
    assessment and gap identification, alternatives evaluation, a review and
    approval framework with established criteria for selecting capital
    investments, and a long-term capital investment plan. The Smithsonian's
    capital planning process incorporates elements of each of these
    principles.

    The Smithsonian's strategic planning and capital planning materials, such
    as its current strategic plan, performance plan, and annual goals,
    articulate strategic linkage between the Smithsonian's mission and the
    Smithsonian's vision for capital planning. Moreover, there is a clear link
    between the Smithsonian's vision for facilities expressed in these
    documents and the Smithsonian's 5-year capital plan.

    ^30GAO, Federal Capital: Three Entities' Implementation of Capital
    Planning Principles Is Mixed, [42]GAO-07-274 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 23,
    2007); GAO, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in Capital Decision-Making,
    [43]GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December 1998); OMB, Capital
    Programming Guide (Version 2.0) Supplement to OMB Circular A-11, part 7:
    Planning, Budgeting, and Acquisition of Capital Assets (Washington, D.C.,
    June 2006).

    ^31OMB's revisions to Circular A-11 also attempt to address the
    government's shortcomings in capital planning.

    Regarding needs assessment and gap identification, the Smithsonian's
    capital planning decision-making process is guided by a comprehensive
    assessment of facilities' conditions and needs and the identification of
    performance gaps between current and needed capabilities. This effort to
    assess needs and identify performance gaps is informed by two processes:
    facilities condition assessments and master planning. According to OFEO
    officials, in July 2006, OFEO implemented a new system to conduct
    condition assessments in order to be able to update its condition
    assessments for all of its facilities annually. This system includes a
    visual assessment and rating of the major building systems of each
    facility to determine the costs of its deferred maintenance. OFEO expects
    to have assessed all of its facilities under this system by August 2007.
    In addition, during this process, OFEO has updated the current replacement
    value of each facility and has found that the aggregate replacement value
    for Smithsonian facilities is $4.7 billion.^32 It is also calculating each
    facility's facility condition index, which is a ratio comparing a
    facility's current replacement value to its deferred maintenance costs
    that allows the Smithsonian to objectively compare its facilities to each
    other and benchmark the condition of its facilities with other facilities
    in order to assist in prioritization and decision making.

    OFEO also uses facilities' master plans to help assess facilities projects
    and identify gaps between current and needed capabilities. Currently, some
    of the Smithsonian's owned facilities have ongoing or completed master
    plans, and the Smithsonian plans to develop master plans for the rest of
    its owned facilities by fiscal year 2015. Master plans for facilities such
    as the Museum of American History include information on the current
    condition of the facility, including deficiencies, a plan for correcting
    these deficiencies, and a vision for improving the facility's space in
    order to enhance the facility's ability to meet its mission. According to
    OFEO officials, when a facility has an ongoing or completed master plan,
    the master plan informs the development of projects for the Smithsonian's
    capital plan. According to Smithsonian officials, facilities' master plans
    also incorporate alternatives evaluation by considering several
    alternative ways to meet a facility's defined mission.

    As we reported in 2005, the Smithsonian's capital planning efforts also
    include a review and approval framework with established criteria for
    selecting capital investments and a long-term capital investment plan.
    Each year, OFEO, working with the museums and other facility groups,
    develops an annual list of new and previously submitted projects, which
    are prioritized for inclusion in the annual 5-year capital plan using a
    prioritization matrix previously described in conjunction with the
    Smithsonian's 5-year maintenance plan. OFEO officials stated that they
    have refined this process in recent years. For example, according to OFEO
    officials, the discussions with the museums and research institutes now
    include the maintenance program as well as the capital program to ensure
    that all issues in each facility are taken care of in one of the programs.
    After the capital plan has been revised to reflect any new projects or
    changes in priorities, the updated capital plan is reviewed by the
    Smithsonian's Capital Planning Board^33 and the Secretary of the
    Smithsonian. After any revisions are made, the Board of Regents approves
    the Smithsonian's capital plan as part of the Smithsonian's annual budget
    submission to OMB, and then the entire budget submission is sent to OMB.

    ^32According to Smithsonian officials, this amount is undergoing
    additional review and may increase following the addition of more
    buildings to the equation.

    Funding Constraints Have Presented Considerable Challenges

    In spite of OFEO's efforts to effectively manage its real property
    portfolio within funding constraints, these constraints have presented
    considerable challenges. OFEO has not had sufficient federal funds to
    address all of the facilities projects identified in its current estimate
    of about $2.5 billion from fiscal year 2005 to year 2013, which comes to
    an average of about $278 million annually. As shown in table 2, annual
    federal capital and maintenance appropriations for Smithsonian facilities
    in recent years have been considerably below $278 million.

    ^33The Smithsonian's Capital Planning Board is made up of the chief
    financial officer (chairperson); deputy secretary and chief operating
    officer; under secretaries for Science and Art; chief executive officer of
    Business Ventures; chief information officer; general counsel; director of
    Policy and Analysis; and OFEO director.

    Table 2: Smithsonian Institution Facilities Capital and Maintenance
    Appropriations, Fiscal Years 2002-2007

    Dollars in millions
                   Facilities capital
    Fiscal year      appropriation Facilities maintenance appropriation  Total
    2002                     $97.9                                $14.5 $112.4
    2003                      98.8                                 17.0  115.8
    2004                     107.6                                 39.6  147.2
    2005                     126.1                                 38.2  164.3
    2006                      98.5                                 45.0  143.5
    2007                      98.6                                 51.3  149.9
    Total                   $627.5                               $205.6 $833.1

    Source: Smithsonian Institution.

    Note: According to Smithsonian officials, the facilities maintenance
    appropriations for fiscal years 2002 and 2003 reflect the proportion of
    the total salaries and expenses appropriation that went toward OFEO's
    maintenance budget. However, these numbers do not reflect the total funds
    used for maintenance by the Smithsonian for those years because some
    maintenance was funded through individual facilities' budgets rather than
    through OFEO's budget. Starting in fiscal year 2004, all facilities
    maintenance was funded through OFEO's maintenance budget, and the
    Smithsonian's maintenance appropriation reflected a line item in the
    Smithsonian's budget justification request to Congress.

    Funding constraints have reduced OFEO's ability to implement and complete
    capital projects to address long-standing problems with facilities, such
    as those described earlier in this report. The majority of museum and
    facility directors stated that they think OFEO does a good job of
    prioritizing and addressing problems with the amount of funds available,
    and, as discussed previously, some of the major facilities problems they
    identified to us are scheduled to be addressed in the next several years.
    For example, the electrical systems at the Air and Space Museum are
    scheduled to be replaced in fiscal years 2007 through 2010.

    However, Smithsonian officials stated that, generally, funding is
    available only for top-priority revitalization and emergency maintenance
    projects. As a result, some high-priority repairs have been put on hold
    while major revitalizations, such as the revitalization of the Reynolds
    Center, are completed. According to OFEO officials, the Reynolds Center
    revitalization became a top priority because the building was in such poor
    condition that it would have become unusable without a major
    revitalization. An OFEO official stated that prior to the revitalization,
    due to problems with the facility's systems, the water was undrinkable and
    there were incidents of bursting valves. Several museum and facility
    directors expressed frustration that projects at their facilities had been
    delayed. For example, the director of the Freer and Sackler Galleries
    expressed frustration that fixing the Quadrangle's condensate system,
    which threatens collections and has been a problem since 1993, was
    originally in the capital plan to be fixed in fiscal year 2006 but was
    delayed until fiscal year 2007 because of a lack of funding.

    Funding constraints for facilities maintenance have also limited OFEO's
    ability to implement its 5-year maintenance plan. OFEO officials stated
    that current funding enables the execution of only about 30 percent of its
    maintenance plan. As a result, OFEO is never able to get past the
    top-priority maintenance projects in the plan to complete other important
    maintenance projects. According to OFEO officials, a lack of sufficient
    funds for maintenance has limited their ability to optimally maintain
    their equipment, leading to more expensive failures later on and to
    systems that need to be replaced--and thus end up in the capital
    program--sooner than they might otherwise be.

    Some museum and facility directors described reservations about the
    centralization of facilities management under OFEO related to funding
    constraints and maintenance issues. About half of the museum and facility
    directors we spoke with were satisfied with OFEO's centralized facilities
    management approach, and some noted that OFEO has brought a higher degree
    of professionalism to the Smithsonian's real property management
    activities. However, several museum and facility directors who were less
    satisfied with OFEO's centralized facilities management approach cited a
    neglect of day-to-day maintenance due to a lack of staffing and funding or
    greater difficulty getting facilities funds to pay for small maintenance
    or repair projects.

    OFEO officials have attempted to get 2 percent of the Smithsonian's
    facilities' current replacement value for the maintenance budget--which is
    almost entirely federally funded--but they have not been able to do so.
    According to the National Research Council, an industry group, a
    maintenance budget of 2 percent to 4 percent of current replacement value
    is recommended to meet the appropriate maintenance requirements of
    facilities. Although the Smithsonian's maintenance appropriation increased
    in fiscal year 2007, it represented a maintenance budget of 1 percent of
    current replacement value.

    The Smithsonian's Omission of Private Funds from Its Capital Plan Has Made It
    Challenging for Stakeholders to Assess the Funding and Scope of Projects

    The Smithsonian's omission of privately funded facilities projects from
    its capital plan has added to its challenges in managing real property by
    reducing the ability of the Smithsonian and other stakeholders to
    comprehensively assess the funding and scope of facilities projects.
    According to OFEO officials, OFEO's efforts related to securing increased
    funds for facilities have centered on more effectively justifying to
    Congress the need for an increase in federal funds for facilities.
    According to OFEO officials, developing a funding strategy that goes
    beyond federal funding is a matter for the Board of Regents to determine.

    At the same time, while the Smithsonian has received private funds for
    facilities projects through donations, the Smithsonian has omitted
    privately funded projects from its capital plan. As discussed earlier in
    this report, it also has not included privately funded projects in its
    updated cost estimate of $2.5 billion for facilities projects through
    fiscal year 2013. Its capital plan and cost estimate therefore lack
    comprehensiveness and transparency and do not effectively communicate all
    of the Smithsonian's scope and funding priorities to the Board of Regents,
    OMB, and Congress in a way that could be helpful to considering funding
    strategies that go beyond federal funding.^34 In prior work, we have
    identified comprehensiveness as an important element of agencies'
    long-term capital plans.

    The Smithsonian includes information on the scope and funding of privately
    funded projects in other documents that are provided to stakeholders, such
    as the capital asset plans (Exhibit 300s) required to be submitted to OMB
    for each major new and ongoing project. However, a Smithsonian official
    described the capital plan as the primary document that defines the
    Smithsonian's long-term capital strategy, and the Smithsonian has used its
    cost estimate for facilities projects through 2013 to describe its
    long-term funding needs for facilities to Congress and other stakeholders.
    These two documents are therefore key places where the Smithsonian lays
    out its overall facilities needs and its strategy for addressing those
    needs. As a result, even though information on privately funded projects
    is detailed elsewhere, the lack of such information in these documents
    limits the ability of the Smithsonian and other stakeholders to
    comprehensively assess the funding and scope of facilities projects in the
    context of the Smithsonian's overall facilities' strategy--and
    de-emphasizes the existing and potential role of private funding in this
    strategy.

    ^34The Smithsonian submits its 5-year capital plan to Congress as part of
    its annual budget justification. In recent work on capital planning, in
    2007, we provided a matter for congressional consideration that Congress
    require agencies to develop comprehensive, long-term capital plans and
    submit them for congressional review in order to ensure that Congress is
    receiving the capital planning information it needs to make informed
    decisions. See [44]GAO-07-274 .

    The omission of privately funded projects from these documents is
    particularly noteworthy because in recent years, private funds have played
    an important role in funding some of the Smithsonian's highest-priority
    construction and revitalization projects. According to Smithsonian
    officials, in fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Smithsonian spent $393.4
    million in private funds for capital and revitalization projects, as shown
    in table 3.

    Table 3: Funding and Total Cost of Smithsonian Capital Projects That Have
    Received Private Funds for Capital Costs, Fiscal Years 2002-2007

    Dollars in
    millions
                           Private funds for
                          capital costs (new    Federal funds for capital   Total
                            construction and  costs (new construction and capital
    Capital project         enhancements)              revitalization)   costs
    National Museum of
    the American
    Indian                            $80                       $119.3  $199.3
    National Air and
    Space Museum Steve
    F. Udvar-Hazy
    Center, Phase I                 176.3                          8.7     185
    National Air and
    Space Museum Steve
    F. Udvar-Hazy
    Center, Phase II                  3.7                            0     3.7
    National Museum of
    American History                 39.2                         50.7    89.9
    National
    Zoological Park                  22.2                         80.9   103.1
    Donald W. Reynolds
    Center                             72                          166     238
    Total                          $393.4                       $425.6    $819

    Source: Smithsonian Institution.

    These private funds have been important in supplementing the Smithsonian's
    federal capital appropriations for facilities projects during this time
    period. For fiscal years 2002 through 2007, the Smithsonian received
    $627.5 million in federal capital appropriations, as shown previously in
    table 2. Therefore, altogether, the Smithsonian's funds for capital
    projects from fiscal years 2002 through 2007 was slightly over $1 billion
    ($393.4 million in private funds, used for new construction and
    enhancements, and $627.5 million in federal appropriations, used for new
    construction and revitalization). Private funds therefore made up 39
    percent of its capital funds for facilities during these years.

    Smithsonian officials stated that, generally, donors require that their
    gifts be used toward new construction or enhancements that are part of
    larger revitalizations, and that the majority of these private funds were
    donated for the construction of new facilities--namely, the Museum of the
    American Indian and the Udvar-Hazy Center. Smithsonian officials also
    stated that there is no assurance that private funds would continue to
    make up the same percentage of the Smithsonian's total funds for capital
    projects in future years.

    Other organizations we visited include both private and public investments
    in their capital plans to inform their stakeholders about the scope of
    projects and the extent of such partnerships used to fund capital needs.
    According to a senior vice president at the American Museum of Natural
    History in New York, describing the entire project and projected sources
    of income to the city of New York in the capital plan helps the museum
    make its case with the city and fosters a positive relationship. The
    official also stated that including the entire project in the capital plan
    can help show donors both the programmatic link to the museum's capital
    requests and the support expected by the city, which can help with the
    museum's private fund raising.

    Smithsonian officials stated that they do not project future private funds
    in the capital plan because of the uncertainty of what these amounts will
    be. In contrast, the University of California acknowledges this
    uncertainty in its capital plan but, nevertheless, includes privately as
    well as publicly funded projects in its plan, along with tentative
    projections and strategies for meeting those projections. It states, for
    example, that the Berkeley campus seeks funds for capital construction
    through targeted campaigns. In addition, the University of California
    distinguishes in the plan between privately funded projects the campus is
    committed to moving forward on in the 5-year period and privately funded
    projects it would move forward on only when funds are available--while
    including information on both. The lack of such information in the
    Smithsonian's capital plan de-emphasizes the potential for private funds
    to help address facilities projects and makes the capital plan less
    comprehensive in describing the scope of planned projects at the
    Smithsonian's facilities.

    The Smithsonian Has Taken Some Steps to Develop and Implement Funding
    Strategies, but Its Evaluation of Proposed Alternatives Has Been Limited

    The Smithsonian Board of Regents has taken some steps to address our April
    2005 recommendation to develop and implement a strategic funding plan to
    address its facilities projects. The Board of Regents created an ad-hoc
    committee, which, after reviewing nine funding options, requested an
    increase of $100 million in its federal appropriations, but the success of
    this strategy is uncertain. We found that some of the Smithsonian's
    evaluations of the other eight funding options were limited in that they
    did not always provide complete analysis, fully explain specific
    assumptions, or benchmark with other organizations. Also, the evaluations
    do not consider combining options in order to increase the amount of
    revenue generated.

    To Address Our Recommendation, the Smithsonian Requested an Increase of $100
    Million in Its Federal Appropriations, but the Success of This Strategy Is
    Uncertain

    The Board of Regents has taken some steps to address our recommendation to
    develop and implement a strategic funding plan to address the
    Smithsonian's facilities projects. In June 2005, the Board of Regents
    established the ad-hoc Committee on Facilities Revitalization to explore
    options to address the Smithsonian's April 2005 estimated $2.3 billion for
    facilities revitalization, construction, and maintenance projects through
    fiscal year 2013.^35 In September 2005, the ad-hoc committee held a
    meeting, at which it reviewed nine funding options that had been prepared
    by Smithsonian management for addressing this estimated funding need. The
    nine options are briefly described in table 4.

    ^35According to a Smithsonian official, at its June 2007 meeting, the
    board approved that the ad-hoc Committee on Facilities Revitalization
    become a standing committee.

    Table 4: Nine Funding Options Evaluated by the Ad-Hoc Committee on
    Facilities Revitalization

    Funding option             Description
    Federal income tax         Federal income tax returns would include a
    check-off contribution     check-off box to allow taxpayers to designate
                                  some of their tax liability to a special fund
                                  for the Smithsonian's facilities.
    Heritage treasures excise  An excise tax would be created, and possibly
    tax                        levied on local hotel bills, to generate funds
                                  for the Smithsonian's facilities.
    National fund-raising      The Smithsonian would launch a national
    campaign                   campaign to raise funds for its facilities.
    General admission fee      The Smithsonian would institute a general
    program                    admission charge to raise funds for critical
                                  but unfunded requirements.
    Special exhibition fee     The Smithsonian would charge visitors to attend
    program                    a select number of special exhibitions as a
                                  means to raise funds to meet critical but
                                  unfunded requirements.
    Smithsonian treasures pass The Smithsonian would design a program through
    program                    which visitors could purchase a Smithsonian
                                  treasures pass with special benefits, such as
                                  no-wait entry into facilities or
                                  behind-the-scenes tours, to raise funds to meet
                                  critical but unfunded requirements.
    Facilities revitalization  The Smithsonian would borrow funds such as
    bond                       through a private or public debt bond for the
                                  Smithsonian's facilities.
    Closing Smithsonian        The Smithsonian would permanently or
    museums                    temporarily close museums to the public in
                                  order to generate savings to help fund its
                                  facilities.
    Increasing Smithsonian     The Board of Regents and other friends of the
    appropriations             Smithsonian would approach the Administration
                                  about a dramatic appropriations increase to
                                  fund Smithsonian's facilities.

    Source: Smithsonian Institution.

    According to Smithsonian regents, after considering these nine proposed
    options, the ad-hoc committee decided to request an increase in the
    Smithsonian's annual federal appropriations, specifically deciding to
    request an additional $100 million over the Smithsonian's current
    appropriation annually for 10 years, starting in fiscal year 2008, to
    reach a total of an additional $1 billion. According to two regents, this
    option was selected for several reasons. First, they stated that although
    the other eight options would generate some funding for the Smithsonian's
    facilities projects, only an increase in appropriations had the potential
    of reaching the April 2005 estimate of $2.3 billion for facilities
    projects in nine years. Moreover, they stated that among Smithsonian
    management and regents, there was a strong feeling that the
    revitalization, construction, and maintenance of Smithsonian facilities
    are federal responsibilities.^36

    According to Smithsonian officials, it is the position of the Smithsonian,
    based on an historical understanding, that the maintenance and
    revitalization of facilities are a federal responsibility. Smithsonian
    officials pointed out that as early as the 1850s, the federal government
    has provided appropriations to the Smithsonian for the care of objects
    belonging to the United States. In addition, the regents added that there
    was a sentiment at the meeting that the Board of Regents should not offer
    to replace public responsibilities with private dollars, since private
    funding can be less reliable than annual federal appropriations.

    ^36While Congress does appropriate funds every year for the
    revitalization, maintenance and security of facilities, the Smithsonian
    could raise additional revenue or use existing unrestricted trust funds
    for these purposes.

    In September 2006, several members of the Board of Regents and the
    Secretary of the Smithsonian met with the President to discuss the issue
    of increased federal funding for the Smithsonian's facilities. According
    to Smithsonian regents, during the meeting, among other things, the
    regents discussed the problem of aging facilities and the need for an
    additional $100 million in federal funds annually for 10 years to address
    the institution's facilities revitalization, construction, and maintenance
    needs. The representatives of the Smithsonian at the meeting told the
    President that they had no other options to obtain this $100 million
    except the Smithsonian's federal appropriation. These representatives said
    the Smithsonian had made considerable expense cuts and raised substantial
    private funds, but donors are unwilling to donate money to repair and
    maintain facilities.

    The President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal, published in February
    2007, proposed an increase of about $44 million over the Smithsonian's
    fiscal year 2007 appropriation, representing an increase of about $9
    million for its facilities capital appropriation and an increase of about
    $35 million for its salaries and expenses appropriation--which includes
    facilities maintenance.^37 However, funds in the salaries and expenses
    appropriation also support many other activities, such as research,
    collections, and exhibitions, and it is not clear how much of the $35
    million increase the Smithsonian would use for facilities maintenance.
    Moreover, Congress may choose to adopt or modify the President's budget
    proposal when funds are appropriated for the fiscal year. According to two
    regents, while the $44 million increase in the President's proposed budget
    is good news for the Smithsonian and its facilities, it does not provide a
    complete solution for the April 2005 estimate of $2.3 billion in
    facilities projects, and, as a result, the Board of Regents will have to
    consider and implement other options. Furthermore, given the previously
    described increase in the Smithsonian's estimate for facilities projects
    to about $2.5 billion, even if the Smithsonian were able to secure a $100
    million increase in its federal appropriations for 10 years, to reach a
    total of an additional $1 billion by 2013, it would not fully address the
    Smithsonian's estimated funding needs for facilities projects. Figure 13
    shows a timeline summarizing some of the key events that have occurred
    since the Board of Regents established the ad-hoc Committee on Facilities
    Revitalization.

    ^37Specifically, the President's fiscal year 2008 budget proposal for the
    Smithsonian's appropriation proposed $107,100,000 for facilities capital,
    which includes funding for facilities projects, and $571,347,000 for
    salaries and expenses, which includes facilities maintenance.

    Figure 13: Timeline of the Ad-Hoc Committee on Facilities Revitalization
    Key Events

    Some of Smithsonian's Evaluations of the Other Eight Funding Options Were
    Limited

    The Smithsonian's evaluation of the other eight funding options that were
    presented in preparatory materials by Smithsonian management to the Board
    of Regents included the potential benefits and drawbacks of each funding
    option. However, we found that, in some cases, the Smithsonian's
    evaluation of these options was limited in that it did not always provide
    complete analysis, fully explain specific assumptions, or benchmark with
    other organizations--items crucial to determining each option's potential
    for reducing the April 2005 estimate of $2.3 billion in facilities
    projects.

    In the preparatory materials, several of the nine options are dismissed
    because, independently, the options would not generate the sizable sums
    required to address the Smithsonian's facilities projects. However, there
    is no mention of combining options in order to increase the amount of
    revenue generated. Combining options has the potential to raise more funds
    to address the Smithsonian's revitalization, construction, and maintenance
    projects at a faster rate than any one option independently. In fact, in
    the wake of the Board of Regents' failure to secure an increase of $100
    million from the President's proposed budget, one regent said that there
    is no single solution and a combination of options will have to be used to
    fund the Smithsonian's facilities projects. An analysis of the potential
    of combining options could have been useful to members of the ad-hoc
    committee in developing a funding strategy for the Smithsonian's
    facilities projects.

      Evaluation of the Option to Close Museums Is Not Complete

    In evaluating the option to close museums, the preparatory materials
    provided to the ad-hoc committee did not provide a complete analysis of
    the potential scenarios for closing museums in order to determine how this
    option could be implemented in a way that would maximize cost savings
    while minimizing revenue losses. This is important since the Smithsonian
    based its analysis of this option on the costs saved (i.e., for security
    and custodial staff) versus forgone concession revenue. For example, in
    one scenario, the Smithsonian proposed to close all museums on the
    National Mall 1 day a week (Tuesday), which would result in the
    Smithsonian earning zero concessions revenue from visitors on that day. On
    the other hand, the Smithsonian did not consider closing museums 1 day a
    week on a staggered schedule so that visitors would have a choice of some
    open museums each day of the week. This scenario would allow the
    Smithsonian to capture concessions revenue each day of the week--versus
    the scenario provided in the preparatory materials, in which there would
    be 1 day (Tuesday) with no opportunities for a visitor to spend money at
    the Smithsonian.

    In another scenario, the Smithsonian considered closing all museums on the
    National Mall for 3 days a week, except for the American Indian Museum,
    which would be closed for 2 days a week. Although, unlike in the previous
    scenario, the Smithsonian did stagger the three days on which the museums
    would be closed, the scenario included closing the three most visited
    museums in 2006--Air and Space Museum, Museum of American History, and
    Museum of Natural History--on some of the same days (see fig. 14).

    Figure 14: Smithsonian Institution's Scenario for Closing All Smithsonian
    Museums on the National Mall for 3 Days a Week

    As shown in Figure 14, the scenario of closing National Mall museums 3
    days a week included closing all of the art museums on the National Mall
    on the same day two times a week. Furthermore, the Smithsonian only
    considered this one scenario for closing museums on multiple days a week,
    rather than considering several scenarios to find the optimum combination
    of providing visitors with museum variety each day in order to maximize
    potential revenues. For example, Smithsonian did not analyze the following
    scenarios:

               o Limiting the days the three museums with the highest visitation
               rates and concessions earnings are closed, while focusing on
               closing the museums that have the lowest visitation and
               concessions earnings rates.

               o Ensuring that one or more art museums are open each day so that
               visitors interested in art have an option to visit at least one
               art museum each day--and spend concessions dollars in art museum
               restaurants and stores.

               o Closing only one of the three most visited museums each day to
               provide visitors more choices of where to go and ensure that at
               least two of these museums are capturing revenue.

               In discussing these two scenarios for closing museums, the
               Smithsonian did not explain why these options were evaluated over
               other options. It is also not clear why the Smithsonian chose to
               evaluate museum closures only on the National Mall. The
               Smithsonian has several other museums not located on the National
               Mall that it could also consider closing to save costs.

    			    Evaluations of the National Fund-Raising Campaign and Treasures
    				 Pass Program Options Have Unclear Assumptions

               In the preparatory materials provided to the ad-hoc committee, the
               Smithsonian's evaluation of implementing a national fund-raising
               campaign does not fully explain some of the assumptions used to
               determine the revenues, costs, and length of the campaign
               described. The analysis predicts that a Smithsonian national
               fund-raising campaign could generate $13 million to $16 million
               and limits the life of the campaign to 2 to 4 years. However, it
               is unclear how the Smithsonian developed these revenue and time
               figures, especially since the analysis cites the experiences of
               other campaigns whose revenue and time figures are much different.
               For example, the analysis describes the experience of the campaign
               for the World War II Memorial, which raised $165 million in 8
               years, or $20.6 million per year. In another example, the analysis
               describes the campaign for the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island
               Foundation, which raised $540 million in 19 years, or $28.4
               million per year.

               The Smithsonian's analysis also states that a national
               fund-raising campaign would require deferring fund-raising efforts
               from other Smithsonian-wide direct marketing efforts and cost $3
               million. However, the analysis does not estimate the cost of
               deferring current fund-raising efforts or explain how the $3
               million cost assumption was derived. Moreover, the analysis
               suggests that the costs of deferring current fund-raising efforts,
               plus the $3 million to implement a national fund-raising campaign,
               would outweigh any revenue gained; however, this might not be the
               case.

               With regard to the treasures pass program option, the analysis
               states that this option would generate a total annual net revenue
               of $8.4 million. This analysis is limited because it assumes that
               the cost to administer this program would be 40 percent of
               revenues--an estimated reduction of $5.6 million per year.
               However, it is unclear how the Smithsonian developed this
               assumption because its basis was not provided or discussed in the
               preparatory materials. In addition, the analysis discusses five
               other cultural organizations' use and cost to visitors of programs
               similar to a treasures pass program, such as the Longwood Gardens
               in Pennsylvania and the Field Museum in Chicago, but the analysis
               does not include information on these organizations' costs to
               administer this type of program.

    			    Evaluation of Implementing a General Admission Fee Program Lacks
    				 Benchmarks

               The Smithsonian's evaluation of establishing a general admission
               fee program does not use information from other organizations to
               comprehensively assess the option's potential benefits. In some
               instances, the Smithsonian did not perform research with other
               organizations, including one of its own, to gauge if its
               assumptions were reasonable. The analysis provided to the ad-hoc
               committee in preparatory materials states that a general admission
               fee program--which includes a mandatory admission fee for entry
               into any museum and the National Zoo and revenue from purchases of
               the Smithsonian's membership program that would provide free
               admission as a benefit --would generate a total annual net revenue
               of about $57.6 million ($50.7 million in admission fee revenue
               plus $6.9 million in new membership revenue).^38

               The analysis states that an admission fee could reduce the amount
               of money visitors spend at Smithsonian restaurants and gift stores
               and assumed a 10 percent reduction to annual net gains on the
               basis of visitor surveys. According to the Smithsonian's
               evaluation materials, visitors have indicated that if they had to
               pay an admission fee to enter Smithsonian museums, they would
               spend less once inside the museums. However, the Smithsonian's
               materials do not benchmark this assumption with the experiences of
               other museums that have established admission fees. We spoke with
               the directors or facility directors of six museums and one
               zoological park who stated that instituting or increasing
               admission fees did not decrease the amount of money visitors spent
               in museum restaurants and stores. One of these museums, the
               Cooper-Hewitt Museum, is the only Smithsonian museum that charges
               an admission fee.^39 The Cooper-Hewitt Museum director told us
               that he has not seen an effect on restaurant or gift shop sales
               when admission fees are raised. He stated that the increase in
               admission fees over the past three fiscal years has coincided with
               a period of uninterrupted growth in shop revenues. The stated
               experiences of these other museums suggest that the Smithsonian
               may need to analyze this assumption further by measures such as
               benchmarking with other museums.

    ^38The Smithsonian's general admission fee program estimate of $57.6
    million assumes about 7.8 million visitors and 540 new memberships.
    Visitor admission fees range from $3 to $10, and memberships are $16.

    ^39According to Smithsonian officials, the Cooper-Hewitt Museum was
    already charging admission fees when it joined the Smithsonian. In
    addition, it is located in New York City, where admission fees for museums
    are common.

               The Smithsonian's analysis of the general admission fee program
               also included an adjustment of the gross revenues to cover the
               cost of operating and administering an admission fee program. The
               Smithsonian estimates that the cost of operating a general
               admission fee program is 20 percent of gross revenues based on the
               experience of the Department of the Interior's National Park
               Service (NPS) and the Department of Agriculture's Forest Service
               (Forest Service) under the Recreation Fee Demonstration
               Program.^40 However, it is unclear in the analysis if the
               Smithsonian consulted directly with NPS or the Forest Service to
               better understand this estimate. According to the First Triennial
               Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2006 on the Recreational Fee
               Demonstration Program,^41 the average cost of collections for four
               federal agencies over fiscal years 2000 through 2003 has remained
               constant at about 20 percent of gross fee revenue. However, for
               fiscal year 2003, the cost of collection for NPS was about 22
               percent and for the Forest Service about 14 percent. While the
               Smithsonian may have chosen to use 20 percent in its analysis
               because it was the average cost of collections for four federal
               agencies over 4 years, given the variation in these numbers and
               the differences between NPS and the Smithsonian, more analysis may
               be warranted to determine the Smithsonian's likely costs of
               administering an admission fee program.

               For example, the analysis is unclear if the Smithsonian consulted
               with NPS to understand whether NPS's costs to operate the
               admission fee program would be similar to the Smithsonian's costs
               for an admission fee program. According to an NPS official, there
               are many factors that affect the cost to administer the NPS fee
               program, especially those costs related to the method by which
               fees are collected and administered, such as personnel costs,
               credit card processing costs, and the costs to transport and
               safeguard funds. For example, NPS collects fees from about 1,000
               locations and has costs associated with vehicles--sometimes
               armored--used to retrieve cash and deposit it into a bank. This
               cost can be high because many locations are geographically
               remote--i.e., the Grand Canyon and parks in Alaska. Since
               Smithsonian museums are not located in geographically remote
               areas, its costs to transport money could be lower than NPS's
               costs, and, therefore, a reason why the NPS fiscal year 2003
               estimate of 22 percent to administer the Recreational Fee
               Demonstration Program may not be applicable to the Smithsonian.

    ^40In 1996 Congress established an experimental initiative called the
    Recreational Fee Demonstration Program, which was scheduled to expire on
    December 31, 2005. The program focused on the activities of four land
    management agencies: the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service,
    Bureau of Land Management, and Department of Agriculture's Forest Service.
    Under the fee demonstration program, the participating agencies were
    authorized to establish, charge, collect, and use fees at a number of
    sites to enhance visitor services and to address a backlog of needs for
    maintenance and repair, among other uses. New authority, the Federal Lands
    Recreation Enhancement Act, was enacted by Congress as part of the fiscal
    year 2005 Omnibus Appropriations Bill, and the program is authorized for
    10 years.

    ^41The First Triennial Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2006 is the most
    recent report to Congress on the Recreational Fee Demonstration Program.
    The Recreational Fee Demonstration Program ended in December of 2004 and
    was replaced by the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act.

               We found that museums have different experiences with the costs
               associated with administering an admission fee program, and,
               therefore, it may not have been comprehensive enough for
               Smithsonian to look at the experiences of two federal agencies. An
               official from the Corcoran Gallery of Art--which is located in
               Washington, D.C., and is a private not-for-profit art
               museum--stated that initially there was a fixed cost to
               implementing the admission collection system, but once the system
               was implemented, the labor costs associated with administering the
               admission fee program were not directly measured because they were
               embedded in the operating costs of the organization. For example,
               employees assigned to administering the tickets serve multiple
               other functions, such as assisting visitors. The Corcoran official
               also stated that the revenue gained from admission fees exceeds
               the cost of administration. An official from the Museum of Modern
               Art (MOMA)--which is located in New York City and is a private
               not-for-profit art museum--expressed a similar point. The official
               stated that MOMA has no reason to measure the cost of
               administering the admission fee program because it is not a direct
               cost to the museum since this function is one of several assigned
               to museum employees. According to the MOMA official, absent an
               admission fee program, MOMA would still need the same number of
               staff to assist visitors at the museum.

               Two museums that measure the cost to administer the admission fee
               program had different experiences. An official with the Phillips
               Collection--which is located in Washington, D.C., and is a private
               not-for-profit art museum--told us that admission expenses as a
               percentage of admissions gross revenue averaged 26 percent over a
               3-year period. In contrast, an official from the American Museum
               of Natural History--which is located in New York City and is a
               private not-for-profit natural history museum--stated that
               admission expenses as a percentage of admissions gross revenue
               were approximately 13 percent for 2006.

               According to two members of the Board of Regents, the board
               recognizes that it may need to undertake further analysis of the
               funding options presented and consider additional funding options.
               In June 2007, the board voted to turn the ad-hoc committee into a
               standing Committee on Facilities Revitalization. The members of
               the Board of Regents also stated they recognized the need to work
               closely with Congress on this issue in the future. However, these
               regents told us that in light of other priorities, the board has
               not yet had time to fully reconsider funding strategies.

    			  Conclusions

               Clearly, the Smithsonian is at a crossroads, with significant
               construction, revitalization, and maintenance projects--including
               security-related projects--needed to better protect the
               Smithsonian's visiting public, staff, facilities, and collections;
               as well as funding constraints that have limited its ability to
               complete these projects in a timely manner. Adding to these
               strains is that the Smithsonian will continue to grow, with the
               congressionally authorized Museum of African American Culture and
               History. The Smithsonian's strengths in following key security
               practices and taking steps to effectively manage its real property
               portfolio are limited by these funding constraints.

               Moreover, while the Smithsonian has taken steps to effectively
               prioritize security projects, such as developing an all-hazards
               risk assessment report, the lack of awareness of many museum and
               facility directors of this report limits their ability to work
               with OPS to identify, monitor, and respond to changes in the
               security of their facilities, which may limit the Smithsonian's
               ability to ensure it is prioritizing existing resources as
               effectively as possible to minimize security risks. In addition,
               the Smithsonian's omission of privately funded projects from two
               key documents--its updated cost estimate of facilities projects
               through 2013 and its capital plan--makes these documents less
               transparent and comprehensive and thus of less value in
               communicating the full scope and funding needs of projects for
               capital decision making. The omission of private funds from these
               documents also de-emphasizes the existing and potential role of
               private funds in the Smithsonian's facilities strategy and the
               Smithsonian's flexibility to raise and use private funds for these
               projects.

               The Smithsonian's lack of resources to address urgent security and
               facilities needs underscores the importance of the Board of
               Regents' efforts to develop a more effective funding strategy.
               While the Board of Regents has considered a variety of funding
               options, at this point in time, it has yet to implement a strategy
               other than requesting increased federal funds. Moreover, since the
               Board of Regents did not analyze the nonfederal funding options in
               a comprehensive manner, it lacks vital information needed to
               develop a funding strategy that goes beyond federal funding.

               Further delays in implementing a viable strategy to fund the
               significant number of facilities projects at many Smithsonian
               facilities increase the risks to these facilities' collections. At
               some point, damage to priceless items may occur, and the ability
               of the Smithsonian to meet its mission will decline.
               Notwithstanding that the federal government has appropriated funds
               for facilities' revitalization, maintenance, and security, the
               Smithsonian could raise additional funds or use existing
               unrestricted trust funds for these purposes. It would appear that
               the Board of Regents' stewardship role, at a time of significant
               real property challenges and relatively constrained federal funds,
               obligates them to consider providing more private funds to meet
               the funding requirements of its overall mission.

    			  Recommendations for Executive Action

               We are making three recommendations to the Secretary of the
               Smithsonian and two recommendations to the Board of Regents.

               To ensure that the Smithsonian's museum and facility directors
               have the information they need to work with OPS to identify,
               monitor, and respond to changes in the security of their
               facilities, and to increase the comprehensiveness of key documents
               used to present the Smithsonian's long-term facilities needs and
               strategy, we recommend that the Secretary of the Smithsonian

               o ensure that museum and facility directors are aware of and
               understand the all-hazards risk assessment report for their
               facility, including how it affects the prioritization of security
               projects;

               o ensure that museum and facility directors receive daily
               information related to security issues, including the number of
               security officers assigned to the facility; and

               o include in the Smithsonian's estimate for facilities
               revitalization, construction, and maintenance projects through
               2013 and in the Smithsonian's capital plan the full scope of
               planned projects and information on planned funding
               sources--federal or private funds--for each.

               To address the Smithsonian's funding needs for facilities
               projects, we recommend that the Board of Regents

               o analyze, in a more comprehensive manner, the eight proposed
               nonfederal funding strategies, along with any additional
               strategies, for its facilities projects, including developing a
               clearer explanation of assumptions and incorporating the results
               of discussions with other cultural organizations and a
               consideration of combining funding options in this analysis; and

               o submit, following its completion of the comprehensive analysis,
               a report to OMB and Congress that describes a funding strategy to
               meet the needs of its revitalization, construction, and
               maintenance projects, so that OMB and Congress can understand the
               steps the Smithsonian is taking to meet these needs in addition to
               its requests for federal funding.

    			  Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

               We provided a draft of this report to the Smithsonian for its
               official review and comment. The Smithsonian concurred with the
               report's recommendations and generally concurred with the report's
               findings, including the strengths and challenges related to OFEO's
               efforts to manage the Smithsonian's real property portfolio and
               the strengths and challenges related to OPS's security efforts.
               Regarding our recommendations for improving the Smithsonian's
               communication on security issues, the Smithsonian stated that
               OPS's leadership understands the importance of communication with
               the management and staff of the facilities for which it provides
               security, and described specific actions OPS would take to
               implement our recommendations.

               Regarding our recommendations to the Board of Regents, the
               Smithsonian stated that the Board of Regents' Committee on
               Facilities Revitalization is working to address the Smithsonian's
               facilities needs through further evaluation of potential funding
               options. The Smithsonian stated that this committee is also
               planning to review existing Smithsonian funding priorities to
               determine if any funds are available to redirect toward facilities
               needs. Furthermore, the Smithsonian stated that the result of
               these efforts will inform the committee's plan to address the
               Smithsonian's facilities funding requirement, which will be
               presented in draft form to the full Board of Regents at its
               November 2007 meeting and in final form to OMB and Congress by the
               end of the year.

               Although the Smithsonian agreed with our recommendations, the
               Smithsonian expressed concerns about several issues in the report.
               The Smithsonian stated that we implied that the Smithsonian's
               private trust funds offer a solution to the Smithsonian's
               facilities crisis and that we reference the possibility of raising
               private funds to address facilities needs when, according to the
               Smithsonian, both of these approaches have difficulties associated
               with them. In general, we have suggested that both of these
               approaches may have the potential to increase the amount of funds
               available for the Smithsonian's facilities--to some extent.
               Furthermore, we have concluded that the difficulties associated
               with these approaches and alluded to by the Smithsonian underscore
               the need for our recommendation that the Board of Regents analyze
               a variety of funding options, many of which do not depend on
               convincing donors to give funds for facilities' needs, and develop
               a funding strategy.

               The Smithsonian also stressed its position that the revitalization
               and maintenance of federal facilities are federal
               responsibilities. We have concluded that the Board of Regents'
               stewardship role, at a time of significant real property
               challenges and relatively constrained federal funds, obligates
               them to consider providing more private funds to meet the funding
               requirements of its overall mission.

               In addition, while the Smithsonian concurred with our
               recommendation to include privately funded projects as well as
               federally funded projects in its capital plan and cost estimate of
               facilities projects through fiscal year 2013, the Smithsonian
               noted that much of this information is already available to
               stakeholders in other documents. We have concluded that,
               notwithstanding the fact that this information appears in other
               documents, it is important to incorporate it into these two
               documents, as these documents should comprehensively describe the
               Smithsonian's long term facilities' funding needs and strategy.
               The Smithsonian's full comments on our report and our more
               detailed response to these comments can be found in appendix III.

               In addition, the Smithsonian provided separate technical comments,
               which we incorporated into the final report, where appropriate.

               We are sending copies of this report to other interested
               congressional committees, the Chairman of the Smithsonian Board of
               Regents, and the Acting Secretary of the Smithsonian. We will also
               make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
               report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
               [45]http://www.gao.gov .

               If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
               (202) 512-2843 or [46]goldsteinm@gao.gov . Contact points for our
               Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
               on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
               are listed in appendix IV.

               Mark L. Goldstein
    			  Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues

    			  Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

               To determine how the condition of the Smithsonian's facilities has
               changed since our 2005 report, we interviewed the directors,
               Office of Facilities Engineering and Operations (OFEO) zone
               managers, and building managers for 14 Smithsonian facilities to
               obtain information on new facilities projects, continuing
               problems, and any adverse effects on collections. In addition, we
               toured eight facilities identified by the Smithsonian as having
               major revitalization projects or additional facilities-related
               problems since our April 2005 report to view facilities
               improvements or problems that have limited access to or had
               adverse effects on collections. The facilities we toured were the
               Cooper-Hewitt National Design Museum (Cooper-Hewitt Museum);
               Donald W. Reynolds Center for American Art and Portraiture, which
               houses the National Portrait Gallery and the Smithsonian American
               Art Museum; National Museum of African Art; National Museum of
               American History Kenneth E. Behring Center; National Museum of the
               American Indian; National Museum of Natural History (Museum of
               Natural History); National Zoological Park (National Zoo); and the
               Smithsonian's Suitland campus, which includes the Cultural
               Resources Center, Garber Facility, and Museum Support Center. The
               Garber Facility has about 40 buildings, and the National Zoo has
               more than 40 buildings. To obtain information on how the cost of
               Smithsonian facilities projects has changed since our 2005 report,
               we reviewed the Smithsonian's revised estimated costs for major
               revitalization, construction, and maintenance projects from fiscal
               year 2005 through fiscal year 2008 and interviewed Smithsonian
               officials.

               To determine the steps the Smithsonian has taken to protect its
               assets and the challenges it has experienced, we reviewed key
               security-related documents, such as Smithsonian's 2002 Disaster
               Management Program Master Plan, 2004 All-Hazards Risk Assessment
               Report, and 2007 Disaster Management Risk Mitigation Plan, Office
               of Protection Services (OPS) policies and procedures, and the
               Interagency Security Committee's key security practices. We also
               interviewed appropriate Smithsonian officials, including key
               personnel from OPS and the museum directors and building managers
               of the facilities we visited to obtain information on the security
               challenges OPS and each facility experiences. To obtain
               information on the methodology and purpose of some key
               security-related documents, we interviewed URS Corporation, which
               performed the Smithsonian's 2004 All-Hazards Risk Assessment
               Report and 2007 Disaster Management Risk Mitigation Plan and
               Applied Research Associates, which performed the Smithsonian's
               2002 Disaster Management Program Master Plan. Additionally, we
               interviewed various security organizations and committees on key
               practices for cultural property protection. The security
               organizations and committees include the American Association of
               Museums, APPA,^1 ASIS International's Museum, Library and Cultural
               Properties Council,^2 the Federal Facilities Council, the
               International Association of Museum Facility Administrators, and
               the International Facility Management Association and its
               Museum/Cultural Institutions Council. To obtain information on the
               Smithsonian's security cost trends from fiscal years 2001 through
               2005, we reviewed the Smithsonian's federal appropriations,
               obligations, and expenditures on security programs. To obtain
               information on the Smithsonian's security officer levels, we
               analyzed monthly staffing reports from March 2003 through March
               2007. We assessed the reliability of the security officer data
               from the Smithsonian by interviewing knowledgeable agency
               officials about data-collection methods, how the data is used, and
               steps taken to test the data. We determined that the data were
               sufficiently reliable for the purposes of reporting on security
               officer levels for March 2003 through March 2007.

               To determine the steps the Smithsonian has taken to improve the
               management of its real property portfolio, we reviewed our prior
               work on this issue and a variety of Smithsonian documents related
               to its real property asset management practices, including
               handbooks on project management, operations and maintenance, and
               real estate. We also reviewed Smithsonian documents related to
               capital planning and master planning, such as the fiscal year 2007
               through fiscal year 2012 Facilities Capital Program, the Museum of
               Natural History and the National Zoo's master plans, and minutes
               of the Capital Planning Board meetings. To obtain information on
               the Smithsonian's fiscal years 2002 through 2007 facilities
               capital and maintenance appropriations, we reviewed the
               Smithsonian's federal appropriations and spoke to Smithsonian
               officials. To obtain information on the Smithsonian's fiscal years
               2002 through 2007 private funds, we reviewed audited financial
               statements and spoke to Smithsonian officials. We found this data
               reliable for the purposes of reporting on the amount of the
               Smithsonian's federal appropriations for fiscal years 2002 through
               2007 used for facilities maintenance, revitalization, and
               construction. To obtain information on the progress of the
               Smithsonian's inventory of real property, we reviewed data from
               its real property information system. We also reviewed monthly
               metrics reports to obtain information on the Smithsonian's capital
               and maintenance benchmarks used for decision making. We also
               interviewed the director and chief of staff of OFEO, several heads
               of the offices making up OFEO, and the staff responsible for
               prioritizing both capital projects and minor repair and
               maintenance. We also reviewed documents relevant to the management
               of real property, such as Executive Order 13327, the Federal Real
               Property Council's Guidance for Asset Management, the General
               Services Administration's Federal Management Regulation: Real
               Property Asset Management Guiding Principles, and the Office of
               Management and Budget's Capital Programming Guide. We also
               obtained information from several facility organizations on key
               practices related to the management of real property portfolios.
               These organizations include APPA, the Federal Facilities Council,
               the International Association of Museum Facility Administrators,
               and the International Facility Management Association.

    ^1APPA is an association for educational facilities professionals,
    formerly called the Association of Physical Plant Administrators.

    ^2Founded in 1955 as the American Society for Industrial Security (ASIS),
    the organization officially changed its named to ASIS International in
    2002. ASIS International is a not-for-profit organization, disseminating
    information and educational materials to enhance security knowledge,
    practice, and performance.

               To determine the extent to which the Smithsonian developed and
               implemented strategies to fund its revitalization, construction,
               and maintenance projects, we reviewed materials developed by
               Smithsonian management for the consideration from the Board of
               Regents' ad-hoc Committee on Facilities Revitalization, which
               included an analysis of each of the nine funding options. In
               addition, we reviewed minutes of the Board of Regents' meetings
               that document efforts taken to develop and implement facilities
               funding strategies. We interviewed Smithsonian management and two
               members of the Board of Regents' ad-hoc Committee on Facilities
               Revitalization, including the chairman of this committee, to
               obtain information on how the nine funding options were developed
               and selected for implementation. To obtain information on other
               organizations' funding strategies for facilities projects, we
               spoke with officials from the Department of the Interior's
               National Park Service, the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry,
               the Corcoran Gallery of Art, the National Building Museum, and the
               Phillips Collection. We also reviewed the President's fiscal year
               2008 proposed budget and the Smithsonian's annual appropriations
               from fiscal years 2005 through 2007.

               To address all of the above objectives, we also conducted site
               visits at organizations in California and New York that have
               characteristics similar to those of the Smithsonian, where we
               reviewed relevant documents, toured facilities, and interviewed
               officials. In New York, we visited the American Museum of Natural
               History and the Museum of Modern Art. In California, we visited
               the California Academy of Sciences; the California State
               University Office of the Chancellor; San Jose State University;
               San Francisco State University; the University of California
               Office of the President; the University of California at Berkeley;
               the University of California at San Francisco; and the Zoological
               Society of San Diego, including the Wild Animal Park. We selected
               these organizations because they all have some features in common
               with the Smithsonian, including public and private funding,
               capital projects, real property portfolio make-up, and
               organizational mission. We selected New York to efficiently go to
               two large and heavily visited museums with characteristics similar
               to Smithsonian museums. We selected California because several
               facilities' management experts recommended that a university
               system with old buildings and geographically dispersed campuses
               would have similar characteristics to the Smithsonian, and in
               California we could efficiently visit the University of California
               system and the California State University system, both of which
               meet these criteria, as well as two other organizations with
               characteristics similar to those of the Smithsonian: a large and
               highly visited zoo and a science academy undergoing a major
               capital construction project.

               We conducted our work in New York City; San Diego and San
               Francisco; and Washington, D.C., from September 2006 to September
               2007 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
               standards.

    			  Appendix II: Smithsonian's Efforts to Implement Key Security
    			  Practices

               o Allocating resources using risk management. In order to allocate
               resources more effectively to manage risk, in 2002, OPS hired a
               contractor to develop a disaster management program master plan
               that combines disaster and emergency management planning and
               continuity of operations at all levels of the Smithsonian. The
               program addresses the three phases of a disaster or emergency:
               preparedness, response, and recovery. One aspect of the
               preparedness phase of the program recommended developing a risk
               assessment and risk management program. In order to develop the
               recommended risk management plan, in 2004, the Smithsonian
               contracted for an all-hazards risk assessment report, which
               includes individual assessments for over 30 Smithsonian facilities
               and was completed in 2005.^1 These reports identify the primary
               risks to each facility and also describe both the key observed
               vulnerabilities and risks and the key risk reduction and
               mitigation recommendations proposed for each facility to help the
               Smithsonian prioritize security projects. As a supplement to this
               report, in Spring 2006, the contractor completed a strategy that
               included specific recommendations on how to use the Smithsonian's
               capital and maintenance funds to implement future security
               projects and operational changes aimed at reducing the risks for
               Smithsonian facilities. From this strategy, the Smithsonian will
               develop a new performance metric to track risk mitigation efforts
               across its facilities. Many of the protective measures identified
               in the all-hazards risk assessment report have been implemented,
               will be addressed in the capital program, or can be integrated
               into an ongoing nonsecurity capital project. The Smithsonian uses
               these measures to determine the appropriate capital improvements,
               maintenance projects, and operational procedures to reasonably
               reduce the risk to Smithsonian staff, visitors, collections, and
               facilities.

               o Leveraging security technology. The Smithsonian's Physical
               Security Plan primarily consists of two separate programs for
               mitigating the risks to the institution's staff, visitors,
               collections, and facilities. The two programs, the security system
               modernization program and the anti-terrorism program, both
               leverage security technology to protect the Smithsonian's assets.
               The security system modernization program consists of measures
               that primarily support cultural property protection through the
               installation of electronic security systems. The Smithsonian uses
               a wide variety of technologies to meet the security system
               modernization program requirements. Smithsonian officials reported
               installing closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) and access
               entry technologies to augment existing security systems or
               establish a new program at some facilities. In addition, the
               security system modernization program plans to install additional
               electronic systems in several other Smithsonian facilities as soon
               as more funds become available. The anti-terrorism program
               consists of physical security measures and procedures that are
               primarily intended to mitigate the risk of a terrorist attack
               against the Smithsonian. The anti-terrorism program includes
               technologies such as perimeter vehicle barriers, CCTV, emergency
               voice systems, window blast film, and electronic screening of
               visitors and mail. According to a Smithsonian official, the
               technologies used for its physical security plan allow OPS to
               extend the capabilities of security staff and to improve facility
               security.

    ^1OPS consulted with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on the
    methodologies and consultants to use for the 2005 all-hazards risk
    assessment report. For a methodology, FEMA recommended its Risk Management
    Series Publication 452. For consultants, FEMA recommended the entity used
    to create the FEMA 452 Publication.

               o Performance measurement and testing. Smithsonian officials
               stated that the Smithsonian follows Interagency Security Committee
               (ISC) guidelines for setting performance measures for
               anti-terrorism measures it has implemented, in addition to
               performing some testing on its own security practices. As
               mentioned above, the Smithsonian is developing a measure to track
               the funding and implementation of recommended risk mitigation
               projects. Also, the Smithsonian designed and tested its own
               vehicle barriers and uses computer modeling to determine the best
               mitigation practices. Regarding OPS operations, the Smithsonian
               logs the number of visitor complaints on security staff and
               security practices at all facilities. To test its disaster
               response plans, the Smithsonian conducts regular mock evacuations.
               While many of these mock evacuations are done without visitors
               present, according to Smithsonian officials, in May 2007, OPS
               conducted a public evacuation drill of the Castle when visitors
               were present, and a similar drill is planned for the National Zoo.
               Following a mock or an actual evacuation, the Smithsonian conducts
               sessions to identify areas of improvement. For example, in June
               2006 the Smithsonian had to close facilities affected by flooding
               along the National Mall. Following these closures, the Smithsonian
               held meetings about improving facility evacuations. As a result,
               the Smithsonian altered its Disaster Management Plan because of
               lessons learned from the event, thereby demonstrating quickness in
               response and action.

               o Strategic human capital management. To strategically manage
               human capital as it relates to security, the Smithsonian has
               instituted training courses on terrorism awareness, emergency
               procedures, and shelter-in-place procedures for its security
               staff. Before September 11, 2001, security officer training was a
               two-week program; now the program is five weeks long, providing
               customer service training and instruction on the use of
               magnetometers, X-rays, and bag searches.
               o Aligning assets to mission. Smithsonian officials stated that
               none of its buildings on the National Mall are excess or
               underutilized, and, therefore, opportunities to align assts to
               mission by reducing excess or underutilized property in order to
               reduce overall vulnerabilities are limited. However, according to
               Smithsonian officials, any future building disposals will include
               the consideration of reducing security costs in order to more
               effectively use security resources at fully utilized buildings.

               o Information sharing and coordination. Smithsonian officials
               reported sharing and coordinating information with several
               external stakeholders through periodic meetings with many
               government and private sector organizations. As a national icon
               located on the National Mall, the Smithsonian coordinates with
               several law enforcement entities, including the Federal Bureau of
               Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security; the U.S. Park
               Police, the Metropolitan Police Department, and a local Joint
               Terrorism Task Force.^2 In addition, OPS also shares information
               with government and private sector security groups including ASIS
               International's Museum, Library and Cultural Properties Council,
               Interagency Security Committee, and the National Monuments and
               Icon Sector of the National Infrastructure Protection Plan.

    ^2The National Joint Terrorism Task Force (NJTTF) is an effort by the
    Federal Bureau of Investigation to coordinate the efforts of local
    joint-terrorism task forces in 100 cities nationwide. Local joint
    terrorism task forces include various local and state law enforcement
    entities and federal agencies, such as the Department of Homeland Security
    and the Central Intelligence Agency. NJTTF was created to enhance the
    FBI's ability to promote coordinated terrorism investigations between its
    field offices and with its counterparts in federal, state, and local law
    enforcement agencies, and other federal agencies.

    Appendix III: Comments from the Smithsonian Institution

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

    See comment 1.

    See comment 3.

    See comment 2.

    See comment 2.

    See comment 4.

    See comment 5.

    The following are GAO's comments on the Smithsonian Institution's letter
    dated September 19, 2007.

    GAO Comments

               1. The Smithsonian cited in its letter some accomplishments of its
               facilities management approach. While our report discusses steps
               the Smithsonian has taken to improve the management of its real
               property portfolio, we did not evaluate all of the accomplishments
               cited in the Smithsonian's letter.
               2. The Smithsonian stressed in its response that both the
               Smithsonian and donors believe that the revitalization and
               maintenance of the Smithsonian's facilities are federal
               responsibilities. We recognize that the federal government has
               played--and is likely to continue to play--an important role in
               funding the Smithsonian's facilities needs. However, as the
               Smithsonian has not received sufficient funds from the federal
               government to meet its facilities needs in recent years, and in
               light of the threat posed by many deteriorating facilities to the
               Smithsonian's collections and the public's access to these
               collections, we have concluded that the Board of Regents'
               stewardship role, at a time of significant real property
               challenges and relatively constrained federal funds, obligates
               them to consider providing more private funds to meet the funding
               requirements of its overall mission.
               3. The Smithsonian expressed concern that we implied that the
               Smithsonian's private trust funds offer a solution to the
               Smithsonian's facilities crisis. In our report, we pointed out
               that unrestricted trust funds could be used for facilities needs,
               including maintenance, revitalization, or security needs, but have
               not been used for such purposes. We recognize that such funds made
               up 6 percent of the Smithsonian's operating budget in fiscal year
               2006 and went towards other expenses. We did not analyze the
               Smithsonian's decision-making on how it distributed these
               unrestricted funds; however, it appears that the stated plan of
               the Smithsonian's Board of Regents' Committee on Facilities'
               Revitalization to review existing funding priorities to determine
               if any funds are available to redirect toward facilities needs is
               a positive step. The focus of our report is on the need for the
               Smithsonian to develop new strategies to raise additional revenue
               in order to significantly increase the amount of unrestricted
               funds that are available to be used for facilities needs.
               4. The Smithsonian expressed concern that we referenced the
               possibility of raising private funds to address facilities needs,
               and the Smithsonian stressed the difficulty of raising funds from
               donors for the operations, revitalization, and maintenance of
               facilities. The difficulty described by the Smithsonian of raising
               such funds from donors underscores the need for the Smithsonian to
               develop new funding strategies--that do not rely on individual
               donors' preferences--to raise revenue for these needs. For
               example, most of the eight funding options that the ad hoc
               committee on facilities revitalization considered (in addition to
               the option of seeking increased federal funds) and that we
               describe in our report do not depend on convincing donors to
               provide funds for facilities. Indeed, this difficulty demonstrates
               the importance of our recommendation that the Board analyze these
               eight proposed funding strategies in a more comprehensive manner
               in order to develop and implement a funding strategy. At the same
               time, the finding of the Smithsonian's commissioned report on
               fund-raising that all 12 organizations surveyed reported that the
               effort to secure support for deferred maintenance has been
               unsuccessful, except when embedded in programmatic improvements,
               describes both a perceived difficulty in securing private funds
               for deferred maintenance in general, but also the potential to do
               so when such projects are embedded in programmatic improvements.
               5. While the Smithsonian concurred with our recommendation to
               include privately funded projects as well as federally funded
               projects in its capital plan and cost estimate of facilities
               projects through fiscal year 2013, the Smithsonian noted that much
               of this information is already available to stakeholders in other
               documents and during processes such as congressional hearings. We
               recognize the Smithsonian includes information on privately funded
               projects in various documents that go to OMB, Congress, and other
               stakeholders. However, given that the capital plan is the primary
               document that defines the Smithsonian's long-term capital
               strategy, and that the Smithsonian has used its cost estimate for
               facilities' projects through 2013 to describe its long-term
               funding needs for facilities to Congress and other stakeholders,
               it is important that private trust funds be included in these
               documents so that the documents will provide a comprehensive
               picture of the full scope of facilities needs and the
               Smithsonian's long-term strategy for meeting those needs.

    Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

    GAO Contact

    Mark L. Goldstein, (202) 512-2834 or goldsteinm@gao.gov

    Staff Acknowledgments

    In addition to the contact named above, David Sausville, Assistant
    Director; Brandon Haller; Susan Michal-Smith; Alwynne Wilbur; Carrie
    Wilks; and Adam Yu made key contributions to this report.

    (543180)

    GAO's Mission

    The Government Accountability 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.

    Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

    The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
    is through GAO's Web site ( [47]www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
    newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
    have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
    www.gao.gov and select "E-mail Updates."

    Order by Mail or Phone

    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. Government Accountability 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

    To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

    Contact:

    Web site: [48]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
    E-mail: [49]fraudnet@gao.gov
    Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

    Congressional Relations

    Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [50]JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    Public Affairs

    Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 U.S.
    Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
    D.C. 20548

    To view the full product, including the scope
    and methodology, click on [51]GAO-07-1127 .

    For more information, contact Mark L. Goldstein at (202) 512-2834 or
    goldsteinm@gao.gov.

    Highlights of [52]GAO-07-1127 , a report to congressional requesters

    September 2007

    SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

    Funding Challenges Affect Facilities' Conditions and Security, Endangering
    Collections

    The Smithsonian Institution (Smithsonian) is the world's largest museum
    complex and research organization. Its annual operating and capital
    program revenues come from its own private trust fund assets and federal
    appropriations, with the majority of funds for facilities coming from
    federal appropriations. In 2005, GAO reported that the Smithsonian's
    current funding would not be sufficient to cover its estimated $2.3
    billion in facilities projects through 2013 and recommended that the
    Smithsonian Board of Regents, its governing body, develop and implement a
    funding plan. As requested, GAO described changes in the condition of the
    Smithsonian's facilities and estimate for project costs since 2005,
    analyzed the Smithsonian's steps taken and challenges regarding protecting
    and managing its real property portfolio, and assessed the Smithsonian's
    efforts to develop and implement strategies to fund its facilities'
    projects. GAO reviewed relevant documents and interviewed officials from
    the Smithsonian and other organizations.

    [53]What GAO Recommends

    GAO recommends that the Smithsonian (1) increase awareness of security
    issues; (2) include privately funded projects in its capital plan, and (3)
    comprehensively analyze funding options and report to Congress and the
    Office of Management and Budget on a funding strategy. The Smithsonian
    concurred with the report's recommendations.

    The Smithsonian has made some facilities improvements since our 2005
    report, but the continued deterioration of many facilities has caused
    further access restrictions and has threatened collections. The
    Smithsonian's cost estimate for facilities projects has increased to $2.5
    billion from $2.3 billion in April 2005. For example, a lack of
    temperature and humidity control at National Air and Space Museum storage
    facilities has caused corrosion to historic airplanes and increased the
    cost of restoring these items for exhibit.

    While the Smithsonian follows key security practices to protect its
    assets, it faces challenges related to ensuring that museum and facility
    directors are aware of security information and related to funding
    constraints. Some directors' lack of awareness of security information
    limits their ability to respond to changes in the security of their
    facilities. Also, some museum and facility directors stated that in the
    absence of more security guards, some cases of vandalism and theft have
    occurred. In addition, the Smithsonian has made significant strides in
    improving its real property portfolio management, such as improving its
    real property data and using performance metrics. However, the Smithsonian
    has omitted privately funded projects from its capital plan, making it
    challenging for the Smithsonian and stakeholders to comprehensively assess
    the funding and scope of projects.

    To address GAO's April 2005 recommendation regarding implementing a
    funding plan for its facilities projects, the Board of Regents created an
    ad-hoc committee, which, after reviewing nine options, requested increased
    federal funding. We found that some of the Smithsonian's evaluations of
    the nine funding options were limited in that they did not always provide
    complete analysis, fully explain specific assumptions, or benchmark with
    other organizations. Also, some options were dismissed because
    independently they would not generate enough revenue, but the evaluations
    do not consider combining options to increase revenues.

    Facilities Problems Include Leaks in the National Zoological Park's Sea
    Lion Pool and the Roof of the National Museum of African Art

    References

    Visible links
      35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-369
      36. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-725T
      37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-122
      38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-349
      39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-49
      40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-49
      41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1034T
      42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-274
      43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-99-32
      44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-274
      45. http://www.gao.gov/
      46. mailto:goldsteinm@gao.gov
      47. http://www.gao.gov/
      48. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
      49. mailto:fraudnet@gao.gov
      50. mailto:JarmonG@gao.gov
      51. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1127
      52. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1127
    *** End of document. ***