National Park Service: Employee Housing Issues (Testimony, 10/29/97,
GAO/T-RCED-98-35).

This testimony summarizes two GAO reports (GAO/RCED-93-192, Sept. 1993,
and GAO/RCED-94-284, Aug. 1994) on National Park Service employee
housing issues. GAO found that the Park Service has not clearly
justified the need for all of its employee housing units, nor has it
been able to provide detailed support for its backlog of housing repairs
and replacements. Individual park managers have broad discretion in
carrying out park housing policy, which has resulted in inconsistencies
in how the program is managed agencywide and raises questions about
whether some housing decisions are in the agency's best interest.
Finally, other federal land management agencies, such as the Forest
Service and the Bureau of Land Management, do not provide the same level
of housing to their employees. Because its mission stresses in-park
visitor services, the Park Service believes that it needs to provide a
larger number of its employees with in-park housing. Moreover, the Park
Service's mix of housing units contains more houses, multiplex units,
and apartments and fewer dormitories and cabins, making the agency's
housing inventory more costly to maintain.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-98-35
     TITLE:  National Park Service: Employee Housing Issues
      DATE:  10/29/97
   SUBJECT:  Housing programs
             Repair costs
             National parks
             Federal employees
             Housing repairs
             Maintenance (upkeep)

             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


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


Before the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies, Committtee
on Appropriations, House of Representatives

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
10 a.m.  EST
Wednesday
October 29, 1997

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE - EMPLOYEE
HOUSING ISSUES

Statement of Barry T.  Hill, Associate Director,
Energy, Resources, and Science Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-98-35

GAO/RCED-98-35T


(141126)


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

  BLM -

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to summarize our past work on
National Park Service employee housing issues.  Our comments today
are based on two reports that we issued in 1993 and 1994.\1 Where
possible, we have updated some of the information in preparation for
today's hearing.  While these reports are now a few years old, their
findings and recommendations are still valid. 

In summary our work has shown the following: 

  -- The Park Service has not clearly justified the need for all of
     its employee housing units.  The agency requires parks to
     perform needs assessments to justify its housing.  However,
     these assessments may not be in-depth, objective, nor performed
     consistently from park to park.  In response to the Omnibus
     Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996, the agency is
     beginning the process to assess the need for its housing units;
     however, this process is not scheduled to be completed until
     2002--9 years after we recommended such assessments. 

  -- The Park Service has not been able to provide detailed support
     for its backlog for repairing and replacing its housing
     inventory.  In 1993, we reported that the agency estimated its
     housing backlog at $546 million.  However, the Park Service
     could not support this figure.  Today, the agency estimates its
     housing backlog to be about $300 million.  However, the Park
     Service acknowledges that this figure is not based on a detailed
     assessment of its housing repair and maintenance needs but
     rather a gross estimate based on the total number of houses
     whose condition has been rated less than good. 

  -- Individual park managers have broad discretion in implementing
     park housing policy.  This has resulted in inconsistencies in
     how the program is managed across the agency and raises
     questions about whether housing decisions are being made in the
     best interest of the agency.  For example, the Department of the
     Interior's Inspector General's Office reported in 1996 that in
     constructing employee housing at the Grand Canyon, a former park
     manager decided to build 59 single-family houses.  At the time
     of the report, these houses were in the process of being
     constructed, and many of them had already been completed. 
     According to the report, the decision to build 59 single-family
     houses was made despite advice from the Park Service regional
     office and others that building a mix of 114 single-family and
     multi-family units would better address that park's housing
     shortage.  By building the single-family houses, the report
     stated that approximately 50 permanent and 100 seasonal
     employees would still be living in substandard housing at the
     completion of the construction.\2

  -- Other federal land management agencies such as the Forest
     Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) do not provide
     the same level of housing to their employees.  Because its
     mission emphasizes providing more in-park visitor services than
     the other agencies, the Park Service believes that it needs to
     provide a larger number of its employees with in-park housing. 
     For example, in 1994 we reported that the Park Service had one
     housing unit for every 5 employees, while the Forest Service had
     one unit for every 11 employees and the BLM had one unit for
     every 58 employees.  Furthermore, when compared with the other
     agencies, the Park Service's mix of housing units has relatively
     more houses, multiplex units, and apartments and relatively
     fewer dormitories and cabins.  Because of this, the Park
     Service's housing inventory is more costly to maintain. 


--------------------
\1 National Park Service:  Condition of and Need for Employee Housing
(GAO/RCED-93-192, Sept.  30, 1993), and National Park Service: 
Reexamination of Employee Housing Program Is Needed (GAO/RCED-94-284,
Aug.  30, 1994). 

\2 U.S.  Department of the Interior Office of the Inspector General,
Special Report:  Cost of Construction of Employee Housing at Grand
Canyon and Yosemite National Parks, National Park Service , (Report
No.  97-I-224, Dec.  11, 1996). 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

The Park Service has about 5,200 housing units which include
facilities such as detached single-family homes, multiplexes,
apartments, cabins, dormitories, and trailers.  These housing units
are located in many of the 370 parks throughout the country--although
about 70 percent of the housing inventory is located in western
parks. 

In accordance with Office of Management and Budget guidance, the Park
Service is authorized to provide park housing to seasonal employees
in all locations and to permanent employees (1) whose position
description requires them to live in the park to provide needed
service or protection or (2) when adequate housing in the local
community is not available.  In November 1996, the Congress passed
the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of 1996 (P.L. 
104-333).  This act required the Park Service to review and revise
its employee housing policy and conduct a park-by-park assessment of
the condition of and need for park housing units.  In response to the
act, the agency recently modified its housing policy to state that
housing will be provided for those not required to live in the park
only when all other alternatives have been exhausted.  However, Park
Service headquarters officials acknowledged that while the agency is
taking the steps needed to implement this policy, it may take a few
years for the field units to fully comply. 

Each park that provides housing is required by the Park Service to
have a housing management plan.  This plan is to identify the park's
need for housing, the condition of housing, and an assessment of the
availability and affordability of housing in nearby communities.  The
agency requires that the parks update their housing management plan
every 2 years so that it reflects the current need of the park. 
Housing management plans are generally approved at the park level by
the park superintendent--the senior park official at any park.  The
plans are not required to be reviewed or approved by agency regional
management. 


   THE NEED FOR EMPLOYEE HOUSING
   IS NOT FULLY JUSTIFIED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

In 1993, we reported that the Park Service had not fully justified
the need for all of its employee housing.  Most park housing is for
seasonal employees, employees at isolated parks such as Yellowstone
and the Grand Canyon, and employees who are required to live in the
park to provide needed service or protection such as law enforcement
rangers.  In 1993, these employees accounted for about 4,570 of the
agency's 5,200 housing units, and the justifications for these
housing units appeared adequate.  However, there was little if any
justification for the 630 remaining housing units for employees
located in nonisolated parks who were not required occupants.  Some
of these housing units were being provided because park managers
believed that adequate housing was not affordable in nearby
communities.  But, in 1993, we found that only 1 of 11 nonisolated
parks we visited had prepared the required assessments to show that
local housing was not affordable.  Furthermore, even though park
managers at some of these parks felt that adequate housing was not
affordable, the surrounding evidence suggested otherwise. 
Specifically, about 75 percent of the permanent employees at the 11
nonisolated parks were living in nearby communities. 

In updating this information for this hearing, we found that while
there has been some improvement, many of the same problems we found 4
years ago are still evident today.  For example, at a recent sample
of 15 parks, we found 7 parks did not have a current assessment of
the availability or affordability of housing in nearby communities. 
Park Service headquarters housing officials have raised concerns that
many assessments conducted at local parks are not being performed
consistently across the agency.  In addition, these officials said
that most Park Service employees are not technically qualified to
conduct assessments of real estate markets.  Furthermore, according
to these officials, because of the culture, tradition, and past
practices of the agency, park managers may not be able to provide an
unbiased objective review of the housing needs at any park.  As a
result, and in response to the requirements of the Omnibus Parks and
Public Lands Management Act of 1996, the agency is in the process of
issuing a contract to provide an assessment of housing needs within
the Park Service.  The contractor will review the justification of
those considered required occupants, the availability and
affordability of housing in nearby communities, and the condition of
existing housing facilities within each park.  If funding is
available, Park Service officials expect that the contract will be
completed and implemented by 2002. 

Once this contracted assessment is completed, the agency should have
a more consistent and objective assessment of its housing needs.  At
that point, agency headquarters and regional staff can use the
findings to better hold park managers accountable for their
management of each park's housing program. 


   BACKLOG ESTIMATE IS NOT BASED
   ON A FACILITY SPECIFIC
   ASSESSMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Today, as in 1993, the Park Service cannot provide detailed support
for its backlog of housing needs.  In 1993, we reported that the Park
Service estimated the backlog to be about $546 million--however, at
that time, the agency was not able to provide support for this
figure.  The 1993 report recommended that the agency develop a
repair/replacement estimate that is supportable.  Today, the agency
estimates that its housing backlog is about $300 million.  However, a
Park Service housing official acknowledged that this estimate is not
based on a park-by-park review of the condition of housing facilities
but rather a gross estimate based on the total number of houses whose
condition has been rated less than good.  (The condition of park
housing units are rated either excellent, good, fair, poor, or
obsolete.)

The Park Service anticipates that it will soon make some progress
towards having a supportable housing backlog figure as this is one of
the requirements of the upcoming contracted needs/facilities
assessment.  In response to the requirements of the Omnibus Parks and
Public Lands Management Act of 1996, the contractor, among the other
items previously discussed, will be required to provide a detailed
condition assessment for each housing facility within the parks
reviewed.  Once the contractor has reviewed all parks where housing
is provided, the agency will have a supportable backlog estimate of
its housing needs.  The contractor is scheduled to complete its work
in 2002--9 years after we raised this problem in our 1993 report. 


   PARK MANAGERS HAVE BROAD
   DISCRETION IN MANAGING THE
   HOUSING PROGRAM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

As required by the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management Act of
1996, the Park Service has reviewed and revised its housing policy. 
Its new policy puts greater emphasis on the use of government housing
as a last resort after all other alternatives have been exhausted. 
However, while the policy has changed, it has not yet been
implemented by park managers.  Until that happens, the employee
housing program will continue as it has--with individual park
managers implementing employee housing programs under broad
guidelines with little oversight.  As a consequence, there is a wide
range of employee housing conditions across the national park system
and no assurance that housing decisions are being made in the best
interests of the Park Service. 

In the 15 park units we recently surveyed, park managers took a
variety of approaches to providing employee housing.  Among the
sample of parks, we found wide disparities in the quality of the
analysis of local housing markets.  For example, at Harpers Ferry
National Historical Park, the housing management plan provided no
analysis of the local housing market.  Instead, it simply provided a
description of the local situation stating that:  "rental units are
very difficult to find .  .  .  single income park employees find it
difficult to secure adequate housing." Without supporting analysis,
there is no way to determine the validity of this assertion.  In
comparison, the analysis of local housing markets that accompanied
the housing management plan for Santa Monica National Recreation Area
was an in-depth analysis prepared by a contractor and exceeded 35
pages.  Similarly, at Arches National Park the housing analysis
included an in-depth assessment of the local housing market and
rental rates as well as an evaluation of the population and economic
base of the surrounding area.  Furthermore, we found that for 7 of
the 15 parks we sampled, assessments of local housing markets were
either out of date or had not been done. 

Another indication of the broad discretion given to individual park
managers is how housing units are allocated to employees.  Beyond
those employees whose position descriptions require them to live in
the park, park managers use a variety of methods to determine which
employees are provided park housing.  These allocation methods
include lotteries as well as a variety of ranking systems that give
weight to such factors as length of employment, salary, size of
family, and number and/or gender of children.  The net effect of this
is that housing decisions are not made consistently across the
national park system. 

The significance of the broad discretion given to individual park
managers is that the potential exists for housing decisions to be
made that may not be in the best interest of the agency.  This is
best illustrated by some recent work done by the Department of the
Interior's Office of the Inspector General at the Grand Canyon.  The
Interior Inspector General's Office reported in 1996 that in
constructing employee housing at the Grand Canyon, a park manager
decided to build 59 single-family houses.  At the time of the report,
these houses were in the process of being constructed, and many of
them had already been completed.  According to the report, the
decision to build single-family houses was made despite advice from
the Park Service regional office and others that building a mix of
114 single-family and multi-family units would better address the
park's overcrowded, unsafe, and substandard housing conditions. 
According to the report, by building the single-family units,
approximately 50 permanent and 100 seasonal employees would still be
living in substandard housing at the completion of the construction. 
In responding to this point, the park manager at the Grand Canyon
stated that it was never the park's intention to only build
single-family houses and that a mix of multi-family dwellings would
be constructed at a later time.  Nonetheless, the park manager's
decision has resulted in more employees living in substandard housing
units for a greater period of time. 

Furthermore, in reviewing records concerning the project's
justification for the high quality of materials, the Interior
Inspector General reported that the contracted architectural and
engineering firm noted that costs would drop significantly "if some
of the top-of-the-line items that the Park is insisting on, i.e.,
doors and windows, could be lowered a notch in quality." The report
stated that this proposal was not studied nor taken by the park.  The
park's decision on these matters is difficult to understand when
budgets are so tight and the agency is faced with large maintenance
backlogs and cutbacks in park services. 


   PARK SERVICE PROVIDES
   SIGNIFICANTLY MORE HOUSING THAN
   THE FOREST SERVICE OR BLM
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5

The Park Service has taken a different approach to employee housing
in comparison to BLM and the Forest Service.  While all three are
responsible for managing and protecting federal lands, the Park
Service provides a much larger portion of its employees with housing
than the other two agencies.  Also, the Park Service's housing
inventory contains proportionately more houses, multiplex units, and
apartments and fewer dormitories and cabins than the other two
agencies.  The sheer number and mix of the Park Service's inventory
combine to produce higher initial construction costs and recurring
maintenance costs for the agency. 

Compared with the Forest Service and BLM, the Park Service mission
emphasizes providing more in-park visitor services such as law
enforcement, search and rescue and other supporting activities.  As
such, the Park Service believes that it needs to provide a larger
number of its employees with in-park housing.  In 1994, we reported
that the Park Service had 23,908 employees and had about 4,718
housing units or about one housing unit for every 5 employees.\3 In
comparison, the Forest Service had 50,877 employees and 4,402 housing
units or about one unit for every 11 employees.  BLM had 11,861
employees and 206 housing units or about one unit for every 58
employees.  Another indication of the variance in the agencies'
housing programs is the extent to which the agencies require their
employees to live on-site.  In 1994, the Park Service required about
1,400 employees (about 9 percent of its permanent employees) to live
on-site in park housing to provide necessary visitor services,
protect government property and resources, or both.  In marked
contrast, according to agency officials, the Forest Service required
about 70 employees--less than 1 percent of its permanent
employees--to live on-site in government housing.  BLM had only two
employees who were required to live on-site. 

About 75 percent of the Park Service's housing inventory is composed
of single-family and multiplex units compared with about 50 and 26
percent, respectively, for the Forest Service and BLM.  In part,
because of the Park Service's mix of housing types, the agency has
experienced far higher repair and rehabilitation costs.  For example,
in 1993, we reported that the Park Service estimated a backlog of
$546 million for repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement of its
housing inventory; whereas the Forest Service, having about the same
number of units but a different mix, had a backlog of less than a
third of the Park Service.  A Park Service official had a difficult
time substantiating the difference beyond the fact that only a
portion of the difference resulted from the agency's higher
rehabilitation and construction standards and higher costs associated
with rehabilitating units classified as historic structures. 

Furthermore, in 1994 we reported that of the three agencies, only the
Park Service plans to replace and upgrade its housing.  Although the
Forest Service and BLM do not plan to stop providing housing
altogether, both plan to minimize their involvement in providing
housing to employees and instead rely more upon private sector
housing.  Among the reasons the Forest Service and BLM are minimizing
housing is that (1) their current housing inventories were too
expensive to maintain, (2) previous justifications for providing
housing were no longer valid, (3) better roads have made it easier
for employees to live in nearby communities, and (4) employees have
shown a preference for living in private residences. 


--------------------
\3 For each agency, the number of agency employees includes seasonal
staff and the number of housing units does not include trailers. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:5.1

In closing, the Park Service has been slow to resolve problems that
we have identified in past reports.  It has taken an act of Congress
to move the agency to review and revise its housing policies and make
arrangements to determine its need for and condition of its housing
inventory.  By taking these steps, the agency appears to be on the
right track toward making progress in key areas.  However, it's clear
that continued congressional attention is needed to ensure that the
Park Service is held accountable to provide housing only where it is
absolutely necessary and appropriately justified. 

Mr.  Chairman, this concludes my statement.  I would be happy to
answer questions from you or any other Members of the Subcommittee. 


*** End of document. ***