United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to the Chairman, Committee on

the Budget, House of Representatives

April 1998 NATIONAL PARK

SERVICE

Efforts to Link

Resources to Results

Suggest Insights for

Other Agencies

GAO/AIMD-98-113

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Accounting and Information

Management Division

B-279613 

April 10, 1998

The Honorable John R. Kasich

Chairman

Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The National Park Service faces a variety of complex resource and

management challenges, including an ever-expanding base of park units to

operate, an ambitious set of resource protection and visitor service goals,

and a temporary new recreation fee authority that is projected to

significantly increase the revenues of many parks. All this suggests that the

Park Service would benefit from aligning its planning and budgeting

processes to demonstrate how these challenges can be met with available

budgetary resources. However, in a prior report for you, we found that the

Park Service’s budget process is unconnected to agency performance

goals, decentralized, and focused on justifying increases to a fixed base.1

The approach the Park Service has taken to develop its strategic plan and

link its planning and budgeting processes under the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 provides a case study in the

challenges that need to be overcome in (1) introducing servicewide goals

to an organization that has traditionally been managed as 376 separate

park units and (2) shifting from a budget process that is unconnected to

servicewide goals and performance to one that links results to be achieved

with available resources.

Accordingly, you asked us to (1) describe how the Results Act has

influenced planning and budgeting at the Park Service, (2) discuss the

extent to which strategic and annual planning and budgeting processes

have become linked and the challenges in achieving such a linkage, and

(3) provide any insights that the Park Service’s experiences with

results-oriented management and budgeting suggest for other agencies

implementing the Results Act.

This review was an extension of previous work that described the process

the Park Service used to develop budgets and establish operating

priorities.2

 We drew heavily from this prior review to describe the planning

1

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

1997).

2

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

Page 1 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

and budgeting practices at the Park Service prior to its implementing the

Results Act.

To address the three objectives for this review, we selected a judgmental

sample of park units that reflected a variety of types of operating units

located in different regions of the country. In addition, we selected parks

and service centers with different degrees of experience in implementing

the Results Act. For example, 6 of the 10 units we reviewed had

participated in early testing of the Results Act, while 4 had not. At each

location, we conducted structured interviews with officials at Park Service

headquarters, three regional offices, eight parks, and two service centers.

Although we broadly summarize the views of these officials for reporting

purposes, their observations were not directly quantifiable and, thus, are

not necessarily generalizable across the Park Service. Also, at each of the

locations, we reviewed planning and budget documents, including

strategic plans, annual performance plans, budget requests, and financial

plans. The following regional offices, parks, and service centers were

included in our review.

• The Intermountain Regional Office in Denver, Colorado, the National

Capital Regional Office in Washington, D.C., and the Southeast Regional

Office in Atlanta, Georgia.

• George Washington Memorial Parkway in Virginia, Great Smoky

Mountains National Park in North Carolina and Tennessee, Harpers Ferry

National Historical Park in Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia,

Independence National Historical Park in Pennsylvania, Olympic National

Park in Washington, Rocky Mountain National Park in Colorado,

Vicksburg National Military Park in Mississippi, and Yellowstone National

Park in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming.

• The Denver Service Center in Lakewood, Colorado, and the Harpers Ferry

Interpretive Design Center in Harpers Ferry, West Virginia.

We reviewed a variety of our recent reports for general background

information on implementing the Results Act.3

 For information about

linking strategic plans to budgets in government programs, we reviewed

recent public administration literature and reports based on our prior

general management reviews.

3

See, for example, The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide

Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997), Managing for Results: Critical Issues

for Improving Agencies’ Strategic Plans (GAO/GGD-97-180, Sept. 16, 1997), and Managing for Results:

Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Can Help Address Strategic Planning Challenges

(GAO/GGD-98-44, Jan. 30, 1998).

Page 2 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

Because it is still early in the implementation of the Results Act, we

focused on the Park Service’s approach to implementing the act and on its

progress to date, rather than on the quality of their plans or on compliance

issues. Our work was done from July 1997 through March 1998 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Director of the

Office of Financial Management of the Department of the Interior or his

designee on March 26, 1998. The Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife

and Parks provided written comments that are incorporated as

appropriate. The comments are reprinted in appendix I.

Results in Brief The Park Service implemented the Results Act by instituting a

results-oriented planning process that has introduced for the first time

servicewide goals to be achieved by park managers. At the same time, the

Park Service addressed the diversity and decentralized nature of the park

system by requiring parks to develop strategic plans to address both

applicable servicewide goals as well as goals specific to their unique

legislative and operating environments. Both the Park Service and

individual parks and programs have prepared strategic and annual

performance plans with measurable outcome-oriented goals. To link these

plans to their budget, the Park Service designed an information system to

report park estimates of spending according to goals. For fiscal year 1999,

the Park Service included its first annual performance plan in its budget

justification, along with traditional functional and park-by-park

presentations. Lastly, budget formulation in the parks has changed slightly

by requiring parks to assign a servicewide goal to each request for

increased funds.

Although the Park Service has made some progress in connecting

performance plans with budgets, significant issues remain to be resolved.

The Park Service’s efforts to track actual spending according to

performance goals have been hampered by the incompatibility between its

activity-oriented budget and accounting systems and its goal-orientated

strategic plan. Park staff we interviewed said it was too soon to tell

whether the strategic planning process will influence how budgets are

executed—i.e., allocated and spent—at the park level.

Park Service staff we interviewed said that key factors for implementing

the Results Act included

Page 3 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

• combining strong central guidance and support with extensive field staff

involvement in all phases of the process,

• demonstrating visible support from top management,

• stressing the importance of strategic plans for communicating budgetary

needs, and

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

The most frequently cited challenges involved performance measurement

and information systems. Performance measurement is complicated by the

difficulty of defining outcome-oriented performance measures, such as

those for improving water quality and protecting endangered species; a

lack of baseline data to provide a starting point for assessing performance;

and the difficulty of aggregating park-level performance to servicewide

goals. Park staff also identified as a challenge the absence of information

systems that link spending information to goals.

Despite limited experience with managing for results, parks reported some

benefits from their initial efforts. Benefits included better information

about how park resources were being spent on desired park outcomes and

increased communication and resource sharing across division lines.

Although few parks could provide examples of significant changes arising

from their strategic planning efforts, most were hopeful that, with more

experience, the focus on results would prompt new ways of thinking about

how to achieve park goals.

Although the Park Service is still in the early stages of implementing the

Results Act, the progress it has made and the challenges that remain

provide valuable insights that could prove useful to other agencies as they

implement the act. The Park Service has demonstrated how to develop an

agencywide strategic planning process in a decentralized operating

environment. Park Service officials recognized that strong field-level

involvement in developing the servicewide plan and the field-oriented

approach to implementing the Results Act resulted in greater ownership

by the field staff charged with achieving the results. Also, by setting broad

servicewide goals and giving line managers flexibility to create their own

unique plans within the umbrella of the servicewide plan, there is greater

assurance that an appropriate balance can be achieved between

servicewide and park-specific goals. Lastly, as will be the case in most

federal agencies, performance goals will need to be better linked to budget

and accounting systems to truly affect formulation and execution

decisions. However, changes to these systems will require extensive

Page 4 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

consultations and consensus among the agency, the Office of Management

and Budget (OMB), and the Congress.

Background The Park Service is the caretaker of many of the nation’s most precious

natural and cultural resources. Today, more than 100 years after the first

national park was created, the national park system has grown to include

376 units, most of which were created individually through legislation or

presidential proclamation. The national park system covers roughly

83 million acres of land and includes an increasingly diverse mix of sites.

In fact, there are now 20 different categories of park units. The most

common categories include (1) national parks, such as Grand Canyon in

Arizona, (2) national historical parks, such as Independence in

Pennsylvania, (3) national battlefields, such as Antietam in Maryland,

(4) national historic sites, such as Ford’s Theatre in Washington, D.C.,

(5) national monuments, such as the Statue of Liberty in New York,

(6) national preserves, such as Yukon-Charlie Rivers in Alaska, and

(7) national recreation areas, such as Lake Mead in Arizona and Nevada.

Figure 1 depicts the geographic dispersion and diversity of the units in the

National Park System.

The Park Service also operates servicewide programs from headquarters.

For example, the Associate Director for Cultural Resources, Stewardship,

and Partnerships operates the Cultural Resources Preservation Program,

which provides funds for archeological, ethnographic, and historical

research; the preparation of management studies, object cataloging,

historic structure reports, and cultural landscape reports; and other

research, planning, and data collection activities.

The line of authority in the Park Service runs from the director and the

deputy director to seven regional office directors. The function of the

regional offices is to provide oversight and support of park operations.

Regional directors directly supervise the performance of park

superintendents in their regions. Regional offices also run programs for

the parks in their regions. For example, regional offices run the Cyclic

Maintenance Program, which provides funds for regularly scheduled

preventive maintenance and preservation projects in the parks.

In addition to the regional offices, the Park Service operates the Denver

Service Center, which provides planning, design, and construction services

for major park programs and complex projects for parks and the Harpers

Ferry Interpretive Design Center, which provides the planning, design, and

Page 5 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

production of interpretive media for the parks. A variety of field resource

centers, such as the North Atlantic Historic Preservation Center and the

Southeast Archeological Center, also provide centralized technical

services to parks.

Below the regional office level, parks in the same geographic area are

organized into one or more groups called clusters. Each park in the cluster

is represented by its superintendent. Cluster members meet periodically to

set priorities for park funding requests and to provide mutual operating

support. For example, a manager of a park with a short-term resource

need, such as for a specific technical skill or piece of equipment, could

raise this issue at a cluster meeting and obtain temporary assistance from

another park in the cluster.

Page 6 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

Page 7 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

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

Page 8 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

Page 9 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

As table 1 shows, the account structure of the Park Service’s budget is

organized around functional activities, such as operations, construction,

and land acquisition.

Page 10 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

Table 1: National Park Service Budget

Accounts, Program Activities, and

Subactivities

Account name Program activities/subactivities

Operation of the national park system Park management

 Resource stewardship

 Visitor services

 Park support

 Maintenance

External administrative costs

Reimbursable program

Construction Construction

Emergency, unscheduled, and housing

projects

Planning

General management plans

Equipment replacement

Reimbursable program

National recreation and preservation Natural programs

Cultural programs

Grant administration

International park affairs

Statutory or contractual aid

Heritage partnership programs

Land acquisition and state assistance Land acquisition

Land acquisition administration

State grants

State grant administration

Operation and maintenance of quarters Operation and maintenance of quarters

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

system

National Park Renewal Fund National park renewal fund

Historic Preservation Fund Grants-in-aid

National trust for historic preservation

Construction (trust fund) Cumberland Gap tunnel

Baltimore-Washington Parkway

Urban park and recreation fund Urban park and recreation fund

Miscellaneous permanent appropriations Miscellaneous permanent appropriations

Miscellaneous trust funds Miscellaneous trust funds

Source: President’s Budget, Fiscal Year 1999.

Page 11 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

As figure 2 shows, most of the Park Service’s budget is for operations. For

fiscal year 1997, the Park Service obligated about $1.7 billion. Of this,

about $1.2 billion covered the cost of operating the national park

system—including parks, headquarters, regional offices, programs, and

certain service centers.

Figure 2: National Park Service

Budget, Fiscal Year 1997

0.3%

National Park Renewal Fund

•

2.2%

Historic Preservation Fund

•

2.2%

National recreation and

preservation

•

3.8%

Land acquisition

• 4.4%

All other

18.3%•

Construction

68.8%•

Operations

Sources: President’s Budget, Fiscal Year 1999; United States Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Justification.

Page 12 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

Figure 3 breaks down the nearly 69 percent of the budget that goes to

operations. About 70 percent of the operating funds go directly to the

parks to cover the costs of their day-to-day operations. This operating

budget is the primary funding source for any park and it is generally

referred to as the park’s base budget. Parks compete within their regions

or at the servicewide level for another 13 percent of the operating funds,

which typically pay for one-time projects, such as those involving cyclic

maintenance, ethnography, preservation of natural resources, or removal

of hazardous waste. There are over 25 different sources of these project

funds, each with its own criteria and application process.

Figure 3: National Park Service

Operating Budget, Fiscal Year 1997

•

7.9%

External administration

• 9.0%

Central offices

13.1%•

Projects

70.0%•

Base—park and field organizations

Sources: President’s Budget, Fiscal Year 1999; United States Department of the Interior, National

Park Service, Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Justification.

The Park Service’s detailed budget justification presents the budget in a

variety of ways. The dominant presentation is by budget account, program

Page 13 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

activity, and subprogram activity, as shown in table 1. Each budget

account has its own section justifying proposed changes in funding. In

addition, the operating budget includes separate sections for each major

function—resource stewardship, visitor services, maintenance, and park

support. The account-level sections include other presentations for

requested funds, such as by object class. Finally, the budget is presented

according to the specific operating, construction, or other funds being

requested for individual parks and programs. These park-by-park

presentations, rather than the functional, object class, or performance

presentations, generally serve as the basis for allocating appropriated

funds to parks and programs and for controlling spending.

Park entrance and recreation fees represent another source of funds for

park units. Until recently, fee revenues collected offset rather than

supplemented a park’s income. Recent legislation changed this treatment.

The 1996 Recreation Fee Demonstration Program enabled 100

demonstration parks to raise park entrance or recreation fees and retain

80 percent of total fees as added budget authority.4

 The remaining 20

percent of the fees would be allocated for areas, sites, or projects selected

at the discretion of the agency head.5

Planning and

Budgeting Becoming

More

Outcome-Oriented

Under Results Act

Under the Results Act, the Park Service for the first time has introduced

servicewide goals to be achieved by park managers. Both the Park Service

and individual parks have prepared 5-year strategic plans and annual

performance plans. Budget formulation has changed slightly by requiring

parks to assign a servicewide goal to each request for increased funds.

Park staff we interviewed said it was too soon to tell whether the strategic

planning process will influence how budgets are executed—i.e., allocated

and spent—at the park level. Although the Park Service has made some

progress in aligning its budget structure and processes with its strategic

plan, its efforts to link its plans and budgets have been hampered by the

incompatibility between its activity-oriented budget and accounting

systems and its goal-orientated strategic plan. Because park managers do

not have systems to track spending according to goals, either dual systems

4

First enacted by the fiscal year 1996 appropriations act for Interior and Related Agencies. See Public

Law No. 104-134, Sec. 315, 110 Stat. 1321-200 (1996). This provision was later modified by the fiscal

year 1998 appropriations act. See Public Law No. 105-83, Sec. 320, 111 Stat. 1596 (1997).

5

We recently testified that new revenues from the 3-year demonstration fee program are anticipated to

provide the Park Service with over $100 million annually. In some cases, the new revenues will as

much as double the amount of money available for operating individual park units. See National Park

Service: Maintenance Backlog Issues (GAO/T-RCED-98-61, Feb. 4, 1998). For a discussion of federal

user fees in general, see Federal User Fees: Budgetary Treatment, Status, and Emerging Management

Issues (GAO/AIMD-98-11, Dec. 19, 1997).

Page 14 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

or crosswalks will be required to communicate the relationship between

resources and results.

Planning and Budgeting at

the Park Service Before

the Results Act

At the level of the individual parks, long-range and annual planning are not

new. For nearly 20 years, each unit in the park system has been required to

have a general management plan to guide the preservation and use of each

unit over a 10- to 15-year period. The planning process includes

consultation with the public to clearly define a park’s purpose and

significance, set goals and objectives, identify desired future conditions,

and evaluate alternatives. Parks are also required to have a resource

management plan, which defines park objectives concerning both natural

and cultural resources and documents the status of the resources and

outlines actions to ensure their well-being; it is the blueprint for

comprehensive management of a park’s resources.

A park’s general management and resource management plans are

intended to identify the basic facilities, staff, interpretive materials, and

equipment needed to run the park in a manner consistent with both its

enabling legislation and the purposes, goals, and objectives identified

during the planning process. Therefore, the plans serve as the basis for

funding requests, such as for new construction, land acquisition, base

operating increases, or project funds.

At the park level, annual planning closely follows the budget cycle. About

18 months prior to a fiscal year, staff in each park analyze their needs and

develop requests for increases to the prior fiscal year’s budget for base

operations. Park officials generally justify such increases as needed to

carry out new or higher levels of ongoing operations, e.g., additional staff

needed to run a new visitor center or to restore operations that were

previously curtailed because past budgets did not keep pace with rising

costs. Parks compete against one another for limited funds through the

cluster, regional, and headquarters hierarchy.

During the summer prior to the start of the fiscal year, staff in each park

begin to plan how expected budget authority for base operations will be

allocated to various park divisions, such as resources management,

maintenance, or interpretation. The final base operating budget allocated

to each park is the lump sum listed for each park in the Park Service’s

budget justification, plus or minus any changes that were made during the

Page 15 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

appropriations process.6 The Park Service imposes no additional controls

on how the base funds are spent. For example, the financial plans

developed by park managers showing projected spending by object classes

are for informational purposes only. Park managers have flexibility to

obligate and spend the funds as needed for ongoing operations. However,

as we previously reported, many park budgets are dominated by the pay

and benefits costs associated with permanent staff.7

 According to many

Park Service officials we spoke with, this reduces the flexibility of park

managers to reallocate resources in the short term.

The fee demonstration program has resulted in a new budgetary process

for the 97 projects selected to participate.8

 Under the demonstration

program, park proposals to spend added fee revenues have not been

subject to competition or scrutiny during the budget formulation process.

Rather, parks must submit proposed spending plans for estimated fee

revenues to headquarters just prior to the budget year and may only spend

fee funds on projects that have been approved.9

As we noted in our report on the way the Park Service sets and budgets for

operational priorities,10 previous long-range and annual planning have not

identified outcome-oriented park goals, results to be achieved, or the

resources necessary to achieve those results. As a result, accountability in

the Park Service has lacked a focus on the outcomes of park operations.

Accountability for park outcomes is especially important for an agency

like the Park Service, which has traditionally set priorities and developed

budgets at the park level. Under this decentralized management structure,

individual park managers can make decisions about park operations that

may or may not be consistent with the agency’s mission, priorities, or

goals.

6

The regional offices we interviewed subtracted a small amount of funds from each park’s base

allocation to pay for uniforms and training for park staff. One region we interviewed assessed

1 percent of each park’s base budget to pay for unexpected park-level needs that arise during the fiscal

year.

7

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

1997).

8

The temporary fee demonstration authority expires at the end of fiscal year 1999, although revenues

collected will remain available through the end of fiscal year 2002 (16 U.S.C. 460 l-6C, note).

9

Park managers are restricted by law in how these funds may be used. The funds collected under this

program must be used for backlogged repair and maintenance projects (including projects related to

health and safety) and for interpretation, signs, habitat or facility enhancement, resource preservation,

annual operation (including fee collection), maintenance, and law enforcement relating to public use.

The funds may not be used to plan, design, or construct any permanent structure without prior

approval of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations if the estimated cost of the facility

exceeds $500,000.

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

Page 16 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

Park Service Used

Field-Oriented Approach

to Strategic Planning

The nature of the Park Service’s mission and decentralized structure

necessitated a phased, field-oriented implementation of the Results Act.

We previously reported that the Park Service’s mission has dual

objectives: to provide for the public’s enjoyment of the resources that have

been entrusted to its care and to protect its natural and cultural resources

so that they will be unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.11

Balancing these often competing objectives has long shaped the debate

about how best to manage the national park system. The competing

missions and decentralized management culture of the Park Service

provided a challenging environment in which to introduce common,

servicewide missions and goals as called for by the Results Act.

To overcome these challenges, both headquarters and field staff were

engaged in drafting and exchanging comments on early draft strategic

plans. Park Service staff have characterized this approach as “diagonal”

rather than “top-down” or “bottom-up”; all described this approach as both

difficult and frustrating. However, the same staff commented that this

approach was probably the only way to develop a servicewide plan that

balanced the needs of both headquarters and field staff and therefore

achieved a degree of acceptance and ownership by both groups.

A key element of the Park Service’s approach to implementing the Results

Act has been extensive field testing. During the summer of 1995, the Park

Service undertook “prototype” exercises in strategic planning and

performance measurement at six parks and three programs. The

experiences of those prototype parks and programs along with help from

planners at the Denver Service Center shaped the Park Service’s strategic

planning process and led to the development of some initial performance

measures. During fiscal year 1996, staff from a park or program from each

cluster, known as lead parks, worked to refine the goals in the servicewide

plan and the implementation process. The experience of the prototype and

lead parks also led to the development of written guidance used to train

staff at the rest of the parks during the first part of fiscal year 1997. A more

detailed description of the Park Service’s approach to implementing the

Results Act is contained in appendix II.

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

Page 17 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

Results Act Has Led to

Outcome-Oriented,

Servicewide Goals

Under the Results Act, the Park Service for the first time has developed a

servicewide strategic plan stating the Park Service’s mission, mission

goals, and outcome-oriented long-term goals that describe in measurable

terms a desired future condition.12 The servicewide plan serves as the

umbrella for plans developed by parks, programs, and offices.13 The

long-term goals in the plan are to be achieved over a 5-year period from

fiscal year 1998 to fiscal year 2002. The top portion of figure 4 depicts the

structure of the Park Service’s strategic plan. Appendix III contains a more

detailed description of the Park Service’s mission, mission goals, and

long-term goals.

12According to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs report accompanying the Results Act, a

performance goal is the target level of performance (either output or outcome) expressed as a

tangible, measurable objective against which actual achievement will be compared.

13“Parks” refers to the 376 park units in the national park system. “Programs” refers to regional or

servicewide programs, such as the Hazardous Waste Program. “Offices” refers to central support

offices, such as the seven regional offices as well as headquarters. Hereafter, unless otherwise noted,

parks, programs, and offices will be referred to collectively as “parks.”

Page 18 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

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

I a2

By 2002, 25% of the 1997 identified park

populations of federally listed and threatened

species with critical habitat on park lands or

requiring NPS recovery actions have an

improved status . . .

Goal category

Mission goal

Long-term goal

Long-term goal

Park 

Level

Servicewide 

Level

Goals

Work plans

Park performance measures,

funds, and FTEs are aggregated 

across all parks to form the

servicewide annual performance

plan

National Park Service Mission

Preserve Park Resources

I a2.1

In fiscal year 1998, restore 5% of discrete

populations of CutthroatTrout based on locations

identified in recovery plan . . .

I a2.1.b

In fiscal year 1998, remove 5% exotic species;

replace with 5% Cutthroat fingerlings.

$15,000

0.1 FTE

I a2

By 2002, 25% of the 1997 identified park

populations of federally listed and threatened

species with critical habitat on park lands or

requiring NPS recovery actions have an

improved status . . .

Ia1 Ia3

Ia1 Ia3

Ia2.2 Ia2.3

Ia2.1a Ia2.1c

I a

Natural & cultural resources & associated

values are protected, restored & maintained in

good condition & managed within their broader

ecosystem & cultural context

Ib Ic

II III IV

National Park 

Service

Annual 

Performance 

Plan

Fiscal Year 1999

a

b

"Park" refers to any park unit, program, or office.

If a servicewide long-term goal is applicable to a park, the goal must be included in the park's plan, although the

percentage target may be changed. Parks may also develop their own additional long-term goals that reflect the

priorities of their particular mission and mission goals.

a 

b 

Annual

performance

plan

Page 19 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

According to Park Service officials, by September 30, 1997, each park had

prepared a long-term strategic plan that mirrored the goals in the

servicewide plans. Parks whose activities contributed to any of the

servicewide long-term goals were required to include those long-term

goals in their strategic plans. Parks could also include long-term goals that

were not in the servicewide plan, but still fit within the Park Service’s

broad categories of goals. Park-level strategic plans cover the same 5-year

period as the servicewide strategic plan. To link the strategic plans with

park operations, parks also prepared annual performance plans that detail

the specific performance goals for fiscal year 1998 and the activities,

operating funds, and full time equivalent (FTE) staff needed to achieve the

annual goals.

Park Service officials told us that the first servicewide annual performance

plan was created by summing across all parks the annual performance

targets, such as the number of acres to be restored, for each long-term

goal, along with the operating funds and FTEs associated with the annual

performance target. The Park Service calculated servicewide percentage

performance targets based on the park-level input. Figure 4 shows this

process with an example of a goal—and the actions and resources needed

to achieve that goal—taken from the strategic and annual performance

plans of one of the parks we visited.

Changes to the Budget

Process in Early Stages of

Implementation

The Results Act is based on the premise that budget decisions should be

more clearly informed by expectations about program performance.14 The

Park Service has taken initial steps to align its planning and budget

processes. Under the Results Act, the Park Service’s process for

formulating requests for base funding increases has changed slightly.

Parks requesting a funding increase are now required to specify which

long-term goal will be addressed by such an increase. Park Service

guidance also suggests that parks justify their requests for funding

increases by describing how the increase would enable the park to meet

its goals. Therefore, as such requests are evaluated at the cluster, regional,

and headquarters levels, reviewers will have additional information about

the specific Park Service goal to which the request will contribute. At the

time of our review, however, parks were not required to demonstrate the

level of performance that could be achieved with the requested funds.

14Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA Implementation (GAO/AIMD-97-46,

Mar. 27, 1997).

Page 20 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

As a first step toward bringing the agency’s budget presentations in line

with its performance goals, the Park Service has developed an information

system, called the Performance Management Data System (PMDS), which

enables parks to enter their annual performance goals, along with the

estimated funds and FTEs needed to achieve the goals, into a servicewide

information system. PMDS is an internal Web site for the Park Service that

provides users with information on the Results Act, including technical

guidance, a list of the Park Service’s goals, data entry screens for

performance and budget information, and the ability to generate various

reports, such as performance and resource information by long-term goal,

region, or park. For each goal, there is a data entry page on which parks

enter long-term goal, baseline, and annual target information, along with

the funds and FTEs needed to achieve the targets for fiscal years 1998,

1999, and 2000. During the initial transition period, parks entered data for

fiscal year 1998 only. According to Park Service officials, out-year data

was to be entered by staff in each park during March 1998 for the next

budget cycle.

Park Service officials said that it was too soon to tell whether the strategic

planning process will influence how budgets are formulated and executed.

Although the Park Service used PMDS data to produce its fiscal year 1999

annual performance plan, which was included in its fiscal year 1999

budget justification to Congress, the justifications remained focused on

traditional functional and organizational budget presentations. Most park

managers also said that it was too soon to evaluate the influence of

strategic planning on resource decisions. For example, despite park

managers’ relative freedom to spend base operating funds as needed

within total allocations, some Park Service officials cited the relative

inflexibility associated with budgets dominated by increasing personnel

costs as a barrier to changing resource allocations to achieve performance

goals. One park official said that the strategic and annual performance

planning process will not likely lead to changes in resource decisions until

parks begin to track performance against goals.

Not All Funding Sources

Linked to Park Plans

To develop park-level and servicewide annual performance plans, the

budget office instructed parks to assign only base operating funds to their

annual goals. This decision was made because base operating funds are

considered the only stable source of funding for purposes of planning over

the 5-year period of the strategic plan. However, park-level officials

commented that base operating funds are only one of a variety of sources

of funding used to accomplish a park’s goals. Many parks also rely heavily

Page 21 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

on other sources of funding, including project funds, volunteer time, and

concession payments to accomplish their goals. For example, the budget

division chief observed that the servicewide strategic plan calls for parks

to increase visitor satisfaction. A park manager may decide that fixing

bathrooms will contribute to this goal, but may use project rather than

base operating funds to pay for the repairs. Because project funds cannot

be included in the park’s annual performance plan, this activity would be

excluded from the park’s plan.

According to the budget division chief, the problem with parks assigning

project funds to their goals is that parks must compete for those funds

annually. Since they cannot count on having those funds from one year to

the next, they cannot confidently project 5 years forward how those funds

will help them accomplish their long-term goals. Since headquarters

program directors or regional directors control the allocation of project

funds, these managers were responsible for assigning the funds and FTEs

for each project to the servicewide goals on the basis of past uses of the

funds at the park level.

The budget division chief said that resolving this issue in a way that allows

park managers to incorporate project funds into their plans may force the

Park Service to require parks to submit prioritized requests for project

funds at the same time they request increases to base funding (i.e.,

following the timetable for budget formulation). This would be a change

from current practice, in which overall levels of project funding are

formulated and requested in the President’s budget, but specific projects

are not subsequently selected and placed in priority order until just prior

to the budget year.

Park Service Goals Differ

From Activity Structure of

Budget and Accounting

Systems

Park Service officials told us that creating a direct link between planned

and actual spending and the Park Service’s annual goals is complicated by

the fact that the existing budget and accounting structures are

activity-oriented and do not mesh well with the goal-orientation of the

Park Service’s strategic plan. The activity orientation of the account

structure can be seen in table 1.

The current budget structure is also the foundation for the Park Service’s

accounting system. As park and program managers execute their budgets,

they set up accounts associated with maintenance, interpretation services,

park support, etc., and use established codes to record the nature of the

expense, e.g., trails and walks (maintenance), special interpretive

Page 22 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

programs (interpretation and educational programs), and administration

(park support). Thus, park and program managers can use the budget and

accounting systems to plan how much they intend to spend on an activity

and then track actual spending against the plan. In the Park Service, these

planning and budgeting systems are for park-level management purposes;

for financial control purposes, the Park Service monitors spending only

against total allocations to individual parks and projects.

In contrast to the activity orientation of the budget and accounting

systems, the Park Service’s goals describe desired future conditions—or

outcomes—in the areas of resource protection, visitor services,

preservation of resources through partnerships, and organizational

effectiveness. PMDS captures estimated park and program spending by

goal. It was not, however, designed to be an accounting system. Currently,

park managers have no way to track or report how actual spending

compared to planned spending by goal at the end of the fiscal year. Park

Service staff told us that until the agency develops a system for linking its

goals to its budget and accounting systems, parks will continue to produce

two sets of books: one for planning purposes using data from PMDS and

another for financial accountability and budget execution purposes using

data from separate budget and accounting systems.

As a potential fix for this duplication, the Park Service is in the process of

modifying its park-based financial management system to allow parks to

create a crosswalk between their budget projections and actual cost data

and their strategic goals. According to a planning document prepared by

the Park Service’s Accounting Operations Center, the crosswalk would

allocate all of a park’s accounts in the budget execution system to the

park’s goals. Park managers would determine the percentage of the

budgeted and actual funds in a particular account that would be

automatically allocated to each park goal. For example, a park could

associate all funds in an existing road maintenance account to a single

goal, such as enhancing the visitor experience, or it could split the funds

among a variety of goals using set percentages, such as 50 percent for

Page 23 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

enhancing the visitor experience and 50 percent for preserving park

resources.15

Changes to Budget

Structure Would Require

Dialogue With Congress

Park Service officials commented that, carried to its logical end,

outcome-oriented management of the Park Service would require dramatic

changes to the existing budget structure. The traditional activity-oriented

budget structures would need to change to reflect the results or outcomes

of the Park Service.

However Park Service officials were concerned about such a change

because of the associated disruption, costs, and loss of historical trend

data. Park Service officials we spoke to emphasized that any change in the

budget structure would need to involve extensive discussions with

Congress to determine if any proposed changes would meet congressional

needs for oversight and control.

Some preliminary discussions have already occurred, but no changes were

proposed in the fiscal year 1999 budget.16 In its report on the fiscal year

1998 Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill,

the House Committee on Appropriations suggested that “agencies examine

their program activities in light of their strategic goals to determine

whether any changes or realignments would facilitate a more accurate and

informed presentation of budgetary information.”17 In response to this

suggestion, the Park Service has developed a preliminary proposal to

change its budget structure to achieve a better alignment with the goals in

its strategic plan. This proposal is currently being reviewed internally by

the Department of the Interior. The proposal would keep current budget

accounts intact, but would replace existing program activities or

15The Park Service’s planned allocation of accounting data to goals raises issues related to achieving

the objectives of the Statement of Federal Financial Accounting Standards No. 4—Managerial Cost

Accounting Standards. The standard, which is being implemented by federal agencies in their financial

statements for fiscal year 1998, calls for accumulating and reporting cost information by

“responsibility segments” and by “cost objects.” For the Park Service, an individual park is a

responsibility segment and a specific goal is a cost object. According to the standard, there are several

ways to assign costs by responsibility segment and cost object. For example, a reasonable and

consistent allocation of costs could use a relevant common denominator, such as direct labor hours,

that would be consistently applied across parks.

16Hearings before the Subcommittee on Interior and Related Agencies of the House Committee on

Appropriations, 105th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 791-793 (1997). Park Service officials discussed how

the budget presentation might change if the budget were linked to the agency’s strategic goals. See

also Senate Committee Report 105-56, Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations

Bill, 1998, p. 7.

17OMB has also recognized that such changes are likely and has encouraged agencies to consider

modifying their budget structures so that budget and performance information is presented in a more

understandable and thematic way.

Page 24 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

subactivities within those accounts with new program activities or

subactivities to reflect the Park Service’s major goals in the areas of

resource protection, the visitor experience, and partnerships to conserve

resources and provide recreation.

Park Service’s

Experiences With

Results Act Provide

Insights for Other

Agencies

Park Service officials identified several key aids to implementing

results-oriented management in the Park Service. These included using a

field-oriented approach to training and development of strategic plans,

providing top management support, and introducing budget constraints.

These officials also identified challenges, such as the difficulty of holding

managers accountable for achieving park goals, developing appropriate

measures for achieving goals, and linking planning systems to budget and

accounting systems. The officials told us that, despite these challenges, the

strategic planning process produced benefits, such as increased

communication and resource sharing within parks and information about

how resources were being allocated among goals. There was less

agreement that the process had resulted in any major operational changes

to date. Some park staff said the process confirmed that they were

generally doing the right things; others said the process had led them to

make changes to meet a goal they had identified or to question

assumptions about park operations. Several park managers were hopeful

that their strategic and annual performance plans would provide a more

effective way to justify their budgets.

Field-Oriented Approach

to Training and

Development of Strategic

Plans Was Essential

The Park Service’s field-oriented approach, in which park managers

participated in the development of the planning process, the servicewide

plan, and, ultimately, the development of park-level plans, was essential to

make these plans and processes meaningful to park staff and obtain their

support. For example, the Park Service chose to pilot test the strategic

planning process at 25 parks. Staff at one of those parks said they could

see a lot of their work reflected in the final servicewide strategic plan. At a

non-test park, staff said they benefited from the pilot approach by avoiding

previously tested approaches that proved unworkable.

Training developed by the Park Service was also cited as a key aid to

implementing the Results Act at the park level. Staff commented that the

guidance and hands-on form of training provided a good basis for staff to

develop their own strategic plans. For example, one park manager said

that, in addition to presentations at the annual superintendent’s

conference and cluster meetings, the park’s management staff received 4

Page 25 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

hours of training with the director of the Office of Strategic Planning (OSP)

and a day of hands-on training with the regional office’s Results Act

coordinator. The training sessions provided examples of mission

statements and goals from other parks and definitions of terms. Among the

handouts provided were copies of templates for strategic and annual work

plans. The manager said that all this material was helpful in getting started.

Another park manager commented that his staff could not have developed

their strategic plan without the training. In that region, nearby parks

formed groups and the staff from the region’s lead parks and the regional

director’s office led 2-day workshops for each group. Staff said they made

a few wrong turns in the beginning, but the training and feedback helped

them get back on track.

In addition to hands-on training, park managers reported that the Park

Service training and guidance aided implementation by stressing that they

should develop their park-level strategic plans in a way most useful for

their particular operations within the overall framework of the

servicewide plan. This approach increased the credibility and acceptance

of the strategic planning process in individual parks. One park manager

observed that most parks had a great deal of control over how the Results

Act was applied in their parks and could focus on the elements of the

servicewide plan that were most useful to them according to their unique

values and needs.

Top Management

Demonstrated

Commitment to Successful

Implementation

Top management support for implementing the Results Act by both

regional directors and high-level headquarters managers aided

implementation by emphasizing the importance of the effort. One park

manager told us that, at a recent superintendent’s conference, the deputy

director of the Park Service made it very clear during his presentation that

the Results Act was a priority. Such a show of support made a positive

difference in the attitudes of field staff toward the strategic planning

process. Another park manager commented that his regional director

issued strongly worded guidance to park superintendents supporting

implementation of the Results Act. The regional director said she wanted

park managers to be personally involved in making presentations to her

about their strategic plans. This led the park manager to take the effort

more seriously and to work intensively with division chiefs as a team to

develop their plan.

Conversely, some headquarters managers have had less involvement with

Results Act implementation than park or regional officials. According to

Page 26 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

one headquarters official, mid-level managers at headquarters have not

had the same degree of training or direct experience developing strategic

plans as park managers since the Park Service’s implementation of the

Results Act has been primarily field-oriented to date. As a result, there is

more cynicism concerning the Results Act among mid-level managers at

headquarters than in the field. This official said that if they had to do this

again, headquarters staff would have received the same orientation and

training that park and regional staff received.

In addition to visible top management support, centralized support and

guidance provided by OSP and regional office coordinators were important

aids to developing park-level plans. For example, several park managers

said that the training manual developed by OSP, entitled Field Guide to the

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and Performance

Management, was timely and excellent, although elements of the guide

quickly became outdated. Park managers also found OSP’s brief summary

guide, entitled GPRA on the Go, to be a concise and useful synopsis of how

to implement the Results Act. Several park managers noted that as they

were rushing to complete their plans, central guidance changed frequently.

However, managers also commended OSP’s use of information technology,

such as a computer bulletin board for posting guidance, questions, and

answers. One park official said that he had received over 100 electronic

mail messages from the regional office and headquarters providing

directions, examples, and suggestions on implementing the Results Act.

Finally, park officials suggested that a team approach to developing

strategic and annual performance plans resulted in better plans with more

buy-in from participants. In the parks we visited, we generally found that

key management staff, such as the superintendent, assistant

superintendent, division chiefs, and financial managers were personally

involved in developing the strategic and performance plans, although the

extent of the involvement varied. A park manager also noted that the use

of trained facilitators from parks with more strategic planning experience

to assist staff at less experienced parks had been very helpful.

Link to Budget Made Plans

More Concrete

According to headquarters and regional office officials, the requirement

that parks estimate the budgetary resources associated with each goal

aided strategic planning by making the exercise more concrete to park

staff. Headquarters and regional office officials saw unambiguous benefits

from linking park resources to their plans. For example, one headquarters

official commented that making a connection between Park Service goals

Page 27 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

and resources is essential to make the Results Act work. Without this

connection, park staff would view the effort as a paperwork exercise. A

regional office manager added that the resource assessment phase of the

strategic planning process was critical as a reality check on goals. Parks

had to answer the question: Can these goals be realistically achieved with

existing resources? If not, goals were adjusted. Another headquarters

official thought that the park strategic plans would minimize arguments

about budget priorities in the parks—the goals in each park’s plan now

represent the park’s priorities for the next 5 years.

Park officials also mostly agreed with the importance of the budgetary

link. For example, the requirement to assume constant, inflation-adjusted

resources over the 5-year period of the strategic plan led a number of

parks to develop more realistic goals after considering budgetary

constraints. For example, officials at one park proposed a boundary study

to address the protection of historical resources currently located outside

the park’s boundaries, which had been arbitrarily established. However,

staff decided to scale back their initial plans because a sufficient level of

funding would not be available without a budgetary increase. This

contrasts with an experience described to us prior to implementing the

Results Act, in which managers described a long-term management plan

they developed that was not realistic because there was no way to achieve

the goals in the plan without additional funding.

While generally agreeing about the importance of a budgetary link for

internal planning purposes, several park officials had concerns about how

such data would be used by the Park Service or by Congress to make

budgetary decisions. Some questioned whether estimated spending for

each goal was sufficiently precise to be used to challenge a park’s budget.

Park officials had fewer concerns about using budget data at the park level

to aid internal decision-making. Such views are not unique in the executive

branch. In our recent report on the use of performance information in the

budget process, executive branch officials we interviewed said that the

principal value of the Results Act was internal and management oriented,

stemming from its ability to clarify missions and performance

expectations.18 They also said that current budgetary pressures and

apprehension about the use of Results Act information could increase

levels of defensiveness among agency staff.

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

Page 28 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

Holding Managers

Accountable for Results Is

an Important Factor, but

Concerns Remain at the

Park Level

The Park Service’s intention to hold upper-level park managers

accountable for achieving the goals in their strategic and annual

performance plans lent greater importance to the strategic planning effort,

but it raised concerns for some park managers. Headquarters officials

generally agreed that holding managers accountable for achieving their

goals was important for successful implementation of the Results Act. For

example, one official said that holding managers accountable for results

would have a particularly strong influence if managers believed that the

results would affect their performance evaluations and budgets. However,

at the park level, officials from half of the eight parks we interviewed

agreed that holding managers accountable for achieving the goals in their

plans reinforced the importance of strategic planning. Park staff expressed

the following concerns.

• The focus on accountability is not really new in the Park Service because

park managers have always been held accountable for the results of their

actions. The difference under the Results Act is that now managers will be

held accountable for the measurable outcomes of their operations. Park

managers were also concerned about being accountable for achieving

servicewide goals where outcomes cannot be directly controlled by park

managers. For example, the Park Service has a goal to improve air quality

in certain parks. However, this will be difficult for park managers to do

because of the many external environmental factors that affect air quality

that are beyond their control.

• The operating environment of a park can change rapidly and park

managers respond by moving resources to where they are needed most.

Holding managers accountable for achieving the goals in their plans will

reduce park managers’ flexibility in the short-term to move resources

where they are needed most, especially when emergencies occur. In their

view, such reduced flexibility to address emergency needs could have

negative consequences for resource protection and the visitor experience.

Outcome-Oriented Goals

Are Difficult to Establish

and Measure

One of the most prominent challenges identified by Park Service officials

was developing meaningful outcome-oriented goals that could be

measured and for which managers could be held accountable.19 In

particular, comments focused on the difficulty of measuring outcomes for

natural resource protection and customer satisfaction. Park Service

officials commented on the difficulty of selecting appropriate outcome

19For a broader discussion of these issues see Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring

Performance (GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138, May 30, 1997).

Page 29 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

measures for natural resources, such as water quality, endangered species,

or disturbed lands. One official gave the following examples.

• A single goal may be difficult to apply uniformly across park units. For

example, there are hundreds of water quality measures that are specific to

the unique characteristics of individual parks. The water quality standards

needed to support plants and animals can differ from one species to the

next or may not yet be defined scientifically. In contrast, the water quality

standard for safe recreational swimming can be determined and is

frequently defined at the state level. The Park Service adopted the goal of

reducing the number of days park recreational waters fail to meet state

water quality standards for swimming since it could be clearly defined,

was measurable, and applied more broadly within the park system than

other water quality goals that had been identified.

• The need to develop goals narrow enough to be aggregated meaningfully

at the servicewide level may exclude closely related goals developed by

parks. Budget data taken from PMDS revealed that spending on the 31

long-term goals in the servicewide strategic plan represented 44 percent of

the operating budget. The remainder of the budget was linked to other

mission-oriented goals developed by individual parks. A Park Service

official suggested that this may indicate that many park goals did not fit

the specific definition of the goals in the servicewide plan. For example,

the servicewide goal for restoring disturbed lands focuses only on

disturbances caused by development or invasions of exotic species.

However, many parks set related goals, such as restoring lands disturbed

by flooding or past forest fire control practices. Such goals would appear

in the performance management system as park-specific goals, although

they were closely related to the servicewide goal. To address this problem,

the Park Service will modify PMDS to allow park officials to indicate when a

park goal is closely related to a servicewide goal. This reorientation of goal

labeling might offer a truer picture of the portion of the budget that is

allocated to servicewide priorities.

• It can be difficult to measure progress toward a final outcome because the

final outcome itself is not easily measured. For example, the Park Service

has a goal to return land disturbed by development or exotic species to its

natural state. A particular park may not have any scientific criteria for

determining exactly when the natural state has been recovered. However,

a first step toward recovering the land is to remove the exotic species.

This action can be measured in terms of acres and used as a proxy for the

final outcome.

• Even when a measure can be developed, the units to be measured can vary

greatly, making it difficult to interpret aggregate data. For example, both

Page 30 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

Independence National Historical Park in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and

the Pierce-Klingle Mansion in Washington, D.C., are listed on the National

Register of Historic Places. Therefore the servicewide goal to maintain

historic structures in good condition would apply to both structures.

However, a headquarters official suggested that Independence Park has

greater historical significance than Klingle Mansion. It is necessary to look

behind aggregate figures to determine the relative weight and importance

of individual performance goals.

There is also the issue of whether park managers can control all the

outcomes in their parks. For example, according to a headquarters official,

parks exist in a broader geographic context and do not control all the

variables that affect the quality of park resources. Some goals related to

reducing pollution were abandoned because the Park Service did not own

the land that generated the pollution and therefore could not directly

prevent it.

Most Park Service officials agreed that parks lack key baseline data to

begin measuring performance against goals. Two large natural resource

parks said that the lack of baseline data to measure progress in preserving

natural resources was a problem because they did not have extra funding

in their base budgets to develop the data. Therefore, they will have to

reduce spending on other park operations to free the necessary funds. To

address the lack of baseline data, an OSP official said that parks were

allowed to establish “threshold” goals aimed at establishing baseline

performance data. After establishing baseline performance levels, park

officials could then focus on achieving the percentage improvement goals

contained in the servicewide strategic plan. Several plans we reviewed

included threshold goals aimed at developing baseline performance data

during fiscal year 1998.

In the area of customer satisfaction, many parks were concerned that they

were going to be held accountable for achieving improvements in

customer satisfaction, but that parks did not yet have an instrument for

measuring customer satisfaction. A headquarters official told us that the

Park Service was in the process of addressing this issue by developing a

servicewide Visitor Survey Card which will be distributed to all parks this

summer. The card will contain questions pertaining to Park Service goals

for visitor satisfaction and understanding. Randomly selected visitors

would have the option to fill the card out. The Park Service will use a

contractor to process the responses and report on the results.

Page 31 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

Planning Systems Not

Linked to Budget and

Accounting Systems

Another major challenge cited by park managers was the lack of systems

needed to track actual spending by long-term goal. A park manager who

commented on PMDS—the information system the Park Service has

developed for parks to report on planned performance, spending, and

FTEs—said the system worked well. However, in general, park managers

expressed concern that PMDS only provides estimates of funds to be spent

to accomplish annual goals, not actual funds spent. In addition to

preparing data for PMDS, park managers must also prepare traditional

financial plans and account for spending according to the activities in the

budget and accounting systems. Park managers were hopeful that some

integration of these systems could be achieved.

In addition to the systems issue, a regional office official pointed out that

some parks lack the computer hardware needed to input the data. One

headquarters official acknowledged that computer hardware and systems

were areas in which the Park Service has traditionally made minimal

investments. However, he also said that information technology and

systems have become easier to develop and use and steps will be taken in

the near future to provide parks with the computers and Internet access

they need to be linked servicewide.

Staff Commented on the

Value of the Strategic

Planning Process for Park

Operations

According to Park Service officials, the strategic planning process has led

to increased communication and resource sharing within parks and

provided useful information about how resources were being allocated.

There was less agreement that the process had resulted in any major

operational changes. Some park managers said the process confirmed that

they were generally doing the right things. Others said the process led

them to make changes to meet a goal they had identified or to question

assumptions about park operations. Several park managers were hopeful

that their strategic and annual performance plans would provide a more

effective way to justify their budgets.

Within some parks, the strategic planning process fostered increased

communication across park divisions and facilitated resource sharing to

accomplish common goals. For example, the strategic planning process

helped break down barriers between park divisions, such as resource

protection, interpretation, and maintenance at one park we visited.

Through the process of identifying park goals, staff at this park found that

each division contributed to common goals. For example, prior to the

Results Act, mowing the lawn was viewed as a maintenance activity that

was done for its own sake. The strategic planning process led maintenance

Page 32 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

staff to view this activity as contributing to multiple park goals that cut

across division lines, including (1) protecting park land from erosion,

(2) aiding visitation, and (3) aiding the interpretation of the park’s history

by revealing the vistas seen by Civil War battle participants.

The process of linking annual performance plans to park budgets provided

useful information about how resources were being allocated to long-term

goals. For example, staff from a large natural resources park said that

aligning budget information with park goals provided factual confirmation

that resource preservation goals received substantially fewer resources

than visitor services goals. According to park staff, out of a budget of

$8 million, a small share—about 6 percent—was being allocated to

preserving natural resources in the park. They said having this information

may lead them to reconsider the small share of spending on resource

preservation. At the headquarters level, an official we spoke to hoped that

parks’ annual performance plans—by requiring parks to link their goals to

their operations—would provide headquarters with information not

previously available about the choices, in terms of resource allocations,

park managers are making among competing Park Service goals.

There was less agreement on whether strategic planning had led to

changes in park operations or how resources were allocated. Typically,

staff said they went through the strategic planning process with open

minds, but found that the process confirmed that current activities were

consistent with the park’s legislation and contributed to the goals of the

Park Service. A few park managers cited changes. For example,

developing strategic and annual performance plans led one park to request

funding for cataloging its archives because they recognized that this was a

major, but unmet, goal. The park signed a memorandum of understanding

with a university to do this work if funding becomes available.

Some park staff said that the strategic planning process, by focusing on

outcomes to be achieved, had led them to question assumptions about

their operations and may help identify more effective and efficient ways to

accomplish Park Service missions and make resource allocation decisions.

For example, staff from a large natural resources park commented that

half of the park’s budget is spent on maintenance activities, such as

maintaining picnic tables for visitors. However, they reasoned that there

may be a more effective way to allocate resources to achieve the goal of

enhancing the visitor experience. In addition, staff at a service center said

that, to meet one of their organizational efficiency goals, they will be

designing an Internet site to provide information about the center’s

Page 33 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

services, thus reducing staff time needed to answer questions on the

telephone.

Finally, by showing what can be accomplished with existing base funds

and staff, some park managers hoped that their annual performance plans

would provide a more effective way to justify and communicate the need

for increased resources. This view was not shared at one of the larger

parks. These officials did not feel their strategic plan was an effective tool

for communicating their resource needs. Their main concern was that

their strategic plan could not be used to answer traditional questions

about spending on activities, such as how much will be spent to reduce

their backlog of maintenance tasks.

Observations We concluded in a previous report that by implementing the Results Act

the Park Service can promote a better understanding by Congress and

other stakeholders of (1) the agency’s and each park’s priorities, (2) the

links between the agency’s and each park’s priorities, (3) the results

achieved with the funds provided, and (4) the shortfalls in performance.20

As it sought to implement the Results Act, the Park Service has faced

difficult circumstances, including multiple missions that are often

competing and resistant to direct measurement, and extraordinarily

decentralized operations, for which many parks possess distinct legislative

mandates.

The Park Service’s initial progress in implementing the Results Act has laid

a foundation for future performance management improvements and

provides valuable insights to other federal agencies or programs also

characterized by complex missions, which are carried out by decentralized

and largely autonomous operating units. In such an environment, strategic

planning that is exclusively top-down will likely lead to goals that are

irrelevant to and/or ignored by operating managers. To be effective, the

process must reflect a partnership among key participants and include

flexibility for managers within the parameters of the organization’s

strategic goals. The active involvement of park managers in developing

servicewide and park-level goals, coupled with the Park Service’s phased

implementation approach, has led to greater ownership of the goals by

field staff who are ultimately responsible for achieving results. By setting

broad servicewide goals and simultaneously giving line managers the

authority to tailor local goals and performance measures to their unique

operating needs, the Park Service has greater assurance that a balance can

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

Page 34 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

be achieved between park-level attention to servicewide goals and the

operating realities of each park.

The strategic planning process called for by the Results Act and discussed

in many of our recent testimonies and reports starts with an agency’s

mission and the long-term goals it wishes to achieve and uses this

information to shape the formulation and execution of agency budgets.

For many years, the reverse has been the case—the budget and the budget

process often shaped an agency’s plans, and costs were assigned by

activity or item of expense rather than performance goal. The Park Service

has taken an important step by asking managers to estimate the cost of

achieving their goals and aggregating this information at the servicewide

level. However, two questions remain: (1) whether the Park Service will be

able to use strategic and annual performance planning to direct agency

and park-level resources to affect the accomplishment of servicewide

goals and (2) whether the new focus on accomplishing servicewide goals

can be achieved without sacrificing the ability of park managers to

respond to their unique operating environments. In the Park Service, as

will likely be the case in many federal agencies, budget and accounting

systems are more typically structured by organization, project, or activity

than by goals. Thus, agencies will have to consider how best to achieve a

linkage, whether by retaining existing budget structures and creating

crosswalks to the goals in their plans or by reorganizing the structure of

their program activities to better mirror goals in their strategic plans. The

latter approach will require extensive dialog with congressional

appropriations and oversight committees, parent departments, and OMB,

and continued development of cost allocation systems.

Although the challenges experienced by Park Service officials are hardly

unique, their responses reflect long-term management commitment and an

understanding that achieving results-oriented management will be neither

easy nor quick. Park Service officials readily admit that much work

remains to be done and that many of the successes they have achieved

have occurred only after identifying and resolving problems in initial

approaches or techniques. Overall, the experiences of the Park Service

demonstrate that implementing the Results Act should be viewed not as a

series of events, but as an evolving process.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

In commenting on a draft of this report, the Assistant Secretary for Fish

and Wildlife and Parks substantially agreed with our portrayal of Results

Act implementation in the Park Service. Interior provided information on

Page 35 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
B-279613 

several improvements to its planning and budgeting processes including:

(1) providing parks greater flexibility to report on park-specific goals that

are associated with, but not identical to, the servicewide goals,

(2) modifying the Performance Management Data System so that parks

can report on funds other than base funds used to accomplish their goals,

and (3) entering fiscal year 1999 and 2000 budget and performance data at

the park level to supplement the existing budget formulation process.

Other comments are incorporated in the report as appropriate. Interior’s

comments are reprinted in appendix I.

We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Member of

your Committee, the Chairmen of the House and Senate Committees on

Appropriations; the Director, OMB; and other interested parties. Copies

will also be made available to others upon request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-9573 if you or your office have any

questions concerning this report. Major contributors to this report are

listed in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Paul L. Posner

Director, Budget Issues

Page 36 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Page 37 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Comments From the

Department of the

Interior

40

Appendix II 

Implementation of the

Government

Performance and

Results Act by the

Park Service

44

Appendix III 

Mission, Mission

Goals, and Long-Term

Goals, National Park

Service Strategic Plan,

1997

50

Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to

This Report

54

Table Table 1: National Park Service Budget Accounts, Program

Activities, and Subactivities

11

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

Dispersed

8

Figure 2: National Park Service Budget, Fiscal Year 1997 12

Figure 3: National Park Service Operating Budget, Fiscal Year

1997

13

Page 38 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Contents

Figure 4: Structure of Servicewide and Park-Level Strategic and

Annual Performance Plans

19

Abbreviations

FTE Full Time Equivalent

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

NLC National Leadership Council

NPS National Park Service

OSP Office of Strategic Planning

PMDS Performance Management Data System

Page 39 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior

Note: GAO comments

supplementing those in the

report text appear at the

end of this appendix.

Page 40 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior

See comment 1.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 13.

See comment 3.

Now on p. 21.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 30.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 33.

Page 41 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior

See comment 2.

Now on p. 33.

See comment 2.

Now on p. 43.

Page 42 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix I 

Comments From the Department of the

Interior

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of the Interior’s

April 10, 1998, letter.

GAO Comments 1. See “Agency Comments and Our Evaluation” section of the report.

2. Report text was revised.

3. As indicated in the report, the Park Service is currently reconsidering its

process for formulating requests for project funds.

Page 43 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix II 

Implementation of the Government

Performance and Results Act by the Park

Service

The Park Service’s approach to implementing the Results Act was phased

and iterative and involved both top management and field staff. The four

basic principles the Park Service followed while formulating and

implementing a strategic plan involved

(1) creating a useful management tool for the National Park Service at all

levels of the organization,

(2) achieving a field-orientation,

(3) integrating all aspects of performance management into a single

comprehensive system, and

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

mandates.

Because both top management and field staff were engaged in drafting and

exchanging comments on early draft strategic plans, Park Service staff

have characterized the approach they used as “diagonal.” Both field staff

and management were approaching the Results Act from their ends and

meeting in the middle to work out needed changes. Both park staff and

headquarters officials described this approach to planning as difficult and

frustrating. However, the same staff commented that this approach was

probably the only way to develop a servicewide plan that balanced the

needs of both headquarters and field staff and therefore achieved a degree

of acceptance and ownership by both groups. According to the Deputy

Director, although the process of developing the servicewide strategic

plan and the Park Service’s approach to performance management was

“arduous,” in hindsight, the process worked well and he would not have

done anything differently.

Office of Strategic

Planning

At the time of our review, the Park Service’s Office of Strategic Planning

(OSP) had a Director and two program analysts all located in Denver,

Colorado, and one program analyst located at headquarters. The OSP

director reports to the Deputy Director of the Park Service.

OSP has been responsible for coordinating the development of the

servicewide strategic plan based on input from headquarters and field staff

and consultations with Congress, the Office of Management and Budget,

the public, and other key stakeholders. OSP has also led the effort to

implement strategic planning and performance management at the park

Page 44 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix II 

Implementation of the Government

Performance and Results Act by the Park

Service

level. This involved developing guidance for field staff on how to

implement the Results Act, conducting training, and providing continuing

guidance and responding to questions through OSP’s computer bulletin

board.

Early Implementation

of the Results Act

The Park Service held its first meeting on implementing the Results Act in

December 1994. In May 1995, the Park Service established the Government

Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Task Force to oversee and coordinate

the development of a servicewide performance management system,

including national strategic planning and budgeting, park- and

program-level planning and goal setting, resource allocations, performance

measurement, and servicewide evaluations and reporting. The Task Force

includes representatives from each region, from the key headquarters

offices, and from park and partnership programs. The Task Force reports

its findings to the National Leadership Council (NLC), which consists of the

Director, the Deputy Director, the seven regional directors, and the five

associate directors for programs.

The Task Force has been the Park Service’s mechanism for working out

Results Act implementation problems. For example, OSP received 116

substantive comments from the public on the final draft of the servicewide

strategic plan issued for comment in October 1996. The Task Force broke

into groups, worked through the comments, and incorporated the

comments into the final servicewide strategic plan, which was issued

September 30, 1997.

The Task Force has met three times a year to discuss Results Act

implementation issues, vet policy recommendations, and make

recommendations to NLC. NLC acts on every Task Force recommendation

and, to date, has approved all Task Force recommendations. For example,

NLC members each signed off on the final Park Service strategic plan.

Field Testing A key element of the Park Service’s approach to implementing the Results

Act has been extensive field testing. During the summer of 1995, the Park

Service undertook prototype exercises in strategic planning and

performance measurement at six parks and three programs. The

experiences of those prototype parks and programs along with help from

planners at the Denver Service Center helped shape the Park Service’s

“Eight Step Process” (described below) and develop some initial

performance measures. During fiscal year 1996, a park or program from

Page 45 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix II 

Implementation of the Government

Performance and Results Act by the Park

Service

each cluster, known as “lead” parks, worked to refine the goals in the

servicewide plan and the implementation process. The experience of the

prototype and lead parks also led to the development of written guidance

that could be used to train staff at other parks.

The Park Service plans to continue learning from the field. For example,

the Deputy Director has asked OSP to survey all the park-level strategic and

annual performance plans for best practices. These best practices can then

be transmitted to the field as guidance for the next iteration of park-level

plans.

The Eight Step

Process

The early experimentation of the prototype parks led to the development

of the Park Service’s Eight Step Process for performance management.

The Eight Step Process was designed to help parks, programs, and offices

go from the Park Service’s mission goals, to their daily work, to evaluation

of results. Steps one to five are the required elements of the strategic

plans. Steps six and seven produce and implement the annual performance

plan. Step eight produces the annual performance report that compares

accomplishments to goals. The eight steps were developed within the

framework of three basic questions—why, what, and how. A description of

the Park Service’s Eight Step Process follows.

Why Are We Doing What

We Are Doing at Our Park?

(1) Review the Park Service’s enabling legislation and legislative history,

the servicewide strategic plan, any other legislation affecting your park,

and any other planning documents already in place.

(2) Establish the mission of the specific park or program by its purpose

and significance. Purpose is the specific reason the park or program was

established. Significance is the distinctive features that make the park or

program different from any other. Together they lead to a concise

statement—the mission of the park or program.

What Are We Going to Do? (3) Develop the park’s or program’s mission goals. Mission goals are broad

conceptual goals based on ideal future conditions. They should focus on

results (outcomes) not efforts. Park and program mission goals should

reflect both the servicewide mission goals as well as the mission of the

park or program.

Page 46 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix II 

Implementation of the Government

Performance and Results Act by the Park

Service

(4) Determine the park or program’s 5-year, long-term goals (range of 3 to

20 years). Long-term goals tier off mission goals, describe results to be

achieved, and are stated as desired future conditions.

(5) Establish the availability of human and fiscal resources, the condition

of park natural, cultural, and recreational resources, and the condition of

visitor experiences.

How Are We Going to Do

It?

(6) Develop the annual performance plan. The annual performance plan

links outcome-related performance goals to specific inputs and outputs for

a single year. The annual performance plan consists of two major parts:

annual goals and annual work plans. Annual goals are the incremental

outcomes needed to meet the long-term goals. Annual work plans identify

the inputs and outputs needed to achieve the annual goals. Inputs are the

fiscal and human resources required to produce the outputs.

(7) Implement the annual performance plan. Park and program officials

receive budget allocations and update annual goals to reflect available

funding and staffing and use these resources to implement their plans.

(8) Develop annual performance reports. Park and program officials

monitor performance toward annual goals, evaluate results by comparing

accomplishments with goals, and provide feedback and adjust subsequent

annual goals, work plans, and long-term goals, if necessary.

Training and

Guidance

The Park Service developed its Field Guide to GPRA and Performance

Management to provide park staff with a tool for improving their ability to

accomplish the mission of the Park Service using performance

management techniques. The Field Guide includes an overview of the

Results Act and performance management, a detailed discussion of the

Eight Step Process, a discussion of how the budget will be linked to

annual performance plans, other key linkages, examples of strategic plans

and annual performance plans already developed by certain parks, and

exercises to be completed during training sessions.

Following initial training and testing of performance management in

prototype and lead parks, the Park Service held “train the trainer” sessions

in which 100 regional- and field-level staff received training in

performance management using the Field Guide. These sessions were held

in late 1996 in four locations throughout the country.

Page 47 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix II 

Implementation of the Government

Performance and Results Act by the Park

Service

During the late winter and spring of 1997, the trainers trained an additional

2,000 park staff in performance management techniques. A representative

from each regional office also received the initial training and served as

Results Act coordinator in their regions. After the training was completed,

the trainers continued to serve as consultants to the parks within their

region. For example, in the southeast region, the trainers were involved in

the first review of all the strategic plans for that region.

In addition to the Field Guide, OSP developed a quick reference pamphlet

to strategic planning at the Park Service entitled GPRA on the Go:

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) & Performance

Management. Staff from two parks we interviewed cited this pamphlet as

an excellent summary of everything a manager needed to know to prepare

a strategic plan. The pamphlet contains brief descriptions of

(1) performance management and the Results Act, (2) the Park Service’s

approach to performance management, (3) Park Service performance

management terminology, (4) strategic plan requirements, (5) the Eight

Step Process, and (6) the Park Service’s 31 long-term goals. It also

provides helpful hints for making performance management happen and

lists key OSP and regional office staff who can be contacted for further

information.

Relationship Between

Servicewide and

Park-Level Plans

Figure 4 in the body of the report portrays the relationship between the

servicewide and park-level plans. Within its four servicewide goal

categories, the Park Service has defined 9 mission goals and 31 long-term

goals. Appendix III contains a complete description of the goals listed in

the Park Service’s strategic plan. Mission goals were intended to reflect

the Park Service’s preservation mission, which has a longer and indefinite

time frame for goals than anticipated by the Results Act. Mission goals are

not time-bound or quantified, but are intended to be comprehensive and

inclusive of all Park Service activities. For example, mission goal Ia states

that “natural and cultural resources and associated values are protected,

restored, and maintained in good condition and managed within their

broader ecosystem and cultural context.” Long-term goals typically span 5

years, are focused on specific Park Service activities, and provide specific

measurable goals to be achieved within the time frame set. For example,

long-term goal Ia5 states that “by September 30, 2002, 50% of the historic

structures on the 1998 List of Classified Structures are in good condition.”

Each park was also expected to develop its own strategic plan. Park

strategic plans were to bring together both servicewide and park-specific

Page 48 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix II 

Implementation of the Government

Performance and Results Act by the Park

Service

missions so that every strategic plan had both national and local elements.

If a servicewide long-term goal was applicable, the park was expected to

incorporate the goal into its plan, although measurable performance

targets could vary from the servicewide targets. It was expected, for

example, that some parks could easily achieve performance greater than

national goals, while some might necessarily fall short; allowing

performance targets to vary from park to park promoted park-level

relevance while ensuring that performance could be aggregated on a

servicewide basis. The Park Service also gave park managers discretion to

incorporate long-term goals that were unique to the missions of their

individual parks but still fit within the broad mission goals of the

servicewide strategic plan.

Page 49 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix III 

Mission, Mission Goals, and Long-Term

Goals, National Park Service Strategic Plan,

1997

The Mission of the

National Park Service

The National Park Service preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural

resources and values of the national park system for the enjoyment,

education, and inspiration of this and future generations. The Park Service

cooperates with partners to extend the benefits of natural and cultural

resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout this country and

the world.

Goal Category I: Preserve

Park Resources

Mission Goal Ia: Natural and cultural resources and associated values are

protected, restored, and maintained in good condition and managed within

their broader ecosystem and cultural context.

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

• Ia1. Disturbed Lands / Exotic Species — 5% of targeted disturbed park

lands, as of 1997, are restored, and 5% of priority targeted disturbances are

contained.

• Ia2. Threatened and Endangered Species — 25% of the 1997 identified park

populations of federally listed threatened and endangered species with

critical habitat on park lands or requiring NPS recovery actions have an

improved status, and an additional 25% have stable populations.

• Ia3. Air Quality — Air quality in at least 50% of class I park areas improves

or does not degrade from 1997 baseline conditions.

• Ia4. Water Quality — Reduce by 10%, from 1997 levels, the number of days

park recreational waters fail to meet state water quality standards for

swimming.

• Ia5. Historic Structures — 50% of the historic structures on the 1998 List of

Classified Structures are in good condition.

• Ia6. Museum Collections — 68% of preservation and protection conditions

in park museum collections meet professional standards.

• Ia7. Cultural Landscapes — 50% of the cultural landscapes on the Cultural

Landscapes Inventory are in good condition.

• Ia8. Archeological Sites — 50% of the recorded archeological sites are in

good condition.

Mission Goal Ib: The National Park Service contributes to knowledge

about natural and cultural resources and associated values; management

decisions about resources and visitors are based on adequate scholarly

and scientific information.

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

Page 50 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix III 

Mission, Mission Goals, and Long-Term

Goals, National Park Service Strategic Plan,

1997

• Ib1. Natural Resource Inventories — Acquire or develop 434 of the 2,287

outstanding data sets identified in 1997 of basic natural resource

inventories for all parks.

• Ib2. Cultural Resource Baselines — The 1997 baseline inventory and

evaluation of each category of cultural resources is increased by a

minimum of 5%.

Goal Category II: Provide

for the Public Enjoyment

and Visitor Experience of

Parks

Mission Goal IIa: Visitors safely enjoy and are satisfied with the

availability, accessibility, diversity, and quality of park facilities, services,

and appropriate recreational opportunities.

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

• IIa1. Visitor Satisfaction — 80% of park visitors are satisfied with

appropriate park facilities, services, and recreational opportunities.

• IIa2. Visitor Safety — Reduce the visitor safety incident rate by 10% from

the NPS five-year (1992-96) average.

Mission Goal IIb: Park visitors and the general public understand and

appreciate the preservation of parks and their resources for this and future

generations.

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

• IIb1. Visitor Understanding and Appreciation — 60% of park visitors

understand and appreciate the significance of the park they are visiting.

Goal Category III:

Strengthen and Preserve

Natural and Cultural

Resources and Enhance

Recreational Opportunities

Managed by Partners

Mission Goal IIIa: Natural and cultural resources are conserved through

formal partnership programs.

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

• IIIa1. Properties Designated — Increase by 15%, over 1997 levels, the

number of significant historic and archeological properties protected

through federal programs or official designation at local, state, tribal, or

national levels.

• IIIa2. Properties Protected — Increase by 20%, over 1997 levels, the

number of significant historic and archeological properties protected

nationwide through federal, state, local, or tribal statutory or regulatory

means, or through financial incentives, or by the private sector.

Page 51 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix III 

Mission, Mission Goals, and Long-Term

Goals, National Park Service Strategic Plan,

1997

• IIIa3. User Satisfaction — Achieve a 10% increase in user satisfaction, over

1997 levels, with the usefulness of technical assistance provided for the

protection of historic and archeological properties.

Mission Goal IIIb: Through partnerships with other federal, state, and local

agencies and nonprofit organizations, a nationwide system of parks, open

space, rivers, and trails provides educational, recreational, and

conservation benefits for the American people.

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

• IIIb1. Conservation Assistance — 1,100 additional miles of trails, 1,200

additional miles of protected river corridors, and 35,000 additional acres of

parks and open space, from 1997 totals, are conserved with NPS

partnership assistance.

• IIIb2. Community Satisfaction — 80% of communities served are satisfied

with NPS partnership assistance in providing recreational and conservation

benefits on lands and waters.

Mission Goal IIIc: Assisted through federal funds and programs, the

protection of recreational opportunities is achieved through formal

mechanisms to ensure continued access for public recreational use.

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

• IIIc1. Recreational Properties — The 40,000 recreational properties, as of

1997, assisted by the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Urban Park

and Recreation Recovery Program, and the Federal Lands to Parks

Program are protected and remain available for public recreation.

Goal Category IV: Ensure

Organizational

Effectiveness

Mission Goal IVa: The National Park Service uses current management

practices, systems, and technologies to accomplish its mission.

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

• IVa1. Data Systems — 50% of the major NPS data systems are

integrated/interfaced.

• IVa2. Employee Competencies — 100% of employees within the 16 key

occupational groups have essential competency needs identified for their

positions.

Page 52 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix III 

Mission, Mission Goals, and Long-Term

Goals, National Park Service Strategic Plan,

1997

• IVa3. Employee Performance — 100% of employee performance standards

are linked to appropriate strategic and annual performance goals.

• IVa4. Workforce Diversity — Increase by 25%, over 1998 levels, the

representation of under-represented groups in each of the targeted

occupational series in the NPS permanent workforce.

• IVa5. Employee Housing — 35% of employee housing units classified as

being in poor or fair condition in 1997 have been removed, replaced, or

upgraded to good condition.

• IVa6. Employee Safety — Reduce by 50%, from the NPS five-year

(1992-96) average, the NPS employee lost time injury rate, and reduce the

cost of new workers’ compensation cases (COP) by 50% based on the NPS

five-year (1992-96) average.

• IVa7. Construction Projects — 100% of NPS park construction projects

identified and funded by September 30, 1998, meet 90% of cost, schedule,

and project goals of each approved project agreement.

• IVa8. Land Acquisition — The time between the appropriation for land

acquisition and when the offer is made is reduced by 5%.

Mission Goal IVb: The National Park Service increases its managerial

capabilities through initiatives and support from other agencies,

organizations, and individuals.

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

• IVb1. Volunteer Hours — Increase by 10%, over the 1997 level, the number

of volunteer hours.

• IVb2. Donations and Grants — Increase by 10%, over 1997 levels, the dollar

amount of donations and grants.

• IVb3. Concession Returns — Increase the average return for park

concession contracts to at least 10% of gross concessioner revenue.

• IVb4. Fee Receipts — Increase by 20%, over the 1997 level, the amount of

receipts from park entrance, recreation, and other fees.

Page 53 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report

Accounting and

Information

Management Division,

Washington, D.C.

Michael J. Curro, Assistant Director, (202) 512-9969

Elizabeth H. Curda, Evaluator-in-Charge

Claudia J. Dickey, Senior Evaluator

(935236) Page 54 GAO/AIMD-98-113 Park Service Resources and Results
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100