The 2022 Park Partners Report: 

A Story of Resilience

COMMISSIONED BY

SEPTEMBER 19, 2022

Olympic National Park
Table of Contents

Introduction����������������������������������������������������������������������������������� 3

The impact of the partner community on our parks remains strong ������������� 5

Signals point toward recovery ����������������������������������������������������������� 10

Partners are increasingly limited by capacity constraints������������������������� 13

Recommendations ������������������������������������������������������������������������� 16

Appendix A: Acknowledgements ������������������������������������������������������� 20

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms ���������������������������������������������������������� 21

Appendix C: Methodology ���������������������������������������������������������������� 22

Appendix D: Survey Questions ���������������������������������������������������������� 25

San Juan National Historic and World Heritage Site
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 3

Introduction

National parks rose to new prominence over 

the last two years. The pandemic reawakened 

our love for national parks with more and more 

Americans looking to our shared outdoor spaces 

for comfort and connection. Many in the parks 

community elevated the need to make national 

parks and public lands accessible to all. Congress 

passed the Great American Outdoors Act in an 

unprecedented bipartisan vote, resulting in a 

once-in-a-lifetime source of funding to address 

the growing deferred maintenance backlog in 

national parks as well as land conservation and 

recreation needs in our public spaces. Congress 

also passed legislation that will support NPS 

operations with $500 million through 2030 to 

hire additional personnel.1

 And the national park 

partner community – composed of 470 organizations across the nation including friends groups, 

cooperating associations, coordinating entities, 

and other organizations2

 – remained resilient by 

1.  Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.

2.  See Appendix B for definitions of the partner types. See the 2020 report for the full list of park partners.

supporting national parks, heritage areas, trails, 

and rivers during this challenging time.

The 2022 edition of the Park Partners Report 

provides a snapshot of the national park partner 

community, building on the 2015 and 2020 Park 

Partners reports. The report depicts changes in 

the community over time and highlights park 

partners’ current impacts, challenges, needs, and 

successes. 

This report can inform how the National Park 

Service (NPS), the National Park Foundation 

(NPF), the National Park Friends Alliance (FA), 

and other stakeholders engage with, draw on, 

and support the partner community, as well as 

serve as a resource for partners themselves. It 

also surfaces a set of common goals and challenges for the community to be aware of and 

address together.

Cabrillo National Monument
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 4

INTRODUCTION

The following report details the enormous resilience of the community over the last two years, 

covering the following findings:

k With more than $400 million in support in 

2021, the park partner community’s impact 

on NPS’s mission remained strong. Many 

partners are providing more and more basic 

operational support, and three quarters of 

survey respondents report serving as educational partners to parks. In 2021, the community also generated more than $600 million in 

park-related revenue despite the challenges 

that smaller groups and groups dependent on 

earned revenue faced. 

k Partners have a positive outlook on growth 

in the year ahead. Almost 90% of partners 

expect financial contributions to parks to meet 

or exceed pre-pandemic levels in 2022, and 

many expect to grow their teams. Partners are 

planning a broad variety of projects over the 

next several years, many of which focus on 

visitor experience.

k Partners are increasingly limited by capacity constraints. Lack of internal and NPS 

staff capacity is a major challenge for partners, 

who seek increased fundraising supports and 

enhancements in NPS policies and procedures 

to address capacity constraints. 

k NPS and park partners can work 

together to:

• Build NPS capacity, including enhancements to policies and procedures as well as 

accelerating targeted hiring and training 

practices in the NPS workforce 

• Facilitate cross-partner learning 

and extend support to meet current 

partner needs 

• Identify emerging trends and address 

challenges of tomorrow.
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 5

The impact of the partner community

on our parks remains strong

Partners support NPS’s mission directly and 

indirectly, through philanthropic giving, management of programs and services, engagement 

of volunteers, support of staff and operations, 

and much more. Many partners adapted their 

support to new needs over the past two years, 

whether converting in-person programs to virtual, taking on additional park operational support, or delivering impact with limited resources. 

Partners contributed over $400 

million to NPS in 2021

We estimate partners contributed $420-$440 million to NPS in 2021 through all forms of support, 

similar to the 2019 estimate of $430 million.3

Support to NPS in 2021 varied across organization type: as Figure 1 shows, friends group and 

coordinating entity support decreased, while 

cooperating association and “other” organiza3.  See Appendix C for methodology on how support to parks was calculated.

4.  NPS estimates 6.5 million volunteer hours per yea

tion (e.g., land trusts, service corps, educational 

organizations, NPF) support increased. These 

increases are largely attributed to sizeable 

increases for several large organizations.

Organizations also engage a sizeable volunteer 

workforce: two-thirds of organizations report 

working with volunteers. The 50 organizations 

that responded when surveyed collectively contributed 984,000 volunteer hours to NPS in 2021 

– about 15% of NPS’s total volunteer hours.4

Partners support parks through a 

wide range of activities, with education the most common

Partners continue to engage in a variety of activities, with three-quarters of organizations serving 

as educational partners to parks, and more than 

half involved in restoration of historic structures 

and diversity, equity, inclusion, or racial justice 

FIGURE 1: CHANGES IN SUPPORT TO NPS VARY BY GROUP

Estimated support to NPS for organizations with available data in both 2019 and 2021, by organization category, $ millions 

n = 128

Friends

Group

Cooperating

Association

Coordinating

Entity

Other

2019

2021

$120

$75

$116

$77

$151

$25

$83

$118
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 6

THE IMPACT OF THE PARTNER COMMUNITY ON OUR PARKS REMAINS STRONG

efforts such as engaging historically excluded 

communities (Figure 2). While larger groups are 

more likely to engage in activities such as species protection, trail construction, and waterway 

restoration, small to medium-sized groups have a 

stronger “culture” focus than larger groups, perhaps because many smaller organizations partner with parks dedicated to history and culture. 

Partners described delivering impact in a variety 

of ways. Examples over the last two years include: 

k Restoring historic structures: Friends of 

Great Smoky Mountains National Park (NC 

and TN) established a $9 million endowment 

for Historic Preservation – Forever Places, a 

program to restore historic cabins, churches, 

mills, and barns.

k Engaging historically excluded communities: The Student Conservation Association 

and Conservation Legacy worked to engage 

indigenous youth in service projects; The 

National Park Trust reported welcoming tens 

of thousands of kids each year from historically excluded communities to their national 

park units. The Ice Age Trail Alliance (WI) 

worked to identify new and different user 

groups, understand barriers and societal 

inequities that prevent people from enjoying the Trail, and ensure inclusivity of the 

organization. 

k Preserving land: Trust for Public Land and 

the Friends of Hawai’i Volcanoes National 

Park added over 16,000 acres to the Hawai’i 

Volcanoes National Park through the Pōhue 

Bay Conservation project. 

k Scaling education practices: The National 

Washington-Rochambeau Revolutionary 

Route Association completed a replicable 

teachers’ toolkit based on a survey of teachers’ 

specific needs in Virginia conducted by project 

partner The Real American Revolution Multimedia Center.

Very Large, >$5m

Large, $1-5m

Medium, $250k-$1m

Small, $50-250k

Emerging, <$50k

75% 74%

55% 52%

45% 42% 40% 39%

37% 37% 35% 35% 34%

29%

25% 20%

General Education

Youth Education

Diversity Equity Inclusion Racial Justice

Historic Structure Rehabilitation

Removal of Invasive Species

Trail Restoration

Public Facilities Construction/Maintenance

Land Preservation

Scientific Studies

Habitat Restoration

Other Education

Species Protection

Other Culture

Trail Construction

Waterway Restoration

New Infrastructure Development

FIGURE 2: VAST MAJORITY OF ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDE EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT TO PARKS

Percent of organizations participating in each activity, n= 104
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 7

THE IMPACT OF THE PARTNER COMMUNITY ON OUR PARKS REMAINS STRONG

Partners are increasingly providing 

operational support to parks

Partners also report increasingly taking on park 

functions. A large partner noted that their staff 

members have to regularly help visitor contact 

staff when NPS staff positions have not been 

filled. The Santa Monica Mountains Fund contributed 91,000 hours of labor support, equivalent 

to 43 full-time employees, to the Santa Monica 

Mountains National Recreation Area for restoration, research, facilities, and youth projects. Park 

partners, whether staffing visitor centers or taking on park maintenance, are extending support 

of parks beyond programmatic activities and 

philanthropy to help ensure parks can operate 

smoothly and continue to serve the public.

Partners and parks navigated a 

range of challenges exacerbated 

by the pandemic, with groups that 

rely on earned revenue and smaller 

groups most challenged 

The pandemic, the “Great Resignation,” rapid 

inflation, and the growing housing crisis all 

impacted the park partner community. When 

asked to share their greatest success of the past 

year, organizations mentioned weathering or 

adapting to the pandemic more than any single 

other topic, illustrating the stark reality that 

organization survival was the top priority for 

many organizations. 

One partner said, “The last 2 years have been 

dismal for our park as they have struggled to 

keep the lights on and the visitors center open, 

5.  Approximately 60% of revenue is contributed, 25% is earned, and the remaining 15% is other revenue, or unaccounted for in survey data.

6.  See Appendix C for methodology on how parks-related revenue was calculated.

all while continuing to hemorrhage staff. We 

have no Chief of Interpretation or staffing for law 

enforcement, maintenance, and natural or cultural resource protection. Therefore, our greatest 

success has been being able to support our park 

through these tough times by adding staff to 

build their capacity. Our role has been increasingly vital to their basic operations.” 

Despite the pandemic’s challenges, the park partner community generated an estimated $680-

$880 million in park-related revenue in 2021.5

This revenue estimate represents an increase 

of up to 40% from 2018, with the top of the 

range roughly equivalent to 2019 park-related 

revenue.6

 Yet while the community’s total parks-related 

revenue increased from 2018 to 2021, about 

half of partner organizations reported a 

decline in revenue during that time period.

Groups whose earned revenue accounted for 

25% or more of total parks-related revenue 

Mesa Verde National Park
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 8

THE IMPACT OF THE PARTNER COMMUNITY ON OUR PARKS REMAINS STRONG

reported an average revenue decline of $1.6 

million, in contrast to an average increase 

of $500,000 across all groups. Organizations 

dependent on earned revenue may have been 

disproportionately impacted by the pandemic’s 

effect on in-person sales and programming 

due in good part to park closures and program 

cancellations. Despite decreases in revenues 

for some groups, cooperating associations 

and friends groups saw revenue increase in 

aggregate during this period (Figure 3), largely 

attributed to sizeable increases for several 

large organizations.

Emerging and small groups also reported bigger declines in revenue on average than large 

groups, demonstrating their vulnerability to 

COVID and other external shocks. Across organization types, the number of groups with over 

$1 million in park-related revenues increased 

from 2018 to 2021 (Figure 4). This increase 

in the number of large organizations perhaps 

accounts for some insulation to COVID’s more 

devastating impacts in the community. In addition, more, larger, groups may be partially driving the overall increase in total park-related 

revenue in the community from 2018 to 2021.

Large groups may have benefited from several advantages, including larger endowments 

and more fundraising staff. They also had the 

ability to apply for federal and local recovery 

funding. Half of the organizations that work 

exclusively with NPS that completed the survey have endowments; unsurprisingly, larger 

organizations have larger endowments (Figure 

5). These groups benefited from the valuation 

increases in financial markets that occurred 

despite COVID effects on the real economy. 

Larger groups also have more fundraising staff: 

small and medium groups have less than 1 FTE 

on average dedicated to fundraising, while very 

large groups have more than 10 on average. 

FIGURE 3: 2021 PARK SPECIFIC REVENUE EXCEEDS 2018 LEVELS

Estimated park related revenue for organizations with available data in both 2018 and 2021, by organization category, $ millions

Friends

Group

Cooperating

Association

Coordinating

Entity

Other

2018

2021

$77

$48

$78

$10

$97

$26

$116

$23

Large Very Large

2018

2021

24

30

7

15

FIGURE 4: LARGE GROUPS GET LARGER

Count of organizations by park-related revenue category 

with available data in both 2018 and 2021

Large: $1,000,001-$5,000,000 | Very Large: Over $5,000,000

n = 96
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 9

THE IMPACT OF THE PARTNER COMMUNITY ON OUR PARKS REMAINS STRONG

Park partner staffing declined 

since 2018

Despite an increase in revenue since 2018, park 

partners saw staff reductions. Partners reported 

7,700 employees in aggregate in 2021, a 9% decrease 

from the 8,500 reported in 2018. Lack of staff 

capacity was reported as a top concern for park 

partners, with reasons for staff shortages varying 

by park and partner organization. While park visitation in 2021 overall was down 7% from 2018 levels, 

it increased 25% from 2020 levels7

, challenging 

some partners who sought to hire during widespread labor shortages seen in many industries.

7.  National Park Service. Visitation Numbers.

FIGURE 5: HALF OF ORGANIZATIONS HAVE ENDOWMENTS

Percent of organizations that dedicate 100% of their work to NPS by size with endowment type, n = 44

No endowment Up to $500,000 $500,000 – $1M $1M – $10M More than $10M

Very Large, >$5m

Large, $1-5m

Medium, $250k-$1m

Small, $50-250k

Emerging, <$50k

50%

25%

7%

11%

7%

Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 10

Partners have a positive outlook on 

growth in the year ahead

Partners are largely optimistic about the next 

year and beyond. Almost 90% of organizations 

expect financial contributions to NPS to meet or 

exceed pre-pandemic levels in the coming year 

(Figure 6).

The park partner community also expects to 

grow staff capacity in the coming year, adding 

an average of 2 full time employees. Emerging, 

small and medium organizations expect to add 

less than 1 employee on average. Large organizations expect to add 1.7 on average, while very 

large organizations expect to add 6.4 on average. Figure 7 provides expected average annual 

growth rate by group size.

Percent Responding

10%

40%

50%

FIGURE 6: MOST ORGANIZATIONS EXPECT 

FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO NPS OVER 

THE NEXT YEAR TO MEET OR EXCEED 

PRE-PANDEMIC LEVELS

Percent of organizations by expectation, n = 102

Signals point toward recovery

FIGURE 7: ORGANIZATIONS OF ALL SIZES EXPECT TO GROW NEXT YEAR

Mean percent estimated growth (new employees added) over the next year, n = 126

24%

25%

18%

Emerging 62%

Small 22%

Medium

Large

Very Large
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 11

SIGNALS POINT TOWARD RECOVERY

Park partners are integrating 

innovative practices into 

mainstream operations

Beyond the numbers, many organizations are 

celebrating newfound, lasting innovation that 

started during COVID. More than half of organizations (Figure 8) have made permanent 

changes to provide virtual events and adopted 

hybrid or full-time remote work. 

One partner said: “Some of our education programs and forums have had a much wider reach 

because more of them have been done virtually. 

Staff satisfaction is higher because the staff do 

not have to commute into work every day. It is 

easier to convene short committee meetings with 

our trustees. Our virtual presentations and workshops have become part of our on-going interpretive and educational materials because they can 

be used over and over again.”

Another partner said: “Virtual programming 

increased our attendance by over 100%. Subsequent recordings of presentations were archived 

and re-used on websites, blogs and numerous 

other applications to further extend our outreach. 

Learning how to use technology has accelerated 

our learning curve and hence introduced us to 

other possibilities in the virtual world (i.e. video 

for online access, designing our website and 

virtual programing to be accessible, collecting 

important data, and better meeting the needs of 

our supporters).”

Partners are planning new projects 

with superintendents over the next 

3-5 years

Partners are building on this momentum and 

planning new projects and opportunities over the 

next 3-5 years, from land acquisition to workforce housing. While more partners are focused 

FIGURE 8: THE PANDEMIC SPURRED PERMANENT CHANGES FOR MOST ORGANIZATIONS

Percent of organizations adopting permanent changes in response to COVID-19, n = 97

62%

55%

48%

38%

37%

29%

Adopted hybrid or full-time 

remote work

Shifted to 

virtual events

Shifted to provide people experiences 

and access to parks virtually

Commenced new activities or 

offerings to diversify revenue sources

Developed new 

partnerships

Changed business model (e.g., 

eliminated programs, increased focus 

on philanthropic or individual giving)
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 12

SIGNALS POINT TOWARD RECOVERY

on visitor experience than any other category 

(Figure 9), many partners are pursuing multiple 

priorities in parallel over the next several years. 

Examples of partner priorities include:

k 21st century visitor experience: Nearly 

half of partners are prioritizing visitor experiences, whether developing new visitor centers 

or expanding trails. For example, The Zion 

National Park Forever Project (UT) is investing in the East Zion Initiative. It will include 

a new Visitor Center, 70+ miles of hiking and 

biking trails, a transportation hub, and interpretive educational experiences developed and 

designed with voices from federal, state, local, 

and tribal stakeholders.

k Conservation and climate resiliency:

Nearly a quarter of partners are prioritizing climate and conservation. For example, 

Save the Dunes Conservation Fund (IN) 

plans to develop shoreline erosion resilience 

and climate solutions with local surrounding communities in Northwest Indiana. It 

also plans to launch a Corporate Partnership 

program with local shoreline industries to 

include volunteer days in the national park 

as they continue supporting environmentally 

friendly practices and pollution prevention 

from these companies.

k Inspiring future park stewards and telling 

the history of America through inclusivity 

and access: Over 20% of partners described 

a diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) priority, with 9% focused on indigenous communities. For example, Great Basin National Park 

Foundation (NV) is expanding outreach to 

diverse and historically excluded youth, both 

tribal and non-tribal, in urban areas. Cache La 

Poudre River National Heritage Area (CO) is 

focused on inclusive storytelling of indigenous 

peoples and immigrants. The National Park 

Foundation launched an Inclusive Storytelling 

Grant designed to support projects that help 

the National Park Service share more inclusive 

and comprehensive narratives, reduce park 

Storytelling backlogs and invest in staff capacity to sustain transformative interpretation.

FIGURE 9: PARTNER PRIORITIES VARY: MANY FOCUS ON VISITOR EXPERIENCE

Percent of organizations proactively mentioning each area as a priority over the next 3-5 years,* n = 125

21st century visitor experience:

improving access and usability, 

restoring structures, 

modernizing visitation

Inspiring future park stewards:

Educating and welcoming

youth to our national parks

Conservation and climate resiliency: 

Protecting land species, and habitat; 

adapting to climate change

Telling the history of America:

Inclusive storytelling, educating 

the public about our heritage

45%

26%

23%

14%

*Many partners detailed priorities in multiple areas
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 13

Partners are increasingly limited by 

capacity constraints

Lack of internal and NPS staff 

capacity is a major challenge

While partners are planning a variety of ambitious and impactful projects, they are also challenged by several potential barriers. Partners 

identified capacity (internal and NPS) as their 

top challenge this year (Figure 10) – overtaking 

fundraising which was the number one challenge 

identified in the 2020 report. Smaller organizations report being more limited by internal 

capacity and larger organizations by NPS capacity. NPS limitations include inadequate time 

to coordinate on partnership projects, lack of 

staff to manage and complete projects, turnover 

among NPS staff, and policies that impede the 

progress of projects such as workplans focused 

on annual goals versus multi-year goals, delays 

in partnership agreements, donor vetting procedures, and delegation of authorities. 

Partners of all sizes request 

fundraising support

When asked what areas of support would be 

most beneficial to them, partners emphasized 

fundraising (Figure 11). This holds true for 

organizations of all sizes outside the very largest, 

illustrating this is a need that extends beyond 

the smallest partners, though as Figure 10 shows, 

it is less of a barrier for large organizations. The 

challenges of the past few years have only amplified the fundraising needs partners face as they 

continue to provide important services to parks. 

While fewer organizations requested DEI support 

than in 2020, more than half of organizations 

requested support in marketing and communications, and in strategy. Requests for board support – whether training, recruitment, fundraising, 

or providing clarity around Director’s Order 21 

FIGURE 10: LACK OF CAPACITY IS THE BIGGEST BARRIER TO PARTNER SUCCESS

Number of organizations choosing each area as one of their biggest limitations in maximizing impact on NPS, n = 126

Lack of internal

organizational 

capacity and 

staffing

Lack of 

sufficient 

NPSstaff

Lack of 

fundraising

capacity

NPS policies that 

prevent your 

organization 

from pursuing 

priorities

Significant 

differences 

between your 

priorities and 

NPS priorities

Very Large, >$5m Large, $1-5m Medium, $250k-$1m Small, $50-250k Emerging, <$50k

53%

50%

48%

26%

11%

10%
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 14

PARTN E RS ARE I NCRE A SI N G LY LI M ITE D BY C APACIT Y CONSTR AI NTS

(DO21) and the Donations and Philanthropic 

Partnerships Reference Manual 21 (RM21) – was 

a common theme in survey open answers. 

Changes in park partner diversity 

can be measured over time

Park partner board and leadership diversity can 

be tracked over time and compared to environmental non-profit benchmarks (Figure 12). The 

Green 2.0 2021 NGO & Foundation Transparency Report Card shares environmental NGOs 

on average have more than 25% senior staff who 

identify as persons of color (POC) and more 

than 30% POC board members, compared to 

approximately 10% POC partner leaders and 

board members. This benchmark can help park 

partners see how their diversity fares relative to 

sector averages and to measure changes in the 

community over time. We recognize leadership 

diversity is only one component of a diverse, 

equitable, and inclusive organization, and one of 

many important lenses for partners as they continue to prioritize equity and inclusivity in their 

strategies and operations. 

FIGURE 11: PARTNERS CONTINUE TO REQUEST FUNDRAISING SUPPORT

Percent of respondents choosing each category as 1 of 5 areas from which they would benefit from training, new tools, or support 

n = 122

Fundraising/

resource

mobilization

Marketing/

communications

/branding

Strategy NPS policies and

procedures

Diversity, 

equity, and 

inclusion

Volunteer

management,

partnerships,

and/or

community

outreach

Programming

and service

provision

Organizational

culture

Very Large, >$5m Large, $1-5m Medium, $250k-$1m Small, $50-250k Emerging, <$50k

67%

52% 52%

42% 40% 39%

34%

22%

19%

SURVEY RESPONDENT 

BOARD DIVERSITY

GREEN 2.0 

BOARD DIVERSITY

SURVEY RESPONDENT 

LEADERSHIP DIVERSITY

GREEN 2.0 

LEADERSHIP DIVERSITY

Black, Indigenous, 

or people of color 10% 30% 11% 25%

Women or 

non-binary 27% – 44% –

50 years old 

or younger

17% – 32% –

FIGURE 12: PARK PARTNER BOARD AND LEADERSHIP DIVERSITY RELATIVE TO INDUSTRY AVERAGES
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 15

PARTN E RS ARE I NCRE A SI N G LY LI M ITE D BY C APACIT Y CONSTR AI NTS

Capacity and fundraising 

challenges serve as the foundation 

for partner suggestions to NPF, the 

Friends Alliance, and NPS

In addition to the specific requests for areas of 

support in Figure 11, partners offered suggestions 

to NPF, the Friends Alliance, and NPS. Partner 

suggestions to NPF and the Friends Alliance 

closely track the areas of support above, including requests for additional fundraising and marketing trainings. Partners appreciate and seek 

more opportunities to collaborate and learn from 

peers, both virtually and in-person (e.g., regional 

trainings), with some requests for participation 

assistance (e.g., scholarships and travel support). 

Partners want to work with NPS to address challenges related to two of the barriers described 

above: insufficient NPS staffing and NPS policies 

and procedures that obstruct partner priorities. Specifically, partners suggest a focus on 

hiring and flexibility. They describe high NPS 

turnover, slow hiring, and slow onboarding, and 

suggest NPS increase efficiency in hiring practices, assign a liaison to work with partners, and 

train staff on the role of partners and value of 

philanthropy. Partners continue to request more 

flexibility in policies and procedures where 

feasible (e.g., reducing Public Land Corps (PLC) 

matching requirements; longer terms on agreements, updating processes for donation review), 

while providing consistency in contracting and 

standardized practices across parks. 

Chesapeake and Ohio Canal National Historical Park
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 16

San Antonio Missions National Historical Park, Paola Longoria

Recommendations

Progress on recommendations 

from the 2020 report is ongoing

The 2020 report raised three recommendations 

to guide the partner community over the next 

few years. Progress has been made on each

recommendation:

Create a five-year plan to build the capacity 

of the park partner community, particularly 

small and medium-sized organizations, with 

an emphasis on fundraising, communications, 

DEI, and strategy

k Partner capacity supports have been 

bolstered. The Friends Alliance hired an 

Executive Director and is increasing its own 

capacity to support partner organizations. 

Affinity groups and new Friends Groups have 

been established and continue to evolve, and 

Friends Alliance meetings have provided 

opportunities for increased collaboration. 

NPF developed a 5-year Community Partnerships Strategic Plan and increased its own 

capacity to better serve the partner community, including building out a resource portal. 

Since 2020, NPF supported 48 park partners 

through Strong Parks, Strong Communities 

(SPSC) grants and organizational capacity building, and 36 individuals with professional development capacity building. In 

2021, NPF supported 117 park partners with 

nearly $10 million in grants. In addition to 

SPSC, these grants supported Open Outdoors 

for Kids, Service Corps, and other projects 

such as teaching traditional fishing methods 

at Knife River Indian Heritage Foundation and 

co-creating national park opportunities with 

Outdoor Afro.

Strengthen the National Park Service’s knowledge of philanthropy and continue to improve 

NPS’s processes and rules to enhance collaborative partnerships
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 17

RECOMMENDATIONS

k Work has begun to address challenges 

related to NPS policies, procedures, and 

agreements that affect partners. Director Orders 21 and 32, related to friends groups 

and cooperating associations respectively, 

are being considered for revision to clarify 

and improve the efficiency of NPS-partner 

processes. NPS is also working on a DOI 

University training module for all GS-9’s 

and above to educate NPS staff on DO21 and 

to strengthen the culture of partnerships 

across the Service. And, NPF is funding two 

additional staff members in the Washington 

D.C. Area Support Office (WASO) Partnerships Office for three years to help manage 

grant agreements, vet donors, activate 

and approve corporate partnerships, and 

strengthen NPS-partner relationships. 

Amplify the park partner community’s 

resources to benefit national parks through a 

nationwide collective campaign

k The idea of a collective campaign is moving 

forward. Planning was delayed due to the 

economic uncertainty of the last two years 

and now NPF is actively in discussions with 

close to 40 partners who have signed a Letter 

of Interest to explore the collective nature 

of a national fundraising campaign. NPF is 

working collaboratively with friends group 

leaders to codesign the campaign in ways 

that are beneficial to NPS, partners, and 

NPF. Advisory groups have been formed 

and pilot projects will allow partners to test 

concepts as to how they might work collaboratively to successfully position national parks 

as worthy of philanthropic support.

8.  The number of NPS FTEs declined almost 18% between 2010 and 2020. 2020: National Park Service (NPS) Appropriations: Ten-Year Trends. Page 14. 2010: 

FY 2011 Greenbook. Overview-2.

2022 recommendations

The needs of the park partner community 

today suggest several priorities for the 

near future: 

A. Build NPS capacity through policy and 

procedure enhancements, targeted 

workforce training and hiring, and 

expanded public-private partnership 

opportunities 

The community sees NPS capacity constraints as 

a significant challenge. NPS staffing has shrunk 

over the last decade8

 while the number of visitors, 

park units, resource protection needs, and park 

partners have increased. Partners are diverse in 

nature and seek alignment around a common 

vision with NPS that can lead to greater public 

engagement and support as well as growth and 

success of partners. In addition to embracing a 

common vision and increasing funding for NPS, 

there are a few areas where partners and parks 

can work together: 

k Refresh Director’s Order 21 and Reference 

Manual 21 to empower partners through 

greater engagement and clarity: Director’s Order 21 was last updated in 2016. The 

partner community has grown considerably 

since then – both in fundraising expertise 

as well as becoming more deeply involved 

in park operations. Partners suggest raising 

the threshold for philanthropic agreements, 

updating donation review and gift acceptance 

guidelines to align partner expertise with the 

right threshold levels, streamlining philanthropic partnership agreements, focusing 
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 18

RECOMMENDATIONS

on multi-year goals rather than one-year 

workplans, and allowing for partner engagement in design and construction where possible, among others.

k Accelerate targeted workforce training and 

hiring practices: With limited staff capacity 

at NPS compared to a decade ago, the partner 

community sees value in increasing efficiency 

in NPS hiring policies and practices, training 

new NPS hires on partner organization roles 

and the value of philanthropy, and extending 

recruitment strategies to individuals of diverse 

backgrounds. NPS and partners should work 

collaboratively to identify creative solutions 

to workforce issues, such as employee 

housing. These hiring priorities may be even 

more important as the Inflation Reduction 

Act funding becomes available. In addition, 

partners may be able to directly support 

positions that extend beyond what NPS can do 

themselves. 

k Expand public-private partnerships: Recognizing that partners can offer unique services 

beyond NPS’s core mission, the partner 

community seeks additional public-private 

partnerships to support NPS’s park management, professional development, employee 

support structures (e.g., housing), and other 

services. There are many examples of past 

successful public-private partnerships, such as 

the Gettysburg Foundation’s work to enhance 

the Gettysburg National Military Park (PA) 

visitor experience through its visitor center 

and interpretive offerings, or Rock Creek 

Conservancy’s support to Rock Creek Park 

(Washington, D.C.) to promote equitable forest 

and climate resilience. There are also ongoing 

efforts to creatively use public-private partnerships to engage some of the community’s most 

pressing challenges, such as the recent effort 

to address housing in Acadia (ME).

B. Facilitate cross-partner learning 

and extend support to meet current 

partner needs 

Partners are eager to learn and collaborate. The 

community can build partner capacity and connections through the following activities: 

k Amplify fundraising support for innovative projects and partner requests: NPF 

should continue to support partners with 

the fundraising and communications tools 

they request (e.g., digital fundraising, small 

gift community fundraising, donor prospecting), while elevating creative and innovative 

work in the field. NPF should also continue 

to support partner groups through capacity building efforts via its Strong Parks, Strong 

Communities program.

k Support partners’ work to create diverse, 

equitable, and inclusive organizations. 

NPF can build on progress to date by providing tools and trainings to help organizations 

achieve their DEI goals (e.g., increase board 

and leadership diversity, build more inclusive 

organizational practices and culture, expand 

justice and equity-related programming, 

strengthen outreach to indigenous communities and communities of color, and connect 

with peer organizations to share learnings). 
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 19

RECOMMENDATIONS

k Extend the Friends Alliance’s reach: The 

Friends Alliance can build on its recent 

Executive Director appointment and conduct 

thoughtful strategic planning to assess where 

FA is now and where it would like to be in 3-5 

years. In addition to creating opportunities 

for partners to learn from each other such 

as at the annual in-person autumn meeting, 

the Friends Alliance can facilitate additional 

NPS-partner sessions to share both agency 

and partner priorities, further fostering 

collaboration.

k Pursue a national collective campaign: As 

described in the 2020 report, there remains 

value in a national campaign to magnify 

community needs and develop resources for 

the community as a whole. Using one voice 

and a core set of national philanthropic goals 

aligned with NPS’s priorities can amplify 

the community’s impact. A national call for 

shared needs can accelerate partner goals at 

the local level. 

C.Tackle tomorrow’s big issues, today 

Park partners demonstrated remarkable resilience in the face of a global pandemic. Opportunity remains to learn and prepare for the next 

challenge – before it impacts the nation’s parks.

k Explore establishing a new virtual center 

to anticipate the challenges of tomorrow

and collaboratively develop, pilot, and scale 

solutions to those challenges. NPF is in the 

early stages of pursuing a “think-and-do” tank 

in partnership with NPS and the partner 

community, drawing in expertise from the 

private sector where relevant. It could involve 

thought leadership, conferences, or working 

groups. It could further innovative practices 

on climate change, visitor use management, 

building the next generation of park users, 

telling America’s diverse stories, and other 

opportunities parks and partner organizations face. It could also monitor environmental, tourism, technological, and economic 

trends relevant to national parks and identify 

resources and technologies to equip national 

parks to address future challenges.

 Congaree National Park
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 20

Yellowstone National Park, Jacob W. Frank

Appendix A: Acknowledgements

More individuals and organizations 

than can be named contributed to 

this report

Thank you to the primary National Park Foundation team – Dieter Fenkart-Froeschl, Deb 

Yandala, Sarah Unz, and Will Shafroth – for your 

guidance, thought partnership, and commitment. 

Thanks as well to the many others at NPF who 

contributed to this work.

We appreciate the partnership from Reginald 

Chapple and Karyn Ferro at the National Park 

Service and Frank Dean and Katie Nyberg from 

the Friends Alliance Steering Committee, as well 

as those who informed this year’s survey and 

approach by participating in interviews.

Finally, thank you to the many partner organizations who took the time to complete the survey: 

you made this report possible.
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 21

Appendix B: Glossary of Terms

Cooperating Association: 

A category of park partner that primarily provides education, products, or services to national 

park visitors through retail sales and other 

channels. Cooperating associations may provide 

philanthropic or in-kind support to parks as part 

of their cooperating agreements. 

Coordinating Entity: 

A category of park partner that is designated, 

often by Congress, as the entity responsible for 

maintaining a national heritage area, national 

trail, or national river. 

Director’s Order 21 (DO-21): 

The NPS guide to employees regarding philanthropic partnerships and the acceptance of support from the private sector.

Director’s Order 32 (DO-32): 

The NPS guide to managers and staff regarding partnerships with Cooperating Associations. 

DO-32 helps define and clarify the roles of NPS 

and Cooperating Associations to strengthen mission alignment. 

Form 990: 

A tax return form that most registered 501(c)3 

nonprofit organizations are required to file and 

make public each tax year. It provides basic 

financial information about the organization, 

including data on revenue and expenses. Organizations regularly earning under $50,000 in revenue are typically not required to file a Form 990.

The Friends Alliance: 

A coordinating body for friends groups and 

other organizations working in partnership with 

national parks, primarily providing community 

organization and networking opportunities.

Friends Group: 

A category of park partner that primarily provides philanthropic and in-kind support to parks. 

NPF: 

The National Park Foundation, the official charitable partner of the National Park Service, generates private support and builds strategic partnerships to protect and enhance America’s national 

parks for present and future generations.

NPS: 

The National Park Service, a US government 

agency within the Department of the Interior 

that is responsible for the administration of 

national parks and other natural and historical 

resources.

Other Organization: 

A category of park partner that includes service 

corps organizations, environmental and historical education partners, land trusts, and miscellaneous other partners. 

Parks: 

Used in this report to refer to all national parks; 

national designations such as national heritage 

areas, national rivers, and national trails; and 

affiliated national park resources that partners 

work to support.
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 22

Appendix C: Methodology

Overview

We used qualitative and quantitative methods 

to inform the findings and recommendations in 

the 2022 Park Partners Report. We first surveyed 

park partners to gather data on a range of issues, 

including financial figures in fiscal year 2021. 

Knowing our survey reached only a sample of the 

park partner community, we also gathered publicly available IRS 990 tax returns to supplement 

survey financial data with additional information about organization revenues and expenses. 

Together, survey and Form 990 data allowed us 

to make estimates, especially with respect to 

financial data, about the park partner community as a whole. 

Survey

We launched the survey in June 2022 and 

requested participation from the 470 organizations we had identified as park partners. Survey 

questions focused on partner successes, challenges, support to NPS, and overall financials in 

the 2021 fiscal year. Many of the questions were 

sourced from the 2020 report survey to track 

changes over time, though we added several new 

questions (e.g., board and leadership diversity) 

informed by partner interviews conducted in 

advance of the survey. These interviews helped 

identify key areas to explore in the report. For 

the complete list of survey questions, see Appendix D. 134 organizations responded to the survey 

with some variation by question.

Form 990 Analysis

To estimate the total revenue and support to NPS 

from the park partner community, we supplemented survey data with publicly available data 

for those organizations that did not respond to 

the survey. Following the approach taken for 

the 2020 report, we collected Form 990s for as 

many organizations as possible to gather data on 

revenue, expenses, employees, and volunteers. 

Organizations that generate under $50,000 in 

annual revenues are generally not required to 

file a form 990, so no form 990 is available for 

these organizations. 

Notably, the IRS had not yet released the bulk of 

2021 990s, so we collected 2020 990s and extrapolated data to form 2021 estimates, detailed 

below. Due to extended reporting deadlines during the pandemic and changes in the IRS online 

database, there were fewer available 2020 990s 

than there were 2019 990s used in the 2020 Park 

Partners report. We supplemented 990s sourced 

from the IRS database with 990s from third 

party sources such as GuideStar, ProPublica, and 

Charity Navigator. In total, we collected 204 2020 

Form 990s. 152 of those were for organizations 

that did not respond to the survey. 

Other

Friends Group

14

15

39

66

134

FIGURE 13: SURVEY RESPONSES BY CATEGORY

Number of surveyed organizations responding
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 23

APPENDIX C: METHODOLOGY

Estimating 2021 Park-Related 

Revenue and Support to NPS 

We used a combination of survey and Form 990 

data to estimate organizations’ 2021 revenue 

related to parks, as well as their total support 

to NPS. We first asked survey respondents to 

provide 2021 park-related revenue and support 

to NPS and used those figures for organizations 

who supplied them. 

For organizations who did not respond to the 

survey, we used 2020 Form 990s to create 2021 

estimates. We first used 2020 total revenue and 

expenses reported on 990s to estimate parkrelated revenue and support to NPS (i.e. an organization may have $1 million in expenses, but 

only spends 10% of that on support to NPS). We 

used the average percentage of work related to 

NPS by organization type from the 2020 report 

for an apples-to-apples comparison (Figure 15). 

For cooperating associations, we used the 

percentage of revenue contributed, reflecting a 

conservative assumption that cooperating associations’ contributed dollars are likely to be spent 

in support of NPS, where earned revenue may 

not be. For each organization, we then applied 

the appropriate category average to the 990 total 

revenue and expenses figures. This resulted in 

an estimate of the total revenue and expenses for 

each organization directly related to parks.

We then applied growth rates to the 2020 figures 

to estimate ranges of 2021 total revenue and support. A range allows us to provide both a highly 

conservative and less conservative estimate, 

understanding the nature of the analysis makes 

it difficult to identify a single number with a high 

degree of confidence. We used a conservative 

assumption of zero growth from 2020 to 2021 

to determine the low-end of the range, despite 

data suggesting groups have grown overall. To 

determine an upper-bound figure, we calculated 

an average 2020-2021 growth rate by organization type using organizations that provided 2021 

data in the survey and had 2020 Form 990 data 

available. For “other” organizations, we used the 

full sample average due to a very small category 

sample size. 

CATEGORY AVE R AG E PE RC E NT O F 

WORK SUPPORTING NPS

Cooperating 

Association

50% (contributed

percentage used)

Coordinating 

Entity 72%

Friends Group 59%

Other 13%

FIGURE 15: PERCENT OF WORK SUPPORTING 

NPS BY CATEGORY

Other

Friends Group

35

204

37

53

79

FIGURE 14: 2020 990 FORM AVAILABILITY 

BY CATEGORY

Number of organizations with 2020 990s received
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 24

APPENDIX C: METHODOLOGY

FIGURE 16: UPPER-BOUND GROWTH ESTIMATES

Average Change in Revenue and Expenses 2020 to 2021 by Category* 

*Averages weighted by organization size

**Upper-bound growth estimates for "other" organizations use the average across categories due to a small category sample size

CATEGORY

AVERAGE PERCENT

CHAN G E I N REVE N U E 

2020 TO 2021

AVE R AG E PE RCE NT 

CHAN G E I N E XPE NSE S 

2020 TO 2021

Cooperating Association 90% 20%

Coordinating Entity 94% 6%

Friends Group 63% 6%

Other** 82% 15%
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 25

Appendix D: Survey Questions

Basic information

1. Please provide the following identifying information about yourself: 

• First Name

• Last Name

• Work Email Address

2. Please provide the following identifying information about your organization:

• Organization Name

• Federal Employer Identification Number (if available, otherwise enter NA)

• Your Position at Organization/Job Title

Throughout the survey we use “NPS” to refer to the National Park Service and all NPS units and 

designations (https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/national-park-system.htm). National park units 

include parks, monuments, historic sites, battlefields, etc. National park designations include 

heritage areas, trails, wild and scenic rivers, etc.

3. What type of NPS units or designations does your organization support? Select all that apply.

• National Park Unit

• National Heritage Area

• National Trail System

• National River System

• Other (please describe)

4. Which of the following best describes your organization? Select all that apply. 

• Friends Group

• Cooperating Association

• Service Corps

• Land Trust

• Management entity for a trail/river/heritage area 

• Other (please describe)

5. Do you have any formal contractual relationships with NPS? Select all that apply.

• Philanthropic Partnership Agreement

• Cooperative Agreement

• Sell products or services within or related to parks (distinct from a cooperative agreement or 

philanthropic partnership)
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 26

APPENDIX D: SURVEY QUESTIONS

• Official coordinating entity for river trail or heritage area

• Partnership design and construction agreements

• NPS grant agreements

• We do not have any formal contractual relationships with NPS

• Other (please describe)

6. Does your organization work exclusively with NPS? [Skip question 7 if yes]

• Yes

• No

7. What percentage of your organization’s work would you estimate pertains to NPS? [Estimate 

one to 100]

Organizational priorities

8. What was your biggest national park-related success over the past two years? 

9. As you envision the next 3-5 years, what are 1-3 of the most exciting projects that you and your 

superintendent(s) plan to make a priority?

10. What are your organization’s biggest limitations to maximizing your impact on NPS? Select all that 

apply. For each option selected, you are welcome to add any information or detail you would like 

to share. 

• Lack of fundraising capacity

• Lack of internal organizational capacity and staffing for programming, volunteer management, 

services, etc.

• Lack of community or partner relationships 

• Lack of sufficient NPS staff to effectively work with your organization 

• NPS policies regarding contracting, hiring, partner roles, etc. that prevent your organization 

from pursuing its priorities

• Significant differences between your organization’s priorities and goals and the priorities and 

goals of NPS

• Other (please describe)

Organizational capacity 

11. Which of the following best describes the position held by the leader of your organization? Please 

select one.

• Full-time paid
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 27

APPENDIX D: SURVEY QUESTIONS

• Part-time paid

• Full-time volunteer

• Part-time volunteer

• N/A

12. How many years has the leader of your organization been in that position?

13. How many staff members did your organization employ on June 1, 2022? If your organization 

works on projects or programs unrelated to NPS, please estimate for work related to NPS. [count 

by: Full-time paid, Part-time paid] 

14. How many net staff do you plan to add in the next 12 months? (Use negative numbers for projected 

staff reductions.)

15. How many full-time equivalents did your organization have focused on fundraising as of 

June 1, 2022?

16. How many board members does your organization have? Enter NA if your organization does not 

have a board. 

17. How many years are your board term limits? [1, 2, 3, 4, 5+, Our board does not have term 

limits, N/A]

18. Please share the following board diversity statistics. What percentage of your board are...

• Black, Indigenous, or people of color?

• Women or non-binary?

• 50 years old or younger?

19. What percentage of your organization’s leadership are 

• Black, Indigenous, or people of color?

• Women or non-binary?

• 50 years old or younger?

Tools for organizations

20. In which of the following areas would your organization benefit from training, new tools, or 

support over the next twelve months? Select up to five. For each option selected, you are welcome 

to add any information or detail you would like to share. 

• Diversity, equity, and inclusion education, training or coaching 
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 28

APPENDIX D: SURVEY QUESTIONS

• Fundraising/resource mobilization 

• Governance (board engagement, composition, structure, priorities)

• Marketing/communications/branding 

• National Park Service policies and procedures

• Organizational culture

• Programming and service provision (education, conservation, citizen science, etc.)

• Strategy (vision, goals, strategies, business plan, success metrics)

• Volunteer management, partnerships, and/or community outreach 

• Other (Please describe)

21. The National Park Foundation, National Park Service, and the Friends Alliance want to strengthen 

the collective efforts of the national park partner community. What suggestions do you have for us 

to do that more effectively? Please answer as many as are applicable to you. For example, are there 

enhancements NPS could make to make your partnership more effective or efficient? If you are a 

grant recipient of the National Park Foundation, we also welcome comments on our grant process. 

[Text box for each]

• National Park Foundation

• National Park Service

• Friends Alliance 

• General/other

Financial metrics 

22. Were your organization’s 2021 revenues more than $50,000? If your organization works on projects 

or programs outside of NPS, please estimate for work related to NPS specifically. [If no, ask only 

for total revenues and then skip the remainder of the questions in the financial metrics section]

For all of the following questions, please use data for your fiscal year ending in calendar year 

2021. If you do not yet have final or near-final data, please leave the fields blank. It may be easiest to answer these questions if you have your most recent IRS Form 990 and audited financials 

in front of you. Please enter whole numbers with no dollar signs, commas, or decimals.

If your organization works on projects or programs outside of NPS, please estimate for work 

related to NPS specifically.

Revenue 

23. Please provide the following information about your organization’s revenue related to NPS for the 

fiscal year ending in 2021. Enter a zero if you have no revenue in that category. Please also include 

your estimates for revenue for the fiscal year ending in 2022.
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 29

APPENDIX D: SURVEY QUESTIONS

Support to the National Park Service 

24. Did you provide at least $50,000 in financial or in-kind support to the National Park Service in 

your fiscal year ending in 2021? Note: volunteer and service corps hours should not be included 

here [If no, skip the following question]

25. Which of the following types of support did your organization provide to the National Park Service 

in your fiscal year ending in 2021? What do you expect your estimated support to NPS to be for the 

fiscal year ending in 2022? [enter amount/estimated value]

26. What were your organization’s total expenses for your fiscal year ending in calendar year 2021?

27. What is the size of your organization’s endowment as of March 31, 2022?

• We have no endowment

CATEGORY 2021 2022 ESTIMATE

Total revenue 

Contributed revenue – Government grants and other 

government revenue

Contributed revenue – All other contributed sources, including private foundations, individuals, corporate sources, 

and net revenue from fundraising events

Earned revenue – Net income from sale of inventory

Earned revenue – All other earned sources, including 

program services/fee-for-service

CATEGORY 2021 ACTUAL 2022 ESTIMATE

Total aid to the National Park Service

Direct funds to NPS

Contributed revenue – All other contributed sources, including private foundations, individuals, corporate sources, 

and net revenue from fundraising events

In-kind contributions to NPS including land, conservation programs, and education programs (volunteer hours 

detailed below)
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 30

APPENDIX D: SURVEY QUESTIONS

• Up to $500,000

• Between $500,000 and $1 million

• Between $1 million and $10 million

• More than $10 million

28. Does your organization work with volunteers? Exclude board members.

• No

• Yes, and the number of volunteer hours that individuals affiliated with your organization contributed to NPS in 2021 is: [Text Box]

Effects of COVID-19

29. In what ways has your organization adopted permanent changes in response to COVID-19? 

Select all that apply.

• Commenced new activities or offerings to diversify revenue sources

• Changed business model (e.g., eliminated programs, increased focus on philanthropic or individual giving)

• Developed new partnerships

• Adopted hybrid or full-time remote work

• Shifted to virtual events

• Shifted to provide people experiences and access to parks and places virtually

• Other (please describe)

30. Please add any relevant detail, successes, or learning you would like to share regarding the above 

selections.

31. How do you expect your financial contributions to NPS over the next year will compare to 

pre-pandemic levels? 

• We expect our contributions to exceed pre-pandemic levels

• We expect our contributions to meet pre-pandemic levels 

• We expect our contributions to be less than pre-pandemic levels

32. How do you expect the current inflationary market to impact your organization over the next 

12 months?

• We expect to reduce staffing

• We expect to increase compensation

• We expect project costs to increase

• We expect a need for greater unrestricted dollars

• Other (please specify)
Redstone | 2022 National Park Partners Report 31

APPENDIX D: SURVEY QUESTIONS

7. Impact on parks

Activities with the National Park Service

33. In which of the following activities or functions is your organization engaged with NPS? Select all 

that apply. [Organized by category]

Education

• Youth education

• General education

• Other education

Conservation 

• Land preservation

• Scientific studies

• Species protection

• Other conservation

Restoration

• Historic structure rehabilitation

• Trail restoration

• Habitat restoration

• Waterway restoration

• Removal of invasive species

• Other restoration

Construction

• Public facilities construction/maintenance

• New infrastructure development (e.g., park staff housing, roads)

• Trail construction

• Other construction

Culture

• Diversity, equity, inclusion, and racial justice

• Other culture

Other (please describe)

34. Are there other areas in which your organization is interested in engaging with NPS? 

35. If you could run a session or webinar with NPS to teach them something about park partners, what 

would it be?