Congressionally Chartered Organizations: Key Principles for Leveraging Nonfederal Resources
Published: 2013-06-07T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Through congressional charters, Congress has created independent organizations which receive support from federal and nonfederal sources. These organizations, known as CCOs, are authorized to receive and retain financial and nonfinancial resources from nonfederal partners to help meet their core mission and goals. In 2012, GAO was directed to study CCOs. To determine whether selected CCOs offer lessons learned to facilitate the leveraging of nonfederal resources, GAO studied (1) factors, if any, that facilitated selected CCOs' ability to partner with the nonfederal sector and (2) key principles to better leverage resources through nonfederal partners. To do this, GAO reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and policies; analyzed relevant legal authorities, agency documents, and prior GAO reports; conducted site visits to the four CCOs; and reviewed literature on partnerships. GAO compiled key principles, discussed and validated them with subject matter specialists and the four CCOs, and incorporated their feedback, as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Four factors facilitated the ability of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, National Gallery of Art, Presidio Trust, and Smithsonian Institution to leverage nonfederal resources: (1) unique legal authorities and management flexibilities; (2) benefits received from these congressionally chartered organizations' (CCO) federal status; (3) governing boards that provided management and oversight; and (4) informal networks that enabled CCOs to share lessons. A critical flexibility is the ability to accept gifts and solicit private donations, but the CCOs in this study are not required to, and did not always provide, a complete picture of nonfederal resources to Congress. The federal budget process is the primary means by which the President and Congress select among competing demands for federal funds; as such, it is essential that budget information be comprehensive and clear. While Congress does not direct the CCOs' use of nonfederal funds, consistent and timely information about CCOs' total resources could provide important context for understanding both the relative tradeoffs among funding decisions and the implications of such decisions.
GAO compiled six key principles to guide CCOs' management decisions about leveraging resources through nonfederal partners.
1. Make partnering decisions in line with mission. Organizations that leverage partnering arrangements have clear, well-articulated missions; strategic goals to achieve them; and a defined process for assessing whether partnering arrangements complement their missions and goals.
2. Ensure top leadership support for partnering arrangements. Top leadership support is critical to successfully pursuing and engaging partners. The tone at the top--management's philosophy and operating style--sets the stage for how the organization will make management decisions related to partnering.
3. Assess and manage risks . Partnering decisions should reflect both the likely risk and the organization's tolerance for risk in partnering. Incorporating risk assessment and risk management practices into partnering decisions can help ensure that the organization recognizes and is prepared to manage explicit risks (e.g., financial and physical) and implicit risks (e.g., reputational).
4. Select complementary partners and appropriate projects. Partners should bring complementary resources, skills, and financial capacities to the relationship. A systematic approach helps to identify projects that are well-suited for partnering opportunities and helps to achieve an organization's mission.
5. Manage partnering arrangements. Partnering arrangements are relationships that should be managed actively. Formalizing collaborations between the partners, including documenting dispute resolution processes, can enable productive partner interactions. Further, it is important to have the staff with the right skills and experience to manage these opportunities.
6. Evaluate partnering arrangements. Information about how well existing partnering arrangements leverage nonfederal resources could inform decisions about continuing arrangements or entering into new ones. Gathering this information also presents an opportunity to evaluate progress toward a project's intended goals.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: To provide more complete information about CCOs' fiscal position and strategies for leveraging resources from and strengthening relationships with nonfederal partners, congressional committees should consider requiring that the CCOs under their jurisdiction report on their total nonfederal funds--including a breakdown of the amounts and uses--in their annual budget requests. All of the CCOs GAO studied generally agreed with the report's findings and provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated, as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Through congressional charters, Congress has created independent  organizations which receive support from both federal and nonfederal  resources. These congressionally chartered organizations (CCO) are  authorized to receive and retain financial and nonfinancial resources from  nonfederal partners to help meet their core mission and goals.
Nonfederal financial resources generally take the form of private  donations while nonfinancial resources may include specialized skills,  artifacts and exhibitions, or infrastructure that CCOs leverage to meet  their management and operational duties.
Congress has chartered organizations for diverse purposes, but CCOs  generally have missions and goals dedicated to promoting a public  purpose to which private individuals and nonfederal partners are drawn.  CCOs have been described as being perceived to be better suited than  typical government agencies to handle certain issues and deliver services  by partnering activities with nonfederal entities to produce public value  greater than what the federal government can accomplish alone. We  have previously reported that many of the meaningful results that the  federal government seeks to achieve require the coordinated efforts of  more than one federal agency, level of government, or sector.
The report accompanying the Fiscal Year 2012 Interior, Environment, and  Related Agencies Appropriations Bill directed us to study CCOs. This  study addresses whether CCOs under the subcommittees’ jurisdiction  offer examples and lessons learned from leveraging partners that enable  the government to share costs with the private sector. To do this, we (1)  determined factors, if any, that facilitated selected CCOs’ ability to partner  with the nonfederal sector and (2) compiled key principles to better  leverage resources through nonfederal partners.
For the purposes of this report, we define CCOs as entities that (1) were  created by Congress; (2) have the authority to receive appropriations  directly and not just through another federal agency; (3) have the  authority to receive nonfederal funds; (4) are subject to congressional  oversight; and (5) are managed or advised by a board or commission that  includes government officials, presidential or congressional appointees,  or both. Based on this definition, we identified nine CCOs in the  committees’ fiscal year 2012 appropriation.
To study how CCOs leveraged resources of nonfederal partners, we  selected a nongeneralizable sample of four CCOs within the committees’  jurisdiction. The four selected CCOs represent a range of organization  types and services, and leverage nonappropriated funds to different  extents. They are the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, the National  Gallery of Art, the Presidio Trust, and the Smithsonian Institution.
To conduct our work, we visited these four CCOs to observe partnering  efforts and to meet with officials responsible for those activities. We  analyzed relevant documentation related to CCOs’ partnering activities,  such as legal authorities, strategic and annual plans, bylaws and policies,  budget documents, and reports to Congress. We reviewed relevant  federal laws, regulations, and policies and analyzed relevant legal  authorities. We also reviewed our past work and reports from the  Congressional Research Service and the National Academy of Public  Administration. At the four CCOs, we interviewed cognizant officials and  board members about how they leveraged resources through nonfederal  partners and what factors facilitated those partnering efforts. We spoke  with officials that were involved in partnering arrangements, as identified  by each CCO. To develop themes and examples from our documentary  and testimonial evidence, we analyzed information from relevant  documents and responses to our interview questions to identify and  confirm common patterns. We did not independently verify the quality of  the CCOs’ partnering efforts nor interview their partners.
To help put the experiences of these four CCOs in context, we also  looked to our body of work on the Valles Caldera Trust for additional  lessons learned. modeled its governance structure after the Presidio Trust. We reviewed  our prior work and have included information collected during routine  agency follow-up on open recommendations conducted in February 2013  to ensure we had the most current information about the Valles Caldera  Trust’s experience.
GAO, Valles Caldera: Trust Has Made Some Progress, but Needs to Do More to Meet  Statutory Goals, GAO-06-98 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 16, 2005); and Valles Caldera: The  Trust Has Made Progress but Faces Significant Challenges to Achieve Goals of the  Preservation Act, GAO-10-84 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 30, 2009).
To compile key principles that CCOs follow to better leverage resources  through nonfederal partners, we conducted a literature review of reports  and academic papers on public-private partnerships and partnering  arrangements. We identified six principles. We incorporated into the  principles lessons learned and good practices from the four CCOs we  visited. We discussed and validated these principles with federal and  academic researchers who study partnerships; these subject matter  specialists generally agreed with these principles and provided  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. We also compared  these six principles with key issues that we have identified when  organizations work collaboratively. Finally, we sought feedback on the  principles from the four CCOs we visited. CCO officials agreed with the  six principles we compiled and provided specific comments on elements  of these principles, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We conducted this performance audit from April 2012 to June 2013 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: CCOs are congressionally created entities that are in part privately  funded but operate under some level of government oversight, generally  through the appointment of their leadership, management oversight, or   The missions of these entities vary substantially,  additional regulation.but individually they are narrowly defined. Table 1 provides attributes of  the four CCOs selected for our review.
The Smithsonian Institution was established with funds from James  Smithson, a British scientist who, on his death in 1829, left his estate to  the United States to found “at Washington, under the name of the  Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of  knowledge.” The Smithsonian Institution opened to the public in 1855,  and has since become the world’s largest museum and research complex  with 19 museums, the National Zoo, and nine research facilities in  Washington, D.C., 7 states, and Panama. There were 30.3 million visitors  to the institution’s museums and zoo in 2012.
The National Gallery of Art was created in 1937 for the American people  by Congress, accepting the gift of financier and art collector Andrew W.  Mellon, who wished that his private art collection be the basis of a  national art museum. Funds for the construction of the original building  were provided by the A. W. Mellon Educational and Charitable Trust. The  President accepted the completed building and the Mellon collection on  behalf of the American people in 1941. There were 4.2 million visits to the  museum in fiscal year 2012.
In 1979, the newly-formed President’s Commission on the Holocaust  recommended that a living memorial be established to honor the victims  and survivors of the Holocaust and to ensure that the lessons of the  Holocaust would be taught in perpetuity. The Holocaust Memorial  Museum was chartered in 1980 and opened to the public in 1993. The  museum is situated on federal land on the national mall and was built  entirely with private funds. There were 1.6 million visitors to the museum  in fiscal year 2012.
Spain established the Presidio of San Francisco as its northern most  military outpost in the New World in 1776. The U.S. Army took control of  the military base in 1847 and later transformed it into part of the nation’s  coastal defense system. The Presidio served as an active military  installation until 1994, when it was transferred to the National Park  Service. In 1996, Congress created the Presidio Trust and mandated that  it preserve the site’s natural, cultural, scenic, and recreational resources.  Congress assigned 80 percent of the park’s 1,500 acres to the Presidio  Trust; the National Park Service continues to manage the remaining 20  percent (coastal areas). Congress directed that the Presidio Trust attain  financial self-sufficiency 15 years after the first meeting of the Trust’s  board of directors. The Presidio Trust achieved this goal and, since  October 1, 2012, has sustained itself through a combination of  philanthropic sources and rental income from residential and commercial  buildings on its grounds. An estimated 4 million people visited the park in  2012.
Congress created the Valles Caldera Trust in 2000 to preserve a unique  volcanic parcel of land in New Mexico. Modeled after the Presidio Trust,  the Valles Caldera Trust was considered a 20-year public-private land  management experiment. The Valles Caldera Preservation Act authorized  the Secretary of Agriculture to purchase about 89,000 acres, known as  the Baca Ranch. The act charged the Valles Caldera Trust with  managing the land to achieve a number of goals, including becoming  financially self-sustaining by the end of fiscal year 2015. We found in  2009 that while the Valles Caldera Trust had taken steps to establish and  implement a number of programs and activities to position it to achieve  the Preservation Act’s goals, it was at least 5 years behind the schedule it  set to achieve in meeting those goals. We also found that its biggest self- identified challenge was to achieve financial self-sustainability. As such,  we recommended that the Chairman of the Board and Executive Director  work with the relevant congressional committees to seek legislative  remedies, as appropriate, for the legal challenges confronting the Valles  Caldera Trust, such as prohibition from entering into long-term leases or  acquiring property. When we followed up on our recommendations in  February 2013, we found that New Mexico’s Senators had reintroduced  legislation that would transfer ownership of the Valles Caldera National  Preserve to the National Park Service. Because this would, in effect,  eliminate the legal challenges we cited, as well as the goal of self- sufficiency for the Valles Caldera Trust, we have closed this  recommendation as being implemented.
Congress has given these CCOs a unique structure and range of  authorities. For example, they are managed by boards of directors whose  membership make-up is designated by statute. CCOs’ personnel and  procurement flexibilities allow them to achieve public goals by leveraging  nonfederal resources and increasing their capacity to respond more  nimbly to the needs of the organization and attract and retain talent.
The four CCOs we studied partnered with nonfederal entities ranging  from nonprofit organizations and research institutes to for-profit  businesses, international entities,  and individuals. These partnering  arrangements aimed to generate business revenues, further research  goals, enhance programmatic offerings, strengthen internal operations,  and raise private funds. These efforts are consistent with our previous  work on collaborative efforts, which recognized that the federal  government must identify ways to deliver results more efficiently and in a  way that is consistent with its multiple demands and limited resources.  Further, we found that the federal government could work together with  the nonfederal sector to generate more public value than could be   See appendix 1 for detailed  produced when agencies act alone.examples of how the four CCOs we studied worked with nonfederal  partners.
section_title: Four Factors Facilitate CCOs’ Ability to Leverage Nonfederal Resources, but Information on These Resources Provided to Congress in Budget Requests Varies by CCO
paragraphs: Officials from the CCOs we studied cited four factors that facilitate their  ability to leverage nonfederal resources: (1) unique authorities that  provided legal flexibilities; (2) benefits received from being part of the  federal government; (3) governing boards that provided management and  oversight; and (4) informal networks that enabled CCOs to share lessons.  Critical among the authorities mentioned above is the ability to accept  gifts and solicit private donations, but the CCOs we studied are not  required to, and did not always provide, a complete picture of their  nonfederal resources to Congress.
subsections: section_title: Legal Authorities, Federal Status, Governing Boards, and Informal Networks, Enable CCOs to Leverage Nonfederal Resources
subsections: section_title: Legal Authorities
paragraphs: A critical factor that facilitates CCOs’ ability to leverage nonfederal  resources are unique legal authorities exempting them from certain  federal regulations on (1) soliciting and accepting private funds and (2)  using those funds to hire staff and procure goods. Officials from all four  CCOs we studied said that these authorities and flexibilities allowed them  to act more nimbly and to adapt more readily to the needs of their  organization.
Authority to solicit and accept private funds. The four CCOs we  studied have the statutory authority to solicit and accept private gifts  and donations. They are also able to retain and use these funds  without fiscal year limitation or further congressional approval. This  authority provides CCOs with additional financial resources beyond  directly appropriated federal funds. Officials from the Smithsonian  Institution told us that their donors value the institution’s flexibility to  retain and use nonfederal funds to carry out its mission. Further, they  noted that donors view their contributions as an addition to, not  replacement for, federal funding. CCOs used private funds, for  example, to build new buildings and expand their collections. An  official also explained that these authorities allow CCOs to accept  gratis services from volunteers. Officials from all four CCOs we  studied told us that this authority was critical to helping ensure they  have appropriate resources to meet their organization’s mission and  goals. Further, all four of the CCOs we studied are tax exempt under  section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The status as a  charitable organization can facilitate fundraising efforts because  donors are potentially eligible for tax benefits based on their  donations. Officials told us that this status is critical to their ability to  raise private funds.
Hiring and procurement flexibilities. The four CCOs we studied also  benefit from some exemptions from federal hiring and procurement  requirements. For example, some CCO staff are not subject to many  of the civil service laws in Title 5, which govern the hiring of federal  employees. CCO officials told us they use this flexibility to compete  with the private sector to attract and retain certain staff—such as  fundraisers and business development managers—whose specialized  skills and abilities play a key role in attracting and leveraging  nonfederal funds. Officials also said that the ability to pay these staff  in accordance with market rates (i.e., above the federal pay scale)  allowed them to attract and retain highly qualified individuals to serve  in critical positions. In addition to being able to compete with the  private sector in this manner, CCO officials told us that they are  authorized to terminate staff when their specialized skills are no  longer needed. Lastly, CCO officials noted that the general exemption  from federal procurement laws provides CCOs with the flexibility to  procure goods and specialized services more quickly and efficiently  than they would otherwise be able to.
CCO officials reported they implement these managerial flexibilities in a  way that maximizes financial resources while safeguarding the principles  these federal laws are created to uphold. For example, CCO officials told  us that they develop policies for staff paid with nonfederal funds that  follow the spirit of federal employment laws, when appropriate. In this  way, they see this as helping to ensure transparency and accountability  while still maintaining flexibility. Specifically, the Human Resources  Director at the Presidio Trust said that its personnel policies reflect  principles consistent with federal equal employment opportunity  guidelines. Further, while these flexibilities are critical to their  organizations, CCO officials said that it is often not immediately apparent  from their enabling legislation whether a CCO is considered a federal or  private entity for employment, benefits, insurance, federal torts, copyright  laws, and administrative procedures, and that making these legal  determinations can be time consuming.
Some of the most valuable resources of the four CCOs we studied have  been derived from their federal status. CCO officials told us that this  status provided them with significant assets and facilitated their ability to  leverage nonfederal resources. Specifically, the Presidio is located on a  former military reservation and the Holocaust Memorial Museum, National  Gallery of Art, and Smithsonian Institution all enjoy exhibition and office  space on federal land near the National Mall in Washington, D.C. Further,  some CCOs received private collections and objects that were intended  to be donated to the people of the United States and available as national  assets.
In addition to these physical assets, CCO officials cited intangible benefits  that are derived from their federal status. For example, officials at the four  CCOs we studied said that federal status signaled their entity’s  permanence and therefore helped to secure nonfederal resources. One  official explained that many private donors and partners are attracted to  the perceived financial stability that federal ties bring, even in these times  of shrinking federal budgets. Other officials noted that these nonfederal  donors’ and partners’ views are tied to the belief that the federal  government will “be around” and so their gifts will be there for future  generations. Another official told us that partners and donors see federal  status as an implicit recognition of the CCO’s credibility, which helps to  bring in more donations and build relationships with other organizations.  Officials at the four CCOs we studied also noted that private citizens’  willingness to contribute financial and nonfinancial resources to CCOs is  based, in part, on their belief that these entities contribute to a greater  public purpose. For example, Presidio Trust officials noted the its public  mission combined with the assurance of sustained revenue created a  powerful incentive for private citizens to donate and invest in the park.
Another factor that facilitated CCOs’ ability to leverage nonfederal  resources is access to the support and expertise of federal agencies,  specifically the Departments of Justice and State. The Department of  Justice represents CCOs in lawsuits and other legal matters. Additionally,  officials from the Holocaust Memorial Museum said that the Department  of State’s international contacts, expertise in negotiating with entities  outside of the US, and diplomatic channels have occasionally facilitated  the museum’s ability to resolve issues with international partners. For  example, in negotiating agreements with foreign governments to obtain  Holocaust-era objects and information from state-owned archives, the  Holocaust Memorial Museum follows a template agreement developed  and approved by the Department of State, allowing the museum to enter  into specific types of agreements on its own authority.
Finally, CCOs also found that the federal government immunity to state  and local requirements facilitated their ability to leverage nonfederal  resources. For example, Presidio Trust officials said that having exclusive  federal jurisdiction enabled them to avoid jurisdictional confusion with  other government entities. Specifically, these officials said that not having  to adhere to local zoning laws helped to decrease the time needed to  rehabilitate the Presidio Trust’s buildings. Further, they noted that the  Presidio Trust benefited from exemption from certain state and local laws  such as rent control. Holocaust Memorial Museum officials noted that the  museum is exempt from having to register with each state attorney  general for fundraising purposes because of its federal government  status. One official added that being exempt from 50 different sets of  fundraising restrictions relieves the museum of a significant administrative  burden.
A third factor officials reported to be helpful in leveraging nonfederal  resources is the valuable expertise provided by governing boards. The  size, appointment, and duties of these boards are specified in law and  vary among CCOs. The size of these boards varies greatly among the  four CCOs we studied: The smallest has 7 members and the largest 65.Board members include a mix of presidentially appointed members, ex- officio members based on a government position; such as the Chief  Justice of the United States and the Secretary of State; and others  including private citizens. Some boards have specific expertise and  residency requirements for their members. For example, members of the  Presidio Trust Board are required to have extensive knowledge of  finance, real estate development, planning, and resource conservation or  have expertise in these areas. Further, at least 3 board members must  reside in the San Francisco Bay Area. CCO board member term lengths  are also specified by law.
Some of the CCOs we reviewed provided examples of the help they  received from their governing boards. According to officials, the National  Gallery of Art’s Board of Trustees plays an active role in fundraising and  the Presidio Trust Board provides strategic advice on real estate,  financial, and operational management. Additionally, the Smithsonian  Board of Regents approves the Smithsonian Institution’s strategic plan,  budgets, and other key documents. The Board of Regents also evaluates  the performance of top executives and sets their pay.
The importance of a stable board is evident when comparing the Valles  Caldera experience with that of the other four CCOs we studied. Our  previous work on the Valles Caldera Trust noted that board member  turnover contributed to challenges, such as delays in decision making and  false starts to programs.National Gallery of Art said that their boards have provided consistent  guidance and leadership.
In contrast, officials at the Presidio Trust and  Lastly, some CCOs used informal networks to leverage nonfederal  resources. Officials at the Smithsonian Institution and the Holocaust  Memorial Museum meet periodically with their counterparts at other  related organizations in informal settings to exchange lessons learned,  seek advice on shared issues, and discuss questions specific to their  unique legal and financial statuses. For example, the Holocaust Memorial  Museum’s General Counsel said that he has sought advice from legal  staff at other CCOs when considering whether certain laws and  regulations apply to the museum. Officials told us they find these  meetings to be particularly helpful because they provide a network for  organizations that face similar challenges to learn from each other. The  Presidio Trust’s Executive Director expressed interest in joining such a  network. Further, Presidio Trust officials said that it would be useful to  have a regular forum to exchange information and ideas between  organizations responsible for former military bases or other public  landholdings that seek to revitalize their organization through partnering  arrangements. They noted that it may help to meet twice a year so  officials could discuss best practices.
section_title: Information on Nonfederal Resources Provided to Congress in Budget Requests Varies by CCO
paragraphs: The information about nonfederal funds presented to Congress in annual  budget requests varies among the CCOs we studied. For example, the  Smithsonian Institution and Holocaust Memorial Museum typically present  some information about these funds in their annual budget requests to  Congress, but the type of information differs. For example, the  Smithsonian Institution summarizes the balance, source, and uses of its  nonfederal nonappropriated funds. Further, it describes funding  sources—including those from nonfederal resources—for its museums,  research centers, and departments. In contrast, the Holocaust Memorial  Museum provides a high-level summary of the uses of its nonfederal  funds broken down by restricted and nonrestricted donations. While the  National Gallery of Art reported on the nonfederal funds used for special  exhibitions in its budget requests, it does not include information on  nonfederal funds used for other purposes, which represents the majority  of these funds.
CCO officials told us that they are not required to report on their  nonfederal funds and congressional staffers confirmed this. However,  federal internal control standards note that financial information is  needed, among other things, to make operating decisions, monitor  performance, and allocate resources. These standards further note that  pertinent information should be identified, captured, and distributed in a  form and time frame that permits people to perform their duties  efficiently. The federal budget process is the primary means by which  the President and Congress select among competing demands for federal  funds; as such, it is essential that budget information be comprehensive  and clear. Consistent and timely information about CCOs’ complete  financial picture—including both appropriated and nonfederal funds— could provide the Congress with important context for understanding both  the relative tradeoffs among appropriation decisions and the implications  of such decisions for these entities.
While Congress does not direct the CCOs’ use of nonfederal funds, the  lack of consistent information on nonfederal funds inhibits the ability to  understand how CCOs leverage federal funds to meet their missions.  Better information on nonfederal funds may also make clearer the donor  and endowment restrictions on some of those funds and would also  provide more context about the total financial resources available to  CCOs. Although some information about nonfederal funds is available in  the CCOs’ audited financial statements, annual reports, and publicly  available tax returns, the timing and availability of those reports do not  align with the typical time frames of congressional budget deliberations.
section_title: Six Key Principles Helped CCOs Leverage Resources through Nonfederal Partners
paragraphs: We compiled six key principles and related key questions that CCOs can  use to guide management decisions about partnering with the nonfederal  sector. Each principle has corresponding elements that are intended to  enhance or facilitate CCOs’ ability to achieve each principle (see table 2).  As previously discussed, these key principles are grounded in relevant  literature, including our prior work; the knowledge and experience of  internal and external subject matter specialists; and the experiences of  the four CCOs we studied. Incorporated throughout this section are  examples of how CCOs used elements of these principles to manage  their partnering arrangements. Additionally, many of these practices are  consistent with the key issues we have identified when agencies or other  organizations work collaboratively. These principles can be tailored to  suit different types of arrangements, partners, and CCO needs, as  appropriate.
Organizations that leverage partnering arrangements have clear, well- articulated missions; the strategic goals to achieve them; and a defined  process for assessing whether partnering arrangements are aligned with  and further the organizations’ missions and goals. This is consistent with  our past work noting that organizations must have a clear and compelling  rationale to work together to overcome significant differences in missions,  cultures, and established ways of doing business.
A clear, well-articulated mission and supporting goals can help facilitate  CCOs’ decision making about partnering. For example, the Presidio  Trust’s efforts to clearly determine and articulate its mission have helped  it make partnering decisions. Although the Presidio Trust’s authorizing  legislation set out two broad goals—one to preserve the park and the  other to achieve financial self-sufficiency in 15 years—the Presidio Trust  made a strategic decision that self-sufficiency was to be its primary goal  since it was a necessary condition for preserving the park’s beauty and  natural resources. That is, officials reasoned that the Presidio Trust could  only be preserved if the park was still in existence and well managed. To  achieve the goal of self-sufficiency, the Presidio Trust worked with real  estate and construction firms to plan, develop, and manage the  rehabilitation and rental of structures. These partnering efforts helped the  Presidio Trust successfully meet its goal of financial self-sufficiency by  fiscal year 2012, within the mandated deadline, while also making  significant progress in historical preservation.
Organizations that are unable to articulate a clear and well-defined  mission and to prioritize multiple goals in support of that mission are not  well-positioned to make strategic partnering decisions. The Valles  Caldera Trust was mandated by law to achieve a number of goals,  including self-sufficiency by the end of 2015. We previously found that  officials set out to achieve an acceptable balance in the pursuit of all six  goals instead of prioritizing them and had did not have a strategic plan  laying out those goals nor a performance plan that could measure  progress in achieving those goals. Based on our analysis and the  principles we compiled, we believe that because the Valles Caldera Trust  lacked these plans, it would have also found it difficult to make partnering  decisions.
Complementary goals and missions are important to a successful  partnership. Officials at both the Smithsonian Institution and Holocaust  Memorial Museum described processes they have in place to make such  determinations. For example, officials at Smithsonian Enterprises, the unit  that oversees the Smithsonian Institution’s revenue generating activities,  implemented a process to help ensure that business partners and  projects have missions that are compatible with that of the institution.  Smithsonian Enterprises has a strategic advisory committee composed of  15 to 18 staff from across the institution that meets quarterly to discuss  new activities, updates, and ideas. These quarterly meetings have  included substantive discussions about whether particular proposed  business relationships are consistent with the Smithsonian Institution’s  mission. Outside Smithsonian Enterprises, the Smithsonian Institution  also carefully assesses whether potential partnering arrangements and  partners are in line with its mission. For example, when making partnering  decisions, officials rank potential projects based on the extent to which  they might help to advance the institution’s mission. Specifically, officials  assess the extent to which potential partners have complementary  missions and beliefs. For example, officials noted that the institution has  declined corporate sponsorship offers from private companies who have  publicly espoused beliefs that are different from the institution’s core  beliefs and principles, especially key scientific theories, such as evolution,  that are important to its mission.
Similarly, Holocaust Memorial Museum officials said they carefully assess  partner organizations’ goals to help ensure that they align with the  museum’s strategic vision and that potential partners’ causes do not  conflict with or overshadow the museum’s own mission. To do so, officials  consider how partners could further the Holocaust Memorial Museum’s  mission. For example, the museum has partnered with the company  Ancestry.com to develop software that could be used to index and access  information on victims of the Holocaust. In this instance, according to  museum officials, the partners have leveraged their complementary  missions—to track individual and family heritage information—to provide  this resource to more than 1 million people each year.
Are the CCO’s mission and goals well-defined and clearly articulated?
Are the partner’s goals clearly articulated and well aligned with the  CCO’s mission and goals?
Will partners understand how key activities, core processes, and  resources link to shared mission and goals?
How will the partner contribute to the CCO’s mission to deliver  programs and services?
subsections: section_title: Principle 2: Ensure Top Leadership Support for Partnering Arrangements
paragraphs: Top leadership support for partnering arrangements is critical to  successfully pursuing and engaging partners. The tone at the top— management’s philosophy and operating style—sets the stage for how  the organization will make management decisions, including decisions  related to partnering with the nonfederal sector. As a champion for these  types of arrangements, leaders can encourage their staff and  stakeholders to see the value in creatively building on the assets and  resources of partner organizations. This is consistent with our past work  noting that top-level commitment and continuity in leadership is a key  issue when organizations work to collaborate with each other.
Officials from all four CCOs we studied told us their top leaders have  encouraged their organization to leverage external resources. To that  end, they have cultivated an environment that has facilitated staffs’ ability  to form, pursue, and engage with partners. Specifically, a Smithsonian  Institution official told us that partnerships at the institution have benefited  from extensive top leadership support, and that the Secretary has greatly  increased the emphasis on partnerships and collaborations in general.  For example, leaders at the Smithsonian Institution have championed the  Grand Challenges Consortia Program, which offers competitive funding  for interdisciplinary projects through internal grants to researchers that  work with interdisciplinary partners to conduct research that aligns with  the institution’s strategic goals. Leadership support of this program has  sent a clear message about the importance of partnering across  interdisciplinary boundaries, and officials noted such partnering has  increased since the Consortia was established. In another example,  Presidio Trust officials said their top leaders’ efforts to encourage the  leveraging of nonfederal resources have resulted in $4 of private  investment for every federal dollar received.
In contrast, the lack of consistent top leadership can hinder CCOs’  partnering efforts. We previously found that leadership turnover at the  Valles Caldera Trust caused management challenges. Specifically, the  first executive director served for only 18 months. The position remained  vacant for about 7 months and the next executive director resigned after  10 months. Other key positions became vacant in 2004 and 2005,  including the controller, business manager, programs director, chief  administrative officer, communications manager, and cultural program  coordinator. In our past work, we found that the lack of consistent  leadership and progress in organizational and program development  contributed greatly to staff turnover. This frequent turnover led both to  delays in partnering decisions about partnerships and false starts to  programs. When we followed up on our prior work in February 2013, we  learned that, just in the past year, the Valles Caldera Trust had appointed  as its new executive director an employee who served in various roles at  the preserve for over 10 years. This official’s long tenure and hands-on  experience at the Valles Caldera can, among other things, help the Valles  Caldera Trust engage partners in a way that could leverage nonfederal  resources.
CCOs institutionalize leadership support for partnering through their  strategies and guiding principles and the actions of their top leaders. One  way to institutionalize this support is to clearly document how partnering  arrangements can be used to achieve organizational missions and goals.  For example, the Smithsonian Institution’s strategic plan identifies the use  of federal and nonfederal partners as a strategy to pursue the institution’s  key goals. The plan also identifies steps to achieve this goal. Specifically,  the plan states that the institution will enhance its research capacity by  leveraging resources from a range of partners including federal agencies  such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, universities,  nongovernmental organizations, industry, and other domestic and  international agencies.
Are top leaders and managers committed to a common vision of  success in partnering arrangements?
Are specific responsibilities and accountability for the partnering  arrangement clearly defined and established?
Do open and candid communications with all stakeholders occur to  minimize potential resistance to establishing the partnering  arrangement?
How will partners operate across different organizational cultures to  accomplish respective partner missions and goals?
section_title: Principle 3: Assess and Manage Risks
paragraphs: Partnering decisions should reflect both the likely risk and the  organization’s tolerance for risk in partnering. Incorporating risk  assessment and risk management practices into partnering decisions can  help ensure that the organization recognizes and is prepared to manage  explicit risks (e.g., financial and physical) and implicit risks (e.g.,  reputational). The specific risk mitigation and management methodology  used will likely vary by organization because of differences in missions  and varying tolerance for risk. This is consistent with our prior work noting  that risk management helps organizations assess risk, strategically  allocate finite resources, and take actions under conditions of  uncertainty.
The Smithsonian Institution developed a formalized partner selection  process to assess risks associated with its Affiliations Program, which  shares institution resources, including artifacts, with museums  nationwide. As part of the application process, the Smithsonian Institution  implemented a process to verify the applicant’s nonprofit status, mission  statement, and organization chart. Additionally, applicants are required to  be in good standing under state laws and adhere to certain industry  standards for managing and storing collections. Through this risk  assessment process, the Smithsonian Institution evaluates the  management abilities of potential partners and determines whether those  partner institutions will be appropriate stewards of the loaned artifacts and  resources.
Similarly, the National Gallery of Art has assessed partnering risks  through a formalized process to identify partners for its privately-funded  Art Around the Corner program. This program brings District of Columbia  public school classes to the museum to experience art through  discussion, role-playing, sketching, art making, and creative writing. To  select classes for the program, program staff first communicated with  school principals and then invited teachers and their students to visit the  museum as a class. During these visits, National Gallery of Art staff  observed teacher and student interactions, the teacher’s enthusiasm for  the program, and general class dynamics. Further, Art Around the Corner  officials make themselves available to provide more information about the  program as needed so that teachers understand their role in the program  and the expected outcome for their students. During this observation  process, National Gallery of Art program staff and teachers can mutually  assess the program’s benefits and consider whether or not to be involved.
Risks—both explicit and implicit—should be assessed and managed  when partnering. For example, the way that the Smithsonian Institution  funds projects as part of its Grand Challenges Consortia program takes  explicit risks into account by minimizing the institution’s financial  exposure. Specifically, the Consortia program staff review grant proposals  and provide seed funding of $20,000 and then later up to $100,000 after a  project has demonstrated increased capacity. This approach allowed the  Smithsonian Institution to take calculated risks on new projects in a  manner that mitigates extensive financial losses. Similarly, the Holocaust  Memorial Museum has also assessed and managed explicit risks in its  traveling exhibitions program by establishing requirements based on  industry best practices regarding potential partners’ physical space.  Specifically, partners that would like to borrow the museum’s artifacts are  required to meet certain facility, security, and preservation requirements  to reduce the risk that artifacts are damaged or lost.
It is also important to manage implicit risks, such as the likelihood that  partners could potentially damage a CCO’s reputation. For example, the  Smithsonian Institution allows the use of its space in connection with  substantial donations under the condition that the use is consistent with  certain policies to help ensure the institution can retain appropriate control  over its facilities. These policies include, for example, a prohibition on  the use of facilities for such events as weddings or birthdays; partisan,  political, or religious gatherings; fundraising; and marketing activities.
Another type of implicit risk which can affect a CCO’s reputation is  community and stakeholder opinion. Presidio Trust officials received a  high degree of neighborhood opposition to a plan to build a contemporary  art museum on its grounds. Preservationists and others fiercely opposed  the scale of the museum as being inconsistent with the overall historical  character of the park and criticized the Presidio Trust for failing to  consider and plan for traffic impacts on local streets. Faced with adamant  resistance from these outside groups, a decision was made not to pursue  plans for the museum.
Have explicit and implicit risks—both between and among all partners  and internally between staff offices—been identified, analyzed, and  allocated?
Have the likelihood and significance of risks as well as strategies to  manage those risks been identified?
section_title: Principle 4: Select Complementary Partners and Appropriate Projects
paragraphs: Selecting appropriate partners and projects is central to a successful  partnering arrangement. Partners should bring complementary resources,  skills, and financial capacities to the relationship. Further, a systematic  approach helps to identify projects that are well-suited for partnering  opportunities and helps to achieve an organization’s mission. This is  consistent with our past work noting the importance of ensuring that  relevant participants have been included in the collaborative effort.  Further, we have found that it is helpful when the participants have full  knowledge of their resources; the ability to commit these resources and  make decisions; the ability to regularly attend all activities of the  collaborative mechanism; and the knowledge, skills, and abilities to  contribute to the outcomes of the collaborative effort.
Partners have broadened CCOs’ audiences. The CCOs we met with have  used partners to expand their audiences locally and throughout the world.  For example, the National Gallery of Art has expanded its audience  through its Art Around the Corner program which partners with District of  Columbia public schools to bring fourth and fifth grade students to the  museum who were otherwise unlikely to visit. As part of this program,  students visit the museum up to 14 times over two school years to view,  discuss, and create art. According to Art Around the Corner officials, the  program also has provided an opportunity for the museum to engage with  students’ families, some of whom have never visited the museum.
Some CCOs reached a broader global audience through international  partners. For example, the Holocaust Memorial Museum and the  Mémorial de la Shoah in Paris convened an international symposium in  2010 to assess governments’ capacities to effectively respond to  genocide and mass atrocities. The symposium—which was attended by  leading genocide prevention and human rights officials and experts  worldwide—highlighted and examined core issues in genocide prevention  to governments all over the globe. Further, strategies were recommended  to enhance international cooperation on this issue. Similarly, the National  Gallery of Art has collaborated with foreign museums to broaden its  international audience. For example, the museum organized an exhibition  on Victorian art and design with the Tate Britain museum in London,  England. The exhibition is also scheduled to travel to the State Pushkin  Museum of Fine Arts in Moscow, Russia.
Partners have provided technical support. The CCOs we studied worked  with partners who have provided technical support in various areas of  business expertise. For example, the Smithsonian Institution and George  Mason University leveraged their respective expertise and resources to  develop the Smithsonian-Mason School of Conservation. This school  offers a semester-long residential academic program for undergraduate  students in conservation biology located at the Smithsonian Conservation  Biology Institute in Fort Royal, Virginia. A program official explained that  George Mason University had previously offered conservation studies at  the graduate level only and that this new program provides  undergraduates access to prominent scientists and educators earlier in  their academic careers. George Mason University provided academic and  business expertise to help manage the program and conducted a market  analysis to demonstrate the program’s economic sustainability. The  Smithsonian Institution contributed scientific resources, such as  experienced scientists, laboratories, and connections with other  programs. The institution also made property available to house new  dormitories and dining facilities. A program official noted that leveraging  the university’s complementary areas of expertise was critical to the  school’s success and economic self-sufficiency.
The Smithsonian Institution has also contracted with companies to  provide specialized services in connection with certain business  opportunities, including managing food and beverage services,  distributing Smithsonian books, and creating Smithsonian-branded  products. Specifically, the Smithsonian Enterprises unit works with private  sector partners to provide various business services, and the resulting  revenues are used to fund programs throughout the institution. For  example, the home shopping television channel, QVC, which has a large  viewership and marketing expertise, helped the Smithsonian Institution  sell jewelry with designs based on the institution’s gem collection. In  another instance, Smithsonian Enterprises leveraged Mattel’s product  development expertise to design, produce, and sell a paleontologist  Barbie doll. In both arrangements, the Smithsonian Institution received a  portion of the revenue.
Partners have provided operational support. Volunteers and organizations  have provided critical operational support to the CCOs we studied. For  example, the Smithsonian Institution’s 6,500 volunteers outnumber its  paid employees. Volunteers have led tours, conducted field work,  assisted with research, provided administrative support, and staffed  information desks, among other wide-ranging services. Volunteers have  also provided specific technical services to the four CCOs we studied. For  example, the Holocaust Memorial Museum worked with a law firm whose  lawyers conducted legal research on genocide issues free of charge.
Operational support may also come in the form of what is more  traditionally viewed as a public-private partnership. For example, prior to  the establishment of the Presidio Trust in September 1995, the National  Park Service entered into a 55-year ground lease with Thoreau Center  Partners, a for-profit California real estate company, to rehabilitate part of  an old hospital. Thoreau Center Partners leased, developed, and  operated some of these buildings, now known as the Thoreau Center for  Sustainability, and then subleased the improved office space to a variety  of subtenant organizations. Since the Presidio’s transfer from the National  Park Service in 1998, the Presidio Trust has overseen this public-private  partnership. When we followed up with Presidio Trust officials about this  project in May 2013, they noted that this lease resulted in a good  outcome for the National Park Service by providing for the rehabilitation of  the building with outside funds.rates had not kept pace with market changes.
However, the official said that rental  According to Presidio Trust officials, the Presidio Trust continues to  pursue a development strategy that includes rehabilitating and leasing  buildings by executing long-term building and ground leases with tenants  who independently fund building improvements. Officials noted that this  approach provides a mix of revenue sources that balances low-risk, long- term, and market-driven rents which provide greater certainty of revenues  during economic downturns. Further, officials said it allows tenants to  make significant investments toward operational and rehabilitation costs.  For example, the Presidio Trust replaced the previously vacant Letterman  Army Medical Center with a new 850,000 square foot campus by  partnering with filmmaker George Lucas whose company invested $300  million to rehabilitate the complex. This project—known as the Letterman  Digital Arts Center—is home to Lucasfilm, Ltd and a number of its  subsidiary companies including Industrial Light and Magic, LucasArts,  and the George Lucas Educational Foundation. The Presidio Trust earns  an revenue of approximately $6 million from the ground lease each  year. Other examples of projects that relied on nonfederal partners to rehabilitate and lease Presidio Trust buildings include the Walt Disney  Family Museum and the Presidio Landmark residential apartments.  Between 2005 to 2011, the Presidio Trust executed 226 ground leases for  nearly 1 million square feet that have provided rental revenues valued at  $240 million over the duration of these leases.
Partners have provided financial support. Nonfederal financial support is  critical to CCOs’ ability to further their missions. Nonfederal partners have  provided millions of dollars of support to each of the CCOs we studied.  These funds allowed CCOs to purchase art and artifacts, construct new  buildings, develop exhibitions, enhance program offerings, conduct  research, and otherwise further the CCO’s mission. CCOs have worked  with donor or member groups to solicit funds from individuals and  corporations. For example, the Presidio Trust partnered with the Golden  Gate National Parks Conservancy to raise private philanthropic funds.
Projects are proposed internally and externally and some CCOs have  developed internal processes to help ensure they select appropriate  projects for partnering opportunities. Specifically, some CCOs have used  committees to evaluate proposals against set criteria, including the extent  to which the proposal would be consistent with the CCO’s mission and  goals. For example, the Smithsonian Grand Challenges Consortia  program assembles a review committee that rates potential projects  based on a set of criteria that includes scholarly merit, ability to meet  Consortia goals, ability to build coalitions, social impact, team member  qualifications, ability to finish the project on time with the provided  resources, and potential to garner additional funds.
What resources will each partner contribute and how will the CCO  leverage those resources?
To what extent does the CCO have the key skills needed to create,  manage, and monitor partners and projects?
How will the potential partners and projects be selected and  evaluated?
section_title: Principle 5: Manage Partnering Arrangements
paragraphs: Partnering arrangements are relationships between or among different  parties that should be managed actively. Technology can enable  information sharing between partners to facilitate the leveraging of  resources. Formalizing collaborations between the partners, including  documenting dispute resolution processes, can enable productive partner  interactions. Further, it is important to have the staff with the right skills  and experience to manage these opportunities.
CCOs have created online tools that help partners share resources. For  example, the Holocaust Memorial Museum leveraged the time and skills  of individuals through the power of crowdsourcing on the Internet as part  of the World Memory Project. Thousands of volunteers have helped to  transcribe more than 2 million records of Holocaust-related historical  documents into an online database hosted by the company  Ancestry.com. The software developed by Ancestry.com allowed  volunteers across the globe to easily access information and perform  tasks that helped achieve the Holocaust Memorial Museum’s mission.
In another example, the National Gallery of Art developed online  educational resources to help it connect with students and teachers, who  can help achieve the museum’s mission of fostering an understanding of  works of art.  These free resources include teaching packets and online  interactive lessons. Specifically, the website includes lesson plans,  worksheets, and other educational materials on topics such as self- portraits, 19th century American art, and art and ecology. The National  Gallery of Art also has a website with activities and games to engage  children in art.
To facilitate collaboration, it is important that partners agree on roles and  responsibilities and that there is a process in place to resolve disputes.  One subject matter specialist noted that processes to mediate and  resolve disputes and conflicts can help CCOs avoid confusion about  partner expectations and may contribute to partners’ willingness to invest  resources in the project. This is consistent with our recent work on  collaborative mechanisms, in which we found that articulating these  agreements in formal documents can strengthen organizations’  commitment to working collaboratively, and that it is important to address  diverse organizational cultures to enable a cohesive working relationship  and to create the mutual trust required to enhance and sustain the  collaborative effort. Another subject matter specialist made the related  point that it is also important to think ahead about whether other suitable  partners exist if an arrangement fails.
The Smithsonian-Mason School of Conservation used written  documentation to foster partner collaboration. Specifically, the  Smithsonian Institution and George Mason University signed a  memorandum of understanding outlining roles and responsibilities,  describing the financial commitments expected of each party, allocating  financial risk between the partners, and setting terms for renewing the  agreement. The document also established a dispute resolution process  for discussing and negotiating conflicts. Specifically, the memorandum  dictated when one partner has the final authority and, in other cases,  when and how a consensus will be reached. Smithsonian Institution  officials credited the memorandum of understanding with their ability to  manage the whole academic, residence, and dining complex as one  unified program, which has facilitated problem solving and de- emphasized the distinction among staff from both institutions.
In another example, the National Gallery of Art has used written contracts  outlining the teachers’ roles and responsibilities to encourage teacher  engagement for its Art Around the Corner program. The National Gallery  of Art provides extensive materials to teachers and students, including  curricula, workbooks, sketchbooks, art reproductions, art materials, and  children’s books. According to officials, integrating program-developed  activities into the classroom has helped reinforce students’ critical thinking  skills and therefore it has been important for teachers to follow through in  carrying out the curriculum in their classrooms. To help ensure that  teachers adhere to their contractual responsibilities, the teachers are paid  an annual stipend only after their classes successfully completed the  program.
In addition to written agreements, establishing mutual expectations  facilitated successful partnering arrangements. As noted by one subject  matter specialist, developing such an understanding takes time and is  predicated on coordinating, communicating, and learning how partners  operate. Smithsonian Institution officials discussed the importance of  setting expectations about how much time is needed for the partnering  arrangement. Specifically, the institution has worked to set realistic  expectations internally and externally about the time frames needed for its  business enterprises. To assist with this process internally, Smithsonian  Enterprises maintains a flow chart of the key dates for review. Externally,  officials have managed private partners’ expectations by explaining that  the development of licenses takes longer than in the private sector.
Each of the four CCOs we studied has made use of their previously  described legal authorities and exemptions to attract and retain  appropriate staff to facilitate partnering. CCOs have used these  authorities for staff in areas such as business development, philanthropy,  and key management positions that require skills to facilitate and manage  partnering arrangements. Further, one CCO used this exemption to be  nimble and responsive when its partnering needs changed. Specifically,  when working with private contractors, the Presidio Trust was able to  downsize construction staff when the 2008 decline in real estate values  resulted in less demand for housing in the San Francisco area.
CCOs also have had a strong focus on recruiting and retaining staff  skilled at facilitating partnering arrangements. This is consistent with our  prior work, in which we found that strategic human capital management  allows agencies to perform their missions economically, efficiently, and  effectively and facilitates agencies’ ability to deploy the right skills, in the  right places, at the right time. For example, the Presidio Trust has  offered a rent credit program for selected employees who live on the park.  It has also conducted an employee survey to assess personal work  experience; recruitment, development, and retention strategies; job  satisfaction; and feedback on the performance culture and leadership.  These practices have helped the Presidio Trust retain staff with, among  other skills, expertise in partnering.
How will roles and responsibilities surrounding the partnering  arrangement be delineated, agreed upon, and documented?
Are there clear lines of authority to coordinate and elevate decision  making discussions?
How will programmatic decisions be made and disputes be resolved?
How will the CCO ensure or promote effective and open  communications between partners and what tools, if any, would  facilitate this communication?
What key knowledge, skills, and abilities are needed to manage the  partnering arrangement?  If the organization does not have staff on board with the necessary  skills to manage partnering arrangements, how will it attract and retain  that talent?
section_title: Principle 6: Evaluate Partnering Arrangements
paragraphs: Information about how well existing partnering arrangements leverage  nonfederal resources is important to inform decisions about continuing  arrangements or entering into new ones. Gathering this information also  presents an opportunity to evaluate progress toward a project’s intended  goals.
It is important to evaluate the role of partners at an organizational level to  help ensure nonfederal resources are effectively leveraged. To better  understand the role of partners at the Smithsonian Institution and to  promote internal and external collaborations, officials have completed  various reports over time that identify the strengths, weaknesses,  opportunities, and threats to partnering. These reports also focused on  how the Smithsonian Institution can better develop a collaborative culture.  In a February 2012 report, officials compiled an inventory of active  collaborations with external partners. A separate April 2009 report  recommended steps the Smithsonian Institution could take to facilitate  collaboration. In addition, a 2008 Smithsonian Institution task force report  evaluated the management of revenue-generating activities and  recommended restructuring Smithsonian Enterprises to improve capacity,  cost, and focus.
Evaluating the effectiveness of specific partnering efforts can serve an  important role in improving partnering arrangements. In past work, we  found that agencies that create a means to monitor, evaluate, and report  the results of collaborative efforts can better identify areas for  improvement. Evaluations can also serve as a means to provide  feedback to private donors that funded a program. For example, the  National Gallery of Art conducted an external evaluation of its Art Around  the Corner program’s outcome and participant impact. The December  2012 evaluation assessed the program’s mission and participant impact  through interviews, and identified potential program improvements.  National Gallery of Art officials have begun discussions about how to  address the recommendations identified in the evaluation and also plan to  use this as a means to report back to the private donors that funded the  program.
CCOs have also evaluated the success of potential programs by  conducting pilot programs. For example, the Smithsonian-Mason School  of Conservation used a pilot to determine the effectiveness of its business  model and academic curriculum before fully implementing the program.  Five pilot programs were conducted between 2008 and 2011 to evaluate  the school’s curriculum and determine whether the program could  become financially self-sustaining. These pilots allowed officials to  evaluate the program’s financial and operational feasibility before fully  committing resources. Upon the successful completion of these pilots, the  school has been fully operational and has significantly increased the size  of its program.
To what extent are partnering arrangements used to better leverage  nonfederal resources?
How are partners and their performance evaluated?
What data-based tools are available to determine whether a  partnering arrangement is leveraging nonfederal resources  effectively?
What lessons learned from other partnering arrangements are used to  inform new partnering decisions?
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Increasingly, the federal government relies on networks of partners to  achieve critical results, often including multiple federal agencies, sectors,  and levels of government. CCOs are in a unique position to leverage  nonfederal resources by working with partners to produce greater public  value than they can achieve alone, especially given the special  managerial flexibilities and legal authorities they enjoy. Chief among  these flexibilities is the ability to solicit private funds and accept gifts.  These nonfederal resources are particularly valuable in light of today’s  constrained budget environment, in which agencies may no longer expect  regular increases in their budgets.
While the four CCOs we studied—the Holocaust Memorial Museum, the  National Gallery of Art, the Presidio Trust, and the Smithsonian  Institution—benefit from millions of nonfederal, nonappropriated dollars  that provide programmatic, research, and operational support, information  about how these CCOs leveraged nonfederal funds are not reported in a  timely, consistent manner. Congress does not direct the CCOs’ use of  nonfederal funds. However, because the federal budget process is the  primary means by which Congress evaluates competing demands for  federal funds, it is essential that Congress has timely, sufficient  information about the nature and scope of all resources—federal and  nonfederal—being used to serve a public purpose. Absent a requirement  to present this information in a timely, transparent fashion and make it  available for use in congressional budget deliberations, Congress will lack  complete information about CCOs’ federal and nonfederal financial  resources. Further, CCOs may be missing an opportunity to share good  practices and strategies for leveraging resources and strengthening  relationships with private and nonprofit partners in new, more cost- effective ways.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To provide more timely, complete information about CCOs’ fiscal health,  and increase awareness about good practices and strategies for  leveraging resources from nonfederal partners, congressional committees  should consider requiring CCOs under their jurisdiction to report on their  total nonfederal funds—including a breakdown of the amounts and uses  of these funds—in their annual budget requests. In requiring this  information, Congress should also consider what types of information on  CCOs’ nonfederal funds would be helpful to them, how that information  should be reported and at what level of detail, and whether the  information should be presented consistently across CCOs.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided the Executive Director of the Holocaust Memorial Museum,  the Director of the National Gallery of Art, the Executive Director of the  Presidio Trust, and the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution with a  draft of this report for review and comment. All of the CCOs generally  agreed with the findings and conclusions in this report. They also  provided technical comments, which we have incorporated, as  appropriate.
The Director of the National Gallery of Art provided written comments that  we have reprinted in appendix II. In written comments, the Director of the  National Gallery of Art agreed that Congress should have timely  information about the nature and scope of nonfederal resources.  However, he noted that Congress should not direct or restrict the use of  private funding. Instead, the Board of Trustees has full fiduciary  responsibility over nonfederal funds. We agree that Congress does not  direct CCOs’ use of nonfederal funds. We have clarified this point in the  report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Holocaust Memorial Museum,  the National Gallery of Art, the Presidio Trust, the Smithsonian Institution,  and other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no  charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-6806 or irvings@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report  are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Selected Examples of How Congressionally Chartered Organizations Leveraged Nonfederal Resources
subsections: section_title: Smithsonian Institution Business activities
paragraphs: Smithsonian Enterprises, the institution’s revenue-producing organization, works with  nonfederal partners in its three major business divisions: (1) The media division manages the  institution’s magazines, books, and the Smithsonian Channel, (2) the retail operation manages  the museum and airport stores, three IMAX theaters, and food concessions, and (3) the  consumer products division manages agreements with more than 75 companies permitting the  use of the Smithsonian name following collaboration with staff and curators. Smithsonian  Enterprises works closely with the private sector to provide the services in each of their  business divisions.
section_title: Research
paragraphs: The Smithsonian Grand Challenges Consortia help foster a spirit of interdisciplinary  collaboration to stimulate intellectual exchange within the institution and beyond. The Consortia  develop and launch collaborations, research centers, and programs that address the  Smithsonian Institution’s four Grand Challenges: (1) Unlocking the Mysteries of the Universe,  (2) Understanding and Sustaining a Biodiverse Planet, (3) Valuing World Cultures, and (4)  Understanding the American Experience.
section_title: Programs
paragraphs: The institution partners with George Mason University to create, manage, and operate the  Smithsonian-Mason School of Conservation. The program offers residential, hands-on,  interdisciplinary programs in conservation biology for undergraduate and graduate  students and professionals at a jointly developed facility in Front Royal, Virginia.  The Smithsonian Affiliations program shares the institution’s collections, scholarship, and  exhibitions with Americans in their own communities by collaborating with museums and  cultural and educational organizations. The program brings the institution’s resources to  local communities through its 177 affiliates in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and Panama.  Through the Encyclopedia of Life the Smithsonian Institution partners with other research  organizations to compile and make available scientific research, data, and information to  users worldwide. Its goal is to create “a webpage for every species” by bringing together  trusted information from resources across the world such as museums, learned societies,  expert scientists, and others into one database and a single, easy-to-use online portal.
section_title: Internal operations
paragraphs: Volunteers provide office and event support by offering programmatic and administrative  services, such as working on special projects, staffing information desks, providing docent  tours, and caring for animals.
section_title: Programs
paragraphs: The National Gallery of Art collaborates with conservation scientists and conservators,  conservation laboratories, and universities both nationally and internationally on art  conservation.  The Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts collaborates with historians, critics, art  theorists, and social science and humanities scholars to study the production, use, and  cultural meaning of art, artifacts, architecture, urbanism, photography, and film, from  prehistoric times to the present.   Art Around the Corner partners with the District of Columbia Public School System’s  elementary schools to bring fourth and fifth graders to the National Gallery of Art up to 14  times over 2 years to experience art through personal and interdisciplinary connections. In  small groups, students look closely at works of art, engaging in open-ended discussion,  role-playing, sketching, art making, and creative writing.  The National Gallery of Art partners with educators to disseminate information and foster  an understanding and appreciation of art. It provides resources for educators and students  such as free interactive lesson units online that include lesson plans, worksheets, and  student activities.
section_title: Internal operations
paragraphs: Volunteers assist the public by staffing the information desks at the museum as well as  providing docent tours of the art for the public.
section_title: Internal operations
paragraphs: The museum’s Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies worked with international  academics to support scholarship and publications in the field of Holocaust studies,  promotes the growth of Holocaust studies at American universities, seeks to foster strong  relationships between American and international scholars, and initiates programs to  ensure the ongoing training of future generations of scholars specializing in the Holocaust.  The Holocaust Memorial Museum’s World Memory Project program leveraged individual  volunteer’s efforts to identify photographs of thousands of children. Further, the public  helps to piece together information about the children’s wartime and postwar experiences  and facilitate renewed connections among these young survivors, their families, and other  individuals who were involved in their care during and after the war.   The Genocide Prevention Task Force was jointly convened by the Holocaust Memorial  Museum, U.S. Institute of Peace, and the American Academy of Diplomacy and funded  through private foundations. Its goals included spotlighting genocide prevention as a  national priority and developing practical policy recommendations to enhance the capacity  of the U.S. government to respond to emerging threats of genocide and mass atrocities.  The traveling exhibitions program allows different organizations to borrow exhibitions and  thereby extend its educational activities to a broader audience. Since 1991, the museum’s  traveling exhibitions have been to 150 cities in 45 U.S. states, as well as Canada and  Germany.  Volunteers worked to assist the Holocaust Memorial Museum’s operations such as visitor  services special projects, clerical work, research, translation, and transcription.  To augment the work of the museum, the Office of General Counsel said that law firms are  periodically engaged to provide pro bono and discounted paid legal services, such as  research on international law, advice on specific aspects of intellectual property law, and  advice on major mediations.
section_title: Presidio Trust Business activities
paragraphs: The Presidio Trust employs a firm specializing in residential leasing to manage residential  homes in 21 neighborhoods, and a nonresidential management firm to manage leases for  nonresidential building space.  The Presidio Trust oversaw the rehabilitation of a historic building into the Inn at the  Presidio and entered into a management service agreement with a hotel management  company to manage and operate the inn.  Presidio Trust Special Events issues permits for recreational uses.  The Presidio Trust hospitality department rents out seven event venues for meetings and  private events.
section_title: Research and preservation Programs
paragraphs: The Presidio Trust partners with the National Park Service, academics, and researchers on  archeology, historical preservation, and open space restoration.
The Presidio Trust partners with the National Park Service, Golden Gate National Parks  Conservancy, Presidio YMCA, and other organizations to provide cultural, recreational and  natural resource programming.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the National Gallery of Art
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Jacqueline M. Nowicki, Acting  Director, Melissa Emrey-Arras, Shirley S. Hwang, Melissa L. King, and  Catherine H. Myrick made major contributions to this report. Also  contributing to this report were Mallory Barg Bulman, Amy R. Bowser,  Elizabeth Erdmann, Robert L. Gebhart, Mehrzad Nadji, Amy J. Radovich,  Cynthia M. Saunders, Sabrina C. Streagle, and Sarah Veale.