Since 1872, Congress has set aside natural, cultural, and recreational park sites to leave them unimpaired for future generations. The national park system is now a network of natural, historic, and cultural treasures in 49 states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Saipan, and the Virgin Islands. The system’s 391 parks and other sites include 58 national parks, such as Yellowstone in Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming; Yosemite in California; and Cuyahoga Valley in Ohio. The remaining 333 sites fall into other categories, such as national historical parks and national lakeshores. Some of the parks, such as Yellowstone, cover millions of acres and employ hundreds of employees; others, such as Ford’s Theatre, which encompasses two historic structures, are small and have few employees. As the park system’s federal manager, the Park Service is charged with conserving “the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” Because of the complexity of its mission, large land area, and the number and diversity of its park units, the agency has the difficult task of balancing resource protection with providing for appropriate public use, including meeting the needs of nearly 300 million park visitors each year—responsibilities that entail substantial management and financial challenges, particularly given current budget constraints. For financial support, the Park Service depends primarily upon federal funding, which totaled over $2.7 billion in fiscal year 2008. As with any federal program, the Park Service is expected to manage within whatever level of funding is provided and to allocate resources to its park units in a way that is both efficient and effective in delivering services. As we reported in 2006, however, operating costs increase each year because of required personnel pay increases, rising costs of benefits for federal employees, and rising overhead expenses such as utilities. In addition, the park system faces a maintenance backlog of about $9 billion, according to Interior fiscal year 2006 estimates. According to the Park Service, these budget realities are making it difficult to accomplish its core mission work, and partnerships are being strongly encouraged by the agency’s leadership. The Park Service relies on donations to supplement federal funding and assist the agency in better fulfilling its mission and fostering a shared sense of stewardship. Donations generally come in two forms—cash and in-kind goods and services. The Park Service reported receiving direct cash donations of $57.6 million in fiscal year 2008, about $30.3 million more than in fiscal year 2007 (see fig. 1). According to a Park Service official, a large part of the 2008 increase was attributable primarily to $15.6 million in privately donated matching funds in response to the $24.6 million appropriated by Congress in fiscal year 2008 for Centennial Challenge projects. These matching funds, combined with an additional $11.3 million of in-kind contributions, supported 110 Centennial Challenge projects at 75 parks in 2008. Annual cash donations to individual parks nationwide ranged from less than $10 to more than $4.5 million, on average, over the last 10 fiscal years, with the great majority of parks receiving less than $50,000 a year. In addition to cash donations, parks receive donations in the form of in-kind goods and services, which, for various reasons, are difficult to value and track. Examples of in-kind donations include artifacts for parks’ museum collections and thousands of volunteers who contribute time and expertise through the Volunteers-in-Parks program. The Park Service is statutorily authorized to accept donations—both cash and in-kind goods and services—from various sources, including individuals, corporations, and nonprofit organizations. Individuals include visitors who drop money in a park donation box or send a check to a park in appreciation for park services provided during a visit, such as a backcountry rescue or a ranger’s informative interpretation. Corporations range from small local businesses—like a lumber company—to large national corporations, such as Macy’s department stores. Nonprofit organizations, which support a specific park, group of parks, or the entire Park Service, also provide donations. Many parks accept donations from, and formally establish partnerships by entering into agreements with, such nonprofit organizations, including the National Park Foundation (Foundation), friends groups, and cooperating associations (see app. II for a description of the applicable authorizing statutes). Each of these types of organizations is described below. In 1967, Congress created the Foundation to encourage private philanthropy to the parks. The Foundation is an official national nonprofit partner of the Park Service; although congressionally chartered, it receives no annual federal appropriations. In accordance with its charter, the Foundation raises private donations from individuals, other foundations, and corporations to support the Park Service and has broad discretion in how it raises and distributes these donations. Friends groups are another type of nonprofit partner that supports the parks. The Park Service describes friends groups as any nonprofit organization established primarily to assist or benefit a specific park area, a series of park areas, a program, or the entire national park system. They are generally formed under state law and must comply with state and federal requirements for charitable fund-raising as well as standards of professional conduct. These include specific standards and philosophies of operation, best practices, codes of professional conduct, fiduciary guidelines and financial accountability requirements, independent audit procedures, and public disclosure requirements, among others. The Park Service does not require friends groups to operate as tax-exempt entities or to have formal partnership agreements with the agency unless they raise funds for the parks. Guidelines for park fund-raising activities are the primary source of park policy covering friends groups’ activities. The Park Service estimated that in 2006, there were 186 friends groups contributing time, expertise, and privately raised funds to support the national parks. The groups vary in size, organizational structure, and nonprofit governance and fund-raising expertise. Some, like the Frederick Vanderbilt Garden Association and Eugene O’Neill Tao House Foundation, are small volunteer organizations, while others, such as the Cuyahoga National Park Association and Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, are large-scale fund-raising partners that also provide research, interpretive and conservation programming, and park tours. Cooperating associations—another type of nonprofit partner—support primarily interpretation, education, and research in the parks. The Park Service’s relationship with cooperating associations began in 1923 with the founding of the Yosemite Association, and by 2009, the number of cooperating associations had grown to about 70. Led by boards of directors and executive directors responsible for day-to-day management, cooperating associations provide program and financial assistance to national parks by producing and selling educational and interpretive materials in bookstores, providing information to visitors, and managing educational programs and field institutes; they return some portion of their profits from these activities to the parks to support the parks’ interpretive and educational mission. Many cooperating associations support multiple parks and other public land management units. For example, Eastern National and Western National Parks Association—two of the largest cooperating associations—partner, respectively, with more than 130 and about 65 parks and other units. Others, such as Black Hills Parks and Forests Association and Great Smoky Mountains Association, partner with a few parks or a single park. Some cooperating associations use revenue-sharing models that enable them to support—at small parks, for instance—bookstores and other interpretive services that would not be profitable on their own. The Park Service requires that cooperating associations operate as tax-exempt organizations and employs a standardized cooperating association agreement, identifying the specific federal statutes and agency policies governing agency and association responsibilities. Some of the nonprofit partners acting as cooperating associations—such as Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy, Rocky Mountain Nature Association, and Zion Natural History Association—also, like friends groups, actively raise funds to support programs and projects in parks. Partnerships and donations are a key component of the Park Service’s Centennial Initiative—a proposal the Park Service outlined in May 2007 for preparing the national parks for the agency’s 100th anniversary. The initiative is a 10-year plan that includes two funding components: (1) $100 million per year for 10 years in new federal spending to complete operational enhancements such as repairing buildings, improving landscapes, hiring seasonal employees, and expanding educational programs; and (2) a Centennial Challenge, whereby the Park Service would receive up to $100 million per year in federal funding to be matched by an equal or greater amount of private donations toward partnership projects and programs. Although Congress has not passed legislation authorizing this multiyear proposal, it did appropriate $24.6 million for fiscal year 2008 Centennial Challenge projects. With this federal money, the Park Service obtained $26.9 million in contributions from its partners. In 2009, the Park Service plans to spend $4.5 million in federal funds, combined with $4.5 million in nonfederal donations, for eight Centennial Challenge projects and programs. These donations and partnerships have raised concerns among some members of Congress and the public about the potential for donors to have undue influence over agency priorities, for parks to become commercialized, and for partnership projects to create new operations and maintenance costs for the Park Service to absorb. For example, in 1998, members of Congress raised concerns about one park’s proposal for a new visitor center to be supported by a fund-raising partner.