Pros and Cons of Nonprofit Aid to Parks Reviewed

by Michael Doyle
Fresno Bee - August 21, 2003

Private nonprofit groups are nurturing national parks like Yosemite, but some also are inciting tensions that worry federal auditors.

Growing reliance on nonprofit help imposes on park management obligations that aren't always being met, according to a new audit requested by Rep. George Radanovich, R-Mariposa. Auditors further warn that private aid breeds potential conflicts between commercial concession operators and the nonprofits.

"The park service's goal of increasing the amount of financial contributions from [nonprofit associations] provides for inherent conflicts between the associations and concessionaires," General Accounting Office auditors noted.

That's because some nonprofits raise money by selling books, maps and other items similarly carried by concessionaires. It can add up, as the nonprofit associations contributed more than $200 million to national parks between 1997 and 2001.

The groups serving Yosemite are among the nation's most active. The nonprofit Yosemite Fund gave $2.2 million to the park in 2001, the first-of-its-kind GAO study reported. With the help of corporate contributions, for instance, the Fund has assisted work at Glacier Point and Lower Yosemite Falls.

The older Yosemite Association contributed $352,671 to the park in 2001, raised primarily through the sale of books, Native American artifacts and educational CDs. Yosemite Association officials were not available to comment.

"They're key partners in the park," Yosemite spokeswoman Deb Schweizer said of the nonprofits Tuesday. "They do a lot of volunteer projects in the park, and they generate funds for projects that the park might manage."

The Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Park Foundation contributed $169,000 in 2000 and nothing in 2001, the study found. The Sequoia Natural History Association contributed $321,240 to the park in 2001.

The GAO, which is the investigative arm of Congress, particularly praised Yosemite for working out a cooperative relationship among the for-profit and nonprofit groups.

"Yosemite is a good example of where competing entities work together to serve overall park interests," auditors noted. "In fact, there were a number of coordinated efforts between the [Yosemite] association and concessionaire."

The Yosemite Association, for instance, provides artists to teach classes at a center run by the concession firm, while the Yosemite concession firm buys up the association's educational publications. The concession and nonprofit also cooperate in providing bear-resistant food canisters to campers.

"We have a really good working relationship among all the parties in the park," Schweizer said. "We all work together pretty closely."

Auditors wish, though, that other parks would follow Yosemite's lead.

At Grand Canyon National Park, for instance, park officials antagonized concession operators by permitting the local nonprofit group to compete directly by selling film and disposable cameras. The concessionaires' film sales subsequently fell by 10%.

The Grand Canyon concession firms likewise fume over the fact that nonprofit groups are given more leeway in putting up signs. Auditors also wondered why nonprofit groups were selling commercial trinkets including Slinkys, Hula Hoops and refrigerator magnets at some Eastern parks.

The concession operators complained to the park service and to Radanovich, chairman of the House subcommittee overseeing national parks.

"The audit draws conclusions confirming the congressman's view that nonprofits have been drifting away from their educational function, and competing with concessionaires," Radanovich's press secretary Geoff Embler said Tuesday.

Park managers, auditors note, may have an economic incentive to allow such commercial incursions. Nationwide, nonprofits contribute an average of 26% of gross revenues to parks, compared to the average of 4% contributed by commercial concessionaires.

Park managers, though, told auditors they were afraid Congress would cut park funding if lawmakers saw how much private money was being provided. No systematic database exists tracking individual contributions.

The private money is increasing, from about $27 million being contributed in 1997 to over $47 million in 2001.