Detailed Information on the
National Park Service - Heritage Partnership Assessment

Work with Congress to establish criteria and require a feasibility study to evaluate and designate National Heritage Areas.

Move toward a competitive process for allocating grant funds that considers performance and need, as well as when the area is expected to become self-sufficient.

Develop and implement a set of consistent national performance measures to hold management entities accountable for performance.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The program's purpose and goals are to conserve nationally important landscapes and their natural, historic and recreational resources in partnership with the people who live there. Each of the twenty-seven congressionally established national heritage areas has a legislatively authorized purpose statement that reflects the goals of resource conservation, building community capacity and partnership. These legislative purposes support the National Park Service (NPS) mission statement that states, "??the National Park Service cooperates with partners to extend natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation through out this country and the world." In order to fulfill this purpose, GAO has recognized the need for a systematic process to identify and designate National Heritage Areas.

Evidence: Booklet - Branching Out: Approaches in Park Stewardship (NPS 2003); See articles in "Stewardship of Heritage Areas George Wright Forum:" 1. Turning Ideas on Their Head: The New Paradigm of Protected Areas by Adrian Phillips 2. International Models of Protected Landscapes by Brent Mitchell 3. Roots for the National Heritage Areas Family Tree by Brenda Barrett; Heritage Partnership Program Congressional Justifications; NPS Missiion statement. Designating legislation for individual National Heritage Areas reinforces the purpose of the program. GAO Report GAO-04-593T: A More Systematic process for Establishing National Heritage Areas (March 2004)

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Heritage Partnership Program enables communities to conserve nationally important heritage resources, builds capacity to conserve those resources sustainably, and provides national recognition for partner communities. The program allows the NPS to fulfill its mission without having to acquire or manage more land. Instead the NPS assists citizens who express initiative to protect their nationally important resources. The legislation for the twenty-seven areas emphasizes this need by identifying the nationally important themes and resources that are best preserved in partnership with local communities. The program also supports the NPS Director's Legacy Initiatives for a Seamless System of Parks and embodies the principles of Secretary Norton's Four C's: Communication, Cooperation and Collaboration all in the service of Conservation.

Evidence: See articles form the George Wright Forum (under 1.1); See selected designation legislation for need descriptions from individual areas; List of National Heritage Area designation and study bills introduced in the 109th Congress; National Park System Advisory Board Report: Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st Century (2001) (See p. 21-23: Nurturing Traditional Cultures and Living Communities).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Heritage Program has a potentially unique role in the cooperative conservation of multi-jurisdictional resources but there is not a sufficient process in place to ensure that the program targets these resources. According to GAO, "no systematic process currently exists for identifying qualified sites and designating them as national heritage areas." Without such a systematic process, the program cannot adequately target resources to these areas. For example, GAO also found that Congress has continued to establish areas without a thorough review by NPS. The program does try to avoid duplication by bringing potentially overlapping programs together in collaborative relationships but there are not sufficient safeguards to prevent duplication.

Evidence: Chart comparing NPS and other related programs illustrates potential gaps created by other programs; List of State Heritage Area programs shows that only five states have such programs; Resource Conservation and Development Program Brochure and Scenic Byways Web Site provide descriptions of other Federal programs. GAO Report GAO-04-593T (March 2004)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The program does not have authorizing legislation establishing a standard process for the identification and establishment of heritage areas. According to GAO, "no systematic process currently exists for identifying qualified sites and designating them as national heritage areas." GAO also found that Congress has continued to establish areas without a thorough review by NPS. Funding for individual areas is awarded without a competitive process, which may affect efficiency. The need to adopt authorizing legislation to establish criteria and to set a standardized framework for new national heritage area proposals has been recognized by both the Administration and members of Congress for over twelve years. The Administration has proposed and supported authorizing legislation but such legislation has yet to be enacted.

Evidence: GAO Report GAO-04-593T: A More Systematic process for Establishing National Heritage Areas (March 2004); Transmittal letters to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House; Administration's legislative proposal; Testimony of A. Durand Jones, Deputy Director of the National Park Service, March 30, 2004; S. 243, National Heritage Partnership Act in the 109th Congress; H.R. 760, National Heritage Partnership Act in the 109th Congress.

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Without a systematic process to identify and establish heritage areas, NPS cannot adequately demonstrate that the right beneficiaries are being targeted. GAO found that Congress designated areas without thorough NPS review, including when NPS recommended deferring action on a given area. NPS has supported legislation that would create such a process but the legislation has not been enacted. In the interim, NPS has developed a handout to help target proposed national heritage areas titled Critical Steps and Criteria for becoming a National Heritage Area to be used by the NPS and congressional committees.

Evidence: GAO Report GAO-04-593T: A More Systematic process for Establishing National Heritage Areas (March 2004); Handout: Critical Steps and Criteria for becoming a National Heritage Area NPS website; List of management entities for designated areas; Funding Advice to the Regions.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: NPS has not established long-term outcome oriented performance measures for the heritage program; the measures are under development. The program is collecting data that may inform the development of program-level measures in the near future. GAO recommended that NPS develop results-oriented measures for the heritage program and require partners to implement a results-oriented system. On April 16, 2005 the National Park System Advisory Board adopted a report recommending that NPS "develop the policy infrastructure including performance measures and a process for evaluating over the long term National Heritage Areas." Over the next year, the NPS and the Alliance of National Heritage Areas will build on the foundation of program goals and area-specific measures to develop outcome based performance measures.

Evidence: GAO Report GAO-04-593T: A More Systematic process for Establishing National Heritage Areas (March 2004); NPS Advisory Board Report: Findings and Recommendations on the Future of the National Heritage Areas in the National Park System (April 16, 2005)

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The Program does not have long term measures and thus cannot have ambitious targets or timeframes. As a program that is implementing a new strategy for resource conservation through partnership, NPS is still working to understand the process and timeframes needed to establish independently sustainable heritage areas. To evaluate the process, outcomes and timeframes of older and established heritage areas, the NPS has asked the Conservation Study Institute (in partnership with the University of Vermont) to develop a model for process and life cycle evaluation. This research project will assist in establishing long term goals and benchmarks for the program.

Evidence: Conservation Study Institute Report: Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: A Technical Assistance Report to the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission (2005).

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The program's annual measures are still under development. The program is collecting data that will be used over the next year to inform the National Park System Advisory Board recommended process of developing performance measures.

Evidence: Conservation Study Institute Report: Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: A Technical Assistance Report to the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor Commission (2005).

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: As the program's annual measures are still under development, NPS has not developed baselines and targets. As recommended by the Advisory Board report, the NPS and the Alliance of National Heritage Areas will be developing and implementing performance measures for the program over the next year. The NPS has been gathering a variety of output data for three years and expects this data to provide the foundation for annual measures.

Evidence: NPS provided a handout of baseline information on the national heritage areas (population, demographics, etc.): "Baseline Information on the National Heritage Areas"(2004). NPS also provided a report on the economic impacts of national heritage areas: "Economic Impacts of National Heritage Areas: Visitor Spending Summary Results from Seven National Heritage Areas Visitor Surveys" (by Daniel Stynes and Ya-Yen Sun, Michigan State University, June 2004).

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: See 2.1 and 2.3. NPS has not yet established long-term and annual goals and measures for the heritage program and has not set specific goals for partners to work toward. NPS does require each area to submit a management plan to be approved by the Secretary. However, GAO has found that NPS does not have a consistent process for the review and approval of each management plan and has recommended that NPS develop such a process. Each Heritage Area also signs a "commitment" with NPS annually which acts as a work plan for the area. The NPS and their partner, the Alliance of National Heritage Areas, have committed to work together to develop and implement performance measures for the entire program over the next year.

Evidence: Report: Alliance of National Heritage Areas Outcome Goals (April 2002); Institute Workshop: "Sharing Our Successes': Outcome Goals and Outcome Evaluation," Alliance of National heritage Areas, February 10-11 2002, Washington D.C.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The program has not received sufficient program-wide evaluations on a regular basis although GAO did conduct an evaluation in 2004. NPS has actively sought evaluations of specific areas but each Heritage area is evaluated/audited independent of the others. Thus, the evaluations are not of sufficient scope.

Evidence: GAO Report GAO-04-593T: A More Systematic process for Establishing National Heritage Areas (March 2004). NPS provided a series of reports on individual areas and the impetus for the program, though none of the reports satisfy the criteria for this question. See 2.2 for Study on Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor (2005); Three Research Forums: 1. Developing a Research Agenda (November 20, 2002); 2. Implementing a Research Agenda for National Heritage Areas (June 10, 2003); 3. National Heritage Areas Current Research (March 17, 2005).

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The program does not have annual or long-term performance targets in place and does not have a budget system in place to define relationships between performance targets and budget resources. The Congressional budget justification does not make clear the impact of funding, policy, or legislative decisions on expected performance. The program also does not report all direct and indirect costs needed to attain performance and does not report the total cost of expected performance (including non NPS funding).

Evidence: Congressional budget justifications for FY 2004, 2005, and 2006.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The NPS and the Alliance of National Heritage Areas have developed a foundation for developing performance measures. In February of 2001, an outside consultant conducted a joint facilitated workshop to identify outcomes and potential output measures for national heritage areas. Based on this workshop, NPS has collected output data from individual areas for the past two years. Another focus on correcting program deficiencies has been developing much needed authorizing legislation. NPS has worked to develop and support such legislation, including S. 243 and H.R. 790 in the 109th Congress.

Evidence: See: Legislative transmittal letters to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House; Administration's legislative proposal and section by section analysis; Testimony of A. Durand Jones Deputy Director of the National Park Service March 30, 2004; S. 243, National Heritage Partnership Act in the 109th Congress; H.R. 760, National Heritage Partnership Act in the 109th Congress.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: NPS does collect some performance information from heritage areas but has not demonstrated that such information is used to adjust priorities, allocate resources, or take other management actions. GAO found that the program did not have adequate results-oriented performance measures and, as a result, "is constrained in its ability to determine both the agency's and areas' accomplishments, whether the agency's resources are being employed efficiently and effectively, and if federal funds could be better used to accomplish its goals." Similarly, although the areas' annual cooperative agreements provide a mechanism for oversight, GAO found that NPS "has not taken advantage of these opportunities to help improve oversight and ensure these areas accountability."

Evidence: GAO Report GAO-04-593T: A More Systematic process for Establishing National Heritage Areas (March 2004); See selected annual reports for information collected from individual areas, such as the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor (2004).

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: NPS has not demonstrated sufficient means to hold program partners (the heritage areas) or Federal managers accountable for results. GAO found that the program does not have adequate performance measures to determine the agency's and areas' accomplishments and whether resources are being used efficiently. GAO also found that NPS "has not required regional heritage area managers to regularly and consistently review the areas' annual financial audit reports to ensure that the Park Service - the agency with lead responsibility for these areas - has complete information on their use of funds from all federal agencies as a basis for holding them accountable." NPS has identified managers responsible for the program but has not demonstrated that they have clearly defined or quantifiable performance standards for those managers related to the heritage area program.

Evidence: GAO Report GAO-04-593T: A More Systematic process for Establishing National Heritage Areas (March 2004). Cooperative Agreements identify the relevant NPS official and responsible national heritage area management entity but do not indicate how either will be held accountable for results.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: NPS is unable to demonstrate that adequate procedures exist for partners to report actual expenditures and compare those expenditures to obligation plans. GAO found that, although NPS requires each area to submit annual financial audits, NPS has no consistent policy requiring regional managers to review those audits and ensure that federal funds were spent for their intended purpose.

Evidence: GAO Report GAO-04-593T: A More Systematic process for Establishing National Heritage Areas (March 2004). NPS provided a table showing obligation rates for 2003. Funds were obligated in a timely manner.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Heritage Partnership Progam has not established an adequate efficiency measure and does not demonstrate adequate procedures to measure and achieve efficiencies. The program does strive for effectiveness and efficiencies through partnership management (see number of partnerships in 2.1), by providing a match for all NPS funds, and through leveraging other funds to accomplish projects identified in the approved management plans for the areas.

Evidence: The program has no efficiency measure. See selected legislation for examples of areas requiring a 50% match for Federal funding.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The national heritage areas have as one of their program purposes partnership and collaboration to meet conservation goals. This is articulated in the authorizing legislation for all 27 areas and is demonstrated in the number of partnerships, the leveraging of NPS funds, and the mix of Federal, state, local government, and private funds. The areas also coordinate with other NPS programs. National heritage areas partner with adjacent National Park units and are often linked by legislative authority and by management planning. In 2004 the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation awarded the Alliance of National Heritage Areas and the National Park Service an Award for Federal Partnerships in Historic Preservation at the National Trust annual meeting in Louisville, KY.

Evidence: See individual National Heritage Area authorizing bills. NPS provided information on collaboration with other programs and leveraging of external funds. Data collected in 2004 show coordination with other NPS programs and use of Transportation Enhancement Grants. Report of the Workshop on Improving Federal Partnership Strategies (July 23, 2004). The program has also received awards for partnerships (see press release on the Federal Partnership Award).

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: GAO found that while the program does require partners (the Heritage Areas) to submit financial statements reviewed by independent auditors, the program does not have a uniform process for reviewing those reports, and some regions do not review the reports at all.

Evidence: GAO Report GAO-04-593T: A More Systematic process for Establishing National Heritage Areas (March 2004).

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The need to adopt authorizing legislation to establish criteria and to set a standardized framework for new national heritage area proposals is recognized by both the Administration and key members of Congress. Steps are underway (see 1.4) to remedy this programmatic deficiency. To address the need to standardize the management of the program among regions and share best practices, the preparation of a National Heritage Area Administrative Handbook is underway. This effort is building on the administrative handbook already developed and used by the Northeast Region and shared as interim approach. The Handbook should be completed by the end FY 05.

Evidence: See legislative transmittal letters to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House, in addition to supporting testimony. Northeast Region Handbook; National Heritage Areas handbook outline.

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: NPS does not have sufficient oversight practices to track grantee activities and ensure that funds are used for their designated purpose. GAO found that while the program does require heritage areas to submit financial statements reviewed by independent auditors, the program does not have a uniform process for reviewing those reports, and some regions do not review the reports at all. On a positive note, program staff do work regularly with the heritage areas and conduct site visits.

Evidence: GAO Report GAO-04-593T: A More Systematic process for Establishing National Heritage Areas (March 2004).

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: NPS could not demonstrate that they have an adequate system in place to collect and present publicly information that captures the most important impacts of the program. The program does collect information annually from each area and provides access to information on the NPS website, but the information is not aggregated at a program-wide level. GAO found that the program did not have adequate results-oriented performance measures and has not required the areas to adopt a similar results-oriented management approach.

Evidence: GAO Report GAO-04-593T: A More Systematic process for Establishing National Heritage Areas (March 2004).

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Without long-term goals and measures (see 2.1), NPS cannot demonstrate progress in achieving long-term goals. The heritage areas program has made progress toward developing goals. NPS has developed goals and measures with each heritage area and is developing program-wide measures. As recommended in the 2005 Advisory Board report, NPS and the Alliance of National Heritage Areas will develop and implement performance measures for the program over the next year.

Evidence: See 2.1.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The program has not established adequate annual performance measures (see 2.2) and cannot provide evidence that it is achieving annual goals. NPS is working to develop annual goals and measures.

Evidence: See 2.3 and 2.4.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: NPS has not established an adequate efficiency measure (see 3.4) and cannot demonstrate improved efficiencies and effectiveness in achieving program goals.

Evidence: See 3.4.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: NPS was not able to provide sufficient evidence to allow a comparison of the performance of the heritage area program to other programs.

Evidence: NPS did provide an excerpt from a report ("Reflecting on the Past, Looking to the Future: Sustainability Study Report for the John H. Chafee Blackstone River Valley National Heritage Corridor") comparing the Blackstone River Valley Corridor to two different National Park System units but the comparison was not sufficient to satisfy this question. NPS also provided an analysis of the gaps left by other similar programs but the gap analysis did not allow for a comparison of performance.

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The program has not received independent evaluations of sufficient scope to demonstrate that it is effective and achieving results (see question 2.6). A 2004 GAO report provides the most comprehensive evaluation and raises significant issues with the current program, including the lack of a systematic process for identifying and establishing heritage areas, the lack of results-oriented performance measures, and problems with oversight of areas' management plans and financial performance. On a positive note, the program and individual heritage areas have received awards for preservation, and studies have indicated that individual areas are achieving results. Still, none of the awards or studies satisfy the criteria for this question.

Evidence: NPS provided a set of reports on individual heritage areas and a list of awards received by the program, including National Trust Award for Federal Partnerships in Historic Preservation and Preserve America Presidential Awards.