National Park Service: History, Funding, and Leadership

Introduction and Agency Overview

One of the defining characteristics of the United States is the diversity of its landscape, its biomes, and the incredible amount of natural resources available. Because it was resettled by Europeans relatively late in the historical span of human culture, much of those resources remained fresh and pristine far longer than in other settled regions. However, with the advent of western expansion in the 1800s, the building of a transcontinental railway, and increased mining, large-scale farming and ranching, and industrialization, those pristine areas were frequently placed at risk. Since 1872, the United States National Park System has grown from a small, single-park managerial service to one of the less politically visible but nevertheless important trustees of American natural resources. From Yellowstone National Park to over 450 natural, historical, recreational, and cultural treasures, the National Park System manages over 21,000 people through the Department of the Interior and dedicates its energy and resources toward education and preservation (Lee, 1972).

Any program designed for the public good is by its nature inextricably linked to politics — not only through motive but in many instances through more practical elements as well. The political system provides directives and often the financial support for these programs, and thus the programs themselves are prone to many of the same strengths and weaknesses as the political system. Consequently, the quality of a public service organization will be deeply and directly contingent upon the quality of its political structure. In particular, the processes and policies of the organization will bear a reciprocal relationship with the manner in which resources are allocated. It is therefore essential for an organization to have constructed an explicit and standardized mode by which policies are carried out, skills and qualifications are identified, and personal attributes are utilized in addressing the macro-organizational factors of creating and managing organizational culture. The quality of efforts with respect to organizational culture, in some contexts, will impact not just the internal orientation of an organization but also the image it projects to the mainstream public (McDonell and MacKintosh, 2006; Davis, 2001).

This makes the National Park Service (NPS) a particularly interesting case for the examination of organizational theory, design, and change — given its remarkable success as a management organization and yet its continued struggles with funding and the impact those struggles have on its operative goals. The discussion that follows takes a direct interest in the National Park Service's history, challenges, funding, politics, and future, along with an organizational analysis of the NPS.

Historical Development of the NPS

Historically, the public embraced the idea of a national parks service that would both protect the environment and offer natural recreation. The basic idea originated from the desire to protect special areas so they could remain part of the national heritage for generations to come. However, the political and social sensibilities of the 19th century were quite different from those of the 21st century, and the definition of what constitutes conservation has significantly evolved. Originally, the focus was on natural wonders, but that rather limited scope has evolved to include a historical chronicle of the natural world — intended to educate, conserve, and enhance the quality of life for park visitors. It was the breathtaking grandeur of the area around what we now know as Yellowstone National Park that first caught the attention of naturalists, who in turn became advocates for protecting significant areas from mining and deforestation (Schullery and Whittlesey, 2003).

The idea for a federally managed National Park System came from George Catlin, an artist who traveled to the northern Great Plains in 1832. Even at that early date, he was worried about the destruction of American Indian civilization, wildlife, and wilderness as more and more people headed west. He wrote of his hope for "some great protecting policy of government… in a magnificent park… a nation's park, containing man and beast, in all the wildness and freshness of their nature's beauty" (McDonell and MacKintosh, 2006). While there was no immediate effect from Catlin's vision, the era between 1864 and 1891 witnessed a series of protective measures, including an act to protect Yosemite Valley and the Mariposa Redwood Trees, signed into law in 1864 by President Abraham Lincoln. Popular myth held that the idea for a Yellowstone reservation arose from a campfire conversation among explorers Folsom, Washburn, and Hayden between 1869 and 1871. That myth was successfully used by National Park supporters but was eventually found to be false; an early ally in promoting a public reservation was actually the Northern Pacific Railroad, which was seeking a more northern route from the East Coast to Northern California and the Pacific Northwest (Schullery and Whittlesey, 2003).

Concurrent with the movement toward protecting the natural environment was a desire to protect the archaeological heritage of the country from plunder — a cause surprisingly led by local ranchers and farmers in the Southwest. Their lobbying resulted in the Antiquities Act of 1906, enthusiastically authorized by President Theodore Roosevelt, himself an avid naturalist. Based on Roosevelt's recommendation, Dr. Edgar Hewett reviewed a number of American Indian ruins in Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, and Utah and recommended many for protection. Between 1906 and 1916, the Department of the Interior worked with various administrations to proclaim 20 new National Monuments, adding to the sense of a burgeoning National Park System (Rothman, 1994).

The growing synergy around preservation and conservation was not lost on the political environment, and the National Park Service was formally created on August 25, 1916 by President Woodrow Wilson — the result of a number of political debates about which agency should oversee the nation's parks. The period from 1916 to 1933 was one of tremendous growth for the agency, focused not only on consolidating and inventorying its resources but also on establishing its overall mission. Through the 1920s, the National Park System concentrated mainly on areas west of the Mississippi, where more federally owned land existed and authority was easier to establish. However, the 1920s also saw a more mobile population, making it apparent that to fully serve its mission the Service would need to expand eastward as well. In 1926, Congress authorized Shenandoah, Mammoth Cave, and the Great Smoky Mountains as National Parks within the Appalachian region. The system also came to include a number of historic parks near the eastern seaboard, many of which were Revolutionary or Civil War battlefields (Miles, 1995).

One of the more pragmatic issues surrounding the NPS was that however popular the parks might be, most politicians were unlikely to press for funding during difficult economic times unless public interest was high. This was the attitude President Franklin Roosevelt inherited when he took office. Moreover, not only was the country in an economic crisis — with tax revenues down and banks having failed — but many Americans were turning to the parks for inexpensive yet enriching entertainment. During the 1930s, the Park Service became focused on areas intended primarily for mass recreation, including parkways and waterways (Daynes and Sussman, 2010).

Roosevelt also saw a new opportunity in the Park System — one that could simultaneously increase public recreation and employment. Many of his New Deal programs focused on conservation; in particular, the Civilian Conservation Corps upgraded and expanded visitor facilities at national parks throughout the country. In 1933, the Reorganization Act was passed, giving the president authority to transfer national monuments from one government department to another. The War Department's parks and monuments were transferred to the NPS that same year, as were the national monuments administered by the Agriculture Department and the sites included in the national capital parks in Washington, D.C. — giving the NPS 57 new areas in total.

In addition to overseeing its newly transferred sites, the NPS took on a still larger role during the 1930s, when Congress created new categories of parklands. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 confirmed and expanded the NPS's role in preserving and restoring park resources and conducting educational activities related to historic sites. The Park, Parkway, and Recreational Area Study Act of 1936 led to the purchase of land for parkways and recreational areas. A further significant change during the 1930s was the creation of a program to evaluate the status of each park's wildlife, identify species in danger, and generate ideas for restoration (Daynes and Sussman, 2010).

Between the 1930s and 1964, the NPS needed to assimilate over seventy diverse areas into its system while managing constant new budgetary concerns — Congress wanted a National Parks System but also had to fund the war effort and, later, Cold War priorities. In the 1950s, a new push toward outdoor recreation made more Americans aware of their National Park options, and the increasing mobility of suburban America made driving to national parks an ever more viable choice. The more people visited the parks, the stronger the synergistic effect on funding and public support (Jensen and Guthrie, 2006).

By the Johnson Administration in the 1960s, increased media attention had raised public awareness of America's natural treasures through the "Parks for People" campaign. During this period there was also significant new awareness about ecology and the natural environment. Congress responded by passing the General Authorities Act of 1970, known as the "Redwood Amendment" because a large portion of the Act was devoted to conserving Redwood National Park. Based on citizen pressure, Congress was also compelled to provide a significant funding increase to expand National Park areas and provide more services, including educational programs, lodging, and hiking trails. The environmental community was particularly vocal during these years, drawing attention to oil spills, pollution, and species extinction, resulting in far greater attention to the maintenance and expansion of the NPS (O'Brien, 1999).

The National Park Service recognized that working with partner organizations greatly enhances its ability to protect park resources and provide educational and visitor services. These partners operate both within parks and beyond park boundaries. Some provide funding for NPS programs; others contribute technical expertise for NPS projects. Some function at the national level, while others work at the park or office level. While these partners are not formally part of the NPS, they all share the Service's interest in the management of the national parks. Partnering also helped the NPS add more Alaskan areas during the 1980s, bringing the total to more than 380 parks covering more than 83 million acres in every state of the Union. Its mission remains true to its founding: despite the ebb and flow of emphasis and funding across different administrations, the NPS supports the preservation of natural and historic places and promotes outdoor recreation through grants and partnerships (The National Park Service, 2002).

Hierarchy, Structure, and Funding

The NPS has a chain-of-command structure that begins with the NPS Director, extends down to regional directors, and continues to each individual park or office. In general, the highest-ranking position at a park is a Superintendent. Similarly, NPS Training Centers are led by a Superintendent, and Regional Offices are headed by a Regional Director. Each park or office organizes its employees into functional divisions — such as maintenance, resource management, and visitor and resource protection — each led by a Division Chief. The size and function of a park or office determines which divisions it has and how they are organized (McClelland, 1998).

Funding has been and continues to be a persistent challenge for the NPS. World War II presented significant difficulties: Director Newton Drury faced pressure from many committees seeking to use historic cannons for scrap metal and park resources for the war effort. He managed to keep the parks intact, but tight wartime budgets left the NPS unable to adequately maintain facilities. With the return of peace and the subsequent increase in travel, the parks' deterioration became painfully evident. The affordability of automobiles gave the middle class a newfound mobility, and visitation to national parks swelled, overwhelming run-down facilities. On June 26, 1956, Congress passed the Federal Aid Highway Act, approving the creation of a 41,000-mile highway system that further guaranteed increased park visitation (Lee, 1972).

The challenges that Director Drury faced during World War II mirror those facing NPS directors today. On March 17, 2010, NPS Director Jarvis told members of a House Subcommittee that "difficult economic times call for creativity." The $2.73 billion budget proposal for the National Park Service for fiscal year 2011 was $22 million less than the 2010 appropriations — "a fact of these economic times," Jarvis said. "We will be creative to meet the needs of park visitors, protect resources, and continue our partnerships that help revitalize communities through local recreation and historic preservation projects. This budget supports our mission," Jarvis stated in his testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related Agencies.

The primary source of revenue used to fund the NPS is the general public — through taxes, donations, and fees paid to visit the various parks. Fees collected from park visitors under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) have increased NPS annual revenue by tens of millions of dollars. Another important source of funding is the NPS's partner organizations — such as the congressionally mandated National Park Foundation and various independent national, state, and local organizations — which conduct fundraising activities to support individual parks and the Service as a whole.

The development of an NPS budget is a multi-staged process. It begins at the park level, then moves through several levels of review and approval before finally being passed into law. As the budget request moves through successive levels of development, it accumulates: the park unit budget becomes part of the regional budget, which in turn becomes part of the total NPS budget, and so forth. At each level the budget is subject to modification as politicians, partners, and special interest groups lobby for how federal money should be allocated. It can take more than 20 months to prepare a budget for any given fiscal year, meaning the NPS is at any given time working on three separate budgets: two in proposal stages and one being enacted. As one observer notes, "as a consequence of the blurred authority, heads of federal agencies, unlike their counterparts in industry, cannot set the level of their agencies' budgets. Rather, budgets must be submitted to department heads, who submit them in turn to the Office of Management and Budget, which submits them in turn to the president, who in turn submits them to Congress" (Grover, 2008, p. 13).