Best Practices in
Friends Groups
and National Parks
Key Findings of Success in the
Relationship Management between
Friends Groups and National Parks
September 2005
www.npca.org/cpm
p 202.223.6722
f 202.659.0650
e center@npca.org
© 2012 Center for Park Management
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 01
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
Table of Contents
Section
Description




Page No.

1

Executive Summary





2
2

Introduction and Project Scope



3





3

Best Practices





4
4

Friends are More Than Fundraisers


6




5

Future of Partnerships



10




6

Appendices





11








6.1. Contributors to Best Practices Study







6.2 Superintendents Set the Culture of Cooperation







6.3 Executive Directors Balance Multiple Priorities





6.4 Major Capital Projects






Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado © Dana Romanoff Photography, LLC
Executive Summary
As budgets have grown tighter in recent years, partnerships have become the way for parks to
accomplish more with less. Most parks look to their Friends for access to resources that would
otherwise be unavailable. The use of “Friends” in this study, when unnamed, refers to the collective
group of non-profit entities dedicated to the support of America’s national park units. The greatest
appeal of these Friends is their ability to fundraise. Several Friends conduct major capital campaigns
for special projects and others create endowments for parks to use in perpetuity. However, Friends
add more than economic value; they provide community legitimacy and access to key business and
political leaders. Friends fundraise, friend-raise and advocate.
Given the reality of federal appropriations for parks, Friends are a vital part of the future of the Park
Service. The National Park Service has given mandates to many parks to partner with the private
sector and seek out Friends. Superintendents are now often judged by their ability to partner
successfully. The process of fostering successful relationships still remains unclear to most, and many
park units face difficulty in getting their Friends off the ground. As friends learn from each other,
parks and Friends groups can learn from each other. This study highlights examples of past successes
and suggests elements that might lead to future successful partnerships. This study was initiated by
the Superintendent of Valley Forge National Historical Park as part of a larger analysis of their
partnership landscape, but should be of use to all interested parks and Friends.
1.0 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
Best practices
1. Parks and Friends must have a shared mission and similar goals for long term
collaboration to work.
2. Mutual trust, necessary for the completion of large-scale projects, is earned over time.
3. Both partners must contribute equally to the relationship and be aware of park
priorities and non-profit needs.
4. Clear and constant communication between parks and Friends, both in meetings or
informal lunches, leads to understanding.
5. Both partners should commit to the relationship for the long term and work towards
institutionalizing the partnership so that it is sustained beyond staff changes on both
sides.
6. Create a culture of sharing and collaboration amongst park and Friends staff members
to create staff “buy-in”.
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 02
2.0 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
Introduction and Project Scope
From the early years of the Park Service, private philanthropy has played an important part in the
growth of the Park Service. Within the last twenty years, partnerships have become even more
important with the reduction of Congressional support for park budgets. Partnerships with Friends
help parks build public support, increase awareness, and encourage stewardship.
Outstanding successes with Friends exist throughout the Park Service. The major capital campaigns
and endowments such as the Restoration of Golden Gate’s Crissy Field and the Acadia Trails Forever
program are the visible end results of these partnerships, but the process remains unclear. Currently,
there is no tool box that exists for partnering with Friends. Rather, knowledge transfer is informal
and limited learning takes place through word of mouth or specific requests of successful Friends
and their parks. This study seeks to document some of what has been learned to date, and help to
build the capacity of Friends partnerships.
Project scope and methodology
The report originated as a request from Superintendent Mike Caldwell of Valley Forge National
Historical Park as part of a greater partnership analysis for the park and now is intended for use by
all park units. Discussions with various Friends groups and members of the Park Service were
conducted to determine the ingredients of success. Park staff illuminated areas where Friends
provide programmatic help and explained the commitment and dedication needed for developing
the relationships. Friends discussed the balancing of park needs with donor interests and expressed
their frustrations with park bureaucracy.
Great consideration was given to ensure the diversity of the contributors. Park units from different
geographic areas and of differing sizes were interviewed, including national recreation areas and
national lakeshores. Park staff from the Superintendent down to the department chief level was
consulted. The Pacific Regional Partnership Office and Deny Galvin, retired Deputy Director,
provided a national perspective. Executive Directors, board members and staff of Friends were
interviewed. Friends of various sizes and scale were included; from larger groups like the Friends of
the National Parks at Gettysburg to smaller groups like the Friends of the Virgin Islands National
Park. For a full list of interviewees, please refer to Appendix A: Contributors to Best Practices Study
(p.13).
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 03
Denali National Park and Preserve © Kent Miller/NPS
3.0 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
Best Practices
Although creating a successful partnership is not an exact science, research revealed that several key
elements are typically present in successful collaborations. Those key elements are detailed in this section,
with current field examples of their application from parks and Friends groups.
Key elements of successful
partnerships
1 Have the Same Mission and Goals: Long-
term planning is important, as the process of
mapping out the mission and vision of both the
park and Friends group ensures that the partners
are working toward mutual goals and are aware
of their respective roles.
Superintendent John Latschar of Gettysburg
NMP is a proud member of the Friends group
and actively participates in their meetings. When
the Friends revised their mission statement, he
participated in the board retreat and contributed
to the long term vision.
2Trust is Earned over Time: Rome was not
built in a day, and with each successful project,
the park staff and the Friends add to an
atmosphere of mutual trust that allows for
Friends groups to implement larger and more
successful projects.
Jerry Eldelbrock of the Yosemite Fund noted
during the planning and execution of the
restoration of Lower Yosemite Falls, they were
responsible for most of the work, with park
oversight of course. This was only possible
because the park could trust the Yosemite Fund
to represent park interests, having worked with
them on many smaller scale projects in the past.
3Both Partners Must Contribute to the
Relationship: As the senior partner, parks
should promote their Friends at every opportunity.
The park should also allocate resources to help
build the capacity of their Friends. Friends need
to help parks develop projects that meet park
needs while having donor appeal.
Curt Buchholtz of Rocky Mountain Nature
Association noted that donors like to see
immediate results. He prefers land acquisition
projects to capital construction because they can
be done usually in less than 18 months versus
years.
4Clear and Constant Communication Leads
to Understanding: Formal communications
and agreements should clearly outline the roles
and expectations of each partner. Regular “check
in” meetings create an open atmosphere and
keep all parties moving forward.
Christy Holloway of the Yosemite Association
explained that regular meetings between the
park and all the various partners not only
encourage park-partner interaction, but also
partner-partner support. The meetings facilitate
sharing of project expertise between groups.

Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 04
5 Both Partners are in Relationship for Long Haul: Efforts should be made towards institutionalizing
the partnership so that it is sustained beyond staff changes on both sides. For example, top park
management tends to be transitory, and efforts should be made to institutionalize the importance of
Friends group as part of the park’s long-term strategy. Both partners should have long-term horizons.
Ken Olson, long time president of the Friends of Acadia, will be retiring from the position. But the
transition between presidents should be smooth, like the recent transition of Acadia superintendents,
because the partnership has been well institutionalized and is relatively free of personality-driven issues.
6Create Culture of Sharing and Collaboration: The Superintendent must be able to share the control
of the park with their Friends groups. This does not mean Friends should be involved in park
management, but rather, they should offer a community perspective. Also, the Superintendent must
create a culture of cooperation with Friends. Creating park staff “buy in” is often quite difficult and
requires efforts of both the Friends and management.
Chesley Moroz of Eastern National said that their group is based on the concept of sharing, they operate
bookstores for multiple park units and the profits are spread equally amongst all the parks and that they
hire staff who embrace the sharing nature of the organization.
7 Mutual Respect is Key: The partnership boils down to mutual respect between two key individuals,
the park Superintendent and the Friends’ Executive Director. The two of them must be able to work
together and establish a culture of openness and communication for their staff and stakeholders. Even in
situations where they disagree, they should retain the ability to work together out of mutual respect.
Golden Gate’s Superintendent Brian O’Neill and Executive Director Greg Moore of the Golden Gate
National Parks Conservancy act with the constant knowledge that the success of the park requires the
cooperation between O’Neill and Moore and their staffs.
3.0 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
Partnerships often function like personal relationships, whereby mutual respect and trust between the two
parties are built over time through equal contribution and clear communication of roles and expectations.
In the case of Friends partnerships, Superintendents need to share control, keep Friends’ needs in mind
and be open to entrepreneurial ideas. Executive Directors of Friends groups need to understand that the
park is the primary partner and the Friends can not always claim credit. They are translators between
park and donor needs, and must balance the park’s need for control with their desire to expand their
organization. Patience with bureaucracy is necessary in this environment. Specific recommendations for
park Superintendents and Friends Executive Directors are detailed in Appendix B: Superintendents Set the
Culture of Cooperation (p. 15) and Appendix C: Executive Directors Balance Multiple Priorities (p. 16).
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 05
4.0 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
Friends are More Than Fundraisers
On the surface, Friends groups are attractive to parks because
they can bring in private philanthropic dollars. However, parks
should try to steer away from seeing Friends only as a
development arm of a park as it limits the possibilities for
growth and success. Rather, there are multiple functions of
Friends in a park, namely: 1) Fundraising, 2) Friend-raising, and
3) Advocacy.
FUNDRAISING
Although many Friends started out as special volunteer groups,
the realities present in park funding makes fundraising a
necessary function of Friends. Certain Friends groups are able
to undertake major capital campaigns for special projects in
their park. The capital campaign for the Gettysburg National
Battlefield Museum and the Cuyahoga Education Center are
great examples of bringing unique projects to parks. Highlights
of some other key capital campaigns are found in Appendix D:
Major Capital Campaigns (p. 17). Such grand projects make
Friends a highly sought after commodity, but it is important to
remember, that the road to major capital campaign is long and
arduous.
In order to undertake a capital campaign, most Friends usually need at least four or five years of growth to
reach a certain level of capacity. By then, according to Yosemite’s Superintendent Mike Tollefson, the
Friends group is able to attract certain board members who can bring other donors through their
connections. A committed and active board, he notes, is vital to a high functioning Friends group.
Fundraising is most effective when both the Friends and the park are active participants. At Rocky
Mountain National Park, the Associates have an approved fund-raising campaign to support the
development of park publications. Funds are made available to the cooperating association and the
projects are jointly decided on by the Executive Director of the association and the Chief of Interpretation
at the park.
According to Charles Taylor of the Santa Monica NRA, being cognizant of the length of time that it takes
for a Friends group to develop, as well as having the willingness to devote appropriate time and resources
can lead to stronger Friends groups. Most Friends start out as volunteer organizations and can not
fundraise until they have paid staff. At Big Bend National Park, Superintendent John King returned a
$30,000 donation from their Friends and advised them to use those funds to hire an Executive Director to
grow their capacity. In kind financial support and staff time investments from the park often allow Friends
groups the flexibility and support to design better projects through the addition of paid staff, as well as
better project development and design.
Joshua Tree National Park, California © Ian Shive
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 06
The major frustration for Friends unequivocally is the red tape and the bureaucratic restrictions. It
is difficult for Friends to deal with the glacial speed at which the Park Service often moves when it
comes to project approval or handling donations. Currently, the National Park Service Director’s
approval is required for all projects over $1 million and Congressional approval is needed for
projects greater than $5 million. Both the Friends and Park Service staff feel that Directors Order
21, the official guideline from the National Park Service which details the restrictions and policy as
they pertain to fundraising in the park units, needs to be revised in the areas of project approval
and donor recognition. Friends are not only conduits for private funds for parks but also
encourage philanthropy in parks.
Friends often have their pulse on the philanthropic landscape of the community. For example, at
the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation, they often conduct feasibility studies of projects
amongst their donors so that they can ensure the success of their fundraising campaigns.
4.0 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
Donors may prefer to give to Friends rather than
parks because Friends offer accountability and
transparency that is not available in a large
bureaucracy. Deny Galvin, retired Deputy
Director of the Park Service noted that parks
need to understand that donors give not in
support of the Park Service but rather because
of an affinity to the land or resource that is
located within a park. In fact, most donors do
not want to be “double taxed” nor do they
want to offset Congressional appropriations
with their donations. Friends ensure that the
funds are used to create opportunities in
education or outreach. When the Cuyahoga
Valley National Park Association raises funds for
the Cuyahoga Valley Environmental Education
Center, the selling point for the program is the
opportunity to educate and create future
stewards of the environment (instead of
pitching the project as direct support to the
park).
Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado © Dana
Romanoff Photography, LLC
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 07
4.0 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
ADVOCACY
With the ability of Friends to connect individuals
to a park and create friends for parks; such
engagement often leads to advocacy. Friends
have unique access to key members of the
community and the boards are often composed
of the movers and shakers who can make things
happen. According to Ron Tipton of the National
Parks Conservation Association, “the beauty of a
Friends group is that they are the perfect entry
point to politicians at any level of government.”
For example, a Friends of Gettysburg board
member was instrumental in getting Senator Rick
Santorum interested in Gettysburg National
Military Park. Now the senator is one of the park’s
most vocal supporters.
Advocacy for parks is a sensitively orchestrated
matter between Friends groups and parks,
because the nonprofits are private organizations
and may hold views that differ from those of the
Park Service. This area of possible tension can be
offset by mutual trust and open dialogue. Friends
of Acadia is a strong advocate on issues that
relate to the Acadia area and works on preserving
the agency-nonprofit relationship. The partners
have a formal understanding that Friends’
financial support to Acadia will never be
jeopardized unless there are issues of non-
performance on a project. Policy differences
between the park and the Friends of Acadia do
not interfere with Friends’ grants to the park.
Most Friends do not advocate on park policies,
but if they do, they try to make the relationship
with the park their foremost priority. The Friends
group most noted for its advocacy efforts is
Friends of Acadia. Friends of Acadia differs from
most other Friends groups in several ways: 1) it
supports community projects in addition to
Acadia National Park projects; 2) it makes grants
to various community initiatives; 3) it actively
advocates for policy changes that it believes are
important; and 4) it is a “watchdog” to monitor
issues and speak out as it deems appropriate even
if its position differs from that of the NPS, and the
group is often called upon to testify before
Congress or the state legislature.
Many Friends groups take on advocacy as part of
their mission when they grow past the
development stage. Joe Kessler of the Friends of
Virgin Islands National Park said that as the group
became more established and accomplished
more projects with the park, they realized that
their commitment is really to the natural and
cultural resources of the park and not just as a
park fundraising arm. He notes that the Friends
never publicly confronts or berates the park, but
rather engages the superintendent privately on
issues or concerns that the Friends feels need to
be addressed.
ABOVE: Bozeman volunteers help remove fence on Dome Mountain
Ranch in Paradise Valley, Montana. ©Sarah Janicki/NPCA
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 08
4.0 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
FRIEND-RAISING
Friends groups not only bring money, but also
“friends” to a park. Even though Golden Gate’s
Crissy Field restoration project raised $34 million
dollars, Golden Gate’s Brian O’Neill does not extol
the fundraising abilities of the Golden Gate
National Parks Conservancy. Instead, he talks
about the Conservancy’s ability to friend-raise.
Friends encourage the donors and the greater
community to become stakeholders in the park,
thereby, creating an opportunity to grow the
park’s support constituency.
Friends allow a park to reach out and build a
group of supporters in the community. Often
these groups end up serving as the park’s
community liaison and voice. Golden Gate
wanted to attract Hispanic users who make up a
large part of the population of the three counties
where the park’s lands are located so the
conservancy consulted with them when planning
began for Crissy Field. The community indicated
to the Conservancy that weekend picnics were a
common recreational activity for large family
gatherings. According to the Conservancy’s Carol
Prince, the design of Crissy Field incorporated the
suggestions of the Hispanic community by
clustering the tables rather than using the single
unit design.
Now, Crissy Field is actively used by multiple
community and ethnic groups, and the park is a
vital part of the San Francisco experience.
Without the projects and efforts of Friends, many
users have an impersonal and anonymous
relationship with a park. Friends, through
outreach, can offset tricky resource protection
issues. The Santa Monica Mountains Fund made
a strong effort to engage the involvement of a
family that owned land around the park which
the park eventually purchased. When the local
landowners were protesting the purchase, the
daughter of the family spoke out on behalf of the
park and addressed the concerns of the
opposition. Friends often send out newsletters or
informational packets informing their members
and the surrounding gateway communities of the
latest issues concerning the park. Friends often
have annual reports to inform the community of
the various projects and activities of the park to
encourage future involvement.

BELOW: Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve
© Mariusz Jurgielewicz/Dreamstime.com
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 09
5.0 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
Future of Partnerships
The future of partnerships is open for growth and Friends will certainly grow more important to the
Park Service. The question remains as to why successful partnerships are not more rampant in the
Park Service. One possibility relates back to funding in the parks. As good managers, park staff often
tries to meet all park priorities with current levels of funding appropriated from Congress. However,
when the park management seeks out private partnerships, it may appear that they are not able to
meet all park priorities with federal funding and may get into political entanglements. A clear message
of support from the Director’s office endorsing partnership efforts could go a long way towards the
growth of Friends.
One of the major concerns of most Friends is the upcoming sunset date of Directors Order 21, the
official guideline from the National Park Service which details the restrictions and policy as they pertain
to fundraising in the park units, on January of 2006. Various Friends and Park Service staff were
consulted for their opinions and it is hoped by many that new legislation would allow for more flexibility
at the park unit level. Although it is necessary for the parks to regulate donations so that America’s
national parks remain a refuge from advertising and the vulgarities of the outside world, there has to be
a middle ground between protecting the junior rangers from being emblazon like NASCAR drivers and
providing appropriate donor recognition.
The increase of private philanthropy in the park system also raises concerns that in light of vacillating
federal appropriations, there may come a day when Congress may cut back on park budgets because of the success
of private sector partnerships. That is currently an unlikely reality, however, as most Friends generally do not replace
park funding for operational needs and rather try to add value to the visitor experience through unique projects, such
as the Restoration of Lower Yosemite Falls, that expand and enhance the park’s resources or mission. However,
deteriorating federal funding and future maintenance of Friends funded projects is an issue of rising concern for the
Friends and parks that were interviewed for this study.
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 10
Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve © Mariusz Jurgielewicz/Dreamstime.com
6.1 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
Appendices
National Park Service
State
Park
Name
Title
California
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Brian O’Neill
Superintendent
California
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Howard Levitt
Chief of Interpretation & Education
California
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Rich Weideman
Chief of Public Affairs & Special Events
California
Santa Monica Mountains NRA
Woody Smeck
Superintendent
California
Santa Monica Mountains NRA
Charles Taylor
External Affair Chief
California
Yosemite National Park
Michael Tollefson
Superintendent
Colorado
Rocky Mountain National Park
Larry Frederick
Chief of Interpretation
Maine
Acadia National Park
Len Bobinchock
Deputy Superintendent
Maine
Acadia National Park
Sheridan Steele
Superintendent
Ohio
Cuyahoga Valley National Park
John Debo
Superintendent
Pennsylvania
Gettysburg National Military Park
John Latschar
Superintendent
Texas
Big Bend NP/Rio Grande W&SR
John King
Superintendent
Virgin Islands
Virgin Islands National Park
Art Frederick
Superintendent
California
Pacific West Regional Office
Ray Murray
Partnership Program Chief
California
Pacific West Regional Office
Suzanne Brinkley
Partnership Program Planner
National Park Service Washington Office
Deny Galvin
Retired Deputy Director
Friends Groups
State
Friends Groups
Park Unit
Name
Title
California
Golden Gate NP Conservancy
Golden Gate NRA
Carol Prince
Deputy Director
California
Golden Gate NP Conservancy
Golden Gate NRA
Charlene Harvey
Board Chair
California
Santa Monica Mountains Fund
Santa Monica Mtn NRA
Art Eck
Executive Director
California
Yosemite Association
Yosemite National Park
Christy Holloway
Board Chair
California
Yosemite Fund
Yosemite National Park
Jerry Edelbrock
Vice President
Colorado
Rocky Mtn Nature Association
Rocky Mtn NP
Curt Buchholtz
Executive Director
Maine
Friends of Acadia
Acadia National Park
Ken Olson
President
New York
Statue of Liberty-Ellis Isl Foundation
Statue of Liberty NM
Stephan Briganti
Executive Director
Ohio
Cuyahoga Valley NP Association
Cuyahoga Valley NP
Deb Yandala
Executive Director
Pennsylvania
Eastern National
Parks in 30 States
Chesley Moroz
President
Pennsylvania
Friends of NP at Gettysburg
Gettysburg NMP
Barbara Finfrock
Board Chair
Pennsylvania
Friends of NP at Gettysburg
Gettysburg NMP
David Booz
Executive Director
Pennsylvania
Friends of NP at Gettysburg
Gettysburg NMP
Dru Neil
Communications Director
Pennsylvania
Gettysburg NB Museum Foundation
Gettysburg NMP
Elliot Gruber
Vice President
Virgin Islands
Friends of the Virgin Islands NP
Virgin Islands NP
Joe Kessler
Executive Director
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 11
6.2 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
National Parks Conservation Association Staff
Name
Title
Department
Phil Voorhees
Vice President
Center for Park Management
Scott Edwards
Director
Center for Park Management
Karen Miner
Consultant for Forest Service Partnership
Center for Park Management
Ron Tipton
Senior Vice President, Programs
Executive
Laura Loomis
Director, Visitor Experience
Government Affairs
Appendix 2: Superintendents Set the Culture of Cooperation
Superintendents bear the brunt of the responsibility for a successful partnership with Friends.
Superintendents need to be flexible and entrepreneurial individuals who are open to giving up control.
The park Superintendent is not unlike the mayor of a town and needs many skills. The park staff and
Friends interviewed all noted that as part of the training and development process for Superintendents,
skills for developing partnerships should be taught. Ray Murray of the NPS Pacific Region Partnership
Office mentioned that not only should the Superintendent set the state of cooperation between the
park staff and Friends, but also amongst multiple Friends. When John King started his Superintendent
assignment at Big Bend National Park, there was a spirit of competition rather than cooperation among
the partner organizations. He established the “partnership council” to marshal collective resources,
discuss ways to collaborate and work interdependently and share information about ongoing and
future activities of each partner. That dialogue and the activities of the council have created a genuine
sense of cooperation and mutual respect amongst the Big Bend partners.
Superintendents need to honor agreements with Friends.
Failed promises to Friends and donors lead to mistrust. Laura Loomis of the National Parks
Conservation Association recalls a problem that arose between Channel Islands National Park and their
Friends over how fundraised money was spent. The Friends had designated the funds for interpretive
programs but the park spent it on repairs instead; which lead to a breakdown in cooperation between
the park and the group. In addition, many donors often request matching funds of the Park Service
when they make major gifts. As legislated fund matching is often difficult for Superintendents to
manage and secure due to the changing national funding landscape; many instead use fee demo funds
which are at the parks disposal.
A Superintendent needs to be able to navigate on behalf of the Friends through Park Service
agency guidelines.
The bureaucracy of the Park Service is put in place as a safeguard to prevent inappropriate fundraising.
However, legislation and directives from the Park Service may limit the growth opportunities of the
Friends. When the Park Service was splitting development arms of growing Friends groups several
decades ago, Golden Gate’s Brian O’Neill advocated on behalf of the growing Conservancy and worked
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 12
6.3 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
with the Conservancy to help the regional office understand the need to keep the group whole. The
Superintendent taking on the proactive role of educator and translator is often necessary in a
bureaucratic environment to help the Friends deal with the park service legislations.
Superintendents need to be sensitive to non-profit needs and be considerate to the concept of
time.
The slow response time of the Park Service can be frustrating for groups. For example, the Park Service
often is not ready to immediately takeover the land that the Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg
acquire on the park’s behalf. But the non-profit tax status of the Friends does not allow them to hold
on to large assets such as land for long. Subsequently, Gettysburg NMP engaged the real estate
department of the Park Service to rectify the issue as soon as possible. In addition to being sensitive to
time needs, Friends need parks to give them concrete projects with broad community appeal to
support, especially at the beginning of a partnership. Doing so increases the probability of the project’s
success while creating valuable momentum for the park and the partner. Earned income opportunities
can help Friends obtain seed money for projects. A good example of this is the Yosemite Fund license
plate, which is a steady revenue base for projects and requires little work. Golden Gate is a leader in
building a fundraising base that goes beyond major gifts by offering visitor services on Alcatraz and by
commissioning and marketing the highly popular Golden Gate National Parks images that help the
public understand the many diverse sites that are part of this park.
Appendix 3: Executive Directors Balance Multiple Priorities
The Executive Director of a Friends group has to be willing to forgo credit.
The public is often not aware of the great amount of work that Friends invest in a project. The visitors
who visit Lower Yosemite Falls usually credit the park for providing them with that experience and not
the Yosemite Fund unless they look carefully. Deb Yandala of the Cuyahoga Valley National Park
Association notes that she positions herself and her organization to be in the shadow of John Debo, the
park Superintendent, at press and public events. She is aware that the existence of the Friends is tied to
the success of the park and encourages her staff to celebrate the park. Many Friends clearly
communicate to their staff the importance of supporting the park at every turn. At the Golden Gate
National Parks Conservancy, an integral piece of their mission is support of the park; employees know
that publicly critiquing the park goes against mission and is grounds for dismissal.
Executive Directors should encourage involvement of board and members by strengthening their
affinity. Executive Directors are often responsible for fundraising and project development. However, it
is also important for them to reach out to the community. The more members the Friends have, the
more legitimacy and community clout they possess. Members and the board of the Cuyahoga Valley
National Park Associates are the “movers and the shakers” of the Northeast region of Ohio. They often
speak up on behalf of the park in letters to the editor and advocate for parks. Friends can build the
affinity of their members for the park by offering tokens for their involvement. Board chair Barbara
Finfrock noted that the first project to rally the support of Friends of the National Parks at Gettysburg
was the removal of power lines from the park. To build affinity, volunteers who fundraised or
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 13
6.4 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
participated in the project were given power line pieces as a reminder of their link to the park.
Executive Directors also constantly balance organizational needs and park requests.
Often the Friends have the pulse of the greater foundation and donor community and try to help the
parks by initiating projects. This may lead to issues however when the park does not have resources to
support the initiatives of the Friends. Superintendent Sheridan Steele of Acadia recalled that at previous
parks he has worked at, the Friends group would fundraise for capital building projects that the park
was unable to support, leading to an atmosphere of tension. Friends should instead work with parks in
developing projects that address park needs. In areas such as operational support, which are not as
easy to fundraise for, or functional needs such as interpretive program support, which are reoccurring,
Friends may consider establishing smaller revolving funds for the park to use to address those needs. At
the Rocky Mountain National Park, the Rocky Mountain Nature Association has a fund dedicated to the
development of new interpretive publications for the park. Proceeds from the publications are returned
to the park, where they assist in the funding of important educational and interpretive programs.
An Executive Director should be aware that growth of Friends changes their relationship with the
Park.
Friends groups in their early stages are heavily dependent on park support, and the Executive Director
looks to the park for resources and support of start-up requirements and activities. The Santa Monica
Mountains Fund co-located their administrative office at park headquarters to support start-up
requirements and closer communications. As they get more robust, Friends groups may start to become
more invested and may venture into advocacy. This can make parks nervous since the Park Service likes
to maintain control. Ken Olson stated that Friends of Acadia does not have an overarching
memorandum of understanding with the park and works instead from a series of project-specific
agreements. This ensures Friends’ independence in policy and advocacy, which are vital parts of its
mission. Friends of Acadia supports Acadia NP in a multitude of functions (recently adding land
acquisitions) but is also a strong advocate for the geographic region.
Appendix 4: Major Capital Projects
Acadia Trails Forever
The Acadia Trails Forever project is a joint effort of the Friends of Acadia and Acadia National Park that
rehabilitated the trails of the park as well as endowed maintenance of the trail system in perpetuity.
Acadia is now the first park in history to have privately endowed trails. The program launched in 1999
with a $13-million campaign. The park committed $4 million from the fee demonstration program and
the Friends raised $9 million in private donations. The campaign finished in 2000, two years ahead of
schedule. The privately raised $9 million created three endowments that went towards trail
maintenance, the Acadia Youth Conservation Corps, and the establishment of the Ridge Runner
program. The Ridge Runners assist resource management staff in constructing cairns, monitoring trail
and carriage road use, and advising hikers about “leave no trace” principles.
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 14
6.4 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
Cuyahoga Education Center
The education center is a 128-bed residential Environmental Education Center (EEC) located at
Cuyahoga National Park that opened in 1994. The curriculum taught at the center integrates science,
arts, environmental issues, and history. The concept was introduced in the 1977 General Management
Plan, but did not take off until the arrival of Superintendent John Debo in 1988. The Superintendent
believed that an operating partner was essential in making the project self-sustaining, and would
facilitate operations that were impossible for the federal government. Superintendent Debo approached
the park’s Friends group, Cuyahoga Valley Association (CVA), and asked them to take on the
partnership role. In 1993, CVA accepted the challenge to operate the EEC. Even with the partner taking
the lead in decision-making and operations, the NPS continued its strong presence at EEC in terms of
funding, staff, and program direction. Ultimately, the committee running the EEC became independent
from CVA and spun off as the separate Cuyahoga Valley Environmental Education Center (CVEEC) in
2000. This decision also resolved some tensions that naturally arose as the EEC essentially outgrew its
small parent organization. The split allowed CVEEC to develop an aggressive development program.
The education partnership at CVNP went through reinvention again in 2002, triggered by the park’s
need for a high performance Friends group. As a result, the CVA was absorbed by CVEEC, and they are
now known as the Cuyahoga Valley National Park Association (CVNPA).
Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum and Visitor Center
The Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation entered into a General Agreement with the
National Park Service in 2000 to raise funds for a museum complex for Gettysburg National Military
Park. The complex encompasses a visitor center, museum, Cyclorama gallery, and classrooms for school
and educational programs. The Foundation will operate on behalf of the NPS for 20 years, after which
time the land and building would be donated to the NPS. The project broke ground in 2004 and is
estimated to be occupied in 2006. The original estimation for capital was $39.3 million, but was raised
to $68.3 million with the completion of the schematic design. Funds for the project will come from
private donations from corporate, foundation, and individual donations and/or grants, as well as debt
financing. Operational funding from interpretive fees, user fees, sales revenues and rentals will provide
the revenue to fund program costs and allow for ongoing programmatic upgrades. The concept began
after Superintendent John Latschar arrived in 1994. After long negotiations with NPS, and a lengthy
RFP process, the Gettysburg National Battlefield Museum Foundation was founded to develop the
museum in 1998. By 2001, the conceptual design was completed and released to the public. The
Fundraising Agreement between the NPS and the Museum Foundation was modified to ensure that
construction would not start until the Museum Foundation had secured sufficient funds to present the
NPS with a completed product, including building, exhibits, and Cyclorama painting restoration.
Appendix 4: Major Capital Projects
Restoration of Golden Gate’s Crissy Field
Crissy Field was a former military post and was restored to its former ecological richness through a
$34.5 million campaign by the Golden Gate National Parks Conservancy and Golden Gate NRA
(GGNRA) The project created a tidal marsh, open space meadow, a promenade and the Crissy Field
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 15
Funding for this report was provided through a generous grant from the Keith Campbell
Foundation for the Environment
©2005 Center for Park Management
CENTER FOR PARK MANAGEMENT
The Center for Park Management works with the National Park Service to improve the management capacity and
organizational effectiveness of the stewards of our national parks.
National Parks Conservation Association
777 6th Street NW • Suite 700
Washington DC 20001
This report includes data that shall not be disclosed outside of the Government and shall not be duplicated, used or
disclosed- in whole or in part- for any purpose other than to evaluate this report. The Government shall have the right to
duplicate, use or disclose the data to the extent provided in the related cooperative agreement. This restriction does not limit
the Government’s right to use information contained in this data if it is obtained from another source without restriction.
The data subject to this restriction are contained in SF424 and SF424a.
Center. Instrumental in the process was the support of the Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund, a
longtime champion of the park. The planning process took almost ten years and in 1999, the site was
ready for volunteers to begin restoration efforts. A “Help Grow Crissy Field Campaign” recruited over
3,000 volunteers from schools, community-based groups and individuals, and the bulk of the work
was completed in 2000. Maintaining momentum and achieving goals in the midst of complex
partnerships proved to be a challenge throughout the public campaign. Key partners included the
Conservancy, the National Park Service, the Presidio Trust, the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, local
neighborhood organizations, user advocacy groups, and the GGNRA Advisory Commission. They all
played significant roles during the years of planning, fundraising and marketing leading to the
opening of Crissy Field. These organizations often had differing objectives and strategies, and hence
divergent concerns in a number of areas.
Restoration of Lower Yosemite Falls
The Yosemite Fund raised $12.5 million in private and public funds to improve the visitor experience
at Lower Yosemite Falls in Yosemite National Park. Private donations accounted for $10.5 million and
fee demonstration funds added $1.5 million along with $500 thousand from the National Park
Service. Private donations came mainly from Yosemite specialty license plate funds, a number of
corporations and foundations, and over 14,500 friends of Yosemite. Efforts were made to include
donor involvement beyond financial help, for example, ChevronTexaco, a corporate donor, had their
employees helping with the project on weekends. The Yosemite Fund, in partnership with the
National Park Service and landscape architect Larry Halprin, created a new design for the 52-acre area
at the base of Yosemite Falls. The project accommodates, educates and inspires visitors while restoring
and preserving the natural integrity of the adjacent forest and stream habitat. Automobile and tour
bus parking in the area have been eliminated and shuttle bus and pedestrian access enhanced. The
Yosemite Fund created donor recognition at various levels and contributors over $5 thousand were
identified on a panel at the visitor center. Interpretive waysides also carry credit lines. The Yosemite
Falls restoration project is the largest private/public project of the park and is part of the 1997 flood
restoration outlined in the Yosemite Valley Plan.
6.4 Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks
Best Practices in Friends Groups and National Parks // 16