Detailed Information on the
National Park Service - Cultural Resource Stewardship Assessment

Contract with an independent group to complete by 12/31/08 an evaluation of the overall effectiveness of the NPS cultural resources stewardship program.

Include performance targets for cultural resource stewardship in individual performance plans for park managers.

Prepare a remediation plan to eliminate by the 2006 audit the significant deficiencies in internal controls for supplementary stewardship information on cultural resources.

Use the Facility Condition Index and other performance measures to set more ambitious targets for the 2007 Budget to improve the condition of cultural resources.

Better demonstrate in the 2007 Budget how measures are used to allocate funding.

Establish for the 2007 Budget ambitious targets to complete inventories sooner, which may require parks to reassess what should be inventoried and in what detail.

Measure: Percent of historic and prehistoric structures in good condition

Explanation:11,765 of 26,531 in the List of Classified Structures were in good condition in FY 2003.

Measure: Percent of preservation and protection standards met at park museum facilities.

Explanation:76,967 standards tracked by over 310 NPS units for over 1,800 facilities (2003).

Measure: Percent of recorded archeological sites in good condition.

Explanation:11,891 of 24,895 (47.8%) archeological sites with condition assessments were in good condition at the end of FY 2003.

Measure: Percent of cultural landscapes in good condition.

Explanation:45 of 148 landscapes in the Cultural Landscapes Inventory in good condition as of the new FY 2003 baseline.

Measure: Percent of historic and prehistoric structures that have complete and accurate inventory information.

Explanation:6,120 of 26,531 (23.1%) in the List of Classified Structures inventory have complete and accurate information (2003).

Measure: Percent of museum objects catalogued and submitted to the National Catalog.

Explanation:50 million out of 105.3 million objects in the collections of 350 parks have been catalogued by the end of 2003.

Measure: Average cost to catalog a museum object.

Explanation:NPS catalogs about 2.9 million museum objects each year, at $0.85 per object (2003).

Measure: Condition of all NPS historic buildings as measured by a Facility Condition Index. (FCI score of 0.11 or lower is acceptable.)

Explanation:FCI of 0.11 or lower means that this group of assets is in acceptable condition on average. (This threshold is still under review.)

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: Purpose is to "conserve the . . . historic objects . . . as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."

Evidence: NPS Organic Act (1916). Antiquities Act (1906). National Historic Preservation Act (1966). Museum Properties Management Act (1955).

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

Explanation: Need is to protect and preserve park cultural resources for public benefit. Resources include historic strucutures, archeological sites, cultural landscapes, and museum objects.

Evidence: NPS Organic Act (1916). Antiquities Act (1906). National Historic Preservation Act (1966). Ex. Order 11593 (1971). Ex. Order 13287 (2003).

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

Explanation: No other program has responsibility for protecting cultural resources in national parks. Increasing or decreasing funding for these programs has a direct impact on the condition of park cultural resources or NPS ability to monitor those conditions.

Evidence: NPS Organic Act (1916). Antiquities Act (1906). National Historic Preservation Act (1966; section 110). Archeological Resources Protection Act (1979). Ex. Order 13287 (2003).

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

Explanation: Program is free of major flaws. It is designed with a three-tiered approach: Washington Office sets polices and procedures; regional offices and centers establish priorities and distribute funds; and parks carry out day-to-day operations.

Evidence: NPS Management Policies (2001) on www.nps.gov/policy/mp/policies. NPS Director's Orders 24 (collections), 28 (cultural resources), and 28A (archeology).

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Program is generally designed well, involving a wide-range of NPS and non-NPS subject-matter experts, park managers, maintenance workforce, and consultation with State agencies. Procedures are well documented, although not always followed. Funding generally goes to objects most in need of conservation.

Evidence: NPS Management Policies (2001) on www.nps.gov/policy/mp/policies. NPS Director's Orders 24 (collections), 28 (cultural resources), and 28A (archeology).

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 outcome measures that track the condition of items in the four cultural resource categories: historic structures; archeological sites; cultural landscapes; and museum objects. For museum objects, NPS assesses the condition of facilities housing collections as an indicator of the condition of the objects in the facilities.

Evidence: DOI-NPS Strategic Plan (FY 2004-2008). NPS technical guidance for GPRA goals. Strategic planning documents by resource type.

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

Explanation: NPS has set clear targets for improving conditions in all four categories. It is not clear, however, if these targets are sufficiently ambitious.

Evidence: DOI-NPS Strategic Plan (FY 2004-2008). NPS technical guidance for GPRA goals. Strategic planning documents by resource type.

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: NPS has output measures that track progress in cataloging or inventoring resources in each of the four cultural resource categories: historic structures; archeological sites; cultural landscapes; and museum objects. (Only two shown in this PART.)

Evidence: DOI-NPS Strategic Plan (FY 2004-2008). NPS technical guidance for GPRA goals. Strategic planning documents by resource type.

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

Explanation: NPS has set clear targets for cataloging resources and improving conditions in all four categories. It is not clear, however, if these targets are sufficiently ambitious.

Evidence: DOI-NPS Strategic Plan (FY 2004-2008). NPS technical guidance for GPRA goals. Strategic planning documents by resource type.

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: Many partners contribute to annual goals by working with the program to protect, inventory, document, study, and preserve park cultural resources. Partners include contractors, researchers, permitees, and State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs).

Evidence: Programmatic agreement between NPS, ACHP, and State Historic Preservation Officers (1995). Cooperative Ecosystems Studies Unit (CESU) and other agreements for archeological work. All identify the need to inventory, document, and manage historic sites and resources.

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: Program lacks independent evaluations that examine how well the entire cultural resource program is accomplishing its mission and meeting its goals. Some reviews (e.g., IG report on performance measures and a financial audit on stewardship asset data) address program components, but none focuses on the effectiveness of the overall program.

Evidence: IG report on need for better GPRA measures (2004 draft). FY03 financial statement audit (2003). Outdated audits on museum collections (1985), artwork and artifacts (1990), and audiovisual records (1991) focused on narrow components and not on program effectiveness.

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: NPS has not demonstrated that (1) resource allocation decisions are based on performance information, or (2) performance levels are affected by changes in funding or policies. Instead, NPS has consistently based funding decisions on prior-year allocations. NPS is establishing new systems (PMDS, ABC) that may help, but they have not yet shown how budget requests are tied to performance accomplishments.

Evidence: Performance Management Data System (PMDS) for FYs 2000-2004. Activity-based cost (ABC) management initiated in FY04. IG audit on FY03 financial statements. IG report on GPRA measures (2004 draft).

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

Explanation: Program has instituted steps to address deficiencies, such as establishing a database system to track inventory and the condition of cultural resources. The biggest challenge will be to implement procedures and plans already in place.

Evidence: Quarterly reports in response to FY03 audit. Summary of IT systems being implemented. NPS Director memos to field offices.

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 collects extensive amount of data, but has not demonstrated how it uses this information to adjust program priorities, allocate resources, or take other appropriate management actions. NPS provided no illustrative examples of recent top-level management actions based on performance information.

Evidence: DOI-NPS Strategic Plan (FY 2004-2008). DOI-NPS FY01 Annual Performance Report. NPS provided some internal memos that suggest some minor management actions were taken at lower levels, but did not describe how the agency uses performance information in managing the program overall.

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: It is not clear whom in NPS is responsible for achieving key program results in cultural resource stewardship. Program officials at the Washington and regional levels are nominally accountable, but their success depends upon park superintendents and regional directors, who are often distracted by more pressing responsibilities.

Evidence: NPS provided no evidence that it has effectively used performance management contracts to incorporate program performance into personnel performance evaluation criteria. General references to broad goals is not sufficient.

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

Explanation: Most funds are available for only one year and are obligated in a timely manner. Some no-year funds remain unobligated at the end of the year, but unobligated balances are declining in response to broader NPS efforts to improve fiscal and project management.

Evidence: SF-133 Report on Budget Execution and Budgetary Resources. PMIS Annual Accomplishment Report. Implementation of ABC systems should improve financial management, but results are not yet demonstrated.

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: NPS has taken steps to improve efficiency, including new IT systems and competitive sourcing reviews. It has also developed an efficiency measure for cataloging museum collections. It still needs to develop efficiency measures for other areas and then use these measures to set targets for increasing efficiency in completing inventories and improving conditions.

Evidence: Competitive sourcing review of Southeast Archeological Center (2003) demonstrated that SEAC's services are efficient compared to contractors. Costs for cataloging museum objects has decreased from $1.99/per object in 1998 to $0.97/per object in 2003. IT investments include ABC/M, PMIS, CR-MAP, RAMS, and PMDS.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Program collaborates effectively with a broad range of government, academic, and private-sector programs. For example, NPS works with other museums on curatorial and archeological standards.

Evidence: Programmatic agreement between NPS, ACHP, and State Historic Preservation Officers (1995). Agreements with American Type Cultural Collection (2003) and Library of Congress (2004). CESUs and other agreements and contracts for archeological work.

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Auditors found "significant deficiencies in internal control over . . . Required Supplementary Stewardship Information", much of which involves cultural resources. Auditors also found reportable conditions on financial reporting controls NPS-wide.

Evidence: FY03 financial statement audit (2003). NPS concurred with the findings, noting NPS finance and program offices will work together "to ensure internal controls are in place and procedures are implemented that will document ans support stewardship asset activity." NPS has not yet provided evidence that this has taken place.

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

Explanation: Program is taking steps to address deficiencies by planning to use performance data in making management decisions and hold managers accountable for results.

Evidence: NPS human resources guidance on integrating performance measures into SES performance plans. Plans to implement ABC management, Resource Activity Management System (RAMS), and Cultural Resources Management Assessment Program (CR-MAP) should help to set priorities, compare costs, and track results.

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

Explanation: All resource categories demonstrate progress in achieving goals, yet the targets do not appear ambitious. For example, NPS's target is to catalog less than half of its museum objects. Yet, as the NPS Director noted in a 2001 letter on an earlier material weakness, a "bureau that has only 50% of its collections cataloged, even if it has policies in place and is making progress on reducing the backlog, has a major accountability problem."

Evidence: DOI-NPS Strategic Plan (FY 2004-2008). NPS technical guidance for GPRA goals. Strategic planning documents by resource type. Memo from NPS Director in response to call for museum program information (January 2001). Analysis of collections cataloging, including cost efficiencies.

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

Explanation: NPS meets most annual targets, but it remains unclear how these targets are used to make budget and management decisions.

Evidence: DOI-NPS Strategic Plan (FY 2004-2008). NPS technical guidance for GPRA goals. Strategic planning documents by resource type. Memo from NPS Director in response to call for museum program information (January 2001).

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

Explanation: NPS generally has not demonstrated how it has improved efficiency over the prior year, although it has taken some steps (e.g., IT investments and competitive sourcing) that should make some improvements. One of this review's key findings is the need to achieve and demonstrate greater efficiency in completing inventories and improving conditions, especially if NPS is to achieve more ambitious targets with existing resources.

Evidence: NPS does not yet have efficiency measures or procedures in place to reduce unit costs. Some steps to improve efficiency in the future include IT investments to track inventories and a competitive sourcing review of the Southeast Archeological Center to identify operational savings. Museum management appears to show a decrease in per-unit costs for cataloging objects.

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

Explanation: NPS is a leader among public agencies and private institutions in managing prehistoric and historic structures, archeological sites, museum collections and cultural landscapes.

Evidence: NPS Archeological sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places at over twice the rate of the next agency. NPS has at least partly surveyed 9% of acreage, second only to Forest Service. Presidential Award for Design Excellence to cultural landscape program (2000). Since 1990s, American Association of Museums cites NPS technical guidelines as museum industry standard.

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

Explanation: Program lacks independent evaluations that examine how well the entire cultural resource program is accomplishing its mission and meeting its goals. Some reviews (e.g., IG report on performance measures and a financial audit on stewardship asset data) address program components, but none focuses on the effectiveness of the overall program.

Evidence: IG report on need for better GPRA measures (2004 draft). FY03 financial statement audit (2003). Audits on museum collections (1985), artwork and artifacts (1990), and audiovisual records (1991) are useful, but somewhat outdated, narrowly focused, and not aimed at program effectiveness.