LWCF funding hinges on "performance measures"

The recent decision to eliminate funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund has been a shock to outdoor recreation advocates (see article). The official reason given for the proposed termination of this popular program is a lack of " appropriate performance measures and reporting requirements." The following two paragraphs are from Federal Parks and Recreation newsletter:

"The OMB analysis of the state side of LWCF that Norton referred to was conducted under a program called Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). In a 2003 report OMB said, "Strategic planning is weak, with no long-term or annual performance measures. States do not provide performance information even though NPS has the statutory authority to require such data." OMB went on, "Program results have not been demonstrated. NPS will have to coordinate with States to establish appropriate performance measures and reporting requirements." On a scale of zero to 100 OMB gave the program a zero for accountability.

State and federal officials who administer the program responded to OMB with their own report last winter that identified program accomplishments. The report said that in fiscal year 2004 the state side of LWCF created 87 new parks, set aside 14,160 acres for outdoor recreation, and provided assistance to developed facilities in 420 parks."

Rich Dolesh of the National Recreation and Park Association offered this commentary. We will make a paper on these issues available on the website shortly.

The reference to "mismanagement" probably refers to the OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) review conducted in 2003 which gave a very low score to LWCF and also a rating of "results not demonstrated." This does not mean the program was ineffective or unproductive, contrary to some statements made by Secretary Norton in testimony. It means that the program had no adequate performance measures and no acceptable performance goals.

OMB directed the program to produce such goals and measures by 2006, but the recommendation to terminate the program would pull the rug out from under this on-going process to produce measures, data, and interpretation of results. It should be noted that over 600 federal government programs have been PART-ed. In the FY 2006 budget, 158 programs have a rating of "results not demonstrated." In the Dept of Interior, 16 programs had ratings of "results not demonstrated," and many of those are recommended for the same level of funding as last year, or even recommended for program budget increases. The only DOI program recommended for termination was the LWCF.

At the Interior Approps subcommittee hearing today, Fran Mainella, NPS Director, when asked by Rep. Olver about the reasoning behind the proposed elimination of the LWCF stateside program, was much more positive than reported last month before the House Resources committee in her testimony regarding the value of LWCF. She commented that she managed the LWCF program in Florida during her stint as FSP director, and that "We all believe in that program." She seemed uncomfortable with the notion that the program is proposed for termination, and said "The lack of funding is not from a lack of support."

She commented on the decision to cut the funding, "When we were making priorities, we just couldn't fund this." Rep. Olver commented that it was ironic that Sec. Norton was proposing a $75 million increase in "conservation grants" in her Cooperative Conservation Initiatives and appropriations of $15 million for the Heritage Areas program for 2006 while at the same time the Administration was proposing an $89 million cut in the LWCF stateside program, a program that Rep. Olver said, "I don't know of anything I can think of that is more cooperative conservation or more in keeping with support for long-term heritage tourism than the Land and Water Conservation Fund."

With regard to providing House and Senate members facts and figures to show what program does, how the fund is managed, and why it is a national priority and important federal investment, yes it is vital to present that information as widely as possible in both the House and the Senate. It would not be prudent to assume that the Senate will fix the present situation. There are too many uncertainties and potential complications, and further, the House members need to understand why this is an important program for all Americans.

See more on the move to eliminate funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and check the NRPA website at www.nrpa.org for background info on the effort to save the LWCF.