National parks long have been largely devoid of overt advertising via logos and sponsorships, but that could change as the National Park Service approaches its centennial in 2016.

A draft report circulating with the National Park System Advisory Board, which since 1935 has advised Interior secretaries and Park Service directors on matters pertinent to the parks, calls for naming opportunities for donors, giving park superintendents more leeway than currently exists in partnership matters, and even allowing Park Service employees to become more involved in working with philanthropic matters.

Just how the National Park Service should recognize donors is a huge, possibly thorny, question, both as the agency heads towards its centennial in 2016 and seeks donations to help with the celebration, and as Congress holds tight to the purse strings when it comes to "America's Best Idea." Should placards naming donors be placed prominently in the parks? Should a "donor wall" go up in the National Mall in Washington, D.C.? Should park staff promote giving to the parks?

Those questions haven't eluded Park Service Director Jon Jarvis, who a year ago asked the National Park System Advisory Board to look into the question of donor appreciation (and solicitation) and ways to showcase it. In a 15-page draft report recently produced by the board's Philanthropy and Partnerships Committee, it's suggested that the Park Service get a better handle on branding, work better with the National Park Foundation and park friends groups to maximize opportunities, and work harder on increasing diversity.

"By embracing and leveraging more fully its broader system of trusted and proven stakeholders, the NPS can stimulate myriad new potential opportunities for increased support and participation, while also successfully balancing and navigating concerns about commercialization, endorsement and risk," wrote Paul Bardacke, the committee chair, in summarizing the committee's thoughts. "It is the Committee's belief that this will enable the NPS to more effectively build the NPS brand, embrace innovation, reduce inefficiencies and ultimately attract increased support -- all without compromising the high standards of the NPS or the expectations to the general public." 

In crafting the report, the committee pointed out that "(B)oth the creation and improvements of many national parks have resulted from the generosity of individuals of every economic level committed to stewardship of our shared natural, historical and cultural treasures."

And that's certainly true, if you look at the impacts that individuals such as John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Laurance Rockefeller, and George Dorr had in helping piece the National Park System together.

With an eye on the upcoming centennial, the draft document notes that "(F)or almost ten years, support has grown for the proposition that the National Park Service Centennial in 2016 will mark an important pivot in the relationship between the NPS and partners. A vibrant next century for our national parks will rely upon new generations of visitors, advocates, donors, volunteers -- as well as individuals who will fashion a career by serving America's parks and public lands in the government, nonprofit, for-profit, and academic sectors. Our parks will not have the protections they need and the next generation will not be engaged unless nonprofit park partners engage in unprecedented outreach and take strategic risks."

What does the draft report recommend?

* "The Committee believes that naming opportunities are an appropriate form of in-park recognition and recommends a policy that permits its use. Naming opportunities within the NPS could include, but are not limited to: donor walls, non-historic buildings, rooms, benches, pavers, gardens, vehicles, furniture, digital and media platforms, museum collections, programs, endowed positions, park publications, video credits, media, websites, and speaking podiums."

* "Given the norms and expectations of recognition in American philanthropy today for organizations both public and private, the Committee believes that NPS may support and allow the use of logos as a form of in-park donor recognition. Policy should specifically allow donor logos (e.g. for corporate, foundation and nonprofit partners) to appear in parks."

* "The Committee recognizes opportunities to encourage philanthropy at both a national and local park levels. Contributions to individual parks and their partners will be recognized at the local park level."

* "The NPS must also develop a national strategy and guidance to recognize major donors to the national parks system (sic) through its partners like the National Park Foundation so that they may receive recognition within individual parks as well. Partners like the National Park Foundation will work with major donors and parks to create agreements regarding commitments for recognition both at the national level and within specific parks."

The document also seeks to push open the door a bit wider regarding which corporate donations are acceptable.

"If a reasonable person would judge that a gift harms the NPS, then it may not be accepted; yet in the absence of real harm, the Committee believes that NPS policy should create opportunities for individual, foundation, corporate and other donors," the report reads.

To that point, the draft suggests that the Park Service do away with its longstanding prohibition against donations from tobacco and alcholic beverage companies. "Rather, the NPS and nonprofit partner should evaluate all donors or gifts in light of the integrity, impartiality and public confidence standards," the document recommends.

When it comes to branding and the National Park System, the report stresses that the Park Service "must develop a coherent, comprehensive brand strategy. This strategy would help NPS to unify its messaging, positioning, communications, and executional assets and enable it to effectively communicate who the NPS is, what the NPS stands for and why they are relevant and valuable to their multiple and varied stakeholders."

Executing these strategies will not come without some effort, the paper notes.

"The Committee believes that extensive training and education of NPS leaders and nonprofit organizations will be essential to transition rapidly from new policy to new practices. To be successful, training must be supported in a change management paradigm by accountability. The NPS should consider how performance reviews and compensation decisions might be tailored to increase partnership engagement and recognition, illuminate case studies and create new assets and tools.

"By implementing these recommendations, the NPS will deepen and make sustainable its relationships with current philanthropic partners and, importantly, open its capacity for robust engagement of diverse and inclusive partner communities outside its current network. It will grow the ranks of official ambassadors for parks and NPS programs who live and lead in gateway communities," the report stressed. "It will provide NPS managers and nonprofit leaders the encouragement to make choices about philanthropy that respond to local needs while following national guidance. It will create new opportunities for leverage among national, regional and local partners by supporting collaboration rather than competition in achieving a shared mission of preserving parks and enriching visitors.

"And while the recommendations do ask NPS to embrace more risk in its partnerships than it currently pursues, the opportunities for reward to the NPS, its partners and its individal, corporate and foundation donors is extraordinary."