Editor’s Note: This is the second column in a series by philanthropy expert Amy Schiller that explores big donations and where they fall on the good philanthropy/bad philanthropy continuum. Read the first column in the series.
Contributions of land and endowments for its conservation have been attractive to donors throughout the history of American philanthropy. The tradition is so long, in fact, that it includes land gifts such as Muir Woods in California and Acadia National Park in Maine that were made before Congress created the National Park Service. Last month’s $100 million grant from the Lilly Endowment to the National Park Foundation continues this tradition and spotlights the many virtues of parks as a philanthropic priority.
(The Lilly Endowment is a financial supporter of the Chronicle of Philanthropy.)
Lilly’s donation is appealing because it invests in existing infrastructure rather than trying to create something completely new. In contrast to philanthropy that funds so-called innovative initiatives, parks are a classic charitable focus.
Although they have historically excluded people of color, particularly Black and Latino people — and exist on land previously occupied by Native Americans — national parks also represent public resources that ideally should be open to everyone. They meet primal and evergreen needs for access to fresh air and open spaces. Their natural beauty inspires reflection and provides space for people of all origins to gather and connect. National parks are also among the few entities that do not produce profit — and reject the expectation altogether.
To that end, parks affirm the democratic principles that all people have a right to experience natural beauty, which belongs to neither monarch nor market.
The Lilly Endowment’s grant, the largest ever to the National Park Foundation, expands on this. The donation isn’t limited to a specific program and instead will touch on all four of the priorities outlined in the foundation’s billion-dollar fundraising effort, the Campaign for National Parks:
- Conservation of ecosystems threatened by climate change
- Outreach to young people
- Improvements to parks’ tourism infrastructure
- And research and educational programming that tell a more diverse story of American history through its monuments, memorials, and historic sites
Since the grant is unrestricted, it also succeeds by trusting the National Park Foundation’s leadership and strategy, rather than imposing a funder-driven agenda. That means the grant could go toward unglamorous projects, such as an estimated $22.3 billion needed for deferred maintenance and repair, which would improve the parks’ sustainability and accessibility to visitors. The types of services the grant could fund are so diverse and multifaceted that there’s no single approach to measuring its success — just the steady sustenance of national resources, each site according to its needs.
Complements Government Funding
Another triumph of Lilly’s grant is that it supplements but doesn’t override the work of public institutions that are funded and overseen by government agencies. That’s because while $100 million is the largest gift ever received by National Park Foundation, it represents less than 3 percent of the National Park Service’s annual operating budget, which is approved by Congress. The parks are still beholden to federal financing and oversight.
Philanthropic dollars are, of course, more flexible and reliably amortized into ongoing budgets than congressional funding. Will Shafroth, CEO of the National Park Foundation, pointed that out in his acknowledgment of the grant: “For over 50 years, private philanthropy has played a vital role in bridging the gap between park needs and available funding.”
Ideally, goods and services with large-scale public benefits are supported by both government institutions, which ensure accessibility and democratic consensus, and private money, which provides the abundance they need to grow and enrich people’s lives. By raising private funds, the National Park Foundation also helps safeguard against the unpredictable electoral environment. The Trump administration, for example, attempted to roll back protections for 35 million acres of public land, while President Biden signed more proclamations to create national monuments than any president since Jimmy Carter.
The grant’s size is important to consider, too. On the one hand, parks remain public resources, publicly governed and open to all. Major grants such as Lilly’s are not so influential as to undermine the parks’ democratic nature. On the other hand, a nine-figure donation to the national parks can inspire other big philanthropists to provide flexible capital to public institutions.
National parks help shape visitors’ identities by reaffirming their attachment to America through its lands and its histories. David Treuer, an Ojibwe journalist and contributing writer for the Atlantic, calls them “the closest thing America has to sacred lands,” places that “can help forge our democracy anew.”
The connection between national parks and America’s diverse histories demands some careful threading. The National Park Service and Foundation deserve credit for their commitment to ensuring its sites and explanatory materials better reflect those histories. The Mellon Foundation’s Monuments Project has provided vital leadership on expanding “the commemorative landscape of the United States,” particularly since just one-quarter of national parks document the experience of marginalized people.
The national parks themselves are also remnants of land theft and dispossession of Indigenous people, as Treuer points out. Many parks were formerly home to and managed by Native American tribes, such as the Blackfeet, Nez Perce, and Quinault tribes, among many others. Efforts to return land stewardship rights to appropriate Tribal nations have grown since 2021, ensuring that America’s painful stories are not just told but extended into chapters of repair.
Lilly’s grant can be one part of this larger project. Here’s hoping it helps to not just preserve park land but to restore a sense of justice.
