National Park System units that honor Blacks, Indigenous, and people of color often struggle with underfunding/Medgar Evers home, Mississippi Department of Archives and History, Jennifer Baughn
Op-Ed | Philanthropic Gains Needed For Parks Representing Blacks, Indigenous, And Other People Of Color
By Chrystal Morris Murphy
As we remember the contributions of African Americans during Black History Month, we can’t help but honor its founder, Dr. Carter G. Woodson. During the 1920s, Dr. Woodson urged Americans to study Black achievement for at least one week in February to honor the legacies of a resilient culture and the birthdays of U.S. President, Abraham Lincoln (February 12) and renowned slave abolitionist, Frederick Douglass (February 14). However, it wasn’t until 1976 when U.S. President Gerald Ford recognized Black History month by calling on the country to “seize the opportunity to honor the too-often neglected accomplishments of black Americans…throughout our history.” That same year, Dr. Woodson’s home in Washington, D.C. became a national historic landmark. This was a welcomed idea until years of neglect from the National Park Service and the lack of interest from the field of park philanthropy nearly ruined his historic home.
The practice of bringing new sites online to NPS, particularly those of color, should cease until a philanthropic partner for the site has been established. It’s disheartening to see these beloved places go into disrepair while monuments representing slave holders get the care and support needed to sustain their legacies. An esteemed colleague once told to me that, “All National Parks should be managed by the same secretarial standards as Yosemite. There is no such thing as a ‘Class B’ National Park in America."
NPS in its current iteration, does not have the staffing or budget it needs to help establish dedicated, philanthropic support in communities where parks of color exist. A paradigm shift would undoubtedly mean a larger NPS budget, staff, and specialized training to engage communities around their willingness and readiness to care for these beloved spaces via philanthropic activity. This is in no way an attack on NPS; it has been hampered by outmoded, but well-meaning, management. Instead, this commentary is a clarion call for helping the Department of Interior think differently about the ways it could support parks of color. One way to start is by having tough, but productive, conversations with DOI, NPS, members of Congress, and park stakeholders to create a strategic framework that will define a pathway to park philanthropy and help prepare communities for the admission of a new park into the system.
NPS data demonstrate there are roughly 110 national parks representing Black, Indigenous, and other people of color (BIPOC). It is important to note that the majority of the approximately 54 Friends Groups or Cooperating Associations (park philanthropy) representing national parks of color have annual budgets of less than $50,000, therefore making these organizations of little to no help in supporting NPS’ efforts to sustain the park. Additionally, parks that are in poor condition cannot be used as a potential, economic lever to support the surrounding locality; instead they become blighted eyesores within community.
To be fair, I am aware that progress and significant interest in preserving African American national park sites has gained some momentum. Dr. Woodson’s home and a little more than a handful of other African American sites are finally getting some much-needed renovation support from donors through the National Park Foundation. Since 2017, the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s African American Cultural Heritage Action Fund raised $70 million in support for 200 projects restoring and protecting African American social action, achievement and strength.
While this is admirable, many African American national parks do not have viable park philanthropy to keep these spaces well maintained and sustained in perpetuity. This still includes Dr. Woodson’s home, Col. Young Buffalo Soldier Monument, Brown v. Board of Education Memorial, and even the adult home of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. – and the list goes on. All the current investments in programming, preservation and economic development in African American sites are lost without sustained philanthropy. This existing concept makes for a horrible return on investment.
The irony is that although the subjugated have been recognized by the federal government through the acknowledgement of a legacy site, no effort has been made to ensure these parks will be sustained and maintained beyond the meager amount provided by the Interior Department. Therefore, these same marginalized communities are left with parks that too are disenfranchised. It is important for communities of color to see themselves reflected in America’s parks, especially in a manner that is well maintained. If not, the disrepair continues to underscore that this community is “unworthy” of support – whether intended or unintended.
On July 4, 2026, America will celebrate its 250th birthday and it would be great if all the historic landmarks and cultural sites of color were in immaculate condition to receive visitors. Here’s hoping the America250 Commission and Foundation with its many work groups will work extraordinarily hard to bring new life to these sacred places. It would be wholly unfortunate and uncomfortable if park sites representing people of color are still in disrepair come 2026, but sites representing America’s flawed forefathers are ready to welcome visitors in all their pristine regalia.
Since this is an op-ed, I realize this narrative is somewhat over simplistic. However, there is a real need for deep dialogue with critical stakeholders and leaders in this space. We must find the courage to change the unproductive course of bringing sites online without first having established a park partner for long-term care.
I think the time has come to create regional Friends Groups across the nation representing parks of color or establishing one national park partner representing the interests of parks of color. Having a consolidated philanthropic partner makes it easier for stakeholders, NPS, and the community to work collaboratively on preservation, restoration, storytelling, park management, access, volunteerism, education, research and programming.
The creation of regional or national park philanthropy dedicated to sites of color does not come without complication. Anxieties of the leaders of the low performing friends groups must be assuaged, and they will need convincing that consolidation of some form would alleviate competition for a myriad of resources, often pitting one friends group against the other.
This isn’t easy work, but nothing that’s worthwhile ever is. Isn’t it far better to get this right, to make park philanthropy equitable, than leave the process as it is? The Civil Rights movement is a great example for pushing the status quo for doing what we all know was righteous and just. The same could be said for a movement for robust park philanthropy that will ensure the cultural and historical legacies representing the BIPOC community in perpetuity.
We can certainly do better than what exists, and leadership in this space must be challenged if we are to imagine an America that inspires all people to invest in all people. My hope is that it won’t take another 50 years, as it did for the nation to recognize Dr. Woodson’s dream for celebrating Black History. Perhaps in the next four years – before America’s 250th birthday - the leaders in this space can heed the call to create, develop and implement a strategic framework that will ensure robust, park philanthropy before bringing other sites of color online. Dr. Woodson’s ancestors are waiting.
Chrystal Morris Murphy is the Principal of Onyx Strategies Group, a consulting firm specializing in building strategic alliances, thought partnership and executive, leadership support. She is also the former SVP of Community Partnerships at the National Park Foundation and created its Strong Parks, Strong Communities Program.
Comments
The practice of bringing new sites online to NPS, particularly those of color, should cease until a philanthropic partner for the site has been established
Amen.
It is well-passed the time to defer to states and localities to own & maintain these sites. The NPS is broken.
Congress continues to designate these parks regardless of the NPS ability to manage them effectively. Medgar Evers (pictured) is a good example. Until designation, the site was managed by the state with interpretation and tours for the public. Once designated, the NPS stopped the tours and the only interpretation is an old sign on the side of the home, inside the carport. There is rarely a ranger on site. Ste Genevieve in Missouri is another example. Operated by the state, once the NPS took over again, tours and interpretation were halted. Buildings that had been open were closed and rangers were not available outside the small visitor center. There are others. Waco Mammoth in Texas, Camp Nelson in Kentucky.
These had all been operating by their respective states, but all are generally closed today. Rangers are very scarce.
Large well established parks are not currently well run either. Because of the silly continuing closures mandated on Federal properties by the government, large established visitor centers are closed to the public in places like Arches, Yellowstone, Rocky Mountain. The only signs of life are the large stores inside the same closed visitor centers. These are operating (and have been through Covid) because they are run not by the NPS but by other organizations.
As we cross the threshold of $30 Bllion of Federal debt, more money for the NPS isn't in the cards. No staff lost jobs during covid, everyone drew the same check they always did but our wonderful parks, and the newly designated ones resemble ghost towns.
The NPS is indeed broken.
When I got to "sites representing America's flawed forefathers are ready to welcome visitors in all their pristine regalia," I should have stopped reading. It's always about "white guilt" with these social engineers. I get so tired of it.
And what, exactly, is a "park of color." I mean, it's one thing to adjust oneself to "community of color," but a "park of color"? This kind of gibberish is always going to interfere with finding a solution.
The one thing no one talks about is whether there is any genuine interest in these sites. The author doesn't go near the subject. Shouldn't that be part of the calculus. We "rate" the national parks we visit, don't we?