Study of Local Study of Local Recreation ProvidersRecreation Providers

For the next SCORP For the next SCORP Amy L. Gregg, PhDAmy L. Gregg, PhDBall State UniversityBall State University

Department of Natural Resources and Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management Environmental Management

Project BackgroundProject Background

What is a SCORP?What is a SCORP? State Divisions of Recreation are required to State Divisions of Recreation are required to

write the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor write the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) every five years to be Recreation Plan (SCORP) every five years to be eligible for federal funding for P&R. eligible for federal funding for P&R.

SCORP – Need to document SCORP – Need to document local issues and local issues and trends with local providers.trends with local providers.

Local Providers DefinedLocal Providers Defined

Defined as 1) Park and Defined as 1) Park and Recreation departments:Recreation departments: Municipal Township County

Also 2) Park BoardsAlso 2) Park Boards Elected officials that oversee Elected officials that oversee

park department/superintendentpark department/superintendent E.g. Muncie Park BoardE.g. Muncie Park Board

Shelbyville, Indiana Park Board

MethodsMethods

2004 – Mail Survey2004 – Mail Survey2010 – Internet Survey2010 – Internet Survey

Pilot requested with IPRA AudiencePilot requested with IPRA Audience

Table 1. Which of these best describes you, the respondent?

FrequencyFrequency PercentPercent

ValidValid Employee of Municipal Park and Employee of Municipal Park and Recreation DeptRecreation Dept 8080 44.244.2

Employee of Township Park and Employee of Township Park and Recreation DeptRecreation Dept 11 .6.6

Employee of County Park and Employee of County Park and Recreation DeptRecreation Dept 1919 10.510.5

Member of Park BoardMember of Park Board 5959 32.632.6

Other (please describe)Other (please describe) 1717 9.49.4

TotalTotal 176176 97.297.2

MissingMissing SystemSystem 55 2.82.8

TotalTotal 181181 100.0100.0

Respondents from 2004Respondents from 2004

How do leaders vary by experience?How do leaders vary by experience?

Table 2. Years of experience of respondents.

Years of Years of experience in experience in

P&RP&R

Percent of Park Percent of Park Department Department EmployeesEmployees

Percent of Percent of Park Board Park Board MembersMembers

1-5 years1-5 years 19.019.0 37.937.9

6-10 years6-10 years 29.029.0 34.534.5

11-15 years11-15 years 13.013.0 15.515.5

16-20 years16-20 years 12.012.0 3.53.5

21 or more21 or more 27.027.0 8.68.6

See also: Page 37 in SCORP for different issues and weighting.

Identifying Issues they FaceIdentifying Issues they Face

Community and Demographic IssuesCommunity and Demographic IssuesAdministrative Issues Administrative Issues Capital Projects/Land DevelopmentCapital Projects/Land DevelopmentFacility Maintenance and RefurbishmentFacility Maintenance and RefurbishmentEducational ProgrammingEducational ProgrammingFunding SourcesFunding Sources

Issues Facing ProvidersIssues Facing Providers

20042004 FundingFunding StaffingStaffing Land AcquisitionLand Acquisition

20102010 Seek to define best Seek to define best

practices used to practices used to overcome these 3 overcome these 3 main issuesmain issues

Communities and SizeCommunities and Size

2004 – Asked for population size served2004 – Asked for population size served2010 –match zip code and census data2010 –match zip code and census data

Community populationCommunity population FrequencyFrequency PercentPercent

ValidValid 4,999 or less4,999 or less 4646 25.425.4

5,000-9,9995,000-9,999 2626 14.414.4

10,000-49,99910,000-49,999 7272 39.839.8

50,000-149,99950,000-149,999 2626 14.414.4

150,000 or more150,000 or more 1010 5.55.5

TotalTotal 180180 99.499.4

MissingMissing SystemSystem 11 .6.6

TotalTotal 181181 100.0100.0

Capital ProjectsCapital Projects

Capital projects:Capital projects: Land acquisitionLand acquisition

• Very focused along urban/rural fringeVery focused along urban/rural fringe• Response to future sprawl expectedResponse to future sprawl expected

Facility DevelopmentFacility Development• Trails and trail networks a strong themeTrails and trail networks a strong theme• Underserved neighborhoodsUnderserved neighborhoods

Top Capital Projects 2004Top Capital Projects 2004Capital ProjectsCapital Projects Percent RespondentsPercent Respondents

PlaygroundsPlaygrounds 58%58%

Multi-use trailMulti-use trail 54%54%

Land acquisitionLand acquisition 51%51%

Parking LotParking Lot 50%50%

Other Buildings (concessions, Other Buildings (concessions, nature center)nature center)

49%49%

Picnic Areas /GardensPicnic Areas /Gardens 44%44%

Shelter HouseShelter House 43%43%

Facility RenovationFacility Renovation

Projects/InfrastructureProjects/Infrastructure Parking lots Parking lots PlaygroundsPlaygrounds

Need updated equipmentNeed updated equipment Improve accessibilityImprove accessibility

Source: Brown County

http://www.eversonasphalt.com/

Renovation Projects 2004Renovation Projects 2004

Renovation ProjectsRenovation Projects Percent RespondentsPercent Respondents

PlaygroundsPlaygrounds 50% 50%

Parking LotsParking Lots 48%48%

Other buildings (restrooms, Other buildings (restrooms, concession stands)concession stands) 40%40%

Shelter houses Shelter houses 37%37%

Tennis CourtsTennis Courts 35%35%

Baseball DiamondsBaseball Diamonds 34%34%

Swimming PoolSwimming Pool 27%27%

Partnering and Alternatives Partnering and Alternatives

Seeking partnerships with local providersSeeking partnerships with local providersNeed for partnershipsNeed for partnerships with schools, civic with schools, civic

groups, other local units of governmentgroups, other local units of government Develop “friends of parks” groupsDevelop “friends of parks” groups Community takes “ownership”Community takes “ownership” Fund raising effortsFund raising efforts

Asking for public inputAsking for public input

The Lebanon and Greater Boone County Park Foundation

Friends of the Dunes

Funding Alternatives from 2004Funding Alternatives from 2004

Funding StrategiesFunding Strategies Percent RespondingPercent Responding

GrantsGrants 88%88%

DonationsDonations 72%72%

FeesFees 47%47%

SponsorshipsSponsorships 38%38%

Public-Private PartnershipsPublic-Private Partnerships 36%36%

FundraisingFundraising 35%35%

Park FoundationPark Foundation 32%32%

TaxesTaxes 31%31%

Friends of Parks GroupsFriends of Parks Groups 30%30%

Survey 2004 vs. 2010Survey 2004 vs. 2010

Some questions stay the sameSome questions stay the sameSome are improvedSome are improvedOthers are addedOthers are added

E.g., more demographic and staff questionsE.g., more demographic and staff questions

Next StepsNext Steps

Ask IPRA Audience to pilot test instrumentAsk IPRA Audience to pilot test instrumentHow long does it take?How long does it take? Is it too long?Is it too long?Are questions clear?Are questions clear?

Seek to send by email in next few weeksSeek to send by email in next few weeksCan you add to our email contact list?Can you add to our email contact list?

Thank You!Thank You!

Thank you to IPRA/Audience, and Thank you to IPRA/Audience, and IN Division of Recreation for IN Division of Recreation for

funding the project.funding the project.