Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Gregg IPRA
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Gregg IPRA

230

Published on

Local recreation providers study for Indiana SCORP

Local recreation providers study for Indiana SCORP

Published in: Career, Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
230
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Study of Local Recreation Providers For the next SCORP Amy L. Gregg, PhD Ball State University Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Management
  • 2. Project Background
    • What is a SCORP?
    • State Divisions of Recreation are required to write the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) every five years to be eligible for federal funding for P&R.
    • SCORP – Need to document local issues and trends with local providers.
  • 3. Local Providers Defined
    • Defined as 1) Park and Recreation departments:
      • Municipal
      • Township
      • County
    • Also 2) Park Boards
      • Elected officials that oversee park department/superintendent
      • E.g. Muncie Park Board
    Shelbyville, Indiana Park Board
  • 4. Methods
    • 2004 – Mail Survey
    • 2010 – Internet Survey
    • Pilot requested with IPRA Audience
  • 5. Respondents from 2004 Table 1. Which of these best describes you, the respondent? Frequency Percent Valid Employee of Municipal Park and Recreation Dept 80 44.2 Employee of Township Park and Recreation Dept 1 .6 Employee of County Park and Recreation Dept 19 10.5 Member of Park Board 59 32.6 Other (please describe) 17 9.4 Total 176 97.2 Missing System 5 2.8 Total 181 100.0
  • 6. How do leaders vary by experience? Table 2. Years of experience of respondents. See also: Page 37 in SCORP for different issues and weighting. Years of experience in P&R Percent of Park Department Employees Percent of Park Board Members 1-5 years 19.0 37.9 6-10 years 29.0 34.5 11-15 years 13.0 15.5 16-20 years 12.0 3.5 21 or more 27.0 8.6
  • 7. Identifying Issues they Face
    • Community and Demographic Issues
    • Administrative Issues
    • Capital Projects/Land Development
    • Facility Maintenance and Refurbishment
    • Educational Programming
    • Funding Sources
  • 8. Issues Facing Providers
    • 2004
    • Funding
    • Staffing
    • Land Acquisition
    • 2010
    • Seek to define best practices used to overcome these 3 main issues
  • 9. Communities and Size
    • 2004 – Asked for population size served
    • 2010 –match zip code and census data
    Community population Frequency Percent Valid 4,999 or less 46 25.4 5,000-9,999 26 14.4 10,000-49,999 72 39.8 50,000-149,999 26 14.4 150,000 or more 10 5.5 Total 180 99.4 Missing System 1 .6 Total 181 100.0
  • 10. Capital Projects
    • Capital projects:
    • Land acquisition
      • Very focused along urban/rural fringe
      • Response to future sprawl expected
    • Facility Development
      • Trails and trail networks a strong theme
      • Underserved neighborhoods
  • 11. Top Capital Projects 2004 Capital Projects Percent Respondents Playgrounds 58% Multi-use trail 54% Land acquisition 51% Parking Lot 50% Other Buildings (concessions, nature center) 49% Picnic Areas /Gardens 44% Shelter House 43%
  • 12. Facility Renovation
    • Projects/Infrastructure
    • Parking lots
    • Playgrounds
      • Need updated equipment
      • Improve accessibility
    Source: Brown County http://www.eversonasphalt.com/
  • 13. Renovation Projects 2004 Renovation Projects Percent Respondents Playgrounds 50% Parking Lots 48% Other buildings (restrooms, concession stands) 40% Shelter houses 37% Tennis Courts 35% Baseball Diamonds 34% Swimming Pool 27%
  • 14. Partnering and Alternatives
    • Seeking partnerships with local providers
      • Need for partnerships with schools, civic groups, other local units of government
    • Develop “friends of parks” groups
    • Community takes “ownership”
    • Fund raising efforts
      • Asking for public input
    The Lebanon and Greater Boone County Park Foundation Friends of the Dunes
  • 15. Funding Alternatives from 2004 Funding Strategies Percent Responding Grants 88% Donations 72% Fees 47% Sponsorships 38% Public-Private Partnerships 36% Fundraising 35% Park Foundation 32% Taxes 31% Friends of Parks Groups 30%
  • 16. Survey 2004 vs. 2010
    • Some questions stay the same
    • Some are improved
    • Others are added
      • E.g., more demographic and staff questions
  • 17. Next Steps
    • Ask IPRA Audience to pilot test instrument
      • How long does it take?
      • Is it too long?
      • Are questions clear?
    • Seek to send by email in next few weeks
      • Can you add to our email contact list?
  • 18. Thank You! Thank you to IPRA/Audience, and IN Division of Recreation for funding the project.

×