Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RecQuest Phase II: Validation
Summary Report
Minneapolis Parks & Recreation Board
1 | P a g e
RecQuest Phase II: Validation
Summary Report
August, 2018
Friday Born Consulting
Minneapolis, MN
2 | P a g e
Contents Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 3
RecQuest Background ................................................................................................................................... 3
Phase I ....................................................................................................................................................... 4
Validation ...................................................................................................................................................... 7
Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 11
Neighborhood Demographics ................................................................................................................. 11
Race/Ethnicity ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Income ................................................................................................................................................ 13
Disability .............................................................................................................................................. 14
Age ...................................................................................................................................................... 14
Housing & Family ................................................................................................................................ 18
Language ............................................................................................................................................. 18
MPRB Programming, 2017 ...................................................................................................................... 19
Priority Programmatic Areas ................................................................................................................... 20
Active older adults .................................................................................................................................. 20
Youth development & equitable education programs ........................................................................... 21
Access to equitable athletics .................................................................................................................. 23
Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 23
Recommendations for Phase III .................................................................................................................. 24
APPENDIX .................................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix A: Data Tables ............................................................................................................................ 27
Appendix B: CAC Summit Draft Agenda ..................................................................................................... 42
Appendix C: RecQuest Phase II Community Engagement via Focus Groups ............................................ 43
3 | P a g e
RecQuest Phase II: Validation
Summary Report
Introduction
RecQuest is a large-scale effort undertaken by the Minneapolis Park and Recreation Board (MPRB). The
goal is to develop and implement a comprehensive plan to assure that facilities, recreation programs
and services align with community needs (MPRB, 2014i). RecQuest was designed to be a critical
component shaping capital improvement and programs for recreation centers in Minneapolis for the
next 25-30 years.
This report presents the summary of RecQuest Phase II activity with particular focus on the extent to
which the priority program areas developed in Phase I were appropriate, relevant to MPRB
neighborhoods, actionable and understandable. This report is mean to provide guidance for Phase III.
The contents are organized into the following sections: Introduction, RecQuest Background, Validation,
Results, Summary and Recommendations for Phase III
RecQuest Background
The Minneapolis Park and Recreation board (MPRB) operates 47 year round, neighborhood-based
recreation centers. Most facilities were built between 1960 and 1980 and are increasingly in need of
capital improvements. At the same time the city of Minneapolis is growing and changing in exciting
ways. Because many of the recreation centers require capital improvements, the MPRB decided to take
the opportunity to make capital improvements in alignment with what could be there as opposed to
what was there. That is to say, they embarked upon a strategic planning process designed to develop
and implement a comprehensive plan to assure that facilities, programs and services align with
community needs; RecQuest (MPRB, 2014). The underlying foundation of RecQuest is that physical
assets should be designed around the needs of the community.
Although RecQuest is a citywide project, the service-delivery arm of MPRB’s Recreation Services Division
is primarily responsible for implementation. There is ongoing collaboration with the Planning Services
Division.
After early planning with a MPRB steering committee and hiring a team of consultants to guide the
work, RecQuest implementation began in 2014 with the following objectives:
• Engage staff and the community in a collaborative process to inform how to best serve current
and projected park and recreation needs of communities through recreation center programs
and facilities
• Assess community recreation needs for recreation center programming and facilities
• Provide a vision for the next generation of recreation center programs and facilities
4 | P a g e
• Compile, create, analyze, and illustrate city-wide recreation center facility (size, amenities, etc.),
use, and program data
• Outline guiding principles for management and operations of recreation center facilities and
programs
• Articulate a 25-30 year investment strategy for recreation centers and programs
Originally conceived as three-phased process that would roll out alongside several service area master
plans, staffing turnover and other factors contributed to a sluggish rollout. As a result, the project spent
approximately three years in Phase I as other plans moved forward.
Phase I
While not brief as originally conceived, Phase I activity generated the solid foundation necessary for
success as well as validation. Key components of Phase I include the RecQuest Phase I Summary Report
(Draft), The RecQuest Community Engagement Plan, data collection/community engagement, the
formation of the CAC, and the priority programmatic recommendations.
RecQuest Phase I Summary Report Draft
In January 2015, the consulting team of MIG, Inc. Ballard*King & Associates, and LHB, Inc. produced a
DRAFT summary report of Phase I. The report consisted of 53 pages and 11 appendixes. (2015). This
report titled RecQuest Phase I Summary Report was the culmination of an extensive process which
included a facility assessment, program assessment, community engagement plan, community
engagement activities, level of service analysis, national trends in recreation center programming and
city demographic trends. The report presented a “baseline understanding of how the facilities are
currently functioning on a systemic level” (p. 7)ii. The report produced several key findings relevant for
Phase II validation (discussed later). Note: The consulting relationship with MIG, Inc. Ballard*King &
Associates, and LHB, Inc. was severed; they did not submit a final report.
RecQuest Community Engagement Plan
In developing RecQuest, MPRB emphasized collaboration and
community engagement as a necessary component of the work.
During Phase I, the consulting team of MIG, Inc. Ballard*King &
Associates, and LHB, Inc. assisted in developing a community
engagement plan. The community plan was comprised of the
following sections; project description, engagement
recommendations, anticipated project outcomes, stakeholder
roles & responsibilities, identification & methods to collect
information, outreach methods & tools, engagement methods
& tools, advisory committee overview and project schedule. Six
stakeholder groups were identified: recreation center users, recreation center non-users,
Figure 1. Community Engagement Plan Website
5 | P a g e
underrepresented groups, recreation interest groups, community partners
and government entities). The plan was designed as a multi-faceted
process to gather community input at all phases of the project. Included in
the plan was extensive initial data collection.
Formation of the Community Advisory Council (CAC)
In accordance with MPRB’s community Engagement Policy, a community
advisory council (CAC) was established with the following chargeiii:
• Work collaboratively and provide input toward final project
recommendations for approval by the Board of Commissioners.
• Become knowledgeable about the project and its scope and advise
MPRB staff and consultants throughout the planning process.
• Contribute to broad community outreach and engagement by
enhancing the project’s interaction with a wide range of
stakeholders.
• Understand and represent the needs of all community members.
• Apply equity principles in decision-making based on training
provided by staff and project consultants.
• Report back to appointers or appointing bodies, as requested, on
the plan process, information presented, and possible
recommendations.
• Evaluate potential scenarios and deliver a preferred, actionable
alternative for recreation centers and programs to the Board of
Commissioners.
The members of the CAC were selected by Commissioner and staff
appointment. MPRB collaborated with Voices for Racial Justice on the
composition and training of the members. With the membership solidified
and trained, the RecQuest CAC began to meet regularly towards the goal of
providing recommendations to the Board of Commissioners.
RecQuest Community Engagement Plan Phase I data collectioniv
The RecQuest Community Engagement Plan included an initial phase of
community stakeholder input designed to reveal, through a collaborative
approach, both unique and common needs and preferences (p. 42)v.
• Residential survey with a sample of 500 residents (response rate
unknown)
• Seven (7) listening sessions
RecQuest
Community Advisory
Council (CAC)
Guiding Principles for
Priority Programmatic Area
Implementation
✓ Prioritize the voices of
residents
✓ Equity
✓ Data driven decision-
making
✓ On-going community
engagement
✓ Consistency across the
system
✓ Flexible for uniqueness of
communities
✓ Transparent reporting
✓ Program monitoring
✓ Accountability
✓ Continuous improvement
6 | P a g e
• Thirty (30) neighborhood meetings with approximately 300 participants and some follow-up
• 25 intercept events with up to 1,200 participants
When completed, the methods employed would provide valuable information for the project.
CAC priority programmatic areas
Through their work, the CAC identified four programmatic areas that were interrelated, flexible enough
to be responsive to individual community needs (geographic, age, gender, cultural, lifestyle and
orientation), and concrete enough to provide a foundation of equity in recreation programming across
the city. Prioritization of the four programmatic areas would become one of the core recommendations
to the Board of Commissioners (guiding principles for programming, budgetary considerations and
guidance for implementation).
Active older adults
Objective • Increase the number and expand the variety of programs that foster
opportunities, share skills and talents, and develop a greater sense of
community
Outcome • Thriving communities are built, maintained and advanced when all
members are valued and respected. Creating opportunities for inter-
generational connections are of benefit to both young people and the
senior members of our community
Youth development
Objective • Expand the Youth Development department and increase program access
Outcome • Thoughtful and intentional youth development programming benefits the
city of Minneapolis by providing more opportunities for youth to be
engaged in activities that develop skills, reinforce positive behaviors and
expand the realm of possibilities for their future
Note. Youth development is defined as classes, programs and activities targeted toward youth under the age of 18
Equitable education programs
Objective • Provide school age programs that are stimulating, engaging and inspire
creativity in spaces that are safe for learning, create positive environments
and encourage peer support
Outcome • Engage children holistically in fun experiences that give them the
opportunity to explore the world around them, develop a sense of wonder
and stretch beyond what is familiar.
7 | P a g e
Access to equitable athletics
Objective • Provide a range of athletic programs that supports the current and future
lifestyles, fitness and social needs of Minneapolis residents
• Expand access for athletic activities and allocate resources to provide
equitable participation
Outcome • Ensuring that all residents have equitable access to the forms of athletic
programming and facilities that are convenient, comfortable, appropriate
and reflective of the span of residents within the city of Minneapolis.
Validation
With the priority programmatic areas developed, RecQuest moved into Phase II. The primary purpose
of Phase II was to validate the programmatic focus developed in Phase I. Phase II was also designed to
provide guidance for Phase III.
The validation was done through ongoing consultation targeted towards designing experiences to
gather additional input on the extent to which the priority program areas developed in Phase I were
appropriate, relevant to MPRB neighborhoods, actionable and understandable. Towards that end, the
following evaluative methods were employed:
Document review
A document review of the RecQuest materials, presentations, meeting notes was completed to
understand the foundation of the project. Of particular interest, The RecQuest Phase I Summary Report
Draft (2015). Although not finalized, the draft report produced several key findings important to Phase II
validation:
1. Convergence among RecQuest and other existing plans and related document. RecQuest is
related to at least five other high priority, high-profile MPRB plans or initiatives. Although it
could appear disjointed or fractured, plans and initiatives, some already in implementation,
were not in conflict with RecQuest. In fact, several of them supported the goals of RecQuest
and provided valuable support for the programmatic priorities that were later developed. The
MPRB Comprehensive Plan (2007) underscored health trends, the Intersections, Downtown
2025 (2011) highlighted the need for more open space and recreation programming. Citywide
transportation plans to increase connectivity become increasingly important at the population
of the city ages but is also crucial for youth who would like to participate in programming but
lack independent transportation options.
2. Facility conditions across the city revealed pockets of quality and urgent concerns with most
facilities in the middle. Because results didn’t reveal a city-wide crisis; facility conditions across
recreation centers could be targeted for improvements according to programming needs. For
8 | P a g e
instance, grade access to buildings found that almost all sites have grade access to front door at
5% or less slope suggesting smooth entryways (p. 13). On the other hand, amenities like
security, toilets, and storage and multi-use spaces appear to have more need for
improvement/enhancements.
3. Recent city demographic shifts suggest a growing and increasingly racially/ethnically diverse
population that isn’t limited to service area or region of the city. Although median ages are
projected to increase which usually suggests less participation, median income is also expected
to increase which is an indicator of higher participation.
4. Programming is an area well-suited for re-definition and alignment to priority areas at this
time. Programming areas and activities are vast. Programming is currently available year-
round, planned for all ages and income levels. Programming at recreation centers is, for the
most part, made at the facility level with recreation center staffing having a great deal of
decision making authority. Opportunities for improvement include the balance between fee-
generating and non-fee-generating programming, prioritizing the use by neighborhood/
community while maintaining complex league and registration structures, centralized
programming across the city as well as facility-level programming, and staffing at centers that
represent the neighborhood/community surrounding the facility.
5. National trends in recreational programming indicate interesting changes in sport activities
from 2005 to 2014. Many current offerings by MPRB centers are listed on sports showing
increases in participation as well as showing decreased participation rates. In addition, the
results of a 2015 survey completed by RM indicated from 2014 to 2015 the changes in the most
commonly planned programs across recreation centers was dramatic; there were zero programs
from 2014 that held the same position on the list in 2015 although 9 out of 10 of the programs
in 2014 were on the list in 2015. The most commonly planned program additions appear to
support earlier analysis of citywide planning documents, and the RecQuest priority interest
areas. Lastly, when all generations are considered, there is no preference over individual/team
or outdoor/indoor.
6. Minneapolis has made a significant investment to recreation. The number of facilities of the
MPRB are among the highest number of recreation centers of any large city in the county (p.
35). Programming is largely youth and adult focused leaving a small portion for senior and
community programming. When considering the facility match to participant interest,
investment in fitness, gymnasium, indoor swimming and enrichment spaces will be important
(p. 40-41).
7. Community stakeholders had interesting and aligned feedback. Results for community
engagement indicated value for the MPRB and desire for cost-friendly activities, increased adult
programming, welcoming environments, staffing reflective of neighborhood/community and
improved facilities.
9 | P a g e
Informal meetings
Conversations regarding Phase I and the history of RecQuest were completed with staff directly
responsible for the project. These unstructured informal interviews outlined not only the history of the
project but also provided opportunities to explore other facets of Phase I that would be useful in Phase
II most notably involvement in the Community Advisory Council (CAC).
CAC participant-observation
Attendance at CAC meetings from August 2017 to August 2018. At each meeting careful notes were
taken. Several meetings included progress updates.
CAC meeting note analysis
Notes taken at each CAC meeting from January 2016 to August 2017 was qualitatively analyzed for
themes relating to the priority recommendations.
CAC summit participant-observation
A half-day workshop with participants representing community advisory councils for RecQuest, East of
the River, Downtown, North, and South Service Areas, MPRB programming staff, and MPRB facilities
staff was held in October 2017. The purpose of the day was to identify the intersectionality of each
group’s work toward the outcome of increased collaboration and strengthened community
relationships. A bulk of the day was spent gathering feedback on the RecQuest priority areas from the
perspective of programming and physical assets.
Community engagement via focus group
Eight (8) focus groups were conducted. The focus groups were designed to gather specific feedback on
the CAC programmatic priority areas from selected perspectives of the city. Specifically, perspectives
from people of color and other traditionally marginalized groups were sought. Questions were
developed collaboratively by MPRB staff and consultant. Each focus group had a set of questions
designed to gather feedback from the participant group. Focus groups were designed to be structured,
yet flexible. Focus groups were facilitated by MPRB staff and consultant. Detailed notes were taken at
each group and when necessary follow-up was completed. In total, 150 participants provided input via a
focus group. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the focus group participants.
10 | P a g e
Table 1. Focus Group Demographics
Age N=133
10-14 12%
15-19 59%
20-29 9%
30-39p 2%
40-49 4%
50-54 5%
55-59 3%
60-64 2%
65+ 5%
Race N =144
American Indian 3%
Asian 1%
Black 35%
Hispanic 13%
Multi-racial 8%
White 40%
Gender N=135
cisgender 1%
female 54%
gender nonconforming 3%
genderfluid 1%
genderqueer/queer 6%
male 23%
non binary 3%
transgender 8%
Sexual Orientation N=35
bisexual 34%
hereto 23%
gay 20%
lesbian 14%
pansexual 9%
Disability Status N=49
Yes 63%
No 37%
Community N=74
Calhoun Isles 6%
Camden 6%
Central 11%
Longfellow 8%
Near North 15%
11 | P a g e
Nokomis 13%
Northeast 6%
Phillips 4%
Powderhorn 17%
South Minneapolis 4%
Southwest 9%
University 2%
Source. MPRB, 2017-18. Notes. Some participants lived outside of the city and are not reflected above. Total responses are
reported for each characteristic. Multi-racial category reflects those who answered “multi-racial” as well as those who indicated
two or more separate racial/ethnic groups. Neighborhood responses were summarized into community groupings. Data reflect
responses from two versions of the demographic collection tool.
Programming analysis
MPRB Recreation Services Division provided raw data files from the program year of 2017. Data
included program specifics, frequency and participation. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics.
The data was analyzed for each recreation center and summarized at the city level. Results from this
data should be considered approximate as data integrity could not be obtained. It is possible that
centers input data differently which would create inconsistencies in the database.
Neighborhood demographic analysis
Data file access from Minnesota Compass (mncompass.org) was the primary source for analysis of the
characteristics of neighborhoods surrounding MPRB recreation centers. Although retrieved from
Minnesota Compass, the original source of the data was the 2012-2016 American Community Survey
(ACS). The data was downloaded and merged with MPRB provided data on the recreation centers.
Once merged, descriptive statistics were calculated for each neighborhood. Data was summarized at
the neighborhood, community and/or service area level.
Results
In order to place the results of the validation into social context, the results section begins with (1) an
analysis of the neighborhoods that surround the recreational centers, and (2) an analysis of MPRB
programming in 2017. With the demographic context, the results of the validation increases in
usefulness and value to decision-makers. After the two context-setting sections, results of the
validation are presented. Results are organized by programmatic priority area.
Neighborhood Demographics
Race/Ethnicity
The neighborhoods of Minneapolis reflect racial/ethnic diversity. Out of six racial categories (American
Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Other race, Two or more races and White) and
12 | P a g e
one ethnic category (Hispanic or Latino), the residents of every neighborhood reflect no fewer than five
categories. Seven (7) neighborhoods have residents that reflect all racial/ethnic groups; Audubon Park,
Beltrami, Near North, Folwell, Elliot Park and Windom. Most neighborhoods in Minneapolis have a
majority of White residents; eleven (11) of the 49 neighborhoods have a majority racial/ethnic resident
population other than White; Near North (Black), Cedar Riverside (Black or African American), East
Phillips (Hispanic/Latino), Hawthorne (Black), Folwell (Black), Harrison (Black), Seward (Black), Willard-
Hay (Black), Ventura Village (Black), Midtown Phillips (Black) and Webber-Camden (Black).
Within racial/ethnic groups, American Indian/Native American
residents have percentages under 10% no matter the neighborhood.
The neighborhood with the largest percentage of American
Indian/Native American residents are Ventura Village and Midtown
Phillips (6%). Neighborhoods with Asian residents vary from 1% (Logan
Park, Howe, Northrop, Page and Powderhorn Park) to 22%
(Hawthorne). Neighborhoods with Black or African American residents
are in a similar pattern to Asian, however the percentages across
neighborhoods is larger. CARAG, Kenny and East Harriett all have 1%
Black/African American residents while Willard-Hay’s Black resident
population is 57%; a 56 percentage point difference from lowest to
highest. Hispanic/Latino resident population across neighborhoods
ranges between 2% (Page, Fulton, Tangletown, Kenwood, Ericsson,
Linden Hills, Prospect Park, Lynnhurst, Seward and Fulton) to 46% (East
Phillips). Unlike the other racial/ethnic groups, Hispanic/Latino
percentages reflect distinct areas of concentration; low percentage
(less than 10%), between 11% and 18%, and sizeable (over 20%).
Although the precise proportion of residents may vary, all of the recreational centers are surrounded by
neighborhoods that reflect racial/ethnic diversity.
Figure 2. Seven (7) neighborhoods
have residents that reflect all
racial/ethnic groups
13 | P a g e
Income
When reviewing racial/ethnic percentages, neighborhoods in Minneapolis seem more alike than
different. However, when reviewing the percentages of households across five income categories (less
than $35K, 35K-49K, 50K-74K, 75K-99K and 100K+) neighborhoods across the city reflect a very different
image. Household income reflects a city of neighborhoods noticeably separated by income. While
every neighborhood has some percentage of households with income in all five categories; in all but
three neighborhoods, the largest percentage of households fall into either less than $35,000 or more
than $100,000. Moreover, there are zero (0) neighborhoods with less than 10% of households earning
less than $35K, however there are five (5) neighborhoods with less than 10% of households earning
$100K or more. Of households with income less than $35K, the range from 11% (Fulton and Page) to
77% (Cedar Riverside) is arresting.
27 neighborhoods surround recreation centers in which the largest percentage of the households have a
yearly income of less than $35K. Seven (7) neighborhoods surround recreation centers in which the
household income is somewhat proportional (differences across income categories differ less than 15
percentage points). Few centers are located in neighborhoods with a majority of the household income
between $35K and $99K.
Across the city, the percentage of families living below poverty ranges from 3% in Pershing to 49% in
Peavey; a difference of 46 percentage points.
Figure 3. Percentage of Families Living Below Poverty; Peavey & Pershing
14 | P a g e
Figure 4. Percentage of Families Living Below Poverty
Source. Retrieved from Minnesota Compass; original source was the 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS).
Disability
On average, neighborhoods have 11% of resident population living with a disability; roughly 1 out of
every 10 residents. The lowest percentage in Tangletown and Kenwood (4%) and the highest
percentage in Hawthorne (22%).
Age[NJR1]
Generally speaking, the neighborhoods of Minneapolis reflect a heterogeneous age mixture with healthy
percentages of residents at early, mid and older ages. Nearly all neighborhoods have residents whose
ages fall within 12 age categories (under 5, 5-9, 10-14, 15-17, 18-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74,
75-84 and 85+). All neighborhoods have the highest percentage of residents between the ages of 18
15 | P a g e
and 54, but the majority of neighborhoods have the largest percentage of residents between the ages
25-34; early to mid-adulthood.
Children under the age of 18 are a noticeable population; all but three neighborhoods in the city have
double digit percentages of households with children under 18, but like other characteristics, the
percentages differ across the city in interesting ways. The average (median) percentage of households
with one or more children under the age of 18 is 28 or nearly one-third. The percentage of households
with one or more children under 18 years old ranges from 7% in Loring Park to 59% in East Phillips.
Twenty-two neighborhoods have 30% or more households with children under 18. Almost half of the
neighborhoods that surround recreation centers have a sizeable percentage of households with children
under the age of 18.
Source. Retrieved from Minnesota Compass; original source was the 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS).
Figure 5. The Percentage of Residents under the age of 17 Compared to the Percentage of Residents Over the Age of 65 By
Neighborhood.
16 | P a g e
When examining the percentages of residents at the upper ends, again, neighborhoods vary in
proportions.
On average, each neighborhood has 8% of households with a resident age 65 or older. At the lower end
of the range is Como with 2%. At the higher end of the range is Cedar Riverside with 15%. Interestingly,
Cedar Riverside is also a neighborhood that has one of the largest percentages of children under 5
(10%).
17 | P a g e
Table 2. The Percentage of Residents under the age of 17 Compared to the Percentage of Residents Over the Age of 65 By
Neighborhood.
Neighborhood 17 years and younger 65 years and older
Armatage 23% 12%
Audubon Park 18% 8%
Beltrami 15% 6%
Near North 37% 7%
Bottineau 20% 5%
Longfellow 19% 12%
CARAG 7% 11%
Central 30% 9%
Corcoran 25% 9%
Cedar Riverside 20% 8%
Shingle Creek 28% 10%
East Phillips 36% 7%
Elliot Park 7% 12%
Hawthorne 37% 6%
Folwell 29% 5%
Tangletown 23% 10%
Harrison 24% 9%
Hiawatha 19% 15%
Keewaydin 19% 11%
Kenny 25% 12%
Kenwood 11% 18%
Ericsson 18% 12%
Keewaydin 19% 11%
Linden Hills 20% 11%
Logan Park 12% 9%
Howe 18% 11%
Loring Park 8% 13%
Prospect Park- East River Road 8% 6%
East Harriet 19% 13%
Lynnhurst 28% 12%
Seward 18% 10%
Northrop 22% 10%
Morris Park 16% 11%
Willard - Hay 32% 9%
Lyndale 16% 10%
Page 21% 11%
Ventura Village 28% 6%
Fulton 26% 11%
18 | P a g e
Neighborhood 17 years and younger 65 years and older
Bryant 29% 6%
Midtown Phillips 31% 5%
Powderhorn Park 28% 5%
King Field 18% 8%
Standish 20% 10%
Midtown Phillips 31% 5%
Como (Minneapolis) 11% 3%
Waite Park 18% 10%
Webber - Camden 28% 8%
Whittier 16% 3%
Windom Park 16% 15%
Windom 24% 11%
Source. Retrieved from Minnesota Compass; original source was the 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS).
Recreation centers are surrounded by neighborhoods that on average have 8% of the
households with a member age 65 or older, and 28% of households with one or more children under 18.
Housing & Family
On average, neighborhoods have 94% of available housing occupied. The range is the smallest out of all
of the neighborhood characteristics gathered for this report; 17 percentage points. The lowest
percentage of occupied housing is 83% and the highest percentage of occupied housing is 100%.
Residents that are occupying housing are mostly family households although there is a fair number of
non-family households in each neighborhood.
Language
On average, neighborhoods have 17% of residents who speak a language other than English (Please note
the results do not suggest that the residents do not speak
English; only that a language other than English is spoken in the
household). While 17% is the average, the difference between
Figure 6. East Phillips & Page
Neighborhood Language Opposites
19 | P a g e
the lowest percentage (5% in Pearl) and the largest percentage (73% in East Phillips) is substantial.
Perhaps more interesting could be the proximity of the neighborhoods; both south central separated by
approximately 20 blocks.
Residents that are occupying housing are mostly family households although there is a fair number of
non-family households in each neighborhood.
MPRB Programming, 2017[NJR2]
During 2017, MPRB recreation centers offered more than 7000 distinct programs. All centers offered a
plethora of programs across the calendar year. June had the most programs offered during the year.
September had the least programs offered during the year.
The next section presents the results of the validation organized by programmatic priority area.
20 | P a g e
Priority Programmatic Areas
Active older adults
Thriving communities are built, maintained and advanced when all members are valued and respected. Creating opportunities for inter-generational connections are of benefit to both young people and the senior members of our community
All recreation centers and parks are surrounded by neighborhoods with residents aged 65 year or older;
in the case of Kenwood; one out of every 5 residents is aged 65 or older. City demographics suggest as
baby-boomers age, they are likely to maintain the active lifestyles they have become accustomed to.
Qualitative data reveal two overarching themes from older Minneapolitans; (1) many have long-term
relationships with the MPRB and (2) they would like to maintain activity be it social or physical. One
respondent reminisced, “Pearl park was so busy!”. Others spoke about their personal connection being
extended to their children and grandchildren.
Several participants expressed concern that older adults were an often over-looked group of park and
recreation stakeholders in terms of their history of the parks, their ability to volunteer for the parks and
recreation centers, their ability to contribute with either finances or social networks. One participant
stated emphatically, “I can still read!”, another said, “I have more time to use the parks than when I was
working”. They emphasized opportunities to share their trades, crafts and skills.
Older participants indicated their decisions to participate in programs stemmed largely from self-
interest and accessibility but that they experienced challenges getting information. They indicated high
interest in having a social space to gather, particularly when they are likely to be most active which is
between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. Participants speculated the possibility of increased use for
facilities for “day-time” adults if facilities could be available during those hours.
Feedback from older participants indicated the high level of quality programming that was expected.
The following quotes are reflective of the overall response,
“Social issues, those are meaty”
“Speaking to our policy makers about serious issues”
“Getting information from our politicians and city officials”
“Not pandering to us… interesting to us”
“Give seniors serious stuff”
City plans for increased and more efficient transportation for all residents will be particularly useful for
several groups of residents for whom transportation is a challenge. Active older adults is one of the
groups. Feedback from older adults indicated transportation to be a barrier especially as they age and
21 | P a g e
drive less and less. Moreover, for those who continue to drive, many remarked that they decrease
driving at night and in inclement weather.
There was no feedback that indicated disagreement to the programmatic priority of active older adults,
there was a great deal of discussion around the term older adult and the definitions. Even numbers
agreed and disagreed with active. Even numbers agreed and disagreed with older adults. Even numbers
agreed and disagreed to alternative terminology such as seniors, engaged and involved. As one
participants stated, “I don’t even think about seniors”.
Youth development & equitable education programs
Thoughtful and intentional youth development programming benefits the city of Minneapolis by
providing more opportunities for youth to be engaged in activities that develop skills, reinforce positive
behaviors and expand the realm of possibilities for their future.
Engage children holistically in fun experiences that give them the opportunity to explore the world
around them, develop a sense of wonder and stretch beyond what is familiar.
All neighborhoods across the city have at least 21% of family households. The average (median)
percentage of family households is 54%; that is to say that over half of the households in the city are
family households. Twenty-two neighborhoods in the city have 30% or more households with children
under 18. Almost half of the neighborhoods that surround recreation centers have a sizeable percentage
of households with children under the age of 18. City demographics trends suggest these percentages
will be sustained for at least ten years. However, a sizeable percentage of families live at or below the
poverty line. 27 neighborhoods surround recreation centers in which the largest percentage of the
households have a yearly income of less than $35,000. Seven (7) neighborhoods surround recreation
centers in which the household income is somewhat proportional; differences across income categories
differ less than 15 percentage points. Few centers are located in neighborhoods with a majority of the
household income is between $35,000 and $99,000.
22 | P a g e
Children who experience poverty are less likely to have expanded and enriching experiences. A focus
on children and youth will need to be a priority for all sectors of the city and certainly MPRB. Qualitative
data from youth participants revealed high interest in participating in all types of programming. The
following is a sample of the types of programs they brainstormed:
• Book club
• Communication skills
• Conflict resolution
• Cooking
• Driving
• Gardening
• Karate/self-defense
• Magic
• Mental health care
• Non-gendered sports
• Poetry
• Public speaking
• Sexual education
• Story-telling
• Taxes and financial literacy
• Zumba Youth participants were among the most vocal in the
desire to have social meeting spaces. They indicated
the lack of free, safe spaces to socialize with friends
that were readily accessible to their homes. Many
statements from youth indicated interest in something
outside of school; experiences that were more
interest-based. Youth, more than any other group,
stressed the importance of safe and welcoming spaces.
LGBTQ youth who gave qualitative feedback remarked
on the critical need for youth to be affirmed and for
the spaces to be inviting in all aspects. Youth of color
want staff that look like them, youth who speak
languages in addition to English desire staff that speak
those languages. All youth expect staff to listen to them and value their perspective. Youth expressed
challenges to participating in programs similar to older respondents; transportation and programming
schedules.
Figure 7. Feedback Sample
23 | P a g e
Access to equitable athletics
Ensuring that all residents have equitable access to the forms of athletic programming and facilities that
are convenient, comfortable, appropriate and reflective of the span of residents within the city of
Minneapolis.
A substantial amount of MPRB programming is athletic[NJR3]. Activities range in type; targeted
population, and season. Trends across the city and nation point only to increase physical programming
for recreation centers. Qualitative feedback from all stakeholders indicated physical activity as
important. With that said, athletic programming across the city and system is inequitable. Many CAC
meeting remarks and notes reflect the inequities in space usage, facility amenities, and access to athletic
fields. Further input from respondents living with disabilities reflect the additional inequity of access to
the amenities. Examples of inequitable athletics were continual among feedback. Particular examples
include fields in neighborhoods that were rented out to leagues and therefore inaccessible to
neighborhood residents. Another example frequently mentioned was the inequity in the choice of
athletics; particularly some centers having far more amenities and other having little more than a
gymnasium. A third type of access inequity was how paid, organized sports crated income barriers for
those unable to afford to pay.
Summary
The primary purpose of Phase II was to validate the programmatic focus developed in Phase I. Results
from Phase I indicate the four programmatic priority areas appear to be relevant, valuable, actionable,
generalizable and able to meet the needs voiced by stakeholders. The residents of the neighborhoods
will find relevancy in them. The trends nationally in recreation center programming align, the ability of
the facilities to provide quality programming while maintaining independent flexibility is present, and
input from community members was supportive.
In the process to validate the programmatic priority areas, two topics were continuously threaded in
discussion, so much so, that to not address them in this report would be painting half of the picture.
First, all of the qualitative data collected reveals that parks and recreation centers are highly valued
across the city. When gathering input, nearly all participants had some connection with a park or
recreation center; it was the rare case of a participant that did not use or had not participated in some
type of activity at a park or recreation center. There were zero remarks that parks were not useful or
valuable and while not specifically asked, zero comments that there were too many or that the spaces
could be repurposed towards something other than park/recreation. Given that Minneapolis has one of
the highest number of recreation centers in the nation; it is important for MPRB to understand the
investment into continued improvement and maintenance of resources to parks and recreation does
not go unnoticed. It was apparent that parks and recreation centers hold meaningful memories for
people connected to them (the earlier, the better). When asked about things they associate with parks,
24 | P a g e
older adults responded with childhood memories. That suggests that the younger one is introduced to
recreation, the more likely they will participate and value it. Related to the perceived value, but
somewhatdistinct??, was the overwhelming enthusiasm shown when participants engaged in discussion
regarding the project. Discussion spaces were charged with energy of the participants and their ideas
for programs and improvements. The topic of parks and recreation centers sparked images of
community, socializing, inter-generation activity, fun and learning in the minds of participants.
Second, equity and access make all the difference in the quality of experience and the relationship that
people build with parks and recreation centers. In most cases, be it racial/ethnic, ability, gender or
orientation equity was expressed through stories and unfortunate real-life examples of inequity. The
CAC members adamantly expressed the unconditional expectation for equity. Equity is embedded in the
guiding philosophy; equity for neighborhood residents, equity for resources, equity in decision-making
and equity in accountability. There was no shortage of examples given to indicate that a space was
welcoming. Many participants in the focus group remarked that the staff should reflect them, speak
their language or share their culture. Some talked about what was on the walls for decoration, others
spoke about being acknowledged by center staff. Having a welcoming space indicates that the
center/park is accessible but it is not the only indicator of access. Surprising was the intense discussions
of accessibility. What emerged was that access is understood across different perspectives and those
perspectives are valid because the concept of approaching, entering a place or obtaining something is
different based on how you approach, enter or obtain. For some, access was discussed as the ability to
enjoy content of a program (i.e. sign language interpretation for those with hearing disabilities, language
interpretation for those who do not speak the language being used). For some, access was the ability to
have full use of a facility (e.g. doorways that are wide enough for wheelchairs, electrical outlets needed
for equipment that is not blocked by tables, restrooms designed for differently-abled, or gender-fluid
persons). For some, access was the ability to plan a door-to-door, (wayfinding), experience that
included transportation, accessible pathways. And for some it was offerings that were interesting and
intellectually-challenging. Together equity and access create safety, and all input reflected the need for
safety. When gone unaddressed, the lack of accessibility is transformed into a barrier.
Overall, the importance of MPRB in the lives of residents of the city is apparent. RecQuest is well-poised
for success in Phase III.
Recommendations for Phase III
A second purpose for Phase II was to provide guidance for Phase III. As a result of the Phase II
validation, the following recommendations are presented:
• Conduct a comprehensive exploration for each recreation center designed to identify
programming alignment to neighborhood demographic. For this process, use a group data
25 | P a g e
analysis protocol as well as a well-designed data profile as tools to facilitate discussion.
Consider conducting exploration for staff as well as residents.
• Develop welcoming/inclusive indicators for centers and center programming. Use them in
period walkthroughs to continuously monitor climate.
• Consider multi-faceted programming designed for inclusivity rather than specialization.
• Design marketing communications to be consumed by those from 8 and above (e.g. participants
receive information via newspaper, flyers as well as social media and website).
• Determine a minimum recreation center resource allocation to be a floor but not ceiling.
• Re-conceptualize programming to align to neighborhood and community interest as well as
effective past activity.
• Re-envision the traditional definition of “access” to incorporate several perspectives.
• Incorporate community engagement in programming for each recreation center.
• Conduct a staffing to neighborhood analysis to identify the alignment or gaps between
neighborhood demographics and recreation center staff/partners.
Figure 8. Potential Tool to Facilitate Programming Alignment to Neighborhood
26 | P a g e
APPENDIX
27 | P a g e
Appendix A: Data Tables
Source: 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, adjusted to fit current neighborhood
boundaries using the 2010 Census counts. The 5-year estimates represent averages of data collected
over that time period.
28 | P a g e
Table 3. The Percentage of Residents by Income , Community and Neighborhood
Community Neighborhood Less than $35,000 $35,000-$49,999 $50,000-$74,999 $75,000-$99,999 $100,000 or
more
Calhoun Isles CARAG 27% 17% 21% 15% 20%
Kenwood 12% 8% 16% 8% 56%
Camden Folwell 40% 19% 22% 14% 5%
Shingle Creek 23% 17% 19% 24% 17%
Webber - Camden 52% 13% 19% 5% 11%
Central Elliot Park 61% 8% 11% 6% 14%
Loring Park 49% 9% 13% 8% 21%
Longfellow Hiawatha 22% 13% 18% 14% 33%
Howe 27% 12% 18% 16% 27%
Longfellow 35% 13% 19% 12% 21%
Seward 52% 11% 13% 10% 14%
Near North Harrison 52% 18% 13% 5% 13%
Hawthorne 68% 12% 9% 6% 6%
Near North 55% 13% 14% 8% 10%
Willard - Hay 36% 16% 19% 14% 14%
Nokomis Ericsson 17% 12% 17% 16% 39%
Keewaydin 14% 7% 14% 24% 40%
Morris Park 23% 11% 19% 27% 20%
Northrop 18% 8% 24% 13% 37%
Page 11% 9% 11% 9% 61%
Northeast Audubon Park 21% 17% 17% 17% 29%
Beltrami 33% 16% 21% 10% 20%
Bottineau 40% 14% 16% 14% 16%
Logan Park 37% 11% 20% 12% 19%
Waite Park 23% 8% 19% 16% 34%
Windom Park 30% 15% 18% 12% 25%
Phillips East Phillips 44% 16% 24% 8% 8%
Midtown Phillips 37% 18% 22% 12% 11%
Ventura Village 70% 14% 9% 2% 4%
Powderhorn Bryant 30% 13% 22% 15% 20%
Central 40% 11% 18% 9% 22%
Corcoran 32% 18% 17% 14% 19%
Lyndale 45% 13% 17% 9% 17%
Powderhorn Park 31% 19% 18% 15% 17%
Standish 20% 14% 21% 18% 27%
Whittier 49% 17% 14% 8% 12%
Southwest Armatage 17% 6% 13% 14% 50%
East Harriet 15% 16% 17% 14% 37%
Fulton 11% 5% 12% 9% 62%
Kenny 17% 6% 12% 14% 50%
King Field 19% 14% 18% 12% 37%
Linden Hills 16% 9% 18% 11% 46%
Lynnhurst 12% 6% 10% 13% 60%
Tangletown 17% 10% 13% 11% 48%
Windom 23% 12% 14% 11% 40%
University Cedar Riverside 77% 10% 4% 4% 5%
Como (Minneapolis) 44% 16% 15% 11% 13%
Prospect Park 54% 13% 9% 8% 16%
29 | P a g e
Table 4. The Percentage of Residents by Race/Ethnicity, Recreation Center and Neighborhood
Neighborhood AI AS BK Oth TWO WT HS
Armatage Armatage 0% 6% 2% 0% 4% 81% 7%
Audubon Audubon Park 1% 2% 7% 1% 4% 75% 11%
Beltrami Beltrami 2% 3% 11% 0% 8% 62% 13%
Bethune Near North 1% 17% 57% 0% 6% 19% 9%
Bottineau Bottineau 0% 5% 20% 0% 2% 59% 13%
Brackett Folwell 1% 2% 17% 0% 5% 72% 14%
Bryant Square CARAG 0% 3% 1% 0% 3% 89% 3%
Central Central 1% 6% 25% 1% 4% 63% 39%
Corcoran Corcoran 3% 3% 13% 0% 10% 50% 21%
Coyle/Currie Cedar Riverside 0% 11% 48% 0% 4% 35% 3%
Creekview Shingle Creek 2% 15% 24% 0% 5% 43% 10%
East Phillips East Phillips 5% 13% 20% 0% 2% 13% 46%
Elliot Elliot Park 1% 3% 32% 1% 3% 56% 3%
Farview Hawthorne 2% 22% 49% 0% 6% 15% 7%
Folwell Folwell 1% 8% 47% 0% 9% 31% 4%
Fuller Tangletown 2% 3% 5% 0% 5% 83% 2%
Harrison Harrison 1% 7% 41% 0% 9% 35% 7%
Hiawatha School Hiawatha 1% 2% 7% 0% 2% 84% 5%
Keewaydin Keewaydin 0% 2% 5% 0% 1% 84% 8%
Kenny Kenny 0% 6% 1% 0% 4% 83% 5%
Kenwood Kenwood 0% 4% 2% 1% 1% 89% 2%
Lake Hiawatha Ericsson 0% 2% 3% 0% 4% 89% 2%
Lake Nokomis Keewaydin 0% 2% 5% 0% 1% 84% 8%
Linden Hills Linden Hills 0% 2% 6% 0% 4% 86% 2%
Logan Logan Park 1% 1% 8% 0% 5% 67% 18%
Longfellow Howe 0% 1% 10% 0% 4% 79% 5%
Loring Loring Park 0% 5% 14% 1% 4% 69% 7%
Luxton Prospect Park- East River Road 1% 14% 7% 0% 4% 73% 2%
Lyndale Farmstead East Harriet 0% 3% 1% 0% 5% 87% 3%
Lynnhurst Lynnhurst 0% 4% 3% 0% 4% 87% 2%
Matthews Seward 1% 2% 37% 0% 2% 56% 2%
McRae Northrop 1% 1% 10% 0% 2% 81% 4%
Morris Morris Park 2% 2% 11% 0% 4% 77% 5%
North Commons Willard - Hay 2% 12% 51% 0% 6% 22% 7%
Painter Lyndale 1% 2% 24% 0% 4% 48% 20%
Pearl Page 1% 1% 9% 0% 2% 86% 2%
Peavey Ventura Village 6% 2% 43% 0% 3% 22% 25%
Pershing Fulton 0% 2% 3% 0% 3% 90% 2%
Phelps Bryant 1% 5% 25% 0% 5% 35% 30%
Phillips Midtown Phillips 6% 2% 34% 0% 1% 25% 31%
Powderhorn Powderhorn Park 2% 1% 15% 0% 4% 47% 31%
Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr King Field 1% 5% 4% 0% 5% 80% 5%
Sibley Standish 1% 2% 6% 0% 7% 72% 11%
Stewart Midtown Phillips 6% 2% 34% 0% 1% 25% 31%
Van Cleve Como (Minneapolis) 1% 13% 16% 0% 3% 63% 3%
Waite Waite Park 1% 3% 5% 0% 3% 83% 5%
Webber Webber - Camden 0% 9% 41% 0% 4% 39% 8%
Whittier Whittier 0% 5% 18% 0% 3% 56% 17%
Windom Northeast Windom Park 1% 3% 7% 0% 3% 80% 7%
Windom South Windom 1% 4% 9% 1% 6% 72% 7%
30 | P a g e
[NJR4]
31 | P a g e
Table 5. The Percentage of Residents by Household Characteristics, Recreation Center and Neighborhood
Neighborhood
65 Years And Over
Family households
Householder living alone
Households with one or
more children under 18 years
Income Below
Poverty
Language other than
English Nonfamily
households
Occupied housing
units
Population with a
disability
Armatage Armatage 10% 63% 26% 34% 7% 13% 37% 92% 8%
Audubon Audubon Park 6% 50% 33% 26% 12% 17% 50% 95% 8%
Beltrami Beltrami 4% 49% 28% 25% 22% 17% 51% 86% 11%
Bottineau Bottineau 6% 46% 31% 28% 20% 25% 54% 91% 7%
Brackett Folwell 11% 47% 40% 24% 16% 18% 56% 93% 14%
Bryant Square CARAG 5% 24% 53% 9% 7% 8% 76% 94% 7%
Central Central 8% 67% 66% 46% 27% 49% 78% 94% 14%
Corcoran Corcoran 6% 53% 34% 32% 18% 22% 47% 95% 14%
Coyle/Currie Cedar Riverside 15% 37% 51% 22% 46% 51% 63% 94% 14%
Creekview Shingle Creek 8% 64% 30% 34% 13% 23% 36% 93% 12%
East Phillips East Phillips 4% 66% 28% 59% 31% 73% 34% 91% 11%
Elliot Elliot Park 12% 21% 69% 9% 39% 24% 79% 87% 20%
Farview Hawthorne 7% 57% 39% 45% 37% 31% 43% 88% 22%
Folwell Folwell 4% 61% 28% 40% 30% 13% 39% 83% 11%
Fuller Tangletown 8% 56% 31% 34% 4% 7% 44% 96% 4%
Harrison Harrison 9% 41% 42% 28% 29% 27% 59% 100% 15%
Hiawatha School Hiawatha 11% 54% 33% 22% 13% 7% 46% 92% 10%
Keewaydin Keewaydin 5% 58% 28% 28% 5% 12% 42% 98% 8%
Kenny Kenny 10% 66% 23% 36% 6% 12% 34% 93% 8%
Kenwood Kenwood 9% 44% 48% 12% 6% 6% 56% 88% 4%
Lake Hiawatha Ericsson 12% 54% 33% 21% 4% 6% 46% 96% 8%
Lake Nokomis Keewaydin 5% 58% 28% 28% 5% 12% 42% 98% 8%
Linden Hills Linden Hills 8% 54% 33% 26% 8% 8% 46% 96%
Logan Logan Park 13% 39% 40% 19% 16% 20% 61% 95% 14%
Longfellow Howe 9% 52% 34% 24% 12% 9% 48% 94% 12%
Loring Loring Park 10% 21% 68% 7% 26% 20% 79% 93% 13%
Luxton Prospect Park- East River Road
5% 38% 24% 16% 44% 21% 62% 91% 7%
Lyndale Farmstead East Harriet 6% 49% 37% 24% 4% 7% 51% 93% 7%
32 | P a g e
Neighborhood
65 Years And Over
Family households
Householder living alone
Households with one or
more children under 18 years
Income Below
Poverty
Language other than
English Nonfamily
households
Occupied housing
units
Population with a
disability
Lynnhurst Lynnhurst 7% 72% 22% 40% 4% 7% 28% 97% 5%
Matthews Seward 13% 36% 49% 21% 30% 32% 64% 94% 13%
McRae Northrop 8% 66% 27% 31% 8% 6% 34% 99% 8%
Morris Morris Park 11% 49% 36% 18% 4% 10% 51% 99% 11%
North Commons Willard - Hay 8% 63% 24% 44% 26% 20% 37% 93% 15%
Painter Lyndale 11% 36% 45% 17% 26% 30% 64% 92% 15%
Pearl Page 6% 70% 19% 36% 6% 5% 30% 97% 6%
Peavey Ventura Village 9% 41% 48% 31% 49% 54% 59% 88% 21%
Pershing Fulton 8% 66% 27% 37% 3% 6% 34% 96% 6%
Phelps Bryant 7% 61% 25% 35% 31% 41% 39% 97% 12%
Phillips Midtown Phillips 3% 64% 25% 45% 25% 51% 36% 96% 15%
Powderhorn Powderhorn Park 4% 58% 26% 38% 20% 34% 42% 95% 10%
Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr
King Field 6% 51% 33% 25% 7% 7% 49% 96% 8%
Sibley Standish 7% 57% 31% 27% 8% 12% 43% 94% 9%
Stewart Midtown Phillips 3% 64% 25% 45% 25% 51% 36% 96% 15%
Van Cleve Como (Minneapolis)
2% 29% 21% 15% 46% 24% 71% 95% 8%
Waite Waite Park 8% 59% 29% 27% 12% 13% 41% 94% 9%
Webber Webber - Camden
10% 57% 36% 37% 32% 16% 43% 95% 13%
Whittier Whittier 4% 28% 54% 17% 24% 30% 72% 95% 11%
Windom Northeast Windom Park 14% 40% 44% 20% 14% 12% 60% 96% 13%
Windom South Windom 9% 58% 30% 35% 14% 14% 42% 97% 7%
Source: 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-year estimates, adjusted to fit current neighborhood boundaries using the 2010 Census
counts. The 5-year estimates represent averages of data collected over that time period.
33 | P a g e
Table 6. Neighborhood Characteristics: Descriptive Stastics
65 Years
And Over
Family
households
Householder
living alone
Households with
one or more
children under 18
years
Income
Below
Poverty
Language
other than
English
Nonfamily
households
Occupied
housing
units
Population
with a
disability
minimum 2% 21% 19% 7% 3% 5% 28% 83% 4%
quartile 25th 6% 42% 27% 21% 7% 9% 39% 93% 8%
quartile2 -median 8% 54% 32% 28% 16% 17% 46% 94% 11%
quartile 75th 10% 61% 40% 36% 28% 30% 59% 96% 14%
maximum 15% 72% 69% 59% 49% 73% 79% 100% 22%
34 | P a g e
Table 7. Neighborhood Characteristics:Neighborhood Detail
65 Years And Over
Family households
Householder living alone
Center Center Center Van Cleve 2% Loring 21% Pearl 19%
Phillips 3% Elliot 21% Van Cleve 21%
Stewart 3% Bryant Square 24% Lynnhurst 22%
Beltrami 4% Whittier 28% Kenny 23%
Whittier 4% Van Cleve 29% North Commons 24%
East Phillips 4% Painter 36% Luxton 24%
Powderhorn 4% Matthews 36% Phillips 25%
Folwell 4% Coyle/Currie 37% Stewart 25%
Bryant Square 5% Luxton 38% Phelps 25%
Luxton 5% Logan 39% Armatage 26%
Keewaydin 5% Windom Northeast 40% Powderhorn 26%
Lake Nokomis 5% Peavey 41% Pershing 27%
Bottineau 6% Harrison 41% McRae 27%
Corcoran 6% Kenwood 44% Keewaydin 28%
Audubon 6% Bottineau 46% Lake Nokomis 28%
Pearl 6% Brackett 47% Folwell 28%
Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr 6% Lyndale Farmstead 49% East Phillips 28%
Lyndale Farmstead 6% Morris 49% Beltrami 28%
Phelps 7% Beltrami 49% Waite 29%
Lynnhurst 7% Audubon 50% Creekview 30%
Sibley 7% Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr 51% Windom South 30%
Farview 7% Longfellow 52% Sibley 31%
Waite 8% Corcoran 53% Fuller 31%
Creekview 8% Lake Hiawatha 54% Bottineau 31%
McRae 8% Linden Hills 54% Lake Hiawatha 33%
North Commons 8% Hiawatha School 54% Hiawatha School 33%
Linden Hills 8% Fuller 56% Linden Hills 33%
Fuller 8% Sibley 57%
Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr 33%
Pershing 8% Webber 57% Audubon 33%
Central 8% Farview 57% Corcoran 34%
Harrison 9% Windom South 58% Longfellow 34%
Longfellow 9% Keewaydin 58% Morris 36%
Kenwood 9% Lake Nokomis 58% Webber 36%
Windom South 9% Powderhorn 58% Lyndale Farmstead 37%
Peavey 9% Waite 59% Farview 39%
Kenny 10% Phelps 61% Logan 40%
Loring 10% Folwell 61% Brackett 40%
Webber 10% North Commons 63% Harrison 42%
Armatage 10% Armatage 63% Windom Northeast 44%
Hiawatha School 11% Phillips 64% Painter 45%
Morris 11% Stewart 64%
35 | P a g e
Brackett 11% Creekview 64% Kenwood 48%
Painter 11% Kenny 66% Peavey 48%
Lake Hiawatha 12% McRae 66% Matthews 49%
Elliot 12% Pershing 66% Coyle/Currie 51%
Matthews 13% East Phillips 66% Bryant Square 53%
Logan 13% Central 67% Whittier 54%
Windom NE 14% Pearl 70% Central 66%
Coyle/Currie 15% Lynnhurst 72% Loring 68%
Elliot 69%
36 | P a g e
Center
Households with one or more children under 18 years Center
Income Below Poverty Center
Language other than English
Loring 7% Pershing 3% Pearl 5%
Bryant Square 9% Fuller 4% McRae 6%
Elliot 9% Lynnhurst 4% Pershing 6%
Kenwood 12% Lake Hiawatha 4% Kenwood 6%
Van Cleve 15% Morris 4% Lake Hiawatha 6%
Luxton 16%
Lyndale Farmstead 4% Lynnhurst 7%
Whittier 17% Keewaydin 5% Hiawatha School 7%
Painter 17% Lake Nokomis 5% Fuller 7%
Morris 18% Kenwood 6% Lyndale Farmstead 7%
Logan 19% Pearl 6%
Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr 7%
Windom NE 20% Kenny 6% Bryant Square 8%
Matthews 21% Armatage 7% Linden Hills 8%
Lake Hiawatha 21% Bryant Square 7% Longfellow 9%
Coyle/Currie 22%
Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr 7% Morris 10%
Hiawatha School 22% Linden Hills 8% Keewaydin 12%
Lyndale Farmstead 24% Sibley 8% Lake Nokomis 12%
Longfellow 24% McRae 8% Sibley 12%
Brackett 24% Longfellow 12% Windom NE 12%
Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr 25% Waite 12% Kenny 12%
Beltrami 25% Audubon 12% Waite 13%
Linden Hills 26% Creekview 13% Folwell 13%
Audubon 26%
Hiawatha School 13% Armatage 13%
Waite 27% Windom South 14% Windom South 14%
Sibley 27% Windom NE 14% Webber 16%
Bottineau 28% Logan 16% Audubon 17%
Keewaydin 28% Brackett 16% Beltrami 17%
Lake Nokomis 28% Corcoran 18% Brackett 18%
Harrison 28% Powderhorn 20% Loring 20%
McRae 31% Bottineau 20% Logan 20%
Peavey 31% Beltrami 22% North Commons 20%
Corcoran 32% Whittier 24% Luxton 21%
Creekview 34% Phillips 25% Corcoran 22%
Fuller 34% Stewart 25% Creekview 23%
Armatage 34% Loring 26% Elliot 24%
Phelps 35% Painter 26% Van Cleve 24%
37 | P a g e
Windom South 35%
North Commons 26% Bottineau 25%
Kenny 36% Central 27% Harrison 27%
Pearl 36% Harrison 29% Whittier 30%
Webber 37% Matthews 30% Painter 30%
Pershing 37% Folwell 30% Farview 31%
Powderhorn 38% Phelps 31% Matthews 32%
Lynnhurst 40% East Phillips 31% Powderhorn 34%
Folwell 40% Webber 32% Phelps 41%
North Commons 44% Farview 37% Central 49%
Farview 45% Elliot 39% Phillips 51%
Phillips 45% Luxton 44% Stewart 51%
Stewart 45% Coyle/Currie 46% Coyle/Currie 51%
Central 46% Van Cleve 46% Peavey 54%
East Phillips 59% Peavey 49% East Phillips 73%
38 | P a g e
Center Nonfamily households Center
Occupied housing units Center
Population with a disability
Lynnhurst 28% Folwell 83% Fuller 4%
Pearl 30% Beltrami 86% Kenwood 4%
East Phillips 34% Elliot 87% Lynnhurst 5%
Pershing 34% Peavey 88% Pershing 6%
McRae 34% Kenwood 88% Pearl 6%
Kenny 34% Farview 88% Linden Hills 6%
Creekview 36% East Phillips 91% Lyndale Farmstead 7%
Phillips 36% Bottineau 91% Luxton 7%
Stewart 36% Luxton 91% Bryant Square 7%
Armatage 37% Armatage 92% Windom South 7%
North Commons 37% Painter 92% Bottineau 7%
Folwell 39% Hiawatha School 92% Kenny 8%
Phelps 39% Loring 93% Van Cleve 8%
Waite 41% Lyndale Farmstead 93% Armatage 8%
Powderhorn 42% Kenny 93% Keewaydin 8%
Keewaydin 42% North Commons 93% Lake Nokomis 8%
Lake Nokomis 42% Brackett 93% Lake Hiawatha 8%
Windom South 42% Creekview 93% McRae 8%
Farview 43% Audubon 8%
Webber 43% Longfellow 94%
Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr 8%
Sibley 43% Coyle/Currie 94% Waite 9%
Fuller 44% Sibley 94% Sibley 9%
Hiawatha School 46% Bryant Square 94% Powderhorn 10%
Linden Hills 46% Central 94% Hiawatha School 10%
Lake Hiawatha 46% Matthews 94% Morris 11%
Corcoran 47% Waite 94% East Phillips 11%
Longfellow 48% Webber 95% Beltrami 11%
Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr 49% Audubon 95% Whittier 11%
Audubon 50% Corcoran 95% Folwell 11%
Beltrami 51% Powderhorn 95% Longfellow 12%
Morris 51% Whittier 95% Phelps 12%
Van Cleve 95% Creekview 12%
Lyndale Farmstead 51% Logan 95% Windom NE 13%
Bottineau 54% Lake Hiawatha 96% Loring 13%
Brackett 56%
Rev Dr Martin Luther King Jr 96% Matthews 13%
Kenwood 56% Phillips 96% Webber 13%
Harrison 59% Stewart 96% Corcoran 14%
39 | P a g e
Peavey 59% Pershing 96% Brackett 14%
Windom NE 60% Linden Hills 96% Central 14%
Logan 61% Fuller 96% Logan 14%
Luxton 62% Windom NE 96% Coyle/Currie 14%
Coyle/Currie 63% Lynnhurst 97% Harrison 15%
Matthews 64% Phelps 97% Phillips 15%
Painter 64% Windom South 97% Stewart 15%
Van Cleve 71% Pearl 97% Painter 15%
Whittier 72% Keewaydin 98% North Commons 15%
Bryant Square 76% Lake Nokomis 98% Elliot 20%
Central 78% Morris 99% Peavey 21%
Elliot 79% McRae 99% Farview 22%
Loring 79% Harrison 100%
40 | P a g e
Table 8. The Perceentage of Residents By Age and Neighborhood.
Neighborhood Under 5
years 5-9
years 10-14 years
15-17 years
18-24 years
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
65-74 years
75-84 years
85 years and older
Armatage 8% 6% 7% 2% 4% 15% 18% 16% 12% 6% 4% 2%
Audubon Park 7% 4% 5% 2% 8% 25% 16% 13% 11% 5% 2% 2%
Beltrami 7% 3% 2% 4% 12% 34% 13% 13% 6% 5% 1% 1%
Near North 11% 12% 10% 6% 13% 16% 12% 11% 7% 5% 2% 1%
Bottineau 7% 6% 2% 4% 13% 30% 17% 8% 7% 3% 1% 1%
Longfellow 7% 5% 6% 2% 6% 22% 16% 15% 14% 7% 3% 2%
CARAG 3% 2% 1% 1% 14% 38% 13% 8% 9% 4% 3% 4%
Central 9% 9% 7% 4% 14% 33% 17% 12% 11% 6% 2% 1%
Corcoran 8% 7% 7% 3% 6% 20% 17% 11% 12% 5% 2% 2%
Cedar Riverside 10% 5% 2% 3% 36% 17% 8% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2%
Shingle Creek 8% 8% 6% 5% 10% 15% 15% 12% 10% 3% 3% 3%
East Phillips 13% 13% 6% 3% 8% 21% 15% 8% 5% 3% 4% 0%
Elliot Park 4% 0% 2% 2% 21% 26% 11% 12% 12% 6% 3% 4%
Hawthorne 8% 11% 12% 6% 10% 13% 14% 12% 8% 4% 1% 1%
Folwell 10% 6% 8% 4% 10% 16% 15% 16% 9% 4% 1% 0%
Tangletown 9% 6% 5% 3% 5% 18% 15% 16% 12% 7% 2% 2%
Harrison 12% 6% 2% 3% 16% 23% 11% 10% 8% 6% 2% 0%
Hiawatha 7% 7% 3% 2% 4% 22% 14% 15% 11% 6% 5% 4%
Keewaydin 9% 5% 3% 2% 3% 25% 14% 13% 16% 4% 6% 1%
Kenny 9% 7% 6% 3% 4% 13% 18% 15% 13% 6% 4% 2%
Kenwood 4% 4% 3% 1% 8% 23% 9% 14% 16% 11% 5% 2%
Ericsson 6% 7% 3% 1% 4% 19% 18% 13% 16% 9% 2% 1%
Keewaydin 9% 5% 3% 2% 3% 25% 14% 13% 16% 4% 6% 1%
Linden Hills 5% 5% 7% 3% 8% 19% 15% 13% 13% 7% 2% 1%
Logan Park 4% 2% 3% 4% 8% 36% 12% 8% 14% 6% 3% 0%
Howe 6% 5% 5% 2% 5% 20% 16% 16% 16% 7% 3% 1%
Loring Park 4% 2% 1% 0% 15% 33% 10% 9% 12% 8% 4% 2%
41 | P a g e
Neighborhood Under 5
years 5-9
years 10-14 years
15-17 years
18-24 years
25-34 years
35-44 years
45-54 years
55-64 years
65-74 years
75-84 years
85 years and older
Prospect Park- East River Road
2% 3% 1% 1% 61% 11% 3% 5% 6% 4% 1% 1%
East Harriet 6% 6% 4% 3% 6% 24% 12% 15% 12% 8% 2% 3%
Lynnhurst 8% 8% 8% 5% 3% 10% 16% 16% 15% 9% 2% 1%
Seward 8% 4% 4% 2% 8% 26% 13% 11% 14% 7% 3% 1%
Northrop 8% 5% 4% 3% 7% 14% 19% 16% 13% 7% 1% 2%
Morris Park 7% 2% 4% 2% 6% 18% 18% 18% 13% 6% 3% 2%
Willard - Hay 9% 8% 9% 6% 12% 15% 13% 12% 7% 5% 3% 1%
Lyndale 2% 6% 7% 2% 16% 21% 16% 12% 8% 6% 3% 1%
Page 7% 4% 5% 4% 4% 15% 15% 22% 12% 8% 3% 0%
Ventura Village 11% 9% 7% 2% 9% 23% 13% 10% 10% 4% 1% 1%
Fulton 8% 8% 7% 3% 3% 10% 19% 16% 15% 7% 3% 1%
Bryant 9% 10% 6% 5% 10% 22% 16% 11% 7% 4% 1% 1%
Midtown Phillips 10% 9% 7% 5% 9% 20% 18% 10% 7% 3% 1% 1%
Powderhorn Park 10% 7% 7% 4% 9% 24% 16% 8% 10% 4% 0% 1%
King Field 6% 5% 4% 3% 7% 26% 14% 15% 12% 6% 2% 1%
Standish 8% 6% 4% 3% 5% 20% 17% 14% 13% 7% 2% 2%
Midtown Phillips 10% 9% 7% 5% 9% 20% 18% 10% 7% 3% 1% 1%
Como (Minneapolis) 1% 5% 4% 1% 40% 27% 6% 7% 5% 2% 1% 0%
Waite Park 9% 4% 3% 2% 7% 26% 13% 12% 14% 5% 3% 2%
Webber - Camden 8% 8% 6% 6% 11% 14% 14% 14% 12% 5% 2% 1%
Whittier 5% 5% 5% 2% 17% 33% 15% 8% 7% 2% 1% 0%
Windom Park 7% 4% 2% 2% 6% 25% 15% 11% 13% 9% 3% 3%
Windom 9% 7% 6% 2% 5% 19% 15% 15% 11% 7% 2% 1%
42 | P a g e
Appendix B: CAC Summit Draft Agenda
Agenda 10/27/17 Presenter Time min APPX 153 min.
Welcome and 10 min warning Tyrize Cox 10
Purpose Tyrize Cox 10
NPP20 large scale change
10
•CAC Work Update
•Rec Quest Jamie Neldner 6
•Northeast Carrie Christensen 3
•North Colleen O’Dell 3
•South Adam Arvidson 3
•Downtown Jennifer Ringold OR Colleen O’Dell 3
•BREAK
10
•Large group activity: Indicators of Equity Stacey Akyea 30
•Hurricane - Program Prioritization Stacey Akyea 20
•Hurricane – Facilities/Assets Stacey Akyea 20
•Hurricane Share Out CACs 20
•Wrap Up – MPRB Staff MPRB staff 10
•Closing Tyrize Cox or Michael Schroeder 5
43 | P a g e
Appendix C: RecQuest Phase II Community Engagement via Focus Groups
Background
• RecQuest is a major effort being undertaken by the Minneapolis Park & Recreation Board to develop and implement a comprehensive recreation center and program assessment and resulting plan to assure that facilities, programs and services align with community needs.
• RecQuest is envisioned as a multi-phased process. Phase I involved both data gathering
and formulation of a set of priority areas to guide MPRB’s subsequent work: o 7 informal listen sessions o 25 Intercepts o 30 neighborhood meetings (total of approximately 300 people) o Survey (500 responses) o 4 priority areas
• The outcomes of Phase I are leveraged in Phase II as a vision for the future of the parks
and recreation programming is constructed. Through continued community engagement, primarily focus groups, focused feedback on the 4 priority areas is gathered across multiple community perspectives.
Priority Areas
Intended Outcome Value to Community
Access to
Equitable
Athletics Value
Provide a range of athletic programs
that supports the current and future
lifestyles, fitness and social needs of
residents.
Insuring that all residents have equitable access to the
forms of athletic programming and facilities that are
convenient, comfortable, appropriate and reflective of
the span of residents within the city.
Prioritize Youth
Development Expand the Youth Development
department and increase program
access
Thoughtful and intentional youth development
programming benefits the city of Minneapolis by
providing more opportunities for youth to be engaged
in activities that develop skills, reinforce positive
behaviors and expand the realm of possibilities for
their future
Equitable
Education
Programs
Provide school age programs that are
stimulating, engaging and inspire
creativity in spaces that are safe for
learning, create positive
environments and encourage peer
support
Engage children holistically in fun experiences that
give them the opportunity to explore the world
around them, develop a sense of wonder and stretch
beyond what is familiar
Active Older
Adults Increase the number and expand the
variety of programs that foster
opportunities, share skills and talents,
and develop a greater sense of
community
Thriving communities are built, maintained and
advanced when all members are valued and
respected. Creating opportunities for
intergenerational connections are of benefit to both
young people and the senior members of our
community
44 | P a g e
Focus Groups • The focus groups are designed to gather community perspectives with regard to the four
priority areas. Focus groups were designed to gather perspectives strategically from community members. Data gathered will be used to refine the priority areas as well as guidance for the vision of future programming.
• At least 10 focus groups will be held.
• Each focus groups is designed to gain a community perspective.
• Each focus group will be schedule for 60 minutes.
• There is a common set of questions for all groups.
• Focus groups will have trained facilitator and representative of MPRB staff.
• Focus group topics prioritize the programming aspect of RecQuest over the assess/facility aspect of the project.
• Questions will be asked of the entire group in sequence.
• Supplemental questions may be asked if time allows.
• All data will be summarized and presented in summary; individuals will not be identified in reporting.
• Participation is entirely voluntary; if discomfort is experienced at any time, focus group participants may leave or discontinue participation.
QUESTIONS
GENERAL QUESTIONS
1. Given the mission: What are some words that you think of when I say parks and recreation centers?/What things communicate to you that the park/facility is welcoming and inviting to you?
2) Closing: Are there particular concerns that are unique to your perspective that park planners need to know? (i.e. practices; gender-specific, separation of or integration of spiritual beliefs, language, ability)
Provide equitable athletic programs Minneapolis residents
Out of school-time Accessible to every
community Sports
Athletic programs may have different meanings
1) What types of athletics would you like to participate in? OR What types of athletics do you think are important for the community to have? 2) What would you need for the types of athletics that you would like to participate in? OR What do you think the community would like? 3) How important are organized team sports? 4) Consider the spaces of a park; do you think there are spaces that would be of particular interest for equitable athletics (spaces include recreation center, kitchen, pool/fitness center, shelters, gym)
45 | P a g e
Provide equitable educational
programs Specific to school-age youth Out of school-time
Accessible to every community
Academic intervention or enrichment
Opportunity to explore and develop sense of wonder
Peer support Craft, hobby, interest
1) What types of educational programs would be of interest? Prompt: Here are some examples educational programs, ….., what are your thoughts about these? Academic, music, video production, digital animation. 2) Think about the best out of school program that you participated in? Why did you like it? Prompt: Instructor, interesting, friends, fun, outdoors, hands-on, etc.
3) How do you decide what kind of program to participate in? Prompts: distance from home, time of day, friends, fee
Expand youth development
access & increase programs
What is a necessity for youth to have in their lives
to develop holistically? Under the age of 18 Develop life skills Reinforce positive
behaviors Expand the realm of
possibilities Social emotional learning
1) What kinds of things do you think young people [OR INSERT AGE GROUP OF CHOICE] need to know or be able to do to be healthy adults? 2) What types of youth programs would be of interest? Prompt: Here are some examples of types development programs, ….., what are your thoughts about these? Mentorship, employment, developmental programs, job readiness (lifeguard, babysitting certification), leadership training 3) Think about the best youth program that you participated in…why did you like it? Prompt: Instructor, interesting, friends, fun, outdoors, hands-on, etc. 4) How do you decide what kind of program to participate in?
Increase active adult programs
Adults 55 and older Foster opportunity
Share talents Foster community
1) What types of programs would you like to participate in? OR What types of programs do you think are important for the community to have for active older adults?
Prompt: Here are some examples of types of programs, ….., what are your thoughts about these? Intergenerational, technology, social media
2) Think about the best adult program that you participated in…why did you like it? 3) What types of programs do you travel for? How far are they? If they were offered in your community would you still travel? 4) Consider the spaces of a park; do you think there are spaces that would be of particular interest for active adult access? (spaces include recreation center, kitchen, pool/fitness center, shelters, gym)
46 | P a g e
By MinnesotanUser - Own work. This image was made by the author, using a cell phone
camera and a computer program., CC BY-SA 4.0,
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=48763493
47 | P a g e
i MPRB, RecQuest Project Overview
(2014).https://www.minneapolisparks.org/_asset/smdc9y/rec_quest_presentation_12-17-2014.pdf
ii RecQuest Phase I Summary Report Draft (2015), MIG, Inc. Ballard*King & Associates, and LHB, Inc.
iii MPRB RecQuest community Advisory Committee Applications. Posted July 17, 2015.
https://www.minneapolisparks.org/news/2015/07/17/801/recquest_community_advisory_committee_appli
cations_now_being_accepted
iv Full documents for Phase I community engagement including notes are found as appendixes chapters of
RecQuest Phase I Summary Report Draft (2015)
v RecQuest Phase I Summary Report Draft (2015), MIG, Inc. Ballard*King & Associates, and LHB, Inc.
