(Un)intended Consequences

Jane H. Adams, Executive DirectorCalifornia Park & Recreation Society

www.cprs.org jane@cprs.org

Disclaimer

The opinions expressed in this presentation belong to the presenter after research (to identify the facts), asking others, and listening to many.

Californians Value Parks • 98% of California’s households visit a park at least once a year; 2/3rd

visit at least once a month.

• 50% of California’s households participate in an organized recreation or park program.

• “Parks” are very different than “programs;” and each has many different components that describe what is a “park” or a “program.”

• The benefits of parks are not the benefits of programs.

• Users & elected officials easily identify benefits to them personally, their family & friends.

Now in Parks & Recreation

• Parks / Recreation receiving less general fund support– 53% in 2012 - 57% in 2010– 40% cut park acquisition; 57% cut development

• Parks / Recreation receiving less non general fund support– 37% in 2012 - 46% in 2010 – 40% non general fund $$ from fees/charges

• Few agencies have autonomous taxing authority

Now in Parks & Recreation

• Parks / Recreation experiences greater reductions than other departments – 37% in 2012; 33% in 2010

• Cost recovery range from 0% to 100%; mostly over 40%

• Don’t expect budget situation to change until FY 15/16

“We have had our budget reduced by over ½ in past few years; in FY 11/12 council waived many athletic youth group and school district fees.”

Now in Parks & Recreation

• Less FTE / PTE personnel– Fewer programs, special events, classes – Reduced operating hours; 64% reduced access to

facilities– Little change to park access– No new staff in spite of new facilities / parks – Changed park maintenance standards

(Un)intended Consequences

Declining quality of life of residents– Parks / air quality– Parks / physical health– Parks / youth development– Parks / mental health– Parks / social health

Where You Live is Important “The obesity epidemic is a multi-faceted issue that reflects changes in our

social, economic, and built environments over many years. It is an issue that will require innovative actions, a shared vision, and a collaborative approach to resolve.” (CA Obesity Prevention Plan, 2010)

1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 children

1 2 3 teens

1 2 adults

Proportionally higher obesity rates are residents of Latino, American Indian, African American, & Pacific Islander descent, those from low income households and those with disabilities.

West LA: 3 in 10 adults

South LA:7 in 10 adults

Impact of Obesity

Children– Type 2 Diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, asthma – Vitamin D deficiency (reversed by 10-15 min of sun)– Predicts likelihood of obesity as an adult (70-80%)– Increased likelihood of emotional & social problems

• Lack of friends / support networks• Behavior problems in schools / community• Feelings of depression / inadequacy

Adults- Hypertension, Type 2 diabetes- Cancers, mobility due to osteoarthritis- Cardiovascular disease - Greater chance of institutional living due to health

What Green DoesMore Green Less Green

Community Impact More positive social interactionGreater shared use of spaceResidents desire more connection with others Stronger neighborhood ties; sense of communityMore mutual trustWilling to help othersIncreased property values

More aggressionViolence Violent crimeProperty crimeGraffitiLess people on the streetLess walkingFear Decreased property value

Individual Impact Better cognitive functioningMore self discipline / impulse control Greater mental healthGreater resilienceSupport high levels of physical activity

Attention deficitMore sadnessClinical depressionProne to stress / anxietyGreat risk of childhood obesityHigher mortality of young / older adults

(Un)intended Consequences • Increase neighborhood blight

– Research links violence to reduced healthy eating & active living – Fear, neglect, graffiti– No one “cares” – why should I?– Residents detach from neighborhood / community / each other

• Decrease in property values / property tax revenue • Degradation of natural environment

– Decline of plants, soil, turf, trees, climate change • Decrease life span of facility

– Roofs, irrigation, pools, restrooms, pavilions, tennis courts, trails

(Un)intended Consequences • Reduced supervision = opportunity for malfeasance, personnel

conflicts, contract failure• Increased safety issues for personnel & residents

– Accidents, claims, legal actions, insurance costs, equipment failure; reduce / close facilities

• Increased time to get the work done / resident complaints – Less staff / increased time to repair, fix, replace, higher costs

• Impact to children/youth – Morbidity / chronic disease – Crime / mischief between 3-6 pm / unsupervised– Childhood stress – Disassociation

What Californians Value

Preservation of, and access to,outdoor spaces

Minimal development / nearly natural state

Spaces with facilities for play, exercise, and group sports

Activities & programs targeted to juveniles that are healthy, safe & fun

Children are free to play & be active

What Californians Value

Activities to facilitate social & community connections & advance human development

What Californians Value

• *

What Californians Value

Outdoor spaces for play & exercise

Serenity and awe of nature

now…and in the future

What Californians Value

Insights • Break the silos! P/R, transit,

planning, food advocates, public health, public works, health providers, CBOs, schools, business

• Focus! Improve walkability, access to parks/open space, recreational facilities, joint use of schools and neighborhood safety

• Fail! To succeed: encourage / reward creativity, trials, failures

• Leverage: resources & people • Get a compelling vision • Research! Many promising

practices • Remember! Parks / Recreation

contributes to your resident’s social, mental, & physical health

It’s Not About US…it’s About THEM!