The National Recreation and Park Association has been and continues to be an advocate for park and recreation opportunities for all people, regardless of place of residence or station in life. It will continue to maintain this holistic perspective.

Accordingly, it is the policy of the National Recreation and Park Association and the intent of the Board of Trustees to:

—Examine the Association's existing capacity to effectively analyze and participate in the development of national policies and programs designed to meet specific urban needs.

—Develop a strategy and capacity to give special attention to the need for park and recreation opportunities in and near urban places.

—Suport those national public policies and programs Which will effectively resolve park and recreation deficiencies.

In partial fulfillment of these objectives, the Board of Trustees has adopted the following positions on specific national policy and programmatic options contained in the National Urban Recreation Study. The policy is condensed for this article. The complete text may also be obtained by writing the Great Lakes Regional Office, 600 East Algonquin Road, Des Plaines, Ill. 60016.

POLICY OPTIONS

Objective: DEVELOP A NATIONAL RECREATION POLICY WHICH GIVES FULL RECOGNITION TO THE NEEDS, PROBLEMS, AND OPPORTUNITIES OR URBAN RECREATION AND WHICH PROVIDES A FRAMEWORK TO GUIDE FEDERAL PROGRAMS AFFECTING URBAN RECREATION.

Option: Stimulate discussion of urban recreation directed toward defining a national policy.

Broadly-based discussions will increase public understanding of urban recreation needs and possible courses of action to meet these needs.

Option: Hold a White House Conference on Recreation.

There would be no better means of stimulating national interest in the subject. It would serve as a forum for expression of "grass roots" opinions and suggestions that would be useful to the Administration and the Congress.

We further recommend that a national Commission on Recreation and Lesure be established to systematically examine relevant issues and to provide technical and professional support for a White House Conference.

Option: Initiate a national information campaign on the significance of recreation.

It should emphasize the individual and social values of recreation, among other things.

Option: Establish a Federal recreation ombudsperson to help local governments deal with the State and Federal agencies.

We oppose this option. The net effect would be creation of an additional administrative "unit" with little additional value. We support, however, efforts to more effectively inform local governments of Federal programs and regulations.

The following sub-options are closely related and are supported by NRPA:

1. Re-establish a Federal Recreation Advisory Council chaired by the Vice President...

2. Establish a Federal inter-departmental task force to coordinate all manpower programs that affect recreation.

Option: Implement the Federal Program Information Act (P.L. 95-220) to better inform local agencies of recreation-related programs.

Option: Revise the Office of Management and Budget's Circular A-95 to strengthen requirements for metropolitan coordination and to help insure that all Federal projects, including those which significantly affect urban recreation and open space, are compatible with each other and with regional plans and goals.

We support OMB Circular A-95 in its present form with respect to Federally-assisted State and Local projects. Federal projects should also be subject to full review relative to impact on metropolitan or area-wide park/recreation systems.

Overview:

Illinois Parks and Recreation 36 September/October, 1978

We concur with the National Urban Recreation Study Conclusions:

"If Federal assistance is to more adequately respond to urban recreation needs, restructuring (of selected programs) will be necessary to direct more resources where they are needed the most. Federal efforts should strengthen, rather than preempt, the roles of States and localities in responding to such needs."

The analysis also concludes that: "The greatest urban deficiencies for lands, facilities, and services are still in the Nation's large, older, hard-pressed cities and suburbs." The study also indicates that growing cities also have pressing recreation needs. It is important that the full range of diversity of urban recreation needs not be overlooked in the formulation of policy and programs.

Objective 1: CHANGE THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (P.L. 88-578) TO ADDRESS HIGH PRIORITY URBAN RECREATION NEEDS MORE EFFECTIVELY.

Amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund to:

Option 1: Provide direct Federal assistance to local jurisdictions without going through the States.

The Association opposes this strategy. Almost without exception, state and local park and recreation officials at NRPA workshops favored continuing the present procedure whereby LWCF grants are made to local governments through the states. Reasons for this position include:

—Many local governments could not compete successfully on a nationwide basis.

—Bypassing the State could mean bypassing the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan process.

While the performance of some States in distributing LWCF resources leaves much to be desired, we feel that the proper strategy is to correct these weaknesses rather than to eliminate the States from the process.

Option: Increase the State's share of the Fund allocation from a maximum of 60% to 75%.

We recommend amending the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act to guarantee that the State/local share of the Fund be not less than a fixed percentage. A range of 60% to 75% of the present funding level appears to be necessary to reasonably address State/local needs.

Option: Allow the funding of indoor recreation facilities.

The relative priority of public recreation space and facility requirements should be determined in the context of local and statewide needs assessments and in planning processes. The LWCF Act should allow discretionary use for identified priority needs, including indoor facilities. (The impact of this option would be limited to the policies and practices of each individual state and each state plan.) Needs assessments should include a full analysis of the potential use of existing community facilities, including multiple use of schools, prior to utilization of LWCF for indoor facilities. The Association strongly recommends that utilization of LWCF resources for facility development be consistent with the best available technology for energy conservation.

Option: Increase the Federal matching share to 75% of the total share in core-city areas of identified high need.

We recommend, however, that this strategy not be limited to core-city areas, since there are other areas of high need where additional Federal support could be justified. Further, we urge State governments to subsidize local matching requirements where a high need is demonstrated.

Adopt selected administrative changes in the LWCF program.

Option: Give priority to a substantial portion of the Secretary's Contingency Fund for meeting identified neighborhood recreation needs or for urban projects developed jointly by local jurisdictions and States.

Option: Provide the means for advance approval of grant proposals for large areas which involve multi-jurisdictional, multi-agency or public-private cooperation.

Options (3): Utilize recently mandated annual evaluations of each State's LWCF program to encourage better statewide distribution of allocations on a per capita basis.

Require States to make full assessments of the recreation delivery systems in large urban areas as part of Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans.

Require States to remove administrative constraints to funding of urban projects.

We support these three related options and believe they should be carried out as parts of the SCORP process. They reflect our basic belief that the SCORP, if creatively and effectively developed and administered, can significantly contribute to the improvement of urban recreation opportunities and at the same time be responsive to state-wide concerns.

Option: Provide increased State technical assistance to local governments.

The States should provide appropriate and necessary technical assistance to local governments. However, we do not favor special grants from the LWCF for this purpose.

The language under this option suggests that "States might be required, in order to receive LWCF funds for technical assistance to develop a priority analysis of local government needs in the parks, recreation, and conversation fields..."

We believe that this could and should be carried out as part of the SCORP process or through other state programs. We believe technical aid to local governments is a legitimate part of a State's responsibility in the preparation and maintenance of an adequate plan. The SCORP can be funded in part by planning grants to the State.

Objective: MODIFY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM (P.O. 93-383), AS AMENDED, TO IMPROVE ITS USE FOR PARK AND RECREATION PURPOSES.

continued on page 32

Illinois Parks and Recreation 37 September/October, 1978

NRPA In Action

Continued from page 37

We support amendments to the Community Development Act and related regulations which provide appropriate focus on park and recreation systems. These changes should require, among other things, that communities which receive CDBG funds for any purpose have an up-to-date comprehensive park/recreation plan. Application of CDBG funds for, say, housing, should require provision of a recreation component.

We further recommend that special park and recreation districts be directly eligible for Community Development Block Grants. Since such districts can and do provide comprehensive urban recreation opportunities in many metropolitan areas, it is shortsighted to deny residents of these districts those benefits which can accrue from use of CDBG funds.

Option: Improve existing uses of CDBG for parks and recreation by improving coordination and technical assistance and by providing funds for developing implementation strategies.

Require inter-agency review of CDBG projects at the local level with participation of park and recreation representatives to encourage and facilitate integration of park and recreation into all community development projects.

We believe this option has substantial merit. Participation by park and recreation officials in such a review could help recreation receive a higher priority in the allocation of CDBG funds by local governments.

Objective: ADMINISTER THE GENERAL REVENUE SHARING PROGRAM (P.L. 92-512 AMENDED BY P.L. 94-488) TO ENCOURAGE EFFECTIVE COORDINATION OF RECREATION WITH OTHER MUNICIPAL SERVICES IN LOCAL ALLOCATION OF FUNDS.

As with the CDBG program, we recommend that special park districts be made directly eligible to receive funds under the State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act.

Option: Establish a new categorical grant program for recreation programs and services only.

We support this option with the proviso that grants must be oriented to meet special conditions and be on a decreasing scale over a specific period of time. The program should not cover routine operation and maintenance or be used to merely supplement regular staff.

Options (4) Expand development and use of recreation facilities through tax incentives to the private sector.

Amend the Internal Revenue Code to allow commercial recreation enterprises which provide their services at no cost through public agencies to claim, as a charitable deduction, the full face value of services provided.

Increase tax incentives for private development of employee recreation facilities in industrial, commercial, and office buildings. Provide tax incentives to industries which open their recreation facilities to the public.

Objective: MAKE OPEN SPACE RECLAMATION REHABILITATION AN INTEGRAL ELEMENT OF THE TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT OF DECAYED URBAN AREAS.

We strongly support this objective. The reclamation and rehabilitation of existing and potential recreation lands and facilities should be an integral part of the overall efforts to restore decayed urban areas. We support this aspect of the Administration's proposed comprehensive urban strategy announced March 27.

Undertake a new Federal assistance program for rehabilitation of large urban parks with regional or national significance.

We strongly support such a rehabilitation program and urge that the specifics of the program be carefully tailored to meet only the most pressing identified urban recreation needs. The new program should be carefully coordinated with the Land and Water Conservation Fund and other Federal programs to insure that new funds are not merely substituted for expenditures that could or should appropriately be made from the Land and Water Conservation Fund or other programs, including the Community Development Block Grant Program.

Utilize existing and abandoned utility and circulation corridors for recreation.

We consider this option extremely important and believe that efforts of this nature deserve much greater attention than they have received in the past.

Conversion of abandoned railroad rights-of-way, for instance, is a never-to-be-repeated opportunity to provide important and highly cost-efficient recreation benefits in many urban areas.

There is also great potential benefit in the joint use for recreation of water pollution control facilities, particularly the placement of urban trails on interceptor-sewer rights-of-way. Such joint use is authorized and encouraged by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, as amended.

Objective: ENCOURAGE AND SUPPORT MORE EFFECTIVE USE OF PHYSICAL COMMUNITY RESOURCES THROUGH JOINT USE OF SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY CENTERS, AND PRIVATE FACILITIES.

Option: Encourage local governments to make better use of school facilities for public recreation.

The Association strongly supports the thrust of this objective. We have long believed that the non-availability of many public school facilities for public recreation during non-school hours is a disgrace. Every possible action should be taken to correct this situation through cooperative planning, financing and programming of educational facilities. Minor amendments in Federal aid to education laws could increase enormously both indoor and outdoor urban recreation opportunities.

The Community Schools Act of 1974 is not effective in terms of encouraging or providing comprehensive public recreation opportunities.

Illinois Parks and Recreation 32 September/October, 1978