12   I l l i n o i s   P a r k s   &   R e c r e a t i o n   www.ILipra.org

how illinoisans feel about their park districts STATEWIDE ASSESSMENT REVEALS CITIZEN PERSPECTIVES by Michael A. Mulvaney, Ph.D., William R. McKinney, CPRP, Ph.D., Cary McDonald, Ph.D., and Robin Hall, CPRP What do Illinoisans think about their park districts? How often are Illinois parks, programs and facilities used by the residents of Illinois? Are residents satisfied with their park districts compared to other units of local government? How effective are park districts in their operations? What are residents' opinions concerning consolidation of local government, including park districts? The answers to these questions are important to Illinois park districts as they evaluate current practices and provide direction for the future provision of programs, resources and facilities to best meet the interests of their constituencies. Results also provide the opportunity for park districts to act collectively in addressing issues that surround all of Illinois park districts. In response to this need, the Illinois Association of Park Districts and the Office of Recreation and Park Resources at the University of Illinois conducted a statewide evaluation study of Illinois park districts entitled Illinois Park Districts: Citizen Perspectives.

www.ILparks.org    J u l y  /  A u g u s t  2008   13

A random sample of 302 households residing within park district areas in Illinois participated in the evaluation. In particular, the study sought to address the following questions:

1. What are the household usage patterns of park districts?
2. Are Illinois residents satisfied with park district services and how do park districts compare to other units of local government?
3. How effective are park district operations?
4. Can park and recreation services be better provided by a park district or by a consolidated form of local government (e.g., city, village, county, etc.)?

Study Methodology

A well respected sampling firm, Survey Sampling, generated a random sample of 1,100 households in the state of Illinois to participate in the study. The sample was then adjusted to include only those households that lived in a county with a park district. As a result, fifty-eight households were removed from the sample as they resided in a county without a park district, yielding an adjusted sample size of 1,042 households. Final adjustments to the sample included removing households who lived in a county with a park district, but did not reside within a park district boundary, wrong address, etc. This process resulted in a final sample size of 958 households.

All of the households in the sample were sent a questionnaire that addressed the objectives of the study. To improve response rates, nonrespondents were sent reminder postcards and a second questionnaire. Data collection occurred from July to October 2006. The data collection process yielded 302 usable questionnaires (a 32% response rate), producing a precision of at least +/-5% (i.e., the true population value is within +/-5% of the sample value). To address the potential for nonresponse bias (i.e., that the respondents' views would be different from the views of those who chose not to respond), phone interviews were conducted with 50 of the nonrespondents. The phone interviews found little difference between the respondents and nonrespondents, providing further support for the generalizability of the study's findings.

Household Usage Patterns of Park Districts

First, the study sought to capture an understanding of park district usage by Illinois residents. According to the results of the study, park districts serve as the primary providers of park and recreation programs, facilities and park areas for residents. In fact, 76% of those surveyed indicated using park districts within the last year (see the figure below). The next most commonly used recreation provider was other public providers, such as forest preserves and conservations districts (65%).

If over three-fourths of Illinois residents surveyed rely on park districts for recreation, then what particular services are they using? When asked about areas of participation and rates, 77% of those surveyed indicated visiting at least one park district park area in the last year, 60% of the Illinois residents used a park district facility, and 48% of the respondents participated in park district programs within the last year.

Residents' Use of Park and Recreation Providers

ILLINOIS PARK DISTRICTS
Local Government Meeting People's Needs
Illinois park districts:

• Offer affordable recreational opportunities to their communities
• Protect open space
• Actively promote weliness in their communities
• Partner effectively with businesses and other local governments
• Increase property values

www.ILparks.org

• Serve people with disabilities

Source: Illinois Park Districts; Citizen Perspectives, a report of the Universit of Illinois Office of Recreation and Park Resources, Department of Recreation, Sport and Tourism, March 2007.

14   I l l i n o i s   P a r k s   &   R e c r e a t i o n   www.ILipra.org

ILLINOIS PARK DISTRICTS Local Government that People Value Illinoisans value the services they receive from their park districts more highly than local transit, planning, streets and school services.

Satisfaction with Public Services www.ILparks.org

Resident Satisfaction with Park Districts

Clearly, Illinoisans are using park district services, but how satisfied are they with these services? According to the survey results, 88% of households are satisfied with their park district. Households were then asked about their satisfaction with five specific park district functions: programs (88%), facilities (89%), park areas (88%), staff (88%) and mission/purpose of the district (77%).

The study was also interested in examining residents' satisfaction with park district operations compared to other units of local government. Residents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the following units: parks and recreation, police, library, fire protection, streets/sewers, public schools, mass transit and city planning. Resident satisfaction with public agencies resulted in the following descending order of satisfaction: fire protection (96%), library (92%), police (90%) and park and recreation services (88%), while approximately three-fourths of residents were satisfied with streets and sewers (77%) and public schools (72%).

Effectiveness of Park District Operations

Residents were asked to evaluate park districts on a variety of functions (see the figure on page 16). The findings suggest park district operations are

ILLINOIS PARK DISTRICTS Local Government Meeting People's Needs Families relax, learn and get healthy together at Illinois park districts.

Rating the Benefits of Park District Programs www.ILparks.org

perceived most effective in the following areas: informing the community of its recreation programs and activities (74%), offering affordable recreational opportunities for the residents of the community (73%), protecting open space (66%), attention to improving health and wellness in the community (59%) and serving people with disabilities (57%). In contrast, park district functions rated as least effective included working with other units of local government (44%), partnerships/sponsorships with private business (38%) and involving the community in the planning of future projects (38%).

ILLINOIS PARKS DISTRICTS
Local Government that People Value
Nearly nine out of every 10 Illinois households are satisfied with their local park district.

www.ILparks.org    J u l y  /  A u g u s t  2008   15

Of additional interest is the large proportion of residents (ranging from 9% to 48%, depending on the park district function) that indicated they did not know the effectiveness of the park district operation. For example, a significant number of residents did not know whether park districts were effectively working with other units of local government or at developing partnerships with private businesses. These findings are rather alarming considering the increased attention and reliance on intergovernmental agreements and partnering that has occurred and continues to occur in park district operations. These functions are becoming increasingly important as budgets and availability of land for recreation and park development decrease while the demands for more programs and park areas increase. As a result, it appears park districts need to be more active in promoting their collaborative efforts with local public and private organizations.

Park and Recreation Services: Park Districts vs. Consolidated Government

Finally, residents were asked to consider the issue of consolidated government. In particular, could park and recreation services be better provided by a park district or a form of consolidated government? The results of the study found strong support for the value of park districts as providers of recreation programs, facilities and park areas within a community. In fact, 90% of those surveyed felt that park and recreation services are best provided by a park district and almost 75% felt that park districts allow the greatest opportunity for community input compared to services provided by a city or village government. These findings are supported by the research of Lisa M. Card, who, in a 2004 article published in the Thomas Jefferson Law Review, identified the value of special purpose districts, such as park districts, in providing opportunities for community engagement. More specifically, involvement with special district government provides great developmental opportunities for individuals who have limited experience with the democratic process. These special districts have enabled residents to acquire the skills and attitudes necessary to become more informed policymakers and have acquainted them with the methods of the democratic processes of government.

When asked specifically about consolidation, a majority of respondents believed that park and recreation services would suffer if consolidated with city, village or county government. In contrast, only 10% of residents felt that park and recreation services would improve with a consolidated government. These results are also consistent with Kathryn A. Foster's research on specialization in government published in 1996, which indicated the quality and quantity of special district services have been higher and more cost-effective than general purpose governments. Furthermore, additional studies found that communities with special district governments provided citizens with a wider range of service providers and made stronger contributions to the community's quality of life than communities without special districts.

16   I l l i n o i s   P a r k s   &   R e c r e a t i o n   www.ILipra.org

Districts Need to Spread the Word

Overall, these findings suggest park districts play a prominent role in the provision of leisure opportunities for Illinois residents. Park districts appear to be the most popular leisure service provider for residents with almost 8 out of 10 residents regularly using park areas for recreation. In addition to using park district facilities, programs and park areas, residents are also highly satisfied with park district staff, programs, facilities and park areas. Park districts were also ranked favorably with library and police services and slightly higher than streets and sewers, public schools, city planning and mass transit. Results also suggest residents believe park and recreation operations are effective and best served by a park district rather than some form of consolidated government. Taken collectively, it appears park district services are well supported and well used within Illinois communities.

Despite the strong presence and support for Illinois park districts, the study suggests park districts collectively need to do a better job of informing their publics about some of their services. For example, park districts need to let their constituencies know about their work with other units of local government and private businesses. Collaborative efforts, such as partnerships with other local agencies, have become commonplace within park district operations and planning to successfully meet residents' demands. This need to do more with less, while meeting increasing demands from residents, has created an increased reliance on partnerships and intergovernmental agreements. Building awareness through such activities as marketing and promotional campaigns is needed to create a better informed public.

Dr. Michael. A. Mulvaney
is an assistant professor in the department of recreation administration at Eastern Illinois University. You can e-mail him at mamulvaney@eiu.edu.

Dr. William R. McKinney
is an associate professor in the department of recreation, sport and tourism at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. You can e-mail him at wmmck@uiuc.edu.

Dr. Cary McDonald
is an associate professor and the head of the department of recreation, sport and tourism at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. You can e-mail him at carym@uiuc.edu.

www.ILparks.org    J u l y  /  A u g u s t  2008   17