August 2017 - Parks & Recreation - 53

t's safe to say this past presidential election has been unlike any other in recent memory.
Wall-to-wall coverage of political rallies, debates and even candidates' tweets permeated every layer of the American consciousness. Largely missing from this presidential
preoccupation was the critical importance of electing officials charged with leading local governments (i.e., council members, commissioners, mayors). As the saying goes, policy
decisions made at the local level often have the most direct impact on a citizen's life.
The business of local government,
however, is not only carried out by elected officials, but also by those who are
appointed or hired to fulfill specific jobs
or duties. Common appointed officials
within local governments include town
or city managers, county administrators
and department or division chiefs. Together, local elected and appointed officials are the individuals most responsible
for setting policy and distributing revenues to a variety of public services. Quite
often, local officials are required to make
difficult fiscal trade-offs when drafting
and approving municipal budgets.
As John L. Crompton, distinguished
professor of Recreation, Park and Tourism at Texas A&M University, argued,
for park and recreation services to be
prioritized in the local government budgetary process, they must be perceived by
decision makers as an essential service
that addresses critical problems facing
communities. If park and recreation services are not viewed as a potential solution to community problems, they run
the risk of being viewed as " nice to have

if they can be afforded. " This predicament is particularly troubling when local governments experience fiscal stress
(i.e., a decline in revenues or a shrinking
tax base). Emerging evidence indicates
during times of economic stress, local
government investments in park and recreation services decline disproportionately to other governmental services.
Given the influence local officials wield
in shaping and approving municipal budgets, there is remarkably little scientific
evidence concerning their opinions regarding local park and recreation services. To
our knowledge, only one research project
has broached this topic systematically. In
a 2002 survey of California governmental
officials, the California
Department of Parks
and
Recreation
Planning Division
found
governmental leaders

possessed generally positive opinions about
park and recreation services. In particular,
leaders agreed park and recreation services
were valued by their residents because they
provide safe, wholesome and fun activities
for families. Leaders also strongly believed
park and recreation areas increase the value
of residential and commercial property values. However, many questions remain: Do
local officials believe parks and recreation
provide benefits that address critical community needs? What level of priority do
these officials place on park and recreation
investment (of both facilities and other
funding priorities)? Finally, do elected and
appointed officials value and prioritize park
and recreation services differently?
A Pennsylvania Perspective
In 2014, we conducted a study to address
these questions for Pennsylvania. Working in cooperation with the Pennsylvania
Department of Conservation and Natural
Resources, as well as four state-level professional associations, an online survey was
distributed to a diverse sample of appointed

W W W. PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N . O R G | A U G U S T 2 0 1 7 |

Parks & Recreation

August 2017 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of August 2017 - Parks & Recreation