The 2016 Report Card on Parks: Spotlight on the Community Parks Initiative

Home , Barretto Point Park, Betsy Head Park, Brower Park, Concrete Plant Park, Elmhurst Park, Jackie Robinson Park

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ❁ i Orchard Beach, the Bronx

ii ✿ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Table of Contents

2 Introduction to the Report Card on Parks 3 Map of Survey Sites 4 Report Card on Parks Survey 6 Scores 6 Feature Scores 10 Feature Findings 12 The Bronx 14 Brooklyn 16 Manhattan 18 Queens 20 Staten Island 22 Park Findings 24 Recommendations 28 Appendices 28 Park Exterior Scores 28 Weekend Scores 29 Detailed Methodology

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ❁ 1 Introduction to the Report Card on Parks The Report Card on Parks is the only independent, citywide evaluation of the maintenance and conditions of New York City’s public parks.

In 2003, New Yorkers for Parks (NY4P) For the latest Report Card on Parks: released the first Report Card on Parks, Spotlight on the Community Parks an award-winning, data-driven evaluation Initiative, NY4P returns to evaluating of the maintenance conditions of play- neighborhood parks, sized between 1 and grounds, small and large parks, beaches, 20 acres, for the first time since 2008. and turf fields. Over the past fourteen Unlike the larger, high-profile parks in years, we have published thirteen Report New York City, neighborhood parks are Cards, evaluating almost 300 parks, and often solely dependent on public fund- covering thousands of acres of parkland. ing and, as previous Report Cards have documented, often receive inadequate The Report Card on Parks was designed maintenance attention. between 1992 and 2013. Additionally, NY4P designed the 2016 Report Card to to achieve the following goals: the agency identified priority zones: focus on the maintenance conditions of Neighborhood parks in New York City 55 neighborhoods that are densely pop- the neighborhood parks, between 5 and • Provide an independent assessment are the subject of renewed attention and ulated, growing, and home to a high- 20 acres in size, in priority zones. These of park performance against defined reinvestment under the administration of er-than-average percentage of families parks were too large to be included in maintenance benchmarks. Mayor Bill DeBlasio. NYC Parks Com- with incomes below the poverty line. In CPI’s transformative model. 35 parks missioner Mitchell Silver announced the all, 134 parks were identified as having meet NY4P’s criteria for inclusion, and • Highlight high-performing parks, administration’s commitment to equity extreme capital, or big-budget, needs were surveyed for this report. Trained drawing attention to the lessons we in parks, the Community Parks Initiative within the priority zones.1 To date, invest- field researchers visited and assessed these can learn from their successful (CPI), in 2014. CPI identifies 55 priority ment commitments made in CPI zones parks, collecting thousands of data points maintenance and upkeep. park investment zones across New York has been limited to parks that are small on conditions and maintenance. NY4P’s City’s five boroughs, and has funded the in size – less than five acres, on average. analysis of these true neighborhood parks • Shine a spotlight on low-performing redesign and reconstruction of 47 parks in CPI priority zones will help agency parks, drawing attention to immediate within the first two years of the program. and elected officials continue to prioritize maintenance issues and encouraging a NYC Parks followed a data-driven process maintenance and capital improvements in more efficient and equitable distribution to determine which parks to invest in. The the communities that need them the most. of limited resources towards the parks agency analyzed 20 years of capital invest- that are most in need. ment data for parks citywide, identifying 215 parks across the city that received less 1 “NYC Parks: Framework for an Equitable Future,” than a quarter million dollars ($250,000) 2014, pp 12, 14.

2 ✿ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Introduction to the Report Card on Parks 2016 Report Card on Parks: Map of Survey Sites

BRONX MANHATTAN LEGEND 1. Aqueduct Walk 19. Col. Young Playground • Survey sites 2. 20. n New York City Parks Barretto Point Park Harlem River Park 1 3. Bridge Park 21. Jackie Robinson Park n Community Parks 22 3 8 4. Concrete Plant Park 22. J. Hood Wright Park Initiative Zones 21 7 4 5. 23. 23 5 Mill Pond Park Riverside Park (135th to 19 6 6. Rainey Park 153rd Streets) 20 2 7. 24. Starlight Park Sara D. Roosevelt Park 25 8. Tremont Park 25. Thomas effersonJ Park 26. Tompkins Square Park 31 BROOKLYN 9. Betsy Head Park QUEENS 10. 27. Breukelen Ballfields Beach 9 Playground 26 11. Brower Park 28. Beach 17 Playground 30 24 13 12. Bushwick Inlet Park 29. Beach 30th Street Playground 12 13. Cooper Park 30. Elmhurst Park 14 17 14. Herbert Von King Park 31. Hallets Cove Playground 18 15. Lincoln Terrace Park 11 9 16. Lindower Park STATEN ISLAND 15 10 17. Maria Hernandez Park 32. Cpl. Thompson arkP 18. 33. 32 St. John’s Recreation Center Heritage Park 33 34. Von Briesen Park 35. Walker Park 35 16

34 28 27 29

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ❁ 3 The Survey

This report builds on New Yorkers for Parks’ award- LETTER GRADES winning Report Card on Parks survey methodology, Each park received a feature score (0 to 100) for each of the 12 features present in first implemented in 2003. the survey zones. Parks were not penalized if they did not contain all 12 features. In 2005, the Report Card on Parks SURVEY SCHEDULE Feature scores were then aggregated and received a Community Indicators Award Survey work was conducted in the weighted to arrive at an overall park score from the Community Indicators Con- summer months of 2015, beginning in of 0 to 100. A detailed accounting of the sortium, a program of the Brookings late June of 2015, and concluded in late scoring methodology can be found in the Institution’s Urban Markets Initiative. A August. Surveyors, working in teams of Appendix. Overall park numerical scores full discussion of the methodology can at least two, visited parks between 10am correspond to the following letter grade be found in the Detailed Methodology and 5pm on Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and conversions: section of this report. Thursdays. Surveyors did not visit parks the day after the Fourth of July to allow Grades PARK SELECTION NYC Parks staff time to clean after holiday Raw Numerical Grade Letter Grade The Report Card on Parks: Spotlight on celebrations. A subset of parks was re-sur- 97-100 A+ the Community Parks Initiative surveys veyed on Saturdays, between 10 a.m. and 93-96 A NYC Department of Parks and Recreation 5 p.m. The results of those evaluations can 90-92 A- (NYC Parks) properties between 5 and be found in the Appendix of this report, 87-89 B+ 20 acres in size in the 55 CPI zones. The on page 28. 83-86 B following types of properties were removed 80-82 B- from the study: highway properties, un- SURVEY PROTOCOL 77-79 C+ developed parkland, islands, golf courses, The Report Card on Parks examines 12 73-76 C marshes, beaches, and forests. The final categories of park features: athletic fields, 70-72 C- survey universe includes 35 parks, listed bathrooms, courts, drinking fountains, 60-69 D on the previous page. immediate environment, lawns, natural 59 and below F areas, pathways, playgrounds, sitting areas, trees, and water bodies. Each feature is evaluated for performance in four categories: maintenance, cleanliness, safety, and structural integrity. Surveyors record feature assessments on tablet computers and provide photographic documentation for each unique feature evaluation.

4 ✿ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Scores

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ❁ 5 Feature Scores

The Report Card on Parks assesses the conditions of 12 features within each of the 35 parks in our survey. During a typical field visit, surveyors evaluate the condition of each bathroom, court, drinking fountain, field, lawn, natural area, playground, and sitting area. Surveyors evaluate the park-wide condition of trees, pathways, and water bodies.

This section discusses the performance of park features across the 35 parks surveyed, Grades Athletic Fields Bathrooms citing the conditions and areas that scored Raw Numerical Grade Letter Grade poorly, and that are therefore in greatest 97-100 A+ 69 76 need of attention. These scores consider 93-96 A each feature form individually, providing 90-92 A- a system-wide grade for each park feature. 87-89 B+ As combined scores, these figures mask 83-86 B considerable variability in the performance 80-82 B- of features from park to park. Nonethe- 77-79 C+ 73-76 C less, they provide a high-level view of the Harlem River Park Bushwick Inlet Park Lindower Park Mill Pond Park systemic conditions in parks, whether 70-72 C- good or bad. 60-69 D The athletic fields score reflects the The bathrooms score reflects the conditions 59 and below F conditions found at natural grass, asphalt, found at each bathroom, often called and synthetic fields for sports like soccer, comfort stations by NYC Parks. football, and baseball. Two out of every five bathrooms evaluated The most common problems with athletic had stall doors that could not lock. Bath- fields were general maintenance needs. rooms had clear day-to-day maintenance Nearly a quarter of natural grass fields issues, as well. One in five bathrooms did had unacceptable bench and bleacher not have sufficient toilet paper. One third conditions. Two thirds of asphalt fields of all bathrooms did not have sufficient had extensive cracking and weed growth hand soap or sanitizer present. One in five on the playing surfaces. Almost half of bathrooms had unacceptable foul odors synthetic turf fields exhibited maintenance and/or dirty conditions. needs like loose seams or areas where the surfacing has worn away.

6 ❀ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Courts Drinking Fountains Immediate Environment Lawns 84 55 90 76

Maria Hernandez Park Harlem River Park Col. Young Park Breukelen Ballfields Bridge Park Tompkins Square Park Tompkins Square Park Barretto Point Park

The courts score reflects the conditions The drinking fountains score reflects the con- The immediate environment score reflects The lawns score reflects conditions found at found at all outdoor basketball, handball, ditions found at each drinking fountain. surveyor evaluations of how well a park is in- all lawns, landscaped areas, and gardens, as tennis, bocce, volleyball and hockey facilities. sulated from potential negative impacts from well as the conditions of trees found within Two out of every five drinking fountains its surroundings. Intrusive odors, emissions, lawns, landscaped areas, and gardens. Half of the courts surveyed showed poor autofailed due to thoroughly unsafe, exhaust, and excessive noise are monitored, general maintenance conditions. Cracked unclean, or inoperable conditions. Some and park access is taken into consideration. 28% of the areas surveyed had unaccept- surfaces and holes, creating dangerous drinking fountains had multiple negative able conditions, such as patches of over- trip hazards, affected 16% of the courts. A conditions that would independently One in five parks was found to be grown grass, discolored grass, or bare earth. third of all courts lacked basic equipment cause the feature to autofail. 17% of the negatively affected by disruptive noise One in five areas was infested with weeds, such as basketball nets. fountain basins showed evidence of algae emanating from the park’s exterior, such had trees that were not in good condi- or other unsanitary substances. 15% of as highway, truck, train, or construction tion, and/or was impaired by dangerous the fountains were blocked by standing noise pollution. Surveyors noticed noxious amounts of broken glass. Two in five areas water or other debris. One in five foun- odors surrounding almost 20% of the had general unresolved maintenance issues, tains showed signs of needing mainte- parks surveyed. such as poor plant maintenance. nance attention for less egregious conditions, such as having deteriorated paint.

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ✾ 7 Feature Scores (continued)

Natural Areas Pathways Playgrounds Sitting Areas 85 88 88 87

Bridge Park Riverside Park Aqueduct Walk Beach 17 Playground Sara D. Roosevelt Park Walker Park Lindower Park Starlight Park

The natural areas score reflects conditions The pathways score reflects conditions found The playgrounds score reflects conditions The sitting areas score reflects conditions found in spaces that retain some degree of in park walkways made of asphalt, dirt, turf, found at all playground areas and for all found at places in parks that contain a wild nature and native ecosystems, providing pavers, brick and concrete. The pathways playground equipment. grouping of benches, picnic tables, chess habitat for native plants and animals. These score includes benches along pathways, as tables, and other discrete areas for sitting, are non-manicured spaces such as wetlands, well as fencing lining pathways. The most consistent challenges to safety including barbeque areas. forests, and meadows. and clean conditions at playgrounds were Ten percent of the pathways in parks degraded safety surfacing and the pres- Persistent maintenance issues negatively A third of the natural areas in the parks had cracks or holes that were significant ence of litter. One in ten playgrounds was affected the scores of sitting areas in many were infested by invasive plant species, enough to affect a user’s ability to navigate found to have safety surfacing that was parks. Although one in ten sitting areas and two in five of them had unresolved the path. Fifteen percent were suffering cracked, peeling, or wearing away, and/or had benches showing significant damage, maintenance issues like needing litter to from structural deterioration, including significant amounts of litter. more persistent were incidences of litter be picked up. spalling paving stones or missing segments. and general maintenance needs such as A third of pathways had some unresolved paint and repairs. maintenance issue, such as needing new paint on benches.

8 ❀ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Trees Water Bodies 90 77

St. John’s Recreation Center J. Hood Wright Park Hallets Cove Park Starlight Park

The trees score reflects conditions found The water bodies score reflects conditions for trees contained within tree pits in the found on inland water bodies, such as lakes park. Trees on lawns are evaluated in and creeks, as well as shoreline areas along the lawns score. the harbor and rivers.

The most significant problems identified Litter and general maintenance needs for trees in tree pits were consistently were consistent challenges to clean and related to the health and status of the well-maintained water bodies and water- trees themselves. 15% of the parks had front areas. Over half of the water bodies dead or low-hanging branches, and one surveyed were affected by man-made litter out of five parks had stumps or dead trees and/or undesirable natural debris. requiring removal. In addition, tree pits were often in poor physical shape: one out of five parks had tree pits with disrupted pavers, weed growth, or general maintenance problems like poor mulching or the presence of litter.

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ✾ 9 Feature Findings

NY4P has identified key findings about features common throughout parks, leading to system-wide insights about maintenance and capital needs.

Drinking Fountains Athletic Fields The lowest-scoring feature evaluated, The second lowest-scoring feature evaluat- Drinking Fountains, scored 55 out of 100. ed in the study, Athletic Fields, scored 69 out of 100. Each type of field presented 143 fountains were evaluated by clear maintenance failures. surveyors. Of that group, 60 (42%) autofailed upon receiving automatic scores Natural grass fields suffered from both of zero for meeting one of five major structural deficiencies and day-to-day threshold conditions. A drinking fountain maintenance problems. Surveyors found will autofail if one or more egregious con- Drinking fountains with standing water that one in four fields had unacceptable Long grass, a sign of little maintenance, ditions are found to be present, detailed are automatically failed. conditions in amenities like benches and prevents field use at Betsy Head Park in the table below. bleachers. One in five fields had problems Most of these conditions can be remedied, with fences, backstops, and caging. The Almost half of the synthetic turf fields Condition % of all fountains or prevented, with the frequent attention playing surface was found to be unevenly had clear maintenance needs such as loose Dangerous conditions or of skilled laborers, such as plumbers. 50 graded in one in five natural grass fields. seams, holes in the playing surface, or unsanitary litter or broken glass 8% fountains, 35% of all fountains evaluated, worn-away areas. Lacks water pressure autofailed due to conditions that could be Asphalt fields were found to have similar required to drink 12% remedied by frequent repair checks done maintenance failures. One in five asphalt Unreliable playing surfaces and sub- Algae or unsanitary substance in basin or around the base 17% by trained staff. fields were found to have unacceptable standard field amenities for teams and Standing water, broken glass, conditions in benches and bleachers, and/ other park users are clear impediments to or litter in the fountain basin 15% In addition, other day-to-day maintenance or backstops, fencing, and caging. Two- healthy and safe physical recreation. Leaks in the fountain structure 8% concerns contributed to the low scores thirds of asphalt playing fields evaluated achieved by many fountains evaluated for the study had cracks and holes in the for the study. Peeling paint, graffiti, weed playing surfaces, rendering them unsafe growth, and litter are frequent culprits of for recreation. low-scoring drinking fountains.

10 ❀ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Bathrooms Bathrooms scored 76 out of 100 when examined across all parks.

The low scores received by bathrooms are largely due to day-to-day maintenance failures. 40% of the bathrooms surveyed had stall doors that did not lock, effec- tively taking those stalls out of service for users concerned with privacy. One in five Portable toilets are often locked and inaccessible, bathrooms were found to lack toilet paper. like these at Lincoln Terrace Park. One third of all bathrooms did not have soap and/or hand sanitizer. When comfort To be useful and inviting to park users, stations persistently lack basic supplies, bathrooms must be clean and safe. They they pose a threat to public health condi- must also be on site and accessible. One tions. Hand-in-hand with this distressing in four parks evaluated for this study does absence of supplies were unacceptable not have a permanent bathroom that is re- dirty and unsanitary conditions found in liably open to the public. Of the 35 parks bathrooms. One in five bathrooms was evaluated, three (9%) have bathrooms found to have foul odors and/or dirty inside recreation centers, which close conditions. when the recreation center closes – as early as 4:00 pm on some weekend days. Seven parks (20%) have no permanent bathrooms whatsoever, including two parks (6%) which are only served by portable toilets that are frequently plagued by unsanitary conditions or locked altogether.

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ✾ 11 The Bronx

Average Bronx Survey Park Score Sites

Survey Site •n Bronx Parks n Community Parks Initiative Zones

1. Aqueduct Walk 80 2. Barretto Point Park 3. Bridge Park 4. Concrete Plant Park 5. Mill Pond Park 6. Rainey Park 7. Starlight Park 8. Tremont Park 1

3 8

5 6

12 ❀ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Aqueduct Barretto Point Bridge Concrete Mill Pond Rainey Starlight Tremont Bronx Walk Park Park Plant Park Park Park Park Park Park Scores SCORE 83 82 90 78 88 74 70 79 GRADE B B- A- C+ B+ C C- C+ ATHLETIC FIELDS - - - - - 42 0 56

BATHROOMS - 96 - 71 97 75 0 87

COURTS 82 91 - - 100 - 89 89

DRINKING FOUNTAINS 84 100 100 50 50 71 0 33

IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT 100 18 64 86 100 100 100 100

LAWNS 60 59 92 63 91 67 100 64

NATURAL AREAS - 84 - 87 - - 83 90

PATHWAYS 90 90 89 100 100 83 100 54

PLAYGROUNDS 91 88 - - 100 - 100 94

SITTING AREAS 85 90 100 95 73 - 97 91

TREES - - 100 - 100 89 78 -

WATER BODIES - 82 83 45 65 - 94 -

NEIGHBORHOOD University Hunts Point Highbridge Hunts Point Harlem River Longwood West Farms Tremont Heights North

COUNCIL DISTRICT 14 17 16 17 8 17 17 15

COMMUNITY BOARD Bronx 7 Bronx 2 Bronx 4 & 5 Bronx 2 Bronx 4 Bronx 2 Bronx 9 Bronx 6

ACRES 8 11 7 6 15 8 12 15

GRADING CATEGORIES n EXCELLENT 97-90 n VERY GOOD 89-80 n SATISFACTORY 79-70 n CHALLENGED 69-60 n UNSATISFACTORY 59 and below

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ✾ 13 Brooklyn

Average Brooklyn Survey Park Score Sites 4

Survey Site 5 •n Brooklyn Parks n Community Parks Initiative Zones 9

1. Betsy Head Park 83 2. Breukelen Ballfields 6 3. Brower Park 4. Bushwick Inlet Park 5. Cooper Park 3 10 6. Herbert Von King Park 7 7. Lincoln Terrace Park 1 8. Lindower Park 9. Maria Hernandez Park 2 10. St. John’s Recreation Center

14 ❀ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Betsy Head Brower Breukelen Bushwick Cooper Herbert Lincoln Lindower Maria St. John’s Brooklyn Park Park Ballfields Inlet Park Park Von King Terrace Park Hernandez Recreation Park Scores Park Park Park Center SCORE 73 90 87 87 92 73 73 88 77 93 GRADE C A- B+ B+ A- C C B+ C+ A ATHLETIC FIELDS 45 100 86 90 - 0 45 - 74 91

BATHROOMS 81 92 97 95 88 90 59 79 46 -

COURTS 72 96 84 - - 66 92 81 87 93

DRINKING FOUNTAINS 75 50 84 55 100 0 59 100 33 96

IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT 64 100 100 100 100 100 100 77 100 100

LAWNS 91 86 69 81 89 70 49 95 85 76

NATURAL AREAS ------

PATHWAYS 55 89 83 90 100 88 87 100 100 97

PLAYGROUNDS - 92 88 85 92 94 82 96 86 100

SITTING AREAS - 100 - 90 79 76 73 75 - 100

TREES 93 100 89 100 100 86 81 - 100 67

WATER BODIES - - - 85 ------

NEIGHBORHOOD Brownsville Crown East Williamsburg Williamsburg Bedford Weeksville Mill Basin Bushwick Crown Heights New York Stuyvesant Heights

COUNCIL DISTRICT 41 36 42 33 34 36 41 46 34 36

COMMUNITY BOARD Brooklyn 16 Brooklyn 8 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 1 Brooklyn 1 Brooklyn 3 Brooklyn 8 Brooklyn 18 Brooklyn 4 Brooklyn 8

ACRES 11 7 16 9 6 8 20 7 7 9

GRADING CATEGORIES n EXCELLENT 97-90 n VERY GOOD 89-80 n SATISFACTORY 79-70 n CHALLENGED 69-60 n UNSATISFACTORY 59 and below

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ✾ 15 Manhattan

Average Manhattan Survey 4 Park Score Sites

Survey Site •n Manhattan Parks 5 3 n Community Parks 1 Initiative Zones

1. Col. Young Playground 2 72 2. Harlem River Park 3. Jackie Robinson Park 4. J. Hood Wright Park 7 5. Riverside Park 6. Sara D. Roosevelt Park 7. Thomas effersonJ Park 8. Tompkins Square Park

16 ❀ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Col. Young Harlem River J. Hood Jackie Riverside Sara D. Thomas Tompkins Manhattan Playground Park Wright Park Robinson Park Park Roosevelt Jefferson Park Square Park Park Scores Park SCORE 74 51 75 72 87 63 71 79 GRADE C F C C- B+ D C- C+ ATHLETIC FIELDS 81 67 40 67 - 44 94 79

BATHROOMS 89 - - 40 100 60 40 61

COURTS 87 89 76 91 - 74 81 82

DRINKING FOUNTAINS 0 31 50 50 60 22 0 71

IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT 100 64 100 77 100 64 100 77

LAWNS 89 38 54 84 93 70 90 85

NATURAL AREAS - - - 81 88 - - -

PATHWAYS - 0 83 79 86 90 96 80

PLAYGROUNDS 59 - 88 73 92 58 86 82

SITTING AREAS 86 85 78 87 74 83 62 87

TREES - - 89 89 100 75 92 89

WATER BODIES ------

NEIGHBORHOOD Harlem Harlem Washington Sugar Hill Hamilton Lower East Side East Harlem East Village Heights Heights

COUNCIL DISTRICT 9 8, 9 10 9 7 1 8 2

COMMUNITY BOARD Manhattan 10 Manhattan 11 Manhattan 12 Manhattan 9, 10 Manhattan 9 Manhattan 3 Manhattan 11 Manhattan 3

ACRES 7 6 7 13 13 8 13 11

GRADING CATEGORIES n EXCELLENT 97-90 n VERY GOOD 89-80 n SATISFACTORY 79-70 n CHALLENGED 69-60 n UNSATISFACTORY 59 and below

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ✾ 17 Queens

Average Queens Survey Park Score Sites 5 Survey Site •n Queens Parks n Community Parks Initiative Zones

1. Beach 9 Playground 4 88 2. Beach 17 Playground 3. Beach 30th Street Playground 4. Elmhurst Park 5. Hallets Cove Playground

3 2 1

18 ❀ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Beach 9 Beach 17 Beach 30th St. Elmhurst Hallets Cove Queens Playground Playground Playground Park Playground Park Scores SCORE 89 83 97 97 74 GRADE B+ B A+ A+ C ATHLETIC FIELDS - 79 100 100 75

BATHROOMS 100 92 100 77 -

COURTS 83 - - - 81

DRINKING FOUNTAINS 68 32 95 100 0

IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT 100 77 100 100 100

LAWNS 78 84 85 95 84

NATURAL AREAS - - - 100 -

PATHWAYS 100 100 100 100 89

PLAYGROUNDS 94 96 97 100 87

SITTING AREAS 87 90 100 100 -

TREES 86 86 - 100 86

WATER BODIES - - - - 67

NEIGHBORHOOD Far Rockaway Far Rockaway Wave Crest Elmhurst Astoria

COUNCIL DISTRICT 31 31 31 25 22

COMMUNITY BOARD Queens 14 Queens 14 Queens 14 Queens 4 Queens 1

ACRES 6 14 7 6 6

GRADING CATEGORIES n EXCELLENT 97-90 n VERY GOOD 89-80 n SATISFACTORY 79-70 n CHALLENGED 69-60 n UNSATISFACTORY 59 and below

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ✾ 19 Staten Island

Average Staten Island Survey 2 Park Score Sites 1

Survey Site 4 •n Staten Island Parks n Community Parks Initiative Zones 3 1. Cpl. Thompson arkP 84 2. Heritage Park 3. Von Briesen Park 4. Walker Park

20 ❀ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Cpl. Thompson Heritage Von Briesen Walker Staten Island Park Park Park Park Park Scores SCORE 79 89 83 86 GRADE C+ B+ B B ATHLETIC FIELDS 90 - - 90

BATHROOMS 93 - - 83

COURTS 78 - - 75

DRINKING FOUNTAINS 43 - 86 29

IMMEDIATE ENVIRONMENT 100 86 86 100

LAWNS 49 86 66 85

NATURAL AREAS - 83 78 -

PATHWAYS 95 100 91 100

PLAYGROUNDS 88 - - 88

SITTING AREAS - - 85 100

TREES 67 - - 100

WATER BODIES - - - -

NEIGHBORHOOD West New Brighton West New Brighton Fort Wadsworth Randall Manor

COUNCIL DISTRICT 49 49 50 49

COMMUNITY BOARD Staten Island 1 Staten Island 1 Staten Island 1 Staten Island 1

ACRES 11 10 14 5

GRADING CATEGORIES n EXCELLENT 97-90 n VERY GOOD 89-80 n SATISFACTORY 79-70 n CHALLENGED 69-60 n UNSATISFACTORY 59 and below

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ✾ 21 Park Findings

Very poor conditions, comprised of maintenance and capital failures, were observed by surveyors at two neighborhood parks in particular. Sara D. Roosevelt and

Harlem River Parks, the only sites to achieve grades below “C,” are clear candidates for a targeted renewal approach.

Harlem River Park Sara D. Roosevelt Park Surveyors documented poor day-to-day Poor maintenance practices contributed maintenance throughout Harlem River to several low-scoring park features in Park. Drinking Fountains in the park were Sara D. Roosevelt Park. Bathrooms in found in particularly poor condition, and the park scored 60 out of 100, because scored a mere 31 out of 100. Four of the of dirty conditions and graffiti observed six fountains were automatically failed due within the facilities. In addition, several to maintenance conditions including hav- key amenities within the bathrooms did ing no water flow, standing water in basins, not work, including stall doors that did and general uncleanliness. Several lawns in Harlem River Park is cut off from the neighborhood not close, and toilets that did not operate. This popular neighborhood park is aging and does not the park received poor scores due to litter by streets and highway bridges. Drinking Fountains in the park scored 22 have adequate maintenance. and maintenance issues. Some features out of 100. Four out of the six fountains in Harlem River Park were automatically and many gaps and holes in the playing automatically failed due to conditions scored 48 out of 100, with one play- failed due to particularly dangerous and surfaces. Fences and bleachers were also stemming from poor maintenance, such as ground automatically failing due to unsanitary conditions: park pathways, and found to be in poor condition in this park. the presence of algae and standing water in missing play equipment, dangerous areas half of the lawns, were automatically failed Perhaps most importantly, Harlem River the fountain basins. in need of repair, and haphazard safety due to the presence of human feces and Park has no bathroom. It was not penal- surfacing that creates slip and trip hazards. used condoms. ized for not having one, but the effects Capital problems also contributed to from the absence of this vital amenity are poor scores in the Sara D. Roosevelt Yet maintenance attention alone cannot reflected in the dangerous and unsanitary Park evaluation. One field was under solve the poor conditions present at Har- conditions found elsewhere in the park. construction when NY4P surveyed Sara lem River Park. The athletic fields are in D. Roosevelt Park, however a second need of special synthetic turf maintenance: asphalt athletic field within the park was surveyors found multiple uneven sections, automatically failed, as the playing surface has significant structural deterioration. Playgrounds in the park

22 ✿ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Park Findings Recommendations

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ❁ 23 Recommendations

1. 2. Expand Park Investment Hire Maintenance Staff Programs To keep our parks clean and well cared-for, NY4P recommends that NYC Parks ex- NYC Parks must add more full-time main- pand the scope and reach of the Commu- tenance and operations staff for day-to-day nity Parks Initiative to prioritize invest- work in parks. ment and steer resources to all park within the CPI zones, regardless of size. NY4P commends the recent efforts by Only small parks like Astoria Health Playground in NYC Parks to manage staffing through Skilled park workers like Haywood Lige are key to NYC Parks has two terrific programs Queens have been the focus of CPI. innovative techniques that improve the clean and safe parks. intended to prioritize parks with the efficiency and timeliness of staff deploy- highest needs and greatest reach for capital spaces for active play, sports, and family ment; however we believe that the agency the openings of the beaches and pools, but investment: the Anchor Parks program gatherings, as well as places to be quiet, needs more full-time, on the ground staff there is a real need for permanent, trained and CPI. The Anchor Parks program, contemplative, and connected to the natu- to be permanent resources in our city maintenance & operations staff through- which was announced in August 2016, ral world all at once. Despite their impor- parks. For example, NYC Parks is studying out the city. identified one park in each borough to tance, these critical neighborhood parks the proven best practice of zone manage- receive $30 million for a complete capital are often overlooked in New York City’s ment, but that will only work with enough Expanding the NYC Parks workforce transformation. CPI has targeted 60 parks parks system: while they are large enough permanent, trained employees. at this level dovetails with several goals and playgrounds located in 55 under- to serve diverse groups of park users, they and initiatives outlined in the de Blasio served neighborhoods for improvement are often too small to be a borough-wide The conditions found by NY4P field sur- administration’s long-range policy plan, since launching in 2014. In reaching for or city-wide draw. veyors show that current levels of service OneNYC, which lays out goals for quali- greater equity in how public resources are not keeping all of our parks clean ty-of-life measures, including close access are allocated, these programs are bring- In neighborhood parks throughout the and safe. However, many of the noted to open spaces, and stronger community ing much-needed attention to the right CPI priority zones, NY4P found consis- conditions can be resolved by daily service socio-economic resiliency. NY4P believes communities, but by only including small tent maintenance issues and aging, worn crews working for NYC parks in mainte- that the full-time employment opportu- parks and playgrounds in CPI, the city is infrastructure in need of renovation or nance and operations titles. Adding more nities that could be created through NYC leaving more important parks out of the replacement. Too many of New York City Park Workers (CPWs) for neighbor- Parks are just the kind of well-paying, picture. We know that larger-sized parks – City’s neighborhood parks in these zones hood park maintenance will ensure more stable and green jobs that policy-mak- what we are calling neighborhood parks – will continue to languish unless they are frequent and more responsive attention ers across the board have an interest in really strengthen a community, providing awarded transformative capital change. is available throughout the city. Seasonal creating to close the equity gap and create The de Blasio administration has created workers were added to the agency’s payroll resilience in communities. very successful models for that change, in the past fiscal year, which greatly helped and should seize the opportunity to with the annual shortage of workers in expand them. neighborhood parks staff that is created by

24 ✿ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS able amount of water fountains 3. with conditions that repel users – from Improve Parks Access by flooding in basins and on nearby ground, Fixing Key Infrastructure to the presence of algae and graffiti. NYC NYC Parks must improve the critical park Parks has a new design for water fountains infrastructure needed in neighborhood that eliminates many of the persistent parks to makes parks useable for residents conditions that keep parks visitors from of all ages and abilities: drinking fountains using older fountains that have been suc- and bathrooms. cessfully installed at several beaches, and Not all parks have accessible, clean, we recommend that the city replace older Aging infrastructure, like this synthetic turf, are not Adding bathrooms to parks that lack permanent bathrooms. fountains with new models adapted living up to park usage at Sara D. Roosevelt Park. permanent facilities will improve condi- for ADA accessibility. tions in neighborhood parks across the affects overall usership and lowers visitor Recent small-scale improvements have city, and make the sites more friendly and numbers. Park bathrooms are maintained transformed sections of Sara D. Roosevelt accessible for seniors, families, and every- by daily service crews, but also need Park, creating vibrant, multi-generational one else in between. Seven of the 35 parks specially trained plumbing professionals 4. spaces. These success stories include the in this report do not have permanent in-house, or contracted independent Renew Sara D. renovated Hester Street Playground, a new bathroom facilities and three additional plumbers to keep these everyday park Roosevelt Park synthetic turf field in partnership with parks are only served by restricted-access features in good working order. Addition- Sara D. Roosevelt Park needs significant Nike at Stanton Street , and a restored bathroom facilities, such as recreation al plumbing staff is also needed to keep capital improvements, as well as increased park building at Delancey Street which center bathrooms. seasonal fixtures like spray showers and maintenance attention. houses the BRC Senior Center. The drinking fountains in good repair. With popularity of these features proves that any The City is planning to improve the exist- clean, functional bathrooms, all of our At over 80 years old, Sara D. Roosevelt improvement made to Sara D. Roosevelt ing comfort stations at one of the parks parks can be true community resources Park is an incredibly successful, well-loved Park will have a tremendous value for the surveyed, Betsy Head Park in Brooklyn, to users of ages and abilities. urban park. With multiple playgrounds, neighborhood. but nearly a third of the parks surveyed athletic areas, passive recreational space, for this report lack permanent public NY4P supports the de Blasio administra- and community gardens, “Sara D.” is However, not all parts of Sara D. Roos- bathroom facilities. In some parks without tion’s goal to install or repair 500 water highly popular and heavily used. The low evelt Park shine. Remaining athletic fields, permanent bathroom facilities, NY4P fountains citywide, and we suggest using score the park received in this Report Card playgrounds, and many pathways show surveyors documented the presence of a Requirements Contract to replace the points to the day-to-day consequences of wear-and-tear signs of heavy use, and are human waste. This unsanitary condition, aging water fountains found in our city its popularity and to the need for addi- in need of refurbishment. It is clear that in addition to being a public health hazard, parks. Throughout our years of producing tional maintenance as well as comprehen- the current maintenance capacity of NYC report cards, NY4P has found an unac- sive capital renewal. 1 The Stanton Street field was under construction ceptable number of fountains with little or at the time of this survey, and is not included as part no water pressure, but also an unaccept- of Sara D. Roosevelt Park’s evaluation.

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ❁ 25 Recommendations (continued)

Parks is not meeting the operational needs of this property. Adding maintenance staff and plumbers will improve daily conditions of critical features, like comfort stations and spray showers. The remaining park buildings should be restored to uses by the public. Sara D. Roosevelt Park is a perfect site for capital improvements: it is a very heavily used neighborhood park serving several high-needs communities, This pitcher’s mound shows the severe maintenance providing much-needed open space in a needs present at Harlem River Park. dense area of the city. popularity, Harlem River Park lacks a comfort station on site. This inconve- niences the thousands of park visitors, 5. including citywide leagues, who depend Invest in Harlem on this popular park for organized sports River Park and active recreation. The City must commit both increased maintenance staff hours to Harlem River When the section of parkland along the Park, as well as capital funds to construct waterfront from 132nd Street to 125th a much-needed bathroom in addition Street is built and connected to the exist- to connecting the park to the nearby ing northern sections of the Harlem River Harlem River Esplanade. Esplanade and to Harlem River Park, the joined open spaces will encourage more Though the park dates from 1867, recent visitors and discourage homelessness, an multi-million-dollar capital projects ongoing problem for both parks. The City renovated the property within the last must follow through with the commit- decade, converting the park athletic fields ment made to the East Harlem commu- to synthetic turf. The ballfields and other nity, where more residential development athletic facilities at Harlem River Park are is being contemplated by the Department very popular and attract very heavy use, of City Planning, and build the missing which NY4P surveyors noted in wear- section of the park. and-tear evidence on drinking fountains, lawns, and athletic fields. Despite having

26 ✿ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Recommendations (continued) Appendices

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ❁ 27 Park Exterior Weekend Scores Scores

As seen in the oldest parks in New York Regardless of their design, all sidewalks The data collection for this Report Card Major Service Areas with the lowest City to the most recently designed public adjacent to New York City park properties has been restricted to weekdays, mirroring scores included bathrooms and drinking plazas, sidewalks and fences have been are the maintenance responsibility of NYC the inspection program conducted by fountains, which are consistently found used to create a clear division of space, Parks. Often consisting of no more than NYC Parks. Anecdotal evidence suggests in Report Card analyses to have mainte- separating the retreat offered by our shared pavers and trees, park sidewalks are cared that conditions at most neighborhood nance and cleanliness needs. Water Bodies open spaces from the streets and neigh- for by the same daily maintenance crews parks are very poor during high-season were the lowest-scoring major service area borhoods that surround them. That design which service the park proper. As such, weekends. To test this hypothesis, NY4P surveyed on weekends: because of the philosophy is changing as more planners these sections should be included surveyors conducted a pilot project to small sample size of this analysis, certain and designers recognize that for residents in the inspection protocol for future collect data on weekend days during the water bodies with very poor maintenance and users, the city’s parks do not end at Report Cards. summer survey season. Surveyors revisited affected the score greatly. the sidewalk. Drawing on best practices in nine parks on Saturdays during the data urban design, NYC Parks is blurring this To test data collection in these exterior collection period, using the standard Re- The scores revealed by this data collection spatial division, seeking to create more park spaces, NY4P surveyors collected port Card method to evaluate the parks. and analysis do not suggest a marked welcoming liminal spaces by redesign- data for park-adjacent sidewalks at each difference in park condition between ing entrances and allowing passive uses park property bounded by a traversable Surveyors successfully collected data at weekdays and weekends. However, the to blend into the surrounding sidewalk sidewalk. Two Major Service areas were each of the nine parks, finding conditions small sample size prevents a clear conclu- spaces. This strategy will inform future included, where relevant: Pathways and that were similar to those found upon sion from being drawn. NY4P surveyors park designs, and is the impetus behind Trees. Data on park exteriors was each park’s initial, weekday visit. were able to successfully collect data eight park entrance renovations targeted collected at 26 sites. among weekend visitation conditions at for capital improvement under the “Parks Major Service Area Score nine parks, suggesting that NYC Parks In- Without Borders” program. Major Service Area Score Athletic Fields 82 spection staff would also be able to collect Trees 81 Bathrooms 50 data on weekends. Expanding the Parks Sidewalks (Pathways) 95 Courts 85 Inspection Program to weekend data col- Drinking Fountains 52 lection will generate data on a much larger Immediate Environment 83 scale than NY4P is capable of undertaking. For future surveys, park exteriors must be Lawns 74 Additionally, it will enable NYC Parks to counted towards the parks’ overall score. Natural Areas 88 accurately shift maintenance schedules to It is imperative to keep the data collection Pathways 86 accommodate the levels of use, and the separate, as these areas are in a time of Playgrounds 77 conditions created by, weekend visitorship. transition in the public eye. Sitting Areas 74 Trees 76 Water Bodies 43

28 ✿ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Detailed Methodology

To expand weekend data collection at This section describes in detail the meth- Table 1: Major Service Areas & Relative Weights NY4P, the Report Card method must odology used by New Yorkers for Parks in Major Service Areas Description Weight be modified. Specific target observation creating the Report Card on Parks. The Active Recreation Evaluates all athletic fields and courts in a park. areas should be mapped, numbered, and methods are derived from New Yorkers Athletic fields include natural grass, asphalt, and synthetic surfaces. 3 referred to, enabling predictable repli- for Parks’ award-winning Report Card on Drinking Fountains Evaluates each discrete drinking fountain in a park. 3 cability of observations with changing Parks survey methodology, first imple- Pathways Evaluates each type of walkway in a park. 3 survey staff. Adding this layer of account- mented in 2003. In 2005, the Report Bathrooms Evaluates each bathroom in a park. 4 ability will allow one team to survey on a Card on Parks received a Community Passive Greenspace Evaluates every lawn, landscaped area, garden, water body, natural area and tree pit in a park. 5 weekday, and a second team to return to Indicators Award from the Community Playgrounds Evaluates all playground areas and the same observation sites on weekends, Indicators Consortium and the Brookings playground equipment in a park. 5 creating comparable results. Institution’s Urban Markets Initiative. Sitting Areas Evaluates each discrete sitting area in a park. 5 Immediate Environment Measures how well a park is insulated from potential Survey Population negative impacts of its surroundings. Intrusive odors, In constructing the 2016 Report Card emissions, exhaust, and excessive noise are monitored. 3 on Parks, NY4P focused on NYC Parks properties between one and twenty acres To further limit the survey universe, NY4P relative importance of different indicators. in size. These “neighborhood parks” pro- removed all NYC Parks properties that Focus group participants and park users vide recreation and relaxation amenities were located outside the Community at Brooklyn’s Prospect Park were asked to for New York City communities and New Parks Initiative Zones, and those proper- rate the MSAs on a scale of 1 to 5, with Yorkers of all ages and abilities. NY4P ties within the zones that were less than 1 having the least impact on their park did not survey parks that were closed for five acres in size. The resulting 35 parks are experience, and 5 being the most critical. capital improvement. Further, certain park the survey population, of which 26 had Participants also provided feedback on the properties, like skating rinks, amusement been surveyed in a previous Report Card. structure and composition of the MSAs. parks, or forests without user trails have The rankings provided were then averaged no major service areas, and were excluded Identification & and rounded to the nearest whole number from the report. Weighting of Major to provide a final MSA relative weight Service Areas figure. See Table 1 for MSA weights. In 2001, when constructing the Report Card on Parks, NY4P took a user-focused approach to identify eight Major Ser- vice Areas (MSAs) affecting a park user’s experience. A focus group of park experts, community leaders and public officials was convened to help define eight MSAs, along with a scale of weights to reflect the

THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ❁ 29 Feature Forms Numerical Scores Once each form is scored, MSA rat- The raw score for each beach was calcu- In 2001, NY4P staff, in cooperation with Each completed feature form was assigned ings were calculated. Scored forms were lated in a similar fashion to MSA scores. statistical consultants from the firm of a numerical grade between 0 and 100. grouped by MSA. Those MSAs with exact- MSAs present for any given beach were Ernst & Young, developed question forms Any park feature receiving an ‘unaccept- ly one corresponding completed form type weighted following the guidelines of the for the Report Card on Parks with which able’ rating on any priority question was were allotted the numerical score of that focus groups. These weighted figures were to evaluate the MSAs found in each park. automatically assigned a form grade of single form. For example, the “Drinking then averaged to give an overall beach Individual questions were designed to zero. However, in the large majority of Fountain” MSA is comprised solely of score. measure the performance of the features in completed forms, park features received the “Drinking Fountain” feature form. each MSA in the following categories: ‘acceptable’ ratings on priority questions. Thus, the “Drinking Fountain” MSA score The survey is designed to fairly rate all • Maintenance In these cases, all non-priority questions is identical to the “Drinking Fountain” features that are or should be available to a • Cleanliness were scored as acceptable, not acceptable feature form score. MSAs comprised of user visiting a particular park. For example, • Safety or not applicable. Following the guidelines more than one feature form were scored if a park’s bathroom is locked or closed • Structural Integrity. of the focus group, each applicable form according to a weighted average of the without explanation, it would receive a “0” question was assigned a weight of corresponding form scores, as follows: score for the Bathroom rating. However, Whenever possible, feature form ques- 1 through 5. if the park does not have a bathroom, it tions were adapted from NYC Parks’ own Suppose C1, Cs,…,Cn are the n-many would not receive any score for Bathrooms, internal evaluation mechanism, the Parks Form scores were calculated as the weight- form scores corresponding to a given MSA. so no park will be penalized for not having Inspection Program (PIP). During the de- ed ratio of questions scored acceptable to Let D1, Ds,…,Dn be those forms’ corre- a particular major service area. velopment of the Report Card on Parks, a those scored acceptable or unacceptable. sponding relative weights. MSA numerical second focus group was asked to designate This number was then multiplied by 100 scores wre calculated as the following Applying this numerical score to the letter each of the individual form questions as to give a final form score. quotient: grades listed in Table 5, it can be seen that ‘priority’ or ‘routine.’ Priority ratings refer a score of 83 corresponds to a grade of “B”. to those conditions of a park feature nec- (C1 * D1 + Cs * Ds + … + Cn * Dn) / essary for its safe use. Secondly, the focus (D1 + Ds + … + Dn) group rated questions tagged as routine on a scale from 1 to 5. Each park’s raw score was calculated in a similar fashion. Suppose E1, E2,…,Em were a park’s MSA scores with corresponding weights F1, F2,…,Fm. Final raw scores were then calculated as the following quotient:

(E1 * F1 + Es * Fs + … + Em * Fm) / (F1 + Fs + … + Fm)

30 ✿ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS Sample Calculation—Beach 17 Playground, Queens

Table 2: Summary of Beach 17 Playground Form Data Form Form Scores Form Score Average Playgrounds 100, 100, 100, 83 96 Immediate Environment 77 77 Lawns and Landscaped Areas 84 84 Converting Numerical Survey Data Collection Park Trees 86 86 Scores to Letter Grades Survey work for the 2016 Report Card Sitting Areas 100, 100, 100, 87, 81, 73 90 During the creation of the Report Card on Parks took place Tuesdays through Bathrooms 100, 83 92 on Parks, a fourth focus group of park Thursdays in July and August 2015 from Drinking Fountains 100, 100, 100, 82, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 32 managers and open space experts was the hours of 10 AM to 4 PM. NY4P Athletic Fields (grass) 79 79 convened to determine the assignment of senior staff held a full-day training session Pathways 100 100 letter grades to raw scores. Participants to train surveyors in the following tech- were brought to three parks and asked to niques: use of the tablets; delineation of Table 3: Summary of Beach 17 Playground MSA Data provide a letter grade for the park based beach features and transects; use of maps, MSA Calculation MSA Score on a brief description of the MSAs and a measuring wheels, survey forms and stan- Playgrounds Form score average from Table 3 96 tour of the park. These letter grades were dards manual; and procedures for docu- Immediate Environment Form score from Table 3 77 consistent with the raw number scores for menting features with digital cameras. The Passive Greenspace (Lawns, Landscaped Areas*2 + Park Trees*1) / 3 85 the parks and resulted in the raw score/ training session included a step-by-step Sitting Areas Form score average from Table 3 90 grade assignment chart. review of park surveying, collection of data Bathrooms Form score average from Table 3 92 according to defined standards, proper Drinking Fountains Form score average from Table 3 32 Table 5: Converting Raw Scores to photo documentation, safety procedures, Active Recreation Form score from Table 3 79 Letter Grades and procedures for storing data in the Pathways Form score from Table 3 100 Raw Report Card database upon completion Numerical of survey. Grade Letter Grade Category Table 3: Calculation of Raw Score and Letter Grade—Beach 17 Playground 97-100 A+ EXCELLENT MSA MSA Score times Weight In the field, surveyors used tablet com- 93-96 A Playgrounds 96 * 5 = 478 (with rounding) puters to complete a feature form for each 90-92 A- Immediate Environment 77 * 3 = 232 (with rounding) feature found in a given park. For example, 87-89 B+ VERY GOOD Passive Greenspace 85 * 5 = 425 for reach drinking fountain in a park, a 83-86 B Sitting Areas 90 * 5 = 451 (with rounding) “Drinking Fountain” form was completed 80-82 B- Bathrooms 92 * 4 = 366 (with rounding) so that in a park with three fountains, a 77-79 C+ SATISFACTORY Drinking Fountains 32 * 3 = 96 surveyor would complete three “Drinking 73-76 C Active Recreation 79 * 3 = 236 (with rounding) Fountain” feature forms. Additionally, 70-72 C- Pathways 100 * 3 = 300 surveyors would complete a form for every 60-69 D CHALLENGED Total 2583 (with rounding) playground space within natural and/or 59 and below F UNSATISFACTORY constructed boundaries, for every bath- This total, 2583, was then divided by the sum of the weights of the eight MSAs. This sum is 31, room, for every naturally bounded lawn so that the raw park score for Beach 17 Playground is 2583/31 = 83.3. or landscaped area, etc.

Applying this numerical score to the letter grades listed in Table 5, it can be seen that a score of 83 corresponds to a grade of “B”. THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ❁ 31 In addition to completing the survey This document is the first Report Card forms, surveyors took extensive digital on Parks for neighborhood-sized parks photographs to support and complement since 2007. At the time of data collection survey results. All survey findings and for the 2007 Report Card, Bathroom and feature forms receive an identification Athletic Field feature forms were modified number and are correlated to a series of significantly from earlier iterations of the photographs documenting conditions for methodology. In constructing the method- each beach in the survey. Survey results ology for the 2016 Report Card on Parks, and photo documentation are stored in a NY4P staff sought to fine-tune the survey central database. When photo documen- mechanism. Minor clarification and word- tation did not correlate with results or did ing changes were made to feature forms, not adequately illustrate park conditions, and no major modifications were made. the park was re-visited and re-evaluated by surveyors. Other Inspections of NYC Parks NY4P designed the Report Card on Parks NYC Parks evaluates its properties using methodology in 2003 to serve two func- the Parks Inspection Program (PIP). tions. First, the report provided a mecha- While PIP rates sites from a park man- nism to provide an instantaneous snapshot agement perspective, the survey used in of the conditions of New York City parks. the Report Card was designed from the This allows for real-time comparison park user’s perspective. By listing ratings among parks to identify those that show- and feature performance by park, NY4P’s case best practices, as well as in-need parks Report Card is intended to provide a that require attention. In addition, the comparative analysis of park conditions as methodology was designed to be replicat- an easy-to-use tool for communities and ed annually, so that trends at the individu- park users. al level, as well as borough- and city-wide, could be documented and addressed. In addition, the two inspection programs evaluate park properties in different ways. For example, the Report Card evaluates and scores Bathrooms and Drinking Fountains. Although NYC Parks tracks those features through PIP, they do not influence a park’s PIP score.

32 ✿ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS THE 2016 REPORT CARD ON PARKS ❁ 33 NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS STAFF PROJECT STAFF The Arthur Ross Center for Parks and Open Spaces Tupper Thomas, Executive Director Lucy Robson, Project Manager 55 Broad Street, 23rd Floor Beth Bingham, Director of Research & Planning Matt Glomski, Project Statistician New York, NY 10004 Megan Douglas, Director of Communications Nikhil Goyal, Project Database Manager (212) 838-9410 www.ny4p.org Julia Marra, Senior Development Associate Keith Welch, Project Application Developer Sam Mei, Fiscal Manager Charlie McCabe, Graduate Research Fellow New Yorkers for Parks is the citywide independent organization Laura Montross, Outreach Coordinator Alisha Beatty, Graduate Research championing quality parks and open spaces for all New Yorkers Lucy Robson, Senior Project Manager, & Planning Intern Research & Planning Marcel Negret, Graduate Research in all neighborhoods. Emily Walker, Director of Outreach & Programs & Planning Intern Bethany Wall, Director of Development Caroline Todd, Graduate Research Parks are essential to the health of residents, the livability & Planning Intern Robin Weinstein, Director of of neighborhoods, and the economic development of the city. Operations & Finance Victorio Matias, Field Surveyor Through our integrated approach of research, advocacy and David Olea, Field Surveyor strategic partnerships, we drive immediate actions and long-term Chhime Sherpa, Field Surveyor policies that protect and enhance the city’s vast network of parks, Margaret Randall, Field Surveyor Demani Williams, Field Surveyor ensure equitable access to quality open spaces for all neighborhoods, and inform and empower communities throughout New York City. Information on New Yorkers for Parks’ research and projects is available at www.ny4p.org

Design: Michael Bierman Photos: Copyright © 2016. New Yorkers for Parks. All Rights Reserved. Map Data: NYC Department of Parks and Recreation, CUNY Mapping Service at the Center for Urban Research, ESRI, NYC Department of City Planning. Cover: Sara D. Roosevelt Park Copyright © 2016. New Yorkers for Parks. All Rights Reserved.

34 ✿ NEW YORKERS FOR PARKS