2007 Report Card on Parks the Report Card on P Arks
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Report Card on Parks 2007 An Independent Assessment of New York City’s Neighborhood Parks Table of Contents 3 The Report Card on Parks 5 Why another Report Card on Parks? 8 Summary of Methodology 11 Findings 16 Conclusions and Recommendations 19 Detailed Methodology 24 Find Your Park 30 New Yorkers for Parks The Report Card on Parks New Yorkers for Parks’ award-winning The Report Card has three goals: need, but, more importantly, The Report Card indicates how we might begin to To provide communities with address that need. By highlighting both Report Card on Parks provides quantitative an assessment of how their high- and low-performing parks, as well neighborhood park is perform- performance data on neighborhood parks 1 as systemic issues, best practices can be ing in comparison to other parks identified and implemented in select in the city. This easily accessible throughout the five boroughs. In short, it tells parks and incorporated citywide. The online information helps communi- Report Card is used by non-profit parks ties advocate for improved services New Yorkers how their parks are doing in key groups, foundations, and public agen- in their neighborhood parks. service areas, like bathrooms, playgrounds, and cies, including the Parks Department. To provide an independent Further, this analysis encourages a assessment of neighborhood pathways. Unlike the larger, high-profile parks more efficient distribution of limited park performance from year 2 resources toward our parks and play- of New York City, neighborhood parks are to year against a defined minimum grounds that are most “in need” and level of service. This creates account- assists in developing strategies for often solely dependent on public funding and, ability for providing both this defined additional funding sources. level of service as well as needed improve- as The Report Card has documented, receive ments for every park throughout the five boroughs – and the results show. The Report Card on Parks was inadequate maintenance attention. honored in 2005 by the Brookings To spark debate among Institution as an outstanding communities, public agen- community indicators project. 3 cies, and advocates about how best to improve and maintain neighborhood parks in need. The Report Card provides a valuable service by identifying those parks in greatest 2007 Report Card on Parks 3 The Report Card on P arks The Report Card vs. the New Yorkers for Parks’ outreach efforts Parks Inspection Program Reporting on Park Performance: have shown that many communi- The Department of Parks and Recreation The Parks Inspection Program (PIP) ties throughout the five boroughs are (DPR) evaluates its properties using a frustrated with the conditions of their nationally recognized comprehensive In 2005, DPR began providing individual of Operations website. Citywide results neighborhood parks. New Yorkers rely on program, the Parks Inspection Program park inspection data on its website due are available in the annual Mayor’s Manage- parks and playgrounds for recreation and (PIP). While PIP rates sites from a park to legislation passed by the New York City ment Report (a publication evaluating the relaxation, and the lack of maintenance management perspective, the survey used Council. While the provision of this data performance of each city agency). These and staffing can result in bare lawns, in The Report Cardwas designed from the is an essential first step, the following various presentations of the data should clogged and broken drinking fountains, park user’s perspective. By listing grades improvements would make PIP results be centrally located and easy to access on and littered pathways. These neighbor- park-by-park in alphabetical order, New much more useful to communities: the Parks Department’s website to allow hood parks are the front and back yards Yorkers for Parks’ Report Card is intended for meaningful comparisons at the park, of New Yorkers – and they deserve better. n PIP results should be easy to find to provide a comparative analysis of park Community Board, and borough levels. online. A link to PIP results should be conditions as an easy-to-use tool for made available on the front page of the n PIP evaluations should be explicitly communities. DPR website. Today, a park user must tied to resource deployment. Currently, search for information about a specific information on park spending is not In addition, the two inspection pro- park in order to see a link to inspection linked to PIP results. In order to make grams evaluate parks in different ways. results. Even those New Yorkers who are effective budget decisions, council mem- For example, The Report Card rates and aware that PIP results exist online still bers and constituents must be able to scores bathrooms and drinking foun- find it difficult to locate information on determine how financial resources impact tains. Although the Parks Department their neighborhood park because the park performance. For example, DPR tracks these features through PIP, they data is obscured within the DPR website. could provide the amount of capital and do not influence a park’s rating, nor are maintenance dollars spent on playground the results of these inspections made n PIP results should be centrally located. safety surfacing over time alongside the public, other than at the citywide level. Currently, PIP data is presented in various percentage of safety surfacing rated Recently, the department began posting ways on multiple websites. A user search- “acceptable,” so that the public can deter- PIP ratings on its website, but improve- ing for inspection results for a specific mine whether or not sufficient funding is ments are needed to make the data more park can find them on the DPR website. being provided. The Mayor’s Management user-friendly (see sidebar). PIP results aggregated by Community Report would be a good forum for this Board can be found on the Mayor’s Office type of information. 4 New Yorkers for Parks Why another Report Card on Parks? In 2003, New Yorkers for Parks released its first Report Card on Parks. Along with refreshing our survey universe to correspond with the DPR’s PIP roster, The Report Card is designed to track trends in park conditions, highlight we have made several needed changes to the methodology of The Report Card. successes, identify consistent challenges, and enhance the park policy Most significantly, evaluations of athletic fields and bathrooms have been revised discussion. Since 2003, The Report Card has been a catalyst for change and refined this year. An evaluation form was created to specifically measure the in New York City’s park system. New Yorkers for Parks will continue conditions of synthetic turf fields, and to use The Report Card to measure conditions and strive for effective the “Bathroom” form was refined to include measures that the NYC De- solutions to the challenges it documents. partment of Health uses in evaluating bathrooms at public beaches, which are operated by DPR. These changes limit In 2006, New Yorkers for Parks updated the ability to draw year-to-year com- the universe of sites inspected through The Report Card: Accomplishments parisons of park performance; however, The Report Card to correspond more Since its inception, The Report Card has been that leveraged public and private funding to this report provides general contextual exactly to the Parks Department’s Park a vehicle for new management strategies bring full-time gardeners and extra financial comparisons of conditions over time. For Inspection Program (PIP) and so that our resulting in measurable park improvements. support to needy parks across the city. more specific historical information on inspection sites would mirror the DPR’s The creation of the Neighborhood Parks Participating parks were chosen based on performance, please download the 2005 own inspection categorizations. This new Initiative (NPI) was one of the most notable needs documented by The Report Card and Report Card on Parks from www.ny4p.org. neighborhood park list is based on the accomplishments of The Report Card. PIP. Gardeners were trained by the Central PIP roster. New Yorkers for Parks used Founded by New Yorkers for Parks and Park Conservancy based on their suc- the same process as in previous years to the Parks Department, the program was cessful “zone management” model of park determine the study universe, focusing designed to address the lack of fixed staff maintenance. The program has significantly on all “park” properties between 1–20 in city parks, which results in inadequate improved conditions of participating parks, acres. Due to the use of this new, more maintenance, as detailed in the 2003 Report and its success is evidenced by the Mayor’s accurate, park roster the 2007 Report Card on Parks. NPI was a partnership among FY 2008 Preliminary Budget, which base- Card universe is made up of 111 parks, New Yorkers for Parks, DPR, Central Park lined $1.5 million to make these gardener fewer than previous reports.1 Conservancy, and City Parks Foundation positions permanent. 1 Of the neighborhood parks surveyed for the 2007 Report Card, 23% (26 parks) had never been surveyed before, while 77% (85 parks) had been surveyed at least once before in 2003, 2004, or 2005. 2007 Report Card on Parks 5 Why another Report Card on Parks? The findings of The Report Card have Queens historically reflected the concerns that “Constant use of our parks necessitates New Research Tools many of New York City’s communities daily clean-up and maintenance of the Due to the success of The Report Card, n 2006 Progress Report on Neighborhood have regarding their parks. Some of these parks sites in Community Board 2. New Yorkers for Parks has expanded this Parks: This report provided new data on concerns are expressed below, in excerpts Overflowing trash baskets combined with model in recent years to measure the con- the ten highest and ten lowest perform- from the FY 2007 Community District piles of litter throughout the parks attract ditions of our neighborhood parks in new ing parks of the 2005 Report Card.