|
Print Version (PDF format)
SECTION K -- PARKS, RECREATION AND COMMUNITY RESOURCES
COMMUNITY RECREATION SERVICE AREAS
PROGRAM MISSION: To create a vibrant and
enjoyable community by providing high quality recreation services for all. Mission objectives are to create a caring
environment that fosters opportunities for relationship building and individual
enrichment; and to promote community building, advocacy, and citizen
participation.
The Community Recreation Service
Areas provide neighborhood based recreation programs. A strategic initiative is
to facilitate opportunities for neighborhoods and communities of similar
interests to form relationships, encourage communication, celebrate culture,
make connections, and foster collaborations of significance to the
participating community. The goal of
the four Recreation Service Area Teams is to engage in a collaborative
relationship with the community "where people unite to form a caring, learning,
participating, sustainable community in which each person is important" and
develop programs that meet the special needs and interests of the community. Specialized neighborhood based community
building, wellness, arts, and prevention programs are coordinated in
collaboration with countywide and community services units and other county
agencies.
The Community Recreation Service
Areas have a strategic initiative to design and implement programs that reflect
the "Asset-building" framework for youth.
In FY 2002, the Recreation Division adopted the Search Institute youth
asset-building model in collaboration with the Arlington Partnership for Children,
Youth and Families. The 2003 Community Report Card cites Starting Healthy,
Staying Healthy and a Safe, Supportive Community as key indicators for healthy
youth. PRCR Summer programs, the Rites
of Passage, Late Night Sports, Afterschool, Hearts N' Parks, and Bullying
Prevention and Reduction programs are examples of programs with an
asset-building focus related to caring for young people and giving them a sense
of physical and psychological safety in their neighborhoods, providing positive
activities for young people in an atmosphere of respect and appreciation for
others and where shared values are clearly articulated; helping young people to
develop leadership and responsibility through opportunities to engage in and
contribute to their community; and young people maintaining good health through
regular exercise.
|
Community
Recreation Service Areas
|
|
FY 2004
|
FY 2005
|
FY 2006
|
% Change:
|
|
Actual
|
Adopted
|
Proposed
|
'05 to '06
|
|
Personnel
|
$2,843,173
|
$3,161,504
|
$3,165,128
|
-
|
|
Non-Personnel
|
801,638
|
704,882
|
713,821
|
1%
|
|
Subtotal
|
3,644,811
|
3,866,386
|
3,878,949
|
-
|
|
Intra-County
Chanrges
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
-
|
|
Total Expenditures
|
3,644,811
|
3,866,386
|
3,878,949
|
-
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Total Revenues
|
404,561
|
346,164
|
395,332
|
14%
|
|
Net Tax Support
|
$3,240,250
|
$3,520,222
|
$3,483,617
|
-1%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Authorized FTEs
|
67.7
|
67.7
|
67.2
|
|
|
Funded FTEs
|
67.7
|
67.7
|
67.2
|
|
SIGNIFICANT BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS:
- Decrease in 0.5 FTE is due to transfer of
0.5 FTE to Cultural Affairs Division where there is a higher priority need for
this part-time Management Specialist position.
-
Increase in revenue is due to rate and activity
increases for pre-school and camp programs.
PERFORMANCE MEASURES:
Community Building
|
FY 2002
Actual
|
FY 2003
Actual
|
FY 2004
Actual
|
FY 2005
Estimate
|
FY 2006
Estimate
|
FY 2006
Goal
|
|
Mission
Outcome Measures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of residents surveyed indicating
community/neighborhood events provided opportunity to build relationships
|
N/A
|
67%
|
69%
|
70%
|
70%
|
75%
|
|
Percent of residents surveyed indicating they
participated in opportunities to build community
|
N/A
|
70%
|
71%
|
70%
|
70%
|
75%
|
|
Percent of residents surveyed indicating events
promoted cultural appreciation
|
N/A
|
68%
|
70%
|
70%
|
70%
|
75%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer
Measures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of participants rating the overall
event as "good to excellent"
|
95%
|
87%
|
88%
|
90%
|
90%
|
90%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Workload Measures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of community/ neighborhood special
events
|
27
|
38
|
38
|
38
|
38
|
38
|
|
Number of residents served at community/
neighborhood events
|
9,365
|
10,925
|
10,940
|
11,000
|
11,000
|
11,000
|
|
Number of community residents participating in
partnership and planning processes
|
199
|
214
|
221
|
200
|
200
|
200
|
Asset Building
|
FY 2002
Actual
|
FY 2003
Actual
|
FY 2004
Actual
|
FY 2005
Estimate
|
FY 2006
Estimate
|
FY 2006
Goal
|
|
Mission
Outcome Measures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of
parent/guardians reporting
increased assets of their
child experiencing support, feeling valued,
building social and cultural competencies, and having positive
and enriching recreation experiences
from participation in summer camp programs
|
96%
|
97%
|
97%
|
97%
|
97%
|
99%
|
|
Percent of summer youth volunteers reporting
increased assets of feeling valued,
having useful roles, learning new skills, and enhancing self-esteem
|
98%
|
99%
|
97%
|
97%
|
97%
|
98%
|
|
Percent of youth reporting they learned a new
skill (friendship skills, resolving conflicts, or resisting negative
situations)
|
N/A
|
83%
|
85%
|
85%
|
85%
|
85%
|
|
Percent of youth reporting valuing diversity
|
N/A
|
82%
|
82%
|
82%
|
82%
|
85%
|
|
Percent of youth reporting ability to plan
ahead and make healthy choices
|
N/A
|
73%
|
82%
|
82%
|
82%
|
82%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Customer
Measures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Percent of parent/guardian rating overall
satisfaction as "good to excellent"
|
94%
|
95%
|
96%
|
96%
|
96%
|
96%
|
|
Percent of participants rating the overall
program as "excellent or good"
|
N/A
|
96%
|
98%
|
98%
|
98%
|
98%
|
|
Percent of parent/guardian reporting they would
recommend the program to someone else
|
N/A
|
95%
|
97%
|
97%
|
97%
|
97%
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Workload
Measures
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Number of camp slots offered
|
5,339
|
5,500
|
5,276
|
5,300
|
5,300
|
5,300
|
|
Number of individuals enrolled in summer camps
|
4,389
|
4,550
|
4,244
|
4,350
|
4,350
|
4,400
|
|
Percent of camp slots filled
|
83%
|
83%
|
81%
|
82%
|
82%
|
83%
|
-
In the October 2003 Youth Programs Citizen Survey, of
current participants and random respondent households with children, PRCR was
identified by a wide margin (88%) as the organization used for summer youth
programs. Other organizations used are private/commercial day camps (45%);
private clubs (32%); and schools (30%).
-
Youth Programs Citizen Survey respondents were asked to
rate the importance of 13 program components when choosing a summer
program. The most important program
components are: be fun and interesting to my child (96%), offered in a safe
environment (94%); high quality counselors (92%); and sufficient number of
staff to children (88%). Overall
satisfaction with PRCR summer programs including these factors is 95% based on
parent/guardian questionnaires.
-
Youth Programs Citizen Survey respondents reported the
potential asset building benefits of physical health (80%), self-worth/self
image (77%); responsibility (75%) and civic & social skills (74%) as being
of the highest importance of 12 asset building benefits resulting from participation in youth
recreation programs. 97% of
parents/guardians report increased assets experienced by their child/children
resulting from participation in PRCR summer programs.
FUTURE BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS:
-
The TREK after school program for middle school
students held at the Gunston Community Center is in the ninth year of partial
funding with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). This program serves about 360 youth with 90%
low income and high-risk youth. It is
expected that there will be grant reductions in the future.
-
The Bike Shop program at Barcroft Park is in its fifth
year of CDBG funding. It serves about
45 youth per year. It is expected
there will be CDBG grant reductions in the future affecting the support of this
program.
-
Funding may be needed for the neighborhood strategy area summer
youth and teen playground program in Nauck, Buckingham, Columbia Heights West,
and the former Arna Valley area, some of which is funded by Community
Development Block Grant. Further
reduction in CDBG grants is expected in the future affecting the support of
these programs.
|
|
