A primer: benefits-based management of recreation services - documenting the quality of recreational services as a cure for social ills - includes sidebar outlining program implementation strategy

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of interest in recreation as a vehicle for the amelioration of social ills. Many have coined this effort as a "return to our roots" or a re-establishment of our service mission as a profession. In his repositioning overview, Dr. John Crompton stated that we, as a profession, must reposition our services "so they contribute to alleviating problems that constitute the prevailing political concerns of those policy makers who are responsible for allocating tax funds." Clearly, the message is, to survive and flourish as a profession, we must provide purposeful recreation services that directly address social problems. These services must be offered in a manner where their impact is clearly documented and they are perceived by policy makers as significant to the welfare of the public. In other words, we must prove our worth to the community.

Unfortunately, the public's opinion of parks and recreation services has been made clear in the past two decades. With some exceptions, parks and recreation budgets continue to be among the first cut because the services are not perceived essential--contributing to the public good in a time when so many problems exist for which "other" services are needed. Unfortunately, recreation services are not considered part of the public service mix that contributes to the resolution of social problems. We must reposition ourselves if we are to be considered a part of the prescription for addressing social issues in our communities.

Contrary to this belief, there are many examples of recreation services contributing directly to the alleviation of social problems. NRPA's publication Beyond Fun and Games presents many outstanding examples. One reason that recreation is not widely used as a purposeful intervention, is a lack of information regarding how we deliver these services. The program planning process used in establishing these services has not been sufficiently documented.

Recently, however, efforts have been underway, in both the United States and Canada, to articulate a benefits-based model for delivering leisure services. This model suggests a focus on the outcomes benefits) of the services--what beneficial consequences, that directly address social problems, result from participation in recreation services? The emphasis is on the structure and content of the services; in other words, the quality of the opportunities themselves. Management efficiency and effectiveness is not the primary goal; it is viewed as a tool for providing effective services. Further, revenue generation is not a criterion for program offerings. Although, the long-term impact of these programs will involve cost savings to the individual, government and/or society. By focusing on direct outcomes, the profession begins to reposition itself as a service that is deemed significant and critical to societal well being.

Defining Explicit Benefits

This benefits-based model has been given several labels over the past few years. One that is commonly used is Benefits-based Management (BBM) of leisure services. BBM involves defining explicit target benefits (outcomes) which may lead to beneficial consequences for either the participants and/or society. Benefits are defined along two dimensions. The first relates to an "improved condition" resulting from the recreation experience. The second dimension relates to the "sustainability of a desired state or condition." For example, a person who consistently engages in moderate physical exercise may not realize an improved condition as a result of continued exercising, but may experience decreased health status if she discontinued exercising.

The programming philosophy of BBM requires identifying desired target benefits and then creating recreation opportunities that directly address those benefits. For example, an agency may choose to direct a portion of its program effort at self-esteem development or family cohesiveness. These two target benefits would be identified as programmatic goals and recreation opportunities would be developed to address them directly. These target benefits may lead to first order consequences, that are referred to as beneficial consequences. The beneficial consequences would be specifically identified for each recreation activity and the program consequences would be monitored and evaluated.

In terms of self-esteem development for teenage participants, first order beneficial consequences may include increased school achievement, increased work productivity, or even reduced drug involvement. First order beneficial consequences of developing family cohesiveness may include reduced family stress, reduced spouse or child abuse, or a general re-establishment of family values. Over the long term, these first order consequences may lead to a set of second order beneficial consequences to society. In this scenario, the second order beneficial consequences would eventually result in cost savings to all citizens because of reduced health and welfare costs. Figure 1 illustrates the relationship between recreation activities, target benefits, first order consequences, and second order consequences. A family recreation sports program is used to illustrate the relationship between program benefits and consequences. This relationship is referred to as the "benefit chain of causality."

Currently, two implementation strategies for BBM are evolving. Strategy I involves the development of specific programs and recreation areas to both document and achieve designated benefits. This strategy does not assume that the benefits of leisure services are sufficiently documented nor does it assume that existing programs are developed for specific benefit achievement. Strategy II, on the other hand, assumes that recreation programs and areas, in their present state of development, do result in benefit achievement and that these benefits are sufficiently documented in the literature. Since Strategy II makes this assumption, it primarily involves a more comprehensive monitoring system to document benefit achievement through existing recreation areas and programs. Strategy II is a sub-strategy of Strategy I because the same monitoring system would be employed in both efforts.

Because of its inclusiveness, the implementation process for Strategy I will be discussed in the remainder of this article. There are several critical components to implementing BBM and they are broken down into three phases. Figure 2 presents a summary of the three stage implementation approach consistent with Strategy I.

PHASE I: BENEFIT AND OPPORTUNITY IDENTIFICATION

Phase I is the most critical phase of the implementation strategy. It involves a fundamental change in the way we engage in our professional service. Each program, service and physical area we provide for recreation use would be specifically developed and/or designed to achieve a desired target benefit that leads to a first order beneficial consequence.

A debate is taking place at this time regarding whether target benefits or the first order beneficial consequences should be the primary focus of our programming efforts. Since it is extremely complex and expensive to assess the first and second order beneficial consequences of recreation the target benefits will be the focus of this article. Beneficial consequences must be articulated, but the research community is primarily responsible for providing this documentation to those engaged in recreation programming.

Analyze the Mission

The first step in Phase I would involve a thorough analysis of the agency mission, goals and management practices as they specifically relate to recreation opportunities offered the public. This analysis will provide a starting point for the selection of target benefits. Each agency has its own unique orientation and philosophy. Certain benefits may be much more readily achievable in certain agencies while not feasible in others depending on the mission or management philosophy. For example, federal land managing agencies may focus on benefits that can be achieved at recreation sites through self-directed experiences for the most part. Whereas, municipal recreation and parks agencies would focus on benefit achievement through formally structured experiences provided with professional leadership. Agencies would select a preliminary group of benefits that they feel they could reasonably address through their programs. These may be agency-wide benefits, or they may vary by program areas of concentration. In a recent national workshop, more than 94 benefits were outlined as possible areas for leisure services to concentrate. These were grouped into seven major areas: physical health, mental health, personal development and growth, personal satisfaction, socio-cultural benefits, economic benefits and environmental benefits. This area needs considerable research to verify the relationship between potential benefits and the existing community recreation services.

Identifying User Needs

The second stage of Phase I would involve a further refinement of target benefits by identifying those benefits sought by a cross-section of constituents. Traditionally, parks and recreation agencies have conducted needs assessments or market analyses of their constituents. Using a BBM philosophy these assessment efforts would now include a clarification of the benefits sought by the public. A second approach may also involve informed community leaders and other human service professionals. Human service councils or boards established to deal with significant social problems may provide the guidance for selecting target benefits.

This later. approach normally articulates beneficial consequences rather than target benefits. For example, a human service board may indicate that drug abuse by teens is a major problem in their community and may call upon the recreation department to address this issue. Alleviating teen drug abuse is the beneficial consequence of the recreation program, but the target benefits would be the enhancement of those personal characteristics and attitudes that help a teens resist using drugs. One frequently cited common characteristic would be developing a more positive self-image or enhancing self esteem.

It should be emphasized that recreation programs do not produce the beneficial consequences, but instead produce opportunities to achieve target benefits that may, in turn, contribute to the beneficial consequences. For example, mitigating teen drug use is a complex issue requiring a concerted effort by families themselves several human service programs and other community groups. The responsibilities for solving these issues should not be placed upon the recreation agency. Rather, the agency should be a partner in the process.

Although several benefits have been identified, a valid and reliable set of target benefits has not been articulated for community recreation opportunities. This is an area, however, which is receiving considerable attention in the research community at this time. Several studies are underway that will help develop a comprehensive list of target benefits and beneficial consequences that can be addressed by professionals in a variety of settings.

Once the users have been surveyed and a comprehensive analysis of the agency's mission, goals and management orientation has been completed, a core set of target benefits can be identified. These benefits will be the basis for implementing BBM. The agency must limit the number of benefits it chooses because it cannot provide services to meet all the benefits identified by users or other stakeholder groups. Choose a small number of benefits, possibly four or five, that are consistent with the agency's mission, management philosophy and resources.

Modify Missions and Goals

In many situations, once target benefits are identified, agency mission statements and goals need to be modified to reflect target benefits (outcomes) of service or area provision. Presently, most agency goals are tailor-made for administration and state procedures or guidelines for management.

For example, a common goal may state that the agency will provide services directly related to the needs of the consumer. This is a well-intended goal but it needs to be supplemented with goals that directly relate to outcomes. For example, an agency may develop a goal (target benefit) as follows: through our youth sports program we will enhance the self-image of the participants.

This goal would be followed by a performance measure allowing for evaluation of the goal. Logical measures for the aforementioned goal may entail the administration of a personality measure that directly relates to self-image, an assessment by parents, guardians or other knowledgeable individuals or assessment by the recreation leaders themselves. It is clear that performance measures must be tied directly to the identified target benefit.

Step five entails selecting specific recreation activities that will address the target benefits established in step four. Initial efforts to identify the linkage between identified target benefits and potential recreation opportunities will be primarily based upon professional opinion. The body of knowledge does not exist today to draw these linkages with any assurance. However, as the profession undertakes more comprehensive assessment efforts, these linkages will be documented.

As one considers these linkages, the concept of substitutability must be considered, i.e., multiple benefits associated with single activities or single benefits associated with multiple activities. This issue cannot be totally resolved. However, if the effort is limited to a few (three or four) recreation opportunities, the skill level of the participants is articulated and the various social units (individual, family, friends, etc.) of participation are identified, then the linkage between benefits and opportunities can begin to be articulated.

One of the leisure delivery system's most prominent weaknesses has been the assumption that the benefit achievement naturally occurs through participation in any recreation opportunity regardless of the structure, content and/or leadership associated with that opportunity. Again, although this may be true with some experiences, especially those that are self-directed, one should not assume that all recreation opportunities are automatically beneficial to the participant/user.

Identify Structural Elements

Given this situation, step six of Phase I would involve a structural analysis of each recreation opportunity being offered. Structural properties would include: social unit of participation, skill level of participants, environmental setting, physical characteristics, and time constraints. For example, assume that an agency has decided that family cohesiveness is a target benefit and one of the selected activities is a series of community social events. In this instance, the planners would include activities that require multiple family member participation, such as, parents interacting with children directly. Too many times, parallel activities are planned where parents participate separately from children. This type of experience, although very common with social events, does not encourage family bonding. In addition, the activity should not be competitive and skill level should not be a major factor in successful participation. The actual activity site is also critical to enhancing the interaction among family members in a relaxed and pleasant environment. A large community park with multiple areas for both passive and active recreation activities would be most conducive.

This previous step (step six) of BBM is very difficult to achieve. It involves a much more specific planning effort where target benefits are the focal point for structuring each opportunity. At this time in our professional development we do not know the essential structural elements that various recreation opportunities require for benefit achievement. This is an area of research that must be undertaken if we are to achieve the success that is possible with BBM. Earlier efforts at activity analysis that documented the cognitive, affective, social and psychomotor skills necessary for successful participation in various recreation experiences should be helpful in clarifying structural elements.

PHASE II: IMPLEMENTATION

The duration of Phase II will be dependent upon two factors: 1.) the extent of the modifications in physical resources and/or programs necessary to address the selected target benefits and 2.) the thoroughness of the monitoring and evaluation component.

Modify Sites and Services

Therefore, the first step in Phase II is to make the structural changes in recreation sites/areas or programs essential to target benefit achievement and then ensure that setting characteristics are included in the modifications. For example, physical changes in campsites or nature trails may be quite extensive to achieve a selected target benefit of increased environmental stewardship. With formally structured recreation programs involving professional leaders, a more prescriptive set of opportunities that directly address the target benefits must be established. Again, we cannot assume those recreation programs, where each element of the opportunity has not been specifically determined, will naturally meet our target benefits.

Select Control Sites

The next step in Phase II is optional. Whether it is included will depend on the need and support for a comprehensive monitoring and evaluation effort. If impact assessments are desired, control sites and/or programs where residents do not receive the prescriptive recreation service should be selected for comparative purposes. These sites and programs should match your modified sites and programs in terms of setting, management strategies and users as much as possible. The only exception would be the prescriptive programming. This would allow a direct comparison of impacts through the two different experiences. Further, in the selection of control sites and programs the same monitoring and evaluation process must be feasible.

Develop Monitoring Procedures

The development of instrumentation and procedures for monitoring benefit achievement is the next step. This is the most difficult component to implement because of the lack of appropriate measurement tools and the time and expense of the monitoring effort. Obviously the procedures must be simple, unobtrusive and as cost efficient as possible. They may include: systematic assessments by supervisors, participant evaluations, third party observations, staff evaluations or a combination of these. Not only do these procedures need to address the target benefits to the participants but, where feasible, efforts should be made to document the first order beneficial consequences that may transcend the individual or other social unit of participation. Identifying clear and measurable performance measures at the beginning of this process will greatly facilitate this effort. For example, collecting of secondary information relating to work productivity, academic achievement, reduced health costs or other cost savings are clear performance measures that would be helpful in documenting beneficial consequences of recreation participation.

It is quite probable that the required frequency and intensity of participation for benefit achievement will vary tremendously across the nature of the target benefits and the recreation opportunities offered. For example, self-esteem development may require more frequent and sustained involvement than stress reduction. These potential differences must be taken into account when establishing a monitoring system. Since this system is the mechanism by which we document and verify our social relevance, it should be carried out in a well-organized and rigorous manner. It cannot be considered an unnecessary component of the entire process.

Appropriate sampling plans and data collection procedures must be developed in conjunction with identifying valid and reliable instrumentation. Having this step involve the assistance of individuals who have direct experience in conducting evaluative research efforts is highly recommended. Some agencies will be able to call upon their internal personnel who are trained and experienced in this area while others will have to seek assistance, for example, from academic institutions. Whenever possible, field experimentation allowing impact assessment should be followed. However, in those situations where this is not feasible, well-developed case studies or other qualitative designs may be utilized.

Train and Orient Staff

The last preparatory step before actual implementation of the recreation opportunities involves the orientation and training of all staff, including part-time and volunteer staff. This includes an understanding of the BBM philosophy, an understanding of the target benefits, the content and structure of the recreation opportunities, the setting characteristics, procedures for leading the opportunities when appropriate and procedures for monitoring and evaluating the experience. This orientation and training must be built into the BBM process on a recurring basis because of the constant change in personnel. And most importantly, it must be viewed as a normal element of the overall management plan for the agency and not another special effort that is peripheral to the general operation of the agency.

Implement the Program and Monitor Results

The next step involves the implementation of the program or service and the last step in Phase II involves the monitoring of actual participation. Implementation should be consistent with the target benefits and program design established in Phase I and earlier steps of Phase II.

The minimum monitoring period should be one season of participation. Because of the nature of the target benefits, monitoring may need to extend over several seasons to ensure that participation levels were adequate to affect the target benefits. Constant monitoring involving formative evaluation of the sites, programs and users throughout the season of participation is critical in order that appropriate modifications can be made when and where necessary.

If it is obvious that elements of the BBM strategy are not working, then changes should be made as soon as possible even if it is before the end of the monitoring period.

As stated previously, an experimental design using a pre-post evaluative format to determine benefit achievement with the pretest conducted on site is recommended. It may be impractical to track users' behavior throughout the monitoring period so the post-testing may take on several possible forms. The post-testing will be based upon the feasibility of contacting the initial sample of users on site at the conclusion of the monitoring period. Therefore, the post-testing may be conducted off-site through the mail, telephone interviews or in some cases personal interviews at the users' residence.

The entire monitoring and assessment effort must be conducted at the control sites and/or programs at the same time using the same sampling and data collection procedures. Again, it must be understood that establishing an experimental design for monitoring the impact of your services would be the most effective measure of programmatic impact, but this is not feasible in many cases. Thus, a strong monitoring system of the actual attitude or behavior change of your participants is essential and critical regardless of the utilization of a control site or program.

PHASE III: EVALUATION AND DOCUMENTATION

Review and Analyze

Phase III consists of data analysis and documentation of results. The first two steps in Phase III involve a complete review of the formative evaluation followed throughout the implementation process, as well as the analysis of all data from the pre and post testing. Through these steps, you can determine if recreation participation had any impact on the target benefits.

Also, reviewing the formative assessment may suggest where changes in the content or structure of the sites, areas or programs are necessary for benefit achievement.

Assess Untargeted Benefits

In addition to these assessment efforts, it should be determined if unanticipated or serendipitous benefits were achieved through participation in the selected recreation opportunities. It is quite possible that benefits may accrue that were not considered in the initial BBM strategy. The comprehensive monitoring should allow one to determine if, in fact, serendipitous benefits resulted from participation.

Create Final Report

The next step would involve the development of final reports documenting both the impact assessment and formative evaluation of the implementation process including site and program modifications.

The reports primarily should focus on benefit achievement and resulting performance measures. Various forms of the report including fact sheets, brochures, slide presentations and anecdotal stories should be developed.

Because of the uniqueness of BBM strategy, the last step in the process should involve a systematic means of disseminating the results to agency and community decision makers as well as other professionals and researchers. If BBM is to help us advance the profession and our body of literature it is essential that the results be disseminated. On a local level this will be accomplished by the professional staff at the sites or agencies involved directly with the BBM approach. However, on a national level, a network should be established to communicate the results of various studies involving BBM to key national leaders with various organizations and agencies. Further, state and federal officials need to be contacted before they engage in the legislative process for establishing budgetary priorities for the coming year.

Some may view BBM as nothing new; it is the recreation programming process they have been using for years. For those individuals, hopefully some new ideas have been presented which can be incorporated into their programming process.

For those who see this as a totally new approach to recreation programming, you are encouraged to implement this process to the extent possible given your local circumstances. Although there are many areas that need further refinement, taking those elements of BBM that are readily defined and incorporating them in your present programming strategies will serve the professional well.

We need to take action and try these ideas and refine them as we go. We cannot wait for all the answers because we will lose much in terms of justifying the significance of our professional area. The need for change is now and we must respond to this need in a timely and effective manner.

The author would like to acknowledge the following individuals for their input and review of this manuscript:

Mr. Stephen Person Fort Lauderdale Parks and Recreation Department

Mr. Paul Ellis Greenville Parks and Recreation Department

Dr. Bev Driver U.S. Forest Service

References

Crompton, J. (1993). Repositioning recreation and park services: An overview. In National Park Service and National Recreation and Park Association, Trends (pp. 2-5). Washington, D.C.: National Park Service.

Driver, B.L., Brown, P., and Peterson, G.,eds. (1991a). The Benefits of Leisure. State College, Pennsylvania: Venture Publishing, Inc.

Driver, B.L., Brown, P., and Peterson, G., (1991 b). Applying Knowledge on the Beneficial Consequences of Leisure. Unpublished manuscript.

Godbey, G. (1991). Redefining public parks and recreation. Park and Recreation Magazine. October, 56-58, 61, 74-75.

National Recreation and Park Association, (1994). Beyond Fun and Games: Emerging Roles of Public Recreation. Arlington, Virginia: National Recreation and Park Association.

Sessoms, D. (1991). Justification for our services: Have we lost our way. In National Park Service and National Recreation and Park Association, Trends (pp. 6-8). Washington DC: National Park Service.

COPYRIGHT 1996 National Recreation and Park Association
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group