Seeking input: Sustainable Funding

PRPS is updating its issues-based #strategicplan. Recognizing that the Society is uniquely placed to exert influence on behalf of its members and partners, this plan does not focus on narrow, internal organizational goals (which are separately addressed by governance policies and an annual administrative plan). Instead, it addresses certain broad, external issues that impact the #recreationandparks industry and its professional practices throughout the state.

The Board of Directors has identified four broad issues in which to identify practical strategies to contribute solutions over the coming four years. They are:

1. Public Policy and Advocacy

2. Sustainable Funding

3. Collaborative Development

4. Stakeholder Engagement

What follows is the second of four drafts, each articulating an issue, followed by a concise Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities, and Challenges (#SWOC) analysis. The action points of each strategy are yet to be developed, but we invite input from our association management and recreation and park colleagues on this second issue, #Sustainable #Funding.

Issue 2: Sustainable Funding

Ensuring adequate and sustainable funding for public park and recreation systems remains a top priority for Pennsylvania park stewards and recreation providers. Insufficient funding not only prolongs and exacerbates #socialinequities, #environmental harm, and the #maintenance of unsafe and poorly maintained facilities, but also hinders #economic prospects, innovative solutions, new opportunities, responsive services, and the vocational appeal to new professionals.

Historically, public parks have been freely provided because they enhance the quality of life and improve public health and safety. Despite fees charged for structured recreational services, the overall costs of most park and recreation agencies heavily rely on tax subsidies. When #localgovernments face financial constraints, competition for funding among other public services escalates, often resulting in a lower #prioritization for park and recreation funding, particularly during budget deficits. This leads to a gradual decrease in #taxsupport over time. While “doing more with less” may be a short-term expediency, it’s a long-term fallacy.

While governmental sources offer numerous grant programs and allocate hundreds of millions of dollars each year, these funds are distressingly inadequate to meet the demand. On average, the popular DCNR C2P2 Grant program is able to fund only about half of the qualified requests it receives each year.

Moreover, #investments required for #deferredmaintenance and repairs in Pennsylvania include $645M for National Park sites, an estimated $1.4B for state parks and state forests, and hundreds of millions of dollars for the needs of more than 6,250 city, county, township, and borough parks.

The funding crunch is intensified by economic inflation and the increasingly rapid societal changes brought about by COVID-19. Shifting #demographics and economies, transforming markets and #workplaces, digitizing #operations, fluctuating #supplychains, and adapting to newly emerging social mores all require additional investments in #technologies, #infrastructure, training, #workforcedevelopment, and more.

Developing sufficient funding for parks, recreation and #conservation will include a mix of traditional and new sources and models, which may be best managed through purposeful, dedicated funds protected from political interference. However, for that funding to be sustainable, #revenuesources must be reliable in the long term, impose a relatively small cost on the economy, and rely on contributions from all citizens.

Strengths

1. Popular Support for Public Funding. A Penn State survey found that 97 percent of Pennsylvanians think that state funds dedicated to preserving #openspace and farmland, providing #parks and #trails, and protecting rivers and streams should continue to be used for these purposes; 82 percent support increasing state funds for these purposes. Nationally, voters in 2022 approved a record number of dedicated park bonds.
2. Federal and State Sources. The Land and Water Conservation Fund provides matching grants to state governments for the acquisition and development of public parks and other outdoor recreation sites. In FY 2022, PA received $8.5M. The Keystone Recreation, Park and Conservation Fund leverages 15% of the revenues from PA’s realty transfer tax, much of which goes toward community greenspace and improvement projects. In 2022, the PA General Assembly approved a nearly $700M in investments for state park and forest infrastructure, community parks, recreation centers, trails, greenways, and similar purposes.
3. Leveraging Local Funding. Many sources of governmental funding leverage matching funds for their programs from local collaborators, and generate a many-fold return to the economy. Each dollar of #KeystoneFund investment typically leverages $3.13 in direct local investments in parks, trails, community green spaces, and libraries. A 2012 report by The Trust for Public Land found that every $1 invested in land conservation through the Keystone Fund returned $7 in natural goods and services to the PA economy.

Weaknesses

1. Overwhelming Demand for Governmental Sources. Despite recent commitments and a diverse portfolio of disbursement programs, governmental sources alone will never meet the enormous demand for recreation, park and conservation funding, let alone sustain it indefinitely. Governmental sources remain subject to shortfalls and political interference that threaten their availability and effectiveness.
2. Unstable local funding. In a 2022 PRPS Study on #budgeting among competing #communityservices, #localofficials showed a distinct preference to cut park and recreation funding the most during a budget deficit, although they would grant it the greatest increase during a surplus.
3. Insufficient #NGO Sources. While nongovernmental funding sources can help to bridge the large gap in funding for parks and recreation needs, they remain inadequate to fill that niche. Additionally, many NGOs have specific limitations on eligible recipients, geographic service areas, projects and scopes, and do not provide ongoing operational support.
4. Uncertain Philanthropic and #CharitableGiving. #Philanthropy is facing years of flux in the 2020s, as the giving infrastructure expands in new directions, regulations change, controversy grows over the rising influence of wealthy mega-donors, and #publicprivatepartnerships multiply. Giving may become even more politicized, driving distrust in the sector as new channels cloak the transparency of donor agendas.

Opportunities

1. People, Parks and Community Foundation. Outside of governmental programs, no other statewide funding source directly supports recreational and educational opportunities, creates and sustains local parks, and promotes vibrant, #livable communities. The growth of the new #Foundation, expressly created by PRPS for these purposes, can help to fill that niche and close the funding gap.
2. Philanthropic trends. More #giving will occur through public-private partnerships between the philanthropic sector, governments, and businesses; more #corporategiving will serve as demonstrations of their #socialvalues. These shifts present PRPS with new opportunities to connect with donors, as well as new challenges.
3. Working Relationships. Local officials’ working #relationships with park and recreation directors strongly correlate to their perceptions of parks as being important to the community, as well as to the amount of funding they direct to these services.
4. Public Officials’ #Engagement. #Publicofficials who personally use local parks tend to increase budgets for park and recreation services by a greater percentage than those who do not personally use parks. Public officials who agree that parks and recreation enhance the economy are more likely to push for increased investments for park and rec services.

Challenges

1. Competition. #Competition for corporate dollars, foundation #investments and partnering collaborations is intense among many other worthy causes and organizations. In addition, Pennsylvania’s #nonprofit landscape is a mosaic of organizations working to fulfill similar missions.
2. New Funding Sources and Models. Developing sufficient and sustainable funding will likely include a combination of user fees, licensing, public-private partnerships, philanthropy, and innovative new models, with a reduced reliance on #publicfunding.
3. Continual #Advocacy. Park and recreation professionals must work personally and collectively to document, communicate, and advance the industry’s tangible worth, and unite to protect vital funding sources at all levels.

Strategies

1. #FundsDevelopment. Initiate and support efforts to increase and diversify funding sources for #parks, #recreation, #conservation, #wellness, #equity, and #community connections throughout the state.
2. Advocacy & Education. Promote funding sources and conduct #capacitybuilding training programs to educate #stakeholders on funding strategies, revenue development and #fiscalmanagement.