PHYSICAL ACTIVITY AND HEALTH PARTNERSHIPS AMONG PARK AND

RECREATION DEPARTMENTS IN NORTH CAROLINA

Candice M. Bruton, MAMyron F. Floyd, PhDJason N. Bocarro, PhD

Karla H. Henderson, PhD Jonathan Casper, PhD Michael Kanters, PhD

 

Department of Parks, Recreation, & Tourism Management

NC State University

2010 Leisure Research SymposiumMinneapolis, Minnesota

October 29, 2010

< 50% of Americans met the guideline of 30 minutes of daily moderate intensity physical activity

Multi-sectoral partnerships: a key strategy in promoting physical activity

Public park and recreation agencies and health partnership participation

Background

Why Partnerships? Ability to achieve common goals.

(Andereck, 1997)

Response to rising service demands and reduced or flat budgets (Mowen et al., 2009).

Multi-sectoral health partnerships address a multifaceted problem.

National study of P & R health partnership practices (Mowen et al., 2009).

Purpose To examine the relationship between

organizational and personal factors and health partnership participation among NC public park and recreation departments.

Methods N =216 NC governmental units.

On-line survey: May 2007.

Chi-square analyses employed.

Primary Outcome Measure:

Formal partnership participation:

YES or NO

Definition: a group that shares resources and that can act as a formal agent.

INDEPENDENT VARIABLES LEVELS & CLASSIFICATIONS

High, Medium, Low

Male, Female High, Medium, Low High, Low Yes, No

Organizational Factors Operating Budget Capital Budget Population Size Staff Size

Director Characteristics Gender Years of Experience Years Current Position CPRP Status

Targeted Populations Effort Boys & Girls Teen Boys & Teen Girls Adults & Youth with Disabilities Older Adults Families People with Chronic Health Conditions Low Income Individuals Minority Groups

A great deal of effort, Some Effort, and Very Little to No Effort

CharacteristicsMinimu

m Maximum MeanStandardDeviation

Operating Budget$23,894 $12,342,16

5 $785,020 $1,640,240

Capital Budget $600$10,320,25

3$1,028,42

7 2,074,502

Number of Full Time Employees 1 429 28 66

Size of Population Served 941 768,574 48,032 101,214

NC Park and Recreation Departments:Organizational Capacity Characteristics

ResultsRespondent Characteristics F Percent (%)

Gender

Male 89 67.9 %

Female 42 32.1%

Years of Experience (M=20.14)

0 - 15 57 42.5%

16 - 30 58 43.3%

31 - 45 19 14.2%

Years in Current Position (M=8.01)

0 - 15 107 80.5%

16 - 45 26 19.5%

CPRP Status

Yes 36 27.1%

No 97 72.9%Recreational Resource Services, 2007

Comm Orgs

Schools Health Depts

Faith Comm

YMCAs0

10

20

30

40

50

60 56.4

46.3

30.5

1511.9

Partnership Participation among NC Park and Recreation Departments (2007)

Perc

en

t

Partnership Agency/Variable

X2 p Cramer’s V

County Health Departments

Operating Budget 12.08 .002 .316

Size of Population Served

11.56 .003 .297

Community Organizations

CPRP Status 5.25 .022 .199

Obese Teen Boys 6.81 .033 .258

Minorities 6.21 .045 .241

Schools

Number of Staff 8.06 .018 .326

Obese Teen Boys 9.23 .010 .301

Obese Teen Girls 8.24 .016 .282

Associations between Partnership Participation and Department Characteristics

Discussion Least frequent partners were churches and

YMCAs.

Departments with larger budgets and populations partner more (Mowen et al., 2009).

Targeted population groups appear unrelated to partnerships.

Gender and tenure were not related to partnership participation; CPRP status was related.

Limitations

1. Findings were limited to North Carolina (2007).

2. Secondary data were used.3. Limited measurement of partnership

characteristics – e.g.,• Informal partnerships• Frequency of contact• Nature of “resource sharing”

Conclusions Levels of partnership participation are

encouraging but untapped opportunities exist.

Future research needs:• What trends are occurring?• Do partnerships lead to improved health or

QOL?• How do informal partnerships differ?• What benefits and challenges exist in

multi-sectoral partnership work?• What is the nature of social networking

structures?

Thank you!Candice Bruton, Doctoral

StudentParks, Recreation, & Tourism

ManagementNorth Carolina State University

cmbruton@ncsu.eduThis research project was conducted by

the Investigating Places for Active Recreation in Communities (IPARC) Initiative at North Carolina State

University. It was funded in part by the North Carolina Forestry Foundation, Inc.