A SURVEY AND ANALYSIS 6F FACTORS Arracnnc THE SALARY or- sm'n: PARK ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MlCHiGAN STATE UNIVERSITY James 3er Truncer i964 TH £518 A) . ) if j k’o r“ ABSTRACT A SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE SALARY OF STATE PARK ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS by James Ioel Truncer The purpose of this study is to analyze existing position classifica- tions and prerequisites of state park administrative heads and to determine the relationship of several specific factors affecting the personnel presently filling these positions and the salaries they receive. A sampling of fifty-four of fifty- nine agencies primarily responsible for state parks in 46 states was obtained through the use of a questionnaire. Two position classifications were used as a basis for analysis. Positions classified within a civil service or merit system were separated from those not included in a civil service or merit system. The results indicated a wide variety of educational prerequisites for administrative heads of state park agencies. Extreme differences in sal- aries and salary ranges were evident. In general there was a relationship found to exist between the salary received by a state park administrative head and: (l) the level of educa~ tional achievement, (2) the field of professional training, (3) the inclusion of the position in a civil service or merit system, (4) the number of years of experience in state park work, (5) the population of the state, (6) the annual state park attendance, (7) the magnitude of the budget, and (8) the James Joel Truncer geographical region of country were employed. The most significant rela- tionship found to exist was that the highest salaries were received by col- lege trained professionals serving under a civil service or merit system. Tables and illustrations were developed for the comparison of findings of this study with those of similar studies concerning park and recreation executives serving in other than federal or state park administrative posi- tions . A SURVEY AND ANALYSIS OF FACTORS AFFECTING THE SALARY or STATE PARK ADMINISTRATIVE HEADS By James Joel Truncer A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to express appreciation for the thoughtful assist- ance and suggestions received from Dr. Raleigh Barlowe, Dr. Leslie Reid, Dr. Milton Steinmueller, and Louis E. Twardzik of the Department of Re- source Development, Joseph J. Truncer of the New Jersey Bureau of Parks and Recreation, and the other State Park administrative heads who provided the basic data for this study. A special note of appreciation is extended to my wife, Ramona, whose help and encouragement made this manuscript possible. James Joel Truncer ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... . .................. ii LIST OF TABLES ...... - ..................... iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ....................... v LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES ...................... vii Chapter I. INTRODUCTION ...................... 1 Importance of the Park Profession ........... 1 Need for this Study ................... 3 Objectives and Scope of this Study .......... 8 II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE .................. 10 Previous Studies .................... 10 Comparisons with Related Public Professions ..... 15 III. COLLECTION OF DATA ................... 18 Definitions for Purposes of Study ........... 18 Nature and Source of Data ............... 19 Limitations of Study .................. 22 IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA ..................... 25 Method of Analysis ............ , ....... 25 Position Classifications ................ 26 Position Prerequisites ................. 29 Education ........................ 30 Experience ....................... 32 Age of Sample Population ................ 35 Salaries ........................ 36 Regional Comparisons ................. 44 V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............. 47 Summary ........................ 47 Conclusions ...... ~ ................ 52 BIB LIO GRAPHY ............................. 5 6 APPENDIX .............................. 58 iii Table LIST OF TABLES Relationship of Salaries to Major Fields of Study of Park and Recreation Directors , as Reported by LaGasse and Cook ................ Relationship of Salaries to Major Field of Study of Park Directors in Separate Park Departments as Reported by LaGasse and Cook .......... Length of Appointments of State Park Administrators Not Serving Under a Civil Service or Merit System Age Distribution of State Park Administrative Heads Age Distribution of Civil Service or Merit System State Park Administrators ............... Age Distribution of Non-Civil Service or Merit System State Park Administrators ............... Salary Levels of State Park Administrators ....... Distribution of Salary Levels of State Park Administrators .................... Length of Appointments of State Park Administrators iv Page 12 28 35 36 36 37 39 44 Figure 10. ll. 12. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Relationship of Major Field of Study to Mean Annual Salary of Park and Recreation Directors in Combined Park and Recreation Departments , as Reported by La Gas se and Cook ................... Relationship of Major Field of Study to Mean Annual Salary of Park Directors in Separate Park Depart- ments as Reported by LaGasse and Cook ........ Major Fields of Study of Park and Recreation Directors in Combined Park and Recreation Departments ...................... Major Fields of Study of Park Directors in Separate Park Departments ............... United States Map Showing Distribution of State Park Administrator Classifications ........... College Degrees Accepted as an Educational Prerequisite ...................... Major Fields of Study of State Park Administrators Having Completed College ............... Number of Years Since Completion of the First College Degree ..................... Major Fields of Experience of Non— Degree State Park Administrators ................... Total Length of Time in State Park Work by Administrators ..................... Number of Years with Present State Park Agency ..... Annual Salaries of State Park Administrators as Reported for the Year 1961 . . . . . . ......... Page 13 13 14 15 27 30 31 32 32 33 34 38 Figure 13. 14. 15. 16. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued) Relationship of Major Fields of Study to Mean Annual Salary of State Park Administrators ........... Relationship of Salaries to Major Fields of Study of Civil Service or Merit System State Park Administrators ..................... Relationship of Salaries to Major Fields of Study of Non-Civil Service or Merit System State Park Administrators ..................... Relationship of State Park Attendance, Budget, State Population, and Mean Annual Salaries of State Park Administrators by Geographical Regions ..... vi Page 40 42 43 45 LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES Table Page A. State Populations, 1960 Census .............. 59 B. State Park Expenditures, 1961 ............... 60 C. State Park Attendance, 1961 ................ 61 D. Salaries of State Park Administrators, I961 ........ 62 E. State Populations by Geographical Regions , 1960 ..... 64 F. State Park Expenditures by Geographical Regions , 1961 . 65 G. State Park Attendance by Geographical Regions , 1961 . . 66 H. Salaries of State Park Administrators by Geographical Regions, 1961 ..................... 67 I. List of State Park Agencies ................ 68 vii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Importance of the Park Profession Historically, the first professional interests in park and recreation management began with the establishment of public parks in England and Europe during the early part of the nineteenth century. It was this move- ment in Europe and England which led prominent citizens in the new world to work for the creation of parks in New York City. The result was that in 1853 acquisition of land for New York City's Central Park was started. Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux created the design for Central Park which was the first large park in this country suitable for the recrea~ tional pursuits of the day. This was the beginning of the park and recreation movement in America. It was through this involvement in recreation by the government that social and economic patterns began to change. The creation of children's play- grounds in congested areas of large cities soon brought about programs which included use of public recreation areas by adults. At the national level interests in preserving vast areas of wilderness were aroused and as a result of the Washburn - Langford - Doane expedition, Yellowstone Na- tional Park became a reality in 1872.. The Yosemite Grant of 1864 by the federal government in California led to the creation of the first state park in this country. Since these beginnings there has been an evolution of numerous park and recreation systems in the United States. The initial concept of public parks and recreation first became a reality in this country in the mid-1800‘s , when numerous social, economic and political changes began to take place. "In most States, however, parks were not acquired until after the turn of the century, and park agencies came into prominence only after the 1920’s. "1 The park movement was given added impetus during the 1930's with the aid of depression - prompted public works and conservation legisla- tion. The expansion and growth of park and recreation systems continued until the beginning of World War II. Ironically, the first National Recrea- tion Plan was released by the National Park Service on the day after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. It was not until the mid-1950's that there was an awakening to the need for more public park facilities to handle an ever-increasing population with an ever-increasing amount of leisure time. ' The rapid growth in population, along with more leisure time has brought about different problems from those which were solved by the park and rec- reation leaders of the past. New decisions concerning the allocation and distribution of human and natural resources are being faced by today's pro- fessionals. Urbanization and mobility of the American masses has had a profound effect upon the growth of available leisure time. Americans are faced with 1Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Outdoor Recrea- tion for America (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, January 1962), p. 17. the prospect of an ever-increasing amount of leisure time in the future and the professional park and recreation administrator must be able to accept the challenge of providing the opportunities for the public to use this time for their enrichment and development as individuals and citizens. The park and recreation profession has grown rapidly with new demands of leader- ship, supervision and administration being made in trying to provide solu- tions to the social problems of man created by urbanization and free time. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission studies of 1961 show that participation in outdoor recreation will rise from 4.. 4 billion ac~ tivity occasions to over 12. 4 billion by the year 2000. The nation's popula- tion during this same period is expected to double. This recognition of recreational activities and the expanded role they must play in the American way of life has caused new career opportunities to develop in voluntary, public, private and commercial areas as well as in local, state, and fed- eral governmental agencies. The park and recreation professional of today occupies the important pivotal role of providing recreational opportunities for the public in an era of prosperity and scientific advancement never be- fore experienced by man. Need for this Study Importance of Individuals Administering Statewide Park and Recreation Systems There has been, since the concept of the state park movement, various patterns of organization and management adopted by state park agencies. This has been mainly the result of differing recreation development programs 4 and philosophies of the various states. Consequently, state park systems differ widely in the number of areas and their aggregate acreage; the size, character and complexity of their administrative organization; the source, background and training of their personnel; methods of land acquisition; the nature and reliability of financial support; and their general policy of development and management. 2 As a result of recent state and federal legislation directly affecting the development of park and recreation facilities at all levels of govern- ment, new responsibilities in recreation will be assumed by the states. The newly created Federal Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, which is charged with coordination of recreation, depends upon state leadership in order to carry out it's mission. The development of the Federal Outdoor Recreation Plan, by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, depends solely upon the development of individual State Recreation Plans which, in turn, will reflect local needs and consid- erations. The net result is the placing of the states in a pivotal role where local levels of recreation administration will be linked to state and federally coordinated programs and plans. The assuming of new leadership in the field of recreation by the states through the creation of agencies solely responsible for recreation places the states in a most important leadership role. Individuals responsible for administering state-wide recreation systems will be faced with the task of developing comprehensive recreation programs 2C. Frank Brockman, Recreational Use of Wild Lands (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1959), p. 86. and, in addition, coordinating federal assistance programs with local levels of government. The result is the park and recreation professional at the state level will be called upon to make decisions which will not only af- fect the planning, development and operation of state administered recrea- tion facilities and programs, but also those at other governmental levels. New Demands for State Recreation Services As pointed out in the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Report of 1962, the demand for recreation is surging. Americans are seeking recrea- tional opportunities as never before. And this is only a foretaste of what is to come. Not only will there be many more people, they will want to do more, and they will have more money and time to do it with. By 2000 the pop-1 ulation should double; the demand for recreation should triple. Some of. the problems facing the states in providing recreation are the most vexing and complicated as a result of involvement by so many fields of government endeavor. Included is the problem of tremendous deficiencies in recreational lands, facilities and services to meet present needs. Com~ petition for use of land will produce even greater difficulties in the years ahead. The number of agencies being created or expanded to meet the rec~ reation demands will cause serious problems in coordination of the roles of government and private enterprise in meeting the total public recreation needs. At the present time there are over 34 federal agencies carrying on programs in the field of recreation. Other difficulties can be expected in 3Ibid., p. 25. the determination of what governmental level can best supply specific rec- reation needs with minimum overlaps and gaps in service. Outdoor Recreation is a serious business both because of its beneficial effect on the physical, cultural, and social well- being of the American people and because of its economic im- pact. It is a partial solution to the social problems created by urbanization and free time. It is a solution, at least in part, to the fact that man is not wholly suited physiologically to the technological demands placed upon him. The demand for recreational facilities and services is large and in~ creasing. The recreational services and facilities needed are in the metro- politan regions where most of the population lives. The result is that new and improved methods for effective allocation of natural, human, and eco~ nomic resources are needed to meet these new demands. The following areas of state responsibility in recreation are indicated in the Proposed State Recreation Policy for the State of Michigan to promote, and facilitate the development of adequate and coordinated recreation facilities and ser- vices. 1. Assume new leadership in coordinating efforts to meet total recreational needs of the people. This coordination will encourage all agencies and levels of government to assume their responsi- bilities rather than abrogate the rights of home rule by local gov- ernment or usurp prerogatives of federal agencies. Coordinating efforts shall give equal consideration to each area of the State; and shall consider the problems of government and voluntary agencies and also those of private enterprise which will be en-« couraged to meet some of the public recreation needs. 2. Recreation is a legitimate continuing governmental responsi- bility directly associated with the public welfare. As such, the adequacy, quality, and continuity of the recreation programs and 4U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation Em- ployee Handbook (Washington: U. 8. Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 10. opportunities provided at all governmental levels should be sup- ported and advanced by professional leadership through use of public and other supplemental funds. 3. Develop and maintain in cooperation with Federal, State and local governmental agencies and other public and private interests a state recreation plan which will serve as a guide to public and private agencies integrating and coordinating their activities to help provide the future recreation needs of the state. 4. Work with the Federal Government, various State agencies and the political subdivisions of the State in planning sound, long-range recreation programs and services for Federal, State and local areas. 5. Recognize, inventory and appraise the recreation potential- ities on all public and private lands , water areas , shorelines , and facilities , and, consistent with the fullest interest of the State, acquire, conserve, protect, perpetuate and develop and make other desired provisions for adequate and appropriate fa- cilities for the use of these resources for public recreation. 6. Set aside or acquire lands , waters and shorelines of state- wide significance needed for public park and recreation purposes , and develop, administer, and use them only for purposes com— patible with their recreation values. Incompatible uses should be prevented or discontinued. 7. Permit and encourage the Federal Government and the polit- ical subdivisions of the State to construct and operate recrea- tion facilities and programs within the State or on state lands. Permit disposition and exchange of state lands with other govern- mental agencies for recreation development when it is in the public interest to do so, taking into account the probability of proper and adequate development, operation and administration by the Federal Government or the political subdivisions. 8. Provide technical leadership and guidance to the political subdivisions of the State and other public, private and commer- cial interests in the planning and development of recreation fa- cilities and services including the collection and dissemination of necessary and desirable data pertinent to such planning and development. 9. Encourage private investments , through State and Federal legislative devices and services , to develop and provide quality recreation facilities and services to the public. 8 10. Recoqnize the need for, develop, and support trained tech- nical and professional recreation, and recreation related, leader- ship and administration in appropriate Federal, State and local governmental agencies. 11. Develop and maintain recreation programs under professional leadership in the various State institutions of education, health, welfare and rehabilitation. 5 ‘ A comprehensive study of the factors affecting the salary of administra- tive heads of state park agencies had not been undertaken in the past and little is known of the relationship of the education of the personnel presently filling these positions and their salaries. Little opportunity for comparison of these positions was possible prior to the completion of a questionnaire sent to the heads of state park agencies in 1961. Since the return of this questionnaire, the National Park Service completed the collection of salary data and presented it as a part of "State Park Statistics - 1961. " With this information, the comparison of data collected by both surveys was possible. Changes and variations were noted which complemented the original ques-— tionnaire and the resulting study. The completion of studies entitled "How Education Affects Salary, " "Fringe Benefits Survey" and "Salary Survey" by the American Institute of Park Executives in 1963 provided additional valuable information for purposes of comparison. Objectives and Scope of This Study The purpose of this study is: (1) to analyze existing position classi- fications and prerequisites of administrative heads of state park agencies 5Louis F. Twardzik, A Proposed State Recreation Policy for the State of Michigan (East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1961), pp. 5-8. 9 and (2) to determine the relationship of specific factors to the salary re- ceived by the personnel presently filling these positions. The study will be conducted on a nation~wide basis with the results indicating various position classifications and prerequisites of the admin- istrative heads of the primary agencies responsible for state parks in the United States. This is not a detailed study of the organization of each primary state park agency, but an analysis of the various position classifications and position prerequisites. The relationship of salary and education of each administrative head will be explored, as will the relationship of his salary to the state park agency's annual budget, park attendance and state pop- ulation. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Previous Studies Prior the the completion of this study, little had been done to gather information concerning the individual state park agencies' position classi- fications and prerequisites of the various state park administrative heads. No information was available about the education and experience of admin- istrative heads of the nation's state park agencies. The National Park Service has , over the years , published an annual report on state park statistics , but included only attendance and budget information about each state park organization. In 1961 the National Park Service did gather and update salary information about the professionals serving with the nation's state park organizations. This did provide a comprehensive report on salary ranges but did not include any information about the individual administrator‘s education or experience. Also lacking were the state park organization position prerequisites. In 1963 the American Institute of Park Executives completed detailed studies concerning the salaries and educations of park and recreation pro- fessionals serving in other than state or federal organizations. Their re- sults indicated, in general, that salaries increase: (1) as the level of educational achievement increases, (2) as the number of years of experi- ence in the park and recreation field increases , and (3) as the population 10 11 of the governmental jurisdiction reporting increases. Tabulations according to regions of the country indicated that there were variations in educational backgrounds of park and recreation profes- sionals that "the salaries in the Western and Southern states are consider- ably lower than the salaries of the Pacific coast and the Great Lakes - Eastern states. " Also, LaGasse and Cook evaluated the relationships of salaries to major fields of study of park and recreation directors. These relationships are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1. Relationship of Salaries to Major Fields of Study of Park and Recreation Directors, as Reported by LaGasse and Cook Major N Median Mean Recreation 101 $ 7,900 $ 8,178 Physical Education 75 7 , 921 7 , 966 Education 33 8,167 8,789 Landscape Architecture 15 9 ,167 10 , 633 Engineering 5 12, 250 11,500 Park Management 4 6,667 7,500 Horticulture 7 9 , 375 9 , 214 Forestry 3 6,750 7,500 Social Science 8 8,250 8,687 Zoology 1 10,500 10,500 Veterinary Medicine 0 - - - - Other 33 9 , 063 9,348 1Alfred B. LaGasse and Walter L. Cook, How Education Affects Salary (Wheeling, West Virginia: American Institute of Park Executives , Inc. , 1963), p. 7. Ibid., p. 9. 12 Table 2. Relationship of Salaries to Major Field of Study of Park Directors in Separate Park Departments as Reported by LaGasse and Cook Major N Median Mean Recreation 9 $ 8,375 $ 8,500 Physical Education 0 - - — - Education 3 9,833 9,833 Landscape Architecture 18 9 , 333 9 ,111‘ Engineering 10 13,333 13,166 . Park Management 4 8,667 9,000 ‘ Horticulture 8 6 , 750 7 ,187 Forestry 16 7,667 8,093 Social Science 0 - - - - Zoology 0 - - - - Veterinary Medicine 0 - - - - Other 12 8,000 9,083 It is interesting to note that those whose major field of study was engi- neering were the highest paid personnel in the park profession, with land- scape architects reported not far below. Figures number 1 and number 2 illustrate the relationship of major fields of study to mean annual salary as determined by LaGasse and Cook. The tabulation of major fields of study of park directors in separate park departments reveals that the greatest number of individuals filling these positions came from a natural science background, but the highest mean salary was earned by those again with an engineering education. 13 Mean Annual Salary in Dollars per Year Major 7500 8000 8500 9000 9500 100001050011000 11500 Engineering Landscape Architecture Zoology Other Horticulture Education Social Science Recreation Physical Educ. Park Management Forestry Figure 1. Relationship of Major Field of Study to Mean Annual Salary of Park and Recreation Directors in Combined Park and Recreation Departments, as Reported by LaGasse and Cook Mean Annual Salary in Dollars per Year Major 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12 0 13 Engineering Education Landscape Architecture Other Park Management Recreation Forestry Horticulture Figure 2. Relationship of Major Field of Study to Mean Annual Salary of Park Directors in Separate Park Departments as Reported by LaGasse and Cook 14 The following Figures number 3 and number 4 indicate the extent to which the various professional fields are represented by the directors of combined and separate park departments at other than the State or Federal governmental level. .‘ . ..: o. .: :..‘.‘ , o . . 35% ,. . . m... ‘ 26% . 4% 20010 12% Other 9” 2. 8% Social Science (1.1% Forestry 12% Education 5. 2% Landscape Architecture 1. 7% Engineering " 2. 4% Horticulture 1. 4% Park Management Figure 3. Major Fields of Study of Park and Recreation Directors in Combined Park and Recreation Departments 15 'O'0.0..: . 12. 5% Engineering ,.'o:o 0 11. 2% Recreation ' ° ‘0 .00 .;’.i‘ ‘ 939:0. ' 3. 8% Education v. v. o T. «To . 3' (‘00:... .' a flaw 00% o . - $7211.}. . 5% Park Management 15% Other f «:. 1 1.’ 0 Poor. '. 00 V' 5 1-. ' I ' ‘ . r, r. h g ‘ _ . M 1 2.... “a ”"596 5235.223. Figure 4. Major Fields of Study of Park Directors in Separate Park Departments 20% Forestry Comparisons with Related Public Professions There are several federal agencies with administrative responsibilities for some phase of recreation at the national level. Included among the agencies with primary responsibilities for recreation are the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife in the Department of the Interior, and the Forest Service in the Department of Agriculture. The administrative heads of these agencies are federal civil service employees. The top administrators in the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, the National Park Service, and the U. S. Forest Service are classified at management level 5 and receive salaries of $26, 000 annually at present. The director of the Bureau of Outdoor Rec- reation is classified at (38-18 and receives a salary of $24,500. Steps 16 are now being taken to classify the director of BOR at management level 5 and thus bring this position on par with the top administrative positions in the other agencies. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation is responsible for coordinating out- door recreation at the national level, developing a national outdoor recrea- tion plan and the carrying out of research and recreation studies. The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation provides assistance to states or their political subdivisions. This assistance is advisory and consultative to states and local public agencies on various recreation aspects of parks and other Outdoor recreation areas , historical areas , forests , wildlife areas , water-control projects , and other public lands and waters. Local agencies are construed to include semi-public nonprofit organizations such as the Boy Scouts of America, Girl Scouts of America, 4-H Clubs , nonprofit camping or recreation organizations of churches , and educational institutions . The National Park Service is responsible for the administration, pro- tection and development of National Parks , National RecreationAreas , Na- tional Monuments and National Historic Sites. Planning assistance, policy information, maintenance and operation information is available through several periodical publications. The National Park Service upon request also may provide tech- nical advisory assistance in park operational and planning fields and in highly specialized fields such as history, archeology, and interpretive services planning which meet special needs. 4 The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service through its Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife provides technical assistance in sport fishery management 3 U. S. Department of the Interior, Federal Assistance in Outdoor Rec- reation (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 3. Ibid. , p. 6. l7 and water resource development, as well as managing National Wildlife Refuges and game fish hatcheries. The U. S. Forest Service has as one of its responsibilities the devel- opment of outdoor recreation opportunities on National Forests. The Forest Service maintains a number of Cooperative State and Private Forestry pro- grams related to or bearing on outdoor recreation. In addition the Forest Service conducts research programs related to forest recreation. Scientists in the Forest Service's Branch of Forest Recreation Research are concentrating on basic and applied studies aimed at obtaining sound information that will help public and private forest land managers: (1) Provide and improve the recreation opportunity through a better understanding of the recreationists' needs and desires , (2) maintain and protect forest recreation sites from damage or destruction by heavy use, (3) evaluate the economic opportunities and impacts of forest recreation enterprises and complexes, and (4) coordinate forest recrea-- tion use with other demands on forest resources. 5 51bid., p. 20. CHAPTER III COLLECTION OF DATA Definitions for Purposes of Study Administrator is the individual in a state park agency who is entrusted with the paramount executive duties of the organization. Administrative Head - See administrator. Agency classification is the grouping of state park agencies into sys- tematic categories based upon organizational characteristics. Budget is the published annual financial statement of a state park agency indicating the operating and capital improvement expenses of that agency. Civil service is the system established by a state law for the admin- istration of government personnel on the basis of merit, under provisions of constitutional documents or by means of statute. Educational prerequisites are the educational requirements which an individual must attain to qualify for the administrative head position of a state park agency. Merit system is the system established by a state for the administra- tion of government personnel on the basis of merit without a civil service law, but with a tradition and set of practices embodied in a constitutional mandate . 18 19 Population is the group of administrators in the primary state park agencies which received the questionnaire used as a basis for this study. Position classification is the grouping of state park administrative positions into categories based on whether the administrator's position was or was not included in a civil service or merit system. Regions are the geographical areas of the United States used for com- parative purposes in this study. Samplepopulation is the group of administrators in the primary state park agencies which responded to the questionnaire used as a basis for this study. State park agency is the primary organization in a state responsible for the administration and operation of state parks. Nature and Source of Data In April of 1961 a questionnaire was mailed to the agency in each state primarily responsible for state parks. A total of 59 questionnaires were mailed, one to each state, except New York where one was sent to each of the 9 operating state park commissions and the central state park office in Albany, New York. Most state park organizations exercise direct supervision of field operations from a central headquarters. State parks of New York, however, are organized on a regional basis with nine regions , each essentially autonomous , under the super- vision of the Division of Parks in the Conservation Department. Custody and direct operation of the state parks of New York in each region is the responsibility of several regional park com— missioners , together with their staff. The chairman of each 20 regional commission is , by law, a member of the State Council of Parks which is a planning, policy-making, and budget-making authority. 1 Of the 59 questionnaires sent out, 54 were returned, representing a 91. 5 percent response. There were, however, some questionnaires re- turned lacking responses to all the questions. This in part may have been due to the lack of adequate instruction, misinterpretation of a question, or an individual's reaction to the personal nature of a particular question. The validity of the answers recorded is open to criticism and it is realized that a response may be given which will put the respondent in the best pos- sible light or one which the respondent thinks is the answer which should be given. To help overcome this problem several questions were introduced as checks on other questions to better determine the validity of the responses. There was in no instance detected an answer to a question which contra- dicted a previous response in the same questionnaire. The 59 state park agencies polled includes the primary agency in each state responsible for state parks, whichkrepresents a combined budget of over 100 million dollars and jurisdiction over more than 5 million acres. The states of Colorado and North Dakota did not respond. Both of these states have limited state park programs which are presently admin- istered under other than distinct state park organizations. In addition, the Long Island State Park Commission in New York did not respond, nor 1Brockman, op. cit. , p. 104. 21 did the states of New Mexico and Rhode Island. Subsequently in June 1961, questionnaires were again sent to the agencies which failed to respond to the first query. However, satisfactory returns were not forthcoming and the five agencies involved were subsequently deleted from the survey. The agencies queried are not of the same size or of similar organiza- tion. Thus , there are many differences in organization, scope of respon- sibility, policy and education of personnel presently filling the position of administrative head. The following is Brockman's state park agency classification, which illustrates the extent of variations from one agency to another. 1. State parks, forests, and game administered as separate units within a common department. In fifteen states (Alabama, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) state park, state forest, and state fish and game affairs are handled by distinct divisions within one major department. For example, state parks in In- diana are administered by the Division of State Parks , Lands and Waters of the Department of Conservation, which also in- cludes the Division of Forestry and the Division of Fish and Game. 2. State parks and state forests administered under a common authorityL with fish and game administration separate. Thirteen states (California, Connecticut, Kentucky, Maryland, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Virginia) consider fish and game as a separate entity, controlled by a specific administrative organization, while state parks and forests are administered by subdivisions of another major department. In California, for example, the Division of Beaches and Parks, which administers state parks , and the Division of Forestry are included as separate units within the Department of Natural Resources; fish and game matters are administered by an inde- pendent Department of Fish and Game. 22 3. Administration of state parks by a distinct department. Four- teen states (Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming) have independent state park organizations, distinct from forestry, fish and game, or any other state agency. For example, in the state of Washington, the independent State Parks and Recreation Commission manages state parks , the equally independent Department of Game is concerned with sports fisheries and wildlife, and the highly important state forestry program is administered by the Depart- ment of Natural Resources. 4. State parks administered by a state park division within the highway department. This system is used in Montana and Oregon. It is considered to be conducive of efficient and economical main~ tenance of state park areas by existing highway department per- sonnel skilled in and equipped for such activities. 5. State parks administered by historical bodies. In North Dakota, state parks are largely “of historical interest and the State Historical Society has been designated as the adminis- trative agency. 6. Miscellaneous. State parks in Arkansas are administered by the State Publicity and Parks Commission; in Idaho by the Department of Public Lands; in Rhode Island by the Department of Public Works. 2 Limitations of this Study The primary limitation of this study is the fact that the information used was gathered via a questionnaire. This in itself places a great deal of reliance upon the respondent to answer each question truthfully and completely. There is often a tendency for individuals to respond to a question in the way they think they should. In addition there is a tendency not to answer those questions which are of a personal nature or which may reflect unfavorably upon the individual or his organization. The questions ZIde. I pp. 90-93. 23 asked were purposely kept simple and direct, to minimize confusion and produce comparable results. The questionnaire was not foolproof and the validity of the results would have been increased if the author had been able to make sure the respondent gave the desired interpretation to each question. The fact that state park agencies vary widely from one state to another should be considered when trying to compare one agency with another. There are a great many differences in organization, scope of responsibility and the professional training of individuals presently filling the adminis- trative positions. A good example is New York State, where nine separate and distinct state park commissions each operate independently under the general guidance of the New York State Park Council. A single New York State Park Commission is a larger organization than some state's entire park system. But, at the same time some New York State Park Commissions are smaller organizations with fewer responsibilities , compared with those of other agencies responsible for an entire state park system. Differences in state park organization are the rule, rather than the exception, as noted earlier in this chapter. Another limiting factor is the continual change in organizations which has been taking place most dramatically in the past few years. The park and recreation movement in this nation has felt dynamic changes in organ- ization and personnel which means the results gathered at any particular moment may only hold true for a very limited period of time. The creation 24 of new organizations and the shifting of personnel from one state park sys- tem to another presents certain limitations as to the usefulness of the in- formation. Although changes do occur, the results obtained provide the basis for useful comparisons of the various state park organizations and their administrators . CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF DATA Method of Analysis Upon the return of the questionnaire the responses were transcribed to ledger sheets for tabulation. A total of 33 questions were used to gather the information concerning each agency and it's administrative head. Due to the lack of data processing equipment, the author compiled and tabulated the results manually. It should be noted that the questionnaire was de- signed to be processed mechanically and the results could have been de- termined with much greater ease if data processing equipment had been used. To facilitate the processing and analysis of responses the reporting agencies were separated into two classifications for comparative purposes. State park administrators whose position was included in a civil service or merit system were separated from those administrators who served in a position not under such systems. Basic knowledge concerning the administrative head of each agency, along with background information about the individual presently filling the position was gathered, tabulated, and analyzed. Included in the study is the following specific information: (1) position classification, (2) posi- tion prerequisites , (3) levels of educational achievement, (4) field of pro- fessional training, (5) professional experience, (6) age, (7) annual salary, 25 26 (8) salary ranges, and (9) regional comparisons. In addition, observations were made which related levels of salary to: (1) the field of professional training, (2) the inclusion of the administrator's position in a civil service or merit system, (3) the annual state park attendance, (4) the magnitude of the budget, and (5) the geographical region of the country where employed. This, then, provides the basic framework for comparison and analysis of position prerequisites , education and salary of the various state park administrative heads . Position Classifications The survey indicates that twenty-three state park administrative head positions are included in a civil service or a merit system. This represents approximately 41 percent of the total individuals who responded. Thirty- one state park administrative heads reported that their position is £91; in- cluded in a civil service or merit system, which amounts to approximately 59 percent of the fifty-four individuals who responded. Three individuals whose positions are included in a civil service system indicate that they are appointed to their present administrative capacity. Distribution of these position classifications is illustrated on the accompanying United States map in Figure 5, page 27. Of the thirty-one individuals whose positions are _n_gt included in a civil service or merit system, all indicate that they are appointed to their present job. Nine of these individuals report that the length of their ap— pointment coincides with that of the governor's term of office, representing Illa-Wu .IIII.\I .. .. SCALE IN MILES . . . ..v. . 1. . ..t....r...|.i.t. - - --. t . . . . p. . o o . .‘l 1‘ 1|. . . . ...... . . ...—m...7.\t.>... . . ...w 2. . ..r. . :viv ..z.:.. .. . w... . (la... . ..... _. . .. KT. . .;_m.. r.t. a.a%2;.n...a.s.. . _. L r.....\. 22.... .V IL .. .... .... . . .. .......). . ..tn‘..l.\ r4 \\.. . . .«....... q .......t..n..3...a..- r... ...? . . \d’Sa-ov\.l\o.._ 1. . . ...? ... . .J. om”d«“u~l\’o\ao~l\ll. 7.... .... .... . . ' I '3‘. n In. 0 n - ‘O\.'|rto~l\ooinelo-~. \u. < .. .s.... . u n‘ ..\I.\as..\1.\o... \. .... .4 .35).?! ..... . . ._ T n....~..tu.;.. . ........ ... . \l‘o..f\l\o.0l\l . . .... .. .a ... \(....\,:._ u... .1. .. '04.. ~I~}I—n\l\_ . .. ... . .L. 0.5;! n 0' o _. . .... ... . . o...\/.»...:*Iv_ .. ........ . .. .I‘I.\I§-o\l.\os.o. .. . 1...... .. ...zw.n.\.t.urv.n.\.lf . . . ......H . . .I\00\’\al\a."LIO .. ..T.... .. . ..~ .~4 (\aoslust ..s‘ . . . . . .. .. 15a .01... I. .... ..... ... u. . .. vii—Ix. 121.57: . ..9... . .. u: a\l-a\I-\o..o\/\ . .. ..N.. .. . L ......)...7.).... .. . . o ..-! w I... o . . .. u. . _. w...».\..v..u........[ .._.m.... . . a \ I I .... . . .. ..... ... p... .....Htu..\....A Humane. 13912.11. I. 3*.Vcl.o—.\Ol..o .... . ..|\ .\os~o:.-oel\ ~l.o-o \oa 0.-¢\I 0.04. . .. "IOQO‘II\-n\o~ a oonIH‘ e oasi~v\’o\a-l\.l\.s .m. ..Io\-'.lnu coo-'~O\IQ\\uI\oaul Lafinxvfohfl: ., ..M. ...ouxhwfi.ls..u.a. $1.35!. It... . .....u. .. .. to . 7 .. . . . . c . .uO-oslt.\ll I... I. I.!o‘o ..... ... JJ I ... u:......s:|..\o.. . . . . .. . . lit. s . I . . u. . .. .. . ..T...>. ...up]...rLJHImM—qndflfl.I..U~l\r.o._lo.\ol ”flu. - .. . . t .. ...... to Ou‘l\’o\'c o." \o o . . . .. _ .. . . . «I l—lso—o—on.~o}~to\ol\c ”'30. o . . .. . .. 7!. Ix ‘ l‘o—O— ~01 IAO —o\l . _ . .. s II o; ..\I\ 10‘.“ -.|I _ .. .. .. . .... Eran)... ".2.../x... fl...) . . . . . . . . . I . . .. .. . he 4 mo"l\‘l-l’ ~ooH-0\Ia are: ~ . . . \IIJIs‘. I I:\. .... slif. . . . ..... . fit muffs”)t.\l~M.l.st\lo\a.UvH.osl\o ... ........1I\-¢Qf. 01-. {can‘t o In. ........ no...\I.\;...V.I..u~l\.o~a.o ~;\.IC.. ’ u ._ . .. . 0.0.! -o\ll \o-qo 0 9“. I \ .... 7\.\II ..o/ .o II\/\o..o.l~c\.z\.. .. ~ ..:..... ...Uo‘uevllslcl\u~ool~ \lrso—Q . . ......... ¥v¢ of\-osl\§"I\ cl 1 Ia\0§ .- o . . .... . in..Q—l.~o~X.— .VH..\I\I§I e-osl .o . . 0.! a n .... ... \Is 0 n I) ~13..- '- 'II- a 0 ’~ -I “ ..r. .. v.Ll\l\a\./\oo. oW/ohots - o\¢|l\ uoftu sin/\omaahsu)\- .. .. Aw . .. b ¢.~.\......,\.Js....v.z utfi u......3\1..uzu\. ...L.......~J .N..W;¢..................5§ .‘olla- I oscllu 4!- .0m- O—o\l\fo-olI-¢\lu\l\oolf .....ti... . .. .........o .....o‘ :..s.~ ... .a V I... s...;...: s ..q. ... .. . .. ...........v...lwslirro_. o....~.:.\:....wn. \N\o\.l.own.\asml\ao.u.at~h\o.n\. no. ..o.m........... .. .. .. . (51.. LLKV. .. .33.... ..s/\.. .. ..-.) . . . 11v..km. . .. .. Ika!.l..—o.l~\lnp.o ~\.I\..r . . . k.v1‘nrhu . . .. ... ... .. . ..rIlI.tlu nlf.“0t¢l~lkovinohl‘a§l . . . . . . . . . .... .)l.. .... . . .. - . . ..... . . .. .... ....~.-... ..I..(...41 Hist-1a,. Ilsl“.~o¥.vnoa§l . ...; ‘t_r_;i 50 200 250 J00 t- Door 1:-) m. LEGEND HAWAII stun -~ .. w. Position of administrative head included in a civil service or merit system. Position of administrative head not included in a civil service merit system. or . l ' - o . u u ' . ' o ' ', Fig. 5. —- Map of the United States, Position of administrative head with term of office which coin- cides with that of the governor. showing the distribution of state park administrator classifications. Position of administrative head_not included in this study. i .: 28 approximately 29 percent of those positions which are not included in a civil service or merit system. Table 3 summarizes the length of appoint- ments as reported. In.New York State, nine separate and distinct state park commissions each operate independently under the general guidance of the New York State Park Council. For comparative purposes it must be remembered that often a single New York State Park Commission is a larger organization that that of another state's entire state park system. But, at the same time some New York State Park Commissions are smaller organiza- tions with fewer responsibilities, compared with those of other agencies responsible for an entire state park system. Differences in state park organization are the rule, rather than the exception, as noted earlier in this chapter. Table 3. Length of Appointments of State Park Administrators Not Serving Under a Civil Service or Merit System Individuals Length of Appointment Indefinite Coincide with governor's term 6 years —/_Mean_, 4.1 years 4 years l—‘OWNLDI-D- 1 year Another limiting factor is the continual change in organizations which has been taking place most dramatically in the past few years. The park and recreation movement in this nation has felt dynamic changes in organ- ization and personnel which means the results gathered at any particular 29 moment may only hold true for a limited period of time. The creation of new organizations and the shifting of personnel from one state park system to another presents certain limitations as to the usefulness of the informa- tion gathered at any time. Although changes do occur, the results obtained provide the basis for useful comparisons of the various state park organiza- tions and their administrators. Position Prerequisites Fifteen, or 25. 9 percent of the state park administrative heads indicate that there are no educational requirements specified for their positions. Of this group, 13 indicate that they are holding appointed positions and two state that their positions are included in a civil service system. Thirty-seven state park administrative heads indicate that there are educational prerequisites or requirements specified for their position. Of this group, 7 say that a high school education is the minimum requirement and 31 indicate that a college degree is the minimum acceptable education in order to qualify for their present position. The following Figure 6 shows the various college degrees which are accepted as an educational prerequisite. 30 Individual Responses 5 10 15 20 25 A - A - A. L j Degree Civil Engineering Landscape Arch. Forestry Park Managemen Business Admin. Recreation Any Conservation Planning Architecture Range Mgmt. Wildlife Mgmt. Figure 6. College Degrees that are Accepted as an Educational Prerequisite for the Position of State Park Administrative Head W Of the 54 individuals included in the survey 35 , or 64. 8 percent indi- cate that they hold a college degree. Of the 35 who indicate that they hold a college degree 18, or 59. 9 percent are in an appointed position. Fifteen of the 54 surveyed indicate that they do not hold a degree. Twelve of these, or 80 percent of the individuals who do not have a college degree are holding an appointed position. Of the 20 individuals who indicate they are serving under a civil service or merit system 17, or 85 percent hold a college degree. The following Figure 7 indicates the major fields of study of those in- dividuals who completed college. 31 21 . 2% Engineering 30.3% Forestry , 33'. o, 6.1% Education . 00. .0 .. .:.:.:E.E.E::: C . 3% Horticulture 3% Other 21. 2% Landscap - 5.: ...-.... O 9.1% Business Architecture 1' ° - ' Administration Figure 7. Major Fields of Study of State Park Administrators Having Completed College Of 35 individuals 31, or 88. 6 percent hold a bachelor of science de- gree and 4, or 11. 47 percent hold a bachelor of arts degree. In addition, 3 of the 35 individuals questioned hold graduate degrees representing 8. 6 percent of the total. The length of time since the completion of the first college degree is a maximum of 51 years, a mean of 26. 1 years , and a minimum of 2 years. The following Figure 8 illustrates the number of years since comple-‘ tion of the first degree versus the number of individuals. The individuals who earned an advanced degree beyond their bachelor degree indicate that the length of time since the completion of this degree is a maximum of 45 years, a mean of 20.4 years, and a minimum of 1. 5 years. 'The average length of time from completion of a bachelors to com- pletion of an advanced degree is 12. 5 years. 32 Individuals Years 11 E i3 :1 f E 17 18 1 thru 9 10 thru 19 20 thru 29 30 thru 39 40 thru 49 Ho 50 and over Figure 8. Number of Years Since Completion of the First College Degree Experience Thirteen individuals indicate that they did not obtain. a college degree. Of these 13 individuals, 10 are serving in other than a civil service or merit system and 3 are serving under a civil service or merit system. Fig- ure 9 illustrates the areas of experience of non-degree administrators. Individuals Maj or Fields i I g ‘1 ? Parks Conservation County Government Civil Engineering Fish and Wildlife Forestry Pharmacy Politics Figure 9. Major Fields of Experience of Non-Degree State Park Administrators 33 The total length of time in state park work of 51 individuals who re- sponded is shown in the following Figure 10. Indicated are years of ex- perience with a maximum of 41 years, a mean of 13. 7 years , and a mini- mum of . 25 years. Individuals 123456789101112 Years Liiillliiii_i 0 thru 11 mos. 1 thru 4 5 thru 9 10 thru 14 15 thru 19 20 thru 24 25 thru 29 30 thru 34 35 thru 39 40 thru 44 Figure 10. Total Length of Time in State Park Work by Administrators Thirty individuals report that they are not serving under a civil serv- ice or merit system and indicate a maximum of 30 years experience, a mean of 12.16 years experience, and a minimum of . 25 year's experience. The twenty individuals who indicate that they are serving under a civil service or merit system indicate a maximum of 41 years experience, a mean of 16. 18 years experience, and a minimum of 1 year's experience. Fourteen individuals indicate that they have been employed in park work at other than the state government level for a maximum of 10 years , 34 a mean of 4. 78 years , and a minimum of 1 year. Of these fourteen indi- viduals who responded, 9 are serving under other than a civil service or merit system and 5 are included in a civil service or merit system. Fifty individuals did indicate the length of time with their present state park agency. Figure 11 illustrates these responses with a maximum of 43 years, a mean of 11.1 years, and a minimum of . 20 years. Individuals 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 _9 10 11 12 13 Years 1 - i - J L i I 1 L L 0 thru 11 mos. 1 thru 4 5 thru 9 10 thru 14 15 thru 19 20 thru 24 25 thru 29 30 thru 34 35 thru 39 40 thru 44 Figure 11. Number of Years With Present State Park Agency Of the 50 responses 30 are serving under other than a civil service or merit system and the maximum length of service is 43 years, the mean 12. 9 years and the minimum . 25 year. The remaining 20 individuals are under a civil service or merit system with a maximum of 37 years length of service, a mean of 13. 53 years, and a minimum of . 20 year. 35 Thirty-two individuals state they have not worked for any other state park agency other than the present one which employs them. Twelve indi- cate they had worked for 1 other agency, 3 indicate they had worked for 2 other agencies, and 1 indicates that he had worked for 3 other agencies. Of these 16 responses, 8 hold a position included in a civil service or merit system and 8 are not under such systems. Age of Sample Population Of the 49 persons responding, all are males , the maximum age being 72 years, the mean being 50. 1 years , and the minimum being 23 years. The following Table 4 illustrates the distribution of these individuals by age groups . Table 4. Age Distribution of State Park Administrative Heads Number of Percentage Age Group Individuals of Total 20 - 29 2 4.1 30 - 39 5 10. 2 4O - 49 13 26. 5 50 - S9 20 40. 8 60 - 69 6 12. 2 7O - 79 3 6.1 Of 20 individuals who report they are under a civil service or a merit system the maximum age is 71 years, the mean age is 51. 25 years, and the minimum age is 29 years. Table 5 shows the number of individuals in the various age groups. 36 Table'S. - Age Distribution of Civil Service or Merit System State Park Administrators ‘ Number of Percentage Age Group Individuals of Total 20 - 29 1 5 30 - 39 2 10 40 - 49 4 20 50 - 59 11 55 60 - 69 0 0 70 - 79 2 10 Of the 29 individuals who are not included in a civil service or merit system, the maximum age is 72 years, the mean age is 49. 3 years, and the minimum age is 23 years. The following Table 6 illustrates the distribu- tion of these individuals by age groups. Table 6. Age Distribution of Non-Civil Service or Merit System State Park Administrators Number of Percentage Age Group Individuals of Total 20 - 29 1 3. 5 30 - 39 3 10.1 40 - 49 9 31.1 50 - 59 9 31.1 60 - 69. 6 20. 7 70 - 79 1 3. 5 Salaries Forty-eight individuals did indicate their present annual salaries as administrative heads of state park organizations. See Table D of the ap- pendix for a census of these reported salaries. Of the salaries reported, the maximum is $15,772 per annum, the mean is $10,004 per annum, and [Illlllllli 37 the minimum is $4,080 per annum. Figure 12 on page 38 indicates the an- nual salaries of state park administrators as reported for the year 1961. The following table shows the number of administrators at various salary levels. Table 7. Salary Levels of State Park Administrators Number of Percentage Salaries Individuals of Total $4,000- 4,999 2 4.2 5,000- 5,999 0 0 6,000- 6,999 2 4.2 7,000- 7,999 8 16.7 8,000- 8,999 8 16.7 9,000- 9,999 5 10.4 10,000 - 10,999 7 14.6 11,000- 11,999 7 14.6 12,000- 12,999 3 6.3 13,000 - 13,999 2 4.2 14,000 - 14,999 2 4.2 15,000- 15,999 2 4.2 Eighteen administrators report their position is included in a civil serv- ice or merit system and of these the maximum salary is $15,772 per annum, the mean salary is $11, 270 per annum, and the minimum salary is $6,600 per annum. Thirty individuals report their position is not included in a civil service or merit system. The maximum salary is $12,600 per annum, the mean salary is $8,571 per annum, and the minimum salary is $4,080 per annum. Table 8 compares these individuals at various salary levels. State New York (Albany) California New York (Taconic) New Jersey New York (Niagara) New York (Finger Lakes) Missouri Kentucky Washington New York (Genesee) New York (Allegany) New York (Central) Ohio Louisiana Maryland Georgia Alaska Massachusetts Colorado Oregon Illinois Indiana Vermont North Carolina Virginia Minnesota Hawaii Florida hAaine Montana South Carolina Arizona Nebraska Oklahoma Utah Kansas Nevada Alabama Mississippi Texas West Virginia Delaware Iowa Tennessee South Dakota Arkansas Idaho Wyoming Figure 12. Administrators as Reported for the Year 1961 38 Annual Salary in Thousands of Dollars 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Mean Annual Salaries of State Park 'I.].Il‘ Ill) 4" 1)! I'll-'1 .f (I III) 39 Table 8. Distribution of Salary Levels of State Park Administrators Civil Service or Non-Civil Service Merit System or Merit System Number of Number of Salary Individuals Percent Individuals Percent $ 4,000- 4,999 0 0 2 7.1 5,000- 5,999 0 0 0 0 6,000- 6,999 1 5.6 1 3.5 7,000- 7,999 2 11.1 5 17.9 8,000- 8,999 2 11.1 6 21.5 9,000- 9,999 1 5.6 4 14.3 10,000-10,999 2 11.1 4 14.3 11,000 -'11,999 4 22.2 3 10.7 12,000 -12,999 0 0 3 10.7 13,000-13,999 2 11.1 0 0 14,000-14,999 2 11.1 0 0 15,000- 15,999 2 11.1 0 0 Annual Salaries of College Graduates A total of 15 administrators with college degrees report that their posi- tions are included in a civil service or merit system and the maximum an- nual salary is $15 ,772, the mean annual salary is $11, 545 , and the mini- mum annual salary is $6,600. Eighteen administrators with college degrees indicate that their posi- tions are not included in a civil service or merit system and the maximum annual salary is $12,600, the mean annual salary is $9 , 127 and the mini- mum annual salary is $4, 800. A summary of the above 33 individuals indicates the maximum annual salary is $15,772, the mean annual salary is $10, 226, and the minimum annual salary is $4,800. 40 The following Figure 13 indicates the mean annual salaries of college graduates from various professional fields. Mean Annual Salary College Degree 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 Business Admin. Engineering Social Science Landscape Arch. Forestry Liberal Arts Education Other Horticulture Figure 13. Relationship of Major Fields of Study to Mean Annual Salary of State Park Administrators Annual Salaries of Non-College Graduates Three administrators who do not have college degrees report their positions are included in a civil service or merit system and the maximum annual salary is $13, 600, the mean annual salary is $9 ,893 and the mini— mum annual salary is $7 , 680. Twelve administrators who do not have college degrees report their positions are not included in a civil service or merit system and the maxi- mum annual salary is $12,000, the mean annual salary is $8,860 and the minimum annual salary is $4, 080. A summary of the above 15 individuals indicates the maximum annual salary is $13,600, the mean annual salary is $9,082, and the minimum an- nual salary is $4,080. 41 Figure 14 illustrates the relationship of salaries to the professional fields of civil service or merit system state park administrators. Figure 15 illustrates the relationship of salaries to the professional fields of non- civil service or merit system state park administrators. Salary Ranges Twenty-three administrators who are serving under a civil service or a merit system indicate the following salary ranges or set salaries. The high salary range is $13, 200 to $16, 056 per year, the mean salary range is $9,544 to $11,796 per year, and the low salary range is $6,600 to $8,100 per year. The greatest spread from the minimum to the maximum of any given salary range is $3, 600, the mean is $2, 252 and the minimum is $720. Thirteen of 29 individuals whose positions as administrators are not under civil service or a merit system, indicate the following salary ranges. The high salary range is $9,000 to $14,000 per annum, the mean salary range is $8,035 to $10,266 per annum, and the low salary range is $4,200 to $5 , 580 per annum. The greatest span from the minimum to the maximum of a given salary range is $5,000, the mean is $2, 231 , and the minimum is $1, 326. Sixteen of the 29 individuals who receive set salaries have a maximum salary of $12,000 per year, a mean salary of $8,876 per year, and a mini- mum salary of $4,800 per year. Twenty-three of the above 29 persons hold appointed positions. The following Table 9 indicates the length of appoint- ments. 42 $13,000 11,000 9,0001 (Mean Annual Salary) 7 I 000 Number of Individuals Minimum Annual Salar 6 g . $16,000 3 5‘ g 5 14,000 on - 9: g 4* E ;. 12,000 -~ 3.. E '1 3. a ;. 10, 000 '3 2 = 4 -' ‘ 5 ° 5 8 , 000 H '5' E 6,000 - = Other Forestry Bus. Land. Engin. Admin. Arch. Major Field of Study Figure 14. Relationship of Salaries to Major Fields of Study of Civil Service or Merit System State Park Administrators 43 $12,000 11,000 P'— 10,000 9,000 (Mean Annual Salary) 8,000+-* ‘ 7,000 1 ' ' j , r-Number of Individuals 0: $12,000 4 Min. Annual Salary 1: °. 11,000 .2 5 Max. Annual ala :2 E E: 10,000 ‘3 44 ‘2 1’4 g 1: 9'000 32 ., E :1: = .° 8,000 :53) g E .2 7,000 .5 24 9: E :4 — E- g.“ 6,000 5: .5. 5: E " ._ if 5,000 ‘ ‘ - Ki 5 :3: 5 I .='.- 3 4,000 - .z. = 5;. = ; = if; Hort. Educ. Libera Forest. Engin. Land. Social Bus. Arts Arch. Science Adm. Major Field of Study Figure 15. Relationship of Salaries to Major Fields of Study of Non-Civil Service or Merit System State Park Administrators 44 Table 9. length of Appointments of State Park Administrators Individuals Length of Appointments Indefinite Not specified 6 years 4 years mean 4. 1 years 2 years l—‘l—‘mNflotfih 1 year Regional Comparisons In order to provide a means of comparison the states are grouped by geographical regions , as established by LaGasse and Cook in their_S_ala_ry Survey of Park and Recreation Executives. This provides a common basis for comparison of results with those of previous studies. For our purposes , the United States is divided into four regions. The _G_;eat Lakes - Eastern Region includes: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin. The Pacific Cog Region includes: California, Oregon, and Washing- ton. The Southern Region includes: Alabama,-Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. The Western Region includes: Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, 45 Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. There appears to be at the regional level a relationship between the mean salary and the mean budget, the mean annual state park attendance and the mean population. In general, as these latter factors increase in magnitude, there appears an accompanying increase in the mean annual salary. The one exception noted is in the Western Region, where the mean regional state park attendance recorded is disproportionally high in rela- tion to the mean salary. See Figure 16 for the comparative results as re- corded by regions . 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 L L A L Regions A L L L #1 ’°’°°°°°°°°°°°'°Z°I°Q°o°vovo°. (Attendance in Millions) Great lakes - [’4 (Budget in Millions) Eastern (Population in Millions) IIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllllflllllflmlllllfllllfl (Salary in Thousands) . xv cocooooooooooboo 0030380 05 mo 0030200000030 6me “0030322 Ho 000000 .m .3. 050000 05 Mo 50085 .m .DH 2 03.25;“ 85.350 voo.m§.m .momémmd c002 30.24093 moimmmdu 3meva 30.53.20 0009 E .33.. 53823 086mm 058035 :5 . mmm EoE~0> mmmémm QED 034.30 0:023 0002 20.205 8on 224.com; 259$ :63 0853.: 2:63.285.“ 20600 000x00 520m mvmdmmd 03303 mam .035 030 vm~.mmm.~ 0803030 23.535 000000008 25.25.02 View 302 ovvdmm 000000 5.82 «3.23 .N 0020000 Show $50006 >082 302 3.0.36 00202 302 mg 63.0 0:20.200 5.82 moo. Gm 002ng32 302 madam 0005.02 gimmim 330020022 $9de 00000052 omm. 20.2 00.00502 30.03 .m 0003.002 03 53.5 0095022 $5.30 0000002 mmofimmxu 00020304 03.026 030000000002 2052.10 2:00.32 02685 363032 www.mmm 0502 umm.umu.m 033 02636 03.500 22.30;» 000:2: 23.500 0:03 :Ndmmd 00803003 ommémmé 00202 03.50;: 0200:: 39mg; 00000200 $0.0an 000000 mmmdmué 00000034 ~30: 00030200 Z: .mom J 0:325. «8.25.2 0303200 03.03 .m 080002. $m.mmm.m 303000000 H003015022 00.05 200303092 005 200303000 005 H203015022 00$ c..m0llllum0>> 00000 0363 50.3430. m 5303. .. 00004 001mm ommd .mcoflm0m 2003005000 >0 mcoflflsaom 0005 . m 030m. .302 055 82 00000000 0:00 00000 .6002 000 00 0000200000 .m ..D H 65 000.30 0 02.3.0.0 .0, 108.0002 0 08.200 0 0002 M 08.02.00, $2.000.on 320$.on 03.20.30 2008. 1 0210: 50000005 03 . 00 050835 1 SN . 000 008000, 08.2: 005 22.08; 000202 0092 20:20 00000. 03.030 025820003 030:; 0200300000 08.28 00300 0050 “$0.03 000000, 03.200 005 30.020 0800on “5053.2 000000000. 2.3.80.2 06> 302 25.02 008.00 00.62 03.03 000200 0060 02.03; 120802 302 2:63 8002 302 2:600 000800 0062 02103.2 00200800 302 02.8 000.02 20.02., 3020000022 03.22; 0800052 80.2.00 00.000002 80.080 000102 000.030 0002022 23.3 000282 000.000 0000033 80.03; 0300300002 30.000 080.022 32.822 303000 80.80 0502 08.02; 033 80.20 03800 005:3; 000005 80.02 202 30.8.0.0 08002003 08.30; 00062 30:000..“ 080:: 30.20 200860 20.230 00005 ommdmm 00000000 08.8 00030200 :21: 0 080:0 30.08.80 0008000 STEM 0 080002 8580 0 0000000000 H00305.0. 000nm 100084. 0005 H00:002.» 0005 10:00:» 0005 50.0.0.0:3. 0.0000 002000 0005:0m 000um0m .. 000.00 0000101 $3 . 000300“ 2003005000 >0 00002000me 000 0 00000 .0 030.2. 66 .302 055 82 «0030305 0300 00.05 £02005 0%. mo EoEt0a0Q .m .D H 00529.0. 000.0013 002.0000 002.0000 0002 000.000.? $0000.00 000000.00 000.0000: 20000. 00203.0 00000023 0 00 . :0 00000003 000 . 0R 000000> 000.000 005 000.000.0 000200 00000 «0.0.30.0 00x00. 002.000; 00000:, 0003 000.000.: 00003000000 03.0200 08000 £000 000.02; 00000:, 000020.02 020 03.0000 0.000030 20.02;. 000000000. 000000.20 000.0302 000.000 000000 502 000.0000 0020000 5000 000.000.“. 000.000 302 000.000; 00082 302 000.000; 002800 00.002 000.2000 000000000 302 03.0: 000.62 000.02; 00000000002 000.0010 000000002 20000.0 00.00.0002 000.0000 0003002 000000.02 00000002 000.000 0000002 000.000; 000000000 £5000; 030000000002 020.0000 000.0002 000.0000 303000 000.200 00002 000.0000 0300 20000.0 0000000 000.0000 0000000 000.000 0002 000.810 03050003 000.300 00:0: 02000.0 0000:: 20.000 0000200 000000.02 000000 000.0000 0000002 000.202 00030200 $0.00 000024 000000.00 000000200 000.0000 000002 000.0000 0003000000 H0000000000, 00.05 H00000000000. 0005 H000000005 0005 H0000000300 0005 500003 00000 0030000 E0fisom I!“ .83 .mcofiomm 00030000000 >0 00:00:02.4 0:000 000% .0 030.0 67 0.000000000000000 00>00 00 00000000 00500000 000305 0 .mmCOQmmh 0C mmumuflucfi m2 Gofiumfi>wufln 000.0 0000. 02 000000 00000 000. 0 00000.0. 000 . 0 0000005 0003 02 00003000000 000.0 000000 00000 000.0 0000000> 000.00 0000 0000.0 00000030 000. 0 000000000 000.00 .0000» 302 02 000000 00002 000.0 0000000 00000 000.00 000000 302 m2 0000002 302 mou0 m 00030000 £0002 m2 000509003 0502 000 . 0 000.002 000. 0 00000000002 000. . 0 000000002 0000 .0 00000002 0 00 . 00 00000002 002 00000002 00.0 .0 0000002 000 . 2 00000003 000 . 00 0000000000002 000 . 00 00000002 000 . 00 00000000 200 . 0 00002 00.0. .0 0300 000. 2 0000000 000 . 00 0000000 000 . v 00000 000 . N 0 0000000003 000 . 0 0000000 000 . 00 000000: 000 . 00 00000000 000 . 00 000000 000 .0 00000000 000 .0 00030000 0000 .0 0 000000.00 000 . 00 0 0000000000 000. 0 0 0000002 00.0 .0 0 00000000000 ..Cflmm 0000m 00.0000m 000$ >0000m 0000.0 0.0000m 0005 Cumummg ummOD Dfimfiowm Cumzunom Cumuwmm I mmxfl umwulmw. 0000 . 0000030 00000000000000 >0 00000000050004 0.000 00000 00 00000000 .00 0000.0 68 List of State Park Agencies1 Table I. Title of State Administrator Organization Alabama Chief Division of State Parks Alaska State Forester Division of Lands Arizona Director State Park Board Arkansas Assoc. Director Publicity & Parks Commission California Chief Division of Beaches & Parks Colorado Director State Park & Recreation Board Connecticut Superintendent State Park Department Delaware Superintendent State Park Commission Florida Director State Park Service Georgia Director Department of State Parks Hawaii Director Division of State Parks Idaho Admin. Assistant Department of Public Lands Illinois Superintendent Division of Parks & Memorials Indiana Director Division of State Parks Iowa Director's Ass't. Division of Parks Kansas Director State Park & Resources Auth. Kentucky Commissioner Division of State Parks Louisiana Director State Park & Recreation Comm. Maine Director State Park Commission Maryland Superintendent Department of Forests & Parks Massachusetts Director Division of Forests & Parks Michigan Chief Division of Parks & Recreation Minnesota Director Division of State Parks Mississippi Director State Park Commission Missouri Director State Park Board Montana Director State Park Division Nebraska Chief Division of State Parks Nevada Director Division of State Parks New Hampshire Director Forestry & Recreation Comm. New Jersey Chief Bureau of Parks & Recreation New Mexico Director State Park Commission New York (Albany) Director Division of Parks New York Gen. Manager Allegany State Park Comm. New York Manager Central State Park Commission New York Sec. - Engineer Finger Lakes State Park Comm. 69 Table I--Continued State Title of Administrator Organization New York New York New York New York New York Chief Engineer Gen. Manager Executive Sec. Gen. Manager Gen. Manager Genesee State Park Comm. Long Island State Park Comm. Niagara State Park Comm. Taconic State Park Comm. Thousand Is. State Park Comm. North Carolina Superintendent Division of State Parks North Dakota (none) Ohio Chief Division of State Parks Oklahoma Director Division of Rec. & State Parks Oregon Superintendent State Park & Recreation Div. Pennsylvania Chief Division of State Parks Rhode Island Chief Division of Parks & Recreation South Carolina Director Division of State Parks South Dakota State Forester Division of Forestry & Parks Tennessee Director Division of State Parks Texas Exec. Director State Park Board Utah Director State Park & Recreation Comm. Vermont Director Department of Forests & Parks Virginia Commissioner Division of Parks West Virginia Chief Division of Parks & Recreation Wisconsin Superintendent Forests & Parks Division Wyoming Director State Parks Commission 1 U. S. Department of the Interior, List of Agencies Administering State Park and Related Recreation Areas (Revised November 1959). . . I {y L0 9 Hub IWIHIIH V. .h S R E N N U E T A" Ml — 1 3 IIHIIIIHIWI